Newspapers Reject White House Request to Kill Records Story

I don't think the papers themselves should be sanctioned, any of them, really - and I have noted and am a bit peeved by "The Right Wing" tendency to overlook the WSJ in this instance - but I do think the reporters and editors directly involved should be held responsible, and beyond that, I think the Administration officials responsible for the leaks in the first place should be held responisible to the extent example be provided such that idiocy of this sort becomes far, far more rare.

The mainstream media is not necesarilly by intent a tool of the foe, but it does little to prevent the foe from making tools of what the mainstream media sets before the public.

I don't think the papers themselves should be sanctioned, any of them, really - and I have noted and am a bit peeved by "The Right Wing" tendency to overlook the WSJ in this instance - but I do think the reporters and editors directly involved should be held responsible, and beyond that, I think the Administration officials responsible for the leaks in the first place should be held responisible to the extent example be provided such that idiocy of this sort becomes far, far more rare.

The mainstream media is not necesarilly by intent a tool of the foe, but it does little to prevent the foe from making tools of what the mainstream media sets before the public.

I don't think the papers themselves should be sanctioned, any of them, really - and I have noted and am a bit peeved by "The Right Wing" tendency to overlook the WSJ in this instance - but I do think the reporters and editors directly involved should be held responsible, and beyond that, I think the Administration officials responsible for the leaks in the first place should be held responisible to the extent example be provided such that idiocy of this sort becomes far, far more rare.

The mainstream media is not necesarilly by intent a tool of the foe, but it does little to prevent the foe from making tools of what the mainstream media sets before the public.

There was an article in either the New York Times or the New Yorker, I forget which, some years ago about how Bin Laden protected himself while moved money. It was mostly through commodities transfers. Honey was the favorite commodity for a while. This suggests that Al Quada has already assumed that wire transfers would be monitored These extra legal searches are unnecessary. Had they gone about it properly the Bush administration would have gotten most, probably all, that they requested. But they are more interested in using the terrorist threat to expand executive power than they are in catching terrorists.

Specter is a boob. What it it going to take to get the Government to begin excercising tighter control over sensitive data, and what is it going to take to make such leaks unappealing to those who would publicize them - a successful massive attack accompanied by explicit thanks to the NYT for having issued the heads up that allowed the attack planners to avoid discovery?

Specter is a boob. What it it going to take to get the Government to begin excercising tighter control over sensitive data, and what is it going to take to make such leaks unappealing to those who would publicize them - a successful massive attack accompanied by explicit thanks to the NYT for having issued the heads up that allowed the attack planners to avoid discovery?

however a complete and wanton disregard for the consequences of ones actions can, legally, be said to imply intent.

If I open fire with an Uzi in Grand Central Station and kill hundreds of people, even if it can be conclusively proven I never actually intended to harm anyone, the law is not about to allow me to escape the consequences of my wanton actions on such a flimsy premise.

WASHINGTON -- I think President Bush does protest a bit too much about The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal's exposure of his administration's secret money-tracking program.

The president called it "disgraceful" that the newspapers reported that Treasury Department officials acquired access to the world's largest international financial database, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, commonly known as SWIFT, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for criminal prosecution of The New York Times, whose actions he called "treasonous."

But, if anyone thinks Al Qaeda did not know before this story broke that the United States was combing through international banking transactions to follow terrorists' money supplies, they haven't been paying much attention to the news.

Less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill pledged to Congress that his department would do nothing less. "The Treasury Department will use every tool we have at our disposal to shut down terrorist fundraising and dismantle their organizations one dollar at a time," he said. "Their moral bankruptcy will be matched by an empty wallet."

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.

Instead of seeking individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, which is the normal way the government acquires Americans' financial records, Treasury officials have bypassed the courts to rely instead on broad administrative subpoenas, which essentially are issued by one part of the executive branch to another. Some banking and government officials expressed reservations, according to the reports, that what began as an urgent, temporary measure without specific congressional approval or formal authorization showed no signs of changing almost five years later.

Bush said Monday that members of Congress had been briefed in advance on the program, which is true. 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?

Since President Richard Nixon, apparently fearing the public backlash, declined to press charges against The New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers that revealed the bounty of lies that got us into the Vietnam quagmire, I doubt that the Bush administration will take that step. But, then, Nixon didn't have today's echo chamber of conservative commentators to help him distract the public from his cover-ups.

Bush would rather distract us from the larger story lurking here, which is the return of Total Information Awareness, a massive databank operated by a Pentagon agency under Iran-contra figure John Poindexter to monitor any check-card purchase, bank transaction, medical bill and other electronic transaction in America. Congress took away that program's funds in September 2003 amid public alarm about the dangers it posed to privacy rights.

But its research funding continued. The National Journal reported earlier this year that Team Bush broke up the program and moved part of it to the National Security Agency. As Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, recently opined, the "spawn" of the old program has continued under new names and new secrecy.

Governments traditionally use fear of terrorists or some other subversions of national security to excuse power grabs. It is for that reason that the Bush administration, like any other, needs to be held accountable for what it does in the name of keeping us safe. Instead of making its case to Congress, the courts and the public, Team Bush is treating accountability like one more threat to national security.

Belgium Orders Investigation of Swift Anti-Terrorism Case
June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Belgian government has ordered a probe into the decision by Belgium-based cooperative Swift to provide bank transfer data to the U.S. government, as part of the effort by President George W. Bush to halt terrorism.

The office of Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said it has asked intelligence and security officials to determine ``if the interests of certain Belgian nationals were possibly affected and if Belgian law was respected.'' The prime minister's office, in a statement sent by e-mail today, also said it was seeking to determine whether Belgian oversight needs ``adaptations.''

Bush's administration last week said it sought to track terrorists by using data from Swift, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions.

U.S. government subpoenas for documents relating to millions of international banking transactions were outside the scope of central banks that oversee Swift, the Belgian central bank said on June 26.

While the company is overseen by representatives from the Group of 10 central banks, the Belgian bank said in a statement their responsibility was ensuring financial stability.

You New York Times apologists, AND TERRORIST APOLOGISTS, keep digging yourself a bigger hole all the time. You must live in denial, that terrorism is not a serious threat (some of you have written as much), or your disdain for George Bush (and what his politics signify) dominates you to the point you have totally lost any sense of reason.

Thanks for your kindness.

In all seriousness, if a serious terrorist event happened tomorrow, the New York Times and their apologists would soon be criticizing Bush for not tracking financial transactions of the perpetrators. In fact thats what they did right after 911. People see the hypocrisy, Bumble Bee. For people that follow this stuff, its plain as day, unless you are a hardcore Bush hater.

In all seriousness, if a serious terrorist event happened tomorrow, the New York Times and their apologists would soon be criticizing Bush for not tracking financial transactions of the perpetrators. In fact thats what they did right after 911.

okie wrote:

In all seriousness, if a serious terrorist event happened tomorrow, the New York Times and their apologists would soon be criticizing Bush for not tracking financial transactions of the perpetrators. In fact thats what they did right after 911.

Strawman. Nobody here is saying that the US government shouldn't track the terrorists' financial transaction.