Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness.

This statement was published by The New York Times on June 23rd.  A number of people, upon reading this, probably asked themselves: So why was it published?

Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, publicly responded two days later.  Speaking of the country’s founders, he noted that, “They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”

Mr. Keller certainly has a valid point in that a free press should act as a “protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy.”  The question in this particular instance, however, is not whether the press has the right to publish these types of stories but whether publishing such stories actually serves as the protective measure it is supposed to.  

One could make the argument that during the Civil War, the public had a right to know the Union’s locations at all times since the day’s happenings were a matter of public interest.

But would this really have been wise?  

If you are not of the opinion that terrorism is a real threat, then pick up a copy of today’s newspaper or yesterday’s newspaper or tomorrow’s newspaper when it comes out, and read about some of the violence that occurs on a daily basis.

Terrorist groups, by nature, operate and act in a covert manner.  One of the most efficient methods of reducing their success is to monitor them in a similarly covert manner.  Permission for the Swift program was apparently obtained using entirely legitimate means, removing any scandalous element concerning its legality.

This program is not the Iraq War.  It is not resulting in American deaths; it is not causing innocent civilian deaths; it is not inflammatory.  Furthermore, it appears to be the type of program that is actually an effective battle in the War on Terror: stopping violence without using violence or creating violence.

Until the ideologies that cause the formation of terrorist groups are rooted out, something must be done to ensure a degree of safety against the ones already in existence.  There is a difference between using the fear of terrorist threats for alleged political gain and acting to prevent future attacks.

The original article quoted one official, who considers the program to be valuable, as saying that, “The potential for abuse is enormous.”  If the program also results in our potential for living to increase, then it might be at least worth a shot.

M R