Questioning 9/11 and Academic Freedom
A professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison named Kevin Barrett has met with a storm of criticism after it came to light that he intends to spend a small portion of his class on Islam -- less than 10 percent of the semester according to him -- discussing the "War on Terror" and numerous "conspiracy" or "alternate" theories about the attacks on 9/11 (story here). Barrett believes that the three attacks of September 11 were caused by "triggered explosions", and has stated that, "...9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape."
In response to numerous calls by the Minnesota governor and other local politicians for Barrett to be fired, the provost at the university reviewed the professor's "past teaching and plans for the class" and determined that he is fit to teach. The university has also stated that despite the fact that many may find his theories disturbing or offensive, that is not grounds to stifle academic freedom and censor his views. The state legislature, however, disagrees and has threatened to cut the university's funding if it allows Barrett to follow through with his plans.
This case brings to the fore a number of issues dealing with who should determine what is "acceptable" material for professors to teach, and highlights a difficulty inherent in state sponsorship of universities -- the tendency for government bodies to censor unaccepted views with financial threats. While most of those objecting to Barrett's course material generally see the question as unambiguous, it in fact raises serious questions as to who should determine what is "acceptable" material, especially keeping in mind that throughout history important truths have often been extremely unpopular. If the academic community is to be monitored and censored by government officials in this manner regarding the 9/11 attacks, what is to stop them from weighing in on what is historically, economically, and scientifically "acceptable"? Allowing the government to dictate what is "acceptable" discourse in our institutions of higher learning -- even when the views espoused are considered "extreme" -- sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
The academic community has always successfully ensured that pseudo-science and conspiracy theories do not gain traction as legitimate academic pursuits. In order to determine what is legitimate, however, different theories must be openly discussed, not stifled by government coercion. The certainty with which most people dismiss "alternate" 9/11 theories is usually not due to any sort of empirical certainty, but is rather a knee-jerk reaction borne of political outrage. If Mr. Berrett believes that he can present a persuasive theory, he should be free to do so. The academic community will assess his theory on its merits and will most likely (though not certainly) find it to be lacking.
What should be most disturbing for defenders of free speech and academic freedom in this case is the influence political officials have over such academic matters as a result of their control of university funding. It is inevitable that the government, wherever it provides funds for academic institutions, will to some extent attempt to influence the university's curriculum, however this influence should be minimized as much as possible. Even if such influence is kept to a minimum, the situation in which our academic institutions are held hostage to the whims of political opinion is unacceptable.
Faulty Justifications
A common response to the recent actions of Israel in Lebanon, offered by both the Russian foreign minister and Condoleeza Rice, among others, has been to urge restraint and proportionality. Critics of Israel's actions point to the large number of civilian casualties and Israeli targeting of apparently civilian structures, such as power plants. Defenders of Israel's actions, on the other hand, say that Israel is doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, and point out that many apparently civilian structures are used by Hezbollah as bases from which Israel is attacked.
Aside from those who claim that Israel's response is in fact proportional and restrained, there are an increasing number of political writers who are claiming that these criticisms are hypocritical coming from America, Russia and others who have showed little if any restraint in their responses to terrorism. In an article for History News Network, Edward Olshaker takes this position, pointing out Russia's complete destruction of Chechnya -- in response to the separatist movement there that has used terrorist tactics -- and the huge number of civilian casualties that resulted from Russia's failure to even attempt to minimize civilian casualties. Likewise, Olshaker reminds us that "...the Bush Administration was hardly the model of restraint when it reacted to a single day of terrorist attacks by invading two nations at the other end of the planet and overthrowing their governments."
While I certainly agree with Olshaker that those criticisms of Israel are hypocritical, Olshaker claims that this hypocrisy shows Israel's actions to be justified. In doing so, he falls into an all-too-common trap of political rhetoric, and misses the bigger picture entirely. It is hard to engage in any form of political dialogue without someone inevitably invoking faulty logic similar to Olshakers:
Debater 1: Israel uses excessive force in fighting Hamas, and causes too much civilian suffering.
