More on the NYT banking surveillance scandal
ADDED: Kim Priestap at WizBang reports that the program is probably over.
____________________________________________
Michelle Malkin has more on the NTY banking surveillance scandal, including the angry letter sent by Secretary of the Treasury John Snow to Bill Keller at the NYT. Particularly damning is the fact that, according to Secretary Snow, the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, both implored the Times not to run the story.
Michelle also highlights an entry at PowerLine, where an astute reader digs into the NYT archives and mines this gem from a September 24, 2001 NYT editorial, "Finances of Terror":
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies...
As has been proven over and over again, these guys obviously don't read their own paper.
And now that we know that the leaders of the 9/11 Commission supported the bank surveillance program, why aren't Democrats -- who demanded that the Bush Administration follow the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission to the letter -- speaking out against the Times?
UPDATE: The complete New York Times editiorial, "Finances of Terror," has been located in the Google Cache. I'm posting a copy of it -- in its entirety -- below the fold:
(Note: the cached version did not have paragraph indentions. I added them in reasonable places.)
Finances of Terror
New York Times editorial
September 24, 2001Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America´s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.
Osama bin Laden originally rose to prominence because his inherited fortune allowed him to bankroll Arab volunteers fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Since then, he has acquired funds from a panoply of Islamic charities and illegal and legal businesses, including export-import and commodity trading firms, and is estimated to have as much as $300 million at his disposal.
Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly. Locally, terrorists can utilize tiny unregulated storefront financial centers, including what are known as hawala banks, which people in South Asian immigrant communities in the United States and other Western countries use to transfer money abroad.
Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up. Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations.
The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them. The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws. Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.
New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
© 2001 The New York Times
After D-Day, journalist ernie Pyle wrote: “Now that it is over it seems to me a pure miracle that we ever took the beach at all. In this column I want to tell you what the opening of the second front in this one sector entailed, so that you can know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful to those both dead and alive who did it for you."
Ernie Pyle’s style of reporting would seem strange to modern-day Americans, because Ernie Pyle made it clear which side he was on. Ernie Pyle was on the battlefield, risking his own life, so that the American people back home would "know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful" to the soldiers who fought for them.
Ernie Pyle was one of America’s most famous and beloved war correspondents. Pyle set a new journalistic standard during World War II by moving among the soldiers on the front lines. His reporting gave the American people a closeness to war that they had never experienced before. Pyle never glorified war, but he explained combat in terms of the sacrifices that American soldiers made on behalf of the people back home. Pyle wrote of the American warrior with a “heart-of-gold,” of the American soldier fighting the “good fight” against evil, and of the American soldier fighting for a “just and moral cause.” Ernie Pyle died on April 18, 1945, while reporting on the Battle of Okinawa in the Pacific.
Today, America is once again locked in a great struggle between good and evil. Brave Americans are fighting a new World War that pits the forces of freedom and democracy against the forces of Islamic tyranny: The War on Terror.
In the new World War, many Americans wonder where the loyalties of some journalists lie. Some journalists follow American soldiers into battle only to report on what goes wrong, to focus attention on mistakes that are made, to get the story from the enemy's point of view, and to weaken American resolve: they blame America for evil deeds and seem to want America to lose the war.
When was the last time you read a newspaper article telling you about the bravery, courage, or success of our troops in battle? Can you imagine a TV news anchor closing a news broadcast with the words: "Godspeed to our troops and our prayers for the swift defeat of the enemy."
Even worse, some journalists actually help the enemy by revealing top secret programs designed to protect America from enemy attack. In June 2006, the New York Times proudly published details of a top secret program designed to trace and cut-off the funding of Islamic terrorist groups. It was not the first time the New York Times chose to betray the American people by revealing top secret programs that have been keeping them safe since 9/11: The New York Times revealed top secret plans to adjust troop levels in Iraq; The New York Times revealed a top secret program to trace phone calls between terrorists in the U.S. and other countries.
Americans have good reason to ask: "Why are there no reporters like Ernie Pyle in my time?"
But Americans really should not be shocked by the anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists. It's not new. The anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists was on full public display almost immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many journalists in America's "mainstream media" have been on the wrong side of the war since "Day One."
After the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, journalists from the Reuters international news service refused to describe Osama bin Laden and his murderous disciples as “terrorists.” The journalists pointed to the official Reuters editorial policy, which stated: “As part of a long-standing policy to avoid the use of emotive words, we do not use terms like terrorist." But the definition of the word “terrorist” is: “A person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.” The term is clearly descriptive, not “emotive.”
In the United States, ABC News barred its journalists from wearing American flag lapel pins because it didn’t want to be seen taking sides in the War on Terror. An ABC News spokesman said: “We cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol.”
In February 2003, just before the American invasion and liberation of Iraq, CBS News aired an interview with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the despicable mass murderer, torturer of women and children, and supporter of international terrorism. Many Americans scratched their heads during the televised interview, wondering what could possibly be learned about Saddam that wasn’t already known, and why they should believe anything that Saddam had to say. At the end of the interview, CBS News anchorman Dan Rather told Saddam: “I would very much like to see you in the future, Mr. President.”
On April 13, 2004, during a nationally televised presidential press conference, viewers across the country were astonished to hear members of the American press corps ask repeatedly whether or not President George W. Bush thought he should apologize for the tragedy of 9/11. The questions included: “Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11, 2001?” and “Do you believe the American people deserve an apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?” The president responded: “Here’s what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That’s who’s responsible for killing Americans.”
Modern-day American journalists seem to have difficulty choosing the side of right over the side of wrong, the side of good over the side of evil: They even have difficulty showing loyalty to their own countrymen. During World War II, American journalists understood the meaning of "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Today, many American journalists don't. INCLUDING THE SEATTLE PI.
"Ernie Pyle, we miss you!"
Posted by: michael class | June 28, 2006 at 10:38 AM