I hope that their is legal action coming against NYT. We can't have important legal anti-terror programs exposed for the sake of free speach, the public need to know everything crap, and padding the NYT pockets. This exposure of calssified information must stop.
Posted by: Keep to the Right at July 12, 2006 03:06 PM
"This exposure of calssified information must stop." KTTR
"This disclosure compromised one of our most valuable programs and will only make our efforts to track terrorist financing - and to prevent terrorist attacks - harder,"
The Swift program has discussed by the President on two occasions (9/01 and 4/04). The program was detailed on the Swift website and in their newsletter to their clients.
Bush should be thrown in jail for exposing an important anti terrorism program.
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at July 12, 2006 03:10 PM
Well, you know, that whole right to remain silent thing and trial by jury thing no doubt help murderers and rapists get away in our own country, but we still protect these rights. Do you know why? Because if we gave them up, although murderers and rapists would be more easily caught and punished, everyone, except the government, would be screwed by the infinite power that the government would have (no trial, no proof, nothing needed but mein fuhrer's wish - mein fuhrer wants to have sex with your mother and she says no, he'll declare her a terrorist and execute her summarily and no one can stop him). Everyone knows that a beneficent dictatorship would be the most effective form of government. The problem is, who can we trust to remain benficent when handed all the power in the world? The answer is: no one, ever. So, is our Constitution rapist loving? Murderer loving? No, it's innocent person loving. Wake up, sheeple!!!
Posted by: wowihaveneurons at July 12, 2006 03:16 PM
Wow, so one administration official backs up other administration officials' statements that this disclosure hurt national security! Case closed!
Seriously, is there anything you won't believe from the Bush Administration? I've asked before, and I'm asking again, please cite the specific portion of the NYT article that endangered national security. (You have read the whole article, right?) No specifics of the program are mentioned, in fact it does not describe anything materially different than what was previously mentioned by Dear Leader or the Swift website. If you can't cite a specific, then you obviously are just lashing out at the NYT (not the WSJ though, I wonder why?).
Posted by: steve at July 12, 2006 04:42 PM
Barneyg2000,
Don't be such a Bush-hating moron. The President did not release the details of the financial tracking programs, and you know it. All that he said was we were going to do it. In 9/01, the tracking of terrorist financial transactions was just beginning, so it would have been impossible for him to expose it. Nor did he "expose" in in Apr 04. Besides, the President is the ultimate authority in the release of classified information. If he decided to disclose it, he cannot be thrown in jail.
Further, the only reference to the tracking of illegal financial transactions on the SWIFT is this:
"Statement on compliance:
Cooperating in the global fight against abuse of the financial system for illegal activities
SWIFT is solely a carrier of messages between financial institutions. The information in these messages is issued and controlled exclusively by the sending and receiving institutions. SWIFT does not hold assets nor manage accounts on behalf of customers. It does not clear or settle transactions.
Given its importance in the financial community, SWIFT takes its role in the global fight against money laundering and other illegal activities extremely seriously:
1. Responsibilities - It is SWIFT policy that its services should not be used to facilitate illegal activities. Users are urged to take all reasonable steps to prevent any misuse of the SWIFT system.
2. Cooperation - 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.
3. No comment policy - Due to the sensitive nature of these contacts, SWIFT does not comment on them.
There is no mention that I can find of the US intelligence agencies using SWIFT data to track terrorist financial transactions. Would you mind pointing out a cite to backup your claim?
Posted by: A-10 at July 12, 2006 05:59 PM
"Congress was told.." isn't the same as "Congress determined that..."
Of course Levey will argue that. It's his job. But rather than freaking out about the NYT, "Rep. Sue Kelly, R-N.Y., chairwoman of the House panel, asked Congress's investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, to conduct a probe of the program to make sure it was conducted properly in accordance with the law.
Kelly called her request for a GAO investigation "mere due diligence" to make sure "our trust is not poorly placed in the Treasury Department." She also asked for the administration to provide the panel with a closed-door, classified briefing about the program."
Not exactly a scathing indictment of the NYT.