Debater 2: Are you kidding? Hamas intentionally targets civilians!
Since so many people view political issues in very simplistic, black and white terms, serious issues often devolve into this kind of illogical justification-through-comparison. The implication of such statements is that if, for example, a Democrat is found guilty of corruption charges, this fact can be rebutted by pointing out that a Republican was found guilty of corruption charges also. It seems very obvious that such statements are illogical and meaningless -- obviously, two wrongs don't make a right -- yet they are exceedingly common in any sort of political discussion. The possible variations on this fallacy are seemingly infinite, with all manner of brutality, corruption, and dishonesty being supposedly anulled because either "the other guy did it too" or more commonly, "the other guy is worse."
The real lesson to be taken from Olshaker's article is that despite the horrific actions of the U.S. and Russia, Israel should still be held responsible for protecting civilians from harm during their military operations. If anything, Olshaker unintentionally provides an argument not for Israel, but against America and Russia. Rather than demanding less of Israel, people should demand more of America and Russia until they start showing greater restraint and respect for the lives of innocent civilians.
Racism, Anti-Semitism, and Middle East Conflict
As the conflict in the Middle East continues to escalate, heated debates are raging throughout the blogosphere regarding the morality and justification of Israeli military actions in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. While some debates maintain a reasoned, unemotional tone, the sensitivity of the subject often leads to accusations, exaggerations, and rhetorical excesses.
While most of the extreme rhetoric in the (somewhat mainstream) blogosphere is found in the often uncensored reader comments sections, a number of accusations and ongoing arguments occur between bloggers on the left and right. One of the most common accusations in such debates are claims by supporters of Israel that those who oppose Israel's actions are "anti-Semitic". While anti-Semitism unfortunately continues to thrive throughout much of the Arab world, and increasingly in Europe and Russia, accusations of anti-Semitism are often unfounded and serve only as cheap rhetorical tricks and irrational ad hominem attacks.
I recently came across a representative example of such questionable use of the anti-Semitic accusation at Little Green Footballs (LGF), a popular conservative, pro-Israel blog. The blog entry included a quote excerpted from the rival leftist Daily Kos blog, which said the following (Daily Kos entry here):
As we watch this war unfold in front of our eyes thousands of miles away, the only price we pay is at the pump.
But those of us who pay taxes, we pay another price.
And Israeli weapons aren’t cheap.
When an Israeli missile blows up a few homes, burns some kids alive...those are our missiles.
Our bombs.
We continue to support terrorism.
Do you want to know what our bombs just did in a little town called Marwaheen?
The poster at LGF wrote the following as an introduction to the excerpt from the Daily Kos: "Another disgusting anti-Israel post in another Daily Kos diary, as the antisemites crawl out of the woodwork at the web’s premier “progressive” site." The American Thinker blog also featured a link to the LGF entry, with the following introduction: "Little Green Footballs has been documenting the frequent anti-semitic screeds on Daily Kos for sometime, screeds like this." Furthermore, the vast majority of the 89 user comments at LGF expressed agreement with the poster's characterization of the quote as "anti-Semitic".
From these responses, it is fair to deduce that many Israel supporters consider statements such as those at Daily Kos to be anti-Semitic, however there is nothing in the statement expressing dislike of Jews in general. While the post controversially labels Israel's actions as "terrorist", there is no indication that this labeling arises from any prejudice against Jews or even Israelis -- it is simply a condemnation of a military action. While someone expressing that opinion could very well be anti-Semitic if they considered Israeli actions to be "terrorism" solely because of a prejudice against Jews, there is nothing in the statement itself that can be fairly characterized as anti-Semitic.
