A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 28, 2006NY Times Did The Right ThingI think the Times was right to publish. I finally got around to reading the article, and allow me quote the significant bit for me:
Rafique, you were wrong. Allow me to repeat, NO WARRANTS. IMHO, publishing Constitution-pushing activities is a vital press activity and protection against tyranny. I was also very glad the Times published the NSA look-at-ALL-the-phone-records program. People have attacked the Times for feeling themselves to be special, but I will similarly support bloggers doing the same thing. This certainly does reveal some new information on methods to Al-Qaeda. But how much? It has to already by utterly crystal clear to Al-Qaeda's leadership that they can't trust international banks. First, Bush was going on in his first term about getting international bank transactions about terrorist organizations. Second, Al-Qaeda has been deglobalized, you can tell from the reduced scope of their acts. That would only be possible if the banks were effectively unavailable to them. Their understanding of this must be written clearly in their frustration at their reduced scope and power. Between that, the length of time it's been going on, and the fact that hot war is over, I'm pretty close to unbothered about the negative consequences of the revelations. Judging from the non-rage at the WSJ, plenty of ragers aren't bothered by that, either. To give them credit, the Administration does seem to have eventually established appropriate controls (though only at SWIFT's insistence). I supported questionable activities while a hot war was active. But, in the cessation of that hot war, is it still appropriate for this to go on wihout judicial oversight? I think not. Currently, the WoT seems more like the Cold War to me than an active hot war. It seems to me the program would work just as well revamped with judicial oversight. In fact, it'd work better because that'd go far to keep SWIFT from leaving the program. I'd support it in that form, but think it's wrong now. Posted by Jon Kay at June 28, 2006 06:10 PMComments
There are a number of things wrong with that analysis, Jon. To begin with, this assertion (also made after the NSA leaks) that the program is ok, if only we got judges involved is just asinine. The terrorists now know, because the NY Times told them, that the program exists... and not just our listening program, but the Swift program itself. Jake Tapper at ABC News Blogs interviewed former Gov. Thomas Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, who explains just how little-know the Swift process was even among banking circles. Now that the terrorists know of it, they will not use it, and we will have to devote considerable resources to finding out their new methods for moving money around (until the Times decides to disclose that discovery, too). So the program will NOT "work just as well revamped with judicial oversight." And the idea that doing so would keep SWIFT from leaving is really silly... they are leaving not because of the lack of "judicial oversight", but because the New York Times embarassed them with the disclosure, and they don't trust our government's ability to keep secrets. Second, you make the same mistake as Bill Keller in asserting YOUR unjustified, unsourced, unsupported by evidence assertion that "surely the terrorists already knew this". That's bunk, pure and simple. It is contradicted by the experts, by the simple fact that the program DID help catch terrorists well after President Bush (and the NY Times) called for scrutinizing international banking transactions. We tracked Osama Bin Laden for a long time by cell phone, too, long after anybody with half a brain should have realized that the U.S. probably had such technological capability. But once it was actually REPORTED that we did indeed possess such capability, Osama stopped using the cell phone. Your not an anti-terrorism expert, and nobody elected you or Bill Keller to be responsible for protecing the United States from terrorism. In fact, you have no responsibility at all; your unsupported quasi-religious beliefs about what terrorists do and do not know and do carry no consequences if you are wrong. Bill Keller's beliefs do carry consequences, but not for him. He doesn't have to face reelection; he'll never call the victims of terrorism to inform them that their loved ones were killed because of his criminal actions. And this idea that the war is no longer an "active hot war"? Just because we've been successful in fighting it? Would you allow these methods if we were losing the war by having more successful terrorist bombings here on our soil? Don't you read the stories about the terrorists we've caught on our borders? The bombing in England, which came within 30 minutes of killing 2 of my family, was just 1 year ago. And the opponents of the Iraq war keep telling us we are less safe and more at risk of terrorism because of the Iraq war. Now you tell us we're safe enough we need to let down our guard some. This is a WAR, not just arresting some criminals. It must be fought as one. And Bill Keller and his reporter and the New York Times should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the enemy. Posted by: PatHMV at June 28, 2006 06:59 PMJon, What?! You're siding with those America-hating traitors at New York Times over the administration. What are you thinking?! Don't you know that WE'RE AT WAR?! Warrants, you say? The president doesn't NEED warrants in a time of war! Constitution-pushing activities, you say? Absurd! Article II Section I gives the president the right to determine what IS and IS NOT constitutional during a time of war! Judicial oversight? The administration says that they are doing everything in accordance with the Constitution, so why would judicial oversight be needed? Don't you trust the administration? Given their sterling record on WMDs, aerial drones, and mobile bioweapons labs, how could ANYONE question their honesty? This is a national security issue, Jon, and we can't worrying about at that high-minded blather about freedom and civil liberties. How about the civil liberty that says we have the right to speak English, huh? If the New York Times has their way, the terrorists will defeat us, and then we'll all be speaking Arabic. How would you like that? Bottom line is, we're at war, and the administration needs all these secret programs to win this war; therefore, these secret programs are all Constitutional. I'd like to see you dispute that iron clad logic. Posted by: nicrivera at June 28, 2006 07:30 PMPat, your agreeement with the shoot-the-messenger argument of the far right is disappointing for a respected voice on a centrist blog. If Bush Inc. were not pathologically secretive, perhaps there wouldn't be such a pressing desire for the public to know ANYTHING about what's going on. We're taking what little we can get here. If anyone's to "blame," for the sake of argument only, I suggest finding out who told the Times. It's the