…from Powerline, Senate Asks for Leak Damage Assessment:
Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, asking him to investigate and report on the damage done by the media’s “unauthorized disclosure of some of our most sensitive intelligence programs.” Roberts authorizes a broad inquiry, but directs Negroponte to report particularly on leaks regarding the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.
You can see a copy of Roberts’ letter here.
Notes John Hinderaker, “so far, we haven’t seen any evidence that Negroponte is enthusiastic about going after leakers. This will be, I guess, the acid test.”
Important to note here is that while some would like to see the Times prosecuted, the real focus here should be on the leakers themselves. And I don’t say this to minimize the culpability of the press—were I the Bush administration, I’d probably be looking at ways to freeze out the NYT and LAT, who published classified information about a program they knew to be both legal and subject to proper oversight and internal safeguards against abuse. So while they were within their legal rights to publish the information leaked them without prior restraint, they nevertheless acted irresponsibly, revealing methodology (something that Under Secretary of Enforcement for Treasury Gurule’ never did) that could harm national security and, most importantly, could cause trouble with our European “allies.” Which, one suspects, was their aim all along. And for that they should suffer in the marketplace.
The Bushies seem to be laying the groundwork for this by launching a public pushback, as both Ace and Patterico have already discussed at length.
From a legal standpoint, giving the NYT and LAT reporters and editors immunity and compelling them to reveal their sources is probably the administration’s best political play. If they then refuse to cooperate by invoking Fifth Amendment protections, they can be jailed until such time as they divulge their sources—though ironically, it is on this gambit that the press likes to rely: because jailing reporters for failing to reveal sources will be portrayed by the rest of the press and by partisans in Congress as fascistic, and the NYT and LAT would rely upon their “free speech” martyrdom, as well as all the ludicrous but inevitable comparisons to the Soviet Union and China, etc., we’ll be innundated with, to plead their case with the public (aided, no doubt, by the shrill hysterics of Glenn Greenwald and other “civil libertarian” absolutist types who pretend that it is up to the editors at the NYT and LAT to decide what information the public should or shouldn’t be privy to—but whose real desire is see idea of classified information done away with altogether; how else to explain their relativistic approach to the leaking of classified info?).
Politically, the way around this inevitable (and very powerful, I should add) emotional appeal to “free speech” press martyrdom (we have, after all, been conditioned by a generation of the press celebrating its own bravery—“dissent” being “the highest form of patriotism” and all that) is to go on the offensive and to make it clear that the administration does not pursue such cases lightly, nor out of political expedience; that the NYT and LAT, along with the leakers, appear to be acting out of political expedience, even though they’ve tried meekly to assert that they were acting for “the public good”; that free speech from a responsible press requires some measure of editorial judgment that is able to separate itself from partisan considerations; that what the NYT did they did knowing full-well that there was no legal controversy over the program in question; and that by leaking the information anyway, they have done irreparable damage to a program that—notwithstanding protestations from the left that because “terrorists already knew” we were monitoring their financial transactions, the revelations didn’t harm national security (an assertion given lie to by the arrest of Hambali via SWIFT)—was indeed working, and which revelations could cause many of our European allies both embarrassment and internal political pressures to stop assisting us.
In short, the administration needs know that most Americans support its efforts to ferret out the leakers who are consistently putting us in jeopardy, and that we will accept that in order to do so—in order, that is, to put an end to a leak culture that considers itself an unelected “check” on all three branches of government (after all, the leak reveals classified information that involves the Executive, lawmakers, and—insofar as it was legal—the courts) they might have to confront an “adversarial” press whose adversarial attitude seems increasingly driven by partisan concerns.
****
update: As if on cue, “Rights unit challenges U.S. over bank data”…
(h/t Lisa)
The sad thing is that there used to be a time when you could simply remind the Times that Loose lips sink ships, and they would know what you were talking about and even more, care.
These days, not so much.
I agree with you entirely on this.