If those statements by Kos are to be taken as anti-Semitic, then any condemnation of Palestinian violence must be considered racist or anti-Arab. This brings me to another controversial issue, which is the use of many LGF posters and commenters of terms like "raghead", among other derogatory terms that seem to reveal deep-seated prejudice and hatred against Arabs and/or Muslims. While the majority of Israel supporters do not use such terms, it is probably fair to estimate that there are an equal number people using such racist or prejudiced terms in the pro-Israel community as there are anti-Semites among those who oppose Israel.
As someone whose views regarding Israel vary greatly from case to case, I find this tendency to be inappropriate and counter-productive. Widespread misuse of the term could also take away from the impact of serious denunciations of actual anti-Semitism at a time when enlightened people should seriously oppose the increasing prevalence of this ignorant and destructive prejudice. Sadly, it is likely that baseless accusations of anti-Semitism will become more, rather than less prevalent in the near future, as the situation in the Middle East worsens and debates become more heated. This makes it all the more important for thoughtful people be as vigilant in pointing out misuse of the term as they are in denouncing real anti-Semitism, lest real anti-Semites become more likely to point to widespread misuse of the term as cover for their hateful views.
Bush Blocks Eavesdropping Investigation
AP reported earlier today that President Bush personally blocked an investigation by the Justice Department into the secret eavesdropping program in which American citizens' conversations with others overseas were recorded without first securing constitutionally required warrants (story here).
By refusing to grant security clearance to the investigators, Bush effectively ended the probe that had been launched by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez later defended Bush's blocking of the investigation, saying, "The president of the United States makes the decision [regarding who is granted security clearance]." Press secretary Tony Snow defended the move along those same lines, saying, "What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did."
This argument, however, raises the question of why the administration granted security clearance to "a large team" of prosecutors and FBI agents who were investigating the source of the leak that brought the secret program to light. Senator Arlen Specter questioned the administration's decision, stating, "It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" The obvious difference between the investigators who were given clearance and those who were denied clearance was that Bush only blocked the efforts of those inquiring into the legality of the program. The administration was very willing to expose classified details in order to learn the identity of the leaker, but did not want details of the program to come under scrutiny by those charged with assessing its constitutionality and legality.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear -- and the Bush administration is obviously afraid of their unconstitutional programs being brought to light.
Oliver North: Arms Dealer, Terrorist Supporter, American Favorite
I recently received a somewhat widespread forwarded email claiming to be a transcript of an exchange between Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and then-senator Al Gore as part of the Iran-Contra investigation. In the exchange, North claims that Osama bin Laden is the "most evil person alive," and Gore responds derisively, mispronouncing bin Laden's name and dismissing North's claim. This story of North warning of the danger of bin Laden has been shown by Snopes.com to be a fabrication (more here), however the message got me thinking about the mysterious popularity of North among right-wing writers and Republican supporters.
Since North appeared as a central player in the Iran-Contra scandal investigation in 1987, he has been a household name and, amazingly, a very sympathetic figure, with many Americans overlooking the terrible criminal acts that brought him to fame. Whether it was the means of questioning or the widespread perception that North had been set up as the "fall guy" for more powerful interests, North has become, in the words of one writer "America's favorite traitor".
Upon the resignation of Robert McFarlane from his position as National Security Advisor to President Reagan, Admiral John Poindexter took over and North, a military aide on the National Security Council, rose to prominence. While McFarlane had been involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, specifically in arranging arms-for-hostages deals with Iran through Israel, North brought with him new ideas for the expansion of the illegal operations. North proposed that the U.S. sell arms directly to Iran, rather than through Israel, and that the profits from these sales (due to high markups on the weapons) should be diverted to fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. This funding of the Contras was in direct violation of the 1982 Boland Amendment (and its extension in 1984), which prohibited any funding of Nicaraguan rebel groups by the United States.
