NYT discloses secret program to track terrorist finances.

[Gregory Pratt]

The fact that a program of this type was outed in the level of detail it was will cause terrorists to rethink how they move money and that will make it harder to track...........and that will mean that it takes longer to run them down...........and that means that more people will die.

 

Get it now?

 

I get the point -- I got it the first time, thanks -- but I don't buy it. That's one hell of a stretch, especially since the program wasn't even outed in THAT much detail.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Newspapers don't kill people. People kill people.

 

 

Let me know when you're done joking about an act of treason and this discussion can continue.

[Rex Kickass]

I would like to know exactly what part of "The government colludes with business to watch transactions between several thousand unnamed banks for several thousand unnamed persons of interests" clues anyone into any method of intelligence gathering?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I would like to know exactly what part of "The government colludes with business to watch transactions between several thousand unnamed banks for several thousand unnamed persons of interests" clues anyone into any method of intelligence gathering?

 

 

Methinks you need to read the article as well.

[KipWellsFan]

This is treason, cut and dried, and they should be dealt with the exact same way anyone else who commits treason during a time of war is dealt with. The whole lot of them should be stood up in front of a firing squad.

 

Yay! And next week we can start a civil war.

 

I can't believe people actually buy into this crap. In Iran we have a weak, unpopular leader manifesting a conflict with Israel and the Western world to force people to rally to the executive. You know what, the War on Terror is the exact same damn thing for Cheney and Bush.

 

Please return to reality people!

[Rex Kickass]

Please tell me what specific evidence that the terrorists will be able to use from this specific article?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yay! And next week we can start a civil war.

 

I can't believe people actually buy into this crap. In Iran we have a weak, unpopular leader manifesting a conflict with Israel and the Western world to force people to rally to the executive. You know what, the War on Terror is the exact same damn thing for Cheney and Bush.

 

Please return to reality people!

 

Weak and unpopular? You did say Iran right?

 

 

It sounds to me like you're saying the War on Terror is a massive "wag the dog" scenario. Following that logic leads me to believe that you are one of those people who think the WTC was destroyed by us on purpose just to start a war.

 

 

:headshake

[KipWellsFan]

Weak and unpopular? You did say Iran right?

 

The Irani people are liberalizing so a radical goof like Aminejad isn't exactly in at the optimum time. But if he can provoke conflict with that evil West... well I hope you understand where I'm going with this.

 

It sounds to me like you're saying the War on Terror is a massive "wag the dog" scenario. Following that logic leads me to believe that you are one of those people who think the WTC was destroyed by us on purpose just to start a war.

 

No obviously not, although I've definitely seen all of those conspiracy theory movies. Who doesn't like a good conspiracy theory? On that subject I just finised the Da Vinci Code today. But the fact that people go around saying we're at War, which we're not, to help justify, subconsciously or not, actions which would normally be ethically debateable to say the least, proves my point.

[minors]

The Irani people are liberalizing so a radical goof like Aminejad isn't exactly in at the optimum time. But if he can provoke conflict with that evil West... well I hope you understand where I'm going with this.

No obviously not, although I've definitely seen all of those conspiracy theory movies. Who doesn't like a good conspiracy theory? On that subject I just finised the Da Vinci Code today. But the fact that people go around saying we're at War, which we're not, to help justify, subconsciously or not, actions which would normally be ethically debateable to say the least, proves my point.

 

 

Again when an emeny stricks your homeland you at war they declared war on you simple as that. So yes I believe we are at war. Canada might not be but the US is.

[KipWellsFan]

Again when an emeny stricks your homeland you at war they declared war on you simple as that. So yes I believe we are at war. Canada might not be but the US is.

 

Well, I'm not going to get into the legal and philisophical issues, but lets think about this. If the War on Terror actually denotes being at War, then America will always be at War. And harkening back to my original point, this results in an executive that will always be more powerful and an American people who will be always relatively less apt to criticize than if the country were not in a state of war.

 

The War on Terror opens a can of worms with inconceivable consequences.

