http://www.ft.com/cms/s/053833b2-02bc-11db-9231-0000779e2340.html

Personally I'm sick to death of the lack of intelligence in the NY Times staff.

We've been tracking financial dealings/money wiring internationally and it has led to the arrests of key individuals...including the cretin that planned the 2002 Bali bombing.

In it's pursuit to destroy the security of the US and it's troops abroad the NY Times decided to shine a light upon this and alert the terrorists.

Well done, may you rot in a special hell 1000 years for each death linked to your actions...

Fandros

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/053833b2-02bc-11db-9231-0000779e2340.html

Personally I'm sick to death of the lack of intelligence in the NY Times staff.

We've been tracking financial dealings/money wiring internationally and it has led to the arrests of key individuals...including the cretin that planned the 2002 Bali bombing.

In it's pursuit to destroy the security of the US and it's troops abroad the NY Times decided to shine a light upon this and alert the terrorists.

Well done, may you rot in a special hell 1000 years for each death linked to your actions...

Fandros

I don't think they let out any big secret that Al Qaeda wasn't aware of.


?I am particularly proud of our Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which, based on intelligence leads, carefully targets financial transactions of suspected foreign terrorists,? he said in press release.


Mr Snow released the statement to confirm a report in the New York Times alleging that the US government had been tracking records of money flows to and from suspected terrorists through the network that handles most of the world?s international financial transfers

I truly can't believe that Al Qaeda was sitting around thinking there phone calls, banking transactions, websites, etc... werent being monitored. I would take a bet and say alot of their transactions are done with cash or through "front companies" much the same way as the mafia does.

The NY Times is far from responsible for aiding terrorists by printing things that I assure you the terrorists were WELL aware of the goings on.

I take the opposing view. The government is acting with very questionable authority in its "war on terror," and its actions compromise the security of the citizens it claims to protect. Men of power are far too prone to corruption to trust that they will use information gleaned in secrecy "in our best interests." It's the responsibility of the media to shed light on these transgressions. Without transparency and the rule of law (i.e., the use of warrants to subpoena information), then your security is an illusion.

Note, by the way, how quickly talk of outlawing data providers (e.g., groups that provide cell phone records and such, often illegally acquired) faded after it was revealed that the FBI and various police forces used them.

You're far too willing to give carte blanche authority to the government, especially this government.

Aye Thor, and you're far too willing to completely handicap any efforts to capture those that would do us ill.

Would you instead hope they can stop the bad guys with tea leaves and perhaps a lil crystal ball reading.

gods..

Oh and Rover, ya'd have to have been in the Middle East to understand that they don't use banks. They use a type of honor system and transfer money with practically no ledgers.

It's been that way for ages so likely they didn't stop to think it could be monitored. Kind of us naively thinking airliners full of fuel couldn't be used as weapons...

Fandros

Oh and Thor you miss something imporant.

The flipping press doesn't get to decide issues of National Security. They don't get the right to make that type of call.

Fuck me, I can't believe I bother with this. Ya'll are too willing to forget the pain of 9/11 and you all are the same folks that bitched we didn't stop them the first time.

Fandros

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither." (Benjamin Franklin)

Aye Thor, and you're far too willing to completely handicap any efforts to capture those that would do us ill.
Not even close. I do insist that laws be followed and the Constitution serve as a guiding document, not a hurdle to be overcome.
The flipping press doesn't get to decide issues of National Security. They don't get the right to make that type of call.
So if BushCo decides that "national security" means, say, scanning our hard drives or listening in on our phone calls, the press should just let it go?
Ya'll are too willing to forget the pain of 9/11 and you all are the same folks that bitched we didn't stop them the first time.
No, I'm just not to the point where I'm wetting the bed over it so much that I'm willing to toss every constitutional and legal safeguard against government overreach aside on the administration's say so. We have legal means by which to investigate this sort of thing. Let's use them.

If the administration doesn't like the law, they can ask to change it. But Bush/Cheney are too craven to do so, preferring instead to circumvent it. They've not earned that level of trust, and even were their record in this arena immaculate, I'd still reject the sort of authority they try to claim.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither." (Benjamin Franklin)LMFAO. Read up on what old Ben thought of Congress' oversight abilities in regards to National Security before spewing your out of context drivel.

Oh and Rover, ya'd have to have been in the Middle East to understand that they don't use banks. They use a type of honor system and transfer money with practically no ledgers.

It's been that way for ages so likely they didn't stop to think it could be monitored. Kind of us naively thinking airliners full of fuel couldn't be used as weapons...

Fandros

Ummmm...no. They use banks in the middle east. You are referring to something that is totally different. So lets say we use the "They don't use banks" scenario. Then why are we trolling through bank transfer records?

9/11 should not be used as a springboard for the government of the United States to simply walk all over the constitutional protections of its citizens.

One of those protections involves getting a warrant in order to investigate the perpetrators of a crime.

No one I know, including Thormir, thinks that 9/11 was a justified attack on the US and no one I know thinks that we shouldn't go after those responsible for 9/11 and like attacks on the US or its interests. I think what you see is a large section of the US population that has a concern that our rights as citizens are being violated unneccessarily.

We see a war that has become a battlefield not only against those who physically attacked us but a battlefield against those who question the policies of a questionable administration. We, the people of this nation who use our inaliable right to speak out against actual or perceived injustices of OUR government are called unpatriotic, supporters of terrorists, told we are cowards who would cut and run (that is very bothersome as it is said by those who never had the guts to even wear a uniform)

You talk about being sick of shit? I'm sick of watching young soldiers die every day in a war that is just not being fought correctly, soldiers dieing in a war because our glorious leaders "made some mistakes" when they invaded Iraq, soldiers dieing because we needed to get the nuclear and biological WMD's THAT DIDN'T FUCKING EXIST, but don't forget since they don't exist we were then there to rid the world of the evil that was Sadam because he killed his citizens and NEVER FUCKING MIND THAT NORTH FUCKING KOREA DOES THE SAME GODDAMNED THING. But thats OKAY for George and Dick...funny isnt that?

But of course we couldn't possibly be in Iraq for oil...no way not us...if we were then we'd be there for strategic purposes and well...billy bob and his pals sitting in the back fucking woods of west podunk...well they just don't understand shit like strategic positioning...so we tell them that its the WMD's and Sadam is gonna nuke their cabins and life is gonna suck with orange hair and burnt skin...but there arent WMD's so we sell billy bob on the idea that if we weren't in Iraq then he'd have to be shooting the fucking towel heads with his squirrel gun over on the state game lands.

Don't kid yourselves, WE ARE THERE FOR THE OIL...its just that the arrogant assholes in Washington didn't figure into the equation that there was a thousand or so years of animosity between the sects in Iraq...after all...our overwhelming military power would scare the shit out of them...shock and awe them is what they said...after all...it worked against the rice farmers in Vietnam....didn't it?

Rover I love ya like a cactus breeding bruddah but you're up in the night if you think it's for oil.

It was clearly stated before we even went in that oil would've remained cheaper had we stayed out. Well initially that is, until full war broke out in the Middle East. Ya'll are far too shortsighted and too slanted hindsighted way to see past your hatred of Bush and Co.

Oh, no trolling of bank records is involved btw, methinks you best read up on what's going on. It's all legal and on the up and up with Congress being briefed before this went into place even.

Thor, show me where dogging the money trails of known terrorists is protected in the Constitution....(insert voice of Carlos Mencia here) du ta du....it's not and you flipping know it.

There are no lost freedoms here, just the illusion being crammed down your throats that you're being strip mined of your rights.

Go go 2006 and 2008, fight for the folks who's only asperation is being elected based on their wavering platforms.

Fandros

Thanks Akpit for interpreting what that quote means. For a while there I actually thought it was a literal meaning.


The contex of that quote comes from a time where there were militias. All adult men were capable and prepared to fight to defend their town. They didn't need a federal force to come and hold their hand. They protected their towns. They were aware when odd things were taking place. They knew who was coming and who was going. In today's world, people are egocentric. They can't be bothered to pay attention to thier surroundings to identify potential threats. If individuals would take the responsibility to be alert, aware and protect their immediate proximity then there would be none of these problems. If even a couple of men on each of the 9/11 jets would have accepted their duty as an American to defend themselves and their neighbors against threats then it never would have happened.

Don't even try to start about monday morning quarterbacking. I grew up in a bad neighborhood. I have knife scars. I have a blackbelt, and I did some amateur kickboxing. If anyone ever pulls a knife on me again you can bet they are going to be choking on it.

I am sick of bedwetting, irresponsible, unpatriotic, feeble, American posers. Suck it up buttercup and learn how to be a man.

If individuals would take the responsibility to be alert, aware and protect their immediate proximity then there would be none of these problems. If even a couple of men on each of the 9/11 jets would have accepted their duty as an American to defend themselves and their neighbors against threats then it never would have happened. Phel

I couldn't agree more. I've been cut in fights more than a few times, fights over far less worthy causes than protecting folks on a plane. I'd sure as hell bear the cuts to stop the travesties of even a single plane going down.

Fandros

Rover I love ya like a cactus breeding bruddah ...
When idioms run amok! :p
Ya'll are far too shortsighted and too slanted hindsighted way to see past your hatred of Bush and Co.
Ya'll are far too shortsighted and too slanted hindsighted way to see past your devotion to Bush and Co.

I don't think oil was the reason for the war, but it certainly was a reason. It was also used as a justification by way of paying for the war. Since, you know, it was only going to cost ~50 billion.
Thor, show me where dogging the money trails of known terrorists is protected in the Constitution....(insert voice of Carlos Mencia here) du ta du....it's not and you flipping know it.
Known? Even John Snow didn't say known: "?I am particularly proud of our Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which, based on intelligence leads, carefully targets financial transactions of suspected foreign terrorists.?
Oh, no trolling of bank records is involved btw, methinks you best read up on what's going on.
Okay, let's read up, from the LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-swift23jun23,0,7150719,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines):
During the last five years, SWIFT officials have raised concerns about the scope of the program, particularly at the outset, when it was handing over virtually its entire database. The amount of data handed over each month has been winnowed down.
Ah, so they were only giving away the entire database. No trolling involved, right? It was narrowed down, but only after SWIFT considered pulling out entirely.

