Hamilton, Murtha, NY Times, and the SWIFT story

[hadrons]

I'm debating with a freeper-type (he's not quite so nutty) and one of the points he keeps bring up why these two also asked the Times not to run the SWIFT story, I know both are Washington insiders and whatever thier reasons are probably aren't for the reasons they publicly said, but can anyone help me as to answer back?

[kentuck]

1. Do you have a link to that story?

I had not heard that or have not read about it?

[hadrons]

3. ooops, no ......

but he has backed up stuff before (he's a freeper-type, but not so out there)

[zulchzulu]

2. Tell him the "secret program" is on the White House web site

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-1.html

An executive order to follow terrorist money was made on Sept. 24, 2001. It also lists the targeted groups. Perhaps the White House is guilty to treason on this issue, since it is giving the enemy information about how they are going after terrorists.

Also, you can read all about the big secret company SWIFT on their web site: www.swift.com.

Wow, all these secrets!

:sarcasm:

[Igel]

4. Two points.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/26/sitroom.03.html has the transcript that says Murtha urged the NYT not to publish. I haven't been able to track down anything else; this has echoed around a bit, but that's all we have. Trying to assign a reason is difficult.

As for the previous posters claim, look at the site s/he linked to. As with most such claims, when I've looked at them the "program" has been detailed in a fuzzy manner. Very fuzzy. Saying "do this" does not entail "this is done". * is not God: when * says, "Let there be light" it's hard to know exactly what happens as a consequence. Is there light? Do people simply laugh and turn out the lights?

One site even refers to SWIFT as an organization through which wire transfers should be tracked. Note the modality: 'should' be. The NYT story changed it from "should be" to "have been, and continue to be." Such things are news.

Both those defending and attacking the WH's behavior employ the same tactics. Plame wasn't 'covert' because she didn't meet some definition, or was behind a desk, or something that makes it ok. No real secret of any importance let out of the bag; meanwhile there's the claim that 100 operatives died as the result of it, and her front organization was a massive enterprise and her personal role was crucial in maintaining world peace for the next millennium or so. It's a ghastly injustice that this bit of secret information was(n't) leaked (sooner).

Eerily in reverse parallel, the SWIFT-monitoring program wasn't a secret, the narrative goes, because something that could be interpreted as alluding to it was known, or it wasn't an absolute secret because others knew about its existence (although the Belgium and British responses aren't what you'd expect); then there's the counter claim that it was single-handedly the most important secret program since the Manhatten Project. It's a ghastly injustice that this bit of secret information was(n't) leaked (sooner).

Bah.