America in the Balance

NEW YORK TIMES’S TREACHERY (CONT.)

By

Ken Eliasberg

Before going through the sequence of events following the Times’s revelation of what they labeled as a “Secret” program dealing with our government’s efforts to track the financing of terrorist groups, I think it’s important – indeed, essential – to evaluate the significance of what the

Times has done in the context of the reality that we are at war – at war with a vicious, cruel, and merciless bunch of murderous thugs, who have 2 things going for them: (1) not only are they not afraid to die (always a difficult trait to encounter in a struggle where survival is at stake), but they look forward to it, since their reward lies in the hereafter (undoubtedly influenced, at least in part, by the fact that their existence here on earth offers so little succor), and (2) they seem to find encouragement for their murderous and despicable acts in their religion (a God that, at least in their opinion, not only condones, but actually encourages, murder and then rewards the murderer for having committed it? Hard to believe, isn’t it? But it may give you a good idea of what we’re up against).

In that context, and on the outside chance that our counterterrorism efforts might, if only marginally, be compromised, doesn’t it strike you as somewhat irresponsible to take this kind of chance? I’m giving the Times the benefit of the doubt by assuming – only arguendo, mind you – that their motives were in no way tainted. Unfortunately, I believe that their motives were considerably less than pure, i.e. they wanted to raise the specter of a secret program – promulgated under the aegis of a president who they argue thrives on secrecy – that somehow compromised our civil liberties. And bear in mind that they did this only 2 years after the same author took the government to task for lagging in such an effort. Let me put the question to you – if you are fighting a war for survival, and you are trying to monitor your enemy’s ability to raise the resources to fund their despicable effort, shouldn’t such a program be covert? Is any country likely to conduct their intelligence efforts in broad daylight? Moreover, the left – of which the Times has clearly become a partisan member – has frequently commented on our depleted intelligence capacity. How is this type of publication calculated to improve our intelligence capacity? Furthermore, no one has done more over the last 30 years to damage, if not destroy, our intelligence capacity than the left – starting with the Church Committee in the ‘70s and leading right up to the idiotic Jamie Gorelick memo, authorizing a wall between the CIA and the FBI.

I want to spend some time on this topic – I know some of my friends and critics will ask – so what’s new – but I think it’s worth it. Why? Because you need to see for yourself just how far to the left the mainstream media has moved, and, in doing so, you need to question both their judgment and their motivation and ascertain whether the former makes sense and does the latter bear fatal witness to the fact that they have brushed journalism aside in their effort to either embarrass and/or punish George Bush, even if it means doing so in a manner that might compromise our counterterrorism efforts and thus endanger our national security.

In analyzing this situation, bear a few things in mind:

1. The title of the Times story is Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in SECRET to Block Terror (emphasis supplied)
2. As previously noted, the very author of this column, not 3 years before this column, lamented the fact that, in his opinion, no such program was

underway (even though it appears that this program was already

operative), i.e a shot at the rather slow way in which our intelligence

arm was responding to the threat posed by the terrorists (Islamic fundamentalist whackos)

3. That from 9/11 the left has been up in arms about our intelligence

inadequacies,

4. Again, as noted, those inadequacies, while quite real, have been due to the left’s assault on our intelligence system, starting with the Church

Committee in the ‘70s and continuing right on up to 9/11.

5. That “Intelligence” operations are, by their very nature, covert or

SECRET, and

6. As a consequence, the SWIFT program was SECRET – surprise,

surprise – at least it was up until the time that the Times

felt compelled, for whatever reason, to blow its cover.

Secret.- Now the Times is the Gold Standard of journalism – at least it used to be; if it still is, it’s only because the standards of all the papers have sunk as fast as that of the Times – and, therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are thoughtful and precise in their use of words. So when they say secret – and say it in the headline of the column in question – it would seem reasonable to take them at their word. That is, they believed that the program was secret, a plausible belief since the program was “classified.” I stress this point, because later on, as they were pressed to the wall, they offered a sort of flimsy explanation that it wasn’t really secret because the terrorists knew about it (how did they know about it, and how did the Times know that they knew about it – were they in direct contact with representatives of As Qaeda? The Times is silent on tis point). So, if it was secret, why did the Times feel the need to remove the veil of secrecy?

But I get ahead of myself. Before the Times revelation, they had contact with numerous officials from both the executive and legislative branches, in which each of these contacts counseled the Times not to publish this material. Nonetheless, the Times did so. Why? Because, according to the editor in charge of this decision, in was in the public interest to do so. Tell me, if they knew of the details surrounding D-Day on June 1, 1944, would they have published them before the actual landing on Normandy? I push the envelope, of course, but you get the point. Who the hell is the New York Times to even marginally flirt with compromising national security when (1) the program is clearly legal, (2) there has been no indication that the government is exceeding its authority, thus possibly encroaching upon our civil liberties, and (3) when representatives from 2 branches of government (one of whom was cut-and-run John Murtha) counseled against such publication. Is this bad judgment, arrogance, or something more venal?

Regarding the government’s request that they not publish, the Times, as previously indicated, suggested that the request was half hearted. While this would seem enough of a word to the wise, even if true, the Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, took issue with the Times’s characterization of the forcefulness of the Governemnt’s request, stating that “Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were ‘half-hearted’ is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.” This would seem pretty unequivocal, but, for emphasis, Secretary Snow went on to make the following observations in his letter to Bill Keller, the Times editor in charge of this disgraceful betrayal:

“Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the ‘public interest’ in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available – lawfully and responsibly – to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.”

So am I! And so should you be! Our main concern in this endeavor should be our safety, and, unless there is some indication that a program designed to assure our safety, is being very substantially abused, then I think we should rely on our government and not the New York Times to protect us. (to be continued).