posted
Tony Snow: 'The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live.'
So my understanding is that this was a legal way to find out stuff but they were trying to keep it under wraps so they could of course find what terrorists are doing. So…. I really don’t get it. Can someone from the other side of the fence explain to me why this is a good thing?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a particularly good thing. The Times probably shouldn't've gone public with this.
In their defense, the Bush Administration is doing so many things of questionable morality and legality that it's probably a lot harder to make the call on which programs should remain secret than it used to be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In their defense, the Bush Administration is doing so many things of questionable morality and legality that it's probably a lot harder to make the call on which programs should remain secret than it used to be.
This was more or less what I was thinking. Bush seemed very eager to emphasize that THIS program was legal and authorized by Congress, and only because journalists have uncovered illegal, unauthorized actions by the president in the recent past.
A mistake by the Times; IMO, justified. I'd rather err on this side than err on the side of never catching illegal actions perpetrated by our leaders.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of the story one of the news stations did about how the US was working on tracking Osama Bin Laden by studying the strata in the caves he made his videos in.
Of course, shortly after that story, all the released videos had sheets up to block the view of the cave walls.
Media is more concerned with getting the scoop and boosting reader/viewership than they are with any questions about whether they "should" print a given story or not.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not a particularly good thing. The Times probably shouldn't've gone public with this.
In their defense, the Bush Administration is doing so many things of questionable morality and legality that it's probably a lot harder to make the call on which programs should remain secret than it used to be.
quote:So basically it’s more gottcha ball. Throw enough mud up and see what will stick eventually.
I wouldn't quite put it that way. I'd say it's more like flinching after someone who's given you a joy buzzer the last ten times reaches out for a handshake. That this handshake isn't electronically booby-trapped could be verified if you took the time to examine the hand carefully, but most people would be trained to jump back in alarm by this point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No this is more like deliberate Treason, if terrorist slip the net and strike in the US every victim's family should sue the NY Times until they own it.
I have known about the Accounting forensics for years, I suspect that the terrorist do as well, they also know we can listen to ever cell phone call in Iraq and they know we can track e-mail. So does everybody. It is my sincere hope that we still have arrows in our quiver that the NY Times is unaware of and therefore may still be used against our enemies.
What is it that they want? Are they advocating a fair fight with these people? Well in every single firefight we have had we have out fought them, when it was hand to hand in holes along the road to Baghdad we overwhelmingly won, and when we hunt and track them to their own homes we overwhelm them. It is more merciful to them when we have every advantage because we are able to bring overwhelming force to bear, taking most of them alive. We are merciful when we can be, but in a 'fair' fight we are ruthless.
So the only thing that this does is cost more US lives in the fight. I cannot believe that the times building is not in flames.
posted
At the moment I can't find the original article I read about this to get the quote, but to me it seemed like there was more justification to be upset with the banks involved than with the administration. That article said that the administration had asked for specific, limited information from the banks' databases. The banks didn't have a search capability to get just that info, so they said "Here, take the whole database."
I'm wondering not so much about if the administration's actions were legal, but whether the banks violated their Privacy Agreements with their customers. Almost every company that stores customer information, even as little as a phone number, has some form of privacy statement publicly available to those customers. Of course, those statements may have exceptions for cooperating with law enforcement. I don't know if they did in this case, but I'm kind of curious.
posted
While the NY Times caught most of the ire, and the LA Times some as well, why didn't the Wall Street Journal also catch a ration for running with the story?
Posts: 45 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In their defense, the Bush Administration is doing so many things of questionable morality and legality that it's probably a lot harder to make the call on which programs should remain secret than it used to be.
Gee, do you still wonder why I take inaccurate claims of illegality to task?
Because unresponded to claims of illegality become excuses for crap like the Time's story.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: No this is more like deliberate Treason, if terrorist slip the net and strike in the US every victim's family should sue the NY Times until they own it.
I have known about the Accounting forensics for years, I suspect that the terrorist do as well, they also know we can listen to ever cell phone call in Iraq and they know we can track e-mail. So does everybody. [...] So the only thing that this does is cost more US lives in the fight. I cannot believe that the times building is not in flames. BC
So does everybody? Well, why shouldn't they, as the government has made it clear since right after 9/11 that terrorist financing was a direct target. It was a well-publicised, major part of the Patriot Act.
You contradict yourself in one short post BC: everyone (including the terrorists) knows about the financing crackdown--yet the NY Times is costing American lives and should be in flames.
I'm so angry about the recent pathetic uber-patriot calls for the fire-bombing of the Times building!
Have you lit any candles for Timothy Mcveigh lately, you blood-thirsty poseurs?
Anonymous cowards, who would cackle with glee as an American institution, and the Americans within, burned to the ground. All of you should be ashamed! Including you, BC.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because unresponded to claims of illegality become excuses for crap like the Time's story.