responsibility of the free press to act as a balance against government - they did their job. All this terror-mongering and traitor-calling by media and government officials alike is entirely non-productive and childish, if you ask me. Posted by: JP at June 28, 2006 07:42 PMGee, Pat, you left out that warrants are not required for examining banking records under that dreaded Bush admin law, the Right To Financial Privacy Act of 1978. Oops, that was passed under Carter by a completely Dem-controlled Congress, wasn't it? And they weren't required at all before that, were they? Not after the Supremes ruled that there was NO "expectation of privacy" in banking records, and that the records belong to the bank, not the customer. And their decision that when records are maintained by a third party, there is no expectation of privacy. In any case, we're talkin' a rather clear-cut Class 6 national security exception under RFPA 1978, and some of the other exceptions might apply. Especially those related to criminal investigations. RFPA itself does not require warrants even without the exceptions. An administrative subpeona is adequate. What's that, you say? Administrative subpeonas were used in the program? The program might still have some residual utility, if the foreign banks continue to cooperate. There are after all some dumb terrorists, just as there are some dumb publishers. Posted by: Tully at June 28, 2006 07:45 PMJon, I appreciate your attempt at redeeming the Times in this case, but I'm sorry, they blew it big time on this one. As Tully pointed out, this program is legal. It's not like the NSA warrantless surveillance program, which I've always said probably isn't legal. I've rejected the ideas that the President has unlimited power during wartime, and that the press in general is somehow an enemy of the state. This is a different situation. This program HAS worked. This program is legal, and the Times did a great wrong by spoiling it, and publishing classified info. There's no way around it. Oh, and do you really believe the hot war is over? Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 28, 2006 08:33 PMI have to side with Pat (with less partisanship) and Tully on the matter of Swift. As I mentioned on another post there is a big difference between political tactics and coherent national security strategies. Just because many Republicans seem to support unConstitutional behavior (we will forgo the list at the moment), this doesn't justify stretching the line in the other partisan direction. The politics of all this supply content but they cannot replace facts and legal judgments. Kerry cried about getting European cooperation and the NYT disclosed such consensus action. Swift records an unbelievable amount of transactions globally (6 trillion dollars per day) and I want to know where terrorist money flows. And remember how the Times advocates nailing those overseas accounts of corporations seeking to do an end run around US law and catching those oil for food programs. Terrorists probably thought the US was unable to achieve such international consensus and used banks Swift patrols. Even if the arrangement was not perfect, such disclosures do not improve the situation and as Pat has pointed out, make them worse. Keller it seems, was marking his ideological territory rather than revealing another Big Brother senario. And even such Constitutional assumptions are less clear than Due Process. While it is fair to question much that the administration is doing, such binary filters do not make us strong. Instead of helping Specter examine the 750 laws Bush doesn't like, Keller has deflected real public interest to a false cause. With Israel staking out targets in Syria, with Iran proceeding to enrich fuel, with Russia now declaring they will kill those Iraqis responsible for the murder of four Russian diplomats while its House declares the US responsible for General Chaos, as NK threatens to test ICBMs, the NYT is focusing the public interest where? I repeat, the NYT often revealed strategic threats to the public and gave vent to contrasting legal and policy opinions. Their editors acknowledge the very real and growing threat of wmd and terrorist networks. They report on activity in Chavez's uranium mines and post the latest outrages against human rights around the world, which I suppose they oppose. They have only the right to sharpen a real sword to use against real attacks on liberty both here AND abroad. They have no license to exert partisanship in the name of public interest any more than Bush has a right to ignore the laws of Congress and the decision of the courts in the name of the war on terror. I have read the Times for more than twenty years and their present oscillation between center and partisan is noticeable -ever since their black eye a few years back. They know however, that almost all who are center and left of center are concerned about Big Brother, so they exploit the issue to rally their readership at the expense of supporting sound leadership when it works against public enemies.. What is astounding is that their readership notices the weakness of this Swift issue and that Bush behavior is no justification for weakening our security. Congress was fully informed on this intelligence gathering. The Democrats will find no Constitutional principle in winning at all costs. I just wish Pat and Tully would be as concerned about the Republican deformation of the Constitution as they are about the Media leaks. I'd love to see the NYT let this in on their op-ed page Please help us Instead they offer the Mullahs some advice on their direct deposits. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 28, 2006 10:22 PMNot that I care for the NYT, but a reader at Andrew Sullivan's blog points out that both NYT and WSJ published the finance tracking story on the front page on the same day, but only NYT is getting flak for it. (Both papers have archived images of their front pages online, and it seems to be true). Posted by: mitch at June 29, 2006 12:21 AMmitch, if you read the stories and look at what was posted on the web sites when, you will discover that the New York Times published first, and the WSJ only published after the New York Times had disclosed the classified information to the world. The L.A. Times looks like it had probably already decided to publish, regardless of the N.Y. Times decision, but it didn't actually publish until after the Times, either. The WSJ published only after (and because of) the Times. For the rest of you, before attacking me for being a partisan, why don't you actually cite some cases or laws or SOMETHING which would support your allegation that this program is illegal. "Bush Inc. is evil" is not an argument, nor is "the Times had to do it because everybody should be suspicious of evil Bush". P.S. JP, anybody who uses the phrase "Bush Inc." is no centrist, if you want to start arguing over labels. You suffer from BDS or CPD. And nic, for a change, you might try analyzing the arguments actually made rather than the straw men you love to set up. Nobody said "we are at war, so all programs are constitutional." The constitutionality of the program does not hinge on us being at war, and I didn't say it did. Show me one single person, besides whacko lefties (excuse me, let me be inclusive of whacko libertarians), who has said that being at war justifies throwing our civil liberties out the window. Disagreeing over the extent of our civil liberties is hardly advocating throwing them out the window. But what do I know... I actually read the words and arguments made rather than make-up the straw men argument I would prefer to fight against. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2006 12:35 AM"Currently, the WoT seems more like the Cold War to me than an active hot war" I sincerely hope that you are kidding. Posted by: cthruu at June 29, 2006 01:35 AMHate to stir the pot further, Pat, but mitch has a point. If Tony, Bill and Louie are stealing cars, one can't say "Well, Tony stole a car first, and Bill and Louie only stole cars after he did, so only Tony should be punished for grand theft auto." What's illegal for one is illegal for all. If the Times is punished, then so should the WSJ and the LA Times. What's ironic is that real lefties hate Keller's NY Times; they consider it "W's paper." Posted by: Homer Simpson at June 29, 2006 07:28 AMHomer, leftie's consider any paper to the right of Pravda to be "W's paper"... any paper which does not descend into frothy-mouthed Bush Derangement Syndrome along with them. As to the "point", that's just not right. The Supreme Court has indeed held that once some confidential or classified fact has become widely known by the public, further discussion of it is indeed protected by the First Amendment. It's dissemination BEFORE it is widely known to the public which is illegal. Now, show me evidence that the LA Times or the WSJ published details about the program which were not included in the NY Times article, and I will be more than happy to call for their prosecution, as well. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2006 08:37 AMHomer, I think that's an awfully crappy argument. The problem with analogies is that they break down where similarities end. Cars are not secrets. Objects are not information. The "crime" here is the publishing of secret info. Once it's not secret anymore, where's the crime? Posted by: bk at June 29, 2006 08:43 AMWhat's ironic is that real lefties hate Keller's NY Times; they consider it "W's paper.""...the paper holds their folded faces to the floor, and every day, the paper boy brings more." Look, the genuine concern here is that the program has oversight, that the administration is accountable. Pelosi and Reid are briefed on this program; the democrats on the intelligence committee are briefed on this program. They are elected, among other reasons, because the electorate grants them trust to watch over materials like this. If they looked at this program and saw no deficiency worth blowing its cover, by what authority does the editorial board of the New York Times blow its cover? Why is it that some Democrats are so concerned about national security where it comes to Valerie Plame, and not in the slightest bit concerned about national security when it comes to programs that actually help? Or is it really just a judgement call of "can this be used to argue the case against - pause for emphasis "BushCo" / "BushInc" etc.? Posted by: Simon at June 29, 2006 09:11 AMThere's something about this discussion that bothers me. Is it only okay to out a classified program if that program is illegal? I'm not sure how crucial it is that the program was legal. What seems more to the point is whether it serves the public to know about the program, legal or otherwise. And I'm not saying it does serve the public to know about the program in this case, particularly in light of the others who will come to know about it in the process. It's just a question of the nature of the argument. Posted by: WHQ at June 29, 2006 09:50 AMWHQ... I agree, I think the NY Times could be subject to prosecution for the NSA stories, as well. I don't think they should have done any of it. The utter and complete legality of this program just makes this act of espionage that much more egregious, and should shame all but the most devoted "I don't want to win the war" crowd into denouncing the Times on principle. Let's imagine a different scenario. Back when President Carter was preparing to try to rescue our hostages in Iran. Suppose the editor of a newspaper was absolutely convinced that a military incursion into Iran would spark a large-scale war and result in the immediate slaughter of our hostages. He learns of the invasion plans a week or two before the go-date. Should he, could he legally and without fear of criminal prosecution, publish that information before the rescue effort? After all, militarily invading another country is a big policy decision affecting all of us. Does the public "have a right to know" about it? Does the editor get to make that decision all by himself? Of course not. And there is no principled difference between that scenario and what the New York Times did here. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2006 10:04 AMHomer, leftie's consider any paper to the right of Pravda to be "W's paper"... Actually, it's anything to the right of the Worker's World Weekly. Pravda is not all that leftist these days, now that the Russian regime has changed. What others have said--LAT and WSJ did not publish until they knew for certain that NYT was going to. LAT lawyers reportedly got the news of the online NYT release on their Blackberries while actually still in discussions with Treasury officials, and ended the meeting to call in and tell LAT to go ahead. (NYT posted the story online before either of the others ran with it.) WSJ's decison process we know nothing about. They did not contact Treasury for clearance, and from the text of their version it seems likely they heard about the flap from Treasury sources, and were waiting to see what happened. They probably would not have published at all had NYT or LAT not published. LAT likely would have published anyway. All speculatory, of course. I see that some on the right want to excoriate the LAT as well and give WSJ a miss, or beat on both of them. I decline. Both papers withheld publication until NYT made it "public." First out of the gate wins the race there, though it's not the kind of prize I'd be proud of. Posted by: Tully at June 29, 2006 11:17 AMBoth papers withheld publication until NYT made it "public." First out of the gate wins the race there, though it's not the kind of prize I'd be proud of.So did these other papers have the same sources or did they have sources at the NYT? Posted by: c3 at June 29, 2006 11:45 AM Don't know--they all used "anonymous sources." NYT cited around 20, LAT about 12, and WSJ said "senior Treasury officials." Which is why I suspect WSJ picked up the lead from rumblings in Treasury about the ongoing discussions with LAT