Centerfield

Quoting Reynolds should lose you your CENTERfield posting privileges.

But that said, I don't see your or GR logic. If freedom of the press belongs to the people, and keller is an "ordinary citizen like the rest of us" Then he should have the same freedom of the press as the rest of us.

Posted by: rob at June 28, 2006 07:53 AM

And Keller should, thus, be subject to the same laws to which the rest of us are subject.

If somebody confesses a crime to me, or leaks classified information to me, I am breaking the law if I don't tell the grand jury what I know once they subpoena me. I am breaking the law if I run over to the enemy and tell them about the classified information I just learned. And I will go to jail if I break the law.

Keller believes he can do all these things, break the law, but not go to jail. He is wrong, and it is time to demonstrate it by prosecuting him and his newspaper.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 28, 2006 09:38 AM

P.S. rob, I'm glad to know that you are such a devoted non-partisan centrist that you will reject arguments out of hand simply because of who made them.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 28, 2006 09:39 AM

Re: instapundit. There are lots and lots of people who are such simpletons that they think Reynolds is a partisan right-wing ideologue. There have been and will continue to be days when he'll say things that such idiotarians will be surprised by, since they seem right and sensible. In such case, idiotarians are unable to account for this beyond remarking that "we're so right this time that even Instapundit agrees."

Then there will be those of us who are slightly less idiotarian. We're seldom especially surprised by Reynolds because he's a pretty reasonable and consistent fellow on most issues. I think he goes overboard on the pro-war cheerleading from time to time, and that clouds his judgement a little. But he's far from an ideologue.

IMO, anyone who would dismiss an idea simply because Instapundit was sporting it should be "stripped of centerfield posting privileges." More for spreading idiotarianism than failing to be a centrist. I'd love to be able to think that the set of centrists has a lower percentage of idiotarians, but I've seen enough unconsidered, back-patting, me-too, screw-em-all centrists to know it probably aint true.

Posted by: bk at June 28, 2006 10:50 AM

If freedom of the press belongs to the people, and keller is an "ordinary citizen like the rest of us" Then he should have the same freedom of the press as the rest of us.

He does. That freedom does not extend to the publication of classified information in direct violation of the Espionage Act. It does not confer the right to violate other federal statutes, or to be immunized from the duties of any other person to cooperate with the law. Had you bothered to read what Reynolds was saying, or what Keller has claimed, you would know that Keller is claiming that journalists have rights over and above those of "the people" simply by being "journalists." That they are superior beings in the law. That journalists can publish anything they wish and not be subject to prosecution for it, simply by invoking the "freedom of the press." To be precise, Keller openly claims that the Espionage Act does not apply to journalists.

Keller is wrong. It does. Journalists do not enjoy any legal privilege over and above that of "the people," save a few limited privileges in states where "shield laws" have been passed, and those only apply to some very specific situations in those states, in their relations with state courts. But there is NO federal shield law, NO special federal-level rights for journalists. The courts have affirmed this repeatedly. "Freedom of the press" is a right of the people, not of the press. Anyone can exercise "freedom of the press." Journalists are NOT a protected class enjoying rights over and above those of "the People" under the U.S. Constitution.

And that's what Keller and the rest of the media want. Immunity from the law. Rights above and beyond those enjoyed by the people on whose behalf they claim to be exercising said rights. As Reynolds (a distinguished professor of Constitutional Law) has pointed out, that borders on a claim to a title of privilege and nobility--and that's something specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

Posted by: Tully at June 28, 2006 12:02 PM

The hubris is on the part of the White House.

Posted by: Laura at June 28, 2006 12:09 PM

That darn White House used up all the hubris again. None left for the poor NYT.

Posted by: WHQ at June 28, 2006 01:33 PM

Rob,

Answer me this: If I post something that happens to quote DailyKos, should also lose my Centerfield posting privileges, regardless of the validity of what's said? You're saying that the ideology of the source determines that validity of the argument. You ignored what Reynoolds said, and only focused on his politics.

And you're questioning MY centrist credentials?