I'd argue that the word "morality" is more important than the word "legality" in my sentence -- and that both were preceded by the word "questionable." But I guess everyone gets to pick their own battles.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't what The Times did legal, though? I mean, if you're going to defend the adminstration because it's possible that many of the things they are doing are technically legal, shouldn't The Times be held to the same standard? What would elevate them above the Executive Branch, in terms of what they should shoot for?
I, myself, don't see how they could have thought that this was okay to print and would like to hear the response from the newspapers on their thinking on this one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
It almost certainly isn't, as I understand the law. I'd imagine that the Administration is trying right now to decide whether it's better or worse for their image to prosecute.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would it be illegal? Perhaps my understanding of the situation is incorrect, but I thought that, while the people who leaked this information were breaking the law, The Times did nothing illegal in printing it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under wartime espionage laws the Times could indeed be indicted for leaking this info. the age old defense of "hey we were just printing what these other guys were saying" doesn't hold up if there is a demonstrable risk that accrues as a result of this information's publication.
I wonder what the harm is in this though. Of course the islamofascists know we're the kings of electronic information in all of its forms. Surely the fact that we're looking through interbank info should come as no shock to anyone. And even if it does...what can they do differently? The money still has to go from the madrasses where its collected to the goons on the ground. The only way to move it quickly is through bank transfers. There's no alternate bank wire system out there that is immune to peeking by the Amis and their allies.
I could be wrong about this though. has anyone seen opinions on how the terrorists are likely to adapt to this?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not really like that people are defending the Times with (to use my own words)
"Surely the terrorists already know this information."
and
"The Bush Administration does so many illegal things in secret they can hardly complain when the Times exposes it."
How can anyone say with accuracy what Terrorists do or do not know? A terrorist cell was captured by an FBI agent pretending to be an Al Qaeda operative. Shouldnt the terrorists know that the US is certainly trying to catch potential terrorists through false recruiting?
I remember a WW2 adage "A slip of the lip can sink a ship." It was a warning to normal people who at that time were often helping build military vehicles and tools that they might without realizing it divulge valuable secrets to Axis spies in their everyday conversations.
How much more than for a news agency who has more access to what is going on be careful as to what it yells out on its pages that so many people read? The fact the government is monitoring bank transactions is not as valuable information for Americans as it is for Terrorists.
I really think The NYT's and the LATimes and TWSJ ought to in this instance admit that a mistake was made. They cannot say, "We did not know what we were doing." As they admitted as much that they had talked to the government for days before publishing the article.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think the Times should have blown the cover on this story, but after everything that has happened so far, they really didn't have a choice.
They most certainly did have a choice. Someone looked at it and decided it was a go. They need to bear the responsibility for that choice.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hardly think it is a contridiction to say that we knew such things where ongoing and fruitful and to be angry about publication of specific details of "who not to bank with if you are a terrorist"
Money transfers are going into Syria and we can tag individuals there with big chunks of cash, catch them with it in Baghdad and snap, another branch of the enemy tree is broken.
Publishing this will make the money harder to follow, it might slow the money a bit as well, but it is not even close to an excuse for the leaking of an intellegence programs substance.
quote:Why would it be illegal? Perhaps my understanding of the situation is incorrect, but I thought that, while the people who leaked this information were breaking the law, The Times did nothing illegal in printing it.
That's largely untested at this point. There's a law that, as written, would seem to apply to the Times in this situation. It hasn't been used in that manner, though, so it hasn't been tested.
quote:I mean, if you're going to defend the adminstration because it's possible that many of the things they are doing are technically legal, shouldn't The Times be held to the same standard?
Once again, when I argue that administration action X is legal, I'm not commenting on whether it was moral, whether it was advisable, or whether I'm glad they did it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have two concerns that trouble me more than what the Times did:
1) The Administration seems to have difficulty keeping its secret programs secret. Either this is a real problem, or they are using the disclosures for some other purpose (e.g., political). But ultimately, I'm concerned that there have been so many revelations of things that the Bush Administration tells us (in each case) are vital national secrets.
2) The continuing revelations of various domestic spying programs damages the Administration's credibility. In particular, the way each revelation is quickly followed by a statement as to its legality, and how everything is safeguarded so that people don't have to worry about some bureacrat somewhere misusing their information. In each case, the Administration has tried to paint a picture of the latest revelation being a small, controlled program, unconnected with anything else, and there's a lot of "that's as far as it goes" rhetoric floated.
Then the next revelation comes in a few days or weeks later. And the same claims and disclaimers are floated for the new thing.
Unfortunately, the legality of the programs is becoming less and less important from a public relations perspective. People don't like the idea of the government having and using detailed information about their personal habits.
