There has been various blog posts about the NYT (and others) having an article discussing "a secret anti-terror program to sift through bank records," which was co-written by James Risen (author of State of War : The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration). From the article:
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions.
As with the NSA warrants story last December, the Bushies tried to keep the story from being printed. Cheney voiced his disapproval for the press making it hard for BushCo to government without oversight, while Sen. Specter wondered why the press seems to be the only way members of Congress can keep properly informed on such issues. Suffice to say, complaints about the MSM notwithstanding, imagine how worse we would be without its coverage of various issues. This is not just when the government does something totally wrong -- so sad that this can be raised as a legitimate test these days -- but also when members of the administration note a policy "raises difficult legal and public policy questions."
Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.
Dare I say that this is worthy of some oversight, including by a free press. I might even go out on a limb and say that this particular administration deserves less of a benefit of a doubt. I know, the sign of a true Bush hater! In fact, the article actually notes some safeguards were put in. Thus, it can be deemed a POSITIVE piece in part for the administration. But, sure. All those neoconservative bloggers and members of the Weekly Standard are right, put James Risen and company in jail. The reprobates. You would think there was some near absolute bar against the government interfering with the freedom of the press or something.
Of course, leaking of classified information -- including on this very topic -- is okay as long as it is beneficial to the administration. This is done all the time, so the idea that it is somehow verboten is surely silly ... again, we are passionately told something that is clearly b.s., which is by now so apparent that it is really almost unworthy of comment. One also notes that the article really does not say anything that exposes particular methods or so forth that really is a threat to national security. We know the government is investigating bank records. This is not news. The point is that this sort of thing generally has various safeguards, including privacy laws in overseas areas that are being targeted. So, it boils down to a complex means of balancing privacy vs. security.*
This has to be done by society as a whole, not just the "unitary executive." The fact the Vice President etc., the mouthpiece that is closely connected to him, the blogs that most passionately defend them, and so forth finds this hard to accept underlines the basic problem with the core of their ideology.
---
* Talking about privacy, I was again admiring Justice Stevens' opinion in the Webster case, which in part connects privacy with the right of conscience, freedom from establishments of religion, and overall liberty. Such themes are present in Casey etc., so not just the thoughts of him alone, though he does a better job connecting it to religious freedom. A matter a bit more complex than liberal bashers suggest (see comments).
A certain private realm to make such choices is a core issue at hand. In the words of Justice Douglas: "Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom."
Of course, many on the other side speak of it as a "so-called" freedom and/or a mere "liberty interest" that can be balanced away if any "reasonable" competing governmental purpose is present. Such is the rub.