Worth noting that the article mentions "[m]ore than a dozen current and former U.S. officials discussed the program with The Times on condition of anonymity, citing its sensitive nature." Knowledge of the program also spread beyond top level SWIFT executives and administration officials. I'm guessing the NY/LA Times editors aren't the only ones off to Hell. :rolleyes:

Now, the program may be legal (at the very least, more legal than the NSA warrantless wiretaps), but at present there is very little keeping it in check.
Officials from other government agencies have raised the issue of accessing the records for other investigative purposes, but Levey said such proposals have been rejected ? largely out of concern that doing so might erode support for the program.
"We wouldn't do that sort of thing," isn't the kind of safeguard I put faith in. This program can be useful (though I note oddly contradictory reports of success/value in the LAT article), but we need laws -- not men -- and overseers of those laws guiding its course.

I don't know why I bother with you Thor. It's plain you'd rather live in your candy coated world full of happy hippo's than to dwell or serve what needs doing.

Ya'll are far too shortsighted and too slanted hindsighted way to see past your devotion to Bush and Co. Thor

I'm not devoted to Bush and Co....I am devoted and oath sworn to the United States of America....you? Oh, wait....serve thyself...billions of self indulgence served eh?

We can't proceed , can't continue and certainly wouldn't prevail by fighting this war as you'd have us...with your hands behind our back and our heads deeply in the sand.

Fandros

Hard to say why I bother with you either, Fandros, since all you can do is toss peurile insults at those who regard this administration and its tactics with suspicion. Again, your characterization is completely off.

Please tell me, what is wrong with the seeking of warrants for wiretapping American citizens (you know, based on that Fourth Amendment to our Constitution)? Why is that a bad thing? Why is it wrong to ask for judicial oversight to make sure our rights are protected against a government that has already deceived its citizenry as to the nature of their investigations ("all wiretaps are accompanied by a warrant")? Given this deception, why is it wrong to be suspicious of our government?

The one living in the candy coated world, head in the sand, is the one putting full faith into a deceptive government inclined to bypass any and all safeguards in their acquisition of information. Your haughty claims of oath taking remind me of the flag burning issue -- protecting a symbol rather than what it represents.

If individuals would take the responsibility to be alert, aware and protect their immediate proximity then there would be none of these problems. If even a couple of men on each of the 9/11 jets would have accepted their duty as an American to defend themselves and their neighbors against threats then it never would have happened. Phel

I couldn't agree more. I've been cut in fights more than a few times, fights over far less worthy causes than protecting folks on a plane. I'd sure as hell bear the cuts to stop the travesties of even a single plane going down.

Fandros

You seem to of forgot (untill the last one went down the word was out) that those on the planes "thought" they were being hijacked and held for ransom for political reasons. This tactic usually involves landing somewhere and holding people hostage, broker a deal and get released or slaughtered. The fly the planes into buildings was a new thing.

Aye Ibu, thanks for the reminder. It truth I had forgotten the old realities of hijacking....sometimes the filters are hard to see past.


Fandros

It's a shame what they might have been able to do, what they might have been able to prevent, had they known. I'm sure at least a few folks would have taken on their captors a la Flight 93.

According to the article the data is turned over, but can only be accessed with specific search methods, and there are Swift folks there overseeing that the data is not misused.

The description given of how the process works does not bother me in the least. It appears to be exactly what I would be hoping our intelligence services would be doing at any given time, not just during this "war".

When you suspect a person or business is involved in criminal behavior you look for actions and patterns of behavior and associations that will support your suspicions; you then seek your warrants to gather specific information to be used as evidence. I see nothing in the article's described program that I would feel violated my rights under the Constitution.

In this particular case, I question the motives of the reporter who presented this article for publication as well as those who allowed it to be printed. And not just because he has the name of a fur-uh-ner.

In this particular case, I question the motives of the reporter who presented this article for publication as well as those who allowed it to be printed. And not just because he has the name of a fur-uh-ner.

I agree completely.

To me this looks like a case of newspapers going for the headlines to boost circulation at the detriment of our intelligence services.

No laws were being broken. This was explained to the newspapers prior to their printing as was the intelligence loss that will inevitably result. Safeguards against unauthorized disclosure of the data was also explained to them.

Valuable insight into how the US is tracking / attacking the flow of money to terrorist organizations is now available to those same terrorist organizations where it wasn't before. You can be sure they will modify their operating procedures further, putting the intelligence services further behind.

Please tell me, what is wrong with the seeking of warrants for wiretapping American citizens (you know, based on that Fourth Amendment to our Constitution)? Why is that a bad thing? Why is it wrong to ask for judicial oversight to make sure our rights are protected against a government that has already deceived its citizenry as to the nature of their investigations ("all wiretaps are accompanied by a warrant")? Given this deception, why is it wrong to be suspicious of our government?


This is the key part that Bush apologist just don't ever seem to read.

No one thinks it's generally wrong for an executive agency like the FBI to go in and do surveillance PROVIDED they have judicial oversight. That's how the system is supposed to work. If you have a warrant, if you have a subpoena, that is eventually part of public record and completely legal. If you don't, one has to wonder exactly why you chose not to get one, because it's not hard, and such completely legal law enforcement actions net thousands of arrests and convictions a year.

For something like banking data, which is kept available in some cases for decades and can't be remotely construed as some sort of "hot pursuit", there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to not go through proper, legal procedures.

It's also fairly naive to think that the mujahideen-style organizations out there aren't at the very least circumspectly aware of the sort of things that the American intelligence community can do, given that our agencies created, funded, trained, and provided intelligence for them in the first place.

I got to say i disagree with ya mostly Fandros.

The lack of conformity on what drives us to war, irks me. Iran has all but said fuck you, yeah we have the bomb, N. Korea is openly and actively testing missles with range to hit US targets, but are we in Iran or Korea? I am not saying its oil, but why the lack of any real plans, any real time tables, and real goals.

Thor, show me where dogging the money trails of known terrorists is protected in the Constitution....(insert voice of Carlos Mencia here) du ta du....it's not and you flipping know it.

The acts of the administration on anything it uses as a tool of investigation is highly scrutinized due to the , IMO, illegal use of the the wire taps and electronic survaillence.

When 9/11 happened i was pissed, i wanted the people caught, but i did not want to become what seperates us from the rest of the world. People are so willing to give up things "to catch the bad guy" they dont think about what impact it will have in the future.

The Press isnt the issue with National Security, they are the ones reporting information given to them, so if you want to bitch, bitch at the people leaking the wire taping, financial investigation reports.

At what point do we say stop?

For something like banking data, which is kept available in some cases for decades and can't be remotely construed as some sort of "hot pursuit", there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to not go through proper, legal procedures.


Your statement above implies illegal procedures are being used, but I saw no such accusation after reading the article.

This is not the same thing as the wiretapping program, which I am adamantly opposed to as the Bush team has implemented based on both prior legislation and SC opinions that have been previously discussed. This program with the financial data is exactly the kind of activity one would expect our intelligence and/or law enforcement people to be undertaking even when not involved in a "war"; it is appropriate to look for actions by business or individual financial activity that may be criminal or supporting a criminal enterprise. If the patterns or activity emerge, I saw nothing in that article that would lead me to think that proper warrants are not pursued for more specific gathering of data.

The program has proper oversight by the Swift people themselves, and the parameters used in the searches are limited in their focus. If or when a flag is raised then yes, a warrant should be procured to allow for more detailed investigation. But to say it is improper to allow such a process to seek patterns by suspect people and groups and businesses is to say we do not want our intelligence services to be able to function until after the fact; and then, we can have committees sit and pass judgement on why the services performed their job so poorly.

The flipping press doesn't get to decide issues of National Security

You are right... We the People do however. But how can these things be approved of or disapproved of by the people if an administration hides behind giant walls labeled "Classified". You cant put a person in a closet then ask him or her if its raining.

The bottom line is that Bush/Cheney do not trust the American people.

Why is it so difficult for people to swallow the idea that perhaps we invade for oil?

We are a nation that basically runs on oil. Why would it not be smart to control those resources?

Some think its ok to have invaded to rid Iraq of WMD's.

Some think its ok to have done it to rid Iraq of Sadam.

Some think it was ok to invade to rid the world of terrorists.

Its like every reason to invade Iraq can be justified and accepted by different segments of the population except the fact that we just might have invaded to control the oil, controlling the oil is strategic. Its about the only reason that makes sense. Hell its why they were fighting over the middle east in WWII. Why not now?

Is it such an appalling thought that perhaps a bunch of businessmen involved with oil have been voted into office in this country and have used the government resources that are at their disposal to exploit an opportunity and control a large part of the resources in that part of the world?

Do you think that it would really matter to them that oil prices would increase? Do you think that cheap oil is the goal of oil companies?

Does it cost more to get oil out of the ground that sells for $65 a barrel than it costs to get it out of the ground at $20 a barrel? Does the salaries of those working on oil rigs go up with the price of oil?

Don't kid yourselves, swallow it...we are there for the oil.

It's also fairly naive to think that the mujahideen-style organizations out there aren't at the very least circumspectly aware of the sort of things that the American intelligence community can do, given that our agencies created, funded, trained, and provided intelligence for them in the first place.Seriously, are you out of your mind?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/730463.html

In early April, 2003, an Islamic Jihad activist went to a Western Union office in Lebanon and ordered a money transfer to Hebron. The Justice Department authorized Western Union to release this information to the FBI and the CIA, and eventually to the Shin Bet. According to Suskind, all this took just minutes, enabling Israeli intelligence to track the person who collected the transfer in Hebron and to uncover the terror cell.

According to the book, this method was used successfully many times over the next year and a half, until autumn 2004, when Palestinian operatives realized that their Western Union transfers were being used to trap them.
The intelligence level of someone who straps on an explosive vest for the good of the virgins he's promised in the afterlife is probably quite low.. no one will argue that (except probably Malse, who'll probably find a way to blame us for that too)... but assuming their organizations as a whole are aware of our techniques and capabilities so it's no use keeping it a secret anyway is just plain retarded.

The bottom line is that Bush/Cheney do not trust the American people. Neither did Ben Franklin. Guess he was a tyrant too.

Seriously, are you out of your mind?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/730463.html


The intelligence level of someone who straps on an explosive vest for the good of the virgins he's promised in the afterlife is probably quite low.. no one will argue that (except probably Malse, who'll probably find a way to blame us for that too)... but assuming their organizations as a whole are aware of our techniques and capabilities so it's no use keeping it a secret anyway is just plain retarded.

So why is it OK for the above quoted publication to print what they did, which it seems pretty much has told exactly how they did it, but not ok for the NY Times to print that we track banking records? Is it because they are a right leaning publication? I would think that the right wing of the islamic nations who are the ones that wage the jihads would read right wing publications over so called left leaning ones. Just curious.

I do agree with you that the intelligence level of someone who straps a bomb to themselves in hopes of meeting 72 virgins would be a bit on the low side.

So why is it OK for the above quoted publication to print what they did, which it seems pretty much has told exactly how they did it, but not ok for the NY Times to print that we track banking records?Seems about the same to me.

The intelligence level of someone who straps on an explosive vest for the good of the virgins he's promised in the afterlife is probably quite low.. no one will argue that (except probably Malse, who'll probably find a way to blame us for that too)... but assuming their organizations as a whole are aware of our techniques and capabilities so it's no use keeping it a secret anyway is just plain retarded.

Much in the same way the people we recruit to be soldiers typically aren't at the top of their graduating class, no, but if they're all that dumb why haven't we caught anyone important?

The representative member of mujahideen groups are surprisingly literate and usually college educated men, often from respectable families. These are the people you need to catch, not Habib the Mad Bomber who is merely on disposable towelhead out of a million. These are also the people who have had direct contact with handlers from the US, Britain, or China, and who have often been in training programs from those nations. They are certainly no more stupid than someone who blindly worships the gospel of Friedman.

Much in the same way the people we recruit to be soldiers typically aren't at the top of their graduating class, no, but if they're all that dumb why haven't we caught anyone important?.

Jesus christ man you really are a brick aren'tcha?

I've served with tons of folks who not only were top in their classes in High School but also honor students in college.

Big difference for the folks strapping bombs on themselves boyo. Most of them were only taught by their Iman's, told how to think and what they needed to know...that's it.

Fuck sakes man, do yourself a favor and wake the hell up.

Fandros

Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf0t_c8XNNc) to see a message from our sponsors.

Much in the same way the people we recruit to be soldiers typically aren't at the top of their graduating class, no, but if they're all that dumb why haven't we caught anyone important?

The representative member of mujahideen groups are surprisingly literate and usually college educated men, often from respectable families. These are the people you need to catch, not Habib the Mad Bomber who is merely on disposable towelhead out of a million. These are also the people who have had direct contact with handlers from the US, Britain, or China, and who have often been in training programs from those nations. They are certainly no more stupid than someone who blindly worships the gospel of Friedman.

You really disappoint me with this. You seem to think the military is the same one from the 60's and 70's that took folks as an alternative to incarceration. It was not that easy (prior to the "war") to get into the military these days without sufficient education, and yes many were college educated that wanted to serve their country.

I agree that many of the terrorists are also college educated, but it is just as likely that the bomber with the vest will be college educated as merely educated by the local holy leader. With employment opportunities nearly non-existent in their home countries, that college degree is of little value to anyone other than the terrorist leader who can use it to stroke the potential member into a proscribed mindset amenable to the pursuit of the terrorist groups goals. Local young men who see no improvement in their lives and prospects are easy targets for the holy leaders in much the same way that those college educated who are now more "worldly" are more easily turned to believing that the rich and decadent West are responsible for their lack of a productive future.

Hey Malse, Fuck You. Just responding like the pavlovian dog you seem to think everyone in the military is. Oh and don't choke on your latte you elitist prick.

The majority of the people I work with have a college education, or at the very least are working on it. A far cry from Pvt. Gap-Tooth and Sgt. Redneck the ex-cons who chose a rifle instead of prison sex.

Here's a news flash for you asshole, a lot of people join the military to get into college and further educate themselves. Not to mention most jobs in the army require months of training to do, then plenty more training down the road as your rise in rank.

And then, not to mention there's a pretty big difference between fighting a war (arguably) to bring democracy, or at least the closest thing we can manage to a third world country; and strapping a bomb to your chest to try and kill the minions of "The Great Satan"

Someday, maybe you can get properly educated, and join the rest of us in this scary place I like to call "reality" you may have heard of it.

Well..

Who is joining? what are their motivations?
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/main.html

A good snapshot

Click on "Williams story"

I don't drink latte, but then again I'm also not duped into thinking we invaded Iraq to "bring democracy" either. It certainly does make good press when we spraypaint that over the invasion years after the fact to make ourselves feel better.


Here's a news flash for you asshole, a lot of people join the military to get into college and further educate themselves.

You want a cookie for being part of state subsidized welfare? Um, ok. At first I thought you were on a high horse because it was about some moral good. I earned scholarships for my own education. Do I get a cookie too?

Bylimet does have a interesting point in that the overall demographics of the military are very different in 2005 versus 1965. I'm curious what all the highly reasonable respondents here think about why we now have something like 25 times higher of an officer/enlisted ration now, to the point it's up near 1 officer to 5 enlistees in some branches. Which is still besides the point, not that the screen-to-keyboard response evidenced in the last few posts will stay in the brain long enough to care.

(I'm still looking for some decent, up-to-date numbers on socio-economic demographics vis a vis the modern military as I haven't looked at them since 2004 or so, if you happen to have them feel free to save me the time. I'm fighting off a flu today)

those college educated who are now more "worldly" are more easily turned to believing that the rich and decadent West are responsible for their lack of a productive future.

While the "rich and decadent" bit is only heard in the propaganda to drum up the truly destitute, most of the Arab world (and the world in general) is reasonably aware that the US (with plenty of help from Britain, France, Russia, and China) *are* responsible for the financial and military support of repressive, anti-democratic regimes like in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Iran and elsewhere, resulting in millions of deaths in the last few decades.

We, comfortable in our armchairs sipping bottom dollar beer and watching "Support the Troops" skits during football halftime may not remember any of that (or the campaigns of terror and genocide we also sponsored in South America and southeast Asia), but they most assuredly do.

Have you ever served anyone but yourself Malse..


Easy answer, your egocentric views show that the world should indeed revolve around you.

Fandros

part of state subsidized welfare?

You can't be serious. Can you? To call military service state subsidized welfare takes this to new heigh...errr...lows.

I understand that you have never served, that doesn't make you bad or good, it just means when it comes to the military and its inner workings you really don't know much except for what you have read or googled for information. I'm fairly certain that reading about something and actually living as a part of it are similiar to something like jerking off and actually getting laid...know what I mean?

I haven't taken notice, but it seems to me that when I see things about units deployed to places like Kosovo, Iraq, Korea etc... I see names like the 4th Infantry Division, 3rd Bn 5th Marines but perhaps I missed where we deployed the 7th welfare regiment from Paterson NJ or the 22nd unemployment collectors division. Could be just me though I'm often distracted by work things or kids when the news is on.

Moving on...

I would think one of the big demographic changes in regards to military service since the 60's is the lack of a draft. I do know that when I enlisted it wasn't to long after Vietnam and wasn't the dream of most kids my age to join the military. Out of a group of about 12 of us only myself and another joined back then. We both had different reasons though.

If anyone is interested see more Zeppelin videos here (http://www.netmediazone.net/led). I know I know...its old shit...but goooooooooooood! And yes...I was bored.

I would think one of the big demographic changes in regards to military service since the 60's is the lack of a draft. I do know that when I enlisted it wasn't to long after Vietnam


One of the biggest mistakes to come out of the Viet Nam conflict (IMO) was discontinuing the draft. This was a great example of politicians trading their vote in Congress for votes at the polls without looking far enough down the road to see what repercussions might ensue.

However, I also see the difference we have now in technology and understand not wanting to put such high-dollar pieces of equipment into the hands of someone who is ambivalent about taking care of it.

As far as the slur regarding subsidized welfare, if Malse was wanting to make the point that we as a nation do not demand high enough compensation for our military than I will support that, knowing that the pay and housing issues have long been a problem that too many leaders have tried to shy away from; it really should embarass the CIC to know that the soldiers fighting his war for him often have to rely on food stamps to feed their children due to meager pay raises that do not come near keeping up with inflation. However, if Malse was intending to demean the military as a bunch of freeloaders who contribute nothing and suckle at the nations teat rather than provide for themselves, I will be happy to hand him a neg rep hit.

Come on Malse, clarify please.

I think Malse clarified his position.

He's continually banging on the military for our gear, our spirit and hell now our education level.

He's against the man!!! down with the Man!!! the man is evil!!!

Oh, and while the man is there...can he please help me pay for college...keep fighting for my freedom of speech...keep the infrastructure afloat...

But still, the man is evil!!!

Brick...plain and simple

Fandros

How about these anti-terrorist programs:

The Bush administration has worked with cable television companies to obtain records of everyone in the United States who has watched World Cup games, the Miami Herald reported today.

"Real Americans obviously don't watch soccer," said one administration official who requested anonymity.

In an interview last night, Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin acknowledged the program was in place.

Echoing comments of outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow regarding the bank transaction surveillance program, Martin said that working on the program is the thing "I'm proudest of" in his tenure. "It's really government at its best. It's responsible government. It's effective government."

"We have strong reason to believe that anyone in a sleeper cell would be watching the World Cup," said Martin.

Martin added that safeguards had been implemented so that channel surfers who quickly jumped to a new channel after inadvertently tuning in the World Cup would be exempt from the government-maintained database.

This program is "absolutely essential" to U.S. efforts to fight terrorism, said Vice President Dick Cheney.

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Cheney said. "That offends me."

The Miami Herald is continuing to investigate as yet unsubstantiated allegations that the administration, working with regulatory and intelligence agencies globally, has actually obtained records worldwide of every person watching the World Cup.

In a sweeping program, the Bush administration has been collecting information on individuals in the United States who purchase halal meat or hummus, the New Jersey Star-Ledger has learned.
Administration officials said that the program was initiated after they discovered that a high percentage of detainees at Guantanamo demanded halal food.

Asked if the halal database amounted to a de facto surveillance program on Muslims in the United States, Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns reacted with anger. "This is not a profiling program," he insisted. "If there happens to be a correlation between people who buy halal meat and Muslims, that has nothing to do with our program. This is about catching terrorists."

Johanns said that working on the program is the thing "I'm proudest of" in his tenure. "It's really government at its best. It's responsible government. It's effective government."

The parallel hummus program, officials said, has been very effective at identifying both potential terrorists and terrorist supporters -- by which they said they mean opponents of the war in Iraq.

Officials acknowledge that they considered tracking purchases of Roquefort cheese, but deny any such program was implemented.
This program is "absolutely essential" to U.S. efforts to fight terrorism, said Vice President Dick Cheney.

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Cheney said. "That offends me."

The Bush administration has been secretly collecting data on persons who rent or purchase pornographic movies, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

Administration officials say they believe persons who rent or buy such movies might be preparing to undertake a terrorist attack.

"This is a reasonable proxy for finding terrorists," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in an interview last night.

"We have effective safeguards in place to prevent abuses," he said. For example, Gonzales said, no information was collected on pornographic movie rentals at high-end hotels. "We're not after businessmen," he said in disgust.
Administration officials said there was a potential benefit to the program unrelated to terrorism. "This might help us identify future Supreme Court nominees," said an official who would speak only without attribution.

Gonzales said that working on the program is the thing "I'm proudest of" in his tenure. "It's really government at its best. It's responsible government. It's effective government."

This program is "absolutely essential" to U.S. efforts to fight terrorism, said Vice President Dick Cheney.

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Cheney said. "That offends me."


The Bush administration has entered into a pilot program with Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell to maintain a database of voters who cast their ballots for Democrats, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has learned.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of the program in an interview last night.

"First of all, we recognize there are delicate issues here, and we're taking it slow, with this pilot program in Ohio," he said. "Second, there are real threats to national security that we must address. As Senator George Allen of Virginia recently said, the Democrats' cut-and-run approach 'would embolden our enemies and show a weakened resolve.' So, anyone who is supporting the Democrats is, at best, questionably committed to the war against terror."
Gonzales said there are important safeguards in place. "We're not monitoring everyone's votes," he said. "Just those who vote Democratic."

"I know that I recently said that working on the porn surveillance program is the thing I'm proudest of during my tenure, but I think this one could conceivable top it," Gonzales said. "It's really government at its best. It's responsible government. It's effective government."

Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in also. This program is "absolutely essential" to U.S. efforts to fight terrorism, said Cheney.

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Cheney said. "That offends me."

The above should be noted as parodies.

Figured out it was parody when they were checking up on FIFA viewership lol

Hell that would take a hot minute in the US...

Fandros

That was really priceless, Rover. :D

The NY Times responds to critics.


A statement by Executive Editor Bill Keller, responding to many e-mails on the subject of the banking records revelations.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.
The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy.

Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position ? our job ? is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco.

Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.
Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff ? but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others ? national security experts not serving in the Administration ? for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places ? New York and the Washington area ? that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.

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.

By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would ? if the public knew what they were doing ? withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.

A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported ? indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department ? that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.

I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.

"The basis of our government 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."

Thomas Jefferson

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right... and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.

John Adams
A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765)

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly.

--Mr. Justice Black, New York Times Co. v. United States

some things to consider

Hopefully Akipt can interpret these quotes for us, lest we assume their meanings are literal. I hesitate to imagine where we would be without Akipt and his insightful interpretations.

So let me get this straight. The NYTimes, in a time of war, decided to expose national security secrets just because it could. Not that there were any laws being broken... or did I miss that?

Here's another quote for ya:

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

The New York Times is a mob, brazen enough to disregard the laws of this country under the guise of 'doing good' and you're letting them do it because you trust them more with your national security than the people who are actually executing this war with the authority of the Consitution behind them. To hell with that you say. Our president has low poll numbers, we'll do what's good for the country.

I'm sure those people doing all the lynching back in the day were doing it for the good of their country too. Mob rule.

Unsure of the validity but I heard this morning on the radio that AG Gonzolez (sp) has been asked to pursue the NY Times.

According to said source a subpoena was in place and all legal footsteps were observed in this case.

SooOOOo they'll try and get the reporters who helped commit treason to give up their sources. When they won't, of course they won't, they'll sit in jail for up to 18 months.

Good and good.

Again, the press doesn't have the right to decide items of National Security. It just flat out doesn't...

Fandros

The New York Times is a mob, brazen enough to disregard the laws of this country under the guise of 'doing good' and you're letting them do it because you trust them more with your national security than the people who are actually executing this war with the authority of the Consitution behind them.
I don't trust the people who are executing this "war" (those people being the administration). The Constitution isn't behind them; it's ground into the dirt beneath their heels. I have my disagreements with the Times on occasion, but this isn't one of them.

I don't understand Thor. We took all the legal steps and still you think the Times had the right to put our operations and troops in danger?

Fandros

I don't understand Thor. We took all the legal steps and still you think the Times had the right to put our operations and troops in danger?

Fandros

Because it doesn't fit into his Philosophy.
I agree that the press should have the right to report on such things, but is it responsible to do so?
The people that we are fighting against are using the fact that the various press
organizations are in a race with each other to want to get the leading story first. This means that "news" is reported, and all you have to say is "allegedly" in front of the false report, or use "anonymous sources".
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Think about this Thor: Why are you so willing to believe an organization whose only motivation is ratings?

I'm not sure how our troops are endangered by this latest revelation. I do know that our troops are endangered by the occupation, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Haditha and a number of factors that we lack control over and which, in many cases, are laid unfairly at our feet. I do know that our troops are endangered by our failure in the "hearts and minds" campaign and the rising terrorist recruitment in the wake of this ill-conceived war. But I'm not seeing it in the SWIFT revelations.

Keep in mind, too, my larger point regarding government secrecy and the need of the populace to be informed of its government's activities. One can quibble about this particular bit of news, but I do want to know if my government is operating secret torture camps, using rendition, imprisoning US citizens without charge, etc etc.

I do wonder what prompted the "more than a dozen" past and present administration officials to discuss with the various papers this SWIFT operation (which, recall, was becoming well known outside intelligence and top executive circles).

Anytime you compromise an operation to the enemy you do one of a few things.

1) You negate it's use therefore you don't catch the suspects nor gain intell on their ops leading to them conducting more ops that harm our troops.

2) You give succor and comfort to our enemies again pumping up the activities we need to halt.

Just because ya'll are saying it's public knowledge...and by gods perhaps it was doesn't negate the harm in actually saying so.

Don't make small what is huge...

Oh and Thor, it's hard to debate when you say "Well Fandros it's okay because such and such did this first"

Truth is we need to put an end to this as quickly as possible , and the Times spouting out how we're doing it is only making it harder. Funny how it was one of the rags that was dumping on our Admin because we got caught with our pants down and now they are the ones unfastening our pants.

Yes, there is Freedom of Speech and Press....but no they don't have the right to endanger my country and it's troops. Sorry that doesn't wash.

Fandros

Again, no idea how it endangers our troops (at least, any more than they're already endangered by the various factors noted above). Also, "giving succor and comfort" is simply hyperbole; painting them into a corner is a more appropriate analogy.

One wonders where the line can be drawn. Would you gladly submit to weekly body cavity searches or rifling through your home (which sounds extreme until you look at the history of other countries)? After all, if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.

In any case, while I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint in this particular case, on the larger issue of secret government programs with a questionable relation to the constitution (and revelation of such by the media) I must disagree.

So why not report on it after the operation is finished, rather that in the middle of what it's doing?
Responsibility is the key issue; Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Rush to be the first to get the story out before anyone else does, is the only motivation in this case.

Thor, my point is it lengthens the amount of time it takes to capture said folks means the troops and operatives are exposed to danger longer.

That clarify for you why I think it's wrong?

Fandros

Folks might want to look up the Office of Censorship and the "Code of Wartime Practices for the American Press."

General Dwight D. Eisenhower can be quoted as saying, "With regard to publicity, the first essential in military operations is that no information of value shall be given to the enemy. The first essential in newspaper work and broadcasting is wide-open publicity. It is your job and mine to try to reconcile these sometimes diverse considerations."

That is essence of the real debate here: Should the press censor itself, as it has in the past, or should it present as much information as it can to the light of day?

During wartime, if the press somehow got wind of an upcoming military operation and published dates for the operation, along with troop movements and other statistics, I don't think that anyone would trumpet that as a victory for the press and their duty to report on the war. It would be treason.

However, if the same press reported that during the same war, there are private contractors operating in shady, third world countries to torture suspected terrorists and that they had the blessing of the current administration and the NSA, we can't really say that is putting any of our troops in danger. In fact, the press would be duty bound to report that.

Much of the current information and reporting is going to fall somewhere in the middle of that. Perhaps the press and the military should work together a bit more closely so that sensitive information isn't leaked out before it should be. It has worked in the past, why can't it work now?

During wartime, if the press somehow got wind of an upcoming military operation and published dates for the operation, along with troop movements and other statistics, I don't think that anyone would trumpet that as a victory for the press and their duty to report on the war. It would be treason.

Unless of course you are a Fox news reporter.

Let's focus like a laser beam Rover and others attempting to throw all ills in a basket and call it good cuz Fox or the administration did such and such.

I'm talking about the recent NY Times article in regards to the supoened aquisition of bank/financial transactions of known terrorists.

Fandros

Let's focus like a laser beam Rover and others attempting to throw all ills in a basket and call it good cuz Fox or the administration did such and such.

I'm talking about the recent NY Times article in regards to the supoened aquisition of bank/financial transactions of known terrorists.

Fandros


Ok, lets focus on it. Its been pretty much common knowledge that the government has been tracking bank transactions at the very least since the 1980's (remember the WAR on drugs) back in the 80's it was justified as an effective way to catch drug dealers, this is why every bank transaction over 10k requires paper work to be filled out and whoa be unto them who deal in cash.

So we jump ahead to 9/11 and the administration starts to track bank transactions under a BROAD reaching subpeona in order to track the money trail of terrorists and their financiers. Newspapers get wind of it, they report that our government tracks bank transactions as reported by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. thats 3 THREE newspapers that ALL reported the same thing.

But its A-OK that the LA Times reported it, its A-OK that The Wall Street Journal reported it but OMFG that bastion of liberals The NY Times reported it. So now we look at politicizing of the war on terror and who is playing politics with this war.

You just don't get it do you. This is politization(sp) at its finest. Use the report as a political point which will polarize. Go after the NY Times as being the newspaper that has usurped national security, its worked before and it will work again...I think I smell a Rove.

Thor, my point is it lengthens the amount of time it takes to capture said folks means the troops and operatives are exposed to danger longer.

That clarify for you why I think it's wrong?
I fully understand your point, and there's validity to it. The over-arching question is, "How far do we let this go?" With regards to the present question, the main reason I think the media is right to examine this is due to the administration's lack of credibility when it comes to matters of secrecy and spying (particularly spying on its own citizens). Having been deceived before, we must guard against being deceived further. The administration hasn't earned our trust (or does not deserve what trust has been given) when it comes to its methods of fighting "the war on terror."

I read this whole thread and there's still one thing that bothers me, motivation. If , in their investigations, the NY Times found little reason to suspect that this project was in violation of the constitution and little but hearsay that anything nefarious was going on, why did they publish the story?

Answer, because they obviously spent considerable time and effort investigating the program and wanted their publication of the story, the story. If they had simply published a story with little detail that they had looked at this program and lauded it as a good program for finding terrorist financiers....no one would have read it, they wouldn't have gotten the attention they are now getting.

I hate Bush and this administration and I applaud every investigation into any shady dealings they may or may not be party to, but at some point you have to stop and assess whether what your publishing is information or just stirring up shit to get attention.

