NYT discloses secret program to track terrorist finances.

[WCSox]

The other thing that conveniently gets ignored is that the LA Times was also asked by the administration weeks ago and also chose to ignore their request.

 

Wow, another liberal newspaper trying to undermine the Bush Administration. What a shocker!

[Rex Kickass]

I'm going to say this again.

 

THE NEW YORK SLIMES ARE THE ONE WHO HAD THE STORY FIRST.

 

Quit trying to divide where the blame resides. Thank you.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...home-commentary

 

The decision to publish this article was not one we took lightly. We considered very seriously the government's assertion that these disclosures could cause difficulties for counterterrorism programs. And we weighed that assertion against the fact that there is an intense and ongoing public debate about whether surveillance programs like these pose a serious threat to civil liberties.

 

We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life. In this case, we believed, based on our talks with many people in the government and on our own reporting, that the information on the Treasury Department's program did not pose that threat. Nor did the government give us any strong evidence that the information would thwart true terrorism inquiries. In fact, a close read of the article shows that some in the government believe that the program is ineffective in fighting terrorism.

[kapkomet]

So? This doesn't say a thing. The NYT had the scoop originally.

[KipWellsFan]

Wow, another liberal newspaper trying to undermine the Bush Administration. What a shocker!

 

 

Return to reality.

 

Read the article. Overall, it's positive about the program, and if anything the article will help the administration. The only thing that this article might lead to is revelations that the program is being used for non-terrorist related activities and the American people have to know about stuff like that. If that is actually going on.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html

 

Worry about something important please, there's not much in the article that will blow anyone away.

Edited June 28, 2006 by KipWellsFan

[kapkomet]

Honestly, this is much ado about nothing, but it's at least VERY hypocritical in nature of the NYT, et. al.

[NorthSideSox72]

Honestly, this is much ado about nothing, but it's at least VERY hypocritical in nature of the NYT, et. al.

OK, I understand that some people think that the NYT went to far in publishing that information. I don't agree, but I understand it.

 

But will you please point out the hypocrisy? Where is the uneven treatment?

[Rex Kickass]

So? This doesn't say a thing. The NYT had the scoop originally.

No they didn't. The NY Times article ran after the LA Times article did.

 

Both papers were asked to hold the story. Both papers refused.

 

But for some reason bashing the LA Times doesn't hold the same cache as bashing the New York Times. Nothing on the LA Times website credits the New York Times.

 

I'm not dividing blame. I think there's no blame to be had, to be honest. There's nothing remotely surprising or shocking in the NYT article in question.

 

Treason, my ass.

[FlaSoxxJim]

OK, I understand that some people think that the NYT went to far in publishing that information. I don't agree, but I understand it.

 

But will you please point out the hypocrisy? Where is the uneven treatment?

 

I think the perceived hypocrisy in kap's estimation is that the MSM stoked the Fitzmas fire in the wake of the Plame outing, but is now saying they did nothing wrong in outing this program.

 

But nobody is giving the NYT any credit for the restraint they have shown the White House before only to get burned by it. They sat on the NSA story for a whole year - at the request of the White House. They could have broke the story before the 2004 election, quite possibly changing the outcome of the election if they did. But the White House begged them to kill the story and they did. A year later, the story finally broke and there are a whole lot of people who have seriosu reservations about power abuse in the Unitary Executive. Lots of people with Rs after their name as well as Ds. And of course the White House cried foul and blamed the messenger.

 

So now NYT is in a position where they have a story that again has elements of administrative over-reach and disregard for privacy, and is by many ex-official accounts breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law. They know that the people running SWIFT thought their cooperation was a short-term thing and were ready to pull out until Greenspan and other financial bigwigs made some concessions and pulled them back in (somebody read the stiry, Rex). They weighed the pros and cons of running with the story, and they decided that nearly 5 years after Bush told the terrorists and the world that we would use every means available to track and choke off money flow to suspected terror groups it's probbably not divulging much to print a story confirming it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think the perceived hypocrisy in kap's estimation is that the MSM stoked the Fitzmas fire in the wake of the Plame outing, but is now saying they did nothing wrong in outing this program.