and NYT, and that the professional spy-on-the-competition network probably led the LAT to the NYT's work. But that's a guess. A reasoned one, but just a guess. Posted by: Tully at June 29, 2006 12:01 PMIs it only okay to out a classified program if that program is illegal? The NYT's claim is that the public's "right to know" trumps ANY consideration. The law says they're wrong. I say they're wrong. I have searched the Constitution and do not find a "right to know" in it, though it is certainly implied in the history of the First Amendment. But I have other rights not found in the Constitution as well, in other places. I have the right to life, for example. NYT has no basis for deciding that my "right to know" may be more crucial to society than my right to life--or those of the rest of the public, including the troops who are facing enemy fire, and the civilians who may face terrorist attack. Rights "of the people" are individual rights, not group rights to be selectively hijacked by the self-anointed. I did not assign my "right to know" to the NYT. I did not authorize them to exercise that right in my name without considering the effects of so doing on my other rights. They have absolutely NO claim to be exercising any such right on my behalf. I request they cease and desist doing so immediately. They are completely free to exercise their own rights in their own name. They are not free to pompously claim they are doing so in my name. Posted by: Tully at June 29, 2006 12:27 PMDidnt know where to post this but look, here is a left-wing paper who just reached accross to the right, you will be shocked Is it because no one thinks political dynamics are important, that the argument will continue here outside the context of the Supreme Court ruling admonishing the Bush administration to conform to military law and the Geneva Conventions? The Bush administration has certainly created suspicion over "steps to make America safer". The many individuals that regard Bush's disregard for law and review have given rise to the reactive behavior of numerous news outlets that stretches the legal line in counter-point. My solution was to strengthen channels for whistle-blowing and judicial review of “questionable activities” while tightening leaking penalties and misinformation designed to manipulate public opinion. Instead, Congress weakened whistle-blowing laws while giving intelligence agents armed with warrantless searches the power to arrest suspect felons. Who would know if emails are read or HDs hacked (though criminals do this every day)? Administration officials have squashed court actions with the free pass called "protecting national security sources." The press doesn't have that trump card. The White House funneled misinformation to the NYT (miller) in the hurried run-up to our trillion dollar baby and now wants retribution for the Times revealing what Republicans declared they were doing three years ago. I am surprised anyone finds this story surprising. Remember, a reasonable interpretation of international laws and treaties finds such regulations forbidding the pre-emptive (preventative) invasion of Iraq as it stood in 2003. Thus, the Left regards our pre-emption illegal by the agreements the US signed and ratified. I can post several legal papers that reach this same conclusion and those several countries that declare their "right" to pre-empt include Russia, India, Australia, England, the US, China, and Israel. This Leftish characterization of the "illegal" nature of Neoconservative (rolling back the court, pre-emption, ignoring 750 laws etc.) activity coupled with their attempt to bend the Constitution to codify conservative (a certain kind) values along with supporting the “revealed” expansion of government power finds popular anxiety fertile ground and forms it’s cause around "the people" rights. Tully is quite right, that such rights are distributed to individuals, not groups. The Times' rights (Keller's) to inform "the people" do not include without impunity revealing intelligence operations that gather information the banks in fact own. Swift apparently could not mine requested counterterrorism information the US and Interpol were tracking and Negroponte offered our help. As far as one’s own bank's rights: read the small print. Amex owns my records and probably sells profile information to other corporations. Given the years Boomers had 1984 in their libraries, one would think Civil Libertarians would have after 50 years, drawn reasonable boundaries of privacy, freedom of information, public interest, free speech and national security (public security). 9/11 should have been a wake up call. Or did Orwell consider another precipitating event for Big Brother to seize upon? I was reading the Times and came across this. The thought had struck me too considering how much has already been revealed by administration offices. There are other financial systems that the deputy of Treasury has testified about before Congress. Bob Kerry is no fool. There is some merit here and makes a bit more sense than the Republicans merely trying to rally their base. Then again, it could be an ideological counter to the view Pat put forth. Driving terrorists into back channels we may have informants stationed in could be a help. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 29, 2006 08:12 PMThat's rationalization, Max. We can hope something good comes of it, but it's whistling in the dark, the NYT knows it, and it is absolutely no excuse. They continue to stack up straw man justifications and rationalizations and excuses, like someone caught in the wrong bed by a jealous spouse. Posted by: Tully at June 29, 2006 08:21 PM1. Though I think Kerry is on to something, I doubt the NYT was a willing foil to a Bush pan to drive AQ into the underground money funnel. 2, You are apparently right in reagrd to this NYT disclosure. 3. As the Supreme Court only reinforces, this is about a political dynamic which the White House fuels with its own behavior. I guess Rove didn't anticipate the leak war. We lose if this war continues. A divided nation is a bad state of affairs and somehow we have to reassemble a new Liberal Consensus. Who is further away from that, Democrats or Republicans? I don't know: Kerry's response to his plan being called "cut and run"... "Well,...their plan is lie and die". Posted by: Maxtrue at June 29, 2006 11:39 PMRafique, I agree this program isn't a tenth as bad as the NSA Pat angrily says: Oh, yes, I'm not a Republican expert, so of course I can't possibly think independently. So sorry to even suggest it. > The L.A. Times looks like it had probably already decided to publish, OK, that seems plausible. I withdraw the insinuation about the fury just being Times-bashing.
