We Explain, You React
In today's Times, Editor Dean Baquet wrote a column on "Why we ran the bank story." We'll have a more extensive post later rounding up public reactions, but for now we want to ask you -- what did you think of Baquet's column, and of the Times' decision to publish the controversial article on the secret government program to monitor international financial transactions?
I for one am glad the Times ran this story. I believe that nothing the Bush Administration is doing is protecting us. On the contrary, their illegal actions (Abu Grahab, Guantanamo, IMD's, etc.) only have hurt us more as a country.
Posted by: George Zepeda | June 27, 2006 at 09:50 AM
Thanks for doing the job that is "assigned" to you. Publishing the story was appropriate--even vital. (I read LATimes on line, from Central Oregon.)
Posted by: Marian K. Woodall | June 27, 2006 at 10:05 AM
I am very disturbed with the Republican response of attacking the press in light of this story. It has the feeling of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers all over again. Every Republican in Washington should be given a copy of the Constitution and be required to recite out loud what the first amendment is. The press did their job, and it was a tough decision they had to make. If only our leaders in Washington knew how to do their job. It would help if they knew what principles they were elected to support and defend. It really is sad that my 6-year-old son knows the first amendment and some of these politicians don't seem to have a clue as to what that is.
Posted by: Chey | June 27, 2006 at 10:11 AM
I think the times should keep it up .Come nov. they will be asking themselves again why do we keep losing elections.Firts time reader from Augusta GA. THe best city in the south.
Posted by: Brian Newman Smith | June 27, 2006 at 10:16 AM
You were right to publish this story. Sometimes politicians forget that this is a government of, by and for the people. And while it's sometimes necessary to abstain from publishing a story to protect someone's life (like, perhaps, a CIA agent) it is never not the Peoples' business to know what our government is doing in our name.
Posted by: John | June 27, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Osama Bin Ladin has promised a long war against the west on many fronts. Reading the previous messages I am reminded that leftists do not yet believe what Osama says. I hope they are right but I would like to see the evidence that sustains their belief. I suspect that if they were forced to state clearly why, they would say merely that they hate Bush. I am a reformed Democrat and I believe both Osama Bin Ladin and President Bush. I support what Bush has done since September 11. When Clinton walked away from Somalia Bin Ladin crowed that America has no heart for a struggle with Islam. He was right about only the liberal percentage. Bush is in the tradition of Democrats FDR, Truman and Kennedy.
Posted by: mhr | June 27, 2006 at 10:40 AM
No way the Times runs such a story with a Dem in the White House. The big papers, the old media and the Dems ar ein lock step against Bush,the war and conservatives in general. In the bizarro world of the Left, such a harmful story counts as a "victory." Disgusting. The Times is quickly becoming CBS-preaching only to the choir of like-minded anti-military and Bush-hating Lewfties. Congratulations.
Posted by: John | June 27, 2006 at 10:41 AM
I fully support your publication of the article which shows another way that this administration is trampling the civil liberties guaranteed to all of us by the Founding Fathers. This intensely secretive administration continues to do things that cannot stand the light of day. It is mandatory that your fine publication continue to act responsibly and report what you find in this area.
Posted by: John Kreutzberger | June 27, 2006 at 10:45 AM
I've been writing for newspapers for forty-fives years. One thing I've learned. Sometimes you have to publish what you think is right, regardless of the consequences. You did. For that, lauds.
Posted by: Larry Peery | June 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Only one question, does Mr. Baquet have any children serving in the military or in the frontlines of the terror war? I don't know the answer to that question, but I can't help feeling that his decision to run the story, especially during a time of war in our nation, has simply undermined our efforts to defeat this enemy across many frontiers...not just in the dirt of a battlefield...and added to the risk our military and others already face in this conflict. Shame on you sir for putting your personal selfish agenda ahead of the greater national interest and especially before the welfare of our military in a time of war.