I don't see hypocrisy there - in fact, I see consistency. I see the NYT pushing to do err on the side of disclosure in both cases, but taking time to consider in both cases as well. What is the different treatment? Maybe I am not correctly remembering the details of the Plame affair.

[kapkomet]

No they didn't. The NY Times article ran after the LA Times article did.

 

Both papers were asked to hold the story. Both papers refused.

 

But for some reason bashing the LA Times doesn't hold the same cache as bashing the New York Times. Nothing on the LA Times website credits the New York Times.

 

I'm not dividing blame. I think there's no blame to be had, to be honest. There's nothing remotely surprising or shocking in the NYT article in question.

 

Treason, my ass.

Rex... please... it's getting annoying.

 

So - WHO GOT THE STORY FIRST? Oh wait, they both got it at exactly the same time. It's not worth talking about anymore. We are talking about semantics and it really doesn't matter as it relates to the story. I digress. WHITE FLAG.

[spiderman]

Nuke, have you read the article in question?

 

Does it matter that the NYTimes couldn't find anything illegal in their disclosure of this information ?

 

The point is that Democrats and Republicans were in the know on this secret program, there was no issue over the legality of it, and it was a tool in the War on Terror that can no longer be used because the NYTimes decided that everyone should know about it.

 

I'm not suggesting that we should restrict the freedom of press. I am simply upset that the NYTimes used such poor judgment. Why release it if it's a legal program that both sides of the aisle were on board with ?

 

What I want to know is who the leakers are.....This can't be tolerated.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I think the perceived hypocrisy in kap's estimation is that the MSM stoked the Fitzmas fire in the wake of the Plame outing, but is now saying they did nothing wrong in outing this program.

 

But nobody is giving the NYT any credit for the restraint they have shown the White House before only to get burned by it. They sat on the NSA story for a whole year - at the request of the White House. They could have broke the story before the 2004 election, quite possibly changing the outcome of the election if they did. But the White House begged them to kill the story and they did. A year later, the story finally broke and there are a whole lot of people who have seriosu reservations about power abuse in the Unitary Executive. Lots of people with Rs after their name as well as Ds. And of course the White House cried foul and blamed the messenger.

 

So now NYT is in a position where they have a story that again has elements of administrative over-reach and disregard for privacy, and is by many ex-official accounts breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law. They know that the people running SWIFT thought their cooperation was a short-term thing and were ready to pull out until Greenspan and other financial bigwigs made some concessions and pulled them back in (somebody read the stiry, Rex). They weighed the pros and cons of running with the story, and they decided that nearly 5 years after Bush told the terrorists and the world that we would use every means available to track and choke off money flow to suspected terror groups it's probbably not divulging much to print a story confirming it.

But but but...the damned libruhal media! And the New York Slimes! With their damned uppity latte liberal, puppy drowning, terrorist supporting, blood on their hands reporters...those Al Qaeda towelboys!

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20011107-4.html

 

From 2001:

Acting on solid and credible evidence, the Treasury Department of the United States today blocked the U.S. assets of 62 individuals and organizations connected with two terror-supporting financial networks -- the Al Taqua and the Al Barakaat. Their offices have been shut down in four U.S. states. And our G8 partners and other friends, including the United Arab Emirates, have joined us in blocking assets and coordinating enforcement action.

 

Al Taqua is an association of offshore banks and financial management firms that have helped al Qaeda shift money around the world. Al Barakaat is a group of money wiring and communication companies owned by a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden. Al Taqua and Al Barakaat raise funds for al Qaeda; they manage, invest and distribute those funds. They provide terrorist supporters with Internet service, secure telephone communications and other ways of sending messages and sharing information. They even arrange for the shipment of weapons.

