But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.
"There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. "The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."
Indeed, a report that [former State Department official Victor] Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into.
The report by Comras referenced here is the same one cited in my post yesterday to demonstrate that it was already public knowledge that the U.S. has access to and actively monitors financial transactions effectuated through SWIFT. In the Globe article, even Bush's own former high-level terrorism official makes clear that nothing in the Times report disclosed any significant operational information not previously in the public domain. And the Globe article identifies multiple other instances in which similar information was publicly disclosed by the Bush administration itself as a means of boasting about its anti-terrorism record.
I watched probably six or seven news programs since Friday which discussed the traitorus acts committed by the Times, all of which were chock full of shrill accusations that the Times had committed "treason" and deserved criminal prosecution, if not worse ("treason" is, of course, a capital crime, the punishment for which -- as is ingrained in everyone's brain -- is execution, not imprisonment). And yet, I never once heard any of the esteemed journalists or pundits mention any of these facts. While I had known (and previously posted) that President Bush had repeatedly disclosed details about our counter-terrorism efforts in order to win re-election (including our efforts to monitor terrrorists' banking transactions), it was not until I began reading about the issue in the blogosphere yesterday did I learn that it has long been public knowledge that we monitor international banking transactions through SWIFT, among other banking systems.
For anyone who is accusing the Times of "treason," or claiming that they harmed national security, what is the answer to this question:
What, specifically, would a terrorist have been willing to do on June 22 [the day before the banking story was published] that he would not do on June 23 as a result of the Times' article?
The same question has been repeatedly asked, but never answered, with regard to the "treasonous" Times disclosure of the warrantless eavesdropping program:
What, specifically, would a terrorist have been willing to do on December 15 [the day before the NSA story was published] that he would not do on December 16 as a result of the Times article?
Prior to the "treasonous" Times articles, The Terrorists already knew that we were eavesdropping on their international calls and monitoring their banking transactions -- because that information was previously, and repeatedly, put into the public domain, often by the Bush administration and President Bush himself. What the Times revealed is the lack of oversight and checks on these intelligence-gathering activities, not the existence of the activities themselves, which were already well known.
That is why not a single person who ever sermonizes righteously about the traitors at the Times can ever identify what ought to be the first fact that is identified when accusing someone of harming national security -- namely, the disclosure of facts which (a) would enable the terrorists to avoid surveillance detection and (b) was not previously known. Those facts simply do not exist, which is why nobody ever identifies them.
One of the programs to which I subjected myself over the weekend was Chris Wallace's show on Fox. The little panel he assembled talked about the treason of the Times for five minutes or so. Brit Hume snarled angrily the entire time as he ranted about the arrogant and treasonous impulses of the New York Times. Bill Kristol repeatedly advocated criminal prosecution against the Times for helping the terrorists to win The War against us. Mara Liasson spat out meaningless neutralties designed, as always, to show how reasonable she is. And Juan Williams, the only one on the panel to "defend" the Times, did so by stupidly claiming that disclosure of the program was actually a good thing because now The Terrorists know that we are watching the SWIFT program and they can't use it anymore. What a coup for us!
Anyone watching this Fox show (or reading virtually any article on this topic) would simply assume that the Times disclosed super-duper top secret information about how we monitor banking transactions which was not previously known to The Terrorists, and would further assume that the Times article provided a never-before-disclosed blueprint for The Terrorists to evade detection.
And it wasn't just on Fox. Every show I watched on which the question of the Times' treason was playfully bandied about all tacitly assumed that the Times disclosed helpful information to The Terrorists, and the only question was whether they should be hanged, imprisoned, or merely despised by all Decent People for having done so. (Surprisingly, even Kevin Drum operates from the same false assumption that the Times disclosed the never-before-known fact that we monitor SWIFT transactions and makes the same argument as Williams made -- that the Times helpfully took away SWIFT as a financial instrument for terrorists). Except just as was true with the Times "disclosure" of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," the core factual assumption is plainly false. There was not a single non-public fact disclosed by the Times that would enable The Terrorists to avoid surveillance detection, and nobody ever bothers to identify any such fact when engaging in these wild accusatory rituals.
Yet again, The Boston Globe demonstrates what real journalism is supposed to do -- subject claims by the Government and its loyalists (in this case, claims that the Times disclosed information that will help the terrorists commit terrorist attacks) to skeptical scrutiny, and then report facts which have been concealed that undermine the Government's claim. That's the definition of the core journalistic purpose.
This is not a complicated matter. Nobody who is making these accusations can identify a single specific act that Terrorists would have engaged in before that they will now avoid. That, by itself, does not merely undermine, but destroys, the claim that the Times harmed national security. Any "journalist" who allows those accusations to be made without pointing out that fact are, to put it mildly, acting quite irresponsibly.
Frist! because it pisses the trolls off, and the kitties just love it.
ReplyDeleteBush Sucks. Worst. Preznit. Ever.
In sum, here's why Bushco is painting the media black:
ReplyDelete--To defuse and discredit embarassing information, past, present, and future; and
--To create yet another us/them dichotomy and thus to afford further opportunities to whip up hysteria among the gullible.
Spot on, as usual.
ReplyDeleteOne little fix (seemingly) needed: In your question What, specifically, would a terrorist have been willing to do on June 22 [the day before the banking story was published] that he would not do on June 22 as a result of the Times' article? that second date should be June 23, right? Kind of distracting as is.
Even the supposed results of the articles to wingnuttia -- that the terrorists will now move their money underground -- don't really make sense. If, after reading the NY Times, LA Times and WSJ reports major funders of terrorism (whoever they are), they decide to opt out of the banking system -- the transfer of large sums of money becomes infinitely more difficult.
ReplyDeletePlus, they might panic and do something wrong knowing that such a program existed (if they didn't already know, which is pretty obvious they did -- EVERYONE did, as Bush announced this very program in 2001) in a paranoid state.
It's all conjecture, naturally. But at least it's not completely baseless accusations made by fearmongering.
If it was all public knowledge, what did the Times article add? What was the journalistic value of the Times piece if it added nothing? Why, for example, was it on Page 1?
ReplyDeleteWell done, Glenn. FYI, on last night's Hardball (MSNBC), reporter David Shuster did exactly what you suggest. He went back to NBC news files and found several public references to the monitoring of financial transactions and specific references to SWIFT, from statements made by the Administration. He showed video clips of Bush and others (Snow?) telling the American people that we were doing these things. In other words, when they want to brag to the American people how much they're doing to protect us (or warning al Qaada that they're not safe), the Administration is more than happy to reveal these programs publically.
ReplyDeleteShuster's exposure of these facts changed the whole treatment of the issue by Matthews on Hardball. It also set the stage to allow Rep Markey (D - MA) to push back on Rep King (R - NY) who repeated the nonsense about treason. But as you suggest, I didn't see any other news show do this, though I've tracked only a few.
Even the supposed results of the articles to wingnuttia -- that the terrorists will now move their money underground -- don't really make sense. If, after reading the NY Times, LA Times and WSJ reports major funders of terrorism (whoever they are), they decide to opt out of the banking system -- the transfer of large sums of money becomes infinitely more difficult.
ReplyDeleteAnyone discussing this issue who has not researched "hawala" needs to spend 15-20 minutes on google.
Most truly fundamentalist Muslims will not participate in our banking system for religious reasons and already have an extensive, reliable alternative money-transfer system that has been in use for centuries.
If it was all public knowledge, what did the Times article add? What was the journalistic value of the Times piece if it added nothing? Why, for example, was it on Page 1?
ReplyDeleteThe article had 2 purposes:
(1) It disclosed that the Bush administration obtains these records by administrative subpoena and therefore with no Congressional or judicial oversight; and
(2) It highlighted for its readers the fact that the Bush administration implemented this program in the aftermath of September 11 and then never bothered to have Congress provide any legislative authority or mandate any oversight framework for the intelligence-gathering program.
As was true with the December 16 NSA story, what the Times disclosed was the lack of oversight and safeguards in our intelligence-gathering operations - thereby prompting important public debate on those matters -- but not any non-public operations details that could help The Terrorists evade detection.
The Bush administration has been doing this since day 1. Nothing new. The most important accomplishment from the Right has been the steady inculcation that, in the war on terror (and larger), "liberal" = "treason". Distortions, smears, guilt by association, fearmongering have become the norm. They are very adept at labeling.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the general public doesn't have the time or just doesn't care to learn about the facts. They are certainly not going to get them from MSM or Cable TV. Complex issues get reduced to easy black or white soundbites.
Thanks for your response Glenn on the "what did it add" question. Good answers. Now, you say that there was "no" Congressional oversight. But I have read that members of Congress were told abou the program - I think the Times piece even said that. That seems to suggest there was some oversight doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteThere is some quote that I wish I could remember about people who yell the loudest about something being the very same people who lack that very quality they are yelling about.
ReplyDeleteI think the reasons republicans are so loud on this is to cover for the fact that on other constitutional issues, they have been criminally mum. I would believe they really cared if 1- they didn't have political reasons for whining loudly and/or 2- they weren't so absent on other cases where Bush has usurped authority or blurred the lines (sigining statements, etc) and/or 3- they weren't so obsessed with sill amendments like banning gay marriage and flag burning and/or 4- were a little more introspective about their motives.
Although this obviously wasn't the case here, what does the law say(and what do you think are the ethics) regarding a media outlet revealing for the first time information leaked to it by a government official about a clearly legal government surveillance program, information that could reasonably be viewed as aiding terrorists? What if the legality (but not the potential effectiveness) of the program is unclear, or highly doubtful?
ReplyDeleteUtterly amazing that none of these people felt the same way when Novak published the name of an undercover CIA operative working on WMD.
ReplyDeleteOf course the whole object of the game has nothing to do with fighting terrorists. Its wholly and solely to cow the news media into submission so that they can continue to control the narrative going into the midterms.
ReplyDelete"What was the journalistic value of the Times piece if it added nothing?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is in Glenn's post: the NYT article did not reveal to anyone who has been paying attention that we were tracking financial transactions -- everyone knew/expected that. After 9/11, many entities, included the NYT editorial page, call for such measures. No, the article revealed that, as with every other suveillance program the Administration has initiated, the scope and implementation of this program had raised legal concerns even within the Adminstration (apparently, the only people who knew the details) about whether it was being conducted outside the protections of US statutes and possibly outside the international agreements (which is why foreign governments were reported today as looking into whether/why the agreed upon procedures were not followed. The financial institutions were themsevles concerned about how the program was structured. Moreover, the news article has made clear that there was essentially no congressional or judicial oversight (sound familiar?), and only a small handful of congress people were even briefed at the most general level, under conditions that precluded their ability to exercise genuine oversight. In any other Administration, this problem could have been avoided and the procedures worked out, but in this Administration, there has been a pervasive and consistent record of ignoring statutory procedures, precluding independent oversight, and stonewalling all attempts to make sure that the programs are not abused and do no go beyond their intended purpose.
That is why the NYT can legitimately claim that it performed a valuable public service. Our founders understood this; the apologists of the current Administration apparently do not.
Are efforts to make the NYT the villain simple a way to deflect attention from these legitimate concerns?
But I have read that members of Congress were told abou the program - I think the Times piece even said that. That seems to suggest there was some oversight doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some real dispute about the extent to which Congress was told about the existence of this program (the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee -- who is usually a great supporter of the administration -- said she was never told about the program until very recently, when it became inevitable that it would be publicly disclosed).
But either way, there is a fundamental difference between (a) being told of the existence of the program and (b) having mechanisms in place whereby one of the other two branches can exercise oversight with regard to how these powers are used. It's one thing to know in general that banking records are being obtained. It's another thing entirely to have another branch of government monitor which records are being obtained and how those determiniations are made.
Only the latter constitutes meaningful oversight which can detect and avoid abuse. And, as usual, there is no such oversight here. Learning that, and debating it, is the legitimate public interest served by the NYT article.
Why should a country that would allow a chimporer to take the office of POTUS without "facts" that prove he actaully won either election be concerned about "facts" in the NYT?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it really all about "truthiness"?
Kind of distracting as is.
ReplyDeleteOnly if you actually read the long-winded, excessive verbage in the original post. Obviously, most commenters just click right through to the "comment" page.
Yet again, The Boston Globe demonstrates what real journalism is supposed to do -- subject claims by the Government and its loyalists (in this case, claims that the Times disclosed information that will help the terrorists commit terrorist attacks) to skeptical scrutiny, and then report facts which have been concealed that undermine the Government's claim. That's the definition of the core journalistic purpose.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why the administration hates journalists - because it's the *duty* of journalists to expose incompetence and corruption by the government, and the administration would prefer to keep its incompetence and corruption hidden.
You certainly didn't see the right attacking the press like this when they were busy digging up dirt on Clinton and amplifying comparatively minor scandals into national headlines. A shady land deal or adultery just does not compare to illegal spying on Americans, or leading the country into war based on lies, or torture. Which one gets more media attention? The one that involves a penis, of course! Nobody wants to hear about lies or torture or Constitutional principles.
But, ultimately, journalism isn't just entertainment. It has a serious function in a democratic society. Journalists have the right - and the duty - to expose the misdeeds of government, and it's high time they exercised it.
From anonymous at 12:26pm:
ReplyDelete" But I have read that members of Congress were told abou the program - I think the Times piece even said that. That seems to suggest there was some oversight doesn't it?"
'Oversight' at the very least implies regular briefings and Congress being kept fully appraised of the scope, methods, and activities of such programs. Additionally, Congress is expected to be able to intervene and constrain the program should it overstep either statutory or ethical bounds.
My understanding is that a just a few members of the relevant Committees were given only broad-brush background on this program shortly before the publication of these articles.
alan you have to remember that republicans only think they are patriotic. By definition Democrats aren't patriotic.
ReplyDeletePatriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel: Samuel Johnson
My oh my how far we have come in a few short years.
ReplyDeleteThe raging right has been seeting about the "Liberal" media (especially the NYT) for a generation. And, it's finally open season.
I think the first test of Dave Neiwert's model is about to spring to life. The "transmitters" of extremist right wing propaganda have finally made the inroads into the mainstream media. The next step will probably be when a journalist gets indicted, then we'll see somesort of violence toward the institutions themselves.
The "re-birth" that the extremists have been seeking is on it's way.
Now is the time for those who oppose this administration to hit back hard. The Administration and their shills aren’t stupid; they KNEW most, if not all, of the details discussed in the Times article about our using SWIFT to collect financial information were out in the public domain, and that the Administration actually had placed most of it out there. All of this shrill protestation and chest-beating has just been a show, based upon blatent and intentionally false assertions. Opponents should, again and again, remind the public, and specifically those who voted Republican and might be having second thoughts – ‘they’re conning you’, ‘you’re being had, manipulated’; ‘Wise up’. And maybe some of them just will.
ReplyDeleteHenry Steele Commager
ReplyDeleteMen in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
Theodore Roosevelt
ReplyDeleteTo announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)
If all terrorists have perfect knowledge of the swift program, why not assume then that the American Public does too?
ReplyDeleteNo one asserts that all terrorists have "perfect knowledge." They only need to know that governments are tracking any financial transactions through the channels of international banking. They knew that, because the Bush Administration told them we were doing this.
Once, again, the "news" here is not that we're following the money; the news is about whether the Administration, when it engages in otherwise reasonable/necessary surveillance/tracking, is following the rules and whether there is some independent monitoring/oversight of the actions to ensure these measures are not misused.
No one argues, "don't follow the money." The debate is about following the rules, and providing mechanisms so that independent entities can ensure that the rules are in fact being followed.
Shooter 242 at 12:43.
ReplyDeleteMan, you can do better than that! The reason why those financing terrorists might pay closer attention than the general American public to how the US is monitoring financial transactions, is because they might get caught and die if they don’t try and find out what’s going on. A typical member of the general American public isn't going to have anywhere near that level of interest in attempting to uncover the same information.
Jeez, think before you write.
If all terrorists have perfect knowledge of the swift program, why not assume then that the American Public does too?
ReplyDelete[...]
I'm sorry but this just does not compute.
The reason that it does not compute is because you have, without thinking, imagined an argument that nobody made.
Read what Glenn wrote again, you will see that the issue revealed by the NYT that prompted the article is not the existence or even operational details of the program, but that the program has been operating with virtually no oversight (if I may put it that way.)
Does it compute now? You don't have to agree, but don't just argue against made-up arguments. That is the definition of "strawman".
Shuster's exposure of these facts changed the whole treatment of the issue by Matthews on Hardball. It also set the stage to allow Rep Markey (D - MA) to push back on Rep King (R - NY) who repeated the nonsense about treason. But as you suggest, I didn't see any other news show do this, though I've tracked only a few.
ReplyDeleteI, too, saw all that, and it was excellent. (MSNBC has pretty much become my default news when I resort to TV.) When presed, a very angry King agreed the NYT should be prosecuted for espionage, just like Alger Hiss should have been. Markey was reasoned and persuasive; fact-based.
This is what had me scratching my head over all the instant venomous outrage over the Times report. That we would be working with international banks to track terrorist finances is old news.
ReplyDeleteThat a temporary emergency act was turned into a permanent Presidential power isn't, however. Or at least it isn't news that gets discussed, much.
To see how effectively this program has worked (and is probably still working) consider the 80-year-old nun/terrorist it caught:
ReplyDeleteThe sisters say the monastery's main bank account was frozen without explanation in November, creating financial headaches and making the Benedictine nuns hopping mad. They were told the Patriot Act was the cause.
"I think the Patriot Act is unwise, let's say, and that if it happened to us, it can happen to anybody," said Sister Jean Abbott, the monastery's business manager. "I think people need to know that nobody is safe from, in some cases, really ridiculous scrutiny."
aaron: Just so we're clear about the real message, it goes like this. If you're a republican you're a patriot. If you're a democrat you're a traitor.
ReplyDeleteFor the more extreme wing of the Republicans, that should read: if you're for Bush you're a saint and going to heaven; if you're a Democrat and against Bush, you're a sinner and going to hell. Since all sinners are condemned to hell anyway, they can and must be eradicated--God hates them so killing them will not bring His Wrath upon me.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIf it was all public knowledge, what did the Times article add? What was the journalistic value of the Times piece if it added nothing? Why, for example, was it on Page 1?
Glenn addressed this specifically; a bit surprising you didn't catch it:
"What the Times revealed is the lack of oversight and checks on these intelligence-gathering activities, not the existence of the activities themselves, which were already well known."
Did you read his post?
Cheers,
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but this just does not compute. I can understand the concern around the NSA program, but this is the third revelation by the Times of something you call a non-secret.
Shooter's mistaken. I don't think that Glenn claimed that the warrantless NSA spying or the collection of domestic CDRs was known at all, much less "well known".
But if he can point to such a claim, I'll retract my assertion that Shooter's a liar.
Cheers,
I am somewhat late to this party, but wasn't there an article in the papers just a couple of weeks ago about how effective the US has been in pursuing money transfers, so that terrorists and their funders are now operating mostly in cash?
ReplyDeleteI mean, I swear this was like a week or two before the Times story broke. Does anyone else remember this?
According to Suskind in One Percent Solution, these sources of intel dried up, unsurprisingly, by 2002 or so. Maybe someone should tell the Administration about this.
ReplyDeleteThe Times = "enemies of the people". Let's have some quick show trials and throw them in the langpunkt for some good hard labor. Work will Make you Free!!
ReplyDeleteEither way, whatever knowledge Glenn alleges the terrorists have, one has to assume the same knowledge is held by the US public.
ReplyDeleteThat is absurd. Otherwise it wouldn't be news.
You completely ignored what I and other posters wrote.
Once again, where is the same concern blustered over Plame? What a stupendous double standard!
Please explain where the double standard is.
In the Plame case, the federal government used a contact at the NYT to illegally out a covert agent. The government broke the law in this case.
In the banking case, the federal government is upset that the NYT published the fact that the federal government is likely breaking the law.
There is no conflict here.
The issue for me is that this is a quibble over details not some egregious violation of civil rights.
That is your opinion. I disagree.
This is analogous to publishing your tax return on the front page so the country can make sure it was done properly.
That analogy makes no sense.
Isn't this about Divide & Conquer (so we can be as corrupt as we wanna be)?
ReplyDeleteFox News - Fair & Balanced.
NY Times - Liberal & Treasonous.
This administration has been greasing the slippery slope ever since they took over the WH.
So if the claim is that the Times' big story was that there was a lack of oversight, where is the big juicy stack of laws that are being broken that require such oversight?
ReplyDeleteAll the lawyers on this blog yet none have jumped to the defense of the NY Times based on their accusations that financial privacy laws are being violated and that warrants are needed to acquire this information.
I submit that you lawyers know if you tried to defend this you would get your posterior handed to you.
scarecrow said...
ReplyDelete"What was the journalistic value of the Times piece if it added nothing?
The answer is in Glenn's post: the NYT article did not reveal to anyone who has been paying attention that we were tracking financial transactions -- everyone knew/expected that.
And who pretty much wrote the book on how to do this successfully and effectively within the law?
John Kerry.
Am I trying to connect too many dots here or does this seem to unreal.
ReplyDeleteA WH official was leaking information to Judy Miller at the Times before the war, which the Administration used as proof of WMDs in Iraq. Cheney was all over Meet the Press quoting the Times' articles about what Saddam was up to. Now we have this information being leaked to the Times again. The overview of the program is known and therefore not really dangerous to the War on Terra. It would be safe and politically beneficial to leak this to a paper and then start the "treason" cries and make all sorts of hay without really damaging the program, which while it has been administered improperly, probably is legal. If they can leak a CIA Agent's name, why not this level of manipulation?
Thanks Glenn,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you nailed it.
I've posted the following "talking point" today several times hoping to get a bite:
The President SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PEOPLE. The majority of THE PEOPLE want him out of the Whitehouse Why are we still having these "discussions"?
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who is accusing the Times of "treason," or claiming that they harmed national security, what is the answer to this question:
What, specifically, would a terrorist have been willing to do on June 22 [the day before the banking story was published] that he would not do on June 23 as a result of the Times' article?
You are misstating the issue.
What several press outlets have done is given the enemy a roadmap of actions to avoid to reduce their chances of being identified by United States intelligence gathering.
Therefore, the question for opponents of press disclosure of classified intelligence gathering against the enemy is:
What United States intelligence gathering can the enemy avoid based on the disclosure of classified programs which it was not avoiding prior to these disclosures?
I) To start, the press itself has documented how the disclosed programs surveilling and analyzing international telecommunications, call data records and financial records were all successfully identifying enemy terrorists inside and outside of the country.
As to the surveillance of international telecommunications, the NYT's article which disclosed this program admitted that this program stopped at least two terrorist plots inside the United States.
http://www.commondreams.org/
headlines05/1216-01.htm
Later, the Washington Post revealed that Justice later obtained probable cause to seek FISA warrants for around 10 al Qaeda per year identified by the NSA program surveilling international telecommunications.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/02/08/
AR2006020802511.html
In its most recent disclosure of the intelligence analysis of international financial transactions, the NYT detailed how this program was used to identify and arrest the leader of the Bali bombing and other targets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/
washington/23intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Finally, USA Today disclosed a program whereby most US telecoms were providing call data to the intelligence agencies for what is presumed to be data mining analysis. While the USA Today did not document the successes of its disclosed program as did the NYT, we know that a similar DOD data mining effort using publicly available data under the program code name "Able Danger" successfully identified the Atta 9/11 terror cell and predicted the attack on the USS Cole before each of those attacks. See the Able Danger Blog for reams of info on this program.
http://abledangerblog.com/
Therefore, your claim that the enemy knew all about these intelligence gathering methods and had changed their tactics to avoid them is obviously untrue.
II) Now, let's discuss how the NYT and USA Today provided the enemy with road maps on how to avoid our intelligence gathering. (This does not excuse other media outlets doing the same thing, but these two papers broke the stories concerning the three main disclosures to the enemy).
A) Concerning the surveillance of international telecommunications, the NYT informed the enemy:
1) Avoid international telecommunications. Even those whose parties are entirely outside of the US are often routed through US hubs being monitored by the US.
2) The program is limited to telephone numbers captured in the possession of al Qaeda members. If any of your terrorist members have disappeared, anticipate that any number he has called or called from is compromised. Change your numbers on a regular basis and use alternate forms of communications with al Qaeda supporters who may not be able to change numbers.
3) If you have to use a compromised number, make sure not to use the names of terrorist personnel, religious terms, references to landmarks or intended terrorist targets. The NYT tells the enemy that the NSA does not actually listen to all the calls using these numbers and actually uses a screening computer program which triggers surveillance if it intercepts one of these words. Avoid these words and you can probably avoid detection.
4) Because the Americans are obsessed with privacy, the NSA surveillance does not include telecommunications whose parties are entirely inside the United States. Be cautious, but you can probably safely make your terrorist calls inside the US.
B) As to the data mining of call data records, USA Today was kind enough to inform the enemy that Verizon does not provide the United States with their records. Use Verizon when possible to conduct your terrorist telephone calls.
C) As to financial transactions, the NYT has informed the enemy:
1) The exact types of international transactions we are tracking through Swift.
2) The limited parties we are tracking through Swift.
3) The volume of traffic we are monitoring through Swift. This enables the enemy to derive the percentage of traffic we are surveilling for their risk analysis.
4) The types of targets being surveilled through Swift.
5) The exact types of domestic transactions we are not monitoring through Swift.
6) The domestic financial companies which are cooperating with the government and the transaction information those companies are providing.
As you can see, the answer is yes to the question of whether the NYT and USA Today has provided tangible aid and comfort to an enemy which was being successfully monitored by these programs before the disclosures.
Once again, the spin that the enemy knew how to and in fact avoided all of these surveillance programs before these disclosures is pure bunk because these programs were successfully identifying the enemy and preventing his further operations.
Also, it is worth noting that the laws against treason and disclosure of classified information do not require proof of actual damage to the national security. The fact that this damage is clearly supported by the evidence is pure gravy.
Would you like to discuss next whether the NYT and the USA Today have in fact violated the elements of the treason and Espionage Act statutes?
I've always assumed that another subtext from the right wingers and their sychophant MSM suck-ups, goes something like:
ReplyDelete- it's a time of war (perpetual)
- Beloved Leader is in charge
- nasty newspaper articles about alleged misdeeds of Beloved Leader and his cronies is equivalent to an attack on Beloved Leader
- any attack on Beloved Leader hurts his ability to lead us to victory (should the perpetual war ever end)
- thus any attack helps our enemies
- thus any attack is treasonous
- thus...
Destruction and death to treasonous journalists and their editors!!
It's funny that for all of Shooter's (and Bart's, in previous posts) nonsensical attempts to cloud the true issue, they STILL can't point to one single specific item in either the NSA story or this that will hinder our intelligence gathering capabilities.
ReplyDeleteI still think it is hysterical to watch the Republicans become exactly what they supposedly despised when Clinton was president. There is no doubt that Clinton was a liar, Bush is just a better one.
ok, going on my own intuition here, 'cause that's really the only thing we all have, guessing 'cause they don't say:
ReplyDeletemy answer to the question Why the NYTimes and not LA or WSJ? this is the Cheney response to the Judy interview where she implied, crap, damn near came out and said - "you smear me boys and when i'm on the stand and you ask a question or PF asks one i'll talk so much and say so much about all your sneeky, illegal crap it'll be 2 moons and 20 long beards before i step down and there won't be a republican alive who'll get re-elected!" it's there version of the iraq war in minature - lobbing bombs into the green zone, shooting up cars approaching check stops. And again what did the grand jury tell AG-AG that saturday, the day after PFitz met with Rove and his "counsel"? did the presidents consigliore (fu.. the american people, i've worked for this family my whole life, that's where my allegiance lies) then call in Fitz and give him the Saturday night massacre warning? Fitz'l never tell, wish the GJ would. but PFitz isn't a "player" and if he takes down Conrad Black, waiting for the right time, then he'll get karl too, before he chokes on a chop bone, hopefully.
I don't read the NY TIMES.
ReplyDeleteI doubt I would have even known about this revelation if it hadn't been for all the right wing blowhards spreading the news all week. If I were a terrorist, I would have FOX NEWS to thank for the "warning". Good job on aiding the enemy, right wingers.
/snark
From Bart at 2:18pm:
ReplyDelete"Also, it is worth noting that the laws against treason and disclosure of classified information do not require proof of actual damage to the national security. The fact that this damage is clearly supported by the evidence is pure gravy."
If that were the case, why hasn't such a case already been filed against the Times?
More to the point, how does the long string of hypotheticals you've posted (logical as they may be) constitute actual "proof"?
Because the Americans are obsessed with privacy, the NSA surveillance does not include telecommunications whose parties are entirely inside the United States. Be cautious, but you can probably safely make your terrorist calls inside the US.
ReplyDeleteIf the terrists are paying any attention at all, they know as well as I do that this is almost certainly not true.
this is the third revelation by the Times of something you call a non-secret.
ReplyDeleteThe NSA wiretapping program was not a non-secret, and to my knowledge Glenn has never suggested otherwise.
But that program is illegal, a criminal violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Moreover, it is a crime to classify anything to cover up evidence of a crime.
But nice try.
It is still the Government that used the NYT to out a program that must be at least classified, the same status granted Plame. We have heard for years at this point about how egregious a threat to national security making public her name was. And yet outing this classified material is now a good thing. Sorry bud, but you can't have it both ways
ReplyDeleteAhhh. Now I understand what you are getting at.
If the integrity of national security (as defined by the Bush administration) was the highest priority in the world for me, this would be an excellent point.
However, a higher priority is that the government always operate with as much oversight as possible and that the government never find it permissible to break the law. I do not believe that any sort of security whatsoever is possible if we do not maintain these ideals.
But let me ask you: if YOU care so much about national security, what is your position on the Plame affair?
bart: What several press outlets have done is given the enemy a roadmap of actions to avoid to reduce their chances of being identified by United States intelligence gathering.
ReplyDeleteWhat they have done is exposed illegal actions by our government (e.g., warrantless wiretapping of domestic calls and warrantless gathering of phone records), the classification of which also was a crime and/or unconstitutional. The current program, even if legal and constitutional, can't be used to prosecute anyone for espionage, let alone treason, because its classification, albeit legal, was pointless: The president himself announced on 9/24/01 what we were up to.
bart: There was no justification for this outing other to sell newspapers, and your defense of the Times by declaring the bank program common knowledge is ridiculous.