The administration must also counteract the knee-jerk attempts to paint it as fascist by reminding people again and again and, yet, again, that this treasonous activity endangers Democrats as well as Republicans–everyone, even those who dislike President Bush.
The NYT’s editorial malice must be revealed for the scorched earth policy it is.
Depends upon what one asks them to keep mum about. The Times was very titgh lipped when Stalin was slaughtering millions upon millions of Ukranians. They won a Pulitzer for that, and still proudly display it, I hear.
Sorry, that should be tight lipped.
Anybody wanna start a pool on the first appearance of “bedwetter” in the comments?
One of the things I find most interesting about this story is that because SWIFT is international in nature this program requires a high degree of international coordination and agreement. Maybe that pisses the Times off even more, helping to drive their decision to publish. Sort of runs counter to the narrative that the US is so universally hated that we’re completely isolated in the war on terror.
Alos, a good deal of the cooperation was coming from Europeans Who will now find it politcally difficult to continue the cooperation. Which is something that probably occured to the Times.
I tried to be tight-lipped while pronouncing the first version.
You’ll get the bill for the reconstructive surgery.
Keller, Licthblau and Risen should be frog-marched
Rove style out of the New York Times HQ.
They delibrately blew a secret operation to
enrich their paper at the expense of the safety of the American people. The administration expressly
asked them not to report the existance of this program and they blew them off.
Prosecute them now!!!
I love the whole “Reporters care about the truth” meme. They used to. Now they care about “the story” and “the scoop.” Their editors and corporate structure care about their circulation, their advertisers and their bottom line.
Is that wrong? Not really. Corporations are supposed to make money. Still, saying that the NYT only cares about the “truth and journelistic integrity” is like saying that daycares only care about “the kids and their education.”
Just like SWIFT,ignore the BS and follow the money.
Better to do this in the court of public opinion, where conclusory repetition works. Much better than ithe nutcase ideas to try to actually show aiding and abetting or other theories of liability of the press to a court.
But what of those pesky liberals at the Wall Street Journal? Why do they get a pass at such treasonous behavior?
When? Before cable news? Before Hearst and Pulitzer?
Is this the prosecutorial liability you refered to earlier?
Before they stopped carring about the truth.
The likely response from W 43d Street: “We’re in Iraq. This is a land war. What ships are you speaking of?”
Actus, are you the guy who blogs at actusreus?
What does the “reus” part of your handle mean? Is that Latin?
actus, girl, isn’t there some other joint you can go stink up? Here’s a book of matches. Now, toddle off.
God, my Drill Instructor used to say, “If you can’t be smart, we’ll make you strong.”
I hope Actus can bench 400, because he can’t bat a .000001 in the intellect.
One really appalling aspect of this is that the LLL Mediacrats at the twin Slimes actually thought that this disclosure would be a big defeat for Bush. I mean, these people have been living in their loony bubble for so long they don’t even know what the rest of America thinks within three standard deviations.
I heard a guy on Minnesota Public Radio yesterday who claimed Bush had a war “against habeus corpus,” among other crimes.
OUT.
TO.
LUNCH.
All of them.
Thats a little circular. I’d like more of a time period.
Why would they think that?
Well, his administration was arguing against the courts’ habeas powers in the detention cases.
I’m not happy that they published a story on this (though you might note that the editorial page is the only part of the paper that’s reliably right of center, though I quibble) but I’ve heard that they only went with the story after they heard that the NYT and LAT were breaking it. Anybody got a link to support that?
Oh, that’s fucking rich. Actus is asking for specifics from someone else. Chutzpah, olay!
Their sources are apparently all named administration officials—pretty much the same thing with the Washington post. So you’d imagine the decision by both the sources and the papers was to go ahead and discuss this stuff openly once it was out.
What is prosecutorial liability?
Apparently? Are they named or not? Or are they aliases?
corcoran:
I think you’re on to something here. It’s the unread blog of a moony little androgyne who appears to be in law or pre-law. The remarks in that blog are just as vapid and illiterate as the ones she makes here. Having no readers herself, she comes here to express herself. Aren’t we the lucky ones?