Under North's command, an illegal, secret program was set up in which arms (mostly TOW anti-tank missiles) were sold to the fanatical Khomenei regime in Iran (which was responsible for the kidnapping of dozens of U.S. citizens) and large amounts of money were directed to the Contra terrorist death squads in Nicaragua (who were responsible for countless civilian killings). Furthermore, the Contra rebels were heavily involved in the trafficking of narcotics between South America and the U.S., and the program under North repeatedly came into contact with -- and did nothing about -- these drug trafficking rings. There are questions as to the extent of involvement in drug trafficking that resulted from the Contra funding program, but at the very least it is clear that North associated with known drug lords and failed to report critical information to the DEA regarding drug trafficking. According to former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) head John Lawn, North once even leaked an undercover DEA operation -- endangering the lives of agents -- in order to gain political support for a Congressional vote on aid to the Contras. It was also discovered that North was hiding $15,000 in his closet, had received a $200,000 in a Swiss bank account, and received a $13,800 home security system as part of the illegal programs, suggesting that his motives in establishing the program were less patriotic than he portrayed them.
In the years since the 1987 investigation of the Iran-Contra affair, numerous details have come to light further revealing North's involvement in illegal arms dealing, terrorist funding of the Contras, and drug trafficking, contradicting a number of North's claims. Many of these original documents are available at the National Security Archive, which has an in-depth discussion of his involvement (link here). A more general overview of North's involvement can be found here. Given the criminality of North's actions, as well as his admission of guilt in many cases, it remains a mystery why so many Americans see him as some sort of hero. Whether it is because of ignorance of his actions, or because of an emotional attachment of some sort, this widespread willful blindness to North's high crimes reveals how many people are willing to defend the indefensible when "their government" is the perpetrator. Possibly more dangerous than the threat of such illegal government actions is the possibility that Americans have refused to learn from the experience, making future -- and possibly more egregious -- transgressions all the more likely.
Signing Statements and Tyranny
George W. Bush's presidency is unique in many ways, and one of the most interesting has been his absolute refusal to utilize the presidential veto since he first came into office in 2000. While most politically savvy Americans are well aware of the president's record (or lack thereof) regarding vetoes, few are familiar with his unique use of "Signing Statements" -- presidential proclamations made upon signing bills into law. These signing statements have long been used by presidents to express rhetorical or political opinions on laws, however President Bush has used these statements in a manner similar to a line-item veto, claiming the right to selectively enforce laws he does not agree with.
For example, when Bush recently signed into law a bill outlawing torture, he included a signing statement (story here) which said: ''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief." This has been widely interpreted as a claim that the president can instruct the executive branch not to enforce certain provisions of laws if he disagrees with them. This practice is extremely controversial and legally dubious, as it circumvents Congress's right to pass laws over a veto. Legal experts have also strongly questioned whether the practice is a violation of the constitutional provision (Article II, Section 3) that the executive must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Most disturbing is that president Bush has utilized these signing statements to an unprecedented extent -- in less than 6 years in office, Bush has "objected to more than 500 provisions in more than 100 pieces of legislation," compared to 575 signing statements issued by all previous presidents combined (story here). This extreme use of a practice of dubious legality in order to strengthen executive authority at the expense of Congress is, unfortunately, just another method in Bush's myriad assertions of virtually unlimited presidential power. The President has already claimed the right to act outside of any legal boundaries with the previously revealed NSA eavesdropping and phone record collection programs, as well as his practice of detaining individuals indefinitely without recourse to courts and without charging them with a crime -- as in the case of Jose Padilla -- in violation of virtually every constitutional limitation on government. This egregious misuse of signing statements as a presidential right to cast aside the will of Congress constitutes possibly an even more flagrant violation of presidential duty than we have seen yet from Bush's administration.
It has become apparent over the past 6 years that the President has absolutely no respect for the constitutionally assured liberties of the American people, and that he respects no limitations on his endless claims to power. President Bush has repeatedly revealed his willingness to cast aside the rule of law, and has violated his oath of office again and again through shameless violation of countless constitutional provisions and laws. If the people and the Congress of America will not act upon even these massive violations, there is no limit in sight to the growth of despotism to come in the future. With his every action, the President has shown his contempt for liberty. Are the American people strong enough to finally stand up for freedom and show their contempt for tyranny?
