I know I’m a little late on this, but while driving over the weekend I had some time to ruminate over the latest covert intelligence gathering revelation. I know a lot of ink has been spilled over this already, but here are a few thoughts, which as far as I know are original since I haven’t yet had a chance to read much other commentary on the issue since I got back.
While I can understand (though I don’t sympathize with) legality and privacy concerns regarding the previously disclosed NSA wiretapping/surveillance programs, I’m struggling to understand what possible rationale the editors of the New York Times have for revealing the existence of a highly sensitive and by all accounts extremely valuable national intelligence asset (whose legality apparently has yet to be seriously questioned) when they were fully aware that merely revealing its existence would effectively shut it down. I can’t fathom how the editors can rationalize such a reckless, irresponsible course of action.
Although the SWIFT system is apparently the most convenient method to transfer large sums of money it is far from the only available method. The terrorists are not stupid—if the choice is between going out of their way to transfer funds anonymously and being captured or killed it’s pretty obvious which choice they will make. Although we may never know, it seems likely that the number of serious leads generated by the program dried up within hours of the story’s publication.
The willingness of the US press to act as an intelligence agency for our avowed enemies is beyond belief. Here’s a thought experiment: Although in reality its existence was not known outside the intelligence community until the 1970s, suppose that in early 1944 the New York Times had somehow learned of the existence of the most highly classified allied intelligence operation of the war, code-named ULTRA. ULTRA was an astonishingly large-scale signals intelligence program, using the most state-of-the-art electronics equipment of the time to give the British and Americans the ability to decipher the German Reich’s supposedly unbreakable Enigma cipher system. ULTRA’s contribution to the war effort is incalculable Many historians believe it may have been crucial to the success of the Battle of Britain, the U-boat war, and the D-Day invasion. Whether or not ULTRA ultimately determined the course of the war, it’s clear that without it the additional human cost for the Allies would surely have been grim.
Now, suppose that the NYT’s knowledge of the details of ULTRA was limited to little more than the fact of its existence. Nevertheless, the value of such a program would likely have been quite clear to all involved, as would have been the effect of publicizing ULTRA’s existence. Does anyone suppose for a moment that the NYT of 1944 would have gone forward with such a story? If they had dared to do so what would have been the government’s (and the public’s) response? Undoubtedly the editors responsible would have been indicted for providing aid to the enemy (or worse). Other than the veneer of supposed privacy concerns (which seem to be ill-founded anyway), what makes this situation any different?
Do not be deceived: in the “War on Terror” intelligence and information are every bit as valuable weapons as Special Forces, Predator UAVs, or GPS-guided bombs. By exposing irreplaceable sources and methods of intelligence gathering the New York Times and its cronies are providing invaluable intelligence to the enemy—not just al-Qaeda, but the whole host of other enemies as well, including North Korea and Iran. The world is still a dangerous place. What would we have done about this back in 1944? What are we going to do about it today?
UPDATE: Michael Barone has an excellent article on the story. I wasn’t aware that the program has been responsible for several major intelligence breakthroughs already:
As the Times reporters admit, it helped to locate the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing in Thailand and a Brooklyn man convicted on charges of laundering a $200,000 payment to al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan.
It also appears that the information for the Times’ piece came from “nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives.” Who these sources are and whether they and and the Times should be held responsible under provisions of the Espionage Act looks likely to be the next battleground between the Bush administration and the MSM.