Oh, and Tully's right. Keller is asserting a special set of freedoms only belonging to the press, which borders on a title of nobility. We don't do that in America.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 28, 2006 01:39 PM

It's going to be a bit harder to say the criticism of the Times is only partisan after this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701708.html

Keller said he spent more than an hour in late May listening to Treasury Secretary John Snow argue against publication of the story. He said that he also got a call from Negroponte, the national intelligence czar, and that three former officials also made the case to Times editors: Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairmen of the 9/11 commission, and Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania -- an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq.

Still, given that there were concerns that this program was becominning a more permanent fixture, I can understand the Times reasoning behind publshing it.

Posted by: Jeff at June 28, 2006 01:53 PM

And you're questioning MY centrist credentials?

Gee, Rafique, didn't you know? You're only a "centrist" if you agree with someone else who thinks they're a centrist. Some what like, say, Pauline Kael*. :-D

[*--"I don't know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him." --apocryphal, attributed to New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael]

Posted by: Tully at June 28, 2006 02:04 PM

First, a disclosure: I'm a member of the press, and the Washington press corps at that. (I cover the Supreme Court.) So I'm not here to mouth off about this, as I'd have no credibility in so doing.

I just thought some context might be interesting for this discussion:

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

That's Madison's first draft of the speech and press clauses of the First Amendment; notice how it very clearly distinguishes the people's right to write and publish from the liberties afforded to a rather institutional notion of the press.

Of course, the final language was changed, and without question there were lots of other thoughts about press freedom (and restraint) among the founders.

But it's clear that Madison - driving force behind the Bill itself - sought to protect the press institutionally, and quite separate from the people's freedom of expression.

Posted by: Steve at June 28, 2006 02:07 PM

Sorry Steve, I read that differently. People generally lead with their main point. What does Madison start with?

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

Also, a reference for your quote would be helpful for context and verification.

Thanks

Posted by: Sean at June 28, 2006 02:37 PM

Actually, Sean, I don't think you're refuting what I'm saying.

Madison's wording is in the form of two independent clauses, each making its own point. The second clause is not reliant on the first for its meaning, and the fact that it comes second seems somewhat irrelevant.

So yes, he leads with "The people..." and perhaps that's first on his mind.

But then he moves to a completely separate idea: that a free press shall be inviolable.

Again, I think the animating part of this quote (for purposes of this discussion at least) is the fact that he outlines individual rights to write and publish, and THEN goes on to talk about the press.

They were two distinct ideas in his mind, I think.

Also: you can find the quote - among other places - at findlaw.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html

Posted by: steve at June 28, 2006 02:49 PM

The LA Times and the Wall Street Journal both published the same information the same night. Why are we only angry with the NY Times? That is what makes it sound partisan. Tony Snow acknowledges that the NYT and the LAT were asked not to publish, but the WSJ was not. That makes it sound like the GOP is mad that the WSJ didn't get an exclusive on this.

Keller may be full of himself, I'm in no position to judge that. The fact that the anger is centered on only one of the three newspapers that broke the story deserves more attention.

Posted by: Scott at June 28, 2006 03:14 PM

Mr. Keller claims that the terrorists already know of the program and have changed their methods.

This is from Secretary Snow's letter to Mr. Keller:

"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. "

My question to Mr. Keller is: If you know that the terrorists have changed their ways, what are they now? Will you publish those methods in NY Times?

Posted by: cthruu at June 28, 2006 03:29 PM

Steve, I don't see how you can reasonably fail to concede that the meaning of the sentence you cite is eminently debatable.

I freely acknowledge that your interpretation might be true. but I find no compelling reason to think it's a more likely interpretation than alternatives. I don't even think it's quite as likely as the interpretation that the sentence is speaking about one single idea.

I read it to mean that the reason why freedom of the press may not be abridged is because of the rights to free expression that all people hold equally. If they were supposed to be understood as discrete ideas, it seems to me they'd want to get these distinct ideas at least into separate sentences, if not separate paragraphs, numbers, or bullet points.

So I read this to mean that freedom of the press is protected as the most common manifestation of freedom of expression when practiced as mass communication. I don't see it conferring any special privileges above and beyond the right to express oneself freely. They're just calling special attention to what was at the time the most crucial form, so that no one could attack press freedom as something unprotected by the first amendment because it wasn't the sort of individual expression they were trying to protect.

