Posted on 10/25/2006 5:02:30 AM PDT by IowaHawk
By Byron Calame
New York Times Public Editor
(Page 7 of 7)
ITEM 5: BANKING DATA: OOPSIE
One final note -- the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, even when my constant probing and poking and prodding and questioning invariably turns out to be a monumental waste of time because the work and wisdom has already been purified though layers and layers of The Times' fail-safe editorial charcoal filtering system. But here at The Times, "Qualtiy is Job One," and this means there’s an extra special responsibility for me, as public editor, to acknowledge potentially flawed assessments by myself, on those extra special occasions when I, and my assessments, have raised doubts among myself and I and me.
Such occasion occurred recently. My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish an article on a once-secret government banking-data surveillance program known as SWIFT. The article in question, "Watch Out! BushCo is Sniffing At Your Arrears," appear on page C1 of the June 23 Insurgent Finance magazine section. After pondering this issue for several months, I eventually had a nagging little ethical lighbulb light up that whispered, "hey, whoa there Byron, maybe you and me were just a tad off base with myself and I."
Obviously, then and now, there were many, many reasons to publish the so-called "controversial" article. First, the public has a sacred right to know what their government is up to. This is especially true when this vital information comes straight from unnamed high-ranking current and former State Department sources speaking on strict conditions of deep background anonymity. Second, by all appearances the SWIFT program was a sort of an international financial "speed trap." By putting out an informational "breaker-one-nine" on the front page "CB radio" to tell all them "jihadi gearjammers" to "watch out for CIA smokies at the Brussels off-ramp," The Times article likely helped reduce dangerous terrorist financial speeding along the international information highways. But did we get any credit for this from the Bush administration? Of course not. Instead of promoting highway safety awareness, these sadistic "county mounties" wanted to use their precious SWIFT "radar gun" to entrap unsuspecting financial motorist for a night in the Gitmo County lock-up.
But, now that I've had the chance to think it over for a while, I've started to persuade me that despite these important reasons for disclosure of the program, they were ever-so-slightly outweighed by two factors to which I and myself had possibly given too little emphasis. First, while the surveillance program was potentially at odds with privacy laws in the EU, North Korea and Iran, it turns out that neither I nor The Times legal staff nor myself have been able to find evidence that the surveillance program was technically illegal under United States laws. Yeah, I know, go figure. It surprised the hell out of me too. I guess US banking laws are sort of like the Alabama civil code that lets you marry your twelve year old cousin or something. Unless new incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Alcee Hastings grandfathers in a fix for this glaring loophole, the Adminstration escapes on a technicality.
Calame shows what a dumba** he really is. His comments about the civil code of Alabama allowing you to marry your 13 yr. old cousin shows his total and complete stupidity, and raises the queston of his prejudices towards the South. I hope this dipshi* gets his comeuppance soon, as he really needs a swift kick in his gonads-if he has any that is! Typical NY Times writer, open mouth, insert foot.
You may want to run a search on IowaHawk's other articles, or look at his website.....
It's satire, FRiend. The Alabama comments were meant to highlight the absolute absurdity of the Times' position.
lol....I fell for it too.
For starters, those votes are not yet counted. Second, ever hear of ex post facto?
Escapes? Escapes what?
If it is not illegal, there is nothing to escape.
As for the title, what mistakes is the writer admitting? That the actions of the Government are/were legal?
That was not the biggest mistake.
The biggest mistake is in comparing terrorists' financiers with someone doing 45 in a 35. Chances are the latter won't kill you, but the former are hell bent on it.
Big difference betweeen getting someone to slow down so they don't get a ticket, and helping them redirect the funds they want to use to finance murder--and be free to do it again.
I really have to quit having my Cheerios with Scotch for breakfast....this one blew right past me. I thought the red print at the top of the article was from the author....I was assuming again, which isn't smart to do at times! :0 )
I've had months like that, myself! ;-P
Have a great day!
What ever happened to Chutch?
Sorry, MM, but the Alabama comments were meant to show that the US banking laws are stupid. It was a cheap shot at Bush. This writer isn't apologizing, he's weaseling out of having published confidential information at a time of war.
***Big difference betweeen getting someone to slow down so they don't get a ticket, and helping them redirect the funds they want to use to finance murder--and be free to do it again.***
Absolutely right, Joe.
But… but… our twelve year old cousins are so gorgeous. :-)
Current Dupe-o-meter reading is 4.
Unless I have misread the dubious lineage of this piece, I believe that the author is not the actual NYT editor, but is instead someone doing a satire on the editor's position.
(By the way, if anyone hasn’t seen It’s the Homos, Stupid, drop everything and go there).
I remember that headline! It was a bit out of character for the Times but it must have made the New York Post headline writers' green with envy.
You could be right, MM, about the article not being written by the actual editor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.