Alas, there is no ‘there’ there, as Stein would say.
actus reus
Clearly, I need a bit of clarification. Actus: Are you implying that constitutional rights, (as per non-citzens of the US), transcend international borders?
Or are they un-official sources?
Excellent post Jeff. Proving, once again, that you’re not just any cockslapping faggot.
I once saw Jeff enter a room full of trolls fingering his dog’s anus. Jeff whipped out this man-bat of pure mahogany with gold trim, throbbing with tumesence and like 35 Prince Alberts.
Dude double-fisted his Cock-Of-Doom and slapped every single troll in the room…twice! with just one at bat. That’s why I come here, for the cock-slappings and pie. And that damn armadillo.
Sean M.:
I don’t know about WSJ but LAT is saying the decision to publish was essentially made for them when they learned the NYT story was going to press. You can read about it at <a href=”http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/25-week/index.php#a002586″ target=”_blank”>.
Actus:
I think you need to wipe that perpetual smirk off your face; it’s obscuring your point… if there actually is one.
TW: act. You’ve got to be kidding.
actus–
I would love to respond to you, but Karl Rove and rls have issued strict orders not to feed the Harpies.
I’m sure you understand.
I can’t believe the hysteria from the religious right on this issue. I find it all a little amusing because I’m so above it all but nonetheless, this of course doesn’t prevent the US from still using the program. It’s unlikely that terrorists didn’t suspect such monitoring as the religious and torturous Bush administration has already admited to purusing this angle. I mean, just take a Xanex already.
Oh, and here is an emailer that has an “interesting” theory:
That is an interesting theory emailer.
Sincerely,
Andrew Sullivan.
PS waterboardwaterboardwaterboardreligiousrightgaymarriagewaterboardwaterboardwaterboard.
I notice that no one is addressing the argument raised on the other side – – that the NYT story didn’t reveal anything that wasn’t already on the public record.
Apparently in that i’ve heard about it but haven’t read the WSJ piece since i’m not a subscriber. I also read the WP piece and remember it being mostly named admin people but there may have been some details on the program that were from anonymous sources.
I’m wondering what they’re referring to as well.
What are you referring to?
Verc–
Did you have to bring Jeff’s dog into this?
Negroponte may have some authority to investigate internally for leakers, but it is DOJ that would go after newspapers. I do not think it will happen. It would simply splatter more stuff about the programs all over the media.
I’d say the controversy is the extent of extra-judicial surveillance of American citizens. My understanding is that Americans must be informed when their records are administratively subpoenaed.
Foreign intelligence programs are or should be uncontroversial.
beet,
Let’s for the sake of argument concede (which I do not do in reality) that you are correct and the NYT did not reveal that which was already in the public domain. Doesn’t it strike you that the leak of this information, no matter the damage done, was in fact illegal? Don’t you think that the people leaking this information should be rooted out and punished?
The next leak could be lethal. Should we trust unelected beauracrats, federal employees and print media execs to determine, based on their limited knowledge, to determine what operations in the WOT should be made public? Everyone involved acknowledges that the program involved was legal, congress was briefed, and the program was effective.
This effective, legal program, that has had tangible, measurable results is now in jeopardy. Perhaps now we will not catch or identify the next terrorist tasked to attack us here.
Oh?
Hey, did you guys know that we have an Army and an Air Farce, and a Navy and a Marine Corps?
Did you guys know that the 31st MEU is shipping out at precisely 0830 on July 5th from port-of-call in Singapore and will spend precisely seven days enroute to Hong Kong, and by August 8th, no later than, the USS Essex, and Belleau Wood will join the USS Ronald Reagan to patrol the South China Sea?
Beetroot, even you can see that general knowledge was not classified, but the specifics were. You should be smart enough to get that.
But go ahead and prove me wrong.
What a minute? Just who is leaking what?