Posted by: Peter Henson | June 27, 2006 at 10:59 AM
After reading Mr. Baquet's column, I was glad to see that there were a number of readers, not reflected on this board, that criticized the publication of the SWIFT bank story. I agree that a free press is necessary to keep a check on government, and I will take Mr. Baquet at his word that he seriously considered the implications of publication, but I still have a number of questions: 1)Mr Baquet says "[n]or did the government give us any strong evidence that the information would thwart true terrorism inquiries." I would hope they would not, in that there are legitimate reasons for keeping specific details of ongoing investigations secret. Given that, I see a tremendous amount of arrogance in that publication rational. 2) How do you distinguish the Valerie Plame affair, with which this paper expressed outrage for a "leak" of classified information, with this paper's "leak" of classified information? And finally, explain to us how this paper can feel they are not participating in an illegal and potentially treasonous act by leaking classified information, when clearly their source is guilty of such an offense? Please tell us, where would you draw the line?
Posted by: Annine Madok | June 27, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Let me understand the Times explanation correctly. Tracking finances between suspicious parties that seek to kill innocent people is secondary to informing the average Joe that such a program exists? The FBI routinely tracks credit card and atm transactions of escaped felons. Perhaps the Times could start a public awareness program to alert fleeing fugitives not to use these trackable instruments as they may result in getting caught. I am not a fan of the Bush administration, nor do I support the quagmire that the war in Iraq has become. However, yanking the teeth out of one of the very few logical solutions that could have prevented more terrorism is absolutely reckless. What will the Times response be if a few thousand more Americans die in a new wave of terrorist attacks that could have been prevented by this program?
Posted by: Dave Fain | June 27, 2006 at 11:13 AM
What should our Government do about terrorist on our soil, go door to door asking if they know bin laden? I think the press is getting out of control on what they think we need to know or first ammendment rights.
What's next we need to know movement of our troops in Iraq? We are at war please act accordingly.
Mark
Posted by: Mark | June 27, 2006 at 11:30 AM
It is about time that the government got on top of world-wide money laundering, not only that used for the benefit of terrorists, but also that conducted by banks and other financial institutions in behalf of numerous criminal endeavors and massive tax avoidance schemes. It also would be helpful if the Press supported such endeavors instead of assuming that criminals and their associates in the legal and financial world should have absolute rights to "privacy."
Posted by: Daniel Eliason | June 27, 2006 at 11:31 AM
The Bush Administration is so incompetent at fighting terrorism that it has to shift the blame somewhere, so what better target than a newspaper? Vice President Agnew was a master at this and rallied the red-meat brigades for years until he was caught taking bribes. People that fall for this demagoguery will be similarly surprised to find how much many billions was stolen from them under the cover of patriotism.
Posted by: timotheus | June 27, 2006 at 11:35 AM
It is interesting to note that many who attack both the LA and NY Times' decisions to run this story thought it entirely appropriate for journalists (most notably Judith Miller of the NYTimes) to cheerlead the administration's fight against terror in part by granting anonymity to administration officials praising their own programs. One must wonder whether we are 'safer' from terrorism due to this administration's self-congratulatory remarks that have been echoed by the media (the 'MSM' no less) as if they were news.
It seems, in fact, that any time actual anti-terror programs employed by our government are revealed, there loom questions of legality and constitutionality. Many eventually prove unpopular, if not highly controversial. For some time, the American public has been told that this administration is strong on defense and should be trusted to 'handle' the terrorist threat. If we are to continue trusting them (something that many Americans are no longer doing,) we should be entitled to know what this administration is doing in the war on terror, rather than being blandly assured that they are doing it better than anyone else could.
Not every piece of classified information relating to war and national security has the possibility of undermining our defenses or aiding our enemies. Making such a claim only works to undermine our democracy.
Posted by: Gabriel Mares | June 27, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Good for the LA Times for having the courage to do their job, and further to have the courage to stand behind the decision in the face of orchestrated attack for doing so.As it has always been, we most deserve our freedoms when we have to risk things in order to keep them. When our institutions lose their courage, America forgets its mission and confuses power with justice, ideology with righteousness and tyrany with freedom.
