Libertarian Librarian

I still have mixed emotions about the Times' exposure of the NSA phone tapping. But at leasat there I could see the slippery slope that the program could be heading for-- I don't want government agencies wiretapping phones willynilly without sufficient oversight and justification.

The NYT's exposure of the Treaury Department's efforts to end funding for terrorist organizations is a whole different story. Not only can I not see the slippery slope, I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist-- and so a program that was effective, had proper oversight, and basically begged the NYT to leave it alone to do what it did is compromised. Almost certainly to our detriment and the terrorists benefit.

Nice.

Secretary of the Treasury John Snow is dead on balls accurate (it's an industry term) in his scathing denouncement of the NYT. Particularly DOBA bit:

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that “terror financiers know” our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the “public interest” in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Labels: Politics