Is the existence of the financial tracking program actually classified? If not, how could anyone be “leaking” anything?
According to my research,the program was established by Public Law 107-306, Subtitle E, Section 341.
So the existence of the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center (as part of
the CIA) has been
a matter or public record since at least November 2002 when the law was passed.
As I understand it,
the Center issues subpoenas to banking institutions, who simply turn over
the required information. Just like an ordinary subpoena in a civil or criminal case.
Period.
(There’s certainly no obligation that the recipients of subpoenas keep such
information private.) Of course the subpoenas, their contents probably are classified.
In any event, revealing the existence of a non-classified government program is not a
crime, so far as I know.
I suspect that most terrorists are certainly aware that the movement of
funds can be and are being tracked by the US and other nations.
So why shouldn’t the American people be made aware of it also?
How exactly has “national security” been compromised?
This whole business looks like an attempt by the far-right to either shut
down or embarrass publications that don’t follow the administrion’s domestic/foreign policy line.
Of course individuals who have taken an oath of secrecy can be prosecuted for revealing classified information. But that’s not what the far right is upset about.
The far right is upset because the NY Times revealed something about a program that might in someway politically embarrasse the current administration.
Same sorta crap you saw during the Nixon adminstration.
Dude, have you seen Jeff’s dog’s ass? Bad ass, bad, bad…why do I feel so dirty now?
rls–
People are like dogs. They do what they think will reward them. They will only stop doing it if they believe they will be punished. It’s obvious that there is no slur against Bush or reduction in warfighting capabilities that will not be applauded by fellow-travelling lefties.
It is therefore essential that the stick must be applied forcefully to make the carrot that much harder to digest.
Sorry to keep talking about dogs. I just spied a picture of Hillary Clinton and it got me in the mood.
To talk about dogs, that is.
You, Goss, are a complete moron. The program was SECRET. Full-stop, end of discussion.
The CIA might have unclassified annexes as well that relate to the given program which means precisely nothing, you incompetent twat, when revealing the SECRET shit.
Fucking hello? WTF? Would you ladies like to belly up to the buffet of serious clue-battings? You morons aren’t even trying anymore.
hey, beet:
then why did Keller have to agonize over it? it wouldn’t, perchance, be because of all the valuable details it entailed revealing? there’s a difference between having a general idea and having specific, detailed information.
just for laughs, let me remind you that the NYT has, in this act, endangered the lives of you–and those you love–as well. when the terrorists come, they’re no going to be looking for your membership card to the democratic party.
Carl,
The existence of the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc. are all of public knowledge. What they do and how they do it for the most part is classified information. The existence of the program is indeed not classified, however the operations involved and the nomenclature designed to track and the mechanics are indeed classified.
Does it not strike you that this program was important enough that the Government asked the press not to publish? The heads of the 911 commission personally appealed to the press not to publish. See my above post – legal, effective and necessary describes this program. It is possible that it is now no longer effective, just legal and necessary.
If the program ceases to exist … then I’d call that compromised National Security.
Although the effectiveness of a program doesn’t enter into the legal calculus, I have a hard time imagining it was much more than useful in filling out dossiers. Bad guys must assume that any route through a bank results in a record that can then be accessed by our side. Certainly transfers of money to the US are reportable, and have been for a long time. Seems to me that the right way to hide money would either be to take it outside the system or use front accounts in countries with strict secrecy and anonymity laws (many). That way, the transactions become much more difficult to trace to people, even though the transactions are recorded.
So go international, like through a Belgian banking system? Like, say, SWIFT?
Come on, that is exactly what the terrorists did do and what they used and what we infilitrated and used to our side’s advantage. This isn’t hard, folks. Ain’t hard at all, unlike actus’ bull-dyke nips.
I believe that’s not true, Jeff, a point which you seem to acknowledge when you refer to offering the reporters’ immunity.