Posted by: congressive at July 12, 2006 06:21 PM
A10, that is so stupid. If the bad guys know that the Feds are tracking wire transfers of money from one country to the next (as the Pres said in Sept of '01) they do not need to know the exact details. Just like when OBL heard that US forces were monitoring communication, he stopped all personal electronic communication and sent his messages through personal curriers.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at July 12, 2006 07:59 PM
Blarney,
Are you forgetting that the SWIFT program was used to identify and capture the terrorist behind the Bali bombings? I wouldn't call capturing a terrorist responsible for 100's of deaths "stupid". You liberals might, but I don't.
What is stupid is telling the terrorists what we are doing after the programs have proven to be effective in discovering terrorist plots, tracking financial transactions, and capturing terrorists.
With comments like yours, I become even more convinced that you are anti-American, un-patriotic, and are rooting for the terrorists.
Posted by: A-10 at July 12, 2006 08:25 PM
A-10. Blarney is simply trying to rewrite history. The Left is so tickled that the Adminstration might be denied a triumph or two, they are blind to the damage that is likely to be done.
A former FBI agent explained part of the problem. One example: For a long time, we have known that banks have to report transactions of $10,000 or more. THIS is the kind of thing terrorists "alrady knew". They knew that the government would be tracking certain large money transfers, so they concentrated on smaller transfers and venues other than large banks. The NYT thoughtfully informed them that many smaller transfers could be, had been, and would be tracked, and that there were about 75,000 financial institutions involved in the plan. They gave specifics.
It's kind of like terrorists knowing that the govenment has people out there watching for them, and the NYT printing an article with descriptions and locations of undercover cops. "But the terrorists ALREADY KNEW there were undercover cops out there!" the terrorist apologists would cry. Maybe, but they probably didn't know that the bag lady with the red mittens was one of them.
Lives were saved because of the program. Lives will be lost because of the "breathtaking arrogance" of the NYT. And when they are, obsessive and his fellow travellers will be claiming that whatever attack ensued was in the works before the NYT article, or some such bilge.
Posted by:
Almiranta at July 12, 2006 09:24 PM
Well, it seems that all the European nations that are screaming for investigations into this matter AFTER the NY Times story would prove otherwise, wouldn't it?
But I guess since these nations didn't know, why would you assume the terrorists did?
Posted by: NC Cop at July 12, 2006 09:41 PM
Matt, it sounds like you're talking about the T-word, treason.
Rope, Tree, Journalist. Any questions? No? Carry on.
And quit lying Barney, nothing President Bush ever said even approached the level of detail that was revealed by the New York Slimes. Your talking points need adjusting. Haven't you received the latest marching orders from the Kos Kommie Kidz yet?
Posted by: Bob Arctor at July 12, 2006 11:04 PM
steve, who is better placed to understand the impact the leaks have had on our great nation than an administration official? Would you only believe what is obvious to us all if it was reported in the LLL MSM? Like that's going to happen!
Your BDS knows no bounds. peace!
Posted by: Bob Arctor at July 12, 2006 11:09 PM
wowihaveneurons - I rode the elevator with a woman on September 10th who died at the Pentagon on September 11th. I saw the smoke coming from the Pentagon.
Your cute little treatise is very reminiscent of Gorlicks "wall" that kept intelligence and law enforcement from working together. Maybe if you knew more about how real this is. Maybe if you'd gone to a damned funeral like I did. Maybe you wouldn't be so stupid.
Posted by: Kahn at July 12, 2006 11:34 PM
As you may know from the User Handbook and swift.com, SWIFT has a longstanding history, beginning in the 1990s, of cooperating with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and international organisations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in their efforts to prevent misuse of the financial system. Our members support this policy.
SWIFT's website
Though I cannot access the User Handbook, apparently all of this information is available to users of the SWIFT program.
Both sides are really being retarded. Bush has mentioned it in the past; NYT broke a story about a secret program that wasn't secret.
It's a waste of all of our time.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at July 13, 2006 12:23 AM
Georgia - I have heard that argument. So.... the NYT was just publically reminding the terrorists about the program? Kind of a public service reminder for Al_Queda eh? "Hey Osama - remember to bury those financial transactions in no less than five transactions between dummy corporations!"