I'm sorry to my fellow Bush haters, but I think this was published to draw attention to the paper, not out of any greater good to the American people....though admittedly it may have been a better tactic for the government to say little about it's publication rather than bring more attention to it.

but I think this was published to draw attention to the paper


That could be a fair assesment...but why did the LA Times and The Wall Street Journal each publish their own stories about this? Why are they "less" guilty of blowing the war on terror?

It's certainly possible, Ailwon, but delving into motivations is tricky business. Keep in mind that the NYT withheld publication of a similar story for a year when they could have released it prior to the 2004 elections.

The NYTimes, in a time of war

Im so fucking sick of "In a time of war" bullshit. No, sorry, we arent. We especially arent when the people who have declared this "war" say it will last a lifetime.
Fuck that nonsense.

Im applying Cold War status to this "war" on terror. Ill actually consider it to be a real war when there is a draft, or every American is asked to make some sort of actual sacrifice. And I dont know if you remember, but GWB declared the Mission Accomplished in regards to Iraq, and we are now an occupying force.

Well, that day the NY Times was given credit for blowing open the story.

It's true that all the major papers subscriptions are down so perhaps Ailwon you are correct and they are trying to generate selling copy.

Sadly Rover I'm not sure why you're trying to deflect the blame. I'm not even so concerned with it being the Times as opposed to others. But when you blow up and take credit for a story you take the blame as well.

Lemme ask you this, if a reporter gave away your position or operation to the public while you were in the Military and thus endangered you would you be upset? Or is it a case of blatant hate against Bush and Rove and Co so it's okay?

Next 5 months are going to be interesting with more folks voting than ever before I hope. Sadly I think the apathy of the disinterested will continue and stories/lies printed affecting more than they should.

Oooooo and it bears mentioning that the NY Times are infamous for not checking facts. Wasn't it a few years ago there was a major scandal by one or more of their reporters absolutely faking a story?

Fandros

they could have released it prior to the 2004 elections.

Yes, but it wouldn't have garnered the attention they may have wanted at that time, seeing as how they really didn't find anything damning against this administration.

but why did the LA Times and The Wall Street Journal each publish their own stories about this?

Just grapsing at something but maybe it was so they weren't shown up by the NY Times in there investigative abilities.

IMO, if you (as a reporter) investigate something that is shown to be from all indications, legal and checked (i.e the disclosure to congress and the investigation you are doing yourself) and the government (no matter how bad the adminitration is) asks you not to disclose it so that it can continue to be as effective as possible....you don't print the story. Do a fluff piece about how you looked at it and it seemd like a legal and effective program and leave it at that. Sorry, but this just seems like a bad by the press...not a monumental bad, but a bad.

Well, that day the NY Times was given credit for blowing open the story.

It's true that all the major papers subscriptions are down so perhaps Ailwon you are correct and they are trying to generate selling copy.

Sadly Rover I'm not sure why you're trying to deflect the blame. I'm not even so concerned with it being the Times as opposed to others. But when you blow up and take credit for a story you take the blame as well.

Lemme ask you this, if a reporter gave away your position or operation to the public while you were in the Military and thus endangered you would you be upset? Or is it a case of blatant hate against Bush and Rove and Co so it's okay?

Next 5 months are going to be interesting with more folks voting than ever before I hope. Sadly I think the apathy of the disinterested will continue and stories/lies printed affecting more than they should.

Oooooo and it bears mentioning that the NY Times are infamous for not checking facts. Wasn't it a few years ago there was a major scandal by one or more of their reporters absolutely faking a story?

Fandros

I'm not trying to deflect the blame. I'm pointing out that two other newspapers published stories on the same day about the exact same thing. The times didn't blow up their story, it was the right wing bloggers that basically blew it up.

Why is it that the NY Times seems to be singled out by the administration? Its a valid question that deserves a valid answer. Don't you think?

It has nothing to do with fact checking as the report appears to be factual. Every news organization has had its moments with reporters that have either purposefully or unintentionally erroneously reporting on something. This is what happens when people are involved with things...hell it even happened to Bush, Powell and many others.

And yes of course I would have been a bit pissed had there been a reporter doing something like drawing a map in the sand and broadcasting my position and my plans for the coming assault on the enemy position, I think that goes without saying. Which is why mentioned that exact incident earlier in this thread.

It is either all acts of treason or it isnt acts of treason...it just seems to me that it is alot of bullshit being produced by Rove or whoever because it is a well known fact that the NY Times is a target for the right much as Fox News is a target for the left.

If the NY Times is guilty of aiding the enemy then so are the LA Times, Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

Thats not deflecting anything...its pointing out a fact.

Actually was Good Morning America where I first heard the NY Times being given credit.

Regardless it's totally worthless to discuss it. I'm upset at the press, that's the focus and shocking , just shocking to hear someone trying to throw up a smoke screen about it I tell ya!

Maybe it's because it's on the East Coast as compared to the other papers who knows...who cares jesus I'm discussing one point here.

You'll see on this one, I think you'll find a few folks from the Press...whoever is given credit for the story...sitting in jail.

And good good

Fandros

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23cnd-react.html?hp&ex=1151121600&en=9d9f4dbd36e17ed4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Them claiming credit for breaking the story...film at 11

Fandros

Im so fucking sick of "In a time of war" bullshit. No, sorry, we arent. We especially arent when the people who have declared this "war" say it will last a lifetime.
Fuck that nonsense.

The "There is no war!" platform? LMFAO. There's always 2012.

Maybe it's because it's on the East Coast


Hey now...we have right wingers on the east coast...well...at least one...Akipt.

There is also the question of how broad the scope of the monitoring is, and what impact it is going to have on folks who do things out of the ordinary.

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06

Just because you SAY its a war... it doesnt mean it is.

Fucking "Hedgerow Envy" strikes again.

Whats the war? Who are we fighting? Are we fighting an ideology? "Evil-doers"? The administration can barely define an enemy in specific terms and we are calling it a war. Its bullshit.

Keep wrapping yourselves in that Flag... people are getting fucking tired of it.

And thanks for the election advice. Ill be sure to give a rats ass after the '06 elections when republicans lose the house.

I'll be really suprised if the Dems make any real serious gains in House or Senate.

You simply can't run on the platform of "We're not republican" and expect the masses to run out and vote for ya...

Fandros

You are right..

Every race is about individuals.. And republicans are bringing a whole lot of baggage into races with some pretty darn good politicans.

Young, up and coming Democrats like Harold Ford Jr.(without a doubt, the best young politician out there), Ned Lamont, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Heath Shuler (yes, the ex QB), James Webb (not young, or a traditional democrat, but he has a good chance to beat Allen), Bob Casey (Buh Buh Santorum), Sherrod Brown..

These are all young, talented politicans who are really energizing Democrats and bringing much needed fresh blood into the party

A Young Dem I think has a good future if he sticks to his own rules is Obakma Bama? ;(

Hey I'm all for new blood in either party. Especially if they held to a more moderate stance and could throw off the shackles of the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Palosi, Delay, Rove etc etc.

I was never one to vote party lines, but atm all I see are folks bolstering themselves by slinging hash instead of saying who they are...

Fandros

I have read the article linked, and I spent a good portion of my time with the Sunday Morning Spin shows listening to the discussions on this topic, and I still see no reason why this program is being questioned.

Let the ACLU or some "wronged" party file suit and walk it through the judicial system and if they can show cause for it to be discontinued, so be it. There is no Constitutional violation that I can see, and they have been dotting the i's and crossing the t's as far as following the legal process. As mentioned in the article and which I referenced earlier, the Swift people themselves are involved with the oversight.

Where in a prior usage of such data the search parameters involved names of suspected drug dealers and businesses suspected of laundering their money, this time the search parameters include suspected terrorists and supporting entities. If Mohammed's Amway Supply & Sundries shows a pattern of transferring large amounts of cash to a select few individuals in Europe and/or the Middle East, it may be prudent to pursue more in-depth investigation which in turn may allow for the apprehension of terrorist agents. What is wrong with this?

The war statement is a smoke screen, as this should be an allowed program at any given time, since there are criminal enterprises going on at any given time, whether drugs, terrorism, arms-smuggling, human-traffickcing, etc.

It all comes down to the motivation of the reporter and editors; why would this need to be reported on when all legal processes are being followed, no laws are being broken or rights violated, and it is in the best interests of our nation to be doing it? It is no secret that I detest the Bush/Cheney cartel, but this data mining program is something I agree wholeheartedly with, and I can only surmise the reporting of it was done to cause a ruckus rather than to share information.

Check out Harold Ford Jr., Fanny.

More upside than Obama imo.

Dear Mr. Keller:
The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.

Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

I didn't much care for Sec. Snow until now.

Well reading Snow's letter sheds some light on things.

Tracking financial transaction and subsequently arresting the offending terrorist or their logistics network is EXACTLY how we should attack Al Qaeda. There is no doubt in my mind that it is effective.

but there is still the burning question of checks and balances of our government.

There is nothing wrong with debating whether or not those doing the tracking should be trusted to do the right thing with the information they are getting. That itself is a legitimate question.

Wow.. a secret way to track money going to terrorists...
shhhh.... Im gonna let you in on a secret.. I know the EXACT money trail.

step 1
http://arabic.cnn.com/2005/business/1/27/saudi.world_bank/story.saudi.oil.jpg_-1_-1.jpg

step 2
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.gifhttp://skeptically.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/hummer-gas-prices.jpg.w300h300.jpg

Step 3
http://static.flickr.com/21/26806947_c6c2036a01_m.jpg

step 4
http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/eugenearmstrong.jpg


Any Questions?

Well reading Snow's letter sheds some light on things.

Tracking financial transaction and subsequently arresting the offending terrorist or their logistics network is EXACTLY how we should attack Al Qaeda. There is no doubt in my mind that it is effective.

but there is still the burning question of checks and balances of our government.

There is nothing wrong with debating whether or not those doing the tracking should be trusted to do the right thing with the information they are getting. That itself is a legitimate question.

According to the original article, the Swift people themselves were providing oversight to ensure only specific search parameters were being used to access the data. Jesus, how much needs to be done to appease folks? I detest Bush too, but this program should never have been disclosed by the media.

Ratings, my friends, ratings....

June 27, 2006

The Honorable John D. Negroponte
Director of National Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20511
Dear Mr. Director:

Unauthorized disclosures of classified information continue to threaten our national security ? exposing our sensitive intelligence sources and methods to our enemies.

Numerous, recent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence programs have directly threatened important efforts in the war against terrorism.

Whether the President?s Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Department of Treasury?s effort to track terrorist financing, we have been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly and protect the means by which we protect this nation.