Verc: sorry, buddy, you don’t get it. I can openly transfer money to an account with no name on it. From there, I can openly transfer the money all over creation to other accounts with no names on them. The trail stops at the first point. You can record all the transactions, it doesn’t matter.
I talked to an FBI guy about this exact problem. It is a very effective technique, and has been used by money launderers for decades. It works.
This may sound a bit conspiratorial, but what if the source for the NY Times turned out not to be an American, but someone who knew about it from the European side of the operation and was determined to see it come to a halt. What beter way to get the information out and deflect angry prying eyes away from your general direction than to have the NY Times wrap itself in the cloak of the 1st Amendment and let everyone think the leaker is a US official? After all, a lot of European countries take a much, much dimmer view of freedom of the press than the US does.
How would this change the public feeling about the NY Times?
Turing Word: private, as in all your private are belong to us!
Goss, Goss, Goss: You’re not in the Far Right Wing Room here. That’s in Room 232, down the hall.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the NYT has revealed nothing important. We’ve still got problems that even an old fly stuck in amber like yourself should notice.
Is it the role of the NYT or the government to provide for national security? If you’re saying that the role can be assumed by the NYT, then no administration–left or right–is safe from the predations of the press. We had best be prepared to be governed not by an elected government in a democracy, but by an interested third party. And a private, commercial one with it own agenda, to boot.
And speaking of elections: I don’t recall electing anyone at the NYT to serve in the capacity of national security advisor, do you? Maybe I wasn’t there that day.
While we weren’t paying attention, did the press become an official branch of the government?
What makes them more suited to this task than the organizations that have been handling national security for years–the highly-trained people–left and right–who love this country and have devoted their lives to it?
Can we really appoint ourselves to roles of our own choosing? For instance, I may believe strongly that I have a hell of a talent for performing brain surgery. You won’t let me try out my chops on your skull? No? Why not? My rationale is fully as well-considered as that of the Times. What do you mean, I’m not qualified?
Also, are we now living in a society where politics is so radicalized that the very lives of the majority of innocent Americans are in jeopardy because of self-seeking, partisan politics and self-destructive scorched-earth policies? Is the day of the patriot, bi-partisanship and the statesman really dead? Are our newspapers no longer to be trusted to help us find the truth?
To paraphrase you, it would be more accurate to say that the adminstration is upset because the NY Times revealed something about a secret national security program that might in someway harm you.
Yes, you. Even you.
Bland disclaimers that the program was not important or effective are not an argument. Try again.
Does it refer to “conclusory repetition “? Or is that something different?
Why is that ‘out of the system’?
ahem: disagree, it goes to the gravity of the offense. Revealing the existence of a classified program to use prayer or ESP to identify terrorists is different than revealing the names of agents that have infiltrated terrorist cells, even if the classification level is the same.
Charles Austin: our security establishment isn’t run by professionals, it is run by some remarkably incompetent political appointees. That is the problem. Politics has seeped into national security to such an extent that the advice of professionals is completely discounted. This began, in my opinion, with the runup to the Iraq war, and has continued unabated because it is a winning political (not security, political) strategy for a very weak administration.
So searp and actus think that these revelations are no big deal… If true, why did the NYT spend so long wrestling with the decision. Both of you are being intellectually obtuse to support the NYT in it’s effort to discredit the Bush administration, which, in this case, backfired badly.
Seearp:
So where does the SWIFT program fall along your spectrum or is it either/or?
JFH: you make a number of assumptions. I do not support the NYT, I don’t subscribe. Nor do I support efforts to discredit the president, seems to me that factual reporting is factual reporting. We were discussing the desirability of reporting this particular set of facts, not some broader conspiracy.
My thoughts on the revelations are in black and white, and they are just that, my thoughts. I see this particular revelation as a tempest in a teapot, for the reasons given in my previous posts.
Having said that, I do not believe in revealing classified information, and the Times would not have gotten that information from me.
I do find any revelation of covert snooping on American citizens to be quite disturbing, because our laws and our culture tend to prohibit it. In this I suppose I am profoundly conservative.