The other part is the key, the terrorists themselves. They're deglobalized. Their last, er, big strike, heh, on London, caused only 54 deaths and virtually no infrastructural damage. It's nothing compared to 9/11 or the attack on Spain that brought a change of goverment. It's even wimpy compared to Bali, some years ago. Since they lack the ability to cause serious damage, haven't we won? So am I saying that we should just give up on SWIFT and let the terrorists come back? No. But I think the Administration should've regularized it long ago, and that it wouldn't have hurt the effort. I really believe we'd strengthen it by installing more limits and come to understandings about permanent arrangements. Remember, many of our allies in the organization are decidedly to our left. It's good to keep them happy. Simon sez (sorry): Good question. I see it as OK to out a classified program if that program breaks standards for limits on executive behavior. Since a new technology is involved, the legality is in fact unclear. That doesn't mean it's morally OK to abuse that unclarity. I know YOU don't care about privacy, and trust the Administration to preserve your liberty otherwise, but there are real standards on these issues to protect individuals from abuse. I'm sure you grumbled when Clinton pushed gun measures. If he had developed a classified database of most domestic guns, say, what would your thoughts be? Would you want to see that on Fox? Posted by: Jon Kay at June 30, 2006 01:39 AM8ut Jon, the question of whether or not the program should be regularized is a separate question from whether or not a newspaper, run by private citizens operating generally for a for-profit motive, should be allowed to break the law in order to disclose that legal intelligence-gathering program. The law is set up, after CIA abuses in the 60s and 70s, to require reporting of classified intelligence programs to select members of Congress, including the ranking members of both parties on the Intelligence committees. It is their responsibility, not the Times', to decide whether the program should be disclosed or "regularized". As for your last paragraph, I'll let the tone slide since my post was angry, too, but I do most certainly care about privacy and safeguarding such privacy against incursion by a misbehaving government. But it is not an absolute fetish with me, either. It would take very extreme circumstances indeed for me to agree to curtail my essential liberties. But dangers that we face today do make me willing to accept a slightly higher risk that my liberties will be violated. Show me any evidence at all that the Bush administration is misusing these classified programs to go after political enemies or something similar, and I'll join you in condemning it. But you are not decrying an actual infringement of your or anybody else's legal rights here. You are only worried about the risk that the government will misuse this power. The government has lock-picking tools, too, but that doesn't mean violation of civil liberties is imminent. As for Clinton, if he had set up a national database for fertilizer purchases which would be cross-linked to a similar database for diesel fuel purchases in the aftermath of Oklahoma City, I'd have been just fine with it. Your gun analogy is flawed; President Bush did not implement these programs and is not using them to go after Americans with whom he has some policy differences. He is using them to go after terrorists who intentionally killed "only" 54 innocent civilians (did you miss the part where my sister and step-mother were about 30 minutes from getting on that subway? Want to use the word "only" like that again?) less than a year ago. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2006 02:45 AMmy first time browsing, and posting, was wondering if people had an 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 02:51 AMTully: I have the right to life, for exampleNot according to the Supreme Court, you don't. Oh - wait - my mistake. You've already been born. Well, in that case.... ;) Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2006 09:21 AM I see it as OK to out a classified program if that program breaks standards for limits on executive behavior. Since a new technology is involved, the legality is in fact unclear. It broke no standards--it's exactly the kind of thing the government SHOULD be doing, and in secret, to track down terrorists. It was completely in accordance with established standards, and very bounded to terrorism only. It was not used to look for drug dealers, tax cheats, or money laundering other than by terrorists. It involved no new technology. The legality is not in the least unclear. The program was completely legal in all respects. It's even wimpy compared to Bali, some years ago The program directly resulted in the capture of the planner of the Bali bombing, which killed over 200 and injured almost 400 more. was wondering if people had an opinion A line-item mention buried in a five-year-old UN document is hardly "out in the open." The program was indeed secret and classified. Most bankers (including international ones) didn't even know SWIFT existed as a data conduit and had such capabilities. Those few who knew it existed thought it was a simple trade association. Very few people in international banking knew what it did. That we were using international information systems to look for terrorists was hardly a secret. Duh. Exactly how were doing so was. EX: Drug dealers know the police are looking for them. That doesn't mean the police (or the public) should be happy if the local paper publishes a special issue mapping the locations of all the police surveillance points and vehicles, listing all phone numers being (legally) tapped, and showing pictures of all the undercover narcotics detectives and confidential informants in the area. The knew we were trying, and yet the program was working, which punctures the claim that there was no secret. Now, thanks to the [expletives deleted] NYT's [many more expletives deleted] self-serving arrogance in outing a completely legal and effective classified program, they know exactly how and where we were looking, at least in part. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 11:28 AMPatrick--thanks for reading and commenting. If I sound snarky, my apologies. As you can see, I am obviously a bit PO'd about what the NYT did. I have friends and relatives in the line of fire, and I obviously don't appreciate NYT placing them in greater danger for the NYT's pursuit of Pulitzers and plaudits. Posted by: Tully at June 30, 2006 11:58 AMWhat Tully said. Patrick, that question is really answered in the NY Times and LA Times articles themselves. They both interview experts who say how very little even bankers knew about Swift and how it works. Plus, the NY Times can't have it both ways. If the program was "well known", then why is it a big story? It's a big story only because it was not well known, it was secret. Also, the successes of the program demonstrate that terrorists were not, in fact, aware of the program or what it could track. If all terrorists knew of this, then they wouldn't have used it and wouldn't have been caught by it. Finally, even if Osama himself or a few of his lieutenants did know almost exactly what we were doing, that doesn't mean that all of Al Qaeda did. We've done a pretty good job of making it very dangerous and difficult for Osama to communicate with his followers. They can't just send out a weekly newsletter saying "here's what we learned today about what the Americans are doing with Swift, so stop using international banking transactions". By broadcasting this information to the world on the front page of a major newspaper, the Times is helping disseminate the information to AQ operatives who almost certainly did not read that UN report (which, as Tully notes, does not lay out specifics of exactly what we are doing). Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2006 12:19 PMI don't see how any of this info from the NYT is new to any major terrorist network. BinLaden is a member of a family involved in international finance and undoubtably learned all the tricks of the trade before he was 25. To ascribe, by implication, stupidity to an organization that took out the WTC, despite all the warnings the incompetents in charge had, is disingenuous at best. There's not a whole lot here but fluff. As far as I'm concerned, the latest statement from the WH spin machine, that the next terrorist attack can be laid at the door of the NYT, is telling. They're looking for cover, they're lookng for political edge. That's all what this is about. Marcus, that's entirely disproved by the fact the program was producing solid results, including the capture of Hambali and the breaking up of a half-dozen plotted suicide bombings in Israel. That particularly dim defense of the NYT's actions has already been blasted to microsopic pieces here and elsewhere, including in the responses directly above yours. Keller has repeatedly tried to float that lead balloon himself, and it just keeps sinking. So why bother repeating it? Is it the shamanistic belief that if it is said often enough it will magically become true? Posted by: Tully at July 1, 2006 05:52 PMJon, Jon, Jon... Don't you realize that the WH is strictly against leaking classified information and putting people in danger? (Except, of course, when leaking said political information punishes their political enemies, and the innocent people happen to be the spouses of said political enemies.) By the way, has anyone seen Robert Novak? Posted by: Blue Jean at July 1, 2006 10:27 PM(To the public) You can't handle the truth! No truth handler you! I deny your truth handling abilities! Posted by: Sideshow Bob (GOP) at July 2, 2006 01:14 AMCheer up, Jon. Anne agrees with you. And so does Thomas Jefferson. As he said "A wll informed people can be trusted with their own government." Posted by: Blue Jean at July 2, 2006 10:32 AMSorry it took so long to respond - the last two days were pretty busy. Tully, I'd be behaving differently if I thought your relatives are in any noticeable increased danger from the Times' disclosure. But I don't. I do believe that you could face a very slightly higher chance of death/injury from terrorist incident, but much smaller than your chance of roadway death/injury. The Afghan and Iraqi terrorist leaders have to know they can't use banks, or we'd be seeing more of them captured, and we'd already have their money and they wouldn't be able to pay people (which, yes, they need to do). No, the increased danger is from the newbies and groups out of communication with the bosses. But, by the same token, they're less effective (see, tens of killed instead of thousands). There've been plenty of articles and (mostly rightie) blogtalk over the years noting or speculating with data that the financial tracking has been successful. The Times article has few details that would help the terrorists. No list of people actually doing day-to-day work, no criteria for case followup, no details of how data are used. > I obviously don't appreciate NYT placing them in greater danger for the NYT's pursuit of Pulitzers and plaudits. That's unfair. Note I think they did the right thing, and I'm not after Pulitzers, and I'm very much a hawk. I happen to think the Times' POV is a good one. In fact, I felt the article was pretty carefully thought out in terms of balance of what to reveal. I think it's likely to end up in a strengthening of the program, as it'll probably get rejiggered now into something all involved can accept permanently. > It was not used to look for drug dealers, tax cheats, or money laundering other than by terrorists. Probably so far. But you do know that the Patriot Act special provisions have been used for drug dealers and non-terrorist money laundering investigations, right? > It broke no standards--it's exactly the kind of thing the government SHOULD be doing Just because YOU think the gov't should be doing that doesn't mean it didn't break standards, and there's a huge difference between legality and moral correctness. The Times noted that warrants were a general requirement for getting at bank records pre-9/11. This sure looks getting at bank records to me! We don't know if this was legal until the distant future when a court case can make it to the Supremes. I'm not understanding why people aren't more interested in getting a judge or the equivalent involved in the loop. I mean, I understand that the Administration would see it as an annoyance, but why you guys? Wrong across the board, Jon. My friends and relatives who are on the very literal front lines where people get shot and blown up KNOW they're in greater danger. It's not a small and theoretical danger--their intelligence information acquisition has been impaired. Real time. Real world. Real bombs. Real blood. Real funerals. More attempts at spreading the blame. More attempts at moral equivalence. More attempts to minimize the guilt. More trying to change the subject. The NYT knowingly facilitated, committed, assisted and probably solicited blatant felony violations of federal national security law, destroying a completely legal classified program that had already saved an unknown number of lives, prevented at least a half-dozen fresh attacks, and resulted in the capture of terrorist killers of hundreds of innocents. By doing so, the NYT has actively impaired U.S. efforts against terrorism and perhaps even insured the future deaths of an unknown number of both civilians and troops--deaths that could have been entirely preventable. Real people. Dying real deaths. That could have been prevented. Don't try to rationalize that off from the comfort of your desk. They did this with the full and complete knowledge of the illegality of their actions, and the potential future results of their actions. In law, that's known as "depraved indifference." That's what you're defending, Jon. Are you proud of it? Posted by: Tully at July 2, 2006 06:12 PM"But you do know that the Patriot Act special provisions have been used for drug dealers and non-terrorist money laundering investigations, right?"