To gain a better understanding of the damage caused by unauthorized disclosures of this type, I ask that you perform an assessment of the damage caused by the unauthorized disclosure of some of our most sensitive intelligence programs. While your assessment may range beyond the President?s Terrorist Surveillance Program and Treasury?s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, I am particularly interested in the damage attributable to these two unauthorized disclosures.

Sincerely,

Pat Roberts
Chairman
I suspect the editor may soon regret publishing the swift stuff...

Here's what puzzles me (no not really)... Murtha and other ranking Dems even tried to keep this program a secret to no avail. Why haven't they come out against the Times? I believe Clinton could make huge strides for her 2008 run if she came out strong on the national security side of this.

Does she have the balls to go up against the media? Probably not, but if she's going to she needs to do it soon ... else it will be transparent if this goes on any longer and she finally takes the pro-security position. Because this whole story is nothing but a godsend for Bush.

Make lil rocks outta big rocks Mr Editor. Don't worry you can only be held for 18 months for refusing to reveal the bastards who leaked this story to you and your reporters...

Tho I wager that 18 months will feel like a long time, long enough to reconsider your position on self appointed position...who knows.

Fandros

Unauthorized disclosures of classified information continue to threaten our national security ?

Such as leaking the name of CIA agents? But I digress....

It would take a rare combination of idiocy and balls to arrest the editor of the NY Times for running this story. In the end, these republican congressmen are going to huff and puff and REALLY look they are going to do something for a brief second.... but they wont. To actually attempt to do something would:
A. Take precious time away from important debates like Gay marriage, Non Binding Vague resolutions about support for some undefined war.
B. Go against this Republican controlled Congresses principles and take ACTUAL action on something.
C. Be political suicide.

Don't worry you can only be held for 18 months for refusing to reveal the bastards who leaked this story to you and your reporters...

Treasury Secretary John Snow and Undersecretary Stuart Levey met with the concerned people of the Times according to Snow's letter, answering questions and explaing the process in the attempt to keep this from being disclosed. I think that, and the fact Snow stated such in his letter, might make the case of "who leaked" a moot point.

However, I would still like to see these people slapped up a bit for disclosing the program against all the pleas not to do so.

I don't think it'd play well for the government to lock a reporter away for not revealing an anonymous source, and they're getting pretty desperate for votes as of late ...

I don't think it'd play well for the government to lock a reporter away for not revealing an anonymous source, and they're getting pretty desperate for votes as of late ...

Ya think?

Thing is, if they don't do something stern I'll start to question their devotion.


Fandros

Well there are really only 2 ways that the Bush administration can handle this.

One is to do go after the Times and its staff. However, prosecuting the NY Times staff for the report is not a politically winnable situation. But, if they do nothing it would show they are placing politics before national security.

Two is to do nothing because they really don't believe the NY Times has placed our national security at risk, which basically exposes all the hand waiving by Cheney, Snow and others is just a bunch of bullshit.

After reading all the crap out there about this I really believe that all the Bush administration is using the NY Times as a focal point to energize their base. The NY Times is known as the largest symbol of leftist elitism by the right wing base. Bush knows full well the republicans need that base to win the election and so does every senator and congressman who is up for election. So why not play it out. They would be idiots to not take advantage of this.

I really think if there was damage done to our national security they would focus more on all three publications that printed the story, they are actually obligated to go after all three if this is the case.

The NY Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal all printed basically the same story. Why just focus on the NY Times? Because nothing represents the "other side" in a more symbolic way than the NY Times.

Rover.....say slowly with me....

The NY Times Broke the story and are the originators of the story.

The NY Times Reporters are the ones given credit for the story...

Not all is a Rovian plot, not all is good if it hurts the Right cuz perhaps it hurts the country as well, not all is good if it falls from the mouths of extremists.

They will press the test on this one, they (being the NY Times) will find out that they did indeed break the law and they will pay the price.

Fandros

They will press the test on this one, they (being the NY Times) will find out that they did indeed break the law and they will pay the price.

But the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech! George Orwell's 1984! Next thing you know the National Guard will be called out to patrol the streets! Rise up! Fight the Man! Power to the People! >insert random aging hippy comment here<! Attica! Attica! *frothing at the mouth**



















*sarcasm of course

And this is what they'll use to prosecute the NY Times and it's reporters.


Smith Mundt Act

From PublicDiplomacyWiki


[edit (http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Smith_Mundt_Act&action=edit&section=1)]
Overview

The US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 402), popularly referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act established the programming mandate that still serves as the foundation for U.S. overseas information and cultural programs and also brought the Voice of America (http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php/VOA) under the Office of International Information at the Department of State.

Smith-Mundt was passed by Congress and signed into law by Harry S. Truman on January 27, 1948.

Smith Mundt's most controversal component is contained in Section 501. Section 501 authorized the government to disseminate information about the United States and its policies abroad. However, it also prohibited the dissemination of that same information domestically. According to 501, material produced for foreign production can only be released domestically "for examination only." An act of Congress is required to free a program for domestic release in less than 12 years. USIA's John F. Kennedy: Years of Lightning, Day of Drums (1965) was the first film that Congress approved for domestic release. 1 (http://annenberg.northwestern.edu/pubs/usfa/usfa4.htm) (http://annenberg.northwestern.edu/pubs/usfa/usfa4.htm).

The Smith-Mundt ban on domestic propaganda has been broadened over the years by subsequent legislation. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972 (http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Foreign_Relations_Authorizatio n_Act_of_1972&action=edit) amended the Smith-Mundt Act to include a ban on disseminating within the United States any "information about the United States, its people, and its policies" prepared for dissemination abroad. The Zorinsky Amendment (http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php/The_Zorinsky_Amendment) added a new prohibition: "no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States."

Section 501 has been challenged on several grounds.

Many argue that the introduction of the internet and related advances in communication technologies have rendered the prohibition on domestic propaganda anachronistic. U.S. cultural and information programs meant for foreign audiences are now readily accessible via the web.

In 1994 when the USIA launched its Internet service, providing access to the text of news dispatches, and audio feeds from VOA (http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php/VOA) radio programs, Senator Jesse Helms objected on the grounds that it violated the Smith Mundt Act. In response, the USIA (http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php/USIA) moved these services from a domestic to a foreign servers. Employees of overseas and cultural programs were also forbidden from giving out the URL address of their websites to US citizens. However, these websites remain easily accessible via google and other internet search engines.

Others have challenged Smith Mundt on the grounds that it violates the Freedom of Information Act. In February 1996, Essential Information, Inc., a non-profit citizen activist group founded in 1982 by Ralph Nader asked the USIA for six months records. The USIA refused citing the Smith Mundt Act as the reason for noncompliance. Essential Information Inc. then filed suit. In November 1996 the federal District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Smith-Mundt Act is one of the statutes requiring confidentiality addressed in the FOI Act's Exemption 3.

Smith-Mundt has taken on a new role in recent years with the expansion of "public affairs" activities throughout government. Each new program now includes a PA component, whose primary task is coordinating with Capitol Hill and conducting media relations domestically. Career PD officials in the field are expected to support these operations with regular feeds in the form of "success stories" for publication in the U.S. The U.S. Agency for International Development has developed its own international PA system, which largely bypasses State's "PD" network that formally comes under Smith-Mundt. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), housed in State, expressly demands that PAOs feed its domestic pipeline with success stories. The current head of its PA operation served as a political appointee press officer in Baghdad, where her primary task was handling U.S. media and Congressional liaison offices; she views this as the primary responsibility of all PAOs everywhere. Similar pressures now flow from other State offices. Rather than promote PD in the field, using informed local expertise, PAOs now are viewed as campaign cogs to buttress policies back home. Smith-Mundt is the only legal obstacle to this growing practice, and a weak one at that since non-State offices have a free hand.

Smith Mundt and the Fulbright Hays Act (http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Fulbright_Hays_Act&action=edit) (1961) are considered to be the corner stones of United States public diplomacy legislation.




Pretty damning .....Info retrieved from Wikpedia

Fandros

From what I gather the above legislation came about when the Chicago Tribune exposed a story stating how we had broken the Japanese code right before The Battle of Midway.

tsk tsk

Fandros

Nope I don't buy it. The republicans are busy going at it with politics today. Introducing a bill in congress condemning the NY Times. YAY congress.

But remember, The Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal ALL reported the existence of the program on their websites last Thursday. All broke the story at the same time.

Thats a bullshit copout saying the NY Times is more guilty because they broke the story. I was under the impression that what we were supposed to be so incensed about was the publication of items concerning national security. But really its not, its about the republican administration, including congress and the senate pulling a desperate bid to hold on to their power, focus on the biggest symbol of the leftist elite the NY Times.

Look its not about me thinking that everything that is against the so called "right" in this country is all good, that has not a thing to do with how I think.

I just wish we could track down the traitor who gave away such information as

One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050609-2.html). Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.
The Patriot Act authorizes what are called delayed notification search warrants (http://the%20patriot%20act%20authorizes%20what%20are%20ca lled%20delayed%20notification%20search%20warrants. %20i'm%20not%20a%20lawyer,%20either.%20(laughter.) %20these%20allow%20law%20enforcement%20personnel,% 20with%20court%20approval,%20to%20carry%20out%20a% 20lawful%20search%20without%20tipping%20off%20susp ects%20and%20giving%20them%20a%20chance%20to%20fle e%20or%20destroy%20evidence.%20it%20is%20an%20impo rtant%20part%20of%20conducting%20operations%20agai nst%20organized%20groups./). I'm not a lawyer, either. (Laughter.) These allow law enforcement personnel, with court approval, to carry out a lawful search without tipping off suspects and giving them a chance to flee or destroy evidence. It is an important part of conducting operations against organized groups.
In April 2004, a man sent an e-mail (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050609-2.html) to an Islamic center in El Paso, and threatened to burn the mosque to the ground in three days. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could have spent a week or more waiting for the information they needed. Thanks to the Patriot Act, an Internet provider was able to provide the information quickly and without fear of a lawsuit -- and the FBI arrested the man before he could fulfill his -- fulfill his threat.
We launched what we call the Container Security Initiative (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050720-4.html), to screen American-bound containers at more than 35 foreign ports so we can identify dangerous cargo before it reaches our shore. Doesn't that make sense? It seems like it does to me. In other words, we're stationing Custom folks overseas and we're working with places that ship goods to us, to inspect cargo there so we don't burden our ports.
These and other revelations of our top secret (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/?page=1) tactics, apparently, are cause for treason.

Hipocrites.

All you're doing is finger pointing at what's been done elsewhere or how the New York Times isn't so bad if everyone else is doing it.

Guess what, that's called spin... which is exactly the same kind of conduct that you bitch, moan and whine about the GOP doing.

Hipocrites.