Edited June 27, 2006 by KipWellsFan

[NorthSideSox72]

If any terrorists didn't think the U.S. was monitoring these financial transactions, then they are too small-time for us to have cared about them (in this sphere) in the first place. And frankly, publishing the information probably helps add to the scare tactics, and may even help the cause.

 

I just don't see how this is wrong, let alone the silly allegations of TREASON TREASON TREASON!!! It seems to me the papers all gave this a lot of thought, they decided to publish highly generalized information that was newsworthy, and that is all. I just don't see the reason for the uproaro.

[Controlled Chaos]

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater

Jun 27, 2006

by David Limbaugh ( bio | archive | contact )

 

Would the New York Times pubish our nuclear launch codes if it acquired access to them because it "may be … a matter of public interest"?

 

The Bush administration pleaded with the New York Times not to publish its story revealing the existence of a secret government program to track the financial transactions of international terrorists.

 

The program, headed by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, is known as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" (TFTP) and was begun shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under it, government officials trace the international financial transactions of those with suspected ties to Al Qaeda by examing data -- only after obtaining an administrative subpoena -- of the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

 

 

SWIFT is not a financial institution but a Belgian cooperative owned by more than 2,200 organizations that oversees the routing of funds between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The CIA, under the TFTP, examines mainly wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Under the program, for example, the CIA could track funds from a personal bank account of a suspected terrorist in Jordan to a mosque in Philadelphia.

 

It does not examine most routine financial transactions confined to the United States. The government uses the data for terrorism investigations only, not such things as tax fraud or drug trafficking investigations.

 

According to legal experts, TFTP is not remotely illegal. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the right to privacy does not extend to protect information in the hands of third parties, such as SWIFT, involving financial transactions. Nor do the provisions of the 1978 Right to Financial Privacy Act apply, because SWIFT is not a financial institution.

 

TFTP has been a very successful tool in the war on terror and has been an important part of the administration's promise, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a financial component among its "weapons" to fight terrorists. TFTP led to the capture of the al Qaeda operative known as "Hambali," who is believed to have planned the bombing of a Bali resort in 2002. It also led to the prosecution and conviction of Uzair Paracha, a Brooklyn man, on terrorism-related charges, for laundering $200,000 through a Karachi bank to assist an al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan.

 

The Times admitted that administration officials asked it not to disclose the existence of TFTP and even "enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value." (The White House had briefed officials from both parties on the program.) The government warned that disclosing the program would alert terrorists to its existence and severely compromise it. But the Times, in its omniscience and omnipotence, wasn't impressed and published the article anyway.

 

The paper's exective editor, Bill Keller, said, "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial date, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

 

So what might be a matter of public interest is sufficient to outweigh what will certainly be a detriment to the public interest? Under Keller's definition, would any classified information coming into the press's hands ever be off-limits from public disclosure no matter how damaging to the national interest or dangerous to American lives?

 

If the mainstream media truly has this attitude toward the publication of highly classified government secrets, we have no choice but to tighten existing laws -- assuming they're not sufficiently tight now -- to criminalize such disclosures by the press. The First Amendment is not absolute. Everyone is well aware of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' admonition in Schenck v. United States that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."

 

Well, this is a case where the Times has done worse than yelling "fire." It has given al Qaeda a book of matches with ignition fuel. It is no exaggeration to say that under the false pretense that the public is entitled to this information, the Times has aided and abetted our terrorist enemies in the war on terror. Its actions in exposing this program might very well result in the loss of American lives through attacks that could have been prevented had the existence of the program not been disclosed to the enemy. If so, blood will be on the Times's vainglorious hands.

[NorthSideSox72]

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater

Jun 27, 2006

by David Limbaugh ( bio | archive | contact )

 

Would the New York Times pubish our nuclear launch codes if it acquired access to them because it "may be … a matter of public interest"?

 

After reading the above first line, I stopped reading the article. The author managed to effectively filter out anyone grounded in reality right there.

[Controlled Chaos]

After reading the above first line, I stopped reading the article. The author managed to effectively filter out anyone grounded in reality right there.

Guess I'm not grounded in reality.

