While I mentioned that several of my conservative blogger friends are incorrectly accusing the Two-Times-ers of treason, a specific crime that they are not guilty of, I have perhaps not addressed the left’s defense of the LA and NY Times well enough. I don’t intend that to be the impact of my comments on the issue.

The left seems to think that its reasonable to believe the terrorists knew about the SWIFT program, and therefore revealing it didn’t really take anything out of our anti-terrorist arsenal. But the experts in international finance see the revelation by the Two-Times-ers as especially damaging. Here is part of an analysis by Dennis Lormel:

Many elements of terrorists and their supporters have no choice but to operate in the formal financial system. This is attributable to factors to include business considerations, fundraising activities, operational requirements, financial conduits, investments and other factors. The Times SWIFT disclosure will spur many individuals and entities in this dimension to better insulate themselves from U.S. Government detection and tracking.

Mr. Lormel knows his stuff, having been with the FBI for over 30 years. After 9/11, he set up and directed the FBI’s comprehensive terrorist financial tracking system. Perhaps Bill Keller, of the NY Times, should have talked to Mr. Lormel before publishing the story.

But of course, the NY Times says it did talk to several people, in the Administration and out, including the leading Democrat on the 9/11 Commission. All asked that the Times refrain from damaging our ability to interfere with terrorist funding, but the Times forged ahead.

Mr. Lormel’s article at the Counterterrorism Blog is good reading; somber, but good. Check it out HERE!

The “No harm, no foul” defense doesn’t fly with those of us who are not experts either. From a logical perspective we have to ask, how do you know there’s no harm? When you examine the issue from that perspective, you come to the conclusion that it is impossible to know if a secret program is vital or not without being an expert. And journalists in general are experts at almost nothing except journalism. I certainly wouldn’t want one performing open heart surgery on me, yet the state secrets they reveal may be more dangerous to all of us than a reporter with a rusty knife attempting to repair our hearts.

Comments are closed