I disagree with the President: his first job is to defend our Constitution (our rights), not defend me personally. I dislike his patronizing tone, and I do not believe we should all be scared silly by Al Qaeda. I am an old cold warrior, literally, and there is no threat like a real existential threat.
There you go, now make of that what you will.
In the wake of Watergate, under constant pressure from the left, our security establishment has been systematically eviscerated.
Yeah, I noticed.
Out of the US banking system. Within the US, the Fed pretty much acts as a clearinghouse for all electronic transactions, so it stands to reason that they’d track those pretty closely.
But what I suspect searp meant by “out of the system” was using something along the lines of hawala.
Uhh…where are you applying the stick forcefully to make the carrot harder to digest?
tw:eye, as in poke out mind’s
Peterargus:
I’d classify the SWIFT program as something you do because you want all the bases covered. I would have been shocked if it weren’t being done, and in foreign intelligence I’d fervently hope we’re gathering up as much “personal data” as possible.
Seen in this context, the SWIFT program is a fairly predictable, small piece of an overall effort to gather as much information as possible on our enemies. I applaud it when it applies to foreign nationals. For US citizens, I have my doubts.
As to the secrecy: one could imagine that we could announce that all major funds transfers worldwide would be monitored. There would be a political firestorm, but I don’t see serious security repercussions That is: I’d want the program to be secret for convenience – easier to deal with cooperating foreign entities. I wouldn’t worry about the security ramifications of a revelation.
So: I’d rate the program somewhat towards the ESP end when it comes to actually catching terrorists, but I’d do it anyway, and I might find some of the information strategically, as opposed to operationally, useful.
Sure. But same with other countries, as they also face terrorists.
Rough couple of weeks for the left. They need a party to cheer them up or somethin’.
It wasn’t Watergate that precipitated new controls on the security establishment, it was the Church Committee findings on intelligence misdeeds and Vietnam. The rest of the security establishment was considerably strengthened and professionalized with the volunteer Armed Services.
Security spending was remarkably stable until the end of the Cold War. GH Bush began reducing defense spending (really, I am a defense worker and follow these things), Clinton continued the trend, although it flattened a bit towards the end of his second administration.
The biggest change with the administration of GW Bush was the runup to Iraq. Dick Cheney famously hated the CIA (there are some good reasons, having more to do with a bureaucratic mindset than some cabal), so he used new DoD organizations to generate alternate information, which he considered to be more credible. This drove the intel component to the deliberations before the war, which turned out to be a serious mistake.
In my opinion, ever since then GW Bush has been politicizing security because he has to obscure the fact that he committed a serious strategic error. Simple as that. It amazes me that somehow he has managed to turn that into a strength. Suggests to me that most Americans know little about security issues.
There’s Tom Kean, head of 9/11 commission in Byron York column:
…and there’s Searp:
Gee who I am gonna believe?
I’d say the controversy is the extent of extra-judicial surveillance of American citizens. My understanding is that Americans must be informed when their records are administratively subpoenaed.
Nothing extra judicial about it. The government has always reserved the right to view overseas electronic transfers of money. Whether outgoing or incoming.I suspect that the other nations were enlisted to investigate who actually wound up with the funds or whether the funds were dropped to still another financial institution. None of which is necessaritly secret or against the law. However they way it was cobbled together was undoubtedly the secret part. Now the players on the other side only have to change names and switch banks. Any claims that the scheme was already known or likely to soon be found out are disingenuous. The scheme was working. The scheme was catching bad guys and protecting the american public. Not any more. Thanks NYT.
But hey what do I know.I’m not a liberal. I guess all the rights in the bill of rights are absolute. Except the second one.
Which, presumably, would explain why we were able to secure sufficient cooperation to monitor SWIFT transactions.
Sometimes patterns can be helpful. Even if individual transactions aren’t useful in and of themselves, watching the big picture might provide a few leads when placed next to other information.
Well, I guess if you think Tom Kean is the authority than you are very concerned about all those failing grades he has been giving the administration.
