Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon Well, it's not a secret anymore now is it? These guys in the media need to be put in prison for being traitors. I know they hat Bush, but enough is enough. WASHINGTON, June 22 — 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 and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials. The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Yeah - now those cursed terrorists will refrain from engaging in any financial transactions. Is that your concern?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Yeah - now those cursed terrorists will refrain from engaging in any financial transactions. Is that your concern?<< Lets see, you talk smack when we use force to fight terrorism, and you talk smack when we use peaceful means. So, what is your solution to fighting terrorism?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip This is news?? Immediately after 9/11 Bush talked about how the U.S. was tracing and freezing funds tied to al Qaida. I think it is a great thing to do but it certainly isn't a secret.
Originally Posted By gadzuux My 'smack' is for dd's concern that the "liberalmedia" (all one word by now) is seeking to undermine the so called war on terror by publishing stories of possibly corrupt actions by our government - and to his mind they're "traitors". To bush supporters, anyone who objects to bush's actions is a traitor. As far as the 'peaceful means', that's all well and good, yet it's another example of bush spying on americans without benefit of warrants or any judicial review. Who's to say that they're not just reviewing these financial transactions on a fishing expedition? There's absolutely nothing to stop them from doing so since their actions haven't been reviewed by any judge - they just do as they damn well please. As you must know by now, I don't trust the bush administration. Why would anybody?
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon Gadzuux, your OK with the liberalmedia ( one word now ) leaking to the world HOW we trace financial transactions? A process that has resulted in some HUGE take downs? Unreal.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon The Bush administration has Gadzuux's hous and car bugged for sure!!!!
Originally Posted By SuperDry Notice the technique used: the OP never justifies or even discusses the issue at hand, but reverts to labeling anyone that speaks out as a traitor, literally promoting that they be jailed. Whenever a controversial issue regarding the war on terror or the war in Iraq comes up, the noise machine rarely directly addresses the issue, but instead paints the opponents in a highly negative light, relying on the fact that many people will accept character attacks on people with a different opinion as all they need to know in order to disagree with them.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon The NY Times and the LA Times ARE traitors, this time they really showed their true colors. If you want to play the game Superdry of trying to marginalize me , then tell me how printing this story helps the country and does not help Al Quida? Here is a great post from a blogger I like. He nails it. Patterico cancels his Los Angeles Times subscription: [T]his has nothing to do with disagreeing with what I read in the newspaper. I disagree with the newspaper all the time. This is different. The newspaper made a deliberate choice to print classified details of an anti-terror operation that, by all accounts, was effective and legal. Key members of Congress had been briefed on it and had no problem with it. Strict controls were in place to prevent abuse, and those controls appear to have been effective. Moreover, the program had been successful. The government had used it to capture of the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali nightclub. That bombing killed 202 people, I said. I felt myself getting angry all over again as I continued the explanation. That’s more people than died in the Oklahoma City bombing. It’s the equivalent of catching Timothy McVeigh.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon This is the biggest story in the blogasphere right now. The NY times being the liberals they are ( this is a fact ) have once again decided to help the enemy even after the Bush administration asked them not to print this. Here is a letter to them from a soldier in Iraq who runs a greal milblog. Milblogger Sgt T. F. Boggs has written the New York Times. He provided me a copy and permission to post his letter. It will be interesting to see if the New York Times prints it: Mr. Keller, What ceases to amaze me about your paper is the lengths you are willing to go to make headlines and sell papers. Who cares if those headlines help the enemies of America, you guys are making money and that is what it is all about in the end right? Your recent decision to publish information about a classified program intended to track the banking transactions of possible terrorists is not only detrimental to America but also to its fighting men and women overseas. I know because I am a sergeant in the army on my second tour to Iraq. As I am sure you don’t know because you aren’t in Iraq, and I am sure never will be, terrorism happens here everyday because there are rich men out there willing to support the everyday terrorist who plants bombs and shoots soldiers just to make a living. Without money terrorism in Iraq would die because there would no longer be supplies for IED’s, no mortars or RPG’s, and no motivation for people to abandon regular work in hopes of striking it rich after killing a soldier. Throughout your article you mention that “ the banking program is a closely held secret†but the cat is out of the bag now isn’t it. Terrorists the world over can now change their practices because of your article. For some reason I think that last sentence will bring you guys pleasure. You have done something great in your own eyes-you think you have hurt the current administration while at the same time encouraging “freedom fighters†resisting the imperialism of the United States. However, I foresee a backlash coming your way. I wish I had a subscription to your paper so I could cancel it as soon as possible. But alas, that would prove a little tough right now since I am in Iraq dealing with terrorists financed by the very men you are helping. Thank you for continually contributing to the deaths of my fellow soldiers. You guys definitely provide a valuable service with your paper. Why without you how would terrorists stay one step ahead of us? I would love to hear a response as to why you deemed revealing this program a necessity, but that will probably come as soon as the government decides to finally put you guys behind bars where you belong. Tim Boggs www.boredsoldier.blogspot.com
