Patterico's Pontifications

7/2/2006

Accepted Wisdom on the Swift Program Disclosures

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:39 pm



(Accepted Wisdom is a semi-regular feature of this site, highlighting contradictory viewpoints held by the elite.)

It is Accepted Wisdom that:

Everyone already knew about the Swift program, including the terrorists. All the details were publicly available. The recent stories revealed nothing that wasn’t already widely known.

And at the same time:

Congress didn’t know about the Swift program. The Swift program was problematic because Congress wasn’t told about it.

UPDATE: Pejman noticed this exact point before I did.

9 Responses to “Accepted Wisdom on the Swift Program Disclosures”

  1. Even the New York Times didn’t know about it until recently. That’s why they published the story now rather than a long time ago.

    LTEC (e35fbf)

  2. I’ve put together a bullet-point list showing every time the words “secret” or “classified” or “really, truly awesomely secret” appear in the story. And as I mention at the end of that post, it occurs to me that Lichtblau and Risen did not appear on the front page by explaining to their editors how un-secret it was.

    Christopher Fotos (f9677b)

  3. We’re told that the disclosure of the program couldn’t have hurt anything, because everybody knew about it already, or should have. Steven Manning called it The false controversy over publication of something everybody already knew (or should have known).

    But if everybody knew about it, how was it that the program actually had documented successes? And if everybody knew about it, why did The New York Times have to rely on anonymous present and former administration sources? Heck, if it was already something about which everybody knew, why print it at all; it’s not news if everybody already knew.

    Well, apparently the European Union didn’t know:

    The European Commission has already said that EU law does not cover the handing over of financial data by Swift. The European Parliament will debate the US action on Monday.

    Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has ordered an investigation into the activities of Swift, which is regulated by the Belgian central bank and is subject to Belgian law.

    The United States came to an agreement with Swift immediately after 9/11. It was this agreement that the New York Times publicised last month, drawing the ire and fury of the White House.

    John Snow, the US treasury secretary, said disclosure of the information was subject to “very significant safeguards”. Swift spokesmen in Brussels said any data surrendered was subject to the strictest controls but they refused to say what these controls were.

    (Thanks to Sister Toldjah.)

    This is great: a news story that’s supposedly huge news — even though everybody knew about it — and now the EU is going to investigate, because they didn’t know about it.

    Dana (1d5902)

  4. Why anyone would buy anything,adverised by any company in the NY Times is beyond me.
    Especially those in New York that may remember 911, hard as that seems to be.
    As the Times sells us out and especially New Yorkers one thought stands out.
    “Coming to your neighborhood soon.”
    I hope other Americans will join the boycot of all
    those that support The TIMES.

    Paul Albers (d7746d)

  5. Why anyone would buy anything,adverised by any company in the NY Times is beyond me.

    Today’s includes Cingular, T-mobile, Land Rover and BMW. Have fun not buying these things.

    actus (6234ee)

  6. Not a problem: T-Mobile was one of the worst offenders in the recent spam-storm through which bloggers had to go, and Cingular wasn’t much better. (My cell is a Nextel™.)

    Dana (3e4784)

  7. “Today’s includes Cingular, T-mobile, Land Rover and BMW. Have fun not buying these things.”

    Not a problem here, either. My BMW will last a few more years.

    sharon (fecb65)

  8. David Frum’s take down on what the terrorists knew and what they didn’t is specific here: David Frum

    The idea that it wasn’t news is funny. If it wasn’t news, why did they publish it?

    The question really rests in the desired audience. The NYT swears that their desired audience is Americans concerned for civil rights (which are demonstrably inviolate in this program), however, Americans are convinced that the audience was the army of jihadis, looking to kill us.

    Consider who the article served, and you have your audience, and that will forever be the NYT’s problem.

    Kathy (c02b80)

  9. […] Patterico has more. Filed in: Loony Left, The Pinocchio Press, GWOT, Intelligence Leaks, Traitors by Kathy at 10:53 on Jul 3rd, 2006 | No Comments » […]

    Hang Right Politics - Archives » The Bin Laden Link… (ab26d8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0885 secs.