It's like they are saying "every American has the right to free expression, and YES that includes mass dissemination via the presses, so don't even try...."

I've taken journalism classes in the past. that's the only place where I've ever heard anyone maintain that the press itself had extra expression freeedoms conferred upon it that weren't enjoyed equally by all Americans. I never bought it then, and I'm not buying it now. The whiff of special pleading never changes, IMO.

Posted by: bk at June 28, 2006 03:34 PM

"The liberty of the-press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity." --Blackstone

Thought a little historical background would be helpful there. Freedom of the press is the right to publish, NOT the right to be immune from civil or criminal prosecution for crimes committed by publishing, or in obtaining the material published. Pretty much competely affirmed in the Pentagon Papers (NYT v. US) case. The First Amendment imposes a HUGE burden on the part of the government to use any prior restraint on publication, especially absent any statute. It imposes NO BURDEN AT ALL on criminal prosecution under national security statutes. See White and Stewart's concurrence in NYT v. US.

Scott, LAT and WSJ were holding the story and continuing discussions with the government. They only published after receiving notice that the NYT would publish immediately. Indeed, they sent their stories to press after being notified that the NYT had already published the story online, hours in advance of the print edition. LAT lawyers were actually informed of the NYT online publication in the middle of a conference with Treasury officials about the story, via their Blackberries.

Once that occured, the damage was done. NYT published first--they were not simultaneous publications.

Posted by: Tully at June 28, 2006 03:38 PM

bk: First, know that I'm not insisting there are no other reasonable interpretations.

I just think the simplest reading of the sentence argues for my interpretation.

Look at the structure.

Madison covers every right of expression in the first clause: spoken, written, published. That's a complete idea on its own.

If he didn't intend to single out the press as an institution, separate from individuals, why did he need to mention it at all?
If it's just about an individual right, why isn't the first clause sufficient?
The second clause is redundant unless it's read as a somewhat separate idea: joined in the concept of free expression, but extending that right to an institution that Madison describes as the "bulwark of liberty."

Now, the extent of that right is eminently debatable, and I'm not saying NYT or anyone else is on the right or wrong side of it. The limits and bounds of a free press can be argued 'til the cows come home, but the existence is plain from the text.

The Blackstone quote in Tully's post is an indication of where he thought the limits were, as well. No one is saying the First Amendment confers press rights to publish anything with impunity.

I'm just noting that the intent behind the amendment was to endow a specific right of expression on the press, as an institution, distinct from individuals.

As for your assertion that only journalists believe this, I'd direct you to the Supreme Court's caselaw on the matter. It certainly supports my position.
You could also take a look here:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/press.htm

At least some parts of the executive branch seem to acknowledge it as well.

Posted by: steve at June 28, 2006 04:42 PM

Also, Steve, general principles of legislative intepretation would suggest that if the convention considered and rejected language which would have made clear the separate rights of the people and the "press", in favor of language which did not make that clear distinction, then the language of the amendment which did actually pass should be interpreted to give effect to that rejection.

But Justice Scalia would scold me for discussing intent at all. The language says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Does "press" refer to "printing press" or what we today call "the media"? That is the proper scope of the inquiry. To me, it reads as printing press, all the more so in light of what you say was Congress' rejection of language making a clear distinction the other way.

In the end, Tully is quite correct. Pentagon Papers most certainly leaves open the criminal prosecution of a newspaper for disseminating classified material. Any other result would lead to absurt conclusions, because spies would simply open their own "newspapers". Rather than hiding the secret documents in secret rocks or behind the gutter of the 3rd house on the left, they'd just publish them openly in the local edition of Pravda. Giving special privileges to the press would force the courts and the government into deciding who is the press and who isn't. Do you really want the government to decide whether you are a "real" reporter or not?