There is no justification for your claim that there was no justification for publishing the story, whether to sell newspapers or for any other reason. And while you might find Glenn's claim "ridiculous," the fact is that it will stand up in court quite nicely, should it come to that. It's almost as if the government classified the fact that the sky is blue.
You go on to suggest that these stories may have done real damage to terrorist activities. Prove it. Ron Suskind's new book says that "hits" from the financial surveillance reported on by the Times had died out by mid-2002, suggesting that terrorists either knew or presumed that that kind of surveillance was in place.
So run along, Bart. The grownups are talking.
The Elephant in this living room, to me, is not that the this super-secret crap was revealed, helps the enemies and so forth but more about those on the rampage's ignorant assumption that "the enemy" are blithering idiots who would have never figure any of this out without the New York Times to explain it to them.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, do the wingnuts really believe terrahists out there the same ones that were fought in Team America? I mean, how is this abstract concept '-ism' going to win this "war" anyhow?
It all stems out of this notion, that Bush no doubt loves, of US vs. THEM...With the idea that the THEM are these villans who wear matching uniforms and have a secret hideout with Bin Laden and Cobra Commander making plans beneath a giant TV screen map with whirring computers in the background.
This whole brouhaha is really an inability to understand a nuanced, diverse and spread out collection of enemies who already know that we will be monitoring communications and surely are aware of our ability to track finances...Long before any general article appears in the New York Times.
This same jack-assian thinking can be seen in action in about everything ever said or done in the U.S. WAR ON DRUGS.
Seriously, while I am not about over hyping the enemy so much as the old adage goes, 'Know thy enemy.' It just seems like, particularly on the Right, that we still don't freaking get it. Suskind's 'One-percent Doctrine' further reveals this in great detail...
On second thought I probably just betrayed the country, hate America and just somehow supported the terrorists...Don't I want to WIN?
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 2:18pm: "Also, it is worth noting that the laws against treason and disclosure of classified information do not require proof of actual damage to the national security. The fact that this damage is clearly supported by the evidence is pure gravy."
If that were the case, why hasn't such a case already been filed against the Times?
Think like a politician.
Do you want to pick a major league fight with the entire press corps (even conservative leaners like Fox are attacking the idea of prosecuting the NYT) on the eve of a very tough election when your poll numbers are in the dumpster. You will be giving the equivalent of a couple hundred million worth of free attack ads to the Donkeys when the press retaliates.
If I were Justice, I would start hauling in the reporters and their editors before grand juries demanding they name their sources or go to the DC city jail.
If the pressies start taking the 5th as I would if I were facing probable criminal liability, publicly offer them immunity deals from criminal prosecution. This would establish the precedent that there is criminal liability and the press would admit this by accepting the plea offers. If they refuse, they look like criminals.
If the press refuses the plea offers, start criminal investigations for violation of the Espionage Act targeting the reporters who refused the immunity agreements and see where it leads.
Even if you do not prosecute, you can publish reports of what the reporter knew, what he did along with a national security damage assessment by the intelligence agencies.
When the reporters break and reveal their sources, make examples out of every source with long prison terms.
The leaking will stop.
Glenn, one point you seem to miss is that the Bush administration's responses to these alleged leaks often do contain likely classified information that was not in the public domain.
ReplyDeleteSee John Snow's letter in this case: instead of allowing alleged disinformation that the enemy had moved on to other methods to stand uncorrected, he insists that the program was still effective.
No one without classified knowledge could make such a statement. If true, such a statement would do exactly what the Times is being accused of.
The Boston Globe is treasonous too, by disclosing that this information was already in the public domain.
ReplyDeleteWow, it's like the Bush-backers have never seen (and by egotistic extension, think the world has never seen) a spy film. Or that money laundering is a crime because it makes the baby Jesus cry.
ReplyDeleteHere in the US we have everyone from CEOs seeking tax shelters to two-bit thugs selling snatched necklaces to pawn shops. William Jefferson with his cold cash. Rush Limbaugh with his doctor shopping. Overwhelming facts aside, one only has to be a part of the real-world for a second to know that criminals try not to get caught.
I think this is a result of the imperial mindset. Of course the brown-skinned savages don't know about laws.
When the reporters break and reveal their sources, make examples out of every source with long prison terms.
ReplyDeleteThe leaking will stop.
This fascist fantasy is very amusing, but you misunderstand greatly the dynamics at work here.
The public has a demand for actual news and facts, whether you like it or not.
If you outlaw this kind of information, you will only incentivize a black-market alternative, probably internet based, almost certainly provably anonymous (the technology has been around for years), and much less controllable.
Do you really want to see a world where the only access to real information is through illegal means? That's what you're asking for, whether you realize it or not.
If you say the internet will just be shut down (it certainly can't be regulated to any meaningful degree), consider that distribution channels for other illegal goods like drugs and so forth are already in place; these networks would find it easy to adopt a new product line: newspapers, CDs, etc.
If you care about national security, then you will want a cooperative press that will willingly hold its mouth on real issues.
Attempting to restrict the supply of information has no impact on the demand, which will be filled. This is an axiom of free market economics.
To Bart -
ReplyDeleteFirst you say "Think like a politician", then you go through a tortorous legal meanuever.
Quite apart from your transparently cynical presumption that Justice will allow its offices and duties to be manipulated so (which, sadly, I could see playing out with the Keystone Kronies running the shop these days), what you are describing is essentially a ressurection of HUAC, something I doubt most Americans would stand for under current circumstances.
And you didn't answer my second question.
It annoys me no end that people will argue "it's not public knowledge" just because most people are too lazy to read their account disclosures. This is directly of the website for my bank under new account information:
ReplyDeleteTo help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, Federal law requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person who opens an account. What this means for you: When you open an account, we will ask for your name, address, date of birth, and other information that will allow us to identify you. We may also ask you to send a copy of your driver's license or other identifying documents.
Go to your bank tonight and ask them for a copy of their new account disclosures. Read them thoroughly. I'm sure you'll find a lot of surprises.
Bart .... See the Able Danger Blog for reams of info on this program.
ReplyDeleteBart puts on his signature Curt Weldon tin foil wingnut hat for us all. Nice hat, Bart.
Bart... See the Able Danger Blog for reams of info on this program.
ReplyDeleteHe said reams... heh-heheh-heheheh.
Thank you for once again rising to the occasion to demolish yet another foolish argument. Unfortunately, the triumph of facts and reason on your blog doesn't reverse the damage done to public perception and discourse, confidence in the media, and the media's confidence in itself.
ReplyDeleteIn response to damaging revelations about it's lust for information, the Cheerleader in Chief and all his little loudmouths managed to change the subject. The revelation wasn't that the administration was monitoring financial transactions. The revelation was that it had amassed all the data--the little that it could argue that it needed and the vast majority that it did not--and was examining it at its whim.
This rabidly partisan outlaw administration now owns your international (and domestic) financial transactions and mine, Halliburton's and Greenpeace's. That was the story. You had to slap down the NYT-treason canard because the jackasses put it up. But they're winning in the short term, which is the only term they understand.
Arne calls you HWSNBN; that's much too clumsy. I prefer to call you 'Matlock'.
ReplyDeleteI call him Butthead. He said "reams". Heh-heheh-heheheh.
But they're winning in the short term, which is the only term they understand.
ReplyDeleteThey only have a short time left and they know it. They will milk it, our economy, for all it's worth while they can, which has always been their plan, and their new platform is the "go for broke" platform. They have nothing to lose so they are going to get more extreme and see what they can pull. It will soon be over. They see that the handwriting is on the wall. A wall they should all be stood up against.
Could it be a preemptive strike? Does the NYTimes have knowledge of something far more devious and the right is trying desperately to either 1.) quash the Times from publishing it or 2.) undermining the credibility and perceived intentions of the Times so that when the s$%^ hits the fan, no one will believe it?
ReplyDeleteIn either case, the Times has only one option if it wants to save itself: to begin operating like a newspaper again rather than a cage liner.
Google this:
ReplyDeletetracking terrorist financial banking
. . . and you find a statement [in pdf, so I couldn't link directly] by an official of the FBI, John Pistole, to the Senate Banking Committee, setting forth in detail the measures the Administration was/is taking to follow the money in the US and international banking systems. This testimony from the FBI's Assistant Director, Counterterrorism, was in September 2003.
I don't recall any calls from the right that this Assistant Director be tried for treason.
Froomkin linked here.....
ReplyDeleteTONY SNOW: "I'm saying, yes. I think that a lot of people didn't know about the existence of Swift."
ReplyDeletewww.swift.com
Guess he doesn't know how to use the internets.
prunes 2:02 PM,
ReplyDelete"In the Plame case, the federal government used a contact at the NYT to illegally out a covert agent."
Hold on to your popcorn folks...
At least according to the Libby Indictment, there are no charges stating "the federal government used a contact at the NYT to illegally out a covert agent". The only charges are against Libby alone for obstruction and making false statements.
And who is it exactly that has now declared the SWIFT program illegal? We know it can't be Mr. Keller, because he has already explained otherwise in his open letter:
"It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective"
What about the source for the current NYT story, wouldn't that be an "illegal" leak of classified information?
Double standard much?
My understanding is that the NYT sat on this story for a considerable amount of time (a year?) at the request of the Administration. If the Administration considered disclosure a threat to national security, as it now claims, why didn't they demand that the NYT not publish, and seek an injunction if the Times refused?
ReplyDeleteTo f.l.y. -
ReplyDeleteLet's clear two things up:
1. the Fitzgerald investigation is still ongoing, so we may (or may not) see further developments there.
2. *nobody* here has even suggested the program involving SWIFT is in any way illegal; rather the concern is the lack of serious oversight of the program (short briefings to select members of Congress, prompted solely by impending publication, do *not* constitute oversight).
No 'double standards' here.
the fly: I cannot understand your post. You may be thinking I am making some argument that I am not.
ReplyDeleteThe only charges are against Libby alone for obstruction and making false statements.
Yes, yes, and OJ was innocent, right? Because otherwise he would have been convicted?
Of course, decent folk know that the GOP would never endanger first amendment speech rights simply to improve their chances at the polls... right?
ReplyDeleteNot without having done the focus group first. The appalling thing is how many Americans are willing to relinquish their Constitutional rights and yet have the nerve to say that we're "fighting for freedom"
Not that this makes any difference as to the accuracy of stories by pro-free press people like Glenn, but the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times. Makes sense that they would come out with an article supporting the NYT.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the EU Parliament now wants an investigation of what bank information the US government is collecting on European citizens. This could get interesting.
Not without having done the focus group first. The appalling thing is how many Americans are willing to relinquish their Constitutional rights and yet have the nerve to say that we're "fighting for freedom"
ReplyDeleteNerve? Sometimes I think the Republican party no longer has three pairs of balls between the lot of them.
Speaking of fact free,
ReplyDeleteLiar liar
Pants on fire.....
Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Posted: 3:34 PM EDT (1934 GMT)
Bill Clinton: "Everybody makes mistakes when they are president."
Stephen Hadley became the second administration official to apologize for allowing tainted intelligence into the State of the Union address. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux reports (July 23)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Clinton.
Chorus: We're shocked. SHOCKED!
Gambling, you say?
"I thought the White Hou$e did the right thing in just $aying 'we probably $houldn't have $aid that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.
"You know, everybody make$ mistake$ when they are pre$ident," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many call$ as you have to make without me$$ing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what i$ the right thing to do now. That'$ what I think."
Clinton had called King to honor his guest, former Republican Sen. Bob Dole, on Dole's 80th birthday.
Clinton's comments took other Democrats by surprise, many of whom have questioned whether the Bush administration misled the public about the threat from Saddam Hussein. The uranium claim was made at a time Bush was trying to rally world support for military action against Iraq and was used to suggest that Saddam was acting on his nuclear ambitions.
Wednesday, some members of the Clinton administration indicated they didn't agree with their former boss's take on the controversy.
"In some critical respects, intelligence was overstated, and it's important for the administration to resolve these questions," said Sandy Berger, the national security adviser under Clinton.
He said Bush needs to have a news conference to fully explain how the claim about uranium made its way into the nationally televised address, despite CIA concerns about the quality of the intelligence.
Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta agreed. Unless Bush appears before the America people, the "drip, drip, drip is just going to continue."
But former $ecretary of $tate Madeleine Albright didn't sound so sure. "The most important thing i$ to move forward," she $aid. "I agree with Pre$ident Clinton on that."
The three came to the Capitol Wednesday to present a foreign policy paper at the request of Senate Democrats.
Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a $ub$tantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.
Stephen Hadley
"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is inconte$table that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for $tocks of biological and chemical weapon$."
And on the same Google search, here's another Treasury official explaining how we're going to do everything we can to track terrorist banking transactions:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usembassy.it/file2001_10/alia/a1100319.htm
And further, here's a article a year ago from the NYT in which Administration officials briefed the Times reporters on their tracking efforts on international banking.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380529/posts
And there about another 10 pages of links to go through, in case anyone's interested -- but I think the point is, the Administration went to great lengths to assure the American public that we were doing everything in our power to track suspected financial transactions both domestically and internationally.
Shooter:
ReplyDeleteProgram? It seems that everybody is forgetting, the information we are looking at BELONGS to someone else.
Our "program" is asking permission to peek. The information remains whether we look or not, it is not in our control.
Is that a freudian slip or an admission of who or what Shooter really is?
"Our" Program, "we" are looking for?
Cue dramatic music.
Glenn - you make some good points as usual. I would like to add what I believe is an important point ; terrorists are well known to have deep connections to foreign intelligence agencies. For instance Taliban and UBL are known to be well connected to extremists groups within Pakistani intelligence services (ISI). Recently in Yemen a large group of jailed terrorists escaped with collusion of the local intelligence agency. I suspect terrorists are much better informed than we are as to what our government is up to as far as SWIFT regardless of what the NYT prints on its front page. The republicans would like us to believe that foreign terrorists cannot run their own counterintelligence operations and fact we keep seeing the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI think Clarence Page made a couple good points today about what all this boils down to.
ReplyDeleteFirst, he says that the attack upon New York Times is merely to distract us from the return of Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness Program which has continued under new names and new secrecy.
The new secrecy is to prevent what the Bush administration fears most: accountability
What's really new and troubling about these stories is not the secret money probes but how much of it the Bush administration has zealously kept secret from the courts and Congress, the branches of government that have constitutional oversight over the executive branch.
But some, including Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she and many of her colleagues on the panel were briefed by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned it would be exposed in the press.
That's the same press that the president called "disgraceful" and that King wants to frog-march off to jail. Yet, with the courts bypassed and Congress kept in the dark, what's left to hold government accountable in circumstances like this but the press?
Instead of making its case to Congress, the courts and the public, Team Bush is treating accountability like one more threat to national security.
So, this attack on the press is essentially a distraction to keep the public from understanding that it is part of the wholesale power grab to deprive the courts and Congress from their true oversight capabilities and, what’s worse, the only entity left to hold the administration accountable is going along with this power grab to a great extent – and whatever press doesn’t go along - will be fiercely attacked to undermine their credibility, and perhaps silenced by potential prosecution.
"ot that this makes any difference as to the accuracy of stories by pro-free press people like Glenn, but the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times. Makes sense that they would come out with an article supporting the NYT."
ReplyDeleteThe Boston Globe article discloses that relationship, not that it matters to someone looking to discredit the information w/o having to actually read the article.
Relax everyone, nobody is going to prosecute the NYT or any other MSM without their complicity.
ReplyDeleteThey're all subsidiaries of the same parent corp: somehow people just can't seem to get a handle on that.
Sports teams. Think of all the divisions of "the system" as that. Root for one, root for the other, love one, hate the other, but they all rake in the $$$.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen the Fourth Amendment? Maybe it entered the Witness Protection Program.
On Tuesday, Blitzer interviewed Pat Roberts and asked if the members of Congress had been briefed on this...roberts said "yes" then Blitzer asked "Where memebers of Congress briefed all along since this program started or only recently when it became apparent the press was going to talk about it"? Roberts refused to answer.....
ReplyDeleteShooter: How about some checks and balances?
ReplyDeleteYou cite the measures that the administration itself claims to have put in place in order to make sure there are no abuses; but you're dodging the real issue, which is that an emergency measure taken in the immediate wake of September 11 has become permanent presidential authority.
The program is not legal merely because the president pronounces it to be. And I sure don't recall we the people, or our elected representatives in Congress, voting to authorize this.
"Briefing" a few select members of Congress does not oversight make. Arlen Specter complained last weekend that more members of Congress got wind of this program only after it became apparent that the Times, and other outlets, were going to go with the story; said Specter, "Why does it take a newspaper investigation to get them to comply with the law?"
But I suppose that if the president is the law, that's not an issue, eh?
Bart:
ReplyDeleteGood try, by the way. I appreciate, at last, finally, an attempt by *someone* on the right to provide an iota of specificity to the allegations that this Times article was a) some sort of blow to national security, or b) at least outside the norm of typically published information.
You fail.
This blog admits that the information was not common knowledge and was generally restricted to terrorist finance experts such as the blogger.
What sort of hair-splitting baloney is this? What exactly is this "common knowledge" you're talking about? The counterterrorism blog is saying that this information was in the public domain - i.e, available to any interested individual with a web browser and time on their hands. As Glenn documented in the link to the UN webpage describing the SWIFT program from 2002. So the only substance of your claim is basically that the NYTimes ***raised*** public ***awareness*** of the program.
You've managed to equate raising public awareness of a program in the public domain with espionage?? Are you ashamed of yourself? How can you possibly claim equaivalency between these two actions? We know that SpecOPs forces are working in Africa, and the public has low awareness of this. So when I mention this fact here on this blog, you think I'm committing espionage???
Are you ashamed of yourself for this sort of slanderous association?
Now, onto your list you've so boldly requested that someone to stand up and pick apart.
1) The exact types of international transactions we are tracking through SWIFT.
I see several types of transaction provided as an example. As a US layperson, having only public knowledge, I assumed that all of these transactions were being monitored, thanks in part to the Bush Admin's own statements. This article is about the SWIFT program, and provides nothing remotely like a comprehensive list of the types of transactions being monitored. It is safe to say that every common type of small-amount consumer transaction is being monitored, and I would easily deduce wire transfers, credit card transactions and ATM withdrawals simply by reading the reporting/disclosure requirements mandated by the USA PATRIOT ACT - also available to the public. Nothing that Al Quieda wasn't already correctly assuming we were already monitoring.
So - wrong.
2)2) The limited parties we are tracking through Swift.
I don't see anything remotely matching this description in the article. I see a couple of examples of the program's success citing arrests already made, using generic associational descriptions, such as (the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York.) Are you really claiming this that Al Quieda had no idea that this is the sort of thing we'd be looking at? It provides nothing like a list of people we're currently tracking - it doesn't mention a single name. I can only see this point as a deliberate slander, completely invented.
3) The volume of traffic we are monitoring through Swift.
It absolutely does not. It mentions the total volume of transactions passing through SWIFT every day - using an estimate easily available to the general public.
Unless you're talking about "tens of thousands" - that's a pretty unspecific number estimate, probably describing the number of transactions at the second gate of active monitoring once they've already tripped pattern-matching alarms that are probably in place for the entire set of 11 million transactions daily. But in any event, this whole "risk analysis" line of thought is bullshit. The press and the government publish facts that could be useful to some sort of terrorist group by indirect deduction all the time. The press publishes reports made public by congress and governemnt agencies providing an estimated number of unsecured chemical plants we have. You could multiply that number by our total number of cops, US troops and spooks and come up with a "risk analysis" of how likely you were to get seen by one of them when attacking one of these sites. It would be general as all hell and close to useless, but might have some miniscule utility compared to a void of info - sort of like this NYTimes article. So shall we prosecute the US Congress, the 9/11 commission, and the Homeland Security Dept. under the espionage act?
#4. Same as #2. Outright lies, and already refuted.
5) The exact types of domestic transactions we are not monitoring through Swift.
Give me a break.A: there are plenty of non-swift programs monitoring this info under certain conditions or within certain situations
B: Who could possibly think that some human agent could monitor every financial ATM transaction made by every person in the US?
C: SWIFT, the entity, doesn't even include domestic transactions in its **data set**!!! SWIFT has nothing to do with domestic transcations! SWIFT is a public domain entity and anyone attempting to read or learn about it would know that first thing, unless they were illiterate.
So, baloney.
6) The domestic financial companies which are cooperating with the government and the transaction information those companies are providing.
As anne mentioned, again, bullsh*t. It mentions no company by name and gives a number, 2200 - and strongly implies that this is ALL of them. So, yeah, you make it sound like Al-Quieda could just consult this article and cheerfully redirect their money into a institution not on this list - but there is no list
There, you have the point-by-point annihilation you wanted so badly.
I eagerly await your reply.
I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with a point that shooter242 has made, but that most progressives are resisting: it's dishonest to claim that the NYT article added nothing at all to the useful knowledge of terrorists.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that Glenn lays out in this post, and in his previous one, is that SWIFT has been mentioned in public before, and that is surely true. But it's unrealistic, as shooter242 says, to assume that terrorists have perfect knowledge.
I consider myself a reasonably attentive observer of privacy matters, and I was unaware that the US was monitoring records of financial transactions in this way before the NY Times reported on it. In hindsight, we may realize that some, or even all, of the details that the NY Times presented had been mentioned in public before.
But if none of the operational details were news, why is everyone talking about the story? The story's allegations of impropriety or illegality are relatively insubstantial. Its initial splash, and its headline, are all about revealing that the monitoring is going on in the first place. I submit to you that this story is being talked about because the operational details it reveals were, in fact, news to lots of people. Sure, those people could have gathered those details from previous revelations, but they hadn't. The NY Times was the first they had heard about it.
I was one of those people. If you're honest, I'll bet you were one of those people, too. Heck; I bet Glenn hadn't heard of many of the details the NY Times revealed, and that he had not previously read the articles he has cited as evidence of previous disclosure.
The fact that this monitoring was news to lots of people means it's not unreasonable to imagine that it was news to our enemies, as well.
What it boils down to is, there's a difference between a collection of previous mentions in various venues, and a front-page, above-the-fold, feature article in the New York Times.
I am an outspoken proponent of freedom of the press, and I think the NY Times did exactly the right thing, and that calls for punishment are reprehensible and preposterous.
But I think that insisting that the NY Times' reporting on operational details was completely without effect is a losing argument. We should abandon it.
The UN document referenced in the article is available
ReplyDeletehere
Looks like it's been online since December 2002. Here's the relevant paragraph-
31. The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.
Some revelation.
THE NYT STORY IS NOT ABOUT SWIFT OR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION (NO MATTER WHETHER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN), IT IS ABOUT LACK OF CONGRESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.
ReplyDeleteTHE NYT STORY IS NOT ABOUT SWIFT OR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION (NO MATTER WHETHER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN), IT IS ABOUT LACK OF CONGRESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.
The Bush Admin could have been tying piano wire between trees for terrorists to trip over, could have been using pogo sticks to see over tall things in order to spot terrorists, the fact is that if those 2 things required oversight, and the Bush Admin were circumventing or blocking it, that would be the story.
OVERSIGHT DOES NOT SOLELY MEAN BRIEFING.
OVERSIGHT DOES NOT SOLELY MEAN BRIEFING.
I don't know why we need to have the same arguments over established facts repeated on many threads.
From Defense Tech:
ReplyDeleteWhite House NYT Bashers: Hypocrites
http://defensetech.military.com/archives/002546.html
Apparently Bushco told reporters far more than the NYT ever did. As usual, the real traitors are in this administration.
And, although similar stories in the Wall Street Journal and Tribune-owned LA Times appeared on the SAME DAY, the only organization being threatened and called "traitors!" is the New York Times.
ReplyDeleteHow freakin' transparent can they get?
Relax everyone, nobody is going to prosecute the NYT or any other MSM without their complicity.
ReplyDeleteThey're all subsidiaries of the same parent corp: somehow people just can't seem to get a handle on that.
Sports teams. Think of all the divisions of "the system" as that. Root for one, root for the other, love one, hate the other, but they all rake in the $$$.
The problem is that one chunk of the media is perfectly willing to be complicit, and another part is not. Nor do I buy that this is just one big monolithic “corporate” entity and that Charlie Savage and Matt Drudge are essentially the same – they just wear different uniforms.
Better metaphors, please.
I will agree that a big problem with the “news” on Television is that it has become all about the money, the ratings, and is therefore entertainment first, the "news" second. That doesn’t apply as much to the reporting you see by other newspapers and magazines (some of which have never made a profit, but are founded by rich sources promoting a particular political view).
maiken said...
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go out on a limb and agree with a point that shooter242 has made, but that most progressives are resisting: it's dishonest to claim that the NYT article added nothing at all to the useful knowledge of terrorists.
Never go out on a limb with shooter.
He will just saw it off.
But if none of the operational details were news, why is everyone talking about the story?
ReplyDeleteBecause the right wing can't pass up an opportunity to bash the NYT! Notice that they're not going after the WSJ. Notice that they continue to lambast all those "Bush haters" in the intelligence community. (*note the keyword - intelligence) They basically hate the truth and those who seek it because it disturbs their "Cowboys and Indians" worldview.
What a joke of an argument from Tony Snow: it's not how many people know about SWIFT or other governmental monitoring, it's whether they can find out if they searched publicly-available information.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know about SWIFT, but apparently it's been easy for me to find public info about it on whitehouse.gov and at swift.com.
Further, I don't care about whether Bill Clinton was the source of an argument. Get it into your heads that "liberals" don't have a knee-jerk approval of the man and ex-President. And mentioning Clinton's "support" for X, or his Administration's legal arguments for Y, doesn't carry any extra weight when I don't support X or Y. Projection of your methods of belief onto mine, perhaps?
Glenn.
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to look over your comments for an also ran, but henry here -http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/28/swift-and-europe/
will be of interest I think.
keep up the good work
Let's not be too hasty about this lynch mob thing. It might be useful someday soon.
ReplyDelete(June 28, 2006)--A South Texas jury has found a 44-year-old political consultant guilty of four counts involving the sexual molestation of children.
The Hidalgo County jury deliberated almost two days before convicting Carey Lee Cramer of four counts and acquitted of nine others.
The 44-year-old Cramer was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, two of indecency with a child by contact and one of indecency with a child by exposure.
Cramer, who now lives in Tucson, Ariz., gained national attention during the 2000 presidential election.
His McAllen company created a TV ad accusing the Clinton-Gore administration of giving away nuclear technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions.
The spot was modeled after the infamous 1964 "Daisy" nuclear scare commercial and was pulled after a barrage of Democratic criticism.
Cramer faces a maximum of 149 years in prison for the four felony charges.
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/3243076.html
glasnost said...
ReplyDeleteBart, You've managed to equate raising public awareness of a program in the public domain with espionage??
Hardly.
For those that are wondering what glasnost is talking about, go review my posts in response to the yesterday's blog by Glenn on the calls for the NYT to be prosecuted.
Glenn posted quotes from a couple financial tracking specialists and from the speeches of the President which he alleged provided the same information as the NYT.
I made three critiques in response:
1) The quotes from the specialists had extremely limited distribution and were apparently not known by the enemy since we keep finding enemy financial transactions using the Swift program.
2) Even if the quotes were known, they were so general and vague that all one can discern is that a group called Swift might be involved in intelligence gathering of unknown means and methods.
3) Then I posted the roughly half dozen paragraphs from the NYT article which did give means, methods, scope and limits of the Swift program, none of which were revealed by the quotes offered by Glenn.
Now, onto your list you've so boldly requested that someone to stand up and pick apart.
1) The exact types of international transactions we are tracking through SWIFT.
I see several types of transaction provided as an example. As a US layperson, having only public knowledge, I assumed that all of these transactions were being monitored, thanks in part to the Bush Admin's own statements.
We can stop right there. What you think with perfect 20/20 hindsight is completely irrelevant. What al Qaeda knew before the NYT gave them a roadmap to avoid our intelligence gathering is the only thing that matters. Because we busted the al Qaeda leader responsible for the Bali bombing and other terrorists shows that even the al Qaeda top leadership was in fact unaware of this surveillance.
glasnost repeats some critiques I fielded and rebutted in my posts on yesterday's blog. Check those out if you are interested. I had a chunk of time yesterday to post. I do not have time today to repost the same answers.
I;m with Bart, Shooter, and the other righties. George W. Bush is the decider. He is an honest man who needs no oversight from the Congress or from the people. We can trust him to do right by the people. Look at his record so far! (Anything that is does not look good are obviously lies from the treasonous liberal media.)
ReplyDeleteRemember - big government is evil! Unless of course the Republicans control everything and our president a god-fearing, straight talking, man of the people, like W.
prunes,
ReplyDelete"the fly: I cannot understand your post. You may be thinking I am making some argument that I am not."
My point is that you are claiming [here] that "the government" illegally "outed Plame" which may make your story sound juicier, but it is untrue. It was the media that "outed Plame", just as it is the media that has disclosed this classified program. Which, by the way, the NYT itself describes thus:
"Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database"
Note that they do not describe the story as being based on information already in the public domain, but as "secret", as in not previously known to the general public.
Also, contrary to the claim that "right wing pundits" are wrongfully launching an attack out of anger because the "lack of oversight" was exposed [i.e. a therapeutic leak acting as a "check" on government abuse], the real concern is that the NYT thinks it is qualified to make national security decisions regarding classified programs to begin with, something all Americans have good reason to question.
[Treasury Secretary Snow Responds]
the real concern is that the NYT thinks it is qualified to make national security decisions regarding classified programs to begin with, something all Americans have good reason to question.
ReplyDeleteWrong.
The real concern is that right-wing pundits believe that the imperial executive must possess unlimited authority to determine what is in the nation's best interests, and must never be questioned on it; that indeed, to question is treasonous.
That ain't how it works, Fly - or, it isn't how it used to work, prior to this president.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteYou are an embarrasmment and an irritant. You have no respect for yourself or others, that's obvious, but you should really troll someplace else. Your reputation here can't get any worse. Try to find some new territory to sully with your presence.
Bart's guy Curt Weldon. Wingnut Extroardinaire.
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteEither way, whatever knowledge Glenn alleges the terrorists have, one has to assume the same knowledge is held by the US public.
No, shooter, that is an idiotic assumption. I'm sure somewhere in the public domain there is information on how to build a bomb, but I'm not aware of it. I would assume terrorists are much, much more aware of that type of information than I am.
Terrorists, if they plan on staying alive, are going to be much, much more aware of law enforcement procedures and capabilities than I am.
shooter242 said:
And so it seems that there are safeguards galore, which part of all this is inadequate? It looks pretty safe to me.
Well, I feel so much safer now that shooter has given his endorsement. How about some Congressional oversight? How about some auditing done by the Legislative or Judicial branches? Oops, I forgot, shooter242 (aka "civilian deaths are sometimes ok") doesn't give a s--t.
I don't even care that much about this program, except that I want to hear more about it, I want to be assured that Congress and possibly the courts are monitoring it, and I want the attacks on the NYT for publishing it to stop.
OK, let's see what Defense Tech has to say:
ReplyDeleteI interviewed Marcy Forman, director of Green Quest, at her Washington offices in December 2001, when I was a writer for Government Executive magazine. Our meeting was sanctioned by Customs' public affairs office, and came at a time when the White House was eager to talk about all the work federal agencies were doing to hunt down terrorists. Forman told me the kinds of people, transactions, even locations that the government was targeting. (These are details, it should be noted, that the recent Times piece did not reveal.) Among the potentially sensitive items Forman told me, which were published:
“Operation Green Quest is focusing on the informal, largely paperless form of money exchange known as hawala, which is Arabic for ‘to change.’”
“Few undercover agents can penetrate Middle Eastern communities and money laundering rings because they look like outsiders and don't speak the language…. As a result, Green Quest has to be more clever, by setting traps on the Internet and working to flush currency traffickers out of their hiding places.”
“Treasury and FBI investigators have identified hawala as a means by which the alleged Sept. 11 terrorists may have received money from overseas.”
“Green Quest investigators, who've spent their careers dismantling money laundering rackets, were blindsided by the existence of the system. ‘Most of us couldn't spell hawala’ before Sept. 11,’ Forman said.”
“The agencies' [involved in Green Quest] cooperative efforts have recently culminated in raids of alleged money laundering operations that aid suspected terrorist networks.”
“Green Quest also wants to lower the threshold at which bank deposits and electronic funds transfers must be documented. Dropping the ceiling from $10,000 to $750, Forman said, may force money traffickers to try to get their cash out of the country by hand. They would then be subject to capture by a beefed-up cadre of Customs Service officers at border crossings, airports and seaports.”
Green Quest was only one of the administration’s efforts to combat terrorist financing which officials discussed publicly. More than two years after 9/11, federal officials testified before a congressional field hearing in Miami and "detailed efforts to stop the illegal financing of terrorist networks." A senior adviser for the Treasury Department "named several initiatives, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which is developing technology to let financial institutions report suspicious transactions more easily and quickly."
The adviser also named the system FinCEN was developing to manage a database built to search financial transactions. And he said the department was working directly with financial institutions to help them "develop software to better identify potential terrorist-financing activities."
These details, provided by Customs and Treasury officials, undoubtedly gave terrorists some insight into how the U.S. government was tracking them, and what investigators knew about terrorism financing. These officials weren’t whistleblowers—they were sanctioned by the administration to dispense this information.
OK, I pose the same question I answered earlier today in response to the NYT and USA Today articles:
What United States intelligence gathering can the enemy avoid based on the disclosures of press conference which it was not avoiding prior to these disclosures?
All this press conference reveals is that the US is performing intelligence gathering of undisclosed means, methods, scope and limitations against the informal hawala banking system.
If al Qaeda read this article, they would have no idea what actions to take, apart from no conducting any financial transactions at all, to avoid being found by US intelligence gathering similar to the blow by blow instructions provided by the NYT and USA Today which I listed at length in my first post this morning.
Good try, but again no cigar.
F.L.Y. said...
ReplyDeleteprunes,
"the fly: I cannot understand your post. You may be thinking I am making some argument that I am not."
That insect and the rabid dog never had any cred here, Prunes. Or anywhere else for that matter.
I'm not sure I can agree with the arguments that all the information was out there anyway, so the NYT couldn't have done anything wrong. Look at all the hoopla from The DaVinci Code - I knew of the whole "Black Madonna" thing from years before that, so the information was there...but not as accessible to everyone. Same for the NYT - arguing they COULD have found out through publicly available sources doesn't negate the fact that a major source has made the information available for a bigger audience. It would be somewhat like a chemical company admitting one of their products was dangerous but not labeled as such, yet claiming they were immune from lawsuits since there were studies on the web showing a possibility of danger. Would anyone allow that argument?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do feel calls for treason trials and the like are vastly overblown, and feel that the Bush Admin. owns a lot of the blame here. Given how many times they've been caught fudging/distorting/covering up, it's not surprising that the media is ready to print stories about their possibly overreaching actions.
Should Democrats ever regain a majority or the Presidency, the pendulum will begin to swing the other way.
ReplyDeleteYes, the pendulum will no doubt swing when Republicans decide that any Democratic president taking the liberties this president has taken is acting rashly.
We are looking at someone elses info by request
By administrative subpoenas. No court oversight. No oversight, period.
Tell you what, as a member of the general public I'm damned glad the Times did throw this out for general perusal. And what is truly "interesting" is how defenders of this administration would demand that we show trust. I'll trust this administration when it stops trying to pretend that the "emergency" in the wake of September 11 should go on in perpetuity.
Simple question, was all of the information in the NYT (and WSJ) in the public domain? Is there one thing in either story that was classified and had never been made public?
ReplyDeleteBart?
Shooter?
No one has given one specific item that wasn't already in the public domain. If it is in the public domain, it isn't friggin treason, or anything improper at all.
No, this makes Bush look bad, so the perpetrators must be demonized.
Can anyone say Clintonites? Wasn't that a favorite term by you dishonest hypocrites from about '93-'01?
Pathetic.
wThat ain't how it works, Fly - or, it isn't how it used to work, prior to this president
ReplyDeleteUnfortunatly there was a time not that long ago when that was how it worked. The amount of sleazy behavior engaged in by the FBI and other government officials is what inspired FISA to be passed in the first place. Some people think they can trust the administration when they say they are only targetting terrorists, but how many people would be willing to label PETA or Greenpeace as "terrorist" organizations?
For the commenter "bart:"
ReplyDeleteIt has been brought to my attention by others in our group that there has been an excess of potentially security-compromising information being disseminated on this web site.
Upon perusal, it is my opinion that while the New York Times, Glenn Greenwald and others here are venturing into dangerous territory that may prove to be actionable, it is the details being provided by you (and I draw your attention specifically to your post above at 2:18PM) that may in fact be the most damaging information so far divulged.
Lt. DePalma, I respect your desire to defend your country and your president, but surely you must realize that there are some lines which must not be crossed with respect to ensuring national security. I fear that too many dots may have been connected in your analysis.
Expect a communication from someone in our office in the forthcoming days to assess the full scope of your knowledge, your intent and your state of mind.
Thank you.
mw
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSimple question, was all of the information in the NYT (and WSJ) in the public domain? Is there one thing in either story that was classified and had never been made public? Bart?
Review my posts at Glenn's blog on the same subject yesterday.
I gave you a list of means, methods, scope and limits of these programs not disclosed previously by any of the sources which Glenn quoted.
the fly: My point is that you are claiming that "the government" illegally "outed Plame" which may make your story sound juicier, but it is untrue. It was the media that "outed Plame", just as it is the media that has disclosed this classified program. Which, by the way, the NYT itself describes thus:
ReplyDeleteOh, now I see what you were trying to say. Well, it's not quite correct, in the Plame scandal, a crime was committed by whomever it was in the administration that talked to our old friend Judy Miller.
However, in this case, there was no such crime.
In either case, unless directed specifically to withhold particular information for national security reasons (this has not happened in either case, no one claims it does), the NYT has committed no crime.
bart: I could point you to google maps of the specific facilities used by the NSA for wiretapping, the internet routes that connect them, and probably, if I put a little work into it, quite a bit of technical information regarding the Narus system in use.
Is it your opinion, that if I did compile and publish such publically available information, I would be violating national security to a criminal extent? This information could *potentially* help someone avoid being monitored.
Has anyone else noticed how hard Bart, Shooter and the other apologists have been working on this issue, and to what little effect? Me thinks they're starting to realize the wheels really are starting to come off the old bandwagon!
ReplyDeleteEven if the charges were valid, how do they plan on executing a newspaper?
ReplyDeleteAfter watching a report on the dictatorship situation in Zimbabwe on "Frontline" last night, and seeing a variety of very depressing comparisons to the Bush administration, it would not surprise me in the least to see newspaper offices begin getting bombed by native, Rove-created "terrorists", journalists getting beaten or killed, and full scale lockdowns on the press everywhere.
ReplyDeleteDictatorships don't happen overnight. They encroach little by little, bit by bit, liberty by liberty, until all that is left of a country is a cowering, powerless, empty shell of a nation.
bart: I) To start, the press itself has documented how the disclosed programs surveilling and analyzing international telecommunications, call data records and financial records were all successfully identifying enemy terrorists inside and outside of the country.
ReplyDeleteBart continually spins this untruth, as does much of the Right. It is simply untrue; ask the FBI. According to Think Progress [follow the link to access articles that refute this disinformation, as well as similar claims]:
SPIN - NSA SPYING STOPPED POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES: “The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.” [President Bush, 12/17/05]
FACT – PROGRAM HAS UNCOVERED “NO IMMINENT PLOTS…INSIDE THE UNITED STATES”: “The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. ‘There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,’ the former F.B.I. official said.” [New York Times, 1/17/06]
I notice that the Wargasm Party disciples are, as always, ignoring the point: the New York Times has not "outed" anything.
ReplyDeleteamazed: it would not surprise me in the least to see newspaper offices begin getting bombed by native, Rove-created "terrorists", journalists getting beaten or killed, and full scale lockdowns on the press everywhere.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
Shooter, at this stage, you're embarrassing yourself. Your latest argument is that there are terrorists out there not smart or aware enough to know that financial transactions they're engaging in might be traced, yet somehow, either by reading the New York Times (or, perhaps through discussions on terrorist chat rooms(?)), they've been tipped-off to this possibility? Come on; you’ve got to do better than that.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is certain. The maladministration does know from treason, after all they've committed it so many times.
ReplyDeleteWhere was all of this grave concern about the implications of public disclosure and National Security when that blowhard Tom Ridge revealed the identify of an Al Qaeda double agent the Brits had spent months trying to "flip"?
ReplyDeletebart said:
ReplyDeleteI made three critiques in response:
1) The quotes from the specialists had extremely limited distribution and were apparently not known by the enemy since we keep finding enemy financial transactions using the Swift program.
Logical fallacy here, bart. "We keep finding enemy financial transactions, therefore they must not have known about the program." This is what's known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
I don't think you can conclude that terrorists didn't know about the monitoring simply because they kept using the system. Someone else mentioned that they might be taking chances, they might be desperate, etc. 'After it, therefore because of it' is a logical fallacy, and as a lawyer you should know that.
bart said:
2) Even if the quotes were known, they were so general and vague that all one can discern is that a group called SWIFT might be involved in intelligence gathering of unknown means and methods.
Which, when you boil it down, is all we really found out about the program from the NYT. That, and no Congressional oversight of this operation.
(As a personal aside, just before this story broke, I had to wire money to Canada. Guess what I needed in order to fill out the form at my bank? That's right, a SWIFT code. Apparently there's this group called SWIFT out there, yada yada yada...)
bart said:
3) Then I posted the roughly half dozen paragraphs from the NYT article which did give means, methods, scope and limits of the Swift program, none of which were revealed by the quotes offered by Glenn.
There were no specifics in there, bart, and you know that. How many wire transfers are intercepted? Are certain amounts of money a threshold for monitoring? Is the tracking of financial transfers tied in with the NSA warrantless surveillance program? Are certain banks or countries automatically targeted?
These are examples of specific operational details that would help a terrorist. None of that specific info was provided, and so I'm really not sure how much "help" this article gave to terrorists.
You can't insist that the means, method, scope, and limits of the program were revealed in the NYT article, and then lazily cite pretty much the whole damn article as evidence. Where did the NYT go too far? Find me one sentence that goes too far in describing the means of the program, one sentence that goes too far in describing the method of the program, one sentence that goes too far in describing the scope of the program, and one sentence that goes too far in describing the limits of the program.
I'm having trouble getting personally exercised over this program, and I'm surprised that conservatives are this defensive about it. If somebody wants to complain that this wasn't newsworthy because all of this info is already in the public domain, that's a worthy and defendable opinion. That is a far cry, however, from claiming the story was a violation of the Espionage Act or an act of treason.
But I've had enough of the attacks on the free press. Enough! Either we're a free society, or we're not. Either we value a free press, or we don't. Either we let the press do their freakin' job and monitor the government, or we don't.
Which is it bart, shooter, fly, etc?
How far are Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. willing to go to shred the social fabric? That's a question that I think is now on the table. They are feeding the Beast that lies at the heart of American democratic tyranny, as de Tocqueville called it. These are the militias, John Birchers, Aryan Nationalists, et al. who feel empowered by this talk of treason and endangering American values.
ReplyDeleteWhen the first journalist is gunned down in the street, I imagine that AG Gonzales will be the first to knock on the doors of these esteemed pundits and serve warrants for incitement to commit hate crimes.
cfaller96 said:
ReplyDeleteI forgot, shooter242 (aka "civilian deaths are sometimes ok") doesn't give a s--t.
shooter242 said:
Got a reference for me actually saying that? Or did you just make that up?
No, I've got it right here, shooter:
----------------------
Q: [Do you understand] that the death of innocent civilians is a bad thing for the United States and our current mission there?
shooter242 said:
I think you mean the execution of innocent civilians as retribution. Yes, that would be a very bad thing.
-------------------
Shooter, you made a distinction about certain types of civilian deaths. The implication of this distinction is clear: that you think some civilian deaths are NOT a bad thing.
Do you deny that you said this?
Anonymous 5:46 PM,
ReplyDeleteCongrats on posting your 100,000th idiotic off topic remark. Nice job Anonymous 5:46 PM!
Prunes 6:13 PM,
"However, in this case, there was no such crime."
Au contraire, it's the same deal with this story. Someone with inside knowledge thought it would be a good idea to [illegally] leak classified information.
Once again, a leak is a leak, and a leaker is? Bueller...? Anyone....?
"In either case, unless directed specifically to withhold particular information for national security reasons (this has not happened in either case, no one claims it does), the NYT has committed no crime."
What? You can't be serious. Have you read Mr. Keller's open letter?
"It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? [...]"
alpowolf,
"the New York Times has not "outed" anything"
Good grief...
cfaller96 6:50 PM,
Yes on free society, no on having a quasi / shadow government using a newspaper as a front.
And this just in from the department of claims that the Times harmed national security:
[Group Asks Gov'ts to Block Data]
"LONDON -- [AP June 27, 2006] A civil liberties group said Wednesday that it had asked governments around the world to block the release of confidential financial records to U.S. anti-terrorism authorities. [...]
The complaints ask authorities to "intervene to seek the immediate suspension of the disclosure program pending legal review."" [...]
What’s so very sad about a lot of this irresponsible talk during “Kill Keller Week” (to steal Sullivan’s phrase) is that the vast majority of people spewing this sewage don’t believe it themselves – it’s just their talking points to stir up their “base” – such as it is.
ReplyDeleteBut part of their “base” is just crazy enough to believe this crap, and that’s why it is potentially dangerous. Who knows what some of these crazies might do?
But they need the “wackos” to win elections, so they have no choice to spew the traitor card, the godless card, the insane card, and throw anything and everything at their opposition hoping that if just a portion of it is believed that their base will be angry enough and frightened enough to vote. That’s how they’ve won elections in the past, and they’re not changing formulas until they start losing elections.
But think about how they must feel, knowing that they must be dishonest to win - that they must cheat, lie and use underhanded techniques because their real policies and platforms don’t stand a chance of popular approval. They know this. Dishonesty is thus a necessary ingredient of any and all political campaigns because it’s the only way to get large chunks of people to vote against their own self interest.
Our paid trolls know this. Unfortunately, they don’t have any shame or conscience which prohibits from continuing to engage in this behavior – it’s become reflex and reaction – it’s what they know, and they are far beyond feeling guilt for anything they do.
Again, I'm as surprised as anybody that I'm defending "shooter", but jimlanc said:
ReplyDeleteYour latest argument is that there are terrorists out there not smart or aware enough to know that financial transactions they're engaging in might be traced, yet somehow, either by reading the New York Times (or, perhaps through discussions on terrorist chat rooms(?)), they've been tipped-off to this possibility?
I, for one, don't find this idea so far-fetched. I had never heard of SWIFT, or known that the government was monitoring financial transactions on the scale that it is, before the Times published its article. I'll bet you hadn't, either. I don't find it beyond reason to think that there are some terrorists that hadn't figured this out, either.
This is all just speculation, of course. But I don't think it's fair to paint the idea that the NY Times article actually came as news to some people as being patently absurd.
This is all just speculation, of course. But I don't think it's fair to paint the idea that the NY Times article actually came as news to some people as being patently absurd.
ReplyDeleteBut as someone upthread pointed out, the only reason I know about the article is because Michelle Malkin has been screaming her bloody head off over it.
I have an observation to make regarding the Times and Treason issue. As jokingly pointed out by Greg Palast in the Armed Madhouse: Part I article at http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20950
ReplyDelete"I'm a bit nervous. It's an "ORANGE ALERT" day. That's a "low threat" notice. According to the press release from the Department of Homeland Security, low-threat Orange means that there will be no special inspections of passengers or cargo today. Isn't it nice of Mr. Bush to alert Osama when half our security forces are given the day off? Hmm. I asked an Israeli security expert why his nation doesn't use these pretty color codes.
He asked me if, when I woke up, I checked the day's terror color.
"I can't say I ever have. I mean, who would?" He smiled. "The terrorists." America is the only nation on the planet that kindly informs bombers, hijackers and berserkers the days on which they won't be monitored."
So you can see where I'm going with this. Substantially, the arguments being used to lambaste the NYT could very properly be applied to the DHS for the Alert system...
[T]he only reason I know about the article is because Michelle Malkin has been screaming her bloody head off over it.
ReplyDeleteWell, fair enough, but you must not look at the front page of the Times, like millions of people around the world every day.
This is all just speculation, of course. But I don't think it's fair to paint the idea that the NY Times article actually came as news to some people as being patently absurd.
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t generally aware of SWIFT, but then again, I’m not a terrorist engaging in financial transactions who doesn’t want to get caught. And even though I wasn’t aware of the details of SWIFT, I assumed the government was doing something to try and track down this information. I do find it a bit ludicrous to believe that there are people funding terrorist activities that 1) weren’t aware that one of the things the US is doing to protect itself is attempting to trace those funding activities, or 2) if they weren’t aware, suddenly became enlightened because of this latest brewhaha.
Glenn asks what specific harm has been caused by the Times article. A fair question. Meanwhile, others insist that the program is "legal", on the up-and-up. Ok, let's grant that assertion as well, for purposes of argument: the program is "legal" and thus is ultimately something attributable to Congress and which has been implemented as the result of public deliberations.
ReplyDeleteNow, if the program is "legal", that means that somehow, some way, it or the authority to create it must be described in our statutes. Otherwise it's founded on unpublished law, and such laws would have to be based on secret deliberations. Congress is not passing laws in secrecy, yet; as far as we know, no President has yet had a classified signing ceremony. Budgetary items may be cloaked as a result of private deliberations, but not laws themselves.
So, unless we're prepared to accept that Congress is passing "secret laws" that we don't know about, the program can hardly be truly secret. Sure, one might have to read the CFR carefully and imaginatively to derive its existence, but if it's legal it's got to be described there, if ever so obtusely.
The Times has revealed nothing particularly specific about the SWIFT operation and has essentially discussed just the fact of its existence. Administration defenders insist the program is legal, and thus it must have some basis in statutory authority. Given that if it's legal it's hardly a top-secret operation, what exactly is the problem here? Or are the administration's defenders asserting that the U.S. will henceforth include secret laws in our evolution?
The Patriot Act seems to be a far more broad-spectrum, more comprehensive and powerful weapon in the "war on terror". So why is it perfectly ok that it is published in its entirety, but the mere mention of the SWIFT program is grounds for spluttering outrage?
Maybe the strident objection of the administration really is because of the ugly spectre of oversight, after all. Again, if the authority for the program is not a secret, what's the problem with mentioning it?
Meanwhile, if the enemies we're fighting are so dense as to be unable to speculate on what intelligence operations our laws encompass, then perhaps they're actually not very dangerous after all. Maybe, if this article in the Times is such great ammunition to our foe, we really don't need to be warping the fundamental identity of the country in fearful reaction to them.
maiken said...
ReplyDeleteThis is all just speculation, of course. But I don't think it's fair to paint the idea that the NY Times article actually came as news to some people as being patently absurd.
It came as news to me, yes. But I'm not a terrorist. And we are beginning to hear, from Intelligence insiders, that this financial tracking has been going on since 2001 and *was* well known. The President himself refenced to it in a number of speeches. I think it can be said that terrorists funneling large sums of money were also quite aware of this then.
The "crime" of the NY Ties is not that they disclosed a top-secret government operation that nobody knew about but that they exposed a government operation that has been in effect for years with NO other oversight. Briefing a select few congressmen or senators and *telling* them what you've been doing has nothing to do with oversight. It's unrestrained lawlessness.
The real frightening part of this story is that, once again, the REALITY of the situation has been swiftly castrated by the organized rovewing of the WH giving a lot of people out there the idea that the NY Times DID do something bordering on treason which, of course, it hasn't.
From SWIFT's website
ReplyDeleteWhat in the hell are we talking about that's secret, again?
Anon at 7:36 said The "crime" of the NY Times is not that they disclosed a top-secret government operation that nobody knew about but that they exposed a government operation that has been in effect for years with NO other oversight.
ReplyDeleteAnd that, as I understand it from reading the editorial statements issued by both the New York Times and LA Times, was the principal issue they wanted to raise before the American public with these articles – without disclosing significant details, here’s another area that’s ripe for misuse/abuse, and so if you, the American public, are going to engage in civic debate about presidential oversight, you probably should throw this in the hopper as well.
Unfortunately, the Administration, using their standard bait and switch tactics have successfully steered focus over to the things that have consumed this thread - how much information was disclosed about the operations and did that disclosure aid terrorists - and so have been able to squelch that very important debate.
I submit to you that this story is being talked about because the operational details it reveals were, in fact, news to lots of people.
ReplyDeleteIs this (as seems to be the case) really the best argument that can be devised in support of the "NYT article = Treason" claim -- that the average member of the public didn't know that SWIFT transactions were being monitored, and it is therefore same to assume that the terrorists didn't either? Thus, by putting it on the front page, the NYT made the ignorant, non-Google-using terrorist aware of it?
Isn't the difference between the "average person" and the international terrorist extremely self-evident in this regard? The "average person," by definition, isn't trying to effectuate money transfers without detection of the U.S. government, and therefore would have no incentive to learn which systems the government is monitoring. It is thus entirely unsurprising that the average person is unaware that the U.S. Government is monitoring SWIFT transactions - there is no reason they would care because they're not trying to evade detection.
By extremely obvious contrast, international terrorists -- who, remember, are super-diabolic criminals who pose an existential threats to our country -- would want to know how to eavde detection, and would thus be highly incentivized to find out which financial systems the Government monitored. All they had to do - PRIOR to the NYT article -- is do a Google search and they would have discovered the super-duper-top-secret-highly-sensitive fact that the Bush administration monitors and tracks SWIFT transactions. Any serious terrorist would surely do that.
The very idea that a newspaper "damages national security" when it publishes information that is easily accessible by a simple Google search is unbelievably frivolous. It's like saying "Hey - this surveillance activity was only discussed before in the Orlando Sentinel and the Witchita Eagle, but the New York Times committed treason and harmed national security by reporting it because terrorists probably don't read those other two papers and only found about it when the NYT talked about it."
Something is either in the public domain or it isn't. The fact that we monitor banking transactions through SWIFT in order to find terrorists was in the public domain. The NYT thus disclosed nothing operationally that the terrorists could not already have easily known. The claim that the NYT did anything wrong or acted treasonously by talking about publicly available facts is really hard to fathom.
The fact that this premise is serving as the basis for widespreads calls for the NYT to be convicted of treason is nothing less than conclusive evidence that a substantial part of our political spectrum is now well, well beyond the realm of reason.
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDeleteII) Now, let's discuss how the NYT and USA Today provided the enemy with road maps on how to avoid our intelligence gathering. (This does not excuse other media outlets doing the same thing, but these two papers broke the stories concerning the three main disclosures to the enemy).
A) Concerning the surveillance of international telecommunications, the NYT informed the enemy:
1) Avoid international telecommunications.....[snip ... wouldn't want to get in trouble myself. ;-) ]
Wow. Thanks to HWSNBN, now the Terra-ists have a precise roadmap as to how a blowhard DUI lawyer in Colorado thinks they should avoid detection and prosecution. Thanks, counsellor. That's "aid and comfort" to the enemy. So when will HWSNBN be turning himself in?
Cheers,
Oops, wrong thread!
ReplyDeleteDan Froomkin in WaPo today:
SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is the international banking cooperative that quietly allowed the Treasury Department and the CIA to examine hundreds of thousands of private banking records from around the world.
"But the existence of SWIFT itself has not exactly been a secret. Certainly not to anyone who had an Internet connection.
SWIFT has a Web site, at swift.com .
It's a very informative Web site. For instance, this page describes how "SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities."
(And yes, FATF has its own Web site, too.)
An e-mail from White House Briefing reader Tim O'Keefe tipped me off to just how nutty it is to suggest that SWIFT keeps a low profile. Among other things, he explained, "SWIFT also happens to put on the largest financial services trade show in the world every year," he wrote. "Swift also puts out a lovely magazine ." "
From Glenn Greenwald at 7:50pm:
ReplyDelete"The fact that this premise is serving as the basis for widespreads calls for the NYT to be convicted of treason is nothing less than conclusive evidence that a substantial part of our political spectrum is now well, well beyond the realm of reason."
I think that was pretty well established by the tone and tenor of the various comment threads over the last few days. Bart, Shooter, and the few others who have tried to push the "treason" meme have been...well, a little out there, haven't they?
Shooter, what are "people like cfaller"? Those smarter, more honest, and more rational than you?
ReplyDeleteWe all appreciate the extra effort you must be making to be coherent. But it's not enough.
I hear a lot of these terrorist types come from democratic utopia-type countries where they live carefree lives in which the government doesn't intrude into their lives in any shape...So one can see how they could come to america to do their dasterdly terrorist deeds, and yet be so ignorant of surveillance tactics of the United States...And then the NY times goes and gives it all to them in black and white..Why, I imagine they were surprised and puzzled when the NY times articles came out..maybe they even had to look up the word "surveillance" in a dictionary, since they obviously grew up in countries without domestic intelligence agencies..
ReplyDeleteWell, it looks like this story has had its 15 minutes and is about to get bumped off the radar by what's going on in Gaza (an important story for sure). Good thing, too, for the Bush administration. Their modus operandi is these stories is always "hit 'n run", leaving the impression with many that the OTHER side has committed the offense.
ReplyDeleteI had previously said:
ReplyDeleteI submit to you that this story is being talked about because the operational details it reveals were, in fact, news to lots of people.
Glenn asked:
Is this (as seems to be the case) really the best argument that can be devised in support of the "NYT article = Treason" claim
I wrote the passage you quoted, but I strongly believe that the NYT was perfectly justified in publishing what it did. So, I have no idea if this is the "best argument" in favor of the "NYT article = Treason claim", since I'm not making that claim.
What I'm saying is,
- Certainly, the fact that the US monitors financial transactions was discoverable in the past. Obviously, it's unknown whether this information was discoverable enough so that every one of our enemies did, in fact, discover it.
- The fact that the US monitors financial transactions is now much more widely known, thanks to the NYT
- It's possible that an enemy of the US did learn something they did not previously know when the NYT article came out
- Insisting that the preceeding point is flatly impossible is counter-productive, not least because it can never be proved.
Instead of playing defense by insisting the NYT didn't do anything of consequence, we should be playing offense by describing why it was just fine, and even desirable, for the NYT to publish, even if every word had been a fresh revelation of government activity.
This post argues something like "quit picking on the NY Times; they didn't do what you say they did". It's a stronger stance to say "First of all, you're lying. But even if everything you say is true, it's still fine, and here's why".
yankeependragon:
ReplyDelete[HWSNBN]: Also, it is worth noting that the laws against treason and disclosure of classified information do not require proof of actual damage to the national security. The fact that this damage is clearly supported by the evidence is pure gravy.
If that were the case, why hasn't such a case already been filed against the Times?
The espionage act (18 USC 798) requires mens rea, in the form of "knowingly and willfully", and specifies "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government".
Cheers,
From Marc Schulman at 9:40pm:
ReplyDelete"How does the opposition of both of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission to the publication of the Times' article square with your assertion that the disclosures were trivial?"
Have either of those fine, honorable gentlemen give an actual *reason* for their opposition?
In September 2004, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz discussed the apprehension of Palestinian terrorists who had been caught because their wire transfers had been traced. The article noted that as of 2003, the Palestinians began using couriers because they knew that electronic payments could be followed to their addressees in realtime.
ReplyDeleteEarth to wingnuts: the terrorist "enemy" has known about this program for three years. Why would it be treasonous to tell the American people about it?!
HWSNBN unveils his favoured brown-short tactics:
ReplyDeletef I were Justice, I would start hauling in the reporters and their editors before grand juries demanding they name their sources or go to the DC city jail.
For contempt of court? It's been tried, with varied results.
If the pressies start taking the 5th as I would if I were facing probable criminal liability, publicly offer them immunity deals from criminal prosecution....
They don't need to plead the Fifth (you know, "criminal prosecutor" HWSNBN ought to know this stuff ... but his so-called career as such seems to have consisted of fetching the take-out food).
... This would establish the precedent that there is criminal liability and the press would admit this by accepting the plea offers. If they refuse, they look like criminals.
Huh?!?!? If they accept a "plea bargain" (to what charges HWSNBN doesn't bother specifying), then they look like cirminals. Only a "criminal prosecutor" like HWSNBN would then insist that those who pleaded the Fifth "look like criminals"; the Fifth is a right we all have, innocent or guilty (and I've stated in the past that people ought to plead the Fifth on principle every once in a while just for the heck of it so we can establilsh this principle).
If the press refuses the plea offers, start criminal investigations for violation of the Espionage Act targeting the reporters who refused the immunity agreements and see where it leads.
OIC. First the charges, then the investigation. HWSNBN is a closet C.L. Dodgson aficionado. I can see, though, why his "career" as a "criminal prosecutor" was short-lived....
Even if you do not prosecute, you can publish reports of what the reporter knew, what he did along with a national security damage assessment by the intelligence agencies.
Ahhh, the mind of a true fascist at work..... It's a wonder to behold.
Cheers,
Shooter... It doesn't require smart people to pull triggers or commit suicide
ReplyDeleteWhat's stopping you? You sound perfectly suitable for such a task. Not to bright, gullible as hell. do whatever you are told.
Now we know why the congress rolls over so willingly for this administration despite the fact it sits at or near an all time popularity low for any modern president.
ReplyDeleteThere's no other explanation than that these data mining and other spying tactics have pulled up enough dirt on the congress that they don't dare defy Rove and company.
Since the whole thing has been in place since literally before 9/11, as has been suggested before, it's only reasonable to assume that they've had years to monitor the actions and transactions of the whole government.
MYOB'
.
phd9:
ReplyDeletebut how many people would be willing to label PETA or Greenpeace as "terrorist" organizations?
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Weine... -- ummm, "Savage" -- and the socre of other RW foambots and their sycophants and acolytes amongst the Neanderthal RW....
Cheers,
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWell, it looks like this story has had its 15 minutes and is about to get bumped off the radar by what's going on in Gaza (an important story for sure). Good thing, too, for the Bush administration. Their modus operandi is these stories is always "hit 'n run", leaving the impression with many that the OTHER side has committed the offense.
Nice try, but no. Did you see DeLay on Hardball tonite? You sound like him. Delusional. November will be a bloodbath for the GOP and they know it. They are off their game. All they ever had was a game. Politics may be a game, good government isn't. Nobody is buying this shit, and that inludes subscriptions to the NYTimes and the WaPo. They will have to do better than this if they ever wish to become relevant again. Even smart Republican lawmakers are distancing themselves from this crap.
GOP's New `values Agenda' Item Fails
"House Republicans failed Wednesday to advance a bill protecting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Only a day earlier, the GOP had placed the measure on its "American Values Agenda" in hopes of bolster the party's prospects in the fall election.
But Republicans could not muster a simple majority on the issue in a committee where they outnumber Democrats by six....
A simple majority is required to report a bill to the House floor with a favorable committee recommendation. The House Judiciary Committee split 15-15 on the pledge bill Wednesday; Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., joined 14 Democrats to oppose it.
Ten of the committee's 23 Republicans did not show up for the vote. The chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said he would try again for a majority on Thursday."
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteThe very idea that a newspaper "damages national security" when it publishes information that is easily accessible by a simple Google search is unbelievably frivolous. It's like saying "Hey - this surveillance activity was only discussed before in the Orlando Sentinel and the Witchita Eagle, but the New York Times committed treason and harmed national security by reporting it because terrorists probably don't read those other two papers and only found about it when the NYT talked about it."
I suspect you're too young to have heard about it at the time, but there was the Howard Morland/Progressive case (more here).
A lot of the same issues were covered ... but to no definitive result; while the gummint got an preliminary injunction, for various reasons efforts to stop publication were dropped, and publication was allowed (and not prosecuted). While some of the specifics (different laws, source of the material, etc.), are different, a lot of the fundamental issues are quite similar. You might look into it when you get a break from your book tour.
Cheers,
Not that this is super-important, but: your post from yesterday (The Bush lynch mob against the nation's free press) made the Newsgator Online Latest Buzz top 5. Dunno how that happened; it's surpassingly rare to see political stories from the left end of the spectrum make that list. Good one!! Wonder if your hit-rate is up as a result...
ReplyDelete"What, specifically, would a terrorist have been willing to do on June 22 [the day before the banking story was published] that he would not do on June 23 as a result of the Times' article?"
ReplyDeleteI'm going with transfer money through the international banking system...
Marc Schulman,
"How does the opposition of both of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission to the publication of the Times' article square with your assertion that the disclosures were trivial?"
Seems like a reasonable enough question...
yankeependragon 9:46 PM,
A non-answer! Nice...
Shooter said...
ReplyDeleteSorry Glenn,
but assuming that all terrorists are smart enough to anticipate and evade all potential traps in front of them is just that, an assumption.
It doesn't require smart people to pull triggers or commit suicide, and not all nationalities are equally investigative. No, it probably wouldn't catch Carlos the Jackal, but it seems to have a good chance of catching some rich kid in London who is sophisticated but inexperienced. Like the saying goes... We have to be right every time, a guy with a WMD needs to be right only once.
Shooter, do you really think that the guys who run money and messages and plan attacks are the same guys who blow themselves up with belt bombs? Did you bother thinking about that at all? These are people who learn by doing, and by their mistakes.
That doesn't make them geniuses---in fact it specifically shows that they are NOT geniuses. They are just soldiers who do what they do when it needs to be done.
All the "terrorists" caught in this country have been wannabes unconnected with al-Qaida. THOSE guys you don't need fancy surveillance to catch.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeletebart: I) To start, the press itself has documented how the disclosed programs surveilling and analyzing international telecommunications, call data records and financial records were all successfully identifying enemy terrorists inside and outside of the country.
Bart continually spins this untruth, as does much of the Right.
Hero, I cited and gave you the links to the NYT and WP articles which reported the facts I posted but you intentionally neglected to repost.
Both of these papers are wholly owned organs of the DNC and hardly members of Hillary's Great Right Wing Conspiracy.
It is simply untrue; ask the FBI. According to Think Progress [follow the link to access articles that refute this disinformation, as well as similar claims]:
SPIN - NSA SPYING STOPPED POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES: “The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.” [President Bush, 12/17/05]
FACT – PROGRAM HAS UNCOVERED “NO IMMINENT PLOTS…INSIDE THE UNITED STATES”: “The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. ‘There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,’ the former F.B.I. official said.” [New York Times, 1/17/06]
Note the carefully couched language.
No one ever claimed this program stopped an "imminent" terrorist attacks ala an episode of 24.
Rather, we nailed the enemy long before they could hit us.
BTW, who exactly is this anonymous source and was he in a position to know anything at all???
To the person who brought up the hawala network, the UAE exchange, a major node, is a member of SWIFT. The scrutiny of funds transfers to terrorist organizations, including hawala, has been in the news since 2001. And to the one who claimed the Defense Tech link doesn't show any useful information was given to terrorists, it mentions specific dollar amount threshholds, computer monitoring of EFTs, online "honeypots", etc. The linked brochure is even more helpful, giving a handy list of red-flag-raising behavior.
ReplyDeletecfaller96 said...
ReplyDeletebart said:
I made three critiques in response:
1) The quotes from the specialists had extremely limited distribution and were apparently not known by the enemy since we keep finding enemy financial transactions using the Swift program.
Logical fallacy here, bart. "We keep finding enemy financial transactions, therefore they must not have known about the program." This is what's known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Huh?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is when one event follows another and the proponent argues that the first event causes the second merely because of the sequence of the events.
We are only dealing with one event here - the identification of the enemy by our intelligence gathering. I am merely arguing that the enemy is not stupid enough to act in ways that they knew would be monitored by the United States.
I don't think you can conclude that terrorists didn't know about the monitoring simply because they kept using the system. Someone else mentioned that they might be taking chances, they might be desperate, etc.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the discovered enemy ever knew about the programs which identified them.
There is also no evidence that the enemy is stupid enough to act in ways which they knew would lead us to identify them.
bart said: 2) Even if the quotes were known, they were so general and vague that all one can discern is that a group called SWIFT might be involved in intelligence gathering of unknown means and methods.
Which, when you boil it down, is all we really found out about the program from the NYT.
You know this is not true. I have posted pages over the past two days quoting the NYT in juxtaposition to other alleged public sources to show all the items of information disclosed by the NYT which were not even hinted at in those other sources.
bart said: 3) Then I posted the roughly half dozen paragraphs from the NYT article which did give means, methods, scope and limits of the Swift program, none of which were revealed by the quotes offered by Glenn.
There were no specifics in there, bart, and you know that. How many wire transfers are intercepted? Are certain amounts of money a threshold for monitoring? Is the tracking of financial transfers tied in with the NSA warrantless surveillance program? Are certain banks or countries automatically targeted?
The fact that the NYT did not disclose all of the details of these intelligence gathering programs hardly means that they did not disclose the details which I quoted verbatim from the NYT.
You can't insist that the means, method, scope, and limits of the program were revealed in the NYT article, and then lazily cite pretty much the whole damn article as evidence.
I quoted every paragraph of the NYT article which describes the means, method, scope, and limits of the disclosed programs. I am sorry the NYT went on so long in this description that you were too lazy to read it all.
However, in anticipation that most of the people here would not bother to read the NYT article, I listed the disclosures in detail after I quoted the Times.
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteI certainly stand behind what I said, which is not what you infer.
Fantastic, let's get this cleared up right now: shooter242, do you agree that ALL civilian deaths are a bad thing?
If so, then why didn't you say that in the first place? Why did you modify the statement to only include certain types of civilian deaths? Here's what you said, just for the record:
--------
Q: [Do you understand] that the death of innocent civilians is a bad thing for the United States and our current mission there?
shooter242 said:
I think you mean the execution of innocent civilians as retribution. Yes, that would be a very bad thing.
Bart, give me only one sentence in the article that goes too far. One sentence that is so egregious, so over the top, so helpful to terrorists.
ReplyDeleteWhich sentence is it?
f.l.y. said:
ReplyDeleteYes on free society, no on having a quasi / shadow government using a newspaper as a front.
So now the NYT is a front for a shadow government? Wow.
Whatever you're on, can you hook me up with some?
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDeleteBTW, who exactly is this anonymous source and was he in a position to know anything at all???
HWSNBN misspelled "RW flack for the maladministration". Such errors aside, I do wish that HWSNBN would explain himself.
Cheers,
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE
ReplyDeleteClinton, Quigley, and Conspiracy: What's going on here?
by Daniel Brandt
From NameBase NewsLine, No. 1, April-June 1993
Bill Clinton is even slicker than Sam Hurst. His anti-war activism, as well as everything else he did, developed from a focused interest in his own future. After 1968 it would have been unthinkable for Clinton to ignore the anti-war movement and face political obsolescence -- not because of his revulsion over carpet bombing, but because it was time to hedge his bets. Clinton is not an intellectual, he's merely very clever. A clever person can manipulate his environment, while an intellectual can project beyond it and, for example, identify with the suffering of the Vietnamese people. But this involves some risk, whereas power politics is the art of pursuing the possible and minimizing this risk. Almost everything that happened to the student movement is best explained without conspiracy theories. There are, however, some bits of curious evidence that should be briefly mentioned. Each of these alone doesn't amount to much, but taken together they suggest that something more was happening -- the possibility that by 1969 a significant sector of the ruling class had decided to buy into the counterculture for purposes of manipulation and control:
Student leaders James Kunen[19] and Carl Oglesby[20] both report that in the summer of 1968, the organization Business International, which had links to the CIA, sent high-level representatives to meet with SDS. These people wanted to help organize demonstrations for the upcoming conventions in Chicago and Miami. SDS refused the offer, but the experience convinced Oglesby that the ruling class was at war with itself, and he began developing his Yankee-Cowboy theory.
Tom Hayden, who by 1986 was defending his state assembly seat against those trying to oust him because of his anti-war record, was quoted as saying that while he was protesting against the Vietnam War, he was also cooperating with U.S. intelligence agents.[21]
The CIA was of course involved with LSD testing, but there is also evidence that it was later involved in the distribution of LSD within the counterculture.[22]
Feminist leader Gloria Steinem[23] and congressman Allard Lowenstein both had major CIA connections. Lowenstein was president of the National Student Association, which was funded by the CIA until exposed by Ramparts magazine in 1967. He and another NSA officer, Sam Brown, were key organizers behind the 1969 Vietnam Moratorium.[24] (In 1977 Brown became the director of ACTION under Jimmy Carter; his activism, which was more intense and more sincere than Clinton's, didn't hurt his career either.)
Symbionese Liberation Army leader Donald DeFreeze appears to have been conditioned in a behavior modification program sponsored by elements of U.S. intelligence.[25]
The CIA has a long history of infiltrating international organizations, from labor to students to religion. I submit that if an anti-war activist was involved in this type of international jet-setting, the burden is on them to show that they were not compromised. Clinton comes close to assuming this burden.
The major point here is that by 1969, protest was not necessarily anti-Establishment. When thousands of students are in the streets every day, and the troops you sent to Vietnam are deserting, sooner or later it's going to cut into your profits. If you can't beat them, then you have to co-opt them. Clinton's mentors and sponsors realized this, Clinton himself sensed the shift, and until more evidence is available it's fair to assume that his anti-war activity was at a minimum self-serving, and perhaps even duplicitous.
How else can we explain why he has recently embraced the very organizations who got us into Vietnam in the first place? He joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1989, attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1991, is currently a member of the Trilateral Commission, and has appointed numerous Rhodes Scholars, CFR members, and Trilateralists to key positions. These are the very groups whose historical roots, according to Quigley, are essentially conspiratorial and antidemocratic. A cynic would say that Clinton appropriated from Quigley what he needed -- which was a precise description of where the power is -- and ignored those aspects of Quigley that did not fit his agenda. He may have read a book or two by Quigley, but he didn't inhale them.
On February 2, when Clinton's nominee for CIA director was asked some polite questions, Senator John Chafee (R-RI) joked about what he called "a Mafia that's taking over the administration."[26] Be sure to smile when you say that, Senator. The new director, R. James Woolsey, was an early supporter of the contras and served as defense attorney for Michael Ledeen and Charles E. Allen, he has Georgetown-CSIS connections, and he's a Rhodes Scholar, CFR member, and Yale Law School graduate, several years ahead of Clinton. Yale, of course, is thick with CIA connections.[27] The new CIA director was close to Brent Scowcroft at the Bush White House, and is a director of Martin Marietta, the eighth-largest defense corporation, whose contracts include the MX missle and Star Wars weapons.
It's becoming clear that on inauguration day we merely had a changing of the guard.
Which inauguration day? Doesn't matter. Pick any. Pick the next.
But it's still the same old team at headquarters, wherever that is, and you won't find any television cameras there. Ultimately, then, Clinton's references to Quigley are worth as much as his anti-war record. And both are worth nothing at all.....
I can't believe that this is even this much of an issue. Someone else said it above, and I don't have the strength to go back and search for this throught all the crap on this thread -
ReplyDeleteIf the terrorists we are fighting are not smart enough to:
-Google "international finance"
-communicate through some maybe more secure method than a cell phone
-employ the security measures routinely employed by your average teenage paranoid buying marijuana -
than what the fuck is taking so long? Lets go round them up!! Oh, wait ... those measures weren't really working.
The continued insistence about the "...10 al Qaeda per year..." finally got me to look at the article cited.
