'The New York Times' Has Declared War On America; It's About Time We Declare War On The 'Times'

By: Herb Denenberg - The Advocate, Special To The Evening Bulletin
07/07/2006

The New York Times has, in effect, declared war on America. It has been getting away with its anti-American positions, but now it has gone too far. It is about time every citizen recognizes that the Times is an enemy, as dangerous as al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or other terrorists.
There's only one thing more outrageous and stupid than The New York Times' recent betrayal of national security secrets and its performance as a serial betrayer of those secrets (the Times has established its journalistic treason-of-the-month record for all to witness). The one thing more outrageous and stupid than its treason is the justification for committing it offered by its editors and reporters.
For example, the Times reported the terrorists already knew about the methods of tracking international financial transactions, and no harm was done by the disclosure. That's outrageous and stupid on many counts. First, if everyone knew about the U.S.'s use of the Swift program (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) of tracking international financial transactions, why was this front-page news? Second, if all the terrorists knew about Swift, why has the system succeeded in nailing terrorists such as the infamous Bali bomber, Hambali, and Uzair Paracha who was convicted of terrorism-related charges in New York? Third, how does The New York Times know what all terrorists the world over know? The recent arrests in Atlanta and Canada of terrorists who can't shoot straight demonstrates that terrorists come in all varieties of sophistication, and it is absurd beyond all reason to assume that all of them know of the intricacies of international financial transactions. If all terrorists knew about Swift, why does even The New York Times in its story admit that "few government officials knew much about the consortium [i.e. Swift]" when it was called to their attention by a Wall Street executive and only later discovered "it offered unparalleled access to international transactions." Presumably all the experts in the Treasury Department, CIA, FBI and elsewhere in government were better informed than the terrorists but they were not conversant with Swift by the Times' own admission. Fourth, if America's use of Swift was something all terrorists already new about, why does the Times describes it as "the secret Bush administration program." Fifth, if this was such an inconsequential revelation, why did people like former Governor Tom Kean of New Jersey (R) and former Democratic House leader Lee Herbert Hamilton, the chairman and vice chairman respectively of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks on the United States, both ask The New York Times not to publish the story, along with Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)?
The Times' reasoning is wrong on many counts, including one less often mentioned than the damage that comes from educating terrorists on how to elude detection. That neglected point is that if America shows the world it can't keep secrets and that national security secrets end up on the front page of The New York Times, why would any nation or person be willing to share confidential information with the U.S? What national security secrets will the Times disclose next time around and what will be the consequence of that disclosure?