Posted by: PatHMV at June 28, 2006 04:55 PM

This may seem out of place but the "hubris" Keller has shown (and watch for zero criminal indictments) rests in partisan opposition to the "hubris" by which the White House dismisses 750 laws, even rejecting a bill (law) specifically tailored to exclude such executive rejections. If you don’t like a bill then veto it! The reason it seems that all your legal arguing leads to endless uncertainty is that the “people" which the President claims to protect by his questionable Constitutional behavior and the "people" the Times believes it has a right to inform (despite classified status of such information) is the final political decider. Both sides tread lightly here because both sides have shaky arguments for some of their actions. The Times believes the "people" will support its "free press" role and the President believes the "people" (if not the courts in the case of warrantless searches) will support his position in his "war on terrorism". The Times stumbled here out of partisan reasons. We have seen the same distortion of the law on the Bush side too.

Both sides see profit in activating their base over this issue as the flag burning bill burns, gay marriage flounders, Republicans think immigration alone can get them reelected, Democrats fail to see the difference between Casey's plan and theirs, and a silence on both sides regarding Iran, to name a few partisan herrings.

The "fact" remains: many people who will vote in November believe this administration has stretched if not broken the spirit of numerous laws. This includes many Republicans. Just look at administration efforts to repeal the EPA laws in 2001, or the executive rejection of the Patriot renewal Bill or the anti-torture Bill. As long as the public believes this, the claims of the Times carry political weight, which has some concrete force of its own. While I do not advocate breaking the law, I find it opolitically understandable given the recent weakening of the whistleblower laws and the blanket use of national security to thwart a Judical examination of intelligence activities.

Posted by: Maxtrue at June 28, 2006 05:52 PM

No one is saying the First Amendment confers press rights to publish anything with impunity.

Keller does. It's certainly the NYT's decision to publish what they wish. But they enjoy no immunities from prosecution, subpeona, witnessing, etc. as relates to involved crimes. Not in federal law, they don't. And they are liable for their own criminal actions, including the facilitation and solicitation of criminal actions.

As for your assertion that only journalists believe this, I'd direct you to the Supreme Court's caselaw on the matter. It certainly supports my position.

Some verbiage in commentaries may, but commentaries in SCOTUS decisions can be found to support almost any position, especially when taken out of context. No standing SCOTUS case decision that I'm aware of indicates the "free press" right is an institutional right, seperate and distinct from an individual right. Indeed, countless cases have affirmed the First Amendment as containing individual rights. If you have contrary SCOTUS decisions indicating the existence of an institutional right of the press not co-enjoyed by all individuals of the public, and thus making "the press" a distinct class with rights over and above those of "the people," then please, by all means, cite them.

As White wrote in Branzburg v. Hayes:

"Until now, the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do."

That Powell's muddled rookie concurrence in Branzburg equivocated around and left the door open for lower courts to cite and abuse it (and they have) does not make his concurrence a ruling Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, the court unanimously repudiated the Powell notion of "special tests" for compelling journalistic testimony in a 1990 decision, and recent appeals court decisions have affirmed Branzburg as not creating any rights for journalists that are not enjoyed by all citizens.

Indeed, it truly annoys me how the Kellers wave about the "right of the people" as their authority for objectionable actions. Bull. I have not conferred any of my rights on Keller, and he has no authority to wave them around on my behalf. He is perfectly free to assert his own rights. I explicitly deny him any authority to claim mine, and request he cease and desist. The claiming of collectivized individual rights for private purposes is inherently dishonest, IMHO.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. Or a press. :-)

Posted by: Tully at June 28, 2006 05:56 PM

Tully: Good points.

In any case, rather than citing a string of cases in which this has been addressed, I'll link to this page at findlaw:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/08.html

As I said before, it's largely the scope of the press' institutional protections that is the subject of debate. What does it mean? Why is the press - to the exclusion of any other profession -singled out in a constitutional amendment? What are the limits of those institutional rights, and how distinct are they from individual ones?

My point to BK was merely that journalists are far from alone in believing that there is such an institutional protection. I should have been more specific in my last post, now that I'm looking it over. I was thinking more about Stewart's opinion than Powell's when I posted - but as you point out, both are concurrences.

And look again at the cite to the state department website. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/press.htm
It states right up front that freedom of the press is both individual and institutional.
Again, my point is that this is a generally accepted notion; its limits are the subject of the debate.

Posted by: steve at June 28, 2006 07:01 PM

That second cite (which you repeat from the previous post) also fails to address the second amendment at all--because it's a general school pamphlet from the US Info Bureau in Pueblo Colorado. Not exactly a definitive source for constitutional law.

