From The New York Sun comes this article about the latest treachery on the part of The New York Times.
The Times report, which appears in today's editions, details the federal government's use of subpoenas to gather large troves of data from a Belgium-based consortium that handles international bank transfers, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as Swift.
They printed the story despite requests by Bush administration officials for this to be kept confidential.
I don't think this is essential knowledge. We didn't need to know this or any other tactic that our government is using to fight terrorism.
Is the N.Y. Times on our side in the global war on terror?
13 comments:
You are quite right, there are a lot more importan tinformation that some people actually might give a damn about.
Seems teh New York Time sis more globally orientated than I thought. I might get myself an edition now...
That is a good question. But then again is our government getting info on us in addition to the other people and companies they watch? The war on terror is one thing, but do I need to be "watched"? Of course there is a way to put "the fear of God" into the terrorists, but no-one wants to consider it because of "colatteral" damage. We have a pretty good idea who and where a lot of this is so "one plane, one man, one bomb"
the info they are getting is, from what I understand, based on warrants. It is only transfer information for fund transfers over seas to/from persons of known terrorist connections.
They aren't gathering any statement amounts. It's nothing to do with general money access.
It's a spy thing. It's a former knowledge advantage that's been given away to our enemy. Whom the times seems to think is not our enemy.
That's really what it comes down to. Our elected government - the representatives of we, the people - believe we have an enemy and have declared war on that enemy. The times, corporation, has decided that we are not at war and there is no enemy. To me, that trumps any hubris the whte house might aspire to.
(*)>
birdwoman: I agree with your assessment. If you ask me, I think these editorial decisions require someone responsible being hauled off to jail.
Sadly, it appears that some Unites States citizens are more interested in winning the political war between the two reining parties in the United States than the war against terror. How spiteful they must be, that these individuals would sacrifice the safety of the entire nation to be able to say "I won an election."
Your concern was echoed today when reporters were more interested in the way that intelligence was gathered, than in the fact that a terrorist attack against Sears Tower and FBI offices were thwarted.
There is nothing wrong with watch-dogging the government and it's officials, but there is something wrong with hoping that they are doing something evil.
voracious: exactly. This is all about hoping & praying that the Bush administration fails because they think it will result in a transfer of power to the democrats. I'm ashamed of their actions. It turns my stomach to see Americans behaving this way.
Voracious, you are dead-on!
So this is in the public interest, but warning us about that now-infamous al Qaeda videotape in August of 2001 was not?
tlm: yeah, they get to pick & choose what helps their side the most. And all this time I thought the press was supposed to be independent, free, and fair. I can be so naive sometimes.
Sorry I meant "its," not "it's" in that last paragraph.
There is no defense for printing that story.
I hope whoever is leaking this classified info is found out and aggressively prosecuted.
This story was printed to incite false "fear" that everyday Americans' personal finances are being "watched" (as Jill said up in an earlier comment) and our privacy being exploited. This is BS, and the paper knew it when they printed it. They hoped that people like Jill would take this story and let their minds run with it and make it something it is not.
Our gov't was monitoring transfer of funds made by those thought to have terror connections.
Do people really think our gov't has the time and resources to scour over everyday Joes' personal ATM receipts and look at who they are writing personal checks to? That is what this story was trying to make people "fear." That is NOT what was happening by any stretch of the imagination.
Do people really want us to be hogtied in our pursuit of destroying terrorists?
What's next? Sending our troops to fight without guns?
The NY Times is working against Americans with this story NOT for them.
Well said. Each writer and editor needs to make their choice -- and then, to be held responsible for it. Too often we hear the media duck behind a shield of "the public's right to know," but responsibility goes far beyond that, whether everyone in the media wants to hear it or not.
--- david
These leaks are a deliberate attempt to weaken our defenses against a new terrorist attack. Then they can tell us how much safer we will be with Democrats in charge. It's treachery under the guise of 'our right to know'.
Post a Comment