The Treason Times Outs Covert CIA Program

[Shady]

With friends like these, who needs enemies???

Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror

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.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The Treason Times

Apparently damaging National Security, and outing multiple covert anti-terror programs is legitimate news reporting. However, if a government official outs a non-covert desk jockey in an attempt to correct the record of lies by that desk jockey's husband, we need a special prosecutor and multiple grand juries.

[Black Dog]

Apparently damaging National Security, and outing multiple covert anti-terror programs is legitimate news reporting.

So, why haven't the relevant individuals at the Times been charged with, well, anything?

[Liam]

...Apparently damaging National Security, and outing multiple covert anti-terror programs is legitimate news reporting. However, if a government official outs a non-covert desk jockey in an attempt to correct the record of lies by that desk jockey's husband, we need a special prosecutor and multiple grand juries.

Even the lowliest Al Qaeda operative had to assume that as part of the GWOT, the US intelligence agencies would be mining for data in every avenue (banking, phone, computer records, credit cards, cellphones, wire and money transfers, travel manifests, etc.), so it's not at all like these news stories impact the GWOT. They do not reveal anything that most of us (including the terrorists) assume the government is doing, so discussing *that* the government siezes these records is not "the story".

"The story" is that the government is getting this information outside the established judicial process and without appropriate checks and balances. The right, afraid that good reporting by the NYT, USA Today, the Washington Post, etc. is going to reveal the depth and breadth of the Bush Administration's "extra-legal" shanigans are left with fabricating claims that such reporting weakens our fight against the terrorists. Guess what? The terrorists already assume we're gathering every scrap of info we can get on them and it doesn't matter to them that Bush gets it with or without a warrant.

[Shady]

So, why haven't the relevant individuals at the Times been charged with, well, anything?

Great question. Here's hoping something's done.

Rep. King (R-NY)

And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher. We're in time of war, Chris, and what they've done here is absolutely disgraceful. I believe they violated the Espionage Act, the Comint Act.

Damn right. It's time to investigate and prosecute. Those who leaked, and those who printed. Being a "journalist" doesn't mean you're above the law. :angry:

[Riverwind]

Damn right. It's time to investigate and prosecute. Those who leaked, and those who printed. Being a "journalist" doesn't mean you're above the law. :angry:

You sound like a Chinese Communist Party hack.

[Shady]

You sound like a Chinese Communist Party hack

LOL. Of course I do. Seriously though. If a law is deemed constitutional, and one breaks that law, then one must be held accountable. And being a "journalist" doesn't mean you're above the law.

[Black Dog]

Great question. Here's hoping something's done.

Rep. King (R-NY)

And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher. We're in time of war, Chris, and what they've done here is absolutely disgraceful. I believe they violated the Espionage Act, the Comint Act.

Damn right. It's time to investigate and prosecute. Those who leaked, and those who printed. Being a "journalist" doesn't mean you're above the law.

Here's a hint: the government asked the Times not to publish the story. That doesn't give me the impression that the Times is worried about prosecution because if there was that threat, they probably wouldn't have published it.

But here's a question: how does this story "damage national security?"

[Liam]

But here's a question: how does this story "damage national security?"

Exactly. In order to believe that a Times article reporting that US intelligence services have been collecting banking data damages national security, you'd have to believe that gathering such data would surprise al Qaeda. If al Qaeda already assumes that the US is gathering data on the international flow of money, the Times article is nothing new to al Qaeda and is not, therefore, damaging national security.

If al Qaeda is so stupid that they don't think the US is tapping phones or watching the flow of money, then I seriously doubt they'll be around for long.

I am all in favor of monitoring bank accounts and email and phones, etc., but pursuant to properly obtained warrants. Bush and the GOP hacks all scream that these reports impact national security. Baloney. What it does is expose the administration as a group of people who have contempt for the Contitution's balance of powers.

[GostHacked]

So, why haven't the relevant individuals at the Times been charged with, well, anything?

Great question. Here's hoping something's done.

Rep. King (R-NY)

And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher. We're in time of war, Chris, and what they've done here is absolutely disgraceful. I believe they violated the Espionage Act, the Comint Act.

Damn right. It's time to investigate and prosecute. Those who leaked, and those who printed. Being a "journalist" doesn't mean you're above the law. :angry:

Compared to good hard investigative journalism of yesteryears (70s 80s) there is NO good journalism these days. And if someone reports something out of the ordinary, either you are ridiculed or thrown in jail. I thought journalists/reporters cannot be charged for any sensitive material that they make public. Not illegal to report it, but illegal to LEAK it. Prosecute and find those who LEAK it. Don't start controlling the Media (or put MORE control on the media). Put more control on your cronies in the government.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

GostHacked raises a good point.

Not illegal to report it, but illegal to LEAK it. Prosecute and find those who LEAK it. Don't start controlling the Media (or put MORE control on the media). Put more control on your cronies in the government.

Either that, or charge the media outlet in question with treason/sedition.

Dangerous ground, there, mind you, Stalin saw sedition everywhere. And he acted upon it, real or imagined, in the most brutal fashion.

