We Explain, You React
June 27, 2006 | 9:13
am
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?
It is very sad that civilians are killed in the latest Middle East explosion but its the terrorists that are to blame not the democratic states such as Lebanon and Israel. We need to root these guys out so they do not ruin our civilisation. The only way is to be tough and ruthless - not by having a nice round table discussion in the United Nations.
Posted by: Greg Louis | July 16, 2006 at 09:09 PM
Your paper and others ran the SWIFT story, and it is noteable that the NY Times gets hammered, while The WSJ is a hero. Makes one wonder why politics has to have an enemy to survive in this ever changing world.
Posted by: Don C. Adkins | July 16, 2006 at 06:55 AM
Looking at this for the first time, I find the comments just as I expected from the better known pundits. At least look at some facts before you make the same mistakes, or should I say errors?
Posted by: Don C. Adkins | July 16, 2006 at 06:26 AM
And now comes word that the Belgium government has canceled the SWIFT program as a result of the La Times and New York Times leaks. Do you still feel " . . . that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the potential cost to counterterrorism efforts"? Unbelievable.
Posted by: Annine Madok | June 28, 2006 at 04:52 PM
The New York Times frankly admitted that it knew the information was classified at the time it was receiving it from its governmental and non-governmental informants. Does the Los Angeles Times likewise admit that it knew that it was acquiring classified information?
Posted by: nk | June 28, 2006 at 04:34 PM
A big thanks to the LA Times for having the courage to publish this article. It's always important to weigh national security interests when divulging information, but in this case the Times made the right decision. And Baquet's response was wonderful.
Posted by: Jill | June 28, 2006 at 03:26 AM
While I wish I could write something profound, the only image that comes to mind is a Porky Pig cartoon. In the cartoon Injun Joe held the entire United States of America hostage, he a lone man had the whole nation quaking with fear. At this time in our history we have become that nation, quaking with fear over a few thousand fanatics.
We a nation of almost three hundred million people are more than willing to surrender those liberties for which millions of our fellow americans have fought and died. Why because Injun Joe, excuse me Al queda might be lurking to attack. So what they do not have the power to conquer our nation, but we do have the power to surrender our freedoms. The power of a free press is far more valuable to our survival than some program government program of questionable effectiveness.
Posted by: Kenneth Elliott | June 28, 2006 at 12:13 AM
The biggest lie of the 1990's:
I served my time honorably in the Texas National Guard.
G.W. Bush
The biggest lies of the 2000's:
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and is an immediate threat to the United States."
"Iraq will welcome us with open arms."
"The war will pay for itself."
G.W. Bush
Posted by: James E. Atkinson, US Navy - retired | June 27, 2006 at 10:37 PM
Would you have published a week before D-Day that the US was planning on invading France because the public had a right to know? I just know that your paper will be first in line to point out any shortcoming of the government if there is a future terrorist attack. But thank you for making my decision to cancel my subscription so much easier. I will not buy a paper that gives assistance to the people who want to kill me and my family.
Posted by: greg mack | June 27, 2006 at 10:31 PM
Shame on the radical leftwing socialist LA Times. You are traitors to the United States. You gave aide and benefit and comfort to our enemies. You should be prosecuted and put in prison.
Posted by: Jim Noll | June 27, 2006 at 10:03 PM
"This administration has done nothing to make us more secure."
This is the attitude of the writers who support your publishing the bank story. Another speaks of "rag tag" terrorist groups. They are raising hundreds of millions around the world to support this Islamic war on the west. The Times has chosen to stand with the Islamists. I dropped my subscription some time ago and, from the tone of the letters here, your subscription base appears to be the Bush hating left. You are playing to that reader. The others have left or are leaving. I hope that the DoJ goes after the leakers with at least as much vigor as the ridiculous prosecution of the Plame non-story. Then you can decide what to tell a grand jury.
Posted by: Michael Kennedy | June 27, 2006 at 09:53 PM
There are hundreds and hundreds of papers in this country, yet only a few felt such a driven obligation to inform the public. Almost like your need to inform us of Arnold's so called past right before the election. Show me a government program, any government program where we have a victim of that program. If someone in the government is going to leak confidential information and refuses to state their name for the record then papers should not be allowed to write the story. I put my name on the top of this and I want to know all of these government sources you refuse to identify. Do not government employees take an oath of loyalty? Shame on you for letting them violate it. They should be prosecuted and you should be prosecuted for treason. I will never ever buy your paper again!
Posted by: John D. Holloway Sr | June 27, 2006 at 08:07 PM
It's been the law for years that any bank transaction of over $10,000 has to be reported to the IRS. And now you fret about the government watching international monetary movements in search of terror funds? Give me a break.
Posted by: Gordon Forbess | June 27, 2006 at 07:54 PM
This is just another invasion of privacy. The police state is coming. They want to know everything about you but we are allowed to know nothing about what "OUR" government is doing. Republicans be careful of what you wish for, it may come true.
Posted by: John Davis | June 27, 2006 at 07:30 PM
There was no reason to publish this story. Your burning dislike of the President has clouded your judgement and that of the other Times. It makes me very sad that you would do anything to sell a few papers.