All you're doing is finger pointing at what's been done elsewhere or how the New York Times isn't so bad if everyone else is doing it.

Guess what, that's called spin... which is exactly the same kind of conduct that you bitch, moan and whine about the GOP doing.

No, spin is called targeting the NY Times while ignoring that others are guilty of the same so called crime.

Why just go after the NY Times? I can't belive that you just don't see how politics is being played here, its bewildering that you ignore the facts.

Because Rover, the reporters that work for the NY Times are credited with the story.

It's simple, told you many times and you would rather kvetch about it being okay that the PRESS BROKE THE LAW as long as many papers did it.

Regardless, it's a direct violation of the law written and substantiated in 1948.

No matter how you spin it, and yes it's a spin, those that originally broke the story who claim the story and who own the rights to said story are guilty of it.

It's amazing to me that you have more inside info on how it's not really the Times....amazing when most sources I can find give them credit. That's sources from both sides of the river denial mind you....right and left.

Fandros

Why just go after the NY Times? I can't belive that you just don't see how politics is being played here, its bewildering that you ignore the facts.I fully realize that politics is being played here Rover.

The NYT did a story because it thought it could get away with it, period. Politics being played? You bet.

Reread that explaination you posted from Bob Keller. Nothing but contempt and arrogance throughout. As if he was defending some other program that wasn't 9/11 commission recommended, congressionally briefed, and otherwise completely lawful. He blew it and now he's taking the heat. /shrug Whether he regrets it in the future I doubt it myself, but all this hand wringing you're doing defending him and the NYT is silly.

Hipocrites.

All you're doing is finger pointing at what's been done elsewhere by the President or how the New York Times isn't so bad if everyone else , such as the President, is doing it.

Guess what, that's called spin... which is exactly the same kind of conduct that you bitch, moan and whine about the GOP and everyone else doing.

Just correcting a couple typos. ;)

Ugh, grammar Nazi!!!


I'm in deep deep trouble with Thor now if he's going to correct posts. ;P

Fandros

You would all be in deep trouble, faced with assault by a grammarcommando like myself. But you may have missed that the typos weren't exactly typos ;)

Heh, didn't miss it at all was just attempting to deflect!!

'sides, if I keep you busy correcting my mistakes you couldn't spend much time opposing me!!

Fandros

That zany redneck patois of yours has resulted in the ingestion of more than a few shots of whiskey, boyo.

Hell, I suppose I should thank you!

No, spin is called targeting the NY Times while ignoring that others are guilty of the same so called crime.

Why just go after the NY Times? I can't belive that you just don't see how politics is being played here, its bewildering that you ignore the facts.

Remember, if it's not perfect, a Liberal will complain till it is....
:rolleyes:

Yeah your right. Only the NY Times is playing politics, we have all been duped into thinking that politicians play politics. Why I would have ever thought that politicians play politics with things is beyond me, it must come from my misguided youth.

I was reading the other day, in a newspaper that was playing politics, how our glorious congress has been busily working on keeping gays out of marriage. This is such an important issue to the average working american and is something that we all need to be concerned with. Of course once again politics was played by the newspapers reporting this causing this most important amendment to our constitution to wait until 2008 to be brought up for a vote again.

I also read where our congress has been hotly debating video games, we ALL must know who is selling them and who is profiting from them. This debate is important because we all now know that video games cause poor kids to steal rich kids cars. Without this important work of our congress we would never know what motivates poor people to act like they do.

Thank god our congress has taken up the serious question of the war in Iraq, we can all rest easier now that they have passed a non-binding resolution stating our troops will remain on the front lines of the war on terror that was started by Sadam Hussein all because he had aluminum tubes and has hidden his mobile weapons labs in the Bekaa Valley, we've seen proof of this as was shown by the great senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum the man is obviously the victim of politics playing newspapers.

I noticed that through all of this politics playing, congress has once again taken the reigns of serious debate and tried so hard to amend our constitution concerning flag burning. But once again the liberal elitist freedom of speech abusing al qaeda supporting unpatriotic enemy enabling newspapers have made this an impossible task and caused this to not pass. But we'll get our shot again in 2008.

Then I've seen our country placed at extremely high risk by the most liberal elitist partisan publications of our time. The NY Times. Once again this horror show of the left has published that our government has been monitoring bank accounts in order to catch terrorists by tracking their funding. This is much different than the monitoring of bank transactions that has been going on since the 1980's. One could have never guessed that we would use the same methods to track terrorist financial transactions as we use to track drug dealers transactions. Until this article was published we had all been thinking that our government was a bunch of inept do nothings twiddling their thumbs over how to find terrorists.

This brings us to what is obviously an excellent secret government program that is being implemented at this very moment in Afghanistan. The opium poppy growing program which has been very successful. This program allows our government to flood the world with opium thereby creating a financial trail of drug dollars that fund terrorists. We can then track the dollars from the source to the end user. Of course there has been some collateral damage caused by the poor kids who deal heroin in the USA. These kids then use that money to buy video games which teach them how to steal rich kids cars. But the trade off is worth it.

This brings us to this recent article from the Wall Street Journal. The bank transfers the government has been tracking are now exposed for the whole world to see, including Osama Bin Laden. The Wall Street Journal has done great damage to our ability to fight this war on terror. The damage is extensive. They should be prosecuted as if they had done something like given out the name of an undercover CIA agent. This act is the same as drawing a map of our troop locations in the sand and broadcasting it on international television. We are just lucky that al qaeda doesnt read the Wall Street Journal, thank god that they only read leftist rags like the NY Times.

We must show the citizens of this country that our government has their best interests in mind. Doing things like keeping prices down in McDonalds through programs like minimum wage freezing. Cutting the pork from the department of education, stopping the abusers of our world renowned insurance companies. Our government has shown us that it is not the corporations that have been the abusers of the trumped up Katrina disaster but the poor people have been the biggest abusers of the Katrina disaster. One could never have guessed that someone would have bought a bottle of champagne with Katrina aid, thank god our congress has brought this to light. This allows companies like KBR to now proceed with their clean up and rebuilding efforts.

Lets not forget about the abuse of the insurance companies perpetrated by the very citicens that they are there to help. I've witnessed this abuse first hand, seen the obvious fraud of those homeowners in places like Alabama, Loiusiana and Mississippi as they desperately try to cash in with claims of storm damage. The insurance companies have done honest and unbiased investigations proving that it was not the winds of Katrina that sucked the roof off of their houses, but floodwaters sent by God. There are those who want congress to waste their time investigating the insurance companies, but we all know that this is not why we have a congress. Having congress investigate insurance companies does the people of this country no good, they have more important things to do.

We must stop newspapers like the NY Times from playing politics with our freedom. Our freedom goes beyond what we know here as we sit in our comfortable homes, we are a free country, free to spread democracy as we know it throughout the world. They world can submit to our freedom or we kill them. Its really that simple, why don't they understand?

It's not about the NY Times playing politics, damn Rover.

It's about them releasing sensitive data that is illegal for them to do so.

Get off your soapbox and stick to the thread at hand. Quit trying to smoke screen the very serious issue.

Don't lump everything together in an attempt to minimize how serious the issue this is.


There are programs in place in the DoD and other govt agencies for folks that are concerned about legality ( which this is VERY well birddogged) of a program so that it can be checked without endangering operations/troops.

There is no program in place where you run to the local newspaper and whine/bitch/kvetch....you are a traitor at this point.

Sadly as long as the Administration is doing things you don't like it's okay for everyone else to.

Slippery slope indeed, my how you tripped down it easily.

Fandros

Yeah your right. Only the NY Times is playing politics, we have all been duped into thinking that politicians play ......

You finally saw the light!!!!
:rolleyes:

It's about them releasing sensitive data that is illegal for them to do so.
But if this data has already been released, I don't think they could be charged, assuming the press can be (ignoring that argument for the moment). I've read that the SWIFT information was present in a public report submitted to the UN (couldn't get the link to work, tho'), and the Boston Globe article I cited also cast doubts on the program's secrecy. Leaving all other arguments aside, the above seems to indicate that the papers only shed light into a dark corner, rather than opening a locked door.

I'm still interested in all the sources on this. The NYT cited, I think, over 20 sources -- current and former administration officials. The LAT cited over a dozen. That's a lot of alleged traitors, a lot of people talking about a program that is apparently legal (at least from the US standpoint). Interesting.

But if this data has already been released, I don't think they could be charged, assuming the press can be (ignoring that argument for the moment). I've read that the SWIFT information was present in a public report submitted to the UN (couldn't get the link to work, tho'), and the Boston Globe article I cited also cast doubts on the program's secrecy. Leaving all other arguments aside, the above seems to indicate that the papers only shed light into a dark corner, rather than opening a locked door.

I'm still interested in all the sources on this. The NYT cited, I think, over 20 sources -- current and former administration officials. The LAT cited over a dozen. That's a lot of alleged traitors, a lot of people talking about a program that is apparently legal (at least from the US standpoint). Interesting.

OMG stop deflecting here. This is about the NY Times not about sources. The NY Times are the traitors, I know this, I heard it on Rush Limbaugh. It doesnt matter that the LA Times and WSJ reported the same thing. Mentioning those papers does nothing to energize our base of support for the war against terrorism in Iraq.

No Rover ya silly nutter.

What Thor just did was discuss the issue at hand.

What I asked you to stop doing was throw a million other issues in instead of stick to what's at hand.

Tinfoil hat man, the Rovians are making you sound insane.

Fandros

The NY Times are the traitors, I know this, I heard it on Rush Limbaugh.
Heh, Rush has his own problems at the moment...

Bah, no more problems then any other overstressed, loud mouthed, heavily opinionated, overweight, over the hill and trouble with his winkie guy would be with yet another illegal prescription.

Fandros

No Rover ya silly nutter.

What Thor just did was discuss the issue at hand.

What I asked you to stop doing was throw a million other issues in instead of stick to what's at hand.

Tinfoil hat man, the Rovians are making you sound insane.

Fandros

So, if you tell me the secret plans to invade Iran and then we both on the same day write and publish articles in The Fandros Daily and Rover Weekly then only you are a traitor?

Is my breaking of the law negated because you told me the secret?

Are you the only one guilty of publishing state secrets?

Am I not guilty of publishing state secrets?

If your answer is no to no to any of the above my point is proven that all three newspapers are equally guilty of a ppurported crime ...look you have me stuttering there... So why the focus on the NY Times?

I don't buy into the "well the times broke the story" I think the Wall Street Journal had it out in publication a few hours before the NY Times did.

You really don't see the political maneuver in villifying the NY Times?

I'll bet you 100 VCash that there will be no prosecution of the Times or any of its staff over this article.