Posted by: James Hathaway | June 27, 2006 at 11:50 AM
The huge and constant erosion of civil liberties and civil protections in the name of the battle against terrorism is strongly reminiscent of George Orwell's novel 1984 where the country in its constant war suppresses all civil liberties. At what point does the U.S. slip into an industrial-military dictatorship?
I applaud Bacquet for his decision and hope that First Amendment rights continue.
Posted by: URBAN TORRES | June 27, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Excellent reporting! This has nothing to do with "winning elections" or similar drivel. Rather this is vital information about how our "shadow government" often hides its ineffective excesses under the cloak of "national security". The emperor truely wears no clothes and the Times has continued to emphasize the obvious. Good work!
Posted by: Liberty and Justice for All | June 27, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Biggest lie of the 90's:
"I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski"
---Bill Clinton
Biggest Lie of the 2000's
"We are not out to get the president."
---LA Times
Posted by: Ron Kraus | June 27, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Your reasons for publishing the story are as specious as your arguments defending yourself for doing so. With your rationale, I have no doubt that if some disgruntled quisling would have told you that we had broken the German or Japanese code during WWII, you could have justified putting it on page 1 of your newspaper.
Posted by: Paul Determan | June 27, 2006 at 12:38 PM
the bush administration has repeatedly argued that it needs to continue doing what it gets caught doing in secret because it works. "the end justifies the means." that is a simplistic and dangerous premise. why don't police officers simply round up and shoot all prime suspects as soon as they apprehend them? many of these people probably are the right targets, the "bad guys," and their summary execution will reduce crime, both by killing the suspects in question and possibly also by deterring others from engaging in similar criminal conduct. there is the small matter of the presumption of innocence, but why worry about that if shooting the prime suspects works? it seems fundamental to me that if we want to remain a democracy and not become a totalitarian regime, the people should be entitled, at a minimum, to fundamental safeguards and protections, such as the presumption of innocence, the right of privacy, freedom of speech and a free press, the people's right to know what their government is doing, and three separate, balanced, co-equal branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial). freedom has always come at a price, but "we the people" have been willing to pay the price for freedom. i don't remember us agreeing to pay our freedom as the price for greater security. i always thought the dictators were the ones saying, "i know what's best for you. you don't need to know what i'm doing. what i'm doing is working, therefore it's best for you. if it weren't, i would tell you. trust me."
i don't.
Posted by: john patton | June 27, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Those who support what the Times did fail to acknowledge that everything Al Queda knows about our tactics and strategy gives our enemies an advantage. The 9/11 commission's bi-partisan chairmen begged them not to reveal this information. Rep. Murtha - MURTHA - begged them not to reveal this information. Yet, they still revealed it.
Where do we draw the line? Does the public have the "need" to know ICBM launch codes? How about the vulnerabilities of nuclear weapons plant security? Perhaps the public has a right to know the approach direction and altitude of Air Force One. Oh, wait, that'll never be revealed. Reporters fly on AF One, and they're not suicidal.... just negligently homicidal.
Posted by: Robert CJ Parry | June 27, 2006 at 01:01 PM
I was glad the Times had the courage to publish this information,
I work in europe a few months a year and increasingly, many of my clients are now assuming the US government is listening to everything every where, and that this the end of privacy in America ... they feel sad for us and they are finding all kinds of ways to fly into america less often now ... makes doing business there more difficult ... reminds too many people in europe of the war years with germany ... Jessica Britt
Posted by: Jessica Britt | June 27, 2006 at 01:07 PM
I believe in a free press. However, the older I get, the more I realize that the press seems to function as though they were the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in this country. There does not readily appear to be any restraint by the press. We, the people, are expected to believe that the press is operating at all times in absolute good faith, while being told by the press reports that the government does not.
Posted by: James Allen | June 27, 2006 at 01:22 PM