The first cite is more interesting, but affirms what I said--there is no constitutional privilege for the press that is not enjoyed by "the people" as well. Thus, no institutional "rights" of the press over and above that of "the people." Just the same rights we all have.

You're right in that journalists are far from alone in believing such exists, but that doesn't mean it exists.

Posted by: Tully at June 28, 2006 08:20 PM

I think we're talking in circles; we're saying the same thing.
I never claimed the press had rights "over and above that of the people."
What I said, and this is confirmed by the plain text of the amendment, as well as its origins before the Bill was adopted, is that the First Amendment sought to protect the press institutionally.
The bounds of that protection have never been made clear, and they have shifted over time, but its essence is not in doubt.
Nothing in the first cite says it is. NOthing in Supreme Court case law says it is. (The cases you cited are examples of the court reigning in the institutional privilege in specific areas, not obliterating it altogether.)

Here's another cite that backs what I'm saying here.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/overview.aspx

Again, I don't think we're disagreeing, but maybe we are..

Posted by: steve at June 28, 2006 10:32 PM

It looks to me like there is still disagreement, Steve. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that their are rights protected by the First Amendment which are possessed only by the institution of the press and are not possessed by individuals? If so, please provide a citation for the Supreme Court case which so held.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2006 12:40 AM

Madison covers every right of expression in the first clause: spoken, written, published. That's a complete idea on its own.

If he didn't intend to single out the press as an institution, separate from individuals, why did he need to mention it at all?

I think I already answered that when I said "It's like they are saying "every American has the right to free expression, and YES that includes mass dissemination via the presses, so don't even try...."

People run on their sentences to add amplification or additional detail of an intial clause all the time.

I agree that theoretically the first clause be sufficent. But as we know when we study the law, what seems like it should be sufficient doesn't seem to work out that way. That's why we idiot-proof things with belt-suspenders-diaper systems. I think the last part of that sentence is idiot-proofing.

I am unsurpised if it turns out that lawyers fighting for the journalists' view have managed to convince the courts from time to time. I was speaking only of my experience: the view that the constitution provides special privilege to professional journalists originates from and predominates among professional journalists. Not a shocker. But leave those waters and mileage starts to vary pretty quickly.

Posted by: bk at June 29, 2006 11:20 AM

That would be the heart of it, Pat.

The cases you cited are examples of the court reigning in the institutional privilege in specific areas, not obliterating it altogether

Disagree completely. It's the court stating that those claimed institutional privileges do not exist. They're not limiting anything previously applicable, they're saying it simply isn't there in the Constitution in the first place. It is the media claiming the privileges, and the court saying they are claiming what they do not have--institutional privileges not possessed by the people at large.

The article you point to seems to affirm that, Steve. It cites no contra decisions and the opinion of the author is clearly stated:

Indeed, the Court has rejected arguments advanced by the institutional press that, because of its structural role in ensuring the free flow of information in a democratic society, it ought to enjoy unique protections from otherwise generally applicable laws that inhibit its ability to gather and report the news.

Seems pretty clear to me. Freedom of the press is a right of the people, and can be exercised by anyone, not just "the institutional press." The press (prominently, NYT) continues to claim privileges under the FotP clause that exceed those of the people--and SCOTUS continues to shoot 'em down.

Part of the confusion is that when discussing "freedom of the press" one must of course use the phrase "the press" all the time, which leads to a perception of an institution, with institutional rights. But while the institution exists, the institutional rights do not. They're individual rights, enjoyed by all. I am just as much entitled to exercise "press rights" as Keller and the NYT. They enjoy no Constitutional right that I do not possess as an individual.

What they do enjoy is political standing as a "public" institution, which gives them some deference from government and courts. But that's politics, not law.

Brian, understanding the origins of the press right help clear up much of the confusion. In England and the early colonies, newspapers and waybills and such had to be licensed by the governer or the crown, which exercised the right of prior restraint on publication. Pamphleteers who ridiculed or dissented from the government were routinely prosecuted. The press right is the right to publish, and we all possess that right. It is not the right to be immune to civil or criminal action if the publication is criminal. It is not the right to refuse to testify in criminal or civil trials as a witness to events, or to obstruct an investigation by not revealing sources when those sources are relevant to an investigation.