 

They present themselves as legitimate businesses. But they skim money from every transaction, for the benefit of terrorist organizations. They enable the proceeds of crime in one country to be transferred to pay for terrorist acts in another.

 

The entry point for these networks may be a small storefront operation -- but follow the network to its center and you discover wealthy banks and sophisticated technology, all at the service of mass murderers. By shutting these networks down, we disrupt the murderers' work. Today's action interrupts al Qaeda's communications; it blocks an important source of funds. It provides us with valuable information and sends a clear message to global financial institutions: you are with us or you are with the terrorists. And if you're with the terrorists, you will face the consequences.

 

WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT HATE AMERICA SO MUCH BY TELLING TERRORISTS THAT WE'RE TRACKING THEIR MONEY?!

[NorthSideSox72]

Does it matter that the NYTimes couldn't find anything illegal in their disclosure of this information ?

 

The point is that Democrats and Republicans were in the know on this secret program, there was no issue over the legality of it, and it was a tool in the War on Terror that can no longer be used because the NYTimes decided that everyone should know about it.

 

I'm not suggesting that we should restrict the freedom of press. I am simply upset that the NYTimes used such poor judgment. Why release it if it's a legal program that both sides of the aisle were on board with ?

 

What I want to know is who the leakers are.....This can't be tolerated.

Can no longer be used? What in the world makes you think it can't be used anymore? It can be, and will be, probably with as much success in the future as before.

[Gregory Pratt]

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheH...06/nytimes.html

 

House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records.

 

The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

 

The resolution comes as Republicans from the president on down condemn media organizations for reporting on the secret government program that tracked financial records overseas through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), an international banking cooperative.

 

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), working independently from his leadership, began circulating a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) during a late series of votes yesterday asking his leaders to revoke the Times’s congressional press credentials.

 

The Standing Committee decides which organizations and reporters can be accredited, according to the rules of both the House and Senate press galleries. Members of that committee are elected by accredited members of those galleries.

 

“Under no circumstances would we revoke anyone’s credentials simply because a government official is unhappy with what that correspondent’s newspaper has written,” said Susan Milligan, a reporter for the Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times, who also serves the standing chairwoman of the Standing Committee of Correspondents. “The rules say nothing about the stories a newspaper chooses to pursue, or the reaction those stories provoke. The Times clearly meets our standards for credentials.”

 

The Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal all reported the existence of the program on their websites last Thursday.

 

President Bush criticized the reports during a press event Monday, calling the disclosure “disgraceful” and a “great harm” to national security. Vice President Dick Cheney, who voiced support for the program over the weekend, followed Bush’s criticism with harsh words of his own.

 

In an open letter responding to these criticisms, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote that a free press was the key check on government’s abuse of power.

 

Maybe we should start marking the homes of Newspaper Editors and striking down their first-borns whenever they step out of line?

[WCSox]

Worry about something important please

 

Unless you live in America and pay federal taxes, you're in no position to tell me what to worry about. I decide which issues are important to me in my country.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Unless you live in America and pay federal taxes, you're in no position to tell me what to worry about. I decide which issues are important to me in my country.

I'm just stymied by the fact that Bush, even in 2001, came out and gave press conferences telling everybody we were tracking terrorist finances and actually said to financial institutions that you're either with us or the terrorists.

 

I'm having trouble mustering up the outrage for what the NYT printed, especially since the program was pretty widely known not just through the fact that it had been used for years against drug cartels...but moreso because of the administration press conferences discussing that it was a tool in our arsenal.

[WCSox]

I'm just stymied by the fact that Bush, even in 2001, came out and gave press conferences telling everybody we were tracking terrorist finances and actually said to financial institutions that you're either with us or the terrorists.

 

I'm having trouble mustering up the outrage for what the NYT printed, especially since the program was pretty widely known not just through the fact that it had been used for years against drug cartels...but moreso because of the administration press conferences discussing that it was a tool in our arsenal.