[Gregory Pratt]

The Attorney General needs to find out who is responsible for leaking this information, and get a list of everyone who wrote this story, every editor who greenlighted this story, the entire board of directors and the president and owners of the NYT and prosecute the whole lot of them. This is treason, cut and dried, and they should be dealt with the exact same way anyone else who commits treason during a time of war is dealt with. The whole lot of them should be stood up in front of a firing squad.

 

You know, I'm in the mood for a resounding victory for freedom of speech.

 

By all means, let Mr. Gonzales do it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Guess I'm not grounded in reality.

Do you actually think that what appeared in the NYT and giving away launch codes are in the same universe?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You know, I'm in the mood for a resounding victory for freedom of speech.

 

By all means, let Mr. Gonzales do it.

 

 

This supreme court aint the same one that was sitting in the 1960's and 70's. They will slam dunk the NYT if it comes to that.

[Gregory Pratt]

This supreme court aint the same one that was sitting in the 1960's and 70's. They will slam dunk the NYT if it comes to that.

 

I'll bet they don't.

 

Much like the Rehnquist Court declined to overturn Miranda, for instance.

 

Like I said, let Gonzales do it, and he'll be made a mockery of.

[Rex Kickass]

Again, what specific information is altogether shocking or surprising? That something is called SWIFT?

[Controlled Chaos]

Do you actually think that what appeared in the NYT and giving away launch codes are in the same universe?

I don't think he ever compared the two. He just lead off his article with some hyperbole. You looked at that and since you're so "grounded" chose not to continue reading. If you stop reading everytime someone exaggerates the first line of their article, then you probably aren't finishing too many articles.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Controlled Chaos

[LowerCaseRepublican]

More fearmongering from Mr. Limbaugh.

 

I love the "Well, it might have done this so it may do this and that will lead to this possibility of deaths." regarding the expose because it is such a lame cop-out essentially saying: "Well, I don't have any proof that this is going to harm anybody so here's some smoke to blow up peoples' asses."

 

We're fighting for free speech and the right to a free press -- except when they print things that we don't like. I think I'm getting the hang of it now.

 

/Sit down, shut up and obey.

[Cknolls]

I love how everyone mentions the New York Times and neglects the LA Times, and the more conservative Wall Street Journal gets a pass...

 

And now those who say they want to defend our freedom are calling for restricting the press.

 

 

The Journal is not conservative. The news pages are left leaning. Their editorial pages are indeed very conservative.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't think he ever compared the two. He just lead off his article with some hyperbole. You looked at that and since you're so "grounded" chose not to continue reading. If you stop reading everytime someone exaggerates the first line of their article, then you probably aren't finishing too many articles.

 

That's a column, not an article. I'd hardly consider anything coming out of a Limbaugh's mouth to be "news."

[AbeFroman]

More fearmongering from Mr. Limbaugh.

 

I love the "Well, it might have done this so it may do this and that will lead to this possibility of deaths." regarding the expose because it is such a lame cop-out essentially saying: "Well, I don't have any proof that this is going to harm anybody so here's some smoke to blow up peoples' asses."

 

We're fighting for free speech and the right to a free press -- except when they print things that we don't like. I think I'm getting the hang of it now.

 

/Sit down, shut up and obey.

 

I think fearmongering is what this is. Those kooky conservatives get to blame the New York Times and get to huff and puff about how liberals are destroying america. Given that its likely that Valerie Plame was involved in an intel program on the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, that seems far worse than what the NYT did here.

 

This is how the right can get its numbers up a little more.

 

nothing more... nothing less

 

BTW: Where was the outrage when high ranking members of the administration outed an undercover CIA agent to a reporter for a national newspaper?

Edited June 27, 2006 by AbeFroman

[southsider2k5]

BTW: Where was the outrage when high ranking members of the administration outed an undercover CIA agent to a reporter for a national newspaper?

Actually I think that is exactly where the outrage comes from. There was everything under the sun looking for investigations, calling for resignations, looking for indictments to be handed out etc when the CIA stuff happened from the democratic side of the aisle, yet when the NYT does something similar seemingly the opposite happens. I think that is why the conservative media is so quick to grab onto this and point out the apparent hypocracy of it all.