NYT discloses secret program to track terrorist finances.

[Gregory Pratt]

Republicans in this thread keep running their mouths, saying,

 

"WHY ISN'T THE NYT LOOKING FOR A PROBE TO SEE WHO THE LEEKS WERE FROM LOL!"

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=96511

 

The very same thing can be said of the Republicans.

 

In a democracy, the first responsibility of a journalist is to get accurate information about what the government is doing to the people so that they can make appropriate decisions about what is done in their name. That's why the founders put an unequivocal freedom-of-the-press protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and its why Thomas Jefferson famously declared, "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

 

Of course, there have been some limits on what information journalists share with the citizenry. It is generally agreed, for instance, that reporters ought not report in too much detail on troop movements in wartime, as the publication of such information could endanger soldiers and undermine military objectives.

 

So when the Washington press corps began reporting this week on leaked information about planning by U.S. commanders in Iraq to withdraw two of the 14 combat brigades stationed in that country by September of this year, it would not have been surprising if the stories had raised eyebrows among the more sensitive players in the Bush administration.

 

While this is hardly a classic example of "reporting on troop movements," it is an instance where the media is getting into quite a bit of detail about where U.S. troops will be positioned in the none-too-distant future. As an example, television networks are showing maps of the regions of Iraq from which U.S. troops might exit in relatively short order.

 

So what has been the reaction of a White House that is known to be on edge about leaks to leaks regarding the deployment of U.S. troops in coming months?

 

President Bush and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow have both ruminated on the rumors in some detail. Each has suggested that no decision has yet been made, and they have even detailed the standards that are being used to come to decisions about withdrawal.

 

The conversations have been easy going and White House reporters have felt no presidential fury.

 

Contrast that reaction to the response by the president, his aides and allies to reports in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal that the president has authorized federal agencies to monitor the banking transactions of private citizens.

 

Ostensibly, the monitoring is intended to track transfers of money by supposed terrorists. But the program, like many of the administration's other moves to monitor the conversations and business dealings of private individuals, has been implemented in secret, without the subpoenas that are traditionally required for such reviews, and in a manner designed to avoid the sort of independent governmental oversight that is supposed to prevent abuse.

 

Now, it would be ridiculous to think that Osama bin Laden or anyone else associated with al Qaeda would be naïve enough to think that they could transfer large amounts of money through regular banking channels without being found out. So the revelation of the monitoring could hardly be called a threat to the "war on terror" – at least, not by anyone who knows anything about dealing with terrorist networks.

 

Yet, President Bush went ballistic about reporting on the monitoring, telling White House reporters, "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. And for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."

 

Vice President Cheney was even blunter, saying, "Some of the press, particularly the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs."

 

Bush allies in Congress have even called for the prosecution of the New York Times for revealing to Americans the extent to which they are being spied upon.

 

So why is the Bush administration so freaked out about a leak regarding a spying program that could not possibly have come as news to any terrorists but that certainly might interest average Americans? And why isn't the president concerned about leaks regarding specific redeployments of troops in the near future?

 

There's no mystery.

 

The leak about spying on bank records will feed concerns about the extent that this administration has engaged in spying on citizens. That could be politically damaging.

 

On the other hand, the leak about planning for troop deployments – coming at a time when the majority of Americans say they want to see a plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq – eases the political pressure on the president and his Republican allies.

 

What's the bottom line? The cynical Bush White House has always seen the "war on terror" as a political tool. The president and his allies – heeding the advice of White House political czar Karl Rove – regularly tailor their responses to new developments to benefit their domestic political fortunes while undermining the prospects of their political foes.

 

Leaks about plans for troop redeployment are fine with the president because they could help him and his congressional allies politically.

 

Leaks about the administration spying on citizens, on the other hand, are "disgraceful" because they could cause the president and his Republicans acolytes political harm.

 

I think the indignation over this leak is silly, as I've said.

[FlaSoxxJim]

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.

 

The real reason the White House is upset has a whole lot less to do with TREASON(!!! - talk about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. . . ), and a lot more to do with revealing just how many people are troubled by privacy aspects of tthe program. If the program is kept flying under the radar (whether it's truly secret or not), then the grumblings of any officials or ex-officials (who obviously don't know when to shut up!) or SWIFT co-op managers also stay under the radar.