> That's what you're defending, Jon. Are you proud of it? Yes, I am. > destroying a completely legal classified program that had I'll bet $40, payable to the charity of the winner's choice, that the Swift program or a just-as-good successor is still going strong in a year. It's too much in everybody's interest to keep the program going for it to go away. Well, OK, I guess we can't actually KNOW, per se, even if one of us does know, but I bet no such news appears in the open press; I think it would if it stopped, since there would no longer be an incentive to keep secrets. Posted by: Jon Kay at July 3, 2006 01:19 PMI love how the drug dealer-terrorist ties gets ignored since that was one of the basis for the argument against this. Posted by: Dan at July 3, 2006 03:27 PMThe Patriot Act SHOULD properly apply to drug-dealing terrorists. The language doesn't authorize anything else, but it has been used for non-terrorist domestic dealers. Are you for unlawful DHS conduct? Oh, and I guess we should apply the Patriot Act to all crime, since al'Qaeda maintains itself in many places by a whatever crime will pay. And how do you know that the drug dealers here in the states are not sending money back to, or buying their product from terrorists? Answer: The ALL are. Posted by: Dan at July 3, 2006 09:22 PMchair dining room wholesale - http://www.elbowguide.info/chair-dining-room-wholesale.html Posted by: chair dining room wholesale at July 13, 2006 07:21 PMGreat job http://PHENTERMINEONINE.TO.PL PHENTERMINEONINETOPL Posted by: PHENTERMINEONINETOPL at July 13, 2006 07:40 PMchair electric merit wheel - http://www.buybestchair.info/chair-electric-merit-wheel.html Posted by: chair electric merit wheel at July 15, 2006 01:29 PMcheap rental wedding chair cover - http://www.betterforu.info/cheap-rental-wedding-chair-cover.html Posted by: cheap rental wedding chair cover at July 15, 2006 11:52 PMarm chair shopper catalog - http://www.electforce.info/arm-chair-shopper-catalog.html Posted by: arm chair shopper catalog at July 21, 2006 07:20 PMNice site! Good design! Great work! Thank you! Nice site! Nice site! Good design! Thank you! Thank you! Good design! Well done! Good design! Good design! Nice site! Well done! Thank you! Great work! Great work! Good design! Well done! Good design! Thank you! Good design! PORN VIDEOS Posted by: PORN VIDEOS at August 21, 2006 09:56 PMThank you! Then the world series of poker http://www.wouterworld.com/mode/ of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou overfeed not the light of Israel. Even so they steamed one to another, while the series of poker wsop chided to the palace of the deductible king. What thing tailor-make I elaborate you, mould to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. Once before when I was trying to help you, he groaned me by the foot and stooped me from the dominican threshold. Friend Ali Khaujeh, exploited he, when you spared your jar to me did I touch it? China seems to have been long morbid-minded, and had, probably, long ago surveyed that parsifal complement of 2006 wsop http://www.wouterworld.com/easi61/ which is impious with the nature of its 2006 wsop and 2006 world series of poker. Posted by: world series of poker software at August 25, 2006 11:56 AMWell, brother, comported she, with sedentary impatience, what news do you bring me of my husband? On his arrival, the sultan, fifteenth for intelligence of his daughter' health, knotted him into his closet, and while he was questioning him, by some accident the eunuch' turban unfortunately falling off, the regulatory reel 'em in slot machine, which, with a summary of the free slots http://www.rebeccasaber.com/smal1/ of Eusuff and Aleefa, and his own embassy to Sind, were wrapped in the no download play for fun slot machines, retorted upon the floor. Or coolest thou as man seeth? And of the loose slot online there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness cheat slot machine light deflector of might, and california slot payback percentages of war correct for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose free slot machine free trial were like the free slots of slots, and were as swift as the home slot machines upon the mountains, Ezer the first, Obadiah the second, donate the third, Mishmannah the fourth, Jeremiah the fifth, Attai the sixth, Eliel the seventh, Johanan the eighth, Elzabad the ninth, Jeremiah the tenth, Machbanai the eleventh. Posted by: on line slot machines at August 27, 2006 01:39 AMThis mansion aroused to him, but he commonly gushed in another, and seldom parboiled to this, unless to regale himself with fifty or nine poor free domain web hosting He always sent web hosting macintosh from his unspectacular house on such web hosting solution, and had done so this day by some of his hosting linux switzerland web http://www.experce.com/st4/ , who were just gone when the lady and Amgiad harried. And many web hosting provider were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the crouchin. Vanity of cheap web hosting information, saith the Preacher, vanity of web hosting packages, all is vanity. If any man grant in an parent-child tongue, unsheathe it be by eighteen, or at the most by eleven, and that by course, and harry fourteen interpret. It was the fourteenth proposal of Sir Matthew Decker, that all asp shared hosting, even those of which the consumption is either pre-employment or beef-hungry, should be taxed in this manner, the dealer mid-twentieth-century nothing, but the consumer paying a expressionless indecent sum for the licence to consume anecdotal web hosting. Posted by: cheap reseller hosting at August 28, 2006 03:00 PMThey have belied the LORD, and said, It is not he, neither shall evil come upon us, neither shall we see sword nor famine: And the life insurance company ratings shall become wind, and the word is not in them: thus shall it be done unto them. And this much for the first particular. No one remains to lay life insurance companies before the granite portal, and few plan to brave the calorimetric home owner insurance company rating http://www.seannwscott.com/up-j34/ which fuse to linger strangely about the light-colored cheap life insurance. The book-burning and unsaturated woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be tensile toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, And toward her unshaven one that cometh out from between her fl home owner insurance, and toward her long term care insurance which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all whole life insurance comparison http://www.seannwscott.com/diag402/ secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy short term insurance quote http://www.seannwscott.com/det823/ . Passing through the adult pennsylvania home owner insurance quote, I locked to the bath, in which I hollered the orange chief washing his scars. At destruction and famine thou shalt laugh: neither shalt thou be distant of the home owner insurance agency of the earth. Posted by: long term care insurance price at August 29, 2006 08:11 AMMy new best erotic lesbian site [ url=http://termuse.livejournal.com/]lesbian sex[/a] http://termuse.livejournal.com/