The Mind of a Neocon
In order to understand how the current situation in the Middle East is viewed by those in the Bush administration and their supporters, it is useful to consider the writings of Victor Davis Hanson, the archetypal (or stereotypical) neoconservative and "war historian" who, in the words of one writer, "never met a war he didn't want to send others to fight." Writing for National Review Online (link here), one of the main strongholds of pro-war neoconservative thinkers, Hanson recently ran down a list of pro-war, pro-administration talking points, as he commonly does. While Hanson's article -- called "Has Bush -- or the World -- Changed?" -- is characteristically long on assertions and short on substantiation, it is still enlightening as it reveals the odd worldview of many "neocons" and Republicans.
As usual, Hanson briefly presents the typical favorite claimed "victories" of America's efforts in the Middle East: "the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, the about-face in Libya, democratic peeps in the Gulf, or the end of the career of Dr. Khan." In Hanson's mind, the lessening of the Syrian presence in Lebanon is somehow not a result of widespread Lebanese opposition to the Syrian presence, or of worldwide condemnation of Syria for its presence in Lebanon, but is rather a result of Syria being somehow intimidated by the U.S. presence in Iraq. Similarly, the Libyan turn away from WMDs, which should be attributed to a long process of diplomatic work by America and others, is presented by Hanson as being a result of America's belligerence in Iraq. The disturbance of A.Q. Khan's underground nuclear proliferation ring also had little to do with the invasion of Iraq, as it centered mainly around Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, making its inclusion in this list of "effects of the Iraqi democracy on the larger Middle East" very questionable. In Hanson's simple, cartoonish view of world politics, all America must do is arbitrarily start wars and the bad guys wet themselves with fear.
Hanson also discusses a few ways in which he thinks the world has changed since 2001. There is the introduction of an "added nuclear component" to a number of recent issues (referring to North Korea and possibly Iran), issues of oil and the politics of energy, and a new "relativist standard of international behavior for roguish regimes", in which the possession of oil or nuclear weapons serves to legitimize "non-democratic" nations.
While Hanson is happy to dubiously claim victory for Bush's foreign policy regarding the earlier developments Syria, Libya, and the Khan network, it of course never occurs to him that the growing instability in the Middle East and beyond could be a result of Bush's policies. All three of the problems mentioned by Hanson have either been created or aggravated by Bush's foreign policy choices. The regimes in Iran and North Korea have displayed increasing aggression and audacity in their development of nuclear weapons precisely because America is currently stuck in a position of relative weakness. Bogged down, over-extended, and uniquely vulnerable in Iraq (and Afghanistan), with American troops within range of North Korean missiles in South Korea and Japan, and lacking international credibility and support, America has been foolishly discredited and weakened by the current administration. The failure of Bush's policies are serving as an open invitation for bold moves from America's opponents.
Furthermore, the increasing instability of global oil supplies and the accompanying increase in power among oil supplying states -- called a "relativist standard" by Hanson -- are in no small part due to the instability wrought by American warmaking throughout the Arab world. Hanson's willful blindness to the negative effects of belligerent foreign policy, coupled with his odd insistence that America is magically causing reform in the Middle East, show the lengths to which supporters of Bush's foreign policy must stretch today to justify continuation of failed policies.
America's "Enduring" Presence in Iraq
Even as the Bush administration begins discussing troop draw-downs within the next year, the question of America's long-term intentions in Iraq remain unanswered. The Bush administration has not officially stated any intention to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, and some government officials have denied the possibility of such bases being established.
The reality on the ground in Iraq and in the halls of power in Washington, however, seems to contradict the official administration line. The Pentagon has already established 12 "enduring bases" in Iraq, and many of these have expanded into sprawling complexes that resemble miniature American cities, complete with movie theaters, fast food restaurants, and even internal bus routes.