Edited June 28, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

Hasn't the administration bragged how they were tracking terrorists via their money? Look at their web site

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

Nothing was undermined. Nothing new of any relevence came to light. Therefore, I have no problem with it. If something in there really could undermine our work, I'd be upset too. But nothing in there does, so I'm not.

[minors]

Republicans in this thread keep running their mouths, saying,

 

"WHY ISN'T THE NYT LOOKING FOR A PROBE TO SEE WHO THE LEEKS WERE FROM LOL!"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=96511

I think the indignation over this leak is silly, as I've said.

 

 

I have never said anything about looking for the leaks. All I said is who ever disclosed this stuff should be puinshed

[Gregory Pratt]

I have never said anything about looking for the leaks. All I said is who ever disclosed this stuff should be puinshed

 

[Cknolls]

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...

 

 

I see you have a very substantive response. Where are you doing stand-up this weekend?????????????????

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I have never said anything about looking for the leaks. All I said is who ever disclosed this stuff should be puinshed

 

 

..........right alongside those who disseminated it.

[kapkomet]

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...

Who made you the grammar police? Stop it. It's condescending bulls***.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Who made you the grammar police? Stop it. It's condescending bulls***.

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Also maybe he should have his own ducks in a row before he goes on about someone else's punctuation.

Edited June 29, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[WCSox]

Nothing was undermined.

 

I strongly disagree. I can imagine a conversation like this happening in the future...

 

[ring, ring]

 

Pervez Musharaff: Hello?

 

George W. Bush: Mr. Musharaff, this is George W. Bush. How's it going?

 

PM: Not bad, George... considering that my country is infested with terrorists who have tried to kill me twice already. How about yourself?

 

GWB: Good. Listen, I would like you to help us located suspected al Qaeda in Pakistan.

 

PM: [pauses] I'd love to help you, George, but...

 

GWB: What I have in mind is a collaboration where our CIA will help your govnerment track phone and e-mail records of suspected terrorists in your country. Your government will supply the information and our government will supply the equipment.

 

PM: Well, um...

 

GWB: The beauty of this is that it's perfectly legal in your country. So, what do you say?

 

PM: I'd love to help you, George, but al Qaeda sympathy is so strong over here that I would likely be targeted for assassination again...

 

GWB: Oh, don't worry about that. The program will be classified - nobody will know about it.

 

PM: Oh, kind of like the "covert" SWIFT program that ended up on the f***ing front page of the New York Times?

 

GWB: Excuse me?

 

PM: Your press is so out of control that your government can't keep a secret anymore. People over here read the New York Times as well, you know. Islamic militants have tried to kill me twice already. Given that they riot over RUMORS of your people flushing pages of the Koran down the tiolet, I'd be surely targeted for death if this program were ever leaked. I'm sorry, George, but I can't help you. Give my best to Mrs. Bush.

 

[hangs up]

[NorthSideSox72]

I strongly disagree. I can imagine a conversation like this happening in the future...

 

[ring, ring]

 

Pervez Musharaff: Hello?

 

George W. Bush: Mr. Musharaff, this is George W. Bush. How's it going?

 

PM: Not bad, George... considering that my country is infested with terrorists who have tried to kill me twice already. How about yourself?

 

GWB: Good. Listen, I would like you to help us located suspected al Qaeda in Pakistan.

 

PM: [pauses] I'd love to help you, George, but...

 

GWB: What I have in mind is a collaboration where our CIA will help your govnerment track phone and e-mail records of suspected terrorists in your country. Your government will supply the information and our government will supply the equipment.

 

PM: Well, um...

 

GWB: The beauty of this is that it's perfectly legal in your country. So, what do you say?

 

PM: I'd love to help you, George, but al Qaeda sympathy is so strong over here that I would likely be targeted for assassination again...

 

GWB: Oh, don't worry about that. The program will be classified - nobody will know about it.

 

PM: Oh, kind of like the "covert" SWIFT program that ended up on the f***ing front page of the New York Times?

