Ghost of a flea: Responsible speech

? The Final Countdown | Main | Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals ?

June 29, 2006

Responsible speech

The right hand side of the American blogosphere is up in arms about the most recent leak of details concerning a classified Department of Treasury counter-terrorism program. They are quite right to be outraged. There was almost no public interest in publishing the story while every reason to believe doing so disadvantaged the operation of the program in future. This can only serve to the advantage of people wishing to finance further assymetric warfare against the United States and so many others including all of us north of the border.

I would hope these same right of centre bloggers would be reluctant to reveal details from any possible leak in the current legal action underway against the "Toronto 17" in the Ontario court system. After all, to do so would be in violation of a publication ban imposed on proceedings; a ban opposed by the lawyers representing the alleged plotters of mass murder. While revealing any such details would not be illegal - a Canadian court ordered publication ban has no legal effect in the United States - it would certainly jeopardize the rights of the accused to a fair trial and imperil the Crown's case against the accused. In other words, there is every reason to believe that violating this publication ban would disadvantage the Canadian security services and our criminal justice system in fighting terrorism and by close extension jeopardize the security of the United States.

I may now await the apology that should be forthcoming for the repeated, gleeful violations of the limited, short-term publication ban on last year's Gomery Commission proceedings. Even at the high cost of corruption to the Canadian tax payer, and bizarre and ignorant accusations that the publication ban was a Liberal "cover up," the stakes were much lower than halting mass murder. Fortunately, those leaks do not thusfar appear to have impeded criminal prosecution of those people whose testimony was subject to the publication ban. But an apology for all that irresponsible talk, and pious invocation of the American 1rst Amendment in relation to the Canadian justice system, might lend greater weight to the current charges of "treason" levelled against the New York Times. As it would for charges of hypocrisy against the left-hand side of the American blogosphere for its histrionics over the Valerie Plame leaks. Until an apology is forthcoming, hypocrisy remains evenly distributed across the blogosphere.

I will not hold my breath.

All the classified news that's fit to print Update: Which is not to underestimate the seriousness of the Times' repeated publication of classified information. "It's over," says 9/11 commission co-chairman, Tom Kean: "Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods anymore." Investor's Business Daily puts it succinctly:

Times columnist Frank Rich once whined: "Since 9-11, our government has asked no sacrifice of civilians other than longer waits at airline security."

Well, Messrs.. Rich and Keller, your government asked you to forego your next Pulitzer to protect you, your subscribers and the rest of us. You refused. Walk a few blocks, gentlemen, and see where the World Trade Center used to be. It could have been the Times.

Devil take the hindmost Update: The Wall Street Journal beats a quick retreat as it attempts to distance its editorial decisions from the gross irresponsibility, and probable criminality, of the New York Times.

Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the Administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not. Mr. Keller's argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith. The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia. The first thing an al Qaeda financier would have done when the story broke is check if his bank was part of Swift.

Just as dubious is the defense in a Times editorial this week that "The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals." In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons.

That should be clear enough to understand for even the real thickos. But not, perhaps, for latter day Copperheads or for the descendants of those Canadians who welcomed President Jefferson Davis at the Toronto pier. He was a slave-driver but he was against the United States and that, sadly, is still good enough for too many Canadians.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at June 29, 2006 09:43 AM

Comments

You seem to be out of tune with the new politically correct. I expect that of me but not others. A helpful hint is this: you need not go behind what the mob now says - just please fall in line.

Besides, they are pretty much wrong as is the NYT as well. Canada's Fintrak and its connection to SWITCH were all well know when it was set up after 9/11. We who had to look it up and read its pronouncements to understand our obligations knew there was much new watching. So why now weep when we are only learning that SWITCH is doing what we have all known for years it would be doing?

Posted by: Alan McLeod at June 29, 2006 10:39 AM

On the contrary, the "politically correct" position of too much of the left is that no threat to national security is a problem because the problem is the "fear" leading to calls to make national security a priority. Your party line is in no threat from your argument.

The actual problem, and it is a blindingly obvious and serious problem, with the New York Times (LA Times/Wall Street Journal) article is that it named a specific case in which the program had lead to the detention of a terror cell. The bad guys would surely have known transactions were being monitored even if such had never occured to the magical thinkers of the American left. The difference is that the bad guys now have a specific case to reverse engineer from which they may infer specific things not to do again. In fact, part of the NYT's spurious defense of their decision to publish was the reluctance of Treasury to cite further anecdotal evidence of the program in action. Thank heavens Treasury chose not to otherwise I expect al Qaeda would have yet more material to work with.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at June 29, 2006 12:48 PM

If you are hugging a one track reverse-engineerable security system as the only last hope then the wacked left likely has it just about right. Fortunately, and to the contrary, our counter intellegence is likely as good as our intellegence gathering and this obvious use of SWITCH endangers exactly zippo. The US administrations overly-rouged shock has much more to do with mid-terms than actual security.

Posted by: Alan McLeod at June 29, 2006 04:32 PM

Fortunately, you have no role in our "intellegence" services. Unfortunately, the New York Times has decided it does.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at June 29, 2006 04:33 PM

Sadly, your Flea powers have let you down as you have no idea what is known by whom. You are, however, content with pre-post-post-9/11 thinking and an elementary school teacher's firm hand on the dictionary for comfort so you will be in good or at least plentiful company.

Posted by: Alan McLeod at June 29, 2006 07:29 PM

It is not the dictionary you need but some Windex for your monitor.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at June 29, 2006 07:32 PM

But...but...but...how did you know I have to speak out loud in the voice of Donald Duck as I write on the internet. Uncanny.

Posted by: Alan McLeod at June 29, 2006 07:54 PM

Trust me, it is obvious to everyone.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at June 30, 2006 10:14 AM

You Queen Street clubbers are so clever.

Posted by: Alan McLeod at June 30, 2006 01:19 PM

Keep digging.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at June 30, 2006 08:38 PM

Ghost of a flea

June 29, 2006

Responsible speech

Comments

Post a comment