[RoninLB]

Originally posted by techweenie
I find it interesting that the LA Times and WSJ both published information aobut the SWIFT program and only the NYT is somehow to blame? Reminds me of the condemnation of France when 60+ countries also didnt' buy the lies about Iraq.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=291148&highlight=WSJ

Originally posted by RoninLB
According to Tony Fratto, Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, he first contacted the Times some two months ago. Mr. Fratto went on to ask the Times not to publish such a story on grounds that it would damage this useful terror-tracking method.

Secretary John Snow invited Times Executive Editor Bill Keller to his Treasury office to deliver the same message.

Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the leaders of the 9/11 Commission, made the same request of Mr. Keller.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte also urged the newspaper not to publish the story.

The Times decided to publish anyway, letting Mr. Fratto know about its decision a week ago Wednesday.

Mr. Fratto says he believed "they had about 80% of the story, but they had about 30% of it wrong." So the Administration decided that, in the interest of telling a more complete and accurate story, they would declassify a series of talking points about the program.

Treasury contacted WSJ reporter Glenn Simpson to offer him the same declassified information. At no point did Treasury officials tell the WSJ not to publish the information. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print.

Times' Keller's argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith. The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia. The first thing an al Qaeda financier would have done when the story broke is check if his bank was part of Swift.

In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons. The Times itself said as much in a typically hectoring September 24, 2001, editorial "Finances of Terror": "Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities." Isn't the latter precisely what the Swift operation is?

The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish.