# I pit the short-sighted self serving twits at the New York Times **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359 "2006-06-27T17:01:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/121 "2006-06-27T22:55:43Z")
> [@NicePete](#): > > Mmmm, not necessarily. Depends on what your purpose is. If deterrence is your goal, you’re better off with obvious surveillance. If you want to catch someone in the act, you’re better served by secret surveillance. > > In this case, aren’t we trying to deter the activity? Don’t we want to keep the terrorists from being funded in the first place? You could argue that making this program widely known has made it _more_ effective. But exposing the program won’t do anything to deny funding to the terrorists. They’ll just find other ways to finance their operations, and it may take us months or years to rebuild our capability to monitor their financing, if we ever do. And it doesn’t seem to me that we were trying to deter them. It seems to me that we were using information about how their cash flow to catch them. Exposing the program was a classic example of liberal arrogance. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/122 "2006-06-27T22:59:08Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > But nobody is willing to put down the partisan knives long enough to do that. …said Edward Fucking Scissorhands. Jesus, you carry so many knives that if you slipped and fell you’d look like the “after” scene in a Kill Bill movie. Debate the issue, scream about the NYT, do whatever you want, but you bitching about partisanship is like Clothahump bitching about drive-by OPs. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/123 "2006-06-27T23:00:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > _Ding, ding. Ding, ding. Medication time, medication time. Ding, ding. Please stop all basketweaving, finger painting, and dicussions with historical figures and report to the dispensary. Ding, ding. And yes, **Der Trihs** , you can keep you tin foil hat on again. Ding, ding…_ Ding, ding. Ding, ding. Obfuscation time, obfuscation time ! Remember, don’t actually argue against **Der Trihs** ; just accuse him of being crazy and hope no one notices you’re bobbing and weaving ! Ding, ding…! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/124 "2006-06-27T23:00:15Z")
> [@NicePete](#): > > Mmmm, not necessarily. Depends on what your purpose is. If deterrence is your goal, you’re better off with obvious surveillance. If you want to catch someone in the act, you’re better served by secret surveillance. > > In this case, aren’t we trying to deter the activity? Don’t we want to keep the terrorists from being funded in the first place? You could argue that making this program widely known has made it _more_ effective. Yes, this point was made in another thread. And it is correct that while you may lose some effectiveness from loss of stealth that you gain some from showing your hand. But I’d say that the most effective methods will use both. And it makes no sense to forfeit stealth when there already is a visible show of deterence. Stealth is the harder of the two to achieve, and to give it up for no benefit other than “I don’t trust them” is counter productive. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/125 "2006-06-27T23:02:38Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > But exposing the program won’t do anything to deny funding to the terrorists. They’ll just find other ways to finance their operations, and it may take us months or years to rebuild our capability to monitor their financing, if we ever do. And it doesn’t seem to me that we were trying to deter them. It seems to me that we were using information about how their cash flow to catch them. What other ways are there to move money around besides banks? 😕 Do you honestly think that the simple existence of a banking surveillance program will make all terrorists swear off banks forever? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/126 "2006-06-27T23:07:47Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’m not assuming abuse. I said there was greater _potential_ for abuse without public oversight. Also note that you’re quoting our exchange about police tapping the phones of criminals, not the current program. Do you accept that both with and without oversight from the outside that zero abuse might occur? > [@Giraffe](#): > > In the OP, **Evil One** equated the Times’ public disclosure of the existence of the program with the automatic ending of the program. You spoke up in strong agreement with him, sadly shaking your head over the bodies of 9/11 while asking others why they’d want to end such a successful program. It tends to lead one to conclude that you agree with his initial assertion that this public revelation will force an end to the surveillance program. I don’t know enough about the particulars of the program to say if it is still of any use. My point is that why would you make a successful program—that is legal and has no accusations of abuse—and reveal it making it less effective. Whether the effectiveness drops 5%, 50% or 100% (cancellation), why. What public tanghible public good is served other than “Whew, thank God that program stopped. There might have been abuse from it sometime in the future.” Seriously, we public good is served by revealing this program and reducing it’s effectiveness in fighting terrorists? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/127 "2006-06-27T23:13:00Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > What other ways are there to move money around besides banks? 😕 > > Do you honestly think that the simple existence of a banking surveillance program will make all terrorists swear off banks forever? Where did I say they’d quit using banks? Where did I say a survellance program would make terrorists swear off using banks? The Germans or the Japanese in the Second World War would have switched to new military codes if sanctimonious liberal twits in the media had exposed the fact that the Allies had broken the old codes. They wouldn’t have just quit using codes altogether. In just such a fashion, the terrorists will simply find new ways to move their cash through the banking system, now that they know that the old ones are insecure. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/128 "2006-06-27T23:16:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you accept that both with and without oversight from the outside that zero abuse might occur? Of course. Do you agree with the Founding Fathers that we’re safer as a society living under a government of laws and not a government of men, so that we don’t have to trust and hope that our leaders choose to behave justly? > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t know enough about the particulars of the program to say if it is still of any use. My point is that why would you make a successful program—that is legal and has no accusations of abuse—and reveal it making it less effective. Whether the effectiveness drops 5%, 50% or 100% (cancellation), why. What public tanghible public good is served other than “Whew, thank God that program stopped. There might have been abuse from it sometime in the future.” Seriously, we public good is served by revealing this program and reducing it’s effectiveness in fighting terrorists? First of all, you haven’t demonstrated that it will be less effective. For all you know, terrorists have assumed we were monitoring bank transactions from the get-go, and this won’t surprise a single one of them. The public good of transparent government is that we the people have a voice in what our government does. We as a society may want to set limits on the degree to which our government uses private information to fight terrorism, just as we have set limits on how vigorously it can fight crime. We can’t do that if the government keeps its activities secret from us. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/129 "2006-06-27T23:18:02Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > The Germans or the Japanese in the Second World War would have switched to new military codes if sanctimonious liberal twits in the media had exposed the fact that the Allies had broken the old codes. They wouldn’t have just quit using codes altogether. In just such a fashion, the terrorists will simply find new ways to move their cash through the banking system, now that they know that the old ones are insecure. Excellent point. Not that it will do any good. Never mind that it saved lives, it was secret. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/130 "2006-06-27T23:19:13Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > If its hypocrisy that concerns you, you might consider the hypocrisy of a powerful media outlet that expects to have unlimited access to sensitive information and an unquestioned right to reveal such informations as it pleases, while expecting at the same time to have an unlimited right to keep secrets of its own from both the government and the general public. > > One wonders what the Times would have to say if someone published the names and pictures of their sources on a website. None of that is anything like hypocrisy. In fact, both the things you’re discussing are part of the same issue: the role of the press in a free society. In such a society, we value the role of a free and open press, and have consistently determined that a free and open press is characterised both by an ability to publish its finding, and also by an ability to rely on sources of information without having those sources subject to reprisals from vindictive private parties or government officials. As for the issue of revealing the names of NYT sources, i’m not sure what they’d have to say if someone published their sources’ identities on a website. If the website was owned by a priavte citizen—you or me, for example—who had done his own investigative reporting to find out who those sources were, then the _Times_ should respect our own right to engage in such activities. But that’s not what has been gong on in the recent cases involving sources. In those cases, the _Times_ has never asserted that people aren’t allowed to try and find out who the sources are. They have simply asserted that the government should not have the power to compel the _Times_ to reveal their identities. Quite a different thing. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > The Germans or the Japanese in the Second World War would have switched to new military codes if sanctimonious liberal twits in the media had exposed the fact that the Allies had broken the old codes. They wouldn’t have just quit using codes altogether. In just such a fashion, the terrorists will simply find new ways to move their cash through the banking system, now that they know that the old ones are insecure. It’s interesting that you use the WWII analogy, because it actually points up how lame your criticism is. Sure, if someone had told the Germans and Japanese that their codes had been broken, they would have changed the codes. But surely both the Germans and Japanese knew that the Allies were trying to break their codes. After all, that’s why they had codes in the first place. And, despite the fact that they knew this, they continued to use the codes. Same thing here. The terrorists know that bank accounts are being watched. In fact, i’d be willing to wager that they suspected this well before the _New York Times_ story. But they still need to use financial institutions to move money around; carting massive bags full of banknotes won’t do the trick. Sure, they might try new tactics now, but, as i suggested in an earlier post, the surveillance program can watch for changing patterns and learn from them. If the terrorists try to make drastic changes, they could well give themselves away. Knowing about the surveillance program doesn’t make the program ineffective. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/131 "2006-06-27T23:19:40Z")
At the risk of taking this out of Pit territory, I’d like to ask about generalities rather than the specificities of this program and Bush. Would folks supporting the NYT here also support the press in publishing any state secret whatever, no matter what the potential for abuse may or may not be (even if there is none), no matter who the President is or what his past actions have been, no matter what the results of such publication would be, with no consequences whatever? I assume the answer is yes, from the posts here, but I want to be sure. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/132 "2006-06-27T23:20:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Excellent point. Not that it will do any good. Never mind that it saved lives, it was secret. And, of course, there’s absolutely no difference between breaking the codes of an enemy power with whom the United States was in full-scale war, and conducting surveillance on millions of civilian bank accounts in the hope of finding some terrorist activity. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/133 "2006-06-27T23:24:23Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Where did I say they’d quit using banks? > > Where did I say a survellance program would make terrorists swear off using banks? You didn’t, but I personally can’t envision “other sources of revenue” that won’t be equally affected by the banking surveillance program without, you know, not using banks. I mean, I guess they could hold bake sales or something, but that seems pretty insignificant compared with international financing. Seriously, what other sources of revenue exist that are outside of the framework of this surveillance program? > [@](#): > > The Germans or the Japanese in the Second World War would have switched to new military codes if sanctimonious liberal twits in the media had exposed the fact that the Allies had broken the old codes. They wouldn’t have just quit using codes altogether. In just such a fashion, the terrorists will simply find new ways to move their cash through the banking system, now that they know that the old ones are insecure. The reason your analogy makes no sense is that, unlike the Axis powers’ military codes, terrorists do not control the international banking system. Even if they knew we were monitoring bank transactions, how can they move money through the system differently than they already are? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/134 "2006-06-27T23:28:42Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Do you agree with the Founding Fathers that we’re safer as a society living under a government of laws and not a government of men, so that we don’t have to trust and hope that our leaders choose to behave justly? Agree with the first part absolutely. As far as the second part, we will always have to trust to a degree. Unfortunate? Yes? Reality? Yes. > [@Giraffe](#): > > First of all, you haven’t demonstrated that it will be less effective. For all you know, terrorists have assumed we were monitoring bank transactions from the get-go, and this won’t surprise a single one of them. Oh, come on. What you say is possible, of course, it might even wind up being more effective. But unless you think that our Presidents should start using a dart board to make decisions and our soldiers should stop aiming when they shoot, this is a waste of time. Remember how we got Gotti? He knew he was being watched, and that was probably _somewhat_ effectivce in curtailing his illegal. But we got him when he spoke in a place where he thought he wasn’t being watched. > [@Giraffe](#): > > The public good of transparent government is that we the people have a voice in what our government does. We as a society may want to set limits on the degree to which our government uses private information to fight terrorism, just as we have set limits on how vigorously it can fight crime. We can’t do that if the government keeps its activities secret from us. So, I ask again, are you advocating that the government have zero secrets from us? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/135 "2006-06-27T23:30:47Z")
I’m actually somewhat confused by the outrage. Do those of you who think the NYT did the wrong thing actually believe that it was a secret that we tracked foreign assets suspected of being used for terrorist funding, and also the money laundering used by such parties? Seriously? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/136 "2006-06-27T23:31:15Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > You didn’t, but I personally can’t envision “other sources of revenue” that won’t be equally affected by the banking surveillance program without, you know, not using banks. I mean, I guess they could hold bake sales or something, but that seems pretty insignificant compared with international financing. > > Seriously, what other sources of revenue exist that are outside of the framework of this surveillance program? > The reason your analogy makes no sense is that, unlike the Axis powers’ military codes, terrorists do not control the international banking system. Even if they knew we were monitoring bank transactions, how can they move money through the system differently than they already are? You are being deliberately obtuse. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/137 "2006-06-27T23:33:56Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > And, of course, there’s absolutely no difference between breaking the codes of an enemy power with whom the United States was in full-scale war, and conducting surveillance on millions of civilian bank accounts in the hope of finding some terrorist activity. Who said there is no difference? There are many, many differences. Do you think that this is some brillaint revelation on your part? Must something be identical to another thing for it to be relevant? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/138 "2006-06-27T23:35:54Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I’m actually somewhat confused by the outrage. Do those of you who think the NYT did the wrong thing actually believe that it was a secret that we tracked foreign assets suspected of being used for terrorist funding, and also the money laundering used by such parties? > > Seriously? Now that you mention it, in _The Teeth of the Tiger_, Tom Clancy talks about just such a program…and the book was published in 2003. If Clancy can figure out something like that is possible, I’d imagine the terrorist financiers could grok the concept as well. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/139 "2006-06-27T23:37:02Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I’m actually somewhat confused by the outrage. Do those of you who think the NYT did the wrong thing actually believe that it was a secret that we tracked foreign assets suspected of being used for terrorist funding, and also the money laundering used by such parties? > > Seriously? I’m sure the knew we were doing _something_. Yet the program was fruitful. I think it is logical to say that they more they knew about the steps we are taking to get them, the more successful they will be in evading us. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/140 "2006-06-27T23:44:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, I ask again, are you advocating that the government have zero secrets from us? No, I’m not. We have a well-developed framework for identifying and protecting information which needs to be kept secret in the interest of national security. How to make a nuclear bomb, where our CIA agents are stationed, etc. The fact that we don’t make a secret of our having nuclear bombs or a CIA hasn’t hurt us in the least. Would the CIA be more effective if its existence had never been revealed? Possibly. Simiarly, would we catch more criminals if we had a secret police force? Again, possibly. Do you think either of these is a good idea? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=8)