 

GWB: Excuse me?

 

PM: Your press is so out of control that your government can't keep a secret anymore. People over here read the New York Times as well, you know. Islamic militants have tried to kill me twice already. Given that they riot over RUMORS of your people flushing pages of the Koran down the tiolet, I'd be surely targeted for death if this program were ever leaked. I'm sorry, George, but I can't help you. Give my best to Mrs. Bush.

 

[hangs up]

 

Very amusing. But entirely unlikely, unless Musharaff was just looking for any excuse to hang onto. The stretch being put on this by the GOP is ridiculous.

 

And, again SWIFT isn't a program. Its an industry standards organization. Saying SWIFT is involved in tracking financial transactions is like saying pipelines are involved in moving oil. Its either obvious or pointless to bother pointing out.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

From the Boston Globe...

 

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."

 

--

SWIFT and the efforts were mostly in the public record. The NYT article didn't publish anything amazing or stuff that we didn't already know except for the grumblings of a couple people involved. a clear case of treason.

 

Why does the public record hate America so much?!

 

And hey Nuke, there is a newspaper that won't publish anything the government doesn't want it to. So fear no more that the press might leak something about the government. Let's all get subscriptions to...

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Who made you the grammar police? Stop it. It's condescending bulls***.

 

If it bothers you that much, I'll stop, certainly. But that clearly wasn't policing. I wasn't actually trying to correct his grammar. It was satire, and I thought it was humorous at that.

 

But I guess that's semantics, in addition to bulls***.

 

Also maybe he should have his own ducks in a row before he goes on about someone else's punctuation.

 

I'm pretty happy with my grammar, thanks.

 

I see you have a very substantive response. Where are you doing stand-up this weekend?????????????????

 

I'm not sure yet.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[WCSox]

 

Very amusing. But entirely unlikely, unless Musharaff was just looking for any excuse to hang onto. The stretch being put on this by the GOP is ridiculous.

 

And, again SWIFT isn't a program. Its an industry standards organization. Saying SWIFT is involved in tracking financial transactions is like saying pipelines are involved in moving oil. Its either obvious or pointless to bother pointing out.

 

Yes, I know what SWIFT is. :rolly

 

If you don't think that the press featuring classified anti-terrorism information on the front pages of their papers is going to make foreign governments think twice about working with us, you're living in a dream world.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yes, I know what SWIFT is. :rolly

 

If you don't think that the press featuring classified anti-terrorism information on the front pages of their papers is going to make foreign governments think twice about working with us, you're living in a dream world.

Here I was thinking that prison scandals, the usage of psychological and physical torture, shipping off detainees to countries where torture is legal, thumbing our noses at the Nuremburg Tribunals and the rule of law (i.e. habeas corpus, due process, Geneva Convention etc.), starting a war based on questionable intelligence as a tactical pivot to control Middle Eastern oil supplies, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping might cause some countries to have a few second thoughts of working with us.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes, I know what SWIFT is. :rolly

 

If you don't think that the press featuring classified anti-terrorism information on the front pages of their papers is going to make foreign governments think twice about working with us, you're living in a dream world.

 

I don't know about that.

 

I do believe that it might make the SWIFT co-op managers revisit their earlier concerns over the extent of the operation and their involvement in it. Are the safeguards against privacy rights abuse adequate? is there an absolute asurance that only terror suspect transactions will be tracked and only those individuals will be pursued based on information obtained through SWIFT? can they some kind of sunset provision, or is this the permanent status quo?

 

Without a trusted Greenspan to make some slight program concessions and to reassure them, I can see them questioning some program aspects. Hopefully that happens if they still do have valid reservations. And hopefully they are reassured that their cooperation is vital, legal, and necessary and the the program continues in a form that everybody can live with.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Here I was thinking that prison scandals, the usage of psychological and physical torture, shipping off detainees to countries where torture is legal, thumbing our noses at the Nuremburg Tribunals and the rule of law (i.e. habeas corpus, due process, Geneva Convention etc.), starting a war based on questionable intelligence as a tactical pivot to control Middle Eastern oil supplies, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping might cause some countries to have a few second thoughts of working with us.