Man I think the wingnuts who released said info to the Times should be imprisoned if not shot. That's not at hand atm bruddah.

What's at hand is the Press deciding national policy.

Follow the bouncing ball....NY Times owns the credit for the story...

Goddammit man, you own stock in the NY Times or something?

Fandros

Heh, Rush has his own problems at the moment...

Travel to The Dominican Republic alone with Viagra...a place noted for teen prostitution...priceless.

Now that is really stretching Rover. I bet he and Rove were meeting down there to track down lil boys!!

Fandros

Now that is really stretching Rover. I bet he and Rove were meeting down there to track down lil boys!!

Fandros

Funny you mentioned that...its mainly male teen prostitution that goes on there I believe.

But he might have been vacationing there, there is so much to see and do there. There are not many countries where one can watch kids play basebal while using garbage for a catchers mitt or human leg bones for a bat.

I heard he was going with an all male group but haven't looked into it. BTW, doesn't Oxycontin come in little blue pills? Wonder if the contents don't match the bottle.

Anyway, as one commenter pointed out, the ones with the erections right now are the talk show hosts. This news will keep them fed through the 4th of July.

Bah, no more problems then any other overstressed, loud mouthed, heavily opinionated, overweight, over the hill and trouble with his winkie guy would be with yet another illegal prescription.

Fandros

Lucky for you Fan I was not drinking when I read this one, or you would be getting blamed for me spitting it up.:p

Have heard a few one-liners already: "How did Bob Dole's luggage get mixed up with mine?", and "I bought those at the Clinton Library souvenir shop.".

Is it too early to start with the Rush Limpbaugh jokes?

Is it too early to start with the Rush Limpbaugh jokes?

It might be too early. But its not too late for Tom Delay jokes. Heres one to start. (http://www.mivadesigners.com/politics/Hardball-Delay-NYTimes-Plame.wmv) Glad the administration and cronies arent playing politics.

Then there is this video (http://www.mivadesigners.com/politics/msnbc_ko_nyt_swift_leak_060628a_320x240.wmv)which is really funny...damn media playing politics against our concerned administration.

So Funny...

Rover acting as though they all aren't playing heavy politics...

Fandros

From the SWIFT website (http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=6149):
2. Cooperation - SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF*), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities.
From FATF's website (http://www.fatf-gafi.org/pages/0,2966,en_32250379_32236889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html):
The work of the FATF focuses on three principal areas: (1) Setting standards for national anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing programmes; (2) evaluating the degree to which countries have implemented measures that meet those standards; and (3) identifying and studying money laundering and terrorist financing methods and trends. For more information on these specific areas, click on the appropriate link in the box under Key Topics on the lefthand side of this screen.
The UN Al-Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group has a post (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/725/72/PDF/N0272572.pdf?OpenElement) on their website. The link has been spotty, but their report, from late 2002, includes:
The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions.
Bush told (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-4.html) everyone this type of program was instituted back in 2001:
We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice, we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorist's ability to access funds in foreign accounts. If they fail to help us by sharing information or freezing accounts, the Department of the Treasury now has the authority to freeze their bank's assets and transactions in the United States.
Though it took a couple years before the al-Qaeda types figured out just how well such a program can work. Really, the only new information coming out of the NYT story was that the searches were conducted under the authority of broad administrative subpoenas rather than individual warrants.

5-day stale thread, sorry.. but relevent:

Here you go Rover, documented proof the press aided our enemies in killing your friends:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/weekinreview/02shane.html?ex=1309492800&en=ca4cf08b0b7caf85&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made "tragic" mistakes.

Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans. Everyone 'knows' the CIA reads encoded traffic on a global scale... but it seems our enemies continue to be stupid... until they read the NYT and WP that is.

5-day stale thread, sorry.. but relevent:

Here you go Rover, documented proof the press aided our enemies in killing your friends:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/weekinreview/02shane.html?ex=1309492800&en=ca4cf08b0b7caf85&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Everyone 'knows' the CIA reads encoded traffic on a global scale... but it seems our enemies continue to be stupid... until they read the NYT and WP that is.

Remember thats someones opinion, not fact.

Most who were there kind of laid the blame on the lack of ammunition carried by the Marines and the fact that in order for a Marine to respond to a threat one had to first radio battalion HQ to explain the situation and hopefully receive permission to fire upon the truck that just crashed through the gates.

I may be wrong, but from what I understand the only part of the secret bank survellience program that the NY Times reveled was the fact that the administration is using presidential warrents rather than from judges.

Everything else, the administration has openly talked about... at least thats my understanding of it. I know Prez Bush has mentioned that we are going after their assests and how they move money to and fro at least 15 times in speeches and interviews.

I may be wrong, but from what I understand the only part of the secret bank survellience program that the NY Times reveled was the fact that the administration is using presidential warrents rather than from judges.

Everything else, the administration has openly talked about... at least thats my understanding of it. I know Prez Bush has mentioned that we are going after their assests and how they move money to and fro at least 15 times in speeches and interviews.

Correct, after 9/11 CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC were all reporting on the financial "spying" we were doing, there was reports of monies seized by the government and so on. So it was no secret that this was going on. Like LL said the method in which the surveilance was carried out was the only REAL news.

Since Bush said we were going to be going after the financial dealings of these terrorists and terrorist countries in several speeches, should he be prosecuted for divulging what we were going to be doing?

And, since Cheney was doing business with Iran, a Bush declared member of the Axis of Evil, should he be prosecuted for aiding a terrorist nation? (When are we going to find out if Cheney and Halliburton contributed to Iran's nuclear program devlopment? Wish the NY Times would chase that story....)

It's 1 thing to say that we are going after the financial assets and money moving that Al-Qaida was doing. It's something completely different to lay out in detail how it was done.
Laying it out does nothing but show our enemies how we kept that $1 million money transfer from occuring. Now they know how we do what we did.
They'll just find a way around it now.

It's 1 thing to say that we are going after the financial assets and money moving that Al-Qaida was doing. It's something completely different to lay out in detail how it was done.
Laying it out does nothing but show our enemies how we kept that $1 million money transfer from occuring. Now they know how we do what we did.
They'll just find a way around it now.

Well lets see.. Bush said..."We are working with banks and financial institutions to track those who finance the terrorists"

He said it numerous times in numerous speeches and statements across the span of years starting around Sept 12th of 2001. So to make it seem like all that was said is "we are going after finacial assets" is just plain bullshit.

He didn't point out exactly how we're doing it Rover.


Trust me that makes all the difference...it's fucking treason

Fandros

He didn't point out exactly how we're doing it Rover.


Trust me that makes all the difference...it's fucking treason

Fandros

But, the Secretary of the Treasury and his Undersecretary both did, in their question and answer sessions with both reporters and editors while trying to convince them not to run the story.

As soon as it became known that the papers were planning on releasing the story, they should have been approached and informed of whatever the Act is that governs national secrets in a time of war, and informed of the consequences they would face, and then those consequences should have been immediately enforced upon publication. Instead, people ran around wringing their hands and crying "foul".

The material should not have been published, but the response to it being published is being spun for maximum political capital, which is just as disgusting.

NY Times reps: "We are going to publicize your secret financial tracking program."

Administration reps: "Oh noes, please don't do that, we beg you. We will tell you all you want to know about it so that you understand why you should not do the story, but pretty please do not publish."

BULLSHIT!!!!

It should have gone......

NY Times reps: "We are going to punlicize your secret financial tracking program."

Administration reps: "No, you are not. That will be considered an act of treason, and here are the legal reasons why we say that. We are also filing right now for an injunction against any publishing of the story until such time as it will not negatively impact the pursuit of our enemies. If you do go ahead and publish the story, we will seek immediate court orders shutting down the paper and arresting all involved in the decision for treason."

They had the option, but chose to wring their hands instead, and only talk tough after the fact. This administration screws up, we all know that. Why not screw up in a preemptive manner instead of waiting until after the fact, and screwing up in such an obvious partisan political manner.

I agree Byl, they should stop pussyfooting around with their communications. All so afraid it might cost a few votes to play hardball....bah

Regardless, I heard an interview with the publisher from the NY Times today...fucked up his story 10 times in trying to cover his act.

Mr Pulisherman...yes I think it's a good program with good oversights and good results but I decided to run the story anyways...


paraphrased of course...wth

Fandros

If this administration would just learn to play by the fucking rules, then there have been no story. But for some reason, they feel compelled to bypass the judicial branch and grab more power for the executive.

This is a story because it is part of an underlying attempt to change the nature of our government. The Bush Administration needs to start crossing its T's and dotting its I's. This "time of war" bullshit doesnt fly. Get the proper warrents, go through judicial.. if the process isnt satisfactory, then fucking go to congress and get them to make the necessary changes.
Its pretty damn simple.

This is news because it stretches the boundries of executive power, perhaps breaking them. Would the NY Times have published this story had the Bush Administration got proper judicial warrants and all 3 branches of government were on board? No.. because there is no story then.

Im sorry, but George W. Bush is his own worst enemy. The blunders and missteps he makes have consequences and blowback. The fact that he has lost the trust and confidence in a majority of the people of this country is one of them.

The fact that he has lost the trust and confidence in a majority of the people of this country is one of them.


LL, Bush doesn't give a rat's behind if his agenda coinsides with the very people who would otherwise have faith in him and he flaunts that. He is almost like Judge Dredd in his approuch in that he pretty much says fuck the law because he IS the law. Unfortunately those who don't support him (AKA most American voters and the rest of the world) are not in positions to do anything about it. Bush has enough cronies in positions to carry out whatever he wants for the remainder of his term and there will be enough cronies left in power after he leaves office to assure whoever succeed's him will have a hellvah time cleaning up the mess that remains.

I've already shown that the NYT printed nothing new except that BushCo used administrative subpoenas instead of judicial warrants to gather their information. It might also be news that they subpoenad broad swaths of data rather than discrete units (at least in the early going).

And now we learn that the proposals for many of these questionable programs were put forward prior to 9/11, rendering them more questionable yet.

No treason involved (unless you want to argue that it's treason on the administration's part ;) )

It also should be noted that SWIFT has information about this program on their website and has had it there long before it was ever published by the NY Time, Wall Street Journal and LA Times.

Thormir is absolutely correct that the only new revelation was that once again the administration failed to use due process in its information gathering, due process being the very foundation of this country.

Found this article (http://www.observer.com/20060717/20060717_Gabriel_Sherman_media_offtherecord.asp) very interesting, seems the Wall Street Journal reporters are a bit pissed at their editors.

It appears the information written in the articles was provided by the Treasury Department and was de-classified information.