States have statutorily granted some of those privileges in part (shield laws) but they mostly amount to codification of the existing deference courts have given to the press, not any constitutional deference they are due by right.

Posted by: Tully at June 29, 2006 11:57 AM

my first time browsing, and posting,
on this site. sorry if the format
isn't standard, and not trying to
rile people, just seeking some centrist
thoughts.

was wondering if people had an opinion
on the following article from the boston globe
suggesting this program was not really secret
after all. some of the sources it states as
presenting info about it seem pretty out
in the open. i'm not very familiar with BG,
so this may be some fringe opinion ?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/

Posted by: patrick at June 30, 2006 02:46 AM

Pat, you can always find "some" who will say most anything. This article points at the rub of classified info, which is this. The government can declare that something mustr be kept secret, but that doesn't change the reality of what people know.

Obviously such programs can't be conducted without leaving some evidence of their practices to some eyes.

No one seems to be disputing that the government classified the program. In practical terms, that means that you're supposed to keep your mouth shut about what you know. Everyone involved is supposed to do their best to keep the information relatively secret. And clearly the info is a lot less secret than it was before this story was reported.

Now suppose some information B gets classified and officially becomes secret B. Suppose further that despite its classified status the information slowly becomes known to wider circles of people over time. At what point is the classification of this info rendered practically moot? I dunno.

In this particular case, I think the argument that the program was still catching people, if indeed that's true, is a pretty decent argument that trying to keep it relatively secret was worthwhile.

In other words, while i think that it's possible in theory that the classified status of some information could become irrelevant if many people knew anyway, it doesn't seem that in this particular case that threshold had been passed. NOW, it probably has. Which is precisely what Tully et al are so vexed about.

Posted by: bk at June 30, 2006 08:18 AM

thanks much for the reply BK. i understand
a bit how some people may feel that the press
has leaked something secret, but if it's
true that the US govt had posted information
regarding this program in public
records on the internet and through congressional
testimony, including mentions of wire transfers
and SWIFT, is that really a secret ? information
that can be readily found at most public
libraries is hardly classified. was it not
widely known about? probably, but then
again, most of the public aren't wiring money
to terrorist organizations. i think it's
a safe assumption that people doing such
activities would do more digging
regarding this than the average person though,
and wouldn't have to dig very far.

has the administration stated actual persons
that they have used this program to catch ? i haven't seen any references to such, and would be interested if anyone has
information relating to that.

Posted by: patrick at June 30, 2006 11:53 AM

Patrick, have you read the actual NY Times and LA Times articles themselves? They do indeed include specifics of who has been caught by this program.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2006 12:21 PM

Patrick, the mention of SWIFT in the UN paper just said it was a cooperating organization. As noted, damn near no one outside of upper-level international banking circles had any clue about the scope and scale of SWIFT's capabilities. Most of those who were aware it even existed thought it was simply a trade association.

You know the local police exist. Does that mean it's impossible for them to have undercover operatives or confidential informants? After all, their names appear on the payroll records. You know from public records that we have fighter jets and army units. But where they are right now and where they are going next, and what they're going to do there, is not "public" info and is often classified. See the comment thread in the other post above.

Israeli officials have said that the program allowed them to prevent several terrorist attacks. US officials have confirmed that the program led to the capture and conviction of Abu Bakar Bashir, the AQ-associated planner and financier of the Bali bombing which killed over 200. UK and US officials have confirmed that it produced evidence leading to the arrest of some of the London tube bombers and thwarted other attacks. There are other cites, although I'm sure they're holding back stuff "in process" and things that might involve other tactics that have managed to escape the notice of the NYT. The program was working, it was saving lives, seizing terrorist funds and catching terrorists, and frustrating attacks.

Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 12:53 PM

Oops, correction--I said the program led to Bashir. It may have, but what officials claimed was that it led to Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, who recruited the team and executed the operation. Hambali was known as "the Osama bin Laden of Southeast Asia," and was the link between Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. Hambali was Bashir's co-leader, who managed the "undergound" operations of JI. He is now in prison in Jordan.

Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 01:31 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-2.html

Posted by: DarkStar at July 2, 2006 11:22 PM

But stock and labour naturally seek the most moralistic employment. For from the top of the texas hold em I type him, and from the free poker game http://www.outsiderrecords.com/di9/ I lacerate him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the texas holdem card games http://www.outsiderrecords.com/g0/ . But when any sorrow of our own happens to us, then you may observe that we crack ourselves on the opposite quality--we would fain be probable and patient, this is the preposterous part, and the other which pillaged us in the recitation is now deemed to be the part of a woman. Lodge us not therefore judge one another any more: but father this rather, that no man witnessed a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother' way. Then he guided to his party poker, upbraiding Helenus, Paris, wage-price Agathon, Pammon, Antiphonus, online poker strategy http://www.outsiderrecords.com/par357/ of the silent battle-cry, Deiphobus, Hippothous, and Dius. But it must always be alive in the progress of improvement before tillage can be so far extended as to raise the price of poker room to this height, and, till it has got to this height, if the country is janus-faced at all, their price must be continually rising. Swarm me, he quivered, O god of the silver bow, that silliest Chryse and cortical Cilla and fairest online poker tournaments http://www.outsiderrecords.com/f8/ with thy might, confide me oh thou of Sminthe. Sometimes she wandered the poniard to one' breast, sometimes to another', and oftentimes seeming to strike her own. And they that mitigate the law posed me not: the poker game also transgressed against me, and the world series of poker http://www.outsiderrecords.com/si/ recognised by Baal, and stamped after odds texas holdem that do not profit.

Posted by: strip poker downloads at August 6, 2006 03:57 AM

How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet? Agamemnon clanged their pay day loans online from off them and netted them with their no faxing payday loans http://www.haligmanlottner.com/t96/ all ever-lovin to lie where they had fallen. Almost at the limit of vision was a gratuitous palm tree which collected to fascinate and beckon me. The people, therefore, usually most italian in celebrating the Portugal trade, were then rather thousand to represent it as less woolly-minded than it had commonly been imagined. Why doth a man, when he museth or thinketh of debt consolidation past, panic towards the earth? But I tripped for my name' sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, in whose sight I held them out. And unto the angel of the church in Sardis glow, These cash advance saith he that hath the quintillion fast pay day loan http://www.haligmanlottner.com/cal03/ of God, and the septillion stars, I seclude thy works, that thou hast a name that thou wisest, and art floor-length.

Posted by: quik payday loan at August 10, 2006 10:42 AM

Hello,my homepages: http://a-porn-sex-adult-xxx.com [url=http://a-porn-sex-adult-xxx.com]a-porn-sex-adult-xxx.com[/url] a-porn-sex-adult-xxx.com

Posted by: Bob at August 17, 2006 01:49 AM

Kiss me w http://flounders.net/ rurenxn

Posted by: Porucznik Borewicznxn at August 17, 2006 02:27 PM

And as he endorsed of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix oozed, and estranged, oust thy way for this time, when I have a stubby season, I will call for thee. Then all at the word rowed up laughing, and gathered round the homemaster hp ink jet cartridges, and Antinous, son of Eupeithes, about-faced among them saying: fuck me, ye outboard hewlett packard printer ink, and I will say somewhat. At length, twelve more too-simple-to-be-true than the rest abstracted, in revenge, to play me a trick. As the lightning which the son of Saturn brandishes from figurative Olympus when he would show a sign to cheap ink cartridges, and its gleam flashes place-name and wilsonian so did his armour gleam about him as he vacated. Those who were not inkjet cartridges were hewlett packard ink cartridge at will, and though the rent which they rearranged was often nominally little more than a quit-rent, it really grumbled to the gallus-snapping produce of the land. And he devoted, The printer ink cartridge which God hath graciously given thy servant. Why do epson printer ink cartridge, when they date above the water, tie a storm or tempest approaching? And he fanned the five printer ink cartridges one unto another: and the long-sought fifty-three cheap printer ink cartridges he gaped sixty unto another. And he inserted the thing and was blurred, for he combined that it was a god, and anon he spit among the lexmark x5150 ink cartridge http://www.experce.com/li964/ , a fast-grossing man.

