Why the New York Times is dying

In an editorial today in the NYT there is a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible. They call it "Patriotism and the Press." It attempts to defend the NYT outing of the SWIFT program which used information on financial transfers to limit terrorist transfers of funds. The Times editorial concludes - "The free press has a central place in the Constitution because it can provide information the public needs to make things right again. Even if it runs the risk of being labeled unpatriotic in the process." Indeed, the press should serve the role as a watchdog. But in this case the Times served more like a lapdog to the terorists. The Times editors believe that they are above the national interest. The reporters involved should be prosecuted. Press credentials should be lifted for six months or so. This was a clear effort to undermine the efforts of the government to disrupt terrorists. The Times claims that was not their intent but that is simply BS. They know it, but so do we.

Their role in criticizing the administration is perfectly appropriate but this story and their subsequent defense undermines the national defense.

What is the intent of the Times in making this disclosure? Was it, as they imply - to inform the public? If indeed that was the purpose what is the news value of the story? Any thinking person would assume that the government can and should use every power available to disrupt the efforts of the terrorists. So why do we need to know the details of the program? Who does that benefit? Last time I checked I had not transferred money to a terrorist organization - so this program does not affect me. Indeed, conceivably this program could be used domestically for a number of other purposes - but does anyone with a brain in their head think that would happen?

In reality, the role and goal of the Times on this issue was to cause political damage to an administration that they dislike. There is no other conceivable motive. The Times editors should have the backbone to admit what they tried to do - but of course they wrap themselves in the First Amendment. As we all know - the First Amendment is not absolute.

John Snow, the Treasury Secretary did a wonderful letter on the issue to Bill Keller the managing terrorist editor of the Times. The letter stated the following -

Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

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. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

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.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

The First Amendment implies two things in relation to the press - first it requires that the press be active in its pursuit of news at the same time it requires the press to think carefully about the impact of their actions. In this case, as in a couple of others, the Times and the LA Times, failed to think carefully about their appropriate role in working within the national interest. No matter of flag wrapping of the First Amendment will eliminate the true damage that the Times and its allies have caused to the efforts to hamstring terrorists.

On Powerline a soldier in Iraq (who incidentially is a Harvard law grad) commented to Keller about how his story affected the soldier's troops. He said,

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

What is most troubling about the TImes campaign here is the linkage of the editorial and news sections of the paper. While it is not hard to understand that the Times and other major papers have some story selections based on editorial philosophy a great newspaper tries to separate opinion from reporting. The Times has a strong commitment to bringing down this administration at seemingly any cost and that has blurred their responsibility to separate the functions.