What we can do is being done - flood their inboxes with mail and condemn their actions with all the moral outrage we can muster. It won't change a thing with regards to this story. But it may make Keller and the Times think a little harder next time about publishing national security secrets.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - methuselah
"This most recent attempt by the New York Times and others to throw a body block against the Administration to spring al-Qaeda for an open field run at ..."
In spite of your lurid hyperbole, very little will change. Terrorists will have changed to other money transfer modes, as other desperadoes like tax evaders, pedophiles, embezzlers, etc., did, long ago.
Money couriers are flying everywhere. Good pay and little chance of getting caught. A few years ago an acquaintance of mine never left the country with less than 100k of his money in his money belt. I think everyone knows about Bearer Bonds and diamonds, which are easily liquidated, but there are other, even better, financial vehicles for people with the right contacts and introductions in financial circles.
Since it is so easy for Al Queda, who no one has ever claimed are stupid people, to move money wherever they wish, why would the US government be interested in easily traced transactions such as SWIFTs? The only people they could spy on would be the naive and innocent, like me and thee. That doesn't make sense, does it?
2 - Arch Conservative
Any idiot knows that one of Al Queda's greatest allies is the American Mainstream Media.
3 - methuselah
"Any idiot knows that one of Al Queda's greatest allies is the American Mainstream Media."
Well, apparently you know it: need we survey the other idiots?
4 - troll
the author's pov begs the question - why does this administration insist on acting like a 'bull in a china shop' when it comes to citizens rights - ?
why didn't the prez finesse just a bit by trusting his alleged conservative principles and vociferously defending privacy rights as The Team went about what they thought were necessary 'war efforts'
preemptive sales of the idea that a bulldog was on duty protecting rights in this dangerous time would have gone a long way - defusing 'shocking revelations' before they appeared in the press
instead They blatantly pushed the power of the State (and the Administration above all) over its citizens
it'll make interesting history I guess
troll
5 - JP
Lately, righties have been spending all sorts of time explaining why things should NOT be revealed to the public. When are we going to see some legitimate explanations of the inverse, why things should be kept secret?
This is the most secretive administration in U.S. history. Talk about asking for it--if they were more forthcoming about things in general, maybe the press wouldn't be required to feast on an occasional scrap! For people to still be arguing the blanket "national security" excuse is pretty pitiful.
6 - Mr. Real Estate
The reality is that the story is hot and controversial, and that's what sells newspapers. During a time when newspaper circulation is rather flat, I'm not surprised by their editorial judgment to break this news, and I seriously doubt that it hurts our national security. Considering that a Republican-run government is allowing big government to invade Americans' privacy without just cause, I personally think the editors made the right choice. Big government has no right to be in my bank account, and if its getting into others' bank accounts, it better have proof of suspicion of a criminal act before doing so. I support the law enforcement community, but giving them this much power without any Congressional oversight is absolutely ridiculous.
7 - IgnatiusReilly
I must admit, I am baffled that people think this is some "revelation" by the press. While it might not be politcally correct to say, our country's enemies are smart and this seems like a rather obvious tactic the government would use.
The same goes for data mining phones. Every teenage drug dealer knows not to use the phones for "business", but somehow a group that was able to pull off 9/11 doesn't know such a basic concept.
While we might catch some low level thugs, the big fish are only going to be caught by informants and infiltrating the organization.
Cries of the sky falling from the right seem either disingenous or ignorant.
8 - Kathy
What? No vilification of the Wall Street Journal for the same story?
9 - Sylvia Muffaleto
editor's pick? this guy falls so deep into a pile a pandering that he can't see the truth and he gets highlighted?
check out countdown on msnbc and you'll see the website, which I've placed in the URL, and the magazine devoted to SWIFT. Then get back to me on how secret this plan was that Bush has been publicly discussing since 9/11.
10 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Sylvia#9: So we should get our news from Keith Olbermann's Countdown? Why not Letterman's Top 10?
And the magazine devoted to SWIFT is something else entirely: "SWIFT is the financial industry-owned co-operative supplying secure, standardised messaging services and interface software to 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries."
Do you have delusions of Dan Rather?
11 - Sylvia Muffaleto
No, Gordon, let's get our news instead from a blogger who doesn't know that "freelance" is one word.
12 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Good way to change the subject--and "free lance" can be spelled either way, by the way.
I'm still curious as to why the SWIFT website which you placed in yuour URL is in actuality a business site with absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand--did you think no one would do a little click 'n' point?