Posted by: John Ferebee | June 27, 2006 at 06:38 PM
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!! It's about time the press in this country stood up to be counted with everything that is right about the system of democracy under which we are supposed to be operating. Personally I believe that had the media not rolled over and submitted to the blindfold that this administration has been trying to pull over the eyes of the American people since 9/11 we wouldn't be involved in this "war" in the first place. None of it has been worth a single life. Believe what you like about Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist cell you can name; attacks on Americans and all western democracies have been going on for decades and will continue for many decades more and none of the secrecy named as an excuse for the chipping away of our freedoms will make even a dent in the problem. Our only hope is that the country will wake up in '08 and elect a president that will deal with the root causes or terrorism - poverty, oil, and the influence of politics, the military and the wealthy both in the US and in the middle east. Wish us luck - we need it!
Posted by: Angie S | June 27, 2006 at 06:00 PM
Dear Editor, I am concerned about the erosion of individual liberties that would invariably include fair reporting. I feel that in the culture of fear that permeates America today that it has becomes easier to melt our civil liberties away while using the threat of terror to exercise plans that we are completely unaware of. Fear is a destructive force that clouds judgment and we should direct some of our attention to overcoming this psychological impedance that is crippling us where we see the boogeyman in every shadow.
Where are the WMD's anyway?
Posted by: phillip vasels | June 27, 2006 at 05:26 PM
Bush is disingenious. Does he really think that terrorist don't think we are trying to follow the money trail? C'mon, the story didn't reveal who, what, when or where. Besides, Al-Queda uses the hawala system to transfer most of their funds and it's not wired into the international banking system. Bin Laden must laughing at us. Almost half a decade now Mr. Bush since you elevated him to Mythic Legend by letting him slip through your fingers at Tora Bora.
Posted by: Sean Hand | June 27, 2006 at 04:50 PM
I cancelled my LA Times subscription a while back because I felt there was an editorial bias in the LA Times. I bought the newspaper on Friday expecting to read about the Sears Tower story. Imagine my surprize when this story was buried in the newspaper and the LA Times led with the Bank Story. I thought of sending you a letter Friday.
Then I learned that the Bank Story comprimised National Security. What a disgrace. You guys just don't get it. I find you're argument about free press, etc to be a crock. It's about your bias.
Since I live in LA I'll continue to access your newspaper on-line for free, but I will not subscribe and now I won't even pick it up off a news stand.
Posted by: John Haberkorn | June 27, 2006 at 04:35 PM
There is a blog written by LAZ on June 27, 2006 at 2:48pm, which pretty much summarizes and closes on this issue. The Bush administration had already disclose this program. It was the first thing they told us they did after 9/11, so why are people so upset about this story. The government has complete and upmost information on everything we do. The phone companies, such as AT&T, even admitted that all phone calls through their network is their property and they can share any information with the government as they please. I'm sure it's the same situation with the banks. After all, who regulates the banks? The questions we must ask ourselves is not so much how far the media can go, but how far can the government go. How much control can they have? And what happened to our privacy, do we no longer have one..not even the illusion. I have nothing to hide either, but if I sharply opposed this government and rose as an influential leader, the government could create any story it wanted with the information they have and bring me down. Do you not wonder why there are no leaders in the US? For how long can this continue, there appears to be no end in sight. This fighting among each other, Republicans and Democrats, Red and Blue states, is simply getting exhausting. Will we ever be the United States again?
Posted by: Xiomara Cruz | June 27, 2006 at 04:23 PM
Thank you to the Times for its reporting.
It is sad to read that individuals continue to blindly believe that the government will always do what's best for the people.
This administration has done nothing to make us more secure.
Posted by: Edward | June 27, 2006 at 04:23 PM
It amazes me that so many people are so willing to fight and die in foreign countries (or to send others like me to do the same) to "spread democracy", while at the same time we are so readily giving up our freedoms here at home.
Those of you who attack the press with vitriol in defense of your shepard, don't be surprised when he treats you like sheep--you will deserve it for not preserving our role (the people) in government.
Posted by: Ronald Faulseit | June 27, 2006 at 04:18 PM
I appreciate Mr. Baquet's good will that the information is vital for my civil liberties, however, I don't feel that they are threatend by the international tracking of banking. The program is legal, we are at war, and I think the only people benefitting from the article is the enemy.
Posted by: Garrett Boylan | June 27, 2006 at 04:17 PM
Hi,
congratulations for running this site and giving readers a greater sense of who thinks what on issues of the day.
put here not to flatter y'understand. Tis important to many who in an age and media of targeted to the 'self' or isolate news consumer that groupthink not become overbearing
Posted by: roman eos | June 27, 2006 at 04:14 PM
I'm glad the LA Times ran the article.
If this country is to remain a democracy, ruled by the people, then the people must be informed so that they can make informed decisions.
It has become increasingly apparent that the Bush administration does not believe in informing the people. In such times we can only hope that the press continues to keep us informed, and provide us with the chance to keep democracy alive.
Posted by: Todd McCaffrey | June 27, 2006 at 04:14 PM