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon I'm not surprised that no one has an answer for Sergeant Boggs' justifiable outrage. Just as I'm not surprised that certain people who took delight in quoting Rep. Peter King when he said less than flattering things about Ann Coulter aren't going to comment on his call that the New York Times people who accepted this information from a leaker be indicted, for which he is 100 percent correct. The New York Times and certain other media organs are abusing their positions to dangerous levels. The American people did not elect the editorial board of the NY Times to decide what kind of classified information the public has the right to know. That is a perogative reserved for the man who HAS an elected mandate from the people, namely the President of the United States. That the Times and any other media outlet that had the gall to lead the charge of how heinous an offense it was that Valerie Plame was "outed" would run this kind of story in time of war shows how any person who questions their patriotism has a good reason for doing so. When James Madison devised the principles of checks and balances in the Constitution to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful, he sadly failed to reckon the danger that could be wielded by an arrogant, unelected, unaccountable group of media elitists who have shown how they would gladly sabotage the well-being of this nation in order to advance a partisan agenda. At least when it comes to arrogant politicans of the Left like John Murtha, there is the recorse of the ballot box to send him packing. There alas is no such recourse when it comes the conduct of the New York Times.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Sure there is - the vaunted "competitive marketplace" that the GOP loves to crow about so much. If people don't like the NY Times (or the LA Times for that matter) they can choose to not support the publication. But that's not enough for you now, is it? You want them to be punished - admit it. >> That is a perogative reserved for the man who HAS an elected mandate from the people, namely the President of the United States. << Does 51% of the voters still constitute a "mandate"?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Does 51% of the voters still constitute a "mandate"?" It does to a sheep.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D aniel_Ellsberg</a> Educate yourselves.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon Sorry, but "competitive marketplace" has absolutely zero role in the Times decision to run that story just as the "competititive marketplace" played zero role in CBS throwing responsibility out the window in Rathergate. And yes, Gadzux I do believe the NY Times people should be punished as much as the person who illegally leaked that information should. Because an unelected, unaccountable member of the press corps is not the arbiter of what classified information the public should know about, especially when the program is a legitimate weapon in the war on Terror. Gee whiz, next thing you know the Left will be saying the New York Times should have reported Ike's battle plan before D-Day and given Hitler time to move more German troops to Normandy, or maybe they should have broken the news about Enigma and told the Germans all about codebreaking efforts! I would also note that 51% is certainly a bigger mandate for governing than under 50%, the vote totals the last President got in both of his elections. Even so, how many votes did the NY Times get in the last election to decide what should or should not be disclosed? And at any rate, if you think Mr. Fitzgerald should have been spending the taxpayers money over Valerie Plame, then to avoid being a hypocrite, you have to also insist on a criminal investigation of this matter. As for Daniel Ellsberg, I don't regard him as a hero, since I am not among those who think betraying an American ally (South Vietnam) to communist totalitarianism when the Soviet built tanks rolled into Saigon in 1975 and half a million Boat People drowned in the South China Sea (while three million then got slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge Communists in Cambodia) was a good thing.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon BTW, any of you gents got an answer for Sergeant Boggs, a man who is among those directly impacted by what the arrogant people at the NY Times have decided to do?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "As for Daniel Ellsberg, I don't regard him as a hero, since I am not among those who think betraying an American ally (South Vietnam) to communist totalitarianism when the Soviet built tanks rolled into Saigon in 1975 and half a million Boat People drowned in the South China Sea (while three million then got slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge Communists in Cambodia) was a good thing." This is what's known as a Gumby passage. Let's stretch credulity to make a sensational point. Should I be surprised you missed the overall point re: Ellsberg?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You can't have it both ways. The military and government were more than happy to have reporters "imbedded" with the troops to provide breathless reports of victory from the front lines. You can't have one without the other. If you want a free press to report what YOU want them to report, you also must take the chance that they will also report stuff you would rather they didn't. By all accounts the government gave the U.S. press FAR MORE access than they were given in any previous conflict. Can you blame them for thinking that perhaps the rules had been changed? By the way… I STILL remember Bush saying the U.S. was using all possible means to track and freeze terrorist funds following 9/11. Has the information revealed lately really provided any information as to U.S. tactics that was not previously know?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>My 'smack' is for dd's concern that the "liberalmedia" (all one word by now) is seeking to undermine the so called war on terror by publishing stories of possibly corrupt actions by our government...<< How on earth did you extrapolate this from the story? NO ONE has said or implied that the actions taken by the Bush administration in tracking these funds is in any way corrupt. The President has made it clear that their intention is to "follow the money." (This, you may recall, was Woodward and Bernstein's sage advice in breaking open the Watergate scandal.) The concern is that the NY Times may have compromised the whole operation, and published material that was classified. Arlen Specter was addressing this yesterday, and took a somewhat more circumspect position. He said that the Times articles should be investigated before any call for prosecution. (Oh-- and what is meant by the term "so-called war on terror?")
