Here We Go Again

In case you missed it, another politician is jumping on the "let's prosecute reporters for treason" bandwagon. News reports have quoted U.S. Representative Peter King as saying he thinks the Bush Administration should go after The New York Times and others for the recent disclosures regarding government officials tracking international banking information.

And Bush is quoted today as saying he finds the publishing of the articles "disgraceful."

I guess there are some who think this argument has political legs, because it sure as hell doesn't on the merits. It's going to be interesting to see if they try to make good on their threats. I honestly don't know. But as I said on this blog and my column for The Legal Intelligencer, I think journalists and lawyers should go on the offensive.

I have to admit that personally, I'm not as troubled by the banking revelations. Given the IRS, credit bureaus, consolidation in the banking industry, etc., I always assumed the government would have easy access to my financial information.

If they want to see what I bought from Amazon, let them: this administration doesn't seem to read much, so I doubt they would know what to make of my purchases. Except for maybe the copy of the U.S. Army Ranger handbook I keep in my briefcase.

The program itself doesn't both me like the NSA eavesdropping for a number of reasons. First, the eavesdropping reeks of authoritarian government shenanigans, and the kind of abuses that Congress sought to correct in the 1970s.

Second, while I think it's horrible if someone in a fit of anger says something that catches the government's attention and causes them to be interrogated, I'm less concerned if they come under government scrutiny for sending money to or receiving money from, groups or individuals connected to terrorism. To me, money, unlike speech, is much more akin to a smoking gun in the war on terror.

Part of that perspective comes from a conversation I once had with someone who was involved in counter-terrorist investigations. The gist of what he said to me was: "We know where a lot of these guys are, we know they're connected; it's a matter of following the money and figuring out where it's coming from and where it's going to."

However, even though the banking program doesn't bother me as much, I'm not upset by newspapers reporting on it. I read those articles and I didn't come across anything that would tip off a terrorist on how to evade capture. And I have to believe that more than a few terrorists assumed many financial transactions would be watched post-9/11. I know I made that assumption.

In fact, I seem to remember reading in the papers not long after 9/11 that one of the difficulties law enforcement organizations had in following terrorist financing was the existence of certain unique & secretive types of financial networks in the Arab world (the exact term escapes me). Those articles suggested that a lot of terror financing came via those networks. So who knows how much of the banking surveillance has even helped.

I think part of the reason this tension is building — aside from Bush's political weakness given his awful poll numbers — is because the press and the public don't trust this administration, and this administration has never shown a fondness for openness or being straight with the American people.

So the press is digging and exposing, and the administration, rather than focus on explaining, is hinting that it's more interested in jailing.

–Hank Grezlak, Editor-in-Chief

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

2 Comments on “Here We Go Again”

  1. Christine Flowers Says:

    The problem with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times having revealed the information about the SWIFT/TFTP program is not so much that it endangered our national security in this instance (although there is a strong argument that it has now made that effective program unviable).

    The difficulty I have with the press’s willingness to expose what was classified information is its hypocrisy in setting itself up as the arbiter of what is in the ‘national interest.’ The Fourth Estate has not been ‘elected’ to any position of authority, but it somehow believes that it has the right to undermine legitimate government procedures and practices in the name of the ‘public’s right to know.’ In this instance, it might very well be harmless (although given the efficacy of SWIFT and the fact that several terrorists have already been apprehended under the program), but that doesn’t mean that we should applaud the press whenever they decide to shine their investigative light upon whatever strikes their fancy.

    I don’t believe that either Times or the WSJ should be prosecuted for their actions, at least not without further information about how they actually obtained that information.

    But to hold the papers up as saviors and superheros of democracy is not only hyperbole, it dilutes true acts of Fourth Estate heroism, like the Washington Post’s role in Watergate or the Pentagon Papers.

  2. Robert D Hansen Says:

    I agree whole heartedly with Christine’s comments. It is amazing to me how people like the “editor-in-chief” can act like they do. It is appearing more and more that Sen Joe McCarthy was on the right track, and his real problem came about with the people of America allowing themselves to be lead astray by the news media. If we would have had the option of balanced news such as we do today, we would have had a balanced report and those that are so bent on working from within our laws and system to destroy America’s way of life would have been exposed as they are today. As the subversives have been given a 40+ year head start in bringing our country down. It is so totally unfortunate that some people can not be responsible enough when given freedom to be able to use it for good rather than as a means of subversion. The ballot box has always been a double edged sword because of the problem with dishonest people undermining the value. However that does pale in comparison to the irresponsible use of freedom of the press, because of the problem of not having a vote to drive out people like the “editor-in-chief”. Let’s just hope the media business will wakeup some day and realize the tremendous mistake they are making by failing to support their own country and its laws.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: