From the American Spectator, “SWIFT Deposits”:
According to Treasury and Justice Department officials familiar with the briefings their senior leadership undertook with editors and reporters from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the media outlets were told that their reports on the SWIFT financial tracking system presented risks for three ongoing terrorism financing investigations. Despite this information, both papers chose to move forward with their stories.
“We didn’t give them specifics, just general information about regions where the investigations were ongoing, terrorist organizations that we believed were being assisted. These were off the record meetings set up to dissuade them from reporting on SWIFT, and we thought the pressing nature of the investigations might sway them, but they didn’t,” says a Treasury official.
In fact, according to a Justice Department official, one of the reporters involved with the story was caught attempting to gain more details about one of the investigations through different sources. “We believe it was to include it in their story,” says the official.
In the briefings, Treasury and Justice Department officials laid out the challenges law enforcement and intelligence agencies have had with the traditional and still popular hawala Muslim “banking” system, which is dependent more on interpersonal dealings than on institutions and has been prevalent in parts of the world that doesn’t understand the Islamic rules. “Since 9/11 we’ve gotten a lot better at monitoring hawalas,” says a Justice Department official. “That success has forced a lot of the money into the institutional or more traditional banking systems. And that’s where SWIFT has been particularly helpful.”
[…]
According to the Treasury and Justice Department sources, the reporters and editors appeared to have been told that the SWIFT financial monitoring was somehow being undertaken without warrants and without legal supervision. But from the initial briefings, the Times papers were shown information that clearly outlined the search warrant procedures undertaken by the federal government to track some financial transactions.
In fact the SWIFT program released a statement once the Times’ stories ran stating that it had negotiated terms of the limited monitoring:
SWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas. Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with.
“We thought that once the reporters and editors understood that one, these were not warrantless searches, and two, that this was a successful program that had netted real bad guys, and three, that it was a program that was helping us with current, ongoing cases, they would agree to hold off or just not do a story,” says the U.S. Treasury official. “But it became clear that nothing we said was going sway them. Whomever they were talking to, whoever was leaking the stuff, had them sold on this story.”
…And I’m sure that took a lot of doing…
Anyway, let’s count the boons to the “public good” here, shall we: 1) reporting on the classified information leaked them, the Times’ editors were told, would jeopardize three ongoing investigations; 2) the program and its searches were legal, a fact made clear to the editors, who were shown evidence to that effect; 3) administration officials and several congressmen made it clear to the editors that printing the leaked classified information would jeopardize not only the ongoing investigations, but would irreparably damage a program that had been demonstrably effective; 4) despite all this, the Times’ went with the story—an editorial decision that in fact jeopardized three investigations, “outed” a legal and classified program, and rendered impotent what had been an effective program for thwarting terrorist planning and rolling up cells. In addition, they created problems for our allies, who will likely be far more circumspect about helping the US with any future programs for fear of being exposed by leakers with ties to our intelligence community.
And then, to add insult to injury, they had the temerity to spill ink over their struggles with conscience—concluding, ultimately (and boy, here’s a shocker) that they owed it to the public to render useless the legal program that had actually been protecting said public.
Which, while that certainly takes balls like casaba melons, is nevertheless still self-serving and repugnant rubbish that anyone with a bit of sense would dismiss as such. Which is why Glenn Greenwald and others have done the exact opposite.
But back to the article:
To that end, the Justice Department has quietly and unofficially begun looking into possible sources for the leak. “We don’t think it’s someone currently employed by the government or involved in law enforcement or the intelligence community,” says another Justice source. “That stuff about ‘current and former’ sources just doesn’t wash. No one currently working on terrorism investigations that use SWIFT data would want to leak this or see it leaked by others. We think we’re looking at fairly high-ranking, former officials who want to make life difficult for us and what we do for whatever reasons.”
Writes Allah at Hot Air:
I could have done without the publication of the info about hawalas, myself, but it’s good to know they’re investigating the leak.
Sure. But it would be better to know that they’ve found the sonofabitch(es), and have decided to prosecute him/her/them to the fullest extent permitted by law.
As for the New York Times and LA Times, their editors should be shamed by the revelation (which means I hope the AmSpec piece gets widely linked) that they couched their cynical release of information they knew would damage a program working to combat worldwide Islamic terrorism as part of their mandate for keeping the public informed—in effect, taking it upon themselves to aid both lawbreakers with a clear partisan agenda (leakers) and terror organizations by publicizing information that, by the standards of our own laws, we have decided should not be publicized.
Or to put it another way, they decided that it was for the public’s good that the public’s wishes be ignored, and the public’s protections be jeopardized.
Though, if it’s any consolation, at least we know how much they agonized over the decision to screw us like we were cheap whores in need of a good, hard life lesson.
****
More from Patterico and Iowa Voice.
****
update: See, too, this reminder, from Ranting Profs (h/t ahem); and Ace has some thoughts, as well.
Thanks for the agonies
For things you don’t regret
Tipping off Ahmet
Your public stir & Pulitzer
That round or Russ roulette
How assfucked I was
Compare:
And Contrast:
Good thing we have a transparent media that, unlike the wishes of Allah of HotAir (“I could have done without the publication of the info about hawalas, myself”), published that statement on the hawallas. So we can decide for ourselves which part of the government is full of BS.
Should be “of” not “or”.
“Just had to be first, huh, Daniel?”
“Sorry, Mom!”
“Yeah. Sure.”
Corey Dauber ought to get a standing “O” for unearthing that other, original piece of Lichtblau legerdemain. Really puts the whole issue into clear perspective.
Yeah, I’d say the New York Times was very transparent–perhaps moreso than it ever intended.
It’s far from over.
tw: court. Where it’ll all end.
Actus–
So, a measure of the success of programs such as SWIFT was that they were beginning to resort more to other means (the ones that OBL boasted about after 9/11), so that means that the successes weren’t succeeding, so that it’s okay that the story was published?
Obviously, the Dept of Justice would know a great deal less about the issue than State. You know, they’re just not privvy to the quality of information that they get at the Times.
Sorry Actus, but you and Bill Keller have to stop with this fence sitting stuff. You tell the American public you’re on one side, you tell us you are on ours. Enough is enough. Pick a side and stay bought. The War on Democracy, Women’s Rights and Freedom of Expression shouldn’t just be a way to strong arm more money per comment out of Kos.
Sorry for the tone of this comment, but gosh-darn it, these fair weather appeasers are just frosting my tookus. Oh for the days of Hanoi Jane!! Now there was a traitor a Totalitarian Death Squad could count on.
Which is why we should discount what the anonymous leaker in there said, and the spectator irresponsibly printed? Ok. Me, I’d rather have heard it, so that I knonw that at least one of these guys—the spectator and anonymous leaker at Justice, or a named official at State, is BS’ing me.
‘Cause it’s all about you.
Certainly above Allah. Or God, however you want to pronounce it.
Has anyone checked out Sandy Berger’s telephone calling lately?
Everyman
As Powerline and others have pointed out the NYT now is saying the program wasn’t secret! Powerline links to an article by Lictbau from 11/05 which complains that the admin hadn’t made progress discovering terrorist finances. So I guess he knew about it then but didn’t disclose it…choosing to lie about the admin instead. Or he didn’t know about it but it wasn’t secret…or…
has been the apprehension of terrorists through the SWIFT program. So, gee, I’m glad that the free press, which is so honest that the programs were secret, then not secret, saw fit to deliver this information. I’m even happier that the presumably ex-officials who have been divulging this information purely for the non-partisan benefit of the American public thought that it was so important to get that information out there that it was important enough to violate the oaths that they took to get their security clearances.
Obviously, the very secrecy of the programs made them an attractive nuisance, so that the government agencies are at least partially responsible. If they had met any reasonable expectation of care, they would have surrounded that program with a 10-foot high fence of fucktardant material.
How many trees do the internets kill?
and newspapers?
I’ll bet it’s not even close.
Yet, the NYT is mowing down your old back yard actus and you are leaning toward their side of the story.
The trees actus! TREES DYING FOR BULLSHIT!!
Uh…sorry dudes…..Ambien.
So we can decide fow ouwsewves which pawt of the govewnment is fuww of BS. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!
Speaking of BS, what was Keller thinking? The man goes on a Sunday morning talk fest and all he can give me is the NYT isn’t “nuetral” in the War on Freedom? Everybody knew that, read his freaking paper.
Still that’s not enough. Psychopathic killers have feelings to you know. We like to be told we’re loved too. We needed was an endorsement! We got Cowardice! I’m so heart broken. Why can’t Bill Keller admit he loves me? I need a hug.
I was starting to think that I missed actus. How wrong I was. I would rather develop a giant oozing boil on my froehead than to be forced to read his/her/its inane drivel.
At least Prof. Deb was entertaining.
Bill Keller and Dean Baquet still need to explain, if the program were ineffective and terrorists “knew about it,” why did they agonize over the decision to publish the story? They can’t have it both ways.
Actus, I said I needed a hug.
Did she die a horrible death? Did I miss something? Did a big stage light fall on her head during rehearsal of her one-woman-show Speaking of Shrubs, Check out this Bush: The Deb Frisch Story
Cactus mishap? GIVE ME SOMETHING!
I can’t believe how many people think the news about the hawalas are new! Check the 9/11 Commission Report page 171 and accompanying footnote on page 498 (#124).
Did the 9/11 Commission out the hawalas? I don’t know. You decide.
Carol
Ghost, what part of Zarqawi do you have?
Ghost, I mean, what part of Zarqawi do you have to hug?
Sorry, Al, did not mean to get you all excited. Just meant that Prof. Deb had not yet graced us with her witty repartee yet on this thread.
Carol – What part of classified do you not understand? I know, stupid question …
Is that blogese for “smegma”?
the Times is just prostituting itself for readership. they are increasingly desparate to sell papers.
and this has worked in the past.
they will pimp any story that sold readership at this point.
Lord help us all … the word smegma makes me laugh like a schoolboy, but for the life of me, I cannot recall what it means.
Al, take it away …
Smegma. It has to do with a uncircumcised organs and personal hygeine…
Actually, it has to do with uncircumcised organs and a lack of personal hygeine…
No, that’s duck butter.
I knew that throwing that one out there would be the rhetorical equivalent of throwing a hanging slider to Albert Pujols.
Actus, I don’t belive the two quotes are mutually exclusive.
Post-9/11 we increased scrutiny of hawallas, rendering them less effective for terror-money transfers. This forced some money into the banking mainstream, monitored by SWIFT.
But the SWIFT-monitored transactions turned out to be a bad idea for the terrorists, so the money is going through yet other channels. (In addition, some of the hawala scrutiny has likely diminished, given who was applying it.)
Money’s like water. It’ll find a way through. But you stop it where you can.
JD –
I guess my point is that Allah’s statement that he would not have preferred it to be out there is a little late. It’s been out there since it was published in the 9/11 report. It seems like everybody has missed that. It was given a brief mention in that report and seems odd to me why. If that “knowledge” was “classified” it must be a big oops on the 9/11 Commission, no? Although publishing it in a boring 567 page report isn’t the same as putting it in the NYTimes, I really can’t explain why it is there. Can you? But there it is in black and white, just the same.
By the way, I am appalled at what the news media has done. I hope I was just pointing out another little tidbit of info people can think about. FWIW.
Carol
– I’m still awaiting, with baited breath, for some “Progressive” asshat to explain why American citizens, many of whom cannot balance their own checking accounts, have a deep seated need for “thier own good” to be appraised as too the financial dealings of al Qaeda, and the people that support them. Its all leftist bullshit, pure and simple.
TW: The surest, and most complete effective way to defang the anti-American elite, is to kick them, and their socialist cult crap, to the curb in the next elections. Period.
As I am on my Treo, I do not wish to get drawn into a detailed dsicussion in re. the 9/11 report. Suffice it to say that I suspect that the report indicated that the program existed, rather than publishing the operational aspects of same.
Wow. Elitism!
Wow. Autism!
Perhaps the SWIFT program was making George Soros uncomfortable with his massive currency moves, and so had to be exposed by his fellow-travelling Times-ers.
Cordially…
Publishing that we know about the existence of the hawalas is not the same as publshing that we’re having some success in monitoring them. I suspect that’s what Allah was getting at.
– Here’s your new slogan to ponder Telephone pole, for when you get your collectivist Fwenchy ass’s kicked in the next vote:
“The Left Lied, America replied!”
TW: It’s not a case of a lack of patriotism for the Left. It’s a case of never having any to begin with.
The 9/11 report (at least the portion you cited) discusses what hawallas are. It did not mention that we were monitoring their transactions or provide any details which would indicate how we would do so if we did.
Or they were all telling the truth as they knew it to be. Which is possible since the State Dept is well known to be chock full of leftard douchebags who pop a chubby at the thought of themselves as some kind of new deep throat sticking it to Chimpy McHitlerburton. And if you are running an effective program at the NSA and Treasury the last thing you would do is inform the State Dept about it. At least below a certain level of appointed officials who can be trusted.
In addition I don’t recall seeing hawalas mentioned in the state deptartment excerpt you menioned earlier which means that the State Dept official could easily be referencing other alternate types of the financial transactions and could very well have neglected mentioning hawalas by name precisely because they are being used less.
In other words, there are several explanations that don’t involve the Great Actus being lied to by the Evil KKKarl Rove and his minions.
Also, I assume you don’t see the irony in you accusing the Spectator of irresponsible behavior for printing unclassified information that is not going to get anyone killed while you defend the NY Times et al to the hilt for the SWIFT story.
TW: Keep; as in Keep throwing flinging feces at the wall Actus. Maybe someday some of it will stick.
you’re so right that we have to eliminate the elitism. People shouldn’t have the NYTimes tell them whats good for them.
Folks, you’re missing the point.
actus, displaying the intellectual depth of a small soap dish, is upset that the government is not telling him—and the enemy—exactly how and why it is successful in this arena. It’s the reality-based version of the SNL skit from the Gulf War where the press kept asking the officials to disclose exactly where, when and how the US was going to begin military ops.
But actus doesn’t need to have a thought or an actual point, because—and this was noted earlier—his childish behavior is all about him. He’s simply masturbating in hopes people will pay attention to him. Or is so afraid that he may die in his lonely apartment without anyone noticing that his moronic missives are his way of saying “I’m not dead, no need to call the police.”
Which is the long version of the message that typically follows shortly after any of his comments—Ignore him. As I’ve written much the same elsewhere, I’ll only add that the reason I didn’t now is that others did respond to him without noting his idiotic premise.
actus:
Do we? What do we know of their inner machinations and motivations?
I nominate Kelly for Best in Thread.
Who the hell unionized the trolls?
You little fucklers better be working your asses off in my goddamn fields, cherry picking non-sequitars or BOOM! that ass is going back to Canada/Marcotte’s VJ (half a dozen of one, six of the other…)
One thing I cannot stand is a half-assed troll. Actus, pick up the pace.
Blahblahblah al-Qaeda. Blahblahblah New York Times.
This is wearing thin. Conservatives need to start chasing gray aliens or Mothman. Something with teeth…or a tag-line. The rest of us are getting a bit bored/concerned with the whole “Ahab” act. Inventing enemies is not leadership, in the classical sense. It takes attention and resources away from real issues.
9/11 was five years ago. Can we get back to living in the real world now?
See, all these things come out. Thanks to the publication that Allah would have preferred stayed
silent.
Oh. I do see the irony. Thats why I’m so happy they printed it. So we can learn more about just who is BS’ing us. And to what extents people will refuse to follow a link, hit ctrl-F, and type “hawal.”
I suppose they could tell us everything they DONT print. But that would kind of be counterproductive.
You see, acthole, ElKabong obviously put much thought and effort into composing a comment so utterly devoid of rational thought, yet still able to make one’s head spin like the Mad Hatter ride at Disney.
“The 9/11 report (at least the portion you cited) discusses what hawallas are. It did not mention that we were monitoring their transactions or provide any details which would indicate how we would do so if we did.”
I beg pardon, but the footnote on page 498 gives examples on exactly how it works and also site “A Report to Congress in Accordance with Section 359 of the [USA PATRIOT ACT], Nov 2002 and a Treasury Report on Hawala Money Laundering by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in cooperation with INTERPOL, probably in 1996. This was not new at all then…I think…I’m confused at it’s inclusion in the report IF it was still a program being used by terrorists groups and they didn’t want to let the groups using it know we knew. That’s all I was saying! Now I have a headache. LOL.
I do not equate the “exposure” of this item and the SWIFT program. One was a method (ancient) used by terror groups to move money, and one was a program used by Intelligence to discover terrorist financing. In fact, maybe knowledge of the Hawala might have “pushed” the terror groups into more risky exposure of their finances. Terrorists would obviously KNOW the details of how hawala works, but not the details of the SWIFT program works. That’s all I was saying.
Carol
Uh huh. Hasn’t yet been a day for each person murdered that day and how many days since London?
But I get it, terrorism bores you. So tawdry and low. I encourage you to convince your chosen representative hopefuls to run with this thinking. Should do very well among the commoners.
zeugma (n): The smegma of Zeus
Like, OMG! That was before American Idol, and I can’t even remember the first season. I’m soooo over the War on Terror.
Bluff called. There is nothing in the State paper that helps make your original point.
For the record, when you insert a quote I assume that that you believe that the quote makes your point. If I am being given homework to read the underlying document in order to make your case for you please let me know ahead of time. Also I indicated that the term hawala wasn’t present in the excerpt you presented which it wasn’t. So….
Balls in your court. Pull another quote out of the State paper that buttresses your original point. Of course if there was one you probably would have busted it out earlier wouldn’t you?
tw: followed. As in: I should have followed everyone’s advice and ignored Actus.
And the point is one guy is saying terrorists are moving towards traditional banking. Another says they’re moving away. Now, it could be that they’re not speaking in aggregates—so that while some terrorists are opening accounts at Citibank, others are hiring mules, and thus they’re not contradictory statements. The point of ctrl-f is to find out that Hawallas are not what is considered, by that speaker, traditional banking. Ie, they’re in hte sphere of things that this speaker sees terrorists moving towards.
– The first time you try that in court actus, the judge is going to throw you out on your ass.
Well, G-ddamn! Everyone look at ElKabong.
That is how to troll, people. That is how to troll. If Deb and actus and all of Marcotte’s trouser soldiers got on the ball like that, we could double your rations of fishheads and rice.
Wouldn’t that be something, actus? Double fishheads? Everyday? Think about it.
Perhaps the SWIFT program was making George Soros uncomfortable with his massive currency moves, and so had to be exposed by his fellow-travelling Times-ers.
This is the first explanation of George Soros’ involvement in the 2004 election that makes any sense.
Fish-heads, fish-heads!
Roly poly fish-heads!
fish-heads, fish-heads!
Eat them up – yum!
– Maybe. Otherwise the monthly checks that keeps that polito-rag afloat might be cut off.
– The bad news is the Left is determined to keep doing these “AnythingGate” scams.
– The good news is, every action of anti-Americanism moves them further away from electibility.
TW: The steady march of the Progressives over the cliff….
and
Still nothing about hawalas in your original excerpt which means that the non-traditional banking alternatives may not include hawalas. Larger point, could you not interpret those two paragraphs to mean that money that used to flow through hawalas now flows to other non-traditional outlets and traditional outlets? Is this really a zero sum game Actus? Isn’t it likely that no one is lying to you Actus?
Lastly, I played your game for fun to see if you could even make a good pitch. You can’t. Now it can be told: The first statement just says “a lot” of money is going away from hawalas. For all we know even more is flowing into hawalas. If that is true we still would want to be able to moniter what is flowing out as well as what is flowing in.
