Opine: How To Funnel Terror Money & Kill Soldiers, by Bill Keller

The New York Times specializes in offering the American public a wide array of news-oriented content, running the gamut from bleeding-heart self-loathing editorials in its Op-Eds to bleeding-heart self-loathing editorials in its reporting. One of the Times' subspecialties that has gotten a measure of attention in recent weeks (I don't keep up with the news, so I am rarely on top of the "latest scoop") is its sweeping, arbitrary proscriptions of what is in my (and your) best interest (you know, "you'll thank me later"). This time, it's them deciding that it's of undeniable more vitality to my wellbeing for me to know that a European bankers club is (was, anyway) helping the US to catch terrorists, than for me and my countrymen to be safe. Here are some snippets, with translations for the hard-of-thinking: "The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database." Translation: Be sure to keep transactions confined within countries, avoiding wire transfers (consider checks, money orders, direct debits) as much as possible. The infidels are watching. "Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments." Translation: You can use ATMs and credit cards--the US has only limited access to these--but be careful. Also, let me mention a specific purveyor of wire transfers and money orders to avoid: Western Union is apparently a dead giveaway. "The data does not allow the government to . . . see bank balances." Translation: You've been trained to be careful with large balances, taking the dangerous road of attempting to open multiple accounts to help thin the appearance of funds across multiple institutions. Forget about that apparently archaic practice. Avoid the added chance of being discovered by nesting with a single account. "Swift, a former government official said, was 'the mother lode, the Rosetta stone' for financial data." Translation: You're welcome. It certainly was the mother lode before we got to it, but the secret's out. I give widespread cooperation and participation a few months, max. Once those who voluntarily complied get wind of our disclosure, you can bet that this particular claim will dry out. Take this quote from our article: "By 2003, [Swift] officials were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed . . . 'How long can this go on?' a Swift executive asked." Imagine how they're feeling about it now! This came when Times Limp-Dick-In-Charge Bill Keller expressly and informedly OK'd the publishing of details of a classified agreement between top US officials and owners of the "Swift" database of banking information, against unequivocal pleas from the Administration to refrain. According to Keller himself: "The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk." He follows by admitting that the Times was aware of "strong arguments from proponents that [the program was legal and effective]." Nevertheless, despite realizing that the secret program was likely providing an effective means of fighting terrorists, and that it appeared to legal, Keller pissed in America's face and ran the story. His paper, Keller said, "served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them." I don't know about you, but I feel SO VERY INFORMED now. And, what a wonderful feeling. You know, it's not the sublime beauty of nature, or those care-free simple pleasures in life that provide the real joy. What takes the cake--and should for everyone--is that unmistakable ecstasy of being informed. In fact, I bet that the last thing a guy thinks, kneeling before a curtain in a makeshift studio, immediately prior to being deprived of his head by a hooded barbarian, is "ah, but I feel so informed now." Thank goodness. Apologists have made the strange argument that the information was already in the public realm anyway. Indeed, Keller himself insists that the US tracking of terrorist funds and sources had been widely reported prior to the Times story. By this, he opens a paradoxical can of worms: If the report was uncontroversial by its introduction to the public, why was it even newsworthy? Conversely, if the details of the operation were indeed newsworthy, how can it be justified as having already been widely reported? I don't think too many thinking Americans are asking the Times to refrain from restating "the obvious" as a matter of national security. I, and others who have objected to the story, maintain that Keller's irresponsible ego strokes can't possibly have any effect on terrorist activities other than providing help. And it isn't my job to prove how damaging the publishing of highly classified, sensitive information on HOW the US has been tracking terrorist funds will prove to be. It was Keller's job to prove that it could not possibly provide even the slightest aid to enemies of our nation. Terrorists, Keller further admits, "continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash." In other words, despite preferring the anonymity of primitive means of distributing funds ("toting suitcases of cash"), terrorists stuck to a system that they purportedly knew the US was monitoring. He appears to maintain, by this logic, that despite the Times revelations, terrorists will continue banking in the same way, using the same patterns, and operating within the same banks, regardless of their connection with the Swift database. The obvious reality is that no conscientious American citizen would even attempt to make such a claim; Keller knows this, but he is no conscientious American, by any measuring stick. I tried to come up with a rational description of what Bill Keller actually is, but my imagination fails me. It seems to hit roadblocks at points where deep conspiracies attempt to unearth themselves--it's where I've stopped. ______________________________________ But Wait, There's More! Think that one was bad? Take a look back at a January report that Times editors somehow neglected to title "How To Kill American Soldiers In Iraq." Here are a few quotes from the article, and some more translations. “The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back.” TRANSLATION: What you see on American troops is not necessarily armor-protected. For instance, despite the size of the armored vests, the ceramic--armored--part of the vest is much smaller (see diagram). You've got MUCH MORE to shoot at than you might've thought! :). “In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.” TRANSLATION: US military armor does not protect soldiers' shoulders, sides and other areas of the torso (see diagram). Attack accordingly. “At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents.” TRANSLATION: Focus on using your "improvised" explosive devices over your more expensive and (previously believed to be) more reliable, ready-made ordnance; these makeshift grenades do more damage, AND save you money! “Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.” TRANSLATION: Still, nothing beats a well placed (see diagram) rifle shot. Even though you've got a smaller target area (see diagram), you can still kill Americans with good old fashioned rounds. “Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.” TRANSLATION: Our pilfering of highly sensitive military documentation leads us to reiterate, you must keep on shooting at American torsos, because hundreds of troops are dying from such wounds alone. Keep your chin up (and aim just below theirs)! "Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of the wound data, saying it would aid the enemy." TRANSLATION: Sorry guys, there's only so much we can do. Watch for further communicades . . . Oh, and here's that diagram I promised you: Not bad, Keller! Still waiting on your justification for this one. July 21, 2006