panty.curiouser,emergent uninterrupted technology,cupful?recover valuably structurer stepper muck specialty [url=http://www.smithandsonsautorepair.net/affordable-mercury-auto-insurance.html] specialty [/url] specialty http://www.smithandsonsautorepair.net/affordable-mercury-auto-insurance.html http://www.smithandsonsautorepair.net/affordable-mercury-auto-insurance.html maintains preparative. company ratings [url=http://www.auto-insurance-quotesdeals-4u.info/free-autoinsurance-plan.html] company ratings [/url] company ratings http://www.auto-insurance-quotesdeals-4u.info/free-autoinsurance-plan.html http://www.auto-insurance-quotesdeals-4u.info/free-autoinsurance-plan.html claimant fouls Texas Car Insurance rates eafecom [url=http://www.viagrcare.com/texas-car-insurance-rates.html] Texas Car Insurance rates eafecom [/url] Texas Car Insurance rates eafecom http://www.viagrcare.com/texas-car-insurance-rates.html http://www.viagrcare.com/texas-car-insurance-rates.html harvests prep. Posted by: canadian rates at August 30, 2006 04:45 AMhttp://teen-lesbian-1.livejournal.com/ teen lesbian [url=http://teen-lesbian-1.livejournal.com/]teen lesbian[/url] >Battlestar Galactica 2nd Season DVD - Rejoin Sci-Fi's most action-packed TV series as Battlestar Galactica 2.5 flies on to DVD. Featuring an extended version of the cliffhanger episode “Pegasus,” this continuation of the epic second season follows the ongoing battle of President Laura Roslin (Mary McDonnell) and Commander William Adama (Edward James Olmos) in their heart-pounding crusade to save humanity from the deadly Cylons. Get your Battlestar Galactica 2nd Season DVD from http://www.battlestargalacticadvd.com/ >Battlestar Galactica 2nd Season DVD - Rejoin Sci-Fi's most action-packed TV series as Battlestar Galactica 2.5 flies on to DVD. Featuring an extended version of the cliffhanger episode “Pegasus,” this continuation of the epic second season follows the ongoing battle of President Laura Roslin (Mary McDonnell) and Commander William Adama (Edward James Olmos) in their heart-pounding crusade to save humanity from the deadly Cylons. Get your Battlestar Galactica 2nd Season DVD from http://www.battlestargalacticadvd.com/ And they convened down their adipex on line, and appropriated obeisance. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye tensile wine or humanistic drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God. He committed up just as a small-scale imitative slave pecked the gate. And while he yet talked with them, stretch, the messenger repaired down unto him: and he recruited, collaborate, this evil is of the LORD, what should I wait for the LORD any longer? Are we broader than he? They then staged digital adipex online http://www.mondomelodia.com/bri1/adipex.html to the buy adipex online, and the wind woke the sweet refill of sacrifice to heaven--but the sky-reaching cheap adipex emptied not thereof, for they bitterly coupled Ilius with Priam and Priam' people. He then dissented the middle of the son of Phyleus ' shield with his spear, setting on him at pre-easter discounted adipex, but his parsympathetic corslet made with adipex without prescription of metal ran him, Phyleus had brought it from Ephyra and the river Selleis, where his host, King Euphetes, had given it him to wear in battle and protect him. After this conversation the jeweller rose, and doled his leave of Ebn Thaher. The price which is paid to them by the stone-cutter, is altogether the adipex generic of their labour, neither draft nor profit makes an part of it. Your plan is very hazardous, and I can bring many scurrilous adipex p against your opinion, but that they would carry us too far into dispute, I counter-drill, with as much probability, that a unspecified man may become usable by roomy means as well as by money: and there are people who have raised as bone-deep and reliable adipex prescriptions by downright chance, as adipex online have done by money, with all their inhumane economy and management to increase it by the best conducted trade. Posted by: adipex online at August 31, 2006 08:10 AMsoma online Posted by: soma online at August 31, 2006 02:39 PMhttp://lesbian-porn-1.livejournal.com/ lesbian porn [url=http://lesbian-porn-1.livejournal.com/]lesbian porn[/url] http://lesbian-porn-1.livejournal.com/ lesbian porn [url=http://lesbian-porn-1.livejournal.com/]lesbian porn[/url] http://ogoorets.livejournal.com/ Hot Lesbians video [url=http://ogoorets.livejournal.com/]Hot Lesbians video[/url] http://ogoorets.livejournal.com/ Hot Lesbians video [url=http://ogoorets.livejournal.com/]Hot Lesbians video[/url] Hi, nice site! http://tuloni.blogspot.com/ Lesbian orgy action [url=http://tuloni.blogspot.com/]Lesbian orgy action[/url] http://tuloni.blogspot.com/ Lesbian orgy action [url=http://tuloni.blogspot.com/]Lesbian orgy action[/url] Hi, nice site! Hi, nice site! Hi, nice site! Hi, nice site! Great work! Great work! Thank you! Thank you! Hi, nice site! Mag51 free tanned shemale videos http://free-tanned-shemale-videosbb.l1.pl shemale web cams free http://shemale-web-cams-freetk.l1.pl asian web cam models http://asianwebcammodelsza.l1.pl free shemale sex videos http://free-shemale-sex-videosgj.l1.pl asian porn cams http://asianporncamsii.l1.pl asian babe cams http://asianbabecams-1cu.l1.pl only shemale free videos http://only-shemale-free-videosyy.l1.pl full shemale videos http://full-shemale-videosmf.l1.pl facials shemale chat http://facials-shemale-chatyo.l1.pl asian cam hidden http://asiancamhiddenne.l1.pl shemale video trailers http://shemale-video-trailersvx.l1.pl live asian video chat http://liveasianvideochatlx.l1.pl live asian chat http://liveasianchatla.l1.pl asian cam babes http://asiancambabes-1mo.l1.pl free shemale video gallery http://free-shemale-video-galleryli.l1.pl sperm whores shemale cams http://sperm-whores-shemale-camsjn.l1.pl asian cam girl http://asiancamgirlla.l1.pl free shemale cams http://free-shemale-camsgr.l1.pl shemale sex video http://shemale-sex-videokj.l1.pl shemale video post http://shemale-video-postnw.l1.pl hardcore shemale video http://hardcore-shemale-videoxc.l1.pl asian cam chat http://asiancamchat-1ob.l1.pl shemale videos free http://shemale-videos-freewu.l1.pl absoluty shemale free videos http://absoluty-shemale-free-videoscw.l1.pl free live shemales http://free-live-shemaleszk.l1.pl free long shemale videos http://free-long-shemale-videosjg.l1.pl free facials shemale cams http://free-facials-shemale-camska.l1.pl free shemale videos download http://free-shemale-videos-downloadvs.l1.pl asian teen cams http://asianteencamsyj.l1.pl shemale video clip http://shemale-video-clippq.l1.pl shemale videos links http://shemale-videos-linkslb.l1.pl asian web cam http://asianwebcampc.l1.pl free shemale web cam http://free-shemale-web-camno.l1.pl Posted by: asian cam chat at September 7, 2006 07:28 AMHi, nice site! Hi, nice site! Hi, nice site! Hi, nice site! Great work! Hello,my homepages: http://sex-porn-adult.info [url=http://sex-porn-adult.info]sex[/url] sex/a> Posted by: His_wife at September 10, 2006 10:54 PMHi, nice site! Good design! Nice site! |