 

And I suppose that this program was known to, say, the seven idiots who were recently arrested in Florida? For every savvy al Qaeda operative who is aware of this program, there is a low-level idiot who is just as dangerous.

 

Bush can come out and say "we're tracking terrorist finances" (duh) without giving the details. Apparently the NYT cannot. Obviously, if the details were already known, the NYT wouldn't have had to publish it on the front page and go through the trouble of obtaining classified information.

[Cknolls]

And I suppose that this program was known to, say, the seven idiots who were recently arrested in Florida? For every savvy al Qaeda operative who is aware of this program, there is a low-level idiot who is just as dangerous.

 

Bush can come out and say "we're tracking terrorist finances" (duh) without giving the details. Apparently the NYT cannot. Obviously, if the details were already known, the NYT wouldn't have had to publish it on the front page and go through the trouble of obtaining classified information.

 

 

Since when is the NY Slimes entitled to classified information?????????

 

 

And when are they going to call for independent investigations into these classified leaks????

 

 

If you were a member of a foreign intelligence service, would you share info. with anyone from our gov't???

[NorthSideSox72]

And I suppose that this program was known to, say, the seven idiots who were recently arrested in Florida? For every savvy al Qaeda operative who is aware of this program, there is a low-level idiot who is just as dangerous.

 

Bush can come out and say "we're tracking terrorist finances" (duh) without giving the details. Apparently the NYT cannot. Obviously, if the details were already known, the NYT wouldn't have had to publish it on the front page and go through the trouble of obtaining classified information.

Please point out where in the NYT, LAT or WSJ articles that they gave any sort of useful details at all in so far as our tracking of transactions. What piece of information is contained in there that gives away anything that wasn't given away by Bush himself?

 

The only piece of specific information I see there is a reference to SWIFT. SWIFT is just an information standard - USED BY INSTITUTIONS. To an account holder, terrorist or not, this information is irrelevant. There is no difference to them functionally, between saying "we're tracking your money" and "we're tracking your transactions via protocols like SWIFT", because the account holder has no f***ing clue how information is moved around. And further, they have no control over it.

 

So again, what information was conveyed in those articles which is actionable for a terrorist? Name one thing they would or could change now that they wouldn't have before.

[WCSox]

Please point out where in the NYT, LAT or WSJ articles that they gave any sort of useful details at all in so far as our tracking of transactions. What piece of information is contained in there that gives away anything that wasn't given away by Bush himself?

 

The only piece of specific information I see there is a reference to SWIFT. SWIFT is just an information standard - USED BY INSTITUTIONS. To an account holder, terrorist or not, this information is irrelevant. There is no difference to them functionally, between saying "we're tracking your money" and "we're tracking your transactions via protocols like SWIFT", because the account holder has no f***ing clue how information is moved around. And further, they have no control over it.

 

So again, what information was conveyed in those articles which is actionable for a terrorist? Name one thing they would or could change now that they wouldn't have before.

 

From the LA Times article...

 

The program also represents a major tactical shift. U.S. investigators long have been able to subpoena records on specific accounts or transactions when they could show cause — a painstaking process designed mainly for gathering evidence. But access to SWIFT enables them to follow suspicious financial trails around the globe, identifying new suspects without having to seek assistance from foreign banks....Rather, banks use the network to transmit instructions about such transfers. For that reason, SWIFT's data is extremely valuable to intelligence services seeking to uncover terrorist webs... CIA operatives trying to track Osama bin Laden's money in the late 1990s figured out clandestine ways to access the SWIFT network. But a former CIA official said Treasury officials blocked the effort because they did not want to anger the banking community...Unlike telephone lines and e-mail communications, the SWIFT network cannot be easily tapped. It uses secure log-ins and state-of-the-art encryption technology to prevent intercepted messages from being deciphered. "It is arguably the most secure network on the planet," said the former SWIFT executive who spoke on condition of anonymity. "This thing is locked down like Fort Knox."