In a discussion of the fact that the FISA judges were PISSED OFF at the NSA for the spying program and were trying to make sure that the government was not using the program in the material they present to the courts, in part because they were skeptical of its legality, there appears the following passage:
So early in 2002, the wary court and government lawyers developed a compromise. Any case in which the government listened to someone's calls without a warrant, and later developed information to seek a FISA warrant for that same suspect, was to be carefully "tagged" as having involved some NSA information. Generally, there were fewer than 10 cases each year, the sources said.(emphasis added)
This is a request for "fewer than 10 warrants" every year. What the fuck kind of success ratio is that? This says nothing about convictions or actual plots - just that they thought they had developed, through this program, enough evidence, fewer than ten times every year, to pursue some sort of legal inquiry into the activities of someone who might, OR MIGHT NOT, be a terrorist. That is a pathetic justification of a program with obviously, at the very least, and being as generous as I can, questionable ties to legality.
As a matter of fact, THE FOCUS OF THE ARTICLE is the fact that the government was lying to the courts in trying to get this evidence admitted into the legal system - that it was abusing the completely self administered and non oversighted safeguards that weren't in place. The only further guarantee of safeguards was a request from the head of the FISA court to Rumsfeld to make sure it never happens again.
All in all, I am much more wary, on a day to day basis, of this administration's blatant, wanton, and completely cavalier disregard for the law, than I am of some terrorist who is too stupid to know that the CIA might be watching international banking transfers.
And if the administration that is supposed to be catching these guys is dumb enough to think that that is enough to catch them - that this is the secret program that is going to really run the masterminds to the ground, than we are in really big trouble.
Bart, seriously - you don't think that there is some completely massive damage to the administration's credibility over the last five years? The long string of completely misleading and/or absolutely fabricated public statements about just about everything having to do with the state of this "war?" And, given that climate, you don't think that a report that the administration has established yet another program without any congressional or judicial oversight or input is justified? I just can't get it.
I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, need you to agree with me. But I can't fathom a level of denial that you seem to have reached which would make you claim that this point of view is "treasonous." Treason is a conscious betrayal of one's country, rightfully punishable by death. The New York Times rightfully exercising its adversarial relationship with an administration run amok is so far from treasonous, I can't even bring to mind the words.
Although, I guess someone who could blame the "liberal congress run amok" in the 70's for FISA without ever once mentioning Nixon (as you did a couple of weeks ago) does have a lot of denial in the icehouse.
Bart...Both of these papers [the NYTimes and the WaPo] are wholly owned organs of the DNC and hardly members of Hillary's Great Right Wing Conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteI think that about says it all. And he's supposed to be the educated, reasonable one? I think they all jumped the shark a long time ago, and rode in here on a pink elephant with Tom DeLay.
Gee, by bart's logic, A. Gonzales' little presser the other day provided a valuable roadmap for domestic terrorist cells on how to avoid entrapment in PR stunts.
ReplyDelete.
" Careful, Glenn said...
ReplyDeleteTHE MORE THINGS CHANGE"
What's your point? I think it is pretty obvious that Glenn's not in the left wing and it is the action being done, not the actor that he has a problem with. Whether or not he has a problem with the actor due to the action is another issue.
But you sir are an idiot, citing that POS article.
Do you think that impeached Glenn? Did you ever hear Glenn say, "Clinton never did anything wrong?" nope, you didn't, so go back to the side line, or log in under your other ID and move on.
The only people who made it past the first paragraph of your post were shooter and Bart, who probably were yelling, "yes!!!! that's what Hannity told me today!!!!!!!!!!"
NY Times article = treason because ... well, wasn't it the NYT that broke the story about what has become the NSA scandal?
ReplyDeleteSo under what legal purviews would "oversight" or "infrastructure" for oversight does the executive branch need to monitor transactions at SWIFT?
ReplyDeleteI keep reading where court-issued warrants are needed.
I thought the executive branch was in charge of surveillance. So congressional or court oversight is not a possibility other than sharing the information that is already done.
FISA does not apply. This is in a foreign country.
The Financial Privacy Act of 1978 does not apply, because SWIFT would be a financial institution outside the U.S. mainland or territories.
The justification for this story seems to be that the executive branch is using a program that does not have court or congressional oversight.
Please explain why the executive branch would need any oversight since we are talking about surveillance, it is in a foreign country, and there are no laws that apply. Why does the executive branch require a court or congressional oversight -- are the branches of government not equal?
Oh look,
ReplyDeleteI thought everyone knew about this program. Whoops, I guess not.
"Canada's privacy commissioner is considering whether to launch an investigation into allegations that U.S. intelligence and financial authorities may have been illegally monitoring the banking transactions of some Canadians."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060628.wstan0628/BNStory/National/home
A human rights group in London has lodged formal complaints in 32 countries against the Brussels-based banking consortium SWIFT, contending that it violated European and Asian data protection rules by providing the US with confidential information about money transfers.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/7453.html
So the claim is that terrorists all knew about these programs but amazing, the lefty human rights groups that spend every day targeting the U.S. didn't know about them.
HWSNBN needs a spell-checker:
ReplyDeleteI am merely arguing that the enemy is not stupid enough to act in ways that they knew would be monitored by the United States.
He misspells "asserting", obviously. I see no "argument".
That aside, I'd point out this is a "straw man" as well: He's assuming that they would "kn[o]w" they would be monitored, which is far from certain, either to HWSNBN or to the Terra-ists themselves.
Once we've dispensed with that dubious and misstated "argument", on the facts we have we really don't know whether they (or some of them, a few of them, most of them, or all of them) "knew" about the program.
Cheers,
HWSNBN follows up with argumentum ad ignorantiam:
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence whatsoever that the discovered enemy ever knew about the programs which identified them.
There is also no evidence that the enemy is stupid enough to act in ways which they knew would lead us to identify them.
Mercy me, the king of the logical fallacy strikes again....
Cheers,
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIf it was all public knowledge, what did the Times article add? What was the journalistic value of the Times piece if it added nothing? Why, for example, was it on Page 1?
Why was Clinton's blow job on Page 1 for weeks and weeks? Maybe someone wants to get rid of Bush, like half of the GOP and 70% of the population.
Anonymous said...
Oh look,
I thought everyone knew about this program. Whoops, I guess not.
"Canada's privacy commissioner is considering whether to launch an investigation into allegations that U.S. intelligence and financial authorities may have been illegally monitoring the banking transactions of some Canadians."
Another cretin....
From the f.l.y. at 11:12pm:
ReplyDelete"A non-answer! Nice..."
An intelligent response requires knowing more about the 'objections' lodged, doesn't it?
I mean, objecting to the story simply because it was published on a Sunday, or because the typeset was Times New Roman rather than Courier New, is substantially different than objecting because there is some deep dark secret being revealed that could threaten the immediate security of the republic.
Or is that too much thinking for you? Thought as much.
Any comments on the legality of this spying program? There is one prominent Democrat who has said this violates a 1978 law (transcript below):
ReplyDeleteREP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The “New York Times” has provided an enormous public service. It has revealed that the Department of Treasury, the Bush administration, when confronted with internal criticism, inside its own administration that this program may be illegal, rather than in fact getting a court order, or going to Congress, instead they hired an auditing firm, Booz Allen, in order to determine whether or not constitutional rights were violated.
That in and of itself is a violation of the Constitution, MATTHEWS: So you‘re saying, Mr. Markey, it‘s illegal for the government to have done what it‘s done in terms of tracking banking information?
MARKEY: It has a responsibility to obtain a federal court order under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It also, under the Financial Privacy Act of 1978, has a responsibility to protect this information.
... there are two violations, which in my opinion, are quite clear, that the administration has been engaging in.
MARKEY: The 1978 Financial Privacy Protection Act of the United States of America has on the books a requirement that the financial information of Americans not be compromised unless there is a legally-obtained warrant from a federal judge and here they did not obtain it.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: It allows the administrative subpoena. It allows an administrative subpoena in those cases, which is what was done.
MARKEY: The administrative subpoena under that law requires that the person whose information has been subpoenaed be given a notification in the mail that it has been obtained, and here they have not provided any information to the thousands or millions of Americans whose information has been compromised. That‘s the law.
I have seen a lot of discussion about how the NYT's revelations do or do not equate to treason, but nothing definitive if the spying program itself is legally appropriate or not.
cfaller96,
ReplyDelete"NYT is a front for a shadow government"
I am referring Mr. Keller's open letter:
"Who are the editors of The New York Times [...] to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? [...] It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective [...]"
The NYT evidently thinks it is their job to declassify secret government information, hence: "Shadow government"
yankeependragon,
"An intelligent response requires knowing more about the 'objections' lodged, doesn't it?"
It sure does!
But how? Uh, perhaps someone, well you actually, might want to research the question independently as most bloggers did last week.
[Treasury Secretary Snow Responds]
"Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton [co-chairs, 9/11 Commission] met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story." [...]
"legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program."
"Or is that too much thinking for you? Thought as much."
P.S., you seem like a smart enough person, but that's getting a little childish, don't you think?
Anonymous 10:03 AM,
"There is one prominent Democrat who has said this violates a 1978 law"
What? FPPA? Why did you have to go and mention that. It's gonna be FISA all over again. I suppose that means I have to respond. Here goes:
The program does not violate the FPPA, because the SWIFT records in question are maintained outside of the US.
Good grief.
To f.l.y. at 11:25am:
ReplyDeleteYou're right, this is getting childish.
Snow's response was the epitomy of self-serving spew.
Kean and Hamilton's 'objections' have not been clear in their content; for all we know, they preferred the story be printed in a different typeset.
"legal authorities from both sides of the aisle" is so empty it requires no rebuttal.
If there are clear objections to be raised on the actual substance of any of the articles written, they should be made clear. Simply saying "I object" without detailing *why* is the hight of idiocy and drowns out serious discussion of the issue. And discussion *must* happen if there is to be any genuine understanding or confidence in this Administration's actions.
So do grow up, will you? This isn't a game.
f.l.y. said:
ReplyDeleteThe NYT evidently thinks it is their job to declassify secret government information, hence: "Shadow government"
Was the financial tracking program classified?
Can the NYT declassify secret government information? You fail to distinguish between declassifying information and printing allegedly classified information given by a third party.
Is that your only criteria for defining a "shadow government"? The ability to print stories with allegedly classified information?
f.l.y. thinks the NYT is a shadow government. f.l.y., you've got to hook me up with whatever you're on, dude.
yankeependragon said:
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a game.
On the contrary, yankeepen (or should I call you dragon?), to Republicans, bart, shooter, fly, f.l.y., etc. it most certainly is a game, and they will do anything (lie, cheat, steal, distort, distract) in order to win.
I have to congratulate the Bush Administration, Republicans, bart, shooter242, the fly, f.l.y., and various anons- you all did a wonderful job of distracting everyone from talking about yet another surveillance program without Congressional or Judicial oversight.
It was really well done- attack the NYT to rile up the latte-sipping liberals like myself, in order to prevent (or at least delay) any of us from talking about the implications or the legality of another surveillance program without Congressional and/or Judicial oversight.
We (the media, the people, Congress, etc.) never discussed how this shows, yet again, how much contempt the Administration has for the other two co-equal branches of government. We never discussed how this shows, yet again, how sloppy the Administration is in tracking terrorists, given this ad-hoc program was never given any kind of legal stamp of approval. We never talked about how it's possible the Administration is dishonestly downplaying the scope of the program, just like it did with the NSA warrantless surveillance program. We never talked about the possibility of other, far more intrusive financial surveillance programs that are not benefitting from Congressional oversight.
We never talked about those things. Karl Rove, Peter King, bart, shooter242, the fly, f.l.y., etc.- well done. We got played.
cfaller96,
ReplyDelete"yet another surveillance program without Congressional or Judicial oversight [...] We never talked about those things. Karl Rove, Peter King, bart, shooter242, the fly, f.l.y., etc.- well done. We got played."
NYT Bank Data story:
"The data does not allow the government to track routine financial activity, like A.T.M. withdrawals, confined to this country, or to see bank balances, Treasury officials said. And the information is not provided in real time — Swift generally turns it over several weeks later."
Why would you want Congressional oversight of the US Treasury Department monitoring SWIFT's international banking records?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Anyway, if you liked all that, you guys are really gonna flip over the administrations anticipated response to the SCOTUS ruling on Hamdan.
f.l.y. said:
ReplyDeleteWhy would you want Congressional oversight of the US Treasury Department monitoring SWIFT's international banking records?
I want Congressional oversight to ensure that that's all that's going on with the program. Personally, I'm not bothered by the program itself, but given its history I don't trust this Administration and I want an independent entity looking over its shoulder.
You didn't answer my questions. Was the program classified? Do you distinguish between the ability to declassify information and the ability to print allegedly classified information given by a third party? Is the ability to declassify the only criteria you use to determine if an entity is a "shadow government"?
"NYT is a shadow government". I love it. And I supposedly don't know what I'm talking about?
cfaller96,
ReplyDelete"Was the program classified?"
Yes, as the NYT's own headline correctly describes it "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror"
"Do you distinguish between the ability to declassify information and the ability to print allegedly classified information given by a third party?"
No, nor should the NYT if asked not to disclose classified information.
"Is the ability to declassify the only criteria you use to determine if an entity is a "shadow government"?"
No, I am also relying on statements like this from Mr. Keller himself:
"It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? [...]"
Mr. Keller cites "this freedom that our founders gave to the press", with this caveat: "It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective". Mr. Keller is quite right there, that would be the U.S. Government's job.
""NYT is a shadow government". I love it. And I supposedly don't know what I'm talking about?"
[Sorry, I didn't realize that you needed head start. Next time I'll try to remember to denote snark.]
were apparently not known by the enemy since we keep finding enemy financial transactions using the Swift program.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is we don't know if any enemy financial transactions were found using the Swift program, we have the administration saying that the NYT undermined the war on terror, and helped "the terrorists" by "revealing" one of the programs allegedly used to combat terrorism.
But since there is little to no oversight of the program(s) we have nothing other than the word of the administration to back up the assertion that "we keep finding enemy financial transactions using the Swift program" suprisingly, at the moment the administration is not even making that claim.
The administration is instead choosing to claim that the NYT undermined national security by "revealing" a program which the administration itself had already revealed in the past.
A program btw that the administration has yet to show is/has been successful or effective in combating terrorism in any way
other than them saying it has been.
Hey Glen:
ReplyDeleteSome questions:
Why did the NY Times tell the administration they were going to print the story?
Why clear it with them if it was "old news".
Couldn't the Times have used that as an explanation as to why they printed the story? Why end up in controversy if all they had to do was explain the program was already outted?
And, since they purposely left out the fact that it was "old news", why did they.
Or do they have an agenda of their own?
Like selling newspapers?
And one more thing, why would this "old news" be on the front page of the NY Times?
And, with the backlash, why isn't the Times itself defending itself by telling the world it was "old news"?
First, "in secret" doesn't mean "classified." I should think that's obvious.
ReplyDeleteSecond, copy editors nearly always write headlines. The writer of the story almost never does.
Aaron G. Stock,
ReplyDeleteHad you clicked on the link to the Times article you would have discovered that the NYT itself describes the program thus:
"Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. [...]"
I'm guessing that the NYT writers and editors intended "classified" to mean "classified". The NYT obviously had no doubts about this, yet published the story regardless of the administrations numerous requests not to.
OK, that's fine, thank you. That's a better cite than using the headline, at least.
ReplyDelete