In Washington, while the Pentagon has denied any intentions of maintaining a permanent presence, a number of factors indicate otherwise. In April of 2003, the New York Times ran an article -- which was later called "inaccurate and unfortunate" by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld -- in which "unnamed sources" claimed that there are plans for up to four permanent bases in Iraq. Furthermore, the 2005 supplemental funding bill for Iraq included funds for bases described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." In the most recent sign of intentions to establish permanent bases, Republicans in Congress -- with the full backing of President Bush -- rejected a proposed amendment to an Iraq funding bill that would have put the U.S. on the record against permanent basing and "United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq." It is unclear why it was necessary for Republicans and the President to oppose such an amendment if they truly have no intentions to establish permanent bases.
Many Middle East analysts have proposed that new permanent bases in Iraq could take the place of former permanent bases in Saudi Arabia that were recently vacated. Combined with the American bases in Qatar and Kuwait, as well as a likely permanent presence in Afghanistan, these bases would constitute a significant military presence in the region. Some estimates place the likely number of troops to be indefinitely stationed in Iraq at 50,000 or higher -- almost half as many as are currently deployed.
Although there would likely be widespread opposition among Iraqi people to such a permanent presence, the United States' strong influence within the newly-created Iraqi government would probably be sufficient to overcome popular disapproval. As has been repeatedly evidenced since the new government officially took over from the provisional government, Washington is both capable of applying pressure to get its way in Iraq and willing to do so when it has significant interests at stake.
By maintaining a sizeable, responsive force in the region, Washington would significantly increase their force projection capabilities, allowing a more active stance in securing oil interests, actively opposing Iranian influence, and acting as a protector of Israel. Such a presence would drastically change the dynamics of Middle Eastern geopolitics, as American interests and allies -- from Israel to Afghanistan and Azerbaijan to Qatar -- would encircle the wider Middle East.
While a significant military presence would give teeth to diplomatic efforts and make the U.S. a major player in regional politics, it would also permanently expose American troops to attack from a number of unfriendly regimes and terrorist groups. Furthermore, the permanent entrenchment of American forces in Iraq is likely to work against efforts at stabilization, acting as a catalyst for continued insurgent activity and terrorism. Also, it would be hard to justify to the international community any exploitation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to secure wider economic and geopolitical goals.
It is hard to estimate the extent of possible "blowback" -- unintended negative side-effects -- of these actions, but it is safe to say that the negative might easily overcome the positive as the U.S. presence would likely ignite ideological and political conflicts throughout the region. What should be of concern to American citizens is that such a move would be in accordance with long-standing U.S. geopolitical strategies (such as the Carter Doctrine, which asserts that any attempt at dominance in the Middle East would be viewed as a direct attack on American "vital interests"), and would likely be justified by those in power as a necessity of the ongoing "War on Terror."
Secret Reclassification System
It seems those so fond of the absurd argument "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," have plenty to hide themselves. A secret agreement between the National Archives and Records Administration and a number of government agencies -- including the Air Force, CIA and other secret entities -- was recently revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive. The agreement established a "reclassification" program through which long-since declassified government documents will be once again made secret. In addition, the program's results will be disguised so that researchers will be unable to identify the gaps created by the mass reclassification effort. Information obtained by the National Security Archive suggests that some of the reclassified information may have contained information on secret National Security Agency (NSA) and CIA programs that the administration now wants to remain secret. More on the program here.
Once again, the Bush administration has shown itself to be opposed in almost every case to liberty and openness in government. This kind of extreme government secrecy not only runs counter to principles of democracy and accountability in government, it also poses a serious threat to our fundamental freedoms.
Update on the NYT Bank Monitoring Story Backlash
The debate surrounding the recent publication in the New York Times of a story about a Bush administration program using the European SWIFT bank records service continues to evolve in strange ways. Once again, Republican voices in the media have succeeded in completely dominating the terms of the debate, effectively muting any questions about the program itself and centering the debate around whether the NYT should have published the story. The Republican talking points have been so successfully pitched that many irrational allegations are accepted as completely factual, such as these:
1) The story revealed important details of the Bush administration's counter-terror efforts.
