TREASURY TO KELLER: "IRRESPONSIBLE"
By Michelle Malkin · June 26, 2006 07:24 PM
Just in...Treasury Secy John Snow's letter to the blabbermouth NYTimes. Snow reveals something significant I hadn't seen anywhere else yet (at least not in the NYTimes):

It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story.

Kean and Hamilton haven't exactly been the Bush administration's strongest allies on War on Terror issues. Their entreaties are noteworthy--but not in the eyes of Bill Keller. Guess this is what he means by "half-hearted?"

***
Full letter:

Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.

Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

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.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

***
http://michellemalkin.com/

If you are mad about the story being leaked, you should be mad at the one who leaked it, not the NYT for publishing it.

Also, terrorists have already known that the US has been aggressively trying to monitor their finances, so I don't see how publishing this story would have any major effect other than bringing the issue to public debate.

The story was not leaked until the NYT leaked it. The administration asked them repeatedly to not publish it and they did.

You have no idea what a country has to do in watime do you? You really don't. I just finally figured out you have no clue as to what is really going on. And you call me demented. I guess you don't realize you just repeated word for word what the publisher said. I guess you don't realize that newspapers during WWII cooperated with the government during the war to keep a lot of things secrets. I guess you never heard of "loose lips sink ships". I guess you don't realize the NYT is doing all it can to undermine Bush and thereby weaken America in the process. You don't see that do you. You think just letting the enemy know everything we do is keeping everyone's rights. Unbelievable. All I can do is shake my head at the ignorance displayed in these threads. Unbelievable.

That is all fine and dandy, but I knew the government was monitoring suspicious financial transactions before this leak. So did the terrorists. It is not news that the government is monitoring. What is news is that they are doing so in a way that is questionable and has a high potential for abuse. Do you really think that the NYT article caused Bin Laden to say "Oh my goodness the US government in keeping an eye out for a wire transfer that I might send! I had better be more secretive!"? No, they have been modifying their financial actions ever since the government first announced they intended to monitor and disrupt their financial activity. The issue is not that they are monitoring, it is that it has not checks in place. Welcome to 1984. There may not be any privacy, but damn it, we are safe!

That is foolishness. How did NYT get it if it was not leaked to them?

The government was doing an end around to make sure when someone got finally got the story they would not publish it. Why else would the government be asking them not to print it?

How do you know everything the enemy knows or doesn't know? You don't. Now this entire effort in the war is compromised. You all should be real proud of yourselves. For you to defend this shows me the kind of patriot you are. A phoney one. You don't realize that if this country is defeated that all your rights are gone also. You don't get it.

You've gotta be kidding me. Talk about the slippery-slope. Just calm down for a minute and take a few breathers, everything is going to be fine. Until the government furnishes evidence that the pubilication of this article directly led to the failure to follow a lead on a terrorist attack that harmed U.S. citizens or interests, then I will stand by the New York Times for excercising their First Amendment rights. I don't think the government has and I know you can't, so all of your claims about the entire anit-terror effort being comprimised and such is a complete overreaction to the situation. How stupid do you think the terrorists are? thenewnoise is right; to think that Bin Laden and his cronies don't know the U.S. government is monitoring finanicial transactions in order to pick up leads is absurd. Bin Laden himself has said that he has people very well versed in the loopholes of capitalism and Western economy. I read an extremely in depth analysis of al-Qaeda's financial network. WE know and they know that we know. The publication of this article has done nothing to harm anything. You act like the government asking the Times repeatedly and then the Times publishing is an act of treason when the entire time, regardless of what the government says, the Times is protected by the Constitution from federal and state prosecution under the First Amendment.

1. Correct. In other words, they wanted to make sure when the story was leaked, it would not be published.

2. It has been published all over that the US was taking aggressive steps toward monitoring and freezing terrorist assets. If you want to claim that they were not aware of it, that must mean they don't read the newspaper. If that is the case, they probably didn't read the NYT article. But of course, they do read and knew since 9/11 that the US was doing this type of thing, which is why many of them have started using other modes of exchanging money. Can you tell me specifically how this hurt the war effort in a unique way?