 

In other words, the leaked info lets terrorists know that their transactions have a much better chance of being tracked down by the U.S. government than they did back in the '90s because our government can more-easily access international banking records. It's a "heads-up" for them to make alternate plans to further disguise their actions.

 

I laugh at the "this was already common knowledge" argument. The information was classified for a reason.

 

Also consider how this leaked information could cripple our government's ability to work with other nations in the fight against terrorism. The public in many Muslim nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are overwhelmingly anti-American and their leaders have to work behind close doors with our government to foil terror plots. Do you think that Pervez Musharaff wants to work with the Bush Administration to oust al Qaeda after he knows that our press will leak their plans? Such information being released to the public here will inevitably reach Pakistan and very may result in another assassination attempt.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm just stymied by the fact that Bush, even in 2001, came out and gave press conferences telling everybody we were tracking terrorist finances and actually said to financial institutions that you're either with us or the terrorists.

 

I'm having trouble mustering up the outrage for what the NYT printed, especially since the program was pretty widely known not just through the fact that it had been used for years against drug cartels...but moreso because of the administration press conferences discussing that it was a tool in our arsenal.

 

 

Bah. You have trouble mustering outrage for anything terrorists or those who support them are involved in.

[NorthSideSox72]

From the LA Times article...

In other words, the leaked info lets terrorists know that their transactions have a much better chance of being tracked down by the U.S. government than they did back in the '90s because our government can more-easily access international banking records. It's a "heads-up" for them to make alternate plans to further disguise their actions.

In the exact same sense as when Bush said it. No new material is here. The only way to "mask" their transactions is to not make them, which was the message before anyway.

 

Again, I see no new actionable intelligence in the article.

[Gregory Pratt]

Since when is the NY Slimes entitled to classified information?????????

And when are they going to call for independent investigations into these classified leaks????

If you were a member of a foreign intelligence service, would you share info. with anyone from our gov't???

 

I think there should be an investigation into your punctuation.

 

Why does the first sentence have nine question marks,

While the second one has four,

And the last one three?

 

Maybe it's a sign to the terrorists...

[WCSox]

In the exact same sense as when Bush said it. No new material is here. The only way to "mask" their transactions is to not make them, which was the message before anyway.

 

When Bush mentioned it, there was no description of how the program worked and no indication of whether or not it was successful.

 

BTW, it was the NYT who called for the strict monitoring of financial transactions to combat terrorism right after 9/11. So, why write the article that casts the Administration as secretive and in favor of destroying civil rights? :rolly

 

Again, I see no new actionable intelligence in the article.

 

What you saw was a leak of classified information and the undermining of our government's ability to operate in a clandestie-but-legal manner to foil terrorists. You may not have a problem with that, but I sure as hell do.

Edited June 28, 2006 by WCSox

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Bah. You have trouble mustering outrage for anything terrorists or those who support them are involved in.

Dammit Nuke, you caught me. Now if you'll excuse me I have some muffins to bake for bin Laden.

 

Bush had a press conference in 2001 detailing that we were having the major financial institutions investigating the finances of organizations. He paraded captures using the system in 2001 (see the WH press release I linked to earlier) so that this system was "covert" is a f***ing gut laugh.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20011107-4.html

 

From the Boston Globe (bolded portions my emphasis)

 

A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

 

"There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

 

Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task.

 

"Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."

 

Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database.

 

SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses "are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information," according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."

 

--

So please spare me the NY SLIME!!!!11!1! SWIFT was in the public record (and also used since 1973) and the President was actively discussing the usage of finance tracking as a means of capturing terrorists. There were numerous public documents and even *gasp* Presidential press conferences and executive orders that detailed what we were doing regarding terrorist finance practices.

 

And WC, if you read the Times article, it was because the gov't actually busted at least 1 person using the records in a fashion that was unrelated to terrorism. That's one of the reasons why they published.