June 26, 2006
McCormick III Posted by John Steele Gordon at 04:55 PM EST Joshua Zeitz is correct in that I inaccurately characterized what The New York Times wrote regarding the legality of the federal government surveilling international bank records in order to track terrorist cash flows. They did not say it was legal; they raised questions and quoted “experts” (if Ambrose Bierce were alive today, he’d define “expert” in this context as anyone who agreed with The New York Times) who had “doubts.” Do a thought experiment: If the program were flatly illegal or there were any even half-way serious question as to its legality, would that have been buried deep in the article where these “doubts” were? What the Times wrote is pure, unadulterated journalistic PYB. In a country of 300,000,000, a major newspaper can always find an “expert” who has “doubts” about whether the sun rose in the east this morning, let alone a necessarily clandestine intelligence program.
The fact that no one in Washington, except the loony-left Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, leapt on this bandwagon after the NYT published the story indicates that any “doubts” about its legality are trivial at best. And, indeed, before the Times decided to take the law into its own hands, it was not only the administration that asked it not to publish. It was both the chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission (Republican Tom Kean, Democrat Lee Hamilton), and the chairmen (Republicans) and vice chairmen (Democrats) of the congressional intelligence committees who asked as well. But no, we’re The New York Times and to hell with the country.
Joshua Zeitz writes that, “I part ways with Mr. Gordon over his characterization of the NYT’s recent story on the Bush administration’s sweeping, warrantless probes of private bank accounts in the United States.”
Speaking of characterization, that is a grotesque—I’m tempted to say propagandistic—mischaracterization of the program under discussion. The proverbial man from Mars reading it would conclude that the program involved the Bush administration’s nefarious poking about in people’s private affairs in order to find out how much Mr. Zeitz paid his plumber last month. That might charitably be described (on a family-friendly website) as rubbish.
Sweeping? Well, I would certainly hope so. What’s the point of it being otherwise? Warrantless? Of course it’s warrantless; no judicial warrants are required to search banking records. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over (United States v. Bisceglia, California Bankers Association v. Schultz, United States v. Miller) that people have no expectation of privacy with regard to banking records and that no judicial warrant is required to access them. Nonetheless the government required administrative warrants (which can be fought in court) and hired an outside firm to monitor what records of international transactions (not “private bank accounts in the United States”) were searched. What would Mr. Zeitz and his fellow travelers on West 43rd Street want? That we ask Osama Bin Laden if it would be all right (please, pretty please) to take a peek at what accounts he’s sending large sums of money to in the United States?
Further he writes, “More to the point, the NYT has done nothing that jeopardizes American servicemen or compromises America’s military operations.” That, too, is (being self-censoring again to save the editor of this blog the trouble) rubbish. I would refer Mr. Zeitz to a letter from a soldier now serving in Iraq (courtesy of Powerline): -------------------- Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen [the executive editor of the Times and the reporters who wrote the story]: Congratulations on disclosing our government’s highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.) Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato’s guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months’ salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful. Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion—or next time I feel it—I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance. And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others—laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars. Very truly yours,
Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq -------------------- I would also suggest readers take a look at the column of Michael Barone, one of the most highly respected (by both sides of the aisle) journalists and pundits in Washington. Its title: “The New York Times at War With America.”
There is blood—American blood—on the hands of The New York Times. Why Joshua Zeitz would want to defend the indefensible is beyond me.
|
