• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

NY Times/Free Press hurts national security?

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Some people argue that a Free Press actually hurts our national security. In the most recent case to come to light, the NY Times published information about the way the US tracks suspected terrorists money.

Some might also argue that a free press during war allows the press too much power because it is too much access to 'collateral damage during battles.

What are your thoughts? Is the press too free? Where is the balance between freedom of the press and national security? Would we be fighting a different battle if the press was not so close to the action in Iraq?

LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES BY TREASURY SECRETARY SNOW

This Department of Treasury press release may be viewed at:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/4339.htm

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 Am erican 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
 

Junkman

Extra Super Moderator
One of the reporters for the NY Times answered this last night on the PBS station. He said that everything in that article was already common knowledge and that the administration had been spouting off about it ever since 9/11. He further went on to say that the Administration, and the President himself have been very hostile for a long time about the NY Times and that in the Presidents acceptance speach for his second term, that he singled out the NY Times as one of the administrations "enemies".

Denver Post 07/01/06 http://cagle.com/politicalcartoons/
 

Attachments

  • keefe.gif
    keefe.gif
    45.1 KB · Views: 47

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Junk there are certainly 2 sides to all stories, but for the NY Times reporter to argue that it is 'common' knowledge is certainly a stretch. Just because there are a bunch of disjointed facts that have been released over a long period of time does not mean that most people can actually tie them all together, nor does it mean that most people can even find all the parts of the nor even have the knowledge of each of the components.

My point being that there can be facts available, but the press often puts them all together and spoon feeds them to us. . . which often then alerts our enemies!
 

BigAl

Gone But Not Forgotten
SUPER Site Supporter
Bob , I will not hesitate to say that Newspeople SHOULD NOT be on the front lines reporting as the battle rages on . Let them sit in a Army tent and get the information from one informational source . Lifes are at stake here and the ememies do have TV . Let a soldier do what needs to be done without the fear of offending some "nut case" back home looking to start a new crusade because somebodies rights may have been abused or someone was accidently killed . Did not someone once say " WAR is HELL" .

Instead of sending good young men and women over there to fight lets just enlist all the "gang members" and pay them 20% over cost to get the job done . The war would be done in about a week . Talk about a massacre of innocent people and ememies too!

The current Administration has been busy Doing a lot of things that the American Public is questioning . Look at his popularity poll . A skunk is better liked . BUT , Some things need to be done in private and away from the newsmans eyes and mouth . We give away more secrets than are stolen from us . Just look at all the goverment internal leaks that are always coming out . Every news source has some source that can't be quoted by name . Isn't that just another name for "Traitor" ??
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
I worked at a large daily newspaper for a few years. I have nothing good to say about reporters, editors, and publishers. They are on average poorly educated, quick to judge, and rarely consider the implications of their actions.

PB
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
PBinWA said:
I worked at a large daily newspaper for a few years. I have nothing good to say about reporters, editors, and publishers. They are on average poorly educated, quick to judge, and rarely consider the implications of their actions.

PB

...AND indoctrinated by the most radical-liberal educators in our liberally biased educational system.

They are the first line of attak the hate America liberals have. Second being the educational system which is so liberally biased it is out-of-touch with reality.
 
Top