Posted by: Kahn at July 13, 2006 01:38 AM
As always, Almiranta, well said. The NYT has blood on its "hands".
This old joke has new meaning, "What's black and white and REaD all over?"
Answer: The New York Times.
NYT Pix1
NYT Pix 2
Posted by: Freedom1 at July 13, 2006 05:00 AM
Still waiting for Blarney's cite where the program was detailed on the Swift website and in their newsletter to their clients.
Waiting......and waiting......and waiting.....
Posted by: A-10 at July 13, 2006 11:19 AM
I hope that their is legal action coming against NYT. We can't have important legal anti-terror programs exposed for the sake of free speach, the public need to know everything crap, and padding the NYT pockets. This exposure of calssified information must stop.
"This exposure of calssified information must stop." KTTR
"This disclosure compromised one of our most valuable programs and will only make our efforts to track terrorist financing - and to prevent terrorist attacks - harder,"
The Swift program has discussed by the President on two occasions (9/01 and 4/04). The program was detailed on the Swift website and in their newsletter to their clients.
Bush should be thrown in jail for exposing an important anti terrorism program.
Well, you know, that whole right to remain silent thing and trial by jury thing no doubt help murderers and rapists get away in our own country, but we still protect these rights. Do you know why? Because if we gave them up, although murderers and rapists would be more easily caught and punished, everyone, except the government, would be screwed by the infinite power that the government would have (no trial, no proof, nothing needed but mein fuhrer's wish - mein fuhrer wants to have sex with your mother and she says no, he'll declare her a terrorist and execute her summarily and no one can stop him). Everyone knows that a beneficent dictatorship would be the most effective form of government. The problem is, who can we trust to remain benficent when handed all the power in the world? The answer is: no one, ever. So, is our Constitution rapist loving? Murderer loving? No, it's innocent person loving. Wake up, sheeple!!!
Wow, so one administration official backs up other administration officials' statements that this disclosure hurt national security! Case closed!
Seriously, is there anything you won't believe from the Bush Administration? I've asked before, and I'm asking again, please cite the specific portion of the NYT article that endangered national security. (You have read the whole article, right?) No specifics of the program are mentioned, in fact it does not describe anything materially different than what was previously mentioned by Dear Leader or the Swift website. If you can't cite a specific, then you obviously are just lashing out at the NYT (not the WSJ though, I wonder why?).
Barneyg2000,
Don't be such a Bush-hating moron. The President did not release the details of the financial tracking programs, and you know it. All that he said was we were going to do it. In 9/01, the tracking of terrorist financial transactions was just beginning, so it would have been impossible for him to expose it. Nor did he "expose" in in Apr 04. Besides, the President is the ultimate authority in the release of classified information. If he decided to disclose it, he cannot be thrown in jail.
Further, the only reference to the tracking of illegal financial transactions on the SWIFT is this:
"Statement on compliance:
Cooperating in the global fight against abuse of the financial system for illegal activities
SWIFT is solely a carrier of messages between financial institutions. The information in these messages is issued and controlled exclusively by the sending and receiving institutions. SWIFT does not hold assets nor manage accounts on behalf of customers. It does not clear or settle transactions.
Given its importance in the financial community, SWIFT takes its role in the global fight against money laundering and other illegal activities extremely seriously:
1. Responsibilities - It is SWIFT policy that its services should not be used to facilitate illegal activities. Users are urged to take all reasonable steps to prevent any misuse of the SWIFT system.
2. Cooperation - 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.
3. No comment policy - Due to the sensitive nature of these contacts, SWIFT does not comment on them.
There is no mention that I can find of the US intelligence agencies using SWIFT data to track terrorist financial transactions. Would you mind pointing out a cite to backup your claim?
"Congress was told.." isn't the same as "Congress determined that..."
Of course Levey will argue that. It's his job. But rather than freaking out about the NYT, "Rep. Sue Kelly, R-N.Y., chairwoman of the House panel, asked Congress's investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, to conduct a probe of the program to make sure it was conducted properly in accordance with the law.
Kelly called her request for a GAO investigation "mere due diligence" to make sure "our trust is not poorly placed in the Treasury Department." She also asked for the administration to provide the panel with a closed-door, classified briefing about the program."
