THE NEW YORK TIMES IS AGAINST US

Does this have something to do with those nagging guilt feelings that plague New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger?

On May 21, 2006, Sulzberger delivered a "True Confessions" commencement address at the State University of New York at New Paltz.

He apologized to the graduates for failing to pass a liberal utopia on to the next generation and for allowing them to inherit a war.

Text

Apparently, the guy feels some personal responsibility for the dismal state of the world and he's working at rectifying it by crusading against the Bush administration.

What makes Sulzberger's personal battles so dangerous is that as he wages war against the White House, he's undercutting national security and putting all Americans at risk.

Today, The New York Times has done it AGAIN.

Eric Lichtblau and James Risen have given aid and comfort to our enemies by exposing yet another secret counterterrorism program.

In "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror," they write:

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

It's not secret anymore.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

The Times clearly wants to paint the program as a violation of the privacy of Americans. Supposedly, it's another secret and sinister effort to destroy the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens.

It's not.

"The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database."

That hardly seems like some sort of abuse of power by the Bush administration.

What is the point of blowing the lid off of this program other than to do damage to Bush?

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records.

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

"The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."

Who is this "former senior counterterrorism official"? What's the name of this leaker/traitor?

The program is separate from the National Security Agency's efforts to eavesdrop without warrants and collect domestic phone records, operations that have provoked fierce public debate and spurred lawsuits against the government and telecommunications companies.

The Times tosses this paragraph in order to seize the opportunity to reiterate the "domestic spying" lies it's been pushing for months and months.

But all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.

"Exploit"?

"Break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans"?

That has a rather negative connotation, doesn't it?

I'll rewrite the paragraph--

But all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to utilize every technological tool possible to prevent horrors like the hijacking of civilian airliners, the deaths of nearly three thousand innocents, and the disintegration of the World Trade Center. They all reflect attempts to empower the government to effectively combat the efforts of our enemies to attack us again.

That's better.

...Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.

Naturally, they spoke on condition of anonymity.

They did so "because the program remains classified."

OOPS! NOT ANYMORE.

It's on the front page of The New York Times!

Do you think members of al Qaeda and their sympathizers have access to the story?

Gee, I hope not.

Data from the Brussels-based banking consortium, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, has allowed officials from the C.I.A., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies to examine "tens of thousands" of financial transactions, Mr. Levey said.

While many of those transactions have occurred entirely on foreign soil, officials have also been keenly interested in international transfers of money by individuals, businesses, charities and other groups under suspicion inside the United States, officials said. A small fraction of Swift's records involve transactions entirely within this country, but Treasury officials said they were uncertain whether any had been examined.

Overwhelmingly, we're talking about suspicious INTERNATIONAL transfers of money, with only "a small fraction" of transactions occurring entirely domestically.

And here's the real kicker--

...The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.

Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Mr. Levey agreed to discuss the classified operation after the Times editors told him of the newspaper's decision.

On Thursday evening, Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said: "Since immediately following 9/11, the American government has taken every legal measure to prevent another attack on our country. One of the most important tools in the fight against terror is our ability to choke off funds for the terrorists."

She added: "We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. We also know they adapt their methods, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials."

Referring to the disclosure by The New York Times last December of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, she said, "The president is concerned that once again The New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens."

The bottom line: Sulzberger's New York Times is an absolute disgrace.

On November 6, 2001, President Bush said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

It's very clear. The New York Times is against us.