2) The New York Times helped terrorists by publishing the story.
3) The New York Times did so out of either contempt for the Bush administration or complete disregard for the national security of the United States.
4) Those who published the story could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, or even for treason.
Lets look at how these assertions are completely untrue, and how the GOP has convinced most Americans of their truth.
1) The story did not actually reveal any important operational details of the program, or any other information that had not already been revealed to the public by the Bush administration or others. Former State Department Official Victor Comraes said this about the SWIFT program's "secrecy":
Yesterday’s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news.
But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries.
The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
"The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."
Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada’s Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.
The Times thus did not reveal any secret information that was not publicly known. (go here for my original source for this, with more analysis and info)
2) The New York Times could not have possibly helped terrorists by publishing the story. Since the information presented in the story was already well known among counter-terrorism experts, it is fair to assume that terrorists themselves had accessed this publicly available information. It is highly unlikely that the publishing of the story led to terrorists changing their methods -- they had almost certainly already adapted to this information as early as 2002, when it became well known among experts.
3) The New York Times published the story out of concern for the potential for abuse in the program, and because of important questions of legality that still have not been addressed sufficiently. Despite the complex system of "checks" within the program, the program is nowhere subject to judicial oversight, which could be a violation of the 4th Amendment. The hiring of a private firm to monitor use of the program is a joke, and would do little if anything to protect against abuse. Furthermore, the program is so shrouded in secrecy that any abuses that might have occurred are likely to have been covered up. Possible future abuses would also likely go undetected for the same reason.
4) If the story did not reveal any secret information that was not already publicly available (as was shown in 1), and thus couldn't have helped terrorists to adapt their methods (as was shown in 2), there is no legitimate grounds for claiming any violation of the Espionage Act or any act of treason.
The GOP has succeeded in pushing these talking points largely because the story superficially seems to reveal a secret program, and to an extent does insofar as it brings the program into public debate. However these actions cannot be criminal or harmful to the national security interests of the U.S. because the existence of the program was already public knowledge. What the Times article did was raise questions as to the legality of the program and the potential for abuse in a program whose operations are kept so secret.
The GOP has ignored all the pertinent evidence, and has constantly repeated shallow arguments that are easily refuted by any investigation. In doing so, Republicans have exploited the fact that most Americans have neither the time nor inclination to look into the details of these issues. Americans rely on pundits and journalists to do the investigation for them, and the media and talking heads have failed to present Americans with the relevant facts.
Supreme Court Rules on "Enemy Combatants"
A landmark Supreme Court ruling was announced Thursday rejecting president Bush's claims that those captured in the "War on Terror" -- often referred to as "enemy combatants" -- are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and can thus be detained indefinitely without recourse to courts (story here). The ruling held that the Bush administration's classification of "enemy combatants" -- in this case, Yemeni terror suspect Salim Ahmed Hamdan -- as separate from prisoners of war and not subject to regulations regarding POWs was illegitimate. This decision stands in agreement with previous widespread criticism that the "enemy combatant" labeling was legally meaningless and served only as an excuse to deprive detainees of fundamental rights.
The court found that those previously classified as "enemy combatants" have rights specifically under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "passing of sentences" unless such sentences are passed down by "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." In practical terms, this means that detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in other detainment locations around the world should have the right to appeal their detainment in American courts, rather than military tribunals. Furthermore, the ruling held that the Red Cross should be granted access to all detainment facilities, in order to assure adherence to the Geneva Conventions.
Some members of the Bush administration have denied that the ruling sets any widely applicable precedent, saying that the decision applies only to Hamdan. Others within the administration were more cautious, saying that the decision was being reviewed in order to determine its impact outside of the Hamdan case. The decision, as rendered by the Supreme Court, is generally being interpreted as being applicable to all "enemy combatants" and detainees at various locations throughout the world.