And instead of letting us know what's going on, we have to find out in dribs and drabs, usually in some form of media expose, and suddenly we have Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress justifying the latest thing.
Those are the things that give me more concern. If the Times did something illegal, I do not doubt that they will face whatever charges the Justice Department can level against them. And soon.
posted
Heard an Administration guy on NPR this morning. He stated that international wire transfers are good to track because they are the easiest way to move money internationally. He also admitted that the real terrorists (I'm paraphrasing) use informal networks and move cash around, not using the banking system.
But still, the SWIFT program was viewed as valuable because it could be used to track (again I'm paraphrasing) people on the periphery, and wannabees.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would anyone mind posting the relevant quotes from The Times response, please? I'm not interested in signing up for more junk mail, but I would really like to here what they have to say. I'd appreciate it if anyone could do me the favor.
quote:But still, the SWIFT program was viewed as valuable because it could be used to track (again I'm paraphrasing) people on the periphery, and wannabees.
I heard elsewhere (can't source, unfortunately) that the people who profit from helping the terrorists - professional launderers with only profit motivation - do use the system and therefore provide a place to begin prying the networks apart.
quote:Would anyone mind posting the relevant quotes from The Times response, please? I'm not interested in signing up for more junk mail, but I would really like to here what they have to say. I'd appreciate it if anyone could do me the favor.
posted
The journalists and bloggers baying for the blood of the NYT (though curiously not for the scalps of the LAT or WSJ) for revealing deep, dark, classified secrets should really, really do some easy netreseach. I'm sure al-Quaeda does.
From a freely available terrorist financing report on a UN webpage, dated December 17, 2002 with the notation at the top: Distr.: General
quote: 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.
edit:BTW, the heavy lifting in the research was done by various bloggers. I just found a different webpage because the one being referenced around didn't work for me--possibly because I use firefox.
(For your eyes only: please reformat hard drive after clicking to avoid data falling into the hands of The Enemy.) Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't possibly be the only one more disturbed by increasing revelations of how thoroughly this administration spies on Americans than by the fact the Times dared tell us that -- can I?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Do you include search warrants and subpoenas authorized by law? Because we've been doing that for over 200 years now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly do not consider this to be an occassion of law-enforcement-not just 'the Administration'-spying on us.
There are past programs, however, I would certainly consider such. Many governments throughout the world and history have routinely monitored international transfers of money. Somehow it is only disturbing when someone named Bush does it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If warrants and wiretaps are issued for criminal charges, I don't consider that spying. If the government listens to reporters' phone calls? Scans all Internet activity? Monitors millions of domestic phone calls? All with what charges?
Exactly what more would it take for you to consider a federal program to be "spying," Rob? This is a serious question. What's left to be monitored?
Terrorism -- a new word for an old concept -- is violent political activism, something we've seen everywhere, in every time, and far worse than the vague threat of a ragtag group of wild-eyed fundamentalists armed with box cutters. This country's survived through bloody revolutionary, civil, and world wars with no lasting harm to the Constitution; and you think the government no longer needs charges to investigate, monitor -- detain, imprison, execute? -- citizens?
Bush is grabbing at power, under unbelievably flimsy pretexts. You're conservative, Rob, not Republican -- I can't believe you would defend him.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If warrants and wiretaps are issued for criminal charges, I don't consider that spying. If the government listens to reporters' phone calls? Scans all Internet activity? Monitors millions of domestic phone calls? All with what charges?
So your previous post was just a general angsty call out about the Bush administration, not limited to the story being discussed? OK. I was discussing this story.
Of course, even so, your original comment ("I can't possibly be the only one more disturbed by increasing revelations of how thoroughly this administration spies on Americans than by the fact the Times dared tell us that -- can I?") is almost nonsensical. It's certainly possible to not like what the Times has done and still dislike what the administration has done more.
You also seem to have a misconception about warrants and wiretaps. They are almost always issued far in advance of any charges.
quote:This country's survived through bloody revolutionary, civil, and world wars with no lasting harm to the Constitution; and you think the government no longer needs charges to investigate, monitor -- detain, imprison, execute? -- citizens?
Actually, charges are NOT needed to investigate (including monitoring) citizens. This is basic stuff here.
Your accusations that I somehow support detention, imprisonment, and execution of citizens absent charges is ludicrous and based in nothing but your own imagination.
There has not been a more vocal person on this board complaining about the limitations placed on the right to avoid detention absent criminal charges by the Supreme Court in Hamdi than I. So where the hell do you get off asking a question like that of me?
quote:You're conservative, Rob, not Republican -- I can't believe you would defend him.
I'm not having this discussion again.
ONCE AND FOR ALL PEOPLE: Disagreeing with a particular criticism of a particular person does not mean I agree with everything that person does.