13 - Sylvia Muffaleto
You brought up the trust and realiabilty of a source, not me.
It does have to do with the issue at hand because the author's premise is wrong since the Times didn't reveal a secret.
From the Times, "Data from the Brussels-based banking consortium, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, has allowed officials from the C.I.A., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies to examine "tens of thousands" of financial transactions, Mr. Levey said."
The website admits to it.
Check out the new URL and you will see how often Bush mentions that we are "secretly" tracking the money.
"did you think no one would do a little click 'n' point?"
No, but I did think someone would read it and actually do some research before responding, but then I'm new here, so I don't know much about the people who hang out here.
14 - Rick Moran
Ms. Muffaleto:
Very sorry to inform you that according to a follow up article in the New York Times, Swift placed that information on its website AFTER the story broke last week.
A one paragraph reference to the program appeared in a a UN report in 2002. The fact that we captured a high ranking al Qaeda operative in 2003 gives the lie to the idea that because the terrorists know all about our efforts to track their financial transactions, outing such a program does no damage.
And you can't tell the difference between offering vague references to monitoring activities like the President does and splashing minute details of how we do it all over the front pages of the NYT?
Even a liberal can't be that stupid.
15 - Sylvia Muffaleto
"And you can't tell the difference between offering vague references to monitoring activities like the President does and splashing minute details of how we do it all over the front pages of the NYT?"
So according to you, the terrorists had no idea their money would be tracked when the President said numerous times that we were tracking their money, and it wasn't until the NYT piece that they realized it. Did they think he was bluffing? If you you truly believe that then you are even dumber than you think the terrorists are.
Just because I think this war is being poorly fought (Where's Osama?) and I can see through the politicization of it doesn't make me a liberal, but then it's no surprise your thinking is so simple-minded.
We all know that freelance means unemployed, so spare us the puffed-up resume.
16 - Rick Moran
I'm terribly sorry my response went right through your [Edited] head.
Did Bush ever mention the fact that we had full and unfettered access to Swift? That we had the capability to uncover networks as well as individual terrorists?
It's like Roosevelt saying "We're going to invade Europe" and then make the argument that if a paper had outed Normandy as a landing site, it would have been OK because "Hitler already knew we were coming."
And this from the NYT article:
Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.
I guess this guy wasn't paying very close attention, huh.
This has nothing to do with how the war is being fought. It has to do with a perfectly legal program that was doing some good that now must be shut down. Anyone who can't see that this damages our ability to find and stop the terrorists is an idiot.
BTW - How many articles have you had published? Google up Rick Moran and see my work. [Personal contact info deleted]
17 - gonzo marx
well Rick, i'm not one to shut the fuck up for anyone..especially not rudenicks..
so..try this one
as i have pointed out, the program itself has not been "secret" since day one of it's implementation, the Administration itself has released various references...you are correct that exact details were nto mentioned, but the details released in the NYT and WSJ were not things that had to be pried from some CIA safe somewhere...
it was newsworth due to the fact that the vast majority of authorizations for these investigations were made via executive supeona (funny, and here the Constitutions says Judges have to issue those) and not federal Warrants...
this Fact is something that can be argued as being newsworthy in the same manner as the FISA bypass, or even the Pentagon Papers (the later being a legal Precedent in these matters)
oh yes...and as for telling folks what to do and such...why don't you try shutting the fuck up if all you can add to the discourse is vitriol rather than cohesive argument or even rational discussion so that we can further the course of learning and understanding rather than ego or partisan drivel
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
18 - Sylvia Muffaleto
If that's your best analogy, it's no wonder you are having trouble making it as a writer. A better analogy would be Roosevelt saying we are going to drop bombs on our enemies and then the Times writing how planes drop bombs while they are flying.
If 2003 is as far back as you go, then maybe Al Queda got wise. Make sure you don't read Susskind's The One Percent Doctrine about how they have taken their money off the grid, so you can continue to believe your nonsense. btw, there's no reason to stop the plan.
I googled Rick Moran and found successful businessmen then your postings on blogs. Oooooo, is that supposed to be impressive? It doesn't take guts to type on the Internet. If you want to whip out resumes, I currently have a fellowship at Nickolodeon and am a writer's assistant on the show Avatar. It admittedly pays poorly, especially considering the hours put in, but I am barely making a living, as opposed to someone dreaming about it.
Aren't you a little old to be trying to make a living at it now anyway? Seriously, if you could write well, wouldn't your brother Terry have gotten you a job?
19 - duane
Avatar. That's a great show. My son and I watch regularly.