Seriously, I didn’t expect you to adopt my position in the matter, you are welcome not to believe me. Even Tom Kean cannot convince me that this program is a major component of the GWOT. I could google and find other opinions on the matter from insiders, but I won’t.
That, and the swift website says they cooperate with law enforcement.
It depends on what system you are refering to.
Are they facing the countries like they face terroists? Or does this involve other privacy issues?
But aren’t there questions about the appropriateness of this?
Constitutionally? I doubt it. Policy-wise, thats the public interest angle.
Is thread where we’re supposed to leave rhetorical questions?
actus…
So you have no problem with warrentless evesdropping and spying? What about the 4th Amendment?
And don’t tell me you shouldn’t mind the goverment listening in on you if you have nothing to hide.
You want financial privacy?… Keep your money in under the mattress, otherwise you’ve already compromised that privacy when it comes to government intrusion.
This whole discussion is a joke for American citizens that file income tax returns. 4th Amendment rights when it comes to money is a dilemma for lefties: they want no restrictions to this information for the upper class, but protect it for the terrorists??
So, you agree with JFH and what he is saying actus?
We could put in a new law. When classified information is published, the reporter/editor/publisher will be asked for the source of the information. If they refuse or claim it was anonymous, the reporter/editor/publisher would face the punishment the leaker would have received under the law.
I have a problem with it. Any casual glance at the history of government will explain why. Now, how many Americans had their rights trampled this way? Do you know? Lastly, what sort of recompense would you suggest for them?
actus… You said:
So actus, I guess you have no problem with warrentless evesdropping and spying? What about the 4th Amendment actus?
And actus, don’t tell me people shouldn’t mind the goverment listening in on you if they have nothing to hide.
I’m still a bit perplexed by this controversy. When the papers reported on this program, I thought to myself “so what,” because I just assumed that the government had always been monitoring international and domestic financial transactions. It seems like a completely appropriate law-enforcement or monetary function (you know, detect fraud, regulate money supplies, control currencies, etc).
Forgive my naivete, but is the “secret” part of this the SWIFT connection?
searp: Bush may not quite make the grade with you; however he at least acknowledges that we have a national security problem. According to the Dems, there’s no difference between 9/10 and 9/12. And I heartily disagree.
Not that it matters much, but I spent 20+ years as a very small cog of a machine located in a peripheral anteroom of the security establishment. It is not remotely correct to say that the security establishment isn’t run by professionals. A few of the professionals there may have a different agenda, a loss of institutional memory and respect, or a small problem with loyalty and the chain of command, but that’s a different story. What we lose sight of sometimes is that intelligence isn’t as advanced, predictable or process driven as, say, dentistry. Defining success, much less achieving it, in real world terms is damn hard.
If you are going to attack and demonize, at least do so for the right reasons.
Turing Word: green, as in, Putin just gave the green light for the termination of the bastards that dared to mess with his citizens. Sometimes, defining success wil be very easy, though he may still find achieving it to be much more difficult.
I agree that eavesdropping and other things are covered by the 4th. Financial transactions? not really. At least, it doesn’t fit under 4th amendment case law.
And you think that is all this is about? Really?
Why don’t you just hand over all your financial records while you are at it? No need for privacy in your bank accounts, or political contribution… eh actus? No secrets, right?
Thats the thing. I have. I’ve handed them over to the bank. As far as the 4th amendment case law is concerned, that means the government can get them with just a subpoena, or even just by asking.
Now, if you ask me, I think we need comprehensive privacy legislation instantiating into law the principles of Fair Information practices. But I’m not going to lie about what it is that the 4th amendment case law does or does not protec
Well if you are advocating the abolition of the IRS and Income Taxes, and doing away with any campaign finance regulations, I am on your side, bro.
With all the inane polls we are subjected to–“Bush approval all-time low!!”–every single freaking day, why no polls on how the public feels about these disclosures? Hummmm…..