You're smart enough to know that if you would get off your high horse for two seconds.
If you want to know my opinion on detention, here's the introduction to a paper I wrote on the subject of jury trials:
quote: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” If any single sentence can sum up Justice Scalia’s vision of the core value underlying the Apprendi principle, it is this, the beginning of his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfield. Justice Stevens was the only member of the Rehnquist Court to join Justice Scalia’s ringing declaration that the sole means by which the United States Government could deprive accused enemy combatant Yaser Esam Hamdi of his liberty was to charge Hamdi, an American citizen, with a crime. Acknowledging a few specific means by which citizens can be detained in noncriminal proceedings, Justice Scalia noted that the “process and proceedings of the common law,” including charges “followed by indictment and trial,” are required for the most common type of executive detention, detention for criminal acts. Nor can the few acceptable noncriminal grounds for detention be used in place of criminal proceedings. Exceptions to this rigid requirement can be made only after suspension of the great writ of habeas corpus by act of Congress in time of invasion or rebellion. Accordingly, absent a very few rare exceptions, the only way to imprison someone under the Constitution is to charge, and ultimately convict, him of a crime. Thus, as demonstrated by Scalia’s argument in Hamdi, the concept of “crime” is fundamentally related to his conception of liberty. Without this concept and its attendant due process, the government cannot generally deprive one of personal liberty.
Integral to this due process that brooks no exceptions is the right to a trial by jury. Some of the Founders considered the combination of jury trials and the great writ to be a sufficient bulwark against one of “‘the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny,” arbitrary imprisonment. Even in wartime, there is no authority to imprison citizens against whom the “probability of treason ha[s] been established by means less than jury trial.” Justice Scalia’s views criminal proceedings as so necessary that he to concludes that a man detained by the military in a war zone and accused of bearing arms against his country “is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless (1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or (2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus.” Those criminal proceedings, if not dismissed earlier, would include a jury trial unless Hamdi opted for a bench trial. Without an act of Congress suspending the writ of habeas corpus, there is simply no way, in Justice Scalia’s absolutist view, for the government to hold someone without confronting either the writ or the jury.
posted
NOTE: This is just my ramblings on the whole matter. You don't need to read it if you don't want to. I'm not offended.
Honestly, I'm not sure what my opinion is on the government using these different monitoring programs.
With the NY Times publishing this article, I can see why the administration would be peeved at them. I also think that the Times has gone too far just to try to get a good story.
But realistically with the government's datamining and wiretaps, it only makes sense that they'd also be watching our finances. It seems like they kind of go hand in hand.
But my problem with this whole issue of government surveillance is that I don't know if the security should come at questionably legal activities.
Basically the government puts out a huge net in the virtual world, when certain buzz-words are said the net closes and the government inspects that person/party. In theory, this seems like a highly effective way of compromising and apprehending terrorists. But at what cost?
We are doing searches without warrants, now granted you don't really need a warrant if you have probable cause, heck I'll even grant reasonable suspicion. But what we're doing is searching for criminals in everybody. Everyone becomes the suspect. Does everyone in the United States have probable cause of criminal activities? Of course not.
Now I must admit, the system seems to have been working. But before I get cozy with the system I have to wonder if sacrificing a few of our rights is worth the security. We're a nation built on freedom, and if we sacrifice what our very foundation is for security, I have to wonder about the value of both.
I don't know which side to really take on this one.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm much more upset at the privacy violations being conducted by the private sector. Attacking Bush is just politics. Everyone ignores the massive databases being complied by corporations. Just check out comercial prodcuts like Entity Analytic Solutions from IBM.
Where is the outrage over the private companies that exist soley to catalog everything we do, some of them clearly using illegal data gathering practices.
All the arguments over how the search for terrorists is being conducted seems to be focused on legality. Why? Are they trying to get grounds to impeach the president? How about arguing that the search methods simply WONT WORK?
Here are some of the best articles I've read on the subject:
"If we ignore the problem and leave it to the "market," we'll all find that we have almost no privacy left." - The Future of Privacy
"suck up as much data as possible about everyone, sift through it with massive computers, and investigate patterns that might indicate terrorist plots" - Data Mining for Terrorists
"Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide." - The Value of Privacy
"the National Security Agency's entire spying program seems to be based on a false assumption: that you can work out who might be a terrorist based on calling patterns." - The N.S.A.'s Math Problem
Edit to add:
quote:Selling Social Security numbers -- and other personal information -- is big business for companies like Reed Elsevier and ChoicePoint. Some privacy activists say it's got to stop.
...
"We should have the legal right to know every scrap of data they have on us," she said. "We also should have a legal right to know everyone they sell this to. Then, if there are any mistakes, we should have the right to demand a correction right at the data source. We deserve the right to know what these companies have and who they're selling it to and when." - Source
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