Come on Actus, your better than this kind of crap. Your a smart guy, why do you insist on posting this kind of retarded nonsense? What do you think? Some Justice Dept guy going off the record is going to coordinate with the State Department about his remarks? This is where you hang your hat? Everyone is lying so the NY Times et al should just publish any classified info they get?
Seriously dude. Weak.
El Kabong we can use. Actus, you are a bad hugger. Go away.
Why would I treat the judge like an idiot? Even if he is that’s a dumb idea.
Whats an “other alternative remittance scheme.” Could that include a hawalla? Maybe the rest of the text could be a guide as to whether our speaker considers them part of the formal international system or an “alternative remittance scheme.”? Perhaps a sentence like, oh, I don’t know:
Frankly, to me, its obvious that hawallas are included in his point I quoted. Its obvious he’s making a distinction between the formal global banking system and the alternative schemes. And from my quite limited knowledge I do know that hawallas are not part of the formal global banking system.
So we have, One dude, anonymous, says the terrorists are entering the formal system, other dude says, with his name, in testimony to congress, that the terrorists are leaving it.
And you want to nitpick over whether the word “hawalla” was actually used. As if we don’t know whether our speaker would include it under the formal system or the alternative he thinks terrorists are moving to.
I addressed that they might not be speaking in aggregates. Thats part of the compare and contrast exercise, which we can do, thanks to the anonymous disclosure that the the Spectator printed.
Actually, I prefer if they dont’ coordinate. Because then it makes it harder for us to notice these discrepancies. But if they had, then the Spectator might not have ended up with that juicy quote that made such a nice point for them.
Woah. Where did I say that?
Oh hell yeah, Chairman Me, Barnes and Barnes!! Who can forget such classics as I Had Sex on TV, Work the Meat, and Swallow My Love?
Such artistry! Such musicianship!
Okay, so they were none of that, but they were funny.
– Of course, and the fact that you’ve done exactly that here, in hundreds of posts, is a tribute to Jeffs patience.
My point is that both things can be true and likely are. Couldn’t what the anonymous source is saying be true in the sense that while overall more funds are going to non-traditional outlets we are getting better at monitoring those and therefore in some cases the money has to go into traditional sources which is where swift comes in? Isn’t that more likely than a conspiracy of lies?
Also, In your excerpt if the State guy is referncing hawalas why didn’t he explicitly? He referenced other means explicitly. I think hawalas are conspicuous in their absence. In any case don’t you think we should be monitoring both traditional and non-traditional banking methods? I think that if we ease up on either method the terrorists will just start using that method more. For instance if we lose the ability to monitor swift won’t the terrorists just start using traditional banking methods again as they will be less risky?
You didn’t. I thought that was your (paraphrased) point with this exersize. So what is your point? I assume it goes beyond whether a justice department official is bullshitting the Spectator.
actus:
What does this have to do with their inner machinations and motivations?
The way we’d find out about how they go about deciding what to print involves us knowing what they do print and what they dont print.
Its both that its that someone is getting bullshitted and the fact that, since have a press that printed something which Allah wanted quiet, we know that there’s bullshitting going on.
He did later. I suppose the term ‘other’ includes them. Does for me.
That seems really ridiculous. SWIFT’s law enforcement cooperation, as described on their website, it not going to end.
“Since 9/11 we’ve gotten a lot better at monitoring hawalas,” says a Justice Department official. “That success has forced a lot of the money into the institutional or more traditional banking systems. And that’s where SWIFT has been particularly helpful…No one currently working on terrorism investigations that use SWIFT data would want to leak this or see it leaked by others. We think we’re looking at fairly high-ranking, former officials who want to make life difficult for us and what we do for whatever reasons.â€Â[American Spectator]
Hmmm…who could that be?
NYT: That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues. “The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you’re sitting, troubling,” said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, “the potential for abuse is enormous.” [NYT, 6/23/06]
A former senior counter-terrorism offical who wants “to make life difficult for us”?
How about Richard Clarke?
He’s a former senior counter-terrorism official. He retired in January 2003 before the “tighter controls” were negotiated with SWIFT in 2003. And before, late 2004 when “Congress authorized the Treasury Department to develop regulations requiring American banks to turn over records of international wire transfers”[NYT, 6/23].
Mr. Clarke along with his former aide Mr, Cressey were also the first and most prominent former officials to defend the NYT disclosure. In the NYT they wrote the op-ed “A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew”. Their op-ed’s like the Spectator article also referenced “hawala’s”:
“Terrorists have for many years employed nontraditional communications and money transfers  including the ancient Middle Eastern hawala system” [NYT,”A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew”, 6/30]
If the American Spectator article is to be believed we now know that anyone who believed that statement was making a dangerous oversimplification. Was it used as a further rationalization to leak?
Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps we can read between the lines when they wrote:
“There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year. Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive.” [NYT,”A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew”, 6/30/06]
acus:
Really? I suppose news of the Belgian legal investigation isn’t an issue?
Actus, don’t you see a chilling lack of disclosure from the NYT in this? Isn’t it rather Machiavellian?
Probably not. EU privacy law may be tough with respect to the private sector, but not government.
actus,
Start preparing your spin now: When bin Laden quotes Bill Keller in his next pronouncement, you’re going to need the strength of an Iranian centifuge cascade to make your contrarian bullshit even resemble English.
BTW, everyone raise your hand who believes Richard Clarke knows his elbow from actus’ nether regions.
tw: ideas. When I don’t log in this thing creeps me out.
When Bin laden quotes Keller, it will be to get us to hate him. Its as if he said ‘jump,’ and wingnuttia said ‘how high.’
I don’t even have to try anymore.
tw: provided
Told you this thing is alive.
It’s not exactly like the terrorists are issuing Corporate Standard Practices and Instructions:
Al Quaeda SPI Financial 065-14 This supercedes previous versions. Effective immediately.
Hey, the Yankee Imperialist are on to us. No more monetary transfers through the Infidel banking system. Use hawalas. No exceptions will be made, except where the infidels are offering free coffee makers for opening an account.
Transfer fees are to be charged to account 7-04-9-11
Allah Achmed Muhammed McBean, CFO.
Not in the context of what we are discussing he didn’t. If other does it for you that’s great but your lack of intellectual curiosity does not an effective argument make. Come on Actus, this is beneath you. Just admit it. You made assumptions without really allowing for the context in which the statements were made. The two statements may or may not conflict with each other but my interpretation has the advantage of simplicity and lack of conspiracy theorizing.
Come on Actus. You can do better than this claptrap. You are for what exactly? More leaks of information? Classified? Unclassified? What? Leave aside our disagreement whether someone is necessarily getting bullshitted.
Actus, Actus, Actus. Lawsuits by civil rights groups, investigations by the Belgian police. The SWIFT program may not be stopped but it’s certainly not ridiculous to look at the possibility. In any case I put that forward as a hypothetical.
The real question is why the Left is defending pulbic disclosure of a National secret that will help the Jihadist evade discovery. Any takers?
Cause it pissed off all the right people?
Yes Big E, the same “right” people who will be voting in the upcoming election cycles. Imagine that. Must be a clear case of determined political suicide. No other way to explain it.
Sure it does. Other alternative remittance systems, as opposed to the formal banking system. That includes hawalas in the former, not the latter. Sheesh.
I’m for people not freaking out over this.
What conspiracy?
And I think its a ridiculous one. Theres no way law enforcement will lose access to SWIFT data.
Actus, get a clue. Law enforcement won’t lose access to the data, but the terrorists will move funds some other way, so that they will no longer be recorded in the data.
That makes the program ineffective.
Got that, typing telephone pole??
A larger point is being missed here (and I hate myself for using the passive voice…).
SWIFT is going to be less effective – ended or not – because of what the NYT decided wasn’t secret/was secret and they agonized over revealing/everybody knew/nobody knew but everybody deserved to know. Or whatever Lichtblau or Keller mumbles next.