 

 

Most of your "points" can be chalked up to this::

 

 

The part about starting a war to "control middle eastern oil supplies" is more like this:: . If the intent of starting a war was to control middle eastern oil we would have invaded Saudi Arabia ............. or .............. Nigeria...........or.............Venezuela..........or Angola.............or why bother leaving the continent. We could invade and sack Canada as we import more oil from them than anyone else.

 

Some of the stuff you say is just off-the-charts insane.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Most of your "points" can be chalked up to this::

The part about starting a war to "control middle eastern oil supplies" is more like this:: . If the intent of starting a war was to control middle eastern oil we would have invaded Saudi Arabia ............. or .............. Nigeria...........or.............Venezuela..........or Angola.............or why bother leaving the continent. We could invade and sack Canada as we import more oil from them than anyone else.

 

Some of the stuff you say is just off-the-charts insane.

 

Nuke, I wasn't the one who said Iraq was a tactical pivot. ADefense Policy Board briefing with Laurent Murawiec did – the one where, in a Power Point presentation to Perle and the assembled worthies, Murawiec declaimed:

 

* "Iraq is the tactical pivot

* Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot

* Egypt the prize.

 

Yes Nuke, it's just crying

 

Just the fact that shipping people off to countries where it is legal to torture is illegal.

 

Just the fact that the FBI interrogators are incredibly pissed at the torture/interrogation tactics being used. They see it as not giving any benefits and see it as a detriment to actual security. (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/helenthomas/4023757/detail.html)

 

By the way, take a gander at what that bleeding heart terrorist loving FBI agent discusses what interrogators did to people while detained.

 

Just the fact that the Supreme Court ruled today that US detainees have the rights of the Geneva Conventions.

 

From FBI bureau agent Dan Coleman: "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul."

 

But outside of that and more, you're right. It's just crying

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, I know what SWIFT is. :rolly

 

If you don't think that the press featuring classified anti-terrorism information on the front pages of their papers is going to make foreign governments think twice about working with us, you're living in a dream world.

Again, that information was nothing materially different from what the President said. Therefore, the NYT/LAT/WSJ did no more harm than our own fearless leader did.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Therefore, the NYT/LAT/WSJ did no more harm than our own fearless leader did.

 

talk about setting the bar low. . .

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, I wasn't the one who said Iraq was a tactical pivot. ADefense Policy Board briefing with Laurent Murawiec did – the one where, in a Power Point presentation to Perle and the assembled worthies, Murawiec declaimed:

 

* "Iraq is the tactical pivot

* Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot

* Egypt the prize.

 

Yes Nuke, it's just crying

 

Just the fact that shipping people off to countries where it is legal to torture is illegal.

 

Just the fact that the FBI interrogators are incredibly pissed at the torture/interrogation tactics being used. They see it as not giving any benefits and see it as a detriment to actual security. (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/helenthomas/4023757/detail.html)

 

By the way, take a gander at what that bleeding heart terrorist loving FBI agent discusses what interrogators did to people while detained.

 

Just the fact that the Supreme Court ruled today that US detainees have the rights of the Geneva Conventions.

 

From FBI bureau agent Dan Coleman: "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul."

 

But outside of that and more, you're right. It's just crying

 

 

What you're implying is that we are playing a game of Risk with the Middle East and I think that's highly dubious at best. I guess I better pack my stuff and start reading all i can about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. LOL! Sigh.

 

 

Sooooo. Some FBI agents dont like "brutalizing" terror suspects. Again........ . Again. Sleep deprivation, playing loud music, siccing the dogs on em to make em wet their pants, and leaving the lights on all night is only brutal in your world. And you know what? If terrorists get a beat down laid down on them while they're in Gitmo I really dont care. Goes back to my earlier statement where if all the "torture" whether actual or imagined only saves the life of one innocent person then it's all worth it. I have no love lost for these people at all.

 

My favorite part was "you lose your soul" HAH! That was great.

[WCSox]

Again, that information was nothing materially different from what the President said. Therefore, the NYT/LAT/WSJ did no more harm than our own fearless leader did.

