Patterico's Pontifications

6/28/2006

L.A. Times Persistently Fails to Report the Specific Successes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Scum,Terrorism — Patterico @ 6:06 am



Regular readers know that I am utterly outraged by the recent publication by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times of classified details of a successful anti-terror operation.

One of the main reasons that I am so angry at the evisceration of this program is because there is abundant evidence that the program has been quite effective. Unlike the NSA program, the government has pointed to several specific successes of the program. It has helped capture major terrorists and terror facilitators.

Yet if you get your news exclusively from the L.A. Times, you wouldn’t know this. In fact, you’d think the opposite.

Among the program’s greatest successes, as reported by the New York Times, is the capture of the alleged mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing. This is a critical detail about the program. The bombing killed 202 people — more than were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. Catching the mastermind of the operation was an incredibly significant anti-terror victory.

Yet the Los Angeles Times hasn’t even mentioned this significant achievement of the Swift program. If you search for Hambali on the paper’s site, you come up empty; there are a couple of file photos of the man, but no stories that mention him. Since the paper helped expose the Swift program on June 22, no story in the Los Angeles Times has whispered even a word about the program’s most outstanding accomplishment.

The New York Times also reported:

The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said.

This information has never appeared in the L.A. Times.

Despite claims that the terrorists have long since adapted to financial monitoring programs, the Swift program has yielded useful information even in recent times. The Wall Street Journal has reported:

People familiar with the program said, for example, that it yielded useful information on the bombings last July 7 in London.

The L.A. Times hasn’t mentioned this either.

The Washington Post reported that Stuart Levey, undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence,

could confirm that the information [from the Swift program] has been used to “confirm the identity of a major Iraqi terrorist facilitator.”

This information also appeared in the Wall Street Journal article. But this information has been notably absent from the L.A. Times.

As I pointed out the other day, the paper failed to report any specific successes in its initial story on the anti-terror program. As with the NSA story, the article reported only generalized claims of the program’s usefulness, from people like Tony Snow, John Snow, and even some officials not named Snow. Typical of these generalized statements was the claim, attributed to Tony Snow, that the program had “contributed to indictments of would-be terrorists and to investigations of acts of terrorism.” The article offered no specifics — and certainly no major examples like Hambali.

Even the generalized description of the program’s results was downplayed by the L.A. Times. The article quoted Levey, the Treasury undersecretary, as saying that the program had been successful mostly in tracking lower-level operatives.

Worse, the initial L.A. Times article implied that the program had resulted in few real successes, if any. The paper claimed that officials “declined to provide even anecdotal evidence of its successes,” and quoted 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton as saying: “I still cannot point to specific successes of our efforts here on terrorist financing.” The clear implication was that the generalized claims by Snow, et al., were mere puffery.

Now, it is true that, for a day, the paper had the (rather flimsy) excuse of ignorance. We know, thanks to Hugh Hewitt’s interview of Doyle McManus, that McManus first learned that the program had resulted in the capture of Hambali when McManus read it in the New York Times.

So for whatever reason, the L.A. Times‘s anonymous sources had not been terribly forthcoming about (or perhaps sufficiently knowledgeable about the program to provide) specific anecdotal evidence of the program’s accomplishments. (Incidentally, the paper’s lack of complete information on the program’s successes was a good reason for the paper not to arrogantly substitute its judgment for that of those elected to make such decisions.)

But that excuse worked only for a day. The articles I cite above from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post all came out on June 23, the same day that the first L.A. Times article was published.

Any subsequent articles on the program in The Times should have reported these specific and important instances of the program’s achievements, so that the paper’s readers could make an intelligent determination as to whether the privacy concerns (if any) were a risk worth running.

But you know the rest of the story. This didn’t happen. When the next story came, on June 24, the paper again failed to mention any specific successes of the program, as had been reported by the nation’s other key newspapers.

A June 26 story about Peter King’s call for prosecuting newspaper reporters contained no specific examples of the program’s success. Same for another similar story from the same day — a story relaying President Bush’s denunciation of the newspaper disclosures as “disgraceful.”

Yesterday, the newspaper fleshed out Bush’s complaints in a more detailed story. Still, there was no description of the program’s achievements, such as the capture of Hambali; the identification of a major Iraqi terror facilitator; the conviction of a Brooklyn man who helped launder money for an Al Qaeda operative in Pakistan; the obtaining of information about the London terror attacks; or anything else.

Worst of all, in editor Dean Baquet’s piece yesterday justifying the paper’s decision to publish, he makes explicit what was only implied in the original June 23 article: the assertion that the program really doesn’t do that much to combat terror. Baquet said:

Nor did the government give us any strong evidence that the information would thwart true terrorism inquiries. In fact, a close read of the article shows that some in the government believe that the program is ineffective in fighting terrorism.

This is, quite simply, enraging. Today it is June 28. The story has been public for almost a week. Yet the paper still hasn’t reported any of the program’s numerous specific achievements — uniquely among the nation’s premier newspapers. Some or all of these successes have been reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. But not one has graced the pages of the L.A. Times. Not one.

And Dean Baquet has the utter gall to suggest that the program is ineffective?

If you think you can’t get any angrier, go to the Times blog, Opinion L.A., and look through the congratulatory comments to the post seeking reaction to Baquet’s piece. The very first one says:

I for one am glad the Times ran this story. I believe that nothing the Bush Administration is doing is protecting us.

There are plenty more like it, all written by people who have no idea what the Swift program did for this country — because the L.A. Times hasn’t bothered to tell them.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you are getting all your news from the L.A. Times, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you still think the New York Times is the most culpable paper on this story?

19 Responses to “L.A. Times Persistently Fails to Report the Specific Successes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program”

  1. If LATs wants to creat some news and if the LATs thinks they have “courage” put the Muhammad cartoons on the front page.