Most leaked info comes from loudmouthed senators, etc. In the book "Imperial Hubris", the author also calls for treason charges against some of the 'leakers'.

[BHS]

I'm surprised no one has come up with the "Bush is holding back on charging the leakers until closer to election time" argument yet.

Liam: is devulging state secrets a crime or no? It's a question you've glossed over in your denunciations of the Bush administration and obligatory guesstimates of Al Qaeda's understanding of international banking procedures.

It seems to me, that since the administration "asked" the NYT to quash the story, that no crime was being committed when it was published. It's possible that leaking the story wasn't a crime either. I guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out.

This is yet another example of a pattern I'm beginning to see illustrated: for all of the hysterics that Bush-haters employ in their attempts to portray the administration as some great destroyer of civil liberties, there is little real evidence that this is actually the case. Sandy Berger clearly committed a crime but only received the mildest of penalties for it. The Whitehouse could have pushed for a much sterner sentence. A number of leaks have occurred in the past four years or so, but the only one that has been investigated is the one that the loyal opposition pushed to have investigated. The only stories I've seen about abuses of the hated Patriot Act have either been blown out of proportion or complete hoaxes. Can anyone come up with a good solid example of the Bush Whitehouse perpetrating a civil liberties infringement? Come on, I know you can.

[BHS]

Compared to good hard investigative journalism of yesteryears (70s 80s) there is NO good journalism these days. And if someone reports something out of the ordinary, either you are ridiculed or thrown in jail. I thought journalists/reporters cannot be charged for any sensitive material that they make public. Not illegal to report it, but illegal to LEAK it. Prosecute and find those who LEAK it. Don't start controlling the Media (or put MORE control on the media). Put more control on your cronies in the government.

Why do you assume that everyone who works for the Government is a Bush crony? Was Valerie Plame a Bush crony? Was Mary McCarthy?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Can anyone come up with a good solid example of the Bush Whitehouse perpetrating a civil liberties infringement? Come on, I know you can.

Would the original story on this thread qualify?

It is funny, Shady linked a story to an 'alleged civil liberties infringement' in an attempt to discredit The New York Times for reporting it. In that light, Woodward and Bernstien were 'traitors' for reporting the misdeeds of Nixon.

[Liam]

Liam: is devulging state secrets a crime or no? It's a question you've glossed over in your denunciations of the Bush administration and obligatory guesstimates of Al Qaeda's understanding of international banking procedures.

It seems to me, that since the administration "asked" the NYT to quash the story, that no crime was being committed when it was published. It's possible that leaking the story wasn't a crime either. I guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out...

Is divulging state secrets a crime? While not a federal prosecutor, I have to imagine that divulging a state secret is a crime in all circumstances. Perhaps there are gradations given the level of security clearance required prior to being brought in on matters of the highest national security, but I'd imagine that even disclosing routine state secrets is a crime.

But what you've glossed over is who is guilty of this crime. It has to be a member of the Administration who leaked the story to the press. The press is not immune from prosecution when they want to protect their sources, so clearly they are outside the scope of those who are charged with protecting secrets. Once someone leaks a secret to the press, a crime has occurred. That's not to say that the media *ought* to publish state secrets once leaked. Surely if an inside source told a reporter at the Washington Post of the plans to invade Normandy, I think it would be exercising the most poor judgment if the WP published what they had learned. The NYT and other media outlets have cooperated with both this and other administrations in not revealing precise details of every state secret they've learned.

In the case of tracking SWIFT transactions (the Belgian organization which tracks international financial movements, this most recent case), the Bush Administration is doing two things>> first, they are ginning up their base by playing up their favorite bogeyman, "the liberal elite media who is so out of touch with America and the grave threat that terrorist pose to everyday, good Americans that they will publish state secrets that tip our hand to the evil doers." Second, the Administration is trying to deflect criticism from similar intelligence gathering. If they can shift the focus to the publishing of the story rather than the story itself, the underlying story becomes irrelevant.

The Administration's complaints that this injures national security (because foreign bankers might now refuse to help out and that it clues in al Qaeda as to our interest in monitoring $$ flows) in this case are baseless for two reasons. First, the records obtained from SWIFT we obtained by the government pursuant to a subpoena. (For once! The Administration did the right thing by getting a court order to gather intelligence!!) The banks *must* hand over the records or face court-imposed penalties and fines, so the cooperation of the international banking community is not threatened. Second, my earlier point, that al Qaeda already assumes we're watching banks, brokerage firms, foreign currency exchanges, wire transactions and the like. I worked in that industry at the time of 9/11 and I can tell you that it is no secret among anyone in the financial services arena that the government routinely mines for data. In the months after 9/11, there seemed to be stories each day in the Wall Street Journal about questionable money movements in and out of banks and investment firms and international charities and relief organizations. (Did he WSJ reveal state secrets by reporting such? Funny how the Administration isn't going after the largest conservative newspaper in the US.) It is common knowledge and Al Qaeda is not stupid. They know our government is trying to watch their every move. The Times story is not all that earth-shattering.

[PocketRocket]

A newspaper's job is to report news.

This is news, at least to the general public.

One of the government's jobs is to keep their secrets, well, secret.

Obviously they have failed to do this.

So who is doing their job better, the NYT or the government???

[GostHacked]

Pocket Rocket.

Sounds pretty cut and dry in my view.

BHS

Why do you assume that everyone who works for the Government is a Bush crony? Was Valerie Plame a Bush crony? Was Mary McCarthy?

Actually you assumed I was assuming that. What I said was government cronies. Not Bush cronies. Don't put words into my mouth. You would have been right in your statement if I had said 'this administration's cronies'.

[BHS]

A newspaper's job is to report news.

This is news, at least to the general public.

One of the government's jobs is to keep their secrets, well, secret.

Obviously they have failed to do this.

So who is doing their job better, the NYT or the government???

It takes little effort to blab everything you hear to the world without regard for the broader ramifications. It takes impossibly large amounts of effort to keep secrets in as enormous an organisation as the federal government. In the newspaper's case, the efforts of a single individual are showcased as the efforts of an entire organisation; in the government's case, the efforts of a single individual destroy the efforts of the entire organisation. You're comparing apples and oranges. Apples and anti-apples, really.

[BHS]

Actually you assumed I was assuming that. What I said was government cronies. Not Bush cronies. Don't put words into my mouth. You would have been right in your statement if I had said 'this administration's cronies'.

Before you accuse me of putting words into your mouth you should take more care in considering which words you choose to use. The word "cronies" implies close friendship and acceptance. Not everyone who works for the government falls into this category, and certainly not the life bureaucrats who've taken it upon themselves to leak state secrets to the press. The fact is that you referred to government employees in a manner that could only reasonably be expected to be read as the administration's inner circle, and refered to them in a derogatory way in a post that was intended to be derogatory toward that inner circle.

[sharkman]

Ever wonder how many sccops the NYT has that are damaging to al-Qaeda? How about some of the extremist Muslims or what gets preached in some Mosques. You know, actual footage, grainy and shaky video because it's a mini cam inserted in some head gear.

Of course it'll never happen, the NYT has a jihad going against their own government. How about a Supreme Court decision slapping a muzzle on the criminal activities of junk journalism. We can always hope.

[gc1765]

I'm not sure about the legality of accessing financial records, but if it is anything like the illegal wiretapping then why shouldn't the media report it? If the government is committing a crime, shouldn't the public have the right to know about it? Instead they try to censor the media who are making them look bad.

Link

Link

If terrorists are stupid enough to think that the government isn't going to be spying on them (especially if they have probable cause), then how hard could it be to catch these idiots?

[BubberMiley]

If terrorists are stupid enough to think that the government isn't going to be spying on them (especially if they have probably cause), then how hard could it be to catch these idiots?

Especially when the government has publicly asked for broader powers to snoop into financial records. The Bush administration is, once again, playing politics in the war on terror.

[PocketRocket]

..........So who is doing their job better, the NYT or the government???

It takes little effort to blab everything you hear to the world without regard for the broader ramifications.

And yet you have just described the job of a news reporter, to "blab" anything that seems to be newsworthy.

This is obviously newsworthy. or it would have gone unreported.

As for the "broader ramifications", as other have so ably pointed out, these terrorists must be aware that this sort of thing is going on.

In fact, if memory serves, as early as couple years ago it was reported that a few people had been captured as a result of the tracking of the movement of money through the international banking system. The memory of the general public may be short, but I doubt the same holds true for the terrorist organizations.

It takes impossibly large amounts of effort to keep secrets in as enormous an organisation as the federal government.

And yet it has been done in the past. Why does this current administration find it so difficult???

Perhaps, I daresay, some of these "leaks" may have been intentional. Plame is a good example. It served the purpose ot Bush et al to out her.

It also serves Bush's purpose to have continued stories to highlite how the war on terror is being compromised by the NYT and any other media which tend to disagree with him.

In the newspaper's case, the efforts of a single individual are showcased as the efforts of an entire organisation; in the government's case, the efforts of a single individual destroy the efforts of the entire organisation. You're comparing apples and oranges. Apples and anti-apples, really.

When it is convenient for GWB, or any other politician, they love the press. Look at all the photo ops taken by ALL politicians at every opportune moment.

And yet, when the press reports something inconvenient, they are subject to implications of being "traitorous".

I see nothing wrong with the NYT or any other paper reporting whavtever they discover.

It is, as I stated earlier, their mandate.

If they allow the government to start picking and chooseing what they are going to report, THAT is when we REALLY have to worry about "Big Brother" taking over.

[Shady]

Great link mocking the New York Times. Enjoy!

Image

Oh, and Ann Coulter had a great question from last week's column. When is The New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al-Qaida secret program?

[lost&outofcontrol]

The nut that is Glenn Greenwald.

[lost&outofcontrol]

The nut that is Glenn Greenwald.

And I'm sure it's kinda hard to keep secrets when you "pencil-in" invasions.