 

Again, the press reporting classified counter-terrorism information gives other nations the impression that our government is incapable of working covertly. This will damage our ability to collaborate with them.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Again, the press reporting classified counter-terrorism information gives other nations the impression that our government is incapable of working covertly. This will damage our ability to collaborate with them.

 

 

Points like that shouldn't need to be voiced but I guess they have to be around here.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

What you're implying is that we are playing a game of Risk with the Middle East and I think that's highly dubious at best. I guess I better pack my stuff and start reading all i can about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. LOL! Sigh.

Sooooo. Some FBI agents dont like "brutalizing" terror suspects. Again........ . Again. Sleep deprivation, playing loud music, siccing the dogs on em to make em wet their pants, and leaving the lights on all night is only brutal in your world. And you know what? If terrorists get a beat down laid down on them while they're in Gitmo I really dont care. Goes back to my earlier statement where if all the "torture" whether actual or imagined only saves the life of one innocent person then it's all worth it. I have no love lost for these people at all.

 

My favorite part was "you lose your soul" HAH! That was great.

Nuke, check out KUBARK (1963). CIA psychological torture manual.

 

The basic precepts they developed for effective psychological torture were:

1. sensory deprivation (hooding, sleep dep, sleep deprival, 24 hr. a day lights etc.)

2. self inflicted pain (stress positions)

 

These were later refined in the 1980s when the new (declassified) torture manual came out discussing the finer points of both physical and psychological torture.

 

So spare me that it isn't "brutal". It is psychological torture pure and simple. And Nuke, regarding "saving people via torture" -- that's the thing THE FBI SAID THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE IS NOT EFFECTIVE AT GETTING TRUTHFUL INFORMATION.

 

The torture of suspects did not lead to any useful intelligence information being extracted. - James Corum, professor at the Army Command and General Staff College

 

And what about the legendary Marine interrogation tactics of Major Sherwood F. Moran during WW II? He used empathy to establish intellectual and spiritual rapport with Japanese prisoners. Rejecting the idea that the enemy was a group of fanatics who required tough tactics, Moran, who was fluent in Japanese, approached each prisoner talking as a human being to a human being. His manual of these methods persuaded the Navy and Marines to train their interrogators in Japanese language and culture, producing grads who were among the most effective interrogators in the Pacific campaign of 1944 and 1945, supplying complete Japanese order of battle intel on Saipan and Tinian within forty eight hours of landing.

 

So the proof is in the pudding that non-violent techniques without psychological or physical torture do elicit more accurate information than their more nefarious counterparts.

 

I'd love to know how Nuke thinks we'd get accurate information from victims of psychological or physical torture. Cuz I sure know I'd trust a paranoid, incoherent speaking, disoriented, delusional person.

 

From Physicians for Human Rights:

 

Health Consequences of Psychological Torture

 

The PHR report reviews extensive clinical experience and studies that have revealed the destructive health consequences of psychological torture such as memory impairment, severe depression with vegetative symptoms, somatic complaints of headache and back pain, nightmares, feeling of shame and humiliation, and reduced capacity to concentrate. One of the PHR's sources familiar with Guantánamo said that detainees there suffer from incoherent speech, disorientation, delusions, and paranoia.

 

Prolonged Isolation

 

Studies have demonstrated that short-term isolation caused an inability to think or concentrate, anxiety, temporal and spatial disorientation, hallucinations and loss of motor skills. The ICRC, government reports and documentation of individual detainees, who have been subjected to long-term isolation, all substantiate the severe health effects of solitary confinement.

 

Sleep Deprivation

 

Total sleep deprivation can cause impairments in memory, learning and logical reasoning. Sleep restriction can also result in hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Two detainees held in Afghanistan said that several weeks of sleep deprivation left them terrified and disoriented.

 

Sexual Humiliation

 

Victims of sexual torture forever carry a stigma and will often be ostracized by the community. Sexual humiliation often leads to symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), major depression and multiple physical complaints such as headaches, eating disorders and digestive problems. Suicides may also occur unless a strong religious conviction forbids otherwise.