Hugh Hewitt interviewed Doyle McManus, the DC bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. See the transcript here. Highlights of the interview are below, but please take the time to read the entire transcript. It was a really good interview. I enjoy the fact that Hugh is very fair in his interviews. He is gracious with his guests and gives credit where credit is due.
Is it possble that the SWIFT column hurt our efforts at fighting terrorism and may have actually aided the terrorists?
HH: Is it possible, in your view, Doyle McManus, that the story will in fact help terrorists elude capture?
DM: I did…I neither believed it nor disbelieved it. I would believe I took that seriously. It’s impossible for me to evaluate independently to what degree…whether the potential assistance to terrorists…I think they actually didn’t argue that it would help terrorists. They argued that it would disadvantage, or make more difficult, counter-terrorist programs. But that’s probably a distinction without a difference. What…would that be momentous? Would it be marginal? I don’t know.HH: Is it possible, in your view, Doyle McManus, that the story will in fact help terrorists elude capture?
DM: It is conceivable, yeah, although it might be worth noting that in our reporting, officials told us that this would, this disclosure would probably not affect al Qaeda, which figured out long ago that the normal banking system was not how it ought to move its money, and so turned to other unofficial and informal channels.
HH: The terrorist Hambali came up. He was captured in August of ’03, mastermind/financier of the Bali bombing. Are you familiar with Hambali?
DM: I am.
HH: And did they alert you to the fact that they believe that Hambali was captured as a result of this SWIFT program?
DM: They did not. The first I knew of that was when I read it in the New York Times.
HH: Is it possible now that whoever was familiar with what Hambali did, those terrorists in Southeast Asia, could just simply reverse engineer his financing, and figure out what they shouldn’t do now?
DM: Well, I suppose it’s possible, except in effect, what we’re talking about here is the simple question of whether international banking transmissions are monitored….
How about the fact that the press is not exempt from the national security laws?
HH: Sure. Do you agree, Doyle McManus, that the press has no exemption from the national security statutes?
DM: I do agree with that.HH: And if called before a grand jury, would you reveal the sources in the government that leaked you this information?
DM: That would be a judgment that we would have to make at that time.
HH: So it’s possible that you would?
DM: That would depend on the nature of the pledges we made to those sources.
HH: So it’s possible that that, in fact, would reveal who it is that’s leaking this?
DM: It’s hypothetically possible, yeah.
What makes them qualified to decide that this won’t hurt counter terrorism efforts?
HH: Time for just a couple more questions. I hope you’ll come back, Mr. McManus. Are you and the folks at the Los Angeles Times qualified to evaluate the terrorist networks, their sophistication in how they respond to information, from classified information?
DM: Well, we are journalists, we’re qualified to go ask the smartest people we can find those questions, and that’s about the best we can do.
HH: Did anyone who would go on the record tell you this would have no significant damage to the counter-terrorism effort?
DM: I don’t believe anyone made that unqualified statement, no.
HH: Given that you couldn’t find anyone to tell you that it wouldn’t be damaging, wouldn’t the necessary conclusion be that it would be?
DM: That’s a reasonable inference. But we did…there were people who told us that they believed that the damage, if any, would be minimal.
The Wolf Blitzer-Bill Keller transcript is here.
Hugh Hewitt debate with former WaPo ombudsman Geneva Overholser moderated by Wolf Blitzer is here
H/T to News Busters
Well now that the precedent has been set that the US should have appoint a special prosecutor to investigate who leaked non classified information about Valerie Plame, I wonder if that means we can appoint one to investigate who is leaking real CLASSIFIED information to the the press about this, the Gen. Casey troop reduction plan, the NSA terrorist monitoring program and the phone records monitoring program? I want to see how long these “Principled” journalists are willing to protect their sources when they realize that if they don’t identify who is their source, they’ll sit in prison until they do. Imprisonment for contempt of court is for the discretion of the judge.
Seeing as they are so contemptuous of the administration, I wonder how contemptuous they will be of a judge who can throw them behind bars indefinitely. While they are not necessarily in violation of the law for printing the information, the people who gave it to them ARE. I have no problem with jailing the reporters until they reveal their sources, nor do I have any problem with throwing their sources down a well where they can never do harm to another US intelligence program and endanger US lives again.