Under fire for exposing a secret U.S. banking intelligence program, New York Times editor Bill Keller defended his actions in a letter to readers last June, writing:

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. It’s not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don’t know about it. We weighed most heavily the Administration’s concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don’t know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program.

To review: The Bush administration urged the Times not to publish because a) the program was legal and effective and b) exposing the program would endanger it. The Times “cited considerable evidence” of the program’s legality and effectiveness, but decided to expose it anyway because Keller found the administration’s second argument “puzzling.”

Maybe Keller should have tried a little harder to figure it out:

BRUSSELS, Feb. 1 (Agence France-Presse) — The European Central Bank must take action by April to stop the transfer of personal information from Swift, the bank-data consortium, to American authorities for use in antiterrorism investigations, a regulatory agency said Thursday.
The agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor, told the bank to come up with measures “to make its payment operations fully compliant with data-protection legislation,” urging it to “take appropriate measures as soon as possible.” […]
[Swift] has come under scrutiny for taking part in an American program that allows analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies to search for possible terrorist financing activity among the confidential financial transactions that Swift oversees.
The Bush administration has defended the once-secret program, which began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. But critics in Europe contend that it places American security interests ahead of European civil liberties.
Under European Union rules, information on money transfers can be used only for banking purposes and not for other uses, like combating terrorism.

According to Keller’s letter to readers last June, his decision to run the story was based on a dismissal of the administration’s concerns about exposing the program. Now that subsequent events have demonstrated the flaws in Keller’s reasoning, will he join Byron Calame in admitting that the Times was wrong to publish the story? Gabriel Schoenfeld advises against holding your breath. (h/t Jonah)