Should the Fourth Estate decide National Security Issues?

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

I might have viewed a more honest administration with more tolerance.

However, I have seen no evidence that the publication of this information harms the project. All electronic transfers among all banks are monitored by SWIFT. Knowing that such transaction are being monitored does nothing to eliminate that bottleneck for the terrorists. They can only use the system and try to disguise their transactions (which they were doing already), or they can shift to couriers carrying cash. I find the idea that the terrorists (who include among their members and sympathisers financial advisors and people in various governments) did not know something that any reporter could ferret out with a little digging to be preposterous.

I am sure that there are those, as you describe, that were well aware of the possibility that there actions were being tracked and circumvented the system in some way, and that the outiing of this program will not effect them in any way. But as in any large organization, or movement, there are geniuses and dolts. We often count on the dolts being, well, dolts. We often stop them due to mistakes they make. And their mistakes can also lead to stopping the brighter lights in the orrganization. The revealing of this program makes that possibility less likely. And that is not a good thing.

[Shodan]

@tomndebb

Let’s see. The outing of Ms. Plame actually violated Federal Law…

So did the outing of the financial tracking system.

Section 798. Disclosure of classified information

  (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States any classified
information - 
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
  cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any
  foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or
  repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or
  planned for use by the United States or any foreign government
  for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
    (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
  United States or any foreign government; or
    (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence
  from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
  same to have been obtained by such processes - 

  Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.

Cite.

I look forward to your calls for the prosecution of the NYT, and the jailing of their editors.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

So did the outing of the financial tracking system.

Cite.

I look forward to your calls for the prosecution of the NYT, and the jailing of their editors.

Regards,
Shodan

But it wasn’t classified information, Shodan. Therefore, it was no crime for the NYT (or the WSJ) to publish it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

So did the outing of the financial tracking system.

Cite.

I look forward to your calls for the prosecution of the NYT, and the jailing of their editors.

Regards,
Shodan

But it wasn’t classified information, Shodan. It was no crime for the NYT (nor the WSJ) to publish it.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: Congressional Pubs are now crafting a resolution to condemn the NYT for breaking this story.

Curiously, the WSJ doesn’t seem to be mentioned.

[BobLibDem]

@Shodan

I look forward to your calls for the prosecution of the NYT, and the jailing of their editors.

I look forward to your calls for the impeachment, conviction, and imprisonment of George W. Bush.

The White House had earlier boasted of the program.

“There have been public references to SWIFT before,” said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. “The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.”

It wasn’t secret. They boasted of it before.

[tomndebb]

@Shodan

I look forward to your calls for the prosecution of the NYT, and the jailing of their editors.

And I eagerly await your call for the prosecution of the WSJ and the jailing of its editors for publishing a story about a procedure that was not even classified, to begin with.

[tomndebb]

As posted in the Pit thread begun by Evil One:

@BobLibDem

It’s beginning to sound like the program was never secret.

But a search of public records – government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 – describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

“There have been public references to SWIFT before,” said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. “The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.”

So, basically, it is an election year attempt to sway public opinion on a routine story (which explains why the NYT and LATimes have been selected for opprobrium while the WSJ has been ignored by the administration).

[FinnAgain]

Indeed, there seem to be several news reports about how SWIFT was anything but secret. The adminstration, via Snow, also seems totally unable to give an answer as to why the WSJ can report it, but not the Times.

[Loopydude]

Can’t add much except that I had never heard of “The Fourth Estate” before today.

Ignorance smashed! <splat>

[BrainGlutton]

@Loopydude

Can’t add much except that I had never heard of “The Fourth Estate” before today.

Ignorance smashed! <splat>

The phrase goes back (at least) to Thomas Carlyle. The first three estates would be nobles, clergy and commons.

[rjung]

Boy, I can’t wait for the flood of conservative commentators apologize for their warrantless bashing of the NYT this week!

Three… two… one…

cricket

[FinnAgain]

@rjung

Boy, I can’t wait for the flood of conservative commentators apologize for their warrantless bashing of the NYT this week!

Well, they used to have to get a warrant to bash the Times, but citing double super secret executive privilege, Bush says they don’t have to

[Voyager]

@Sam Stone

What a lame argument. “China censors! You want to be like China?”

China also limits private gun ownsership. If you also believe in limiting private gun ownership, does that make you a Commie? In fact, listing all the totalitarian states that have banned gun ownership and comparing gun controllers in the U.S. to them is a favorite tactic of the NRA. I take it you support that line of argument?

And gun ownership has what to do with the issue?

Anyway, it’s easy to tell when it’s wrong to leak something to the press and when it’s right:

When the leak involves ‘outing’ an active clandestine program that is working to stop terrorists, it’s the right thing to do.

When the leak involves ‘outing’ a semi-retired CIA field agent who isn’t actively working on anything, it’s a high crime that should cause heads to roll and people to go to jail.

Simple, really.

I’m not talking about leaking. Those who leak are going against signed agreements, usually, and unless there are whistle blower laws, this is not an issue. The morality of leaking is one thing, the legality of it is quite another.

We’re talking about the press, who has signed no such agreement. Remember? Fourth estate?
The question is, who decides whether a government is classifying things due to true national security concerns or to hide them? This administration hardly invented the “if you publish this, the evil Trotskyists, Commies, capitalists, Papists, whatever are going to get us” argument.
The Times has reported that stuff declassified and released to the National Archives is being reclassified - for no good reason I can tell. Researchers have already copied some of it. So, if this stuff gets “leaked” to the press, what should happen?

Is it a matter of judgement? Well, we already see that the judgement of the government is not so good. So, we get the press. Are the totally irresponsible? (Not counting Novak, of course.) Most of the press these days is owned by billion dollar corporations. If they deliberately and recklessly put the safety of the country at risk (more than Geraldo did,) don’t you think at least advertisers would desert them?

The Times waited a year to publish the collection of numbers. The financial transaction thing was not much of a secret. Hardly irresponsible.

So, what do you propose we do? Make it clear that stepping across whatever line the government feels like drawing will result in a charge of treason? Most censorship in China is self-censorship. That’s a great way of preserving our freedoms. Scanning all websites for possible secrets? Filtering all posts? Where’s it going to end? Hell, one could argue that the incompetence of DHS in New Orleans lets the terrorists know that if they strike now, they could inflict more damage than they might have thought. Let’s call that classified and prosecute any paper that publishes the story.
Why don’t you tell us the magic formula for what should be protected?