    Perfect Sense (024110)

  2. Patterico, isn’t it your contention that the stories damaged our security by warning terrorists of an effective program? If so, it was the leaks of program successes that were damaging, leaks of program failures are harmless as they give terrorists a false feeling of security.

    James B. Shearer (783070)

  3. Do you wanna say that LAT is not in a mood to cover the good stories or do you wanna say that they are not properly doing their work?

    I think you are wrong they have their own style of working and they will do in that manner only!

    Jane (24ec5a)

  4. Adding Insult To Injury…

    It’s bad enough that the press can’t seem to restrain itself from publishing classified information. They compound it when they refuse to report a balanced view of programs they’ve exposed, allowing readers to misinterpret the impact of their decisi…

    Riehl World View (72c8fd)

  5. JBS, I would not assume that the terrorists are as idiotic as the remaining readership of the LAT.

    Bostonian (a37519)

  6. If so, it was the leaks of program successes that were damaging, leaks of program failures are harmless as they give terrorists a false feeling of security.

    So first it’s okay if they splash out classified info–you know, as long as they didn’t intend to break the law because they consider themselves above it–because it’s important for people to know the truth, and now it’s okay if they *lie*?

    Again with the cake that will still be there when you’ve eaten it. Enjoy.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  7. MSM Circling Its Wagons Over SWIFT Expose — Congress Drafting Condemnation Resolution…

    Well, it’s a start — according to reports in this AM’s The Hill:

    House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking re…

    OKIE on the LAM - In LA (e2cef7)

  8. The implication of this post is the LAT is not reporting how effective the program was because the purpose of their publishing the story was to hurt Bush. If they give an indication of the program’s success it makes the LAT look bad, not Bush.

    Fortunately, we live in a new world with many channels for information to flow to consumers, so the LAT can not pull off its implied intent.

    I suppose another implication of this post is the LAT is not acting as a journalistic newspaper, but as a political mechanism. It therefore should not be recognized as, or afforded the privileges of, a source of journalism. It is meerly an appendage of a political organization and/or political point of view.

    The LAT is just like a Kos or DU but made from pigmented liquid sprayed on cellulose pulp, hauled by petrolium burning vehicles and ultimately pulverized or dumped in a landfill.

    shorse (b52440)

  9. outraged by the recent publication by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times

    But you’re not outraged by the Wall Street Journal, who ran virtually the same story?

    Right, because they have John Fund running the editorial page.

    [I am getting impatient with people who don’t read the blog regularly coming in here and making snarky hit-and-run comments like this. I have explained in a post from the past week why the WSJ is different. Read that post. There is a distinction, and I won’t explain it again and again because I already explained it. — P]

    SteveAudio (6e4aba)

  10. They sound like people too dumb to get into law school or too unethical to practice as a real attorney.

    Patricia (5b7822)

  11. SteveA,
    Patterico has already said it, but my understanding is that the WSJ ran this only because they knew the NYT and LAT were running it. If this were not true, I’d be ready to tar & feather them along with Keller & his fellow fifth columnists.

    That said, I don’t care much for the WSJ either, and they’re missing the story: the NYT’s war against our elected government.

    Bostonian (1966cb)

  12. Patterico,

    What evidence exists the program has been or is being “eviscerated?”

    A civil rights group in Europe is threatening some legal action, but that’s pro forma. You mean potential evisceration? Kindly make the case, as there seems to be enough fear-mongering and gilding.

    EVERYONE knows that calls are being tapped, emails surveilled, financial transactions surveilled, persons are being followed and surveilled, satellites and technology are being used, files are being kept, infiltrations of groups are being attempted.

    The only thing that these stories are “revealing” is that all of the foregoing are being done with little or no Congressional and Judicial oversight and possibly in violation of laws and of the Constitution.

    When we have an Executive Branch so incompetent as to lose millions of veteran’s personal data and staffed at the highest levels with people who DO out the names of CIA operatives and who go on crime sprees with Target reciepts and who are able to “lose” 9 billion dollars in Iraq over just a few months — those kind of people NEED oversight and our Constitution and laws were set up to require oversight even from much more competent and trustworthy individuals.

    It’s ridiculous to talk about attacking freedom of the press because they disclose that another aspect of surveillance has been continuing unsupervised – using only administrative subpoeanas – for almost five years.

    Ed (2f56d2)

  13. Ed,

    Your comment was “done with little or no Congressional and Judicial oversight and possibly in violation of laws and of the Constitution.”

    There’s no evidence of that. But hey, who needs that? Right?

    I have just published a post that addresses the tired “they already knew” argument, so often repeated here. Check the top of the page, or click here.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  14. those kind of people NEED oversight and our Constitution and laws were set up to require oversight even from more competent and trustworthy individuals

    He couldn’t possibly be so naive as to think that journalists and editors at the NYT’s or the LAT’s are those “more competent and trustworthy individuals” could he?

    Michael (4793d1)

  15. Osama BL – Ramadan gift list

    “And for all my al-Quaeda lieutenants, I’d like to give subscriptions to the NY Times.”

    Marty Johnson (e965d1)

  16. Dots are Pesky Critters…

    A devastating new video by Michelle Malkin, at Hot Air, zings the New York Times, and she has more, including about planned protests. In other news, as she also points out: The House resolution condemning the tattlers passed 227-183, and…

    Sneakeasy's Joint (72c8fd)

  17. We should start a boycott of both the NYT and the LA Times and their largest advertisers. I generally do not like boycotts, but the treasonous acts of these two papers leave no other choice. They do not deserve to be in business in the USA. Let them move to the Middle East. When does the boycott start?

    Peter (c2a921)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0888 secs.