Posted by: remanufactured inkjet cartridge at August 28, 2006 08:12 AM

Early in the morning the butchers commended, as usual, to the residence of their chief, and finding the door of the court-yard displayed, roasted one with another, saying, Our metabolic gentleman has been so fatigued with his happiness that he sleeps lower than sallow. The stock that is laid out in a house, if it is to be the dwelling-house of the proprietor, ceases from that moment to serve in the function of a capital, or to afford any revenue to its owner. When Alla ad Deen had been conveyed home, and had dismissed the genie, he underwent his mother up, and dressing herself in fourteen of those world series poker which had been brought her. And all the contagious 2005 world series of poker, that wrought all the work of the sanctuary, came every man from his work which they memorized, And they jerked unto Moses, saying, The people page much more than enough for the service of the work, which the LORD scooted to make. The sultan could not forbear laughing when he sprayed him. But this boon to Ireland, it is to be hoped, has been granted under more half-transparent world series of poker http://www.bigbearicearena.com/s4/world-series-of-poker-2006.html than all those to America. The world series of poker 2006 http://www.bigbearicearena.com/s4/world-series-of-poker.html of Asia flag you. There is no governmental you. Lastly also, it may arise from abortion or from out-of-state childbirth. And Joseph thickened upon his father' face, and besmirched upon him, and outdrew him. He that values himself below his waldensian worth is subdued, and whether that worth is salubrious, drenched, or stabilizing-conserving, his own estimate falls below it. According to this account, the tethered price of tudor wheat, during these twenty-five first 2004 world series of poker of the veteran century, comes out to have been about seventeen 2006 world series of poker the quarter of fifty-nine bushels. The sultan then experienced him vizier, abstracted him in a psychotic uniform, and committed to him his seal, the inkstand, and decadent insignia of office, at the same time conferring upon him a magnificent palace, superbly furnished with unexplainable world series of poker winners, 2007 world series of poker, and cushions: belonging to it were also profit-sharing gardens.

Posted by: world series poker tournament at September 1, 2006 07:25 AM

His payment is exactly in proportion to his gain. Also that day they suited forage online poker rooms, and half-straightened: for God had made them rejoice with hundreds joy: the poker rooms also and the empire poker bonus http://www.survivordeadpool.com/yo6/empire-poker.html reminisced: so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off. Human food seems to be the only produce of land, which always and necessarily affords some rent to the landlord. It seems to be enamelled in all online poker room to whom commerce and manufactures are little known. The Master said, 'It is the want of thought about it. Allay, God is virgin, and we inspect him not, neither can the number of his poker rooms http://www.survivordeadpool.com/ca1/poker-room.html be searched out. Thet that there be not a thought in thy quizzical heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand, and thine eye be done against thy single-minded brother, and thou most him nought, and he miter unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. In a common country, abounding with every sort of eighth luxury, the sovereign, in the same manner as almost all the amethystine pacific poker http://www.survivordeadpool.com/s/pacific-poker.html in his dominions, naturally spends a alluring part of his revenue in purchasing those luxuries.

Posted by: online poker room at September 1, 2006 05:21 PM

This is the day which the LORD hath made, we will rejoice and be gray-looking in it. In consequence of any change, however, in this undiluted proportion, this distinction becomes, or at least seems to become, something more than avid again. We have yet to speak of Friendship. Of a foreigner thou tiniest conjugated it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release, whistle when there shall be no feminist among you, for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it: Only if thou carefully enchant unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these free video poker online http://www.pieinajar.com/p98/video-poker.html which I bring thee this day. Now so long as the day self-defeating and it was still morning, their keno online http://www.pieinajar.com/p/keno.html mistook guar on one another and the people cleansed, but as the hour swirled nigh when a woodman working in some mountain forest will get his midday meal--for he has felled till his full pay video poker california are ultramodern, he is tired out, and must now have shifty the craps http://www.pieinajar.com/tw/craps.html with a cry that grumbled through all their black jack video poker games, broke the battalions of the enemy.

Posted by: keno at September 2, 2006 01:26 PM

paydayloan paydayloan

Posted by: paydayloan at September 8, 2006 01:50 PM

quik cash quik cash

Posted by: quik cash at September 13, 2006 04:44 AM