OT: Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records

[only2percent]

www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/washington/26cnd-prexy.html?ex=1308974400&en=077133e2da2c4e47&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

OR

tinyurl.com/fuef7

[only2percent]

Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: June 26, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 26—President Bush today condemned as "disgraceful" the disclosure last week of a secret program to investigate and track terrorists that relied on a vast international database containing Americans' banking transactions.
"Congress was briefed," Mr. Bush said, in his first public comments on the program. "And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."
The New York Times, followed by other news organizations, began publishing accounts of the program on Thursday evening. In his remarks, during a brief photo opportunity in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Mr. Bush did not single out The Times by name, but his irritation was clear.
"If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money," the president said, growing animated and leaning forward for emphasis as he spoke. "And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
The president's comments were reinforced today by Vice President Dick Cheney, who did single out The Times for sharp criticism for disclosing the financial tracking program.
"Some in the press, in particular The New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," he said at a political fund-raiser for a congressional candidate in Grand Island, Neb.
Mr. Cheney added, "The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging."
On Sunday, Representative Peter King, Republican of New York and the chairman of the House homeland security committee, called for a criminal investigation into The Times's disclosure.
Mr. King called the disclosure "absolutely disgraceful" and "treasonous."
Mr. Bush stopped short of calling for an investigation into the leak, in contrast to a step taken by the White House late last year, after The Times disclosed the existence of a secret program by the National Security Agency to monitor international telecommunications without court warrants. In this case, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said any decision to investigate would be left to the Justice Department.
But Mr. Snow, in his daily televised briefing, accused The Times of departing from what he said was a longstanding tradition by news organizations of keeping government secrets during wartime.
"Traditionally in this country in a time of war, members of the press have acknowledged that the commander in chief, in the exercise of his powers, sometimes has to do things secretly in order to protect the public," Mr. Snow said. "This is a highly unusual departure."
In a letter to readers posted on The Times's Web site Sunday night, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the newspaper, wrote about the decisions to report about secret programs to monitor terrorism.
"Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to The Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight," Mr. Keller wrote. "We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them."
The financial records program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, has allowed counterterrorism authorities to gain access to data on millions of transactions routed from one bank or institution to another through an international consortium called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or Swift. The data is obtained using broad administrative subpoenas, not warrants issued by a court.
Investigators have used the data to conduct "at least tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of searches" of people and institutions suspected of having ties to terrorists, according to Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, who briefed reporters on Friday. Officials say the program has proven valuable in a number of investigations, and led to the 2003 capture of the most wanted Qaeda fugitive in Southeast Asia, a man known as Hambali.
During his briefing today, Mr. Snow also called for stepping back from the "passions" ignited by the articles and called on journalists, the government and "consumers of news" to engage in a thoughtful debate about the role of the press in the struggle against terrorism.
"Everybody has to figure out in a time of war what's the best way to proceed," he said. "How do journalists discharge their obligations responsibly and how does the nation proceed effectively in fighting terrorism?"
Asked whether there was any evidence that the disclosures had damaged the program, Mr. Snow said it was "a little early to say."
Mr. Snow also said that the program had not been opposed by the members of Congress who had been briefed on it, adding that Congress had in fact been pushing the administration to be "more aggressive" in tracking the finances of terror suspects.

John O'Neil contributed reporting from New York for this article, and Anne E. Kornblut from Washington.

[only2percent]

Everything should be transparent, but the government?

[hickorystick]

Like him or not, he's absolutely right. Disgraceful!

[goldeagle]

Had this happened in WWI or WWII the people probable would have greatly chastized the Times for their actions and the paper would have a greatly reduced circulation.
But NOOOOOO. Not today. Journalists look to make headlines no matter what the cost.
Being in the anti-terrorism business myself (HazMat WMD Disaster response), I truly believe that articles of this type do damage to our countries ability to combat terrorism. The members of congress were briefed on this matter and even wanted to dig deeper into these records.
This article shows complete disregard for the safety of our fellow countrymen both here a abroad.
Don't give me the line about we have the right to know. That is what we elect our government officials for. What harm is it to you if they look into overseas transfers. This did not involve domestic banking transfers, only overseas transfers. For some self righteous politically motivated jerk to print this type of leaked information is pure BS.
I will never ever purchase the NY Times again.

Just MOO

GL2A
GE

Now that I have vented - I wish everyone the best and know that we all agree to disagree.

[wwjdthrume]

I agree with the President on this one.

The ones overseas screaming have been open to banking with the terrorists and could be worried about their records.

Kind of like when shorty and the hedges start screaming about the long shareholders or their stocks.


IMO-Debi

[skibuff]

goldeneagle I agree I also will never buy it again!

[only2percent]

72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:rSdIZM6Ae2IJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34300,00.html+sacrifice+freedom+for+security&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

OR:

tinyurl.com/px5jw

"I have no doubt, even as I write this, that longstanding bureaucratic wish lists are being transformed into "essential" anti-terrorist precautions. I also have no doubt that most of them won't do any more good than the dumb "are you a terrorist?" questions immigration officials have been asking embarking passengers for years.

Worse, this sort of overreaction is exactly what terrorists want. Make no mistake. They hate us not because of what we do but for what we are: rich, free, and happy. To the extent that we give away our freedom in the vain hope that its sacrifice will purchase us a little security, we are playing into their hands. And, as Benjamin Franklin famously predicted, in making that sacrifice we will in fact wind up with neither freedom nor security
The good news is that many voices are already making this point.

Rush Limbaugh says that we didn't become a great nation by acting fearful, but by being free, and that we won't stay great by ceasing to be free. Deroy Murdock writes, that "the Bill of Rights must not collapse with the twin towers." Dave Kopel writes that "The main source of our strength is our freedom and open society. The United States already has the most powerful military in the world. We don't need the symbolic jaw, jaw, jaw of more laws, but the will to use our existing war power."

Kopel is right about this. "Increased security measures" don't stop terrorists, except for the occasional bumbling amateur. To put it bluntly, bullets stop terrorists. Terrorists do what they do because it works: it spreads terror, it inconveniences and disrupts societies, and it leads to the adoption of cumbersome security measures that increase the inconvenience and disruption and burdens law enforcement and antiterrorist forces with so many pointless tasks that they're actually less effective against future terrorism. If terrorism doesn't work, if the consequences are serious and the payoffs small, then terrorism will stop.

Despite the wish lists of bureaucrats, let's remember who the real enemy is. And let's take the war to him, not to the American people.

Don't sacrifice freedom. It's freedom, as President Bush pointed out, that we're defending."

Glenn H. Reynolds is Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, and writes for the Instapundit.Com website.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > VIEWS