Not exactly a scathing indictment of the NYT.
A10, that is so stupid. If the bad guys know that the Feds are tracking wire transfers of money from one country to the next (as the Pres said in Sept of '01) they do not need to know the exact details. Just like when OBL heard that US forces were monitoring communication, he stopped all personal electronic communication and sent his messages through personal curriers.
Blarney,
Are you forgetting that the SWIFT program was used to identify and capture the terrorist behind the Bali bombings? I wouldn't call capturing a terrorist responsible for 100's of deaths "stupid". You liberals might, but I don't.
What is stupid is telling the terrorists what we are doing after the programs have proven to be effective in discovering terrorist plots, tracking financial transactions, and capturing terrorists.
With comments like yours, I become even more convinced that you are anti-American, un-patriotic, and are rooting for the terrorists.
A-10. Blarney is simply trying to rewrite history. The Left is so tickled that the Adminstration might be denied a triumph or two, they are blind to the damage that is likely to be done.
A former FBI agent explained part of the problem. One example: For a long time, we have known that banks have to report transactions of $10,000 or more. THIS is the kind of thing terrorists "alrady knew". They knew that the government would be tracking certain large money transfers, so they concentrated on smaller transfers and venues other than large banks. The NYT thoughtfully informed them that many smaller transfers could be, had been, and would be tracked, and that there were about 75,000 financial institutions involved in the plan. They gave specifics.
It's kind of like terrorists knowing that the govenment has people out there watching for them, and the NYT printing an article with descriptions and locations of undercover cops. "But the terrorists ALREADY KNEW there were undercover cops out there!" the terrorist apologists would cry. Maybe, but they probably didn't know that the bag lady with the red mittens was one of them.
Lives were saved because of the program. Lives will be lost because of the "breathtaking arrogance" of the NYT. And when they are, obsessive and his fellow travellers will be claiming that whatever attack ensued was in the works before the NYT article, or some such bilge.
Well, it seems that all the European nations that are screaming for investigations into this matter AFTER the NY Times story would prove otherwise, wouldn't it?
But I guess since these nations didn't know, why would you assume the terrorists did?
Matt, it sounds like you're talking about the T-word, treason.
Rope, Tree, Journalist. Any questions? No? Carry on.
And quit lying Barney, nothing President Bush ever said even approached the level of detail that was revealed by the New York Slimes. Your talking points need adjusting. Haven't you received the latest marching orders from the Kos Kommie Kidz yet?
steve, who is better placed to understand the impact the leaks have had on our great nation than an administration official? Would you only believe what is obvious to us all if it was reported in the LLL MSM? Like that's going to happen!
Your BDS knows no bounds. peace!
wowihaveneurons - I rode the elevator with a woman on September 10th who died at the Pentagon on September 11th. I saw the smoke coming from the Pentagon.
Your cute little treatise is very reminiscent of Gorlicks "wall" that kept intelligence and law enforcement from working together. Maybe if you knew more about how real this is. Maybe if you'd gone to a damned funeral like I did. Maybe you wouldn't be so stupid.
As you may know from the User Handbook and swift.com, SWIFT has a longstanding history, beginning in the 1990s, of cooperating with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and international organisations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in their efforts to prevent misuse of the financial system. Our members support this policy.
SWIFT's website
Though I cannot access the User Handbook, apparently all of this information is available to users of the SWIFT program.
Both sides are really being retarded. Bush has mentioned it in the past; NYT broke a story about a secret program that wasn't secret.
It's a waste of all of our time.
Georgia - I have heard that argument. So.... the NYT was just publically reminding the terrorists about the program? Kind of a public service reminder for Al_Queda eh? "Hey Osama - remember to bury those financial transactions in no less than five transactions between dummy corporations!"
As always, Almiranta, well said. The NYT has blood on its "hands".
This old joke has new meaning, "What's black and white and REaD all over?"
Answer: The New York Times.
NYT Pix1
NYT Pix 2
Still waiting for Blarney's cite where the program was detailed on the Swift website and in their newsletter to their clients.
Waiting......and waiting......and waiting.....