The fear that the terrorists will come back to swift—which I was originally replying to—is indeed quite ridiculous.
Below, I’ve reproduced the comment I was replying to:
An even larger point is being missed here. Not only is “SWIFT . . . going to be less effective – ended or not “ (Major John, 9:32 pm), other programs devised to fight al Qaeda are less likely to be implemented effectively, if they are implemented at all, even if they are indubitably legal, unimpeachably ethical, and demonstrably effective.
Note this very important passage from the post above (emphasis added): “SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas”. The editors of the New York Times and their filthy government moles have proved that the U.S. cannot fulfill a simple promise of confidentiality. Other nations are therefore far less likely to trust the U.S. in the future, and innocent people will die because of that lack of trust.
You mufucks have sho fed the monkey today.
He may not be back for a month.
– This disclosure was intended purely t8o destroy any trust the Euro banks have of sharing data with us. As such its a deliberate effort to cripple the administrations effectiveness in the hunt for al Qaeda, because the Left can’t hope tyo win anything as long as the Reps are successful. Its total partisan bullshit, as you can plainly see from all the bloviating coming from the “fantasy based community”.
– So. they want to use disclosure as a weapon, then we should give it right back in spades. at some poing the AG needs to start doing the “sources disclosure” t5hing right back at the NYT. Dry up the leakers. Put a few traitors in jail and it will stop. Same reason. Leakers won’t leak if they’re afraid they’ll be exposed. Easy. Tit for tat.
– You’ll notice all the asshats, like actus, will be arguing against disclosure of the leakers by investigation of press sources, just as loudly as they’re for helping the Jihadists. My guess is they’re doomed with the kind of ammunition they’re giving the Republicans they have to run against.
Actus, don’t you see a chilling lack of disclosure from the NYT in this? Isn’t it rather Machiavellian?
Are you kidding? When it comes to food for thought, that critter is bulimic.
Balls.
One simple thought experiment clarifies the whole thing.
Suppose an absolutely identical program, involving the same people, with the same warrants, oversight, and procedures was set up <i>to monitor the oil companies’ “laundering” of their “windfall profits.”
Would the NYT triumphantly expose it, in such terms as to make it difficult to impossible for it to return further data?
It is to laugh.
Regards,
Ric
I think that refers to the confidentiality of the data the program obtains, not the existence of the program for subpoeanaing data.
Says who? Prosecute away. Make martyrs out of them.
Actus, don’t you see a chilling lack of disclosure from the NYT in all this? Isn’t it rather Machiavellian?
– Interesting choice of words. Now who would likely view traitors as “martyrs”, other than a desperate out of power party?
– Personally I don’t think your approach is a winning strategy actus. You’re trying the “guilt by smear association” against the Republicans on a National basis. Smear works on local, low level elections, because you can “handle” the electorate directly with the usual media editorializing crap.
– National campaigns not so much, because there’s too much voter diversity, and you lack the direct control. But maybe its all you think you have, because to actually state your intended party goals would never pass muster with the majority of Americans. Tough situation, I don’t envy your plight. Having to make yourselves traitors to follow the party plan. Bad Karma at the very least.
To whom it may concern:
I will gladly argue with the men and women on this thread, but mere algorithms will be ignored. There is no point in arguing with something that always responds to one’s arguments, but never answers them. Such an algorithm is no more alive than a severed frog leg that twitches when an electric current is passed through it.
Did some one say martyr? Oh never mind, it was just Actus.
My approach? What am I responsible for again?
You wouldn’t happen to be a creationist would you?
actus is worried people. Evidently the “peoples power to the peopley peoples” isn’t going so well. Personally I don’t blame him. The Left has managed to paint itself into the “weak on terror, defeatist, traitors to America corner”, and as such I’d give them one chance in a hundred. I can’t think of a worse platform to run on actually. Just has to be a Rovian plant in the DNC. No other reasonable explaination of why a party would run on the one thing that will alienate the majority of voters more than any other. Thankfully for the sane in our society, the elitist ego cares more about show than substance.
TW: works for me.