Michael Gaynor
June 23, 2006
Investigate the New York Times immediately
By Michael Gaynor

"All the News That's Fit to Print" is the motto of The New York Times.

Obviously not fit meaning proper. Fit meaning "adapted to an end or design" or "acceptable from a particular viewpoint."

It was The New York Times that deliberately disclosed last December, right after the successful Iraqi parliamentary election and right before The Patriot Act was scheduled to be extended (in an obvious attempt to deflect attention from the success and to block the extension, or at least weaken The Patriot Act), President Bush's secret terrorist surveillance program (apparently not having learned from The Washington Post that publicizing the fact that American intelligence had Osama bin Laden's cell phone number was a reprehensible exercise of journalistic judgment) and misdescribed it as a broad domestic surveillance undermining the civil liberties of Americans instead of a discrete tool used for legitimate national security purposes to thwart terrorist attacks under both the President's inherent power under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief and post-September 11, 2001 legislation, each sufficient for the purpose.

The New York Times is not objective, or patriotic, or even respectful of the law on classified information. It prints what fits or suits its particular viewpoint, adapts "news" to promote the agenda of The New York Times and assumes that the United States Department of Justice will not pursue it.

Bashing the Bush Administration and undermining America in the War on Terror apparently are at the top of The New York Times agenda. (America rejected The Times' recommendation in each of the last two presidential elections and The Times is still furious about it.) The New York Times has continuously stressed bad news from Iraq instead of putting it in context. At the end of 2005, it disclosed the government's theretofore secret terrorist surveillance program in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to help Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid "kill" The Patriot Act by blocking its renewal. And, with further progress in Iraq having become evident with the completion of the Iraqi cabinet and the death of Zarqawi and the treasure trove of information found among the rubble with his dying body, it's not surprising that The Times decided to expose on the front page of its June 23, 2006 issue yet another government program that has been an integral part of America's success in preventing another terrorist attack on the American homeland since September 11, 2001.

"Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials."

So wrote Eric Lichtblau and James Risen in an article titled "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. to Block Terror."

Did the Bush Administration disclose this in order to help Republicans in the upcoming election?

Of course not.

The Bush Administration urged The New York Times NOT to disclose, because disclosing would aid the terrorists.

Did The New York Times patriotically refrain from disclosing?

Of course not.

The article sets forth the pertinent facts in those respects as follows:

"Administration officials...asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.

"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: 'We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.'"

Is the program a broad one that threatens Americans?

Of course not.

The article states: "The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database."

The New York Times did not dispute that the program is limited.

Has the program helped to protect America?

Absolutely.

The article states:

"Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

"The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, 'has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities,' Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday."

The New York Times did not dispute that either.

Is the program "legal"?

Of course.

The article states: "The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records."

So why disclose the "vital" program?

The article states:

"The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

"That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

"'The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling,'said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, 'the potential for abuse is enormous."

The potential for abuse by newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post is enormous.

The Post let Osama bin Laden know America was tracking his cell phone calls, so he stopped using his cell phone. Osama would have preceded Zarqawi to hell if The Post had put America first.

Did The Times learn from The Post's mistake?

Of course not.

It disclosed the government's terrorist surveillance program in the pursuit of its own political agenda.

Al Quada does not need an intelligence service. It just needs to read The Times and The Post.

This time, The Times was careful to try to appear somewhat fair and balanced.

The article continued:

"The program is separate from the National Security Agency's efforts to eavesdrop without warrants and collect domestic phone records, operations that have provoked fierce public debate and spurred lawsuits against the government and telecommunications companies.

"But all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.

"Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing. Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said."

But, The Times was really doing its usual: trying to make Americans distrust the Bush Administration, even though the War on Terror is far from over, and fronting for "anonymous" government officials who undermine their government and have a sinister symbiotic relationship with The Times.

The article put it this way: "Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization."

I have read closely The New York Times' arguments for publishing this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. Iremain convinced that investigating this disclosure of classified information is "a matter of public interest" and that a grand jury should be convened and anyone who refuses to answer questions should be jailed for contempt so long as he or she refuses to answer.

The article reports that Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, told The Times, ""The president is concerned that once again The New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens."

So The Times had fair warning.

The President's duty to defend America from threats both foreign and domestic requires him to do more than to repeatedly express "concern" to The Times when it chooses "to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens."

The President should refer the matter to the United State Department of Justice for investigation and prosecution of all culprits.

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

Latest articles

April 15, 2016
Judge Masin cannot make Ted Cruz a natural born US citizen


April 13, 2016
Former SCOTUS clerks Wendy Long v. Gregory Diskant disagree about the Senate's advice and consent power


April 11, 2016
Krauthammer's personal disdain for Trump skewed his view of Wisconsin primary results a bit


April 4, 2016
Sensitive Megyn Kelly disses fellow Fox News stars


March 31, 2016
Megyn Kelly ignores key facts to champion faux victim Michelle Fields' bogus criminal battery charge


March 22, 2016
Glenn Beck's pathetic attention-seeking open letter to Donald Trump


March 17, 2016
Trump wins 5 of 6, Cruz loses 6 and helps Kasich finally win one by underperforming


March 14, 2016
Shame on Trump's Republican rivals for blaming his campaign for the violence in Chicago


March 12, 2016
To Fox News: Give Sean Hannity the 9 PM slot back and focus on presidential eligibility


March 10, 2016
New York Times' David Brooks rejected as Donald Trump triumphs yet again


More articles

 

Alan Keyes
Why de facto government (tyranny) is replacing the Constitution (Apr. 2015)

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress? (Nov. 2014)

Cliff Kincaid
Mr. and Mrs. Clinton: Tear down that library

Matt C. Abbott
Tweets sink head of US bishops' news agency

Victor Sharpe
Hoisted by their own petard

Lloyd Marcus
Voting Cruz: Has God abandoned America?

Chuck Baldwin
A politically incorrect analysis of neoconism

Jim Kouri
CIA chief more concerned with Obamaism than protecting Americans: Critics

Michael Gaynor
Judge Masin cannot make Ted Cruz a natural born US citizen

Ellis Washington
Open letter to CUNY dean Sarah Bartlett

A.J. Castellitto
God, Cruz and Country

Cliff Kincaid
Cruz thwarts hostile takeover of the GOP

Gina Miller
Truth about MS Religious Freedom Protection Act

Susan D. Harris
It's the little things: Remembering Western Civilization
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez
More cartoons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites