You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Collusion Between Al-Journalism and Government Traitors
- Thread starter Sam123
- Start date
Quote from DrChaos:
Not exactly.
It is a war of Englightenment values, which originated in the West but are universally applicable, versus orthodox political Islamic values.
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I did not mean that this 'war' in Iraq' is specifically about this battle, I meant that the terrorist efforts are about this.
I would say that your description of the antithesis of orthodox political Islamic values has come to be known as 'Western values' and they are what is meant by the term 'Western Values' in a contemporary usage, but this is semantics and I will accept your clarification.
Also I am not sure about your description of the antithesis of Enlightenment values being political Islamic values - wouldn't theosophical be a more accurate description? At any rate, as I said, I accept the clarifications.
There you go again with Fox news and talk radio as the source of prejudice, partisanship, and propaganda, while at the same time, NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS, etc. are impartial and neutral. Everyone knows they all have prejudice, but now we have access to a wider interpretation on what is âfit to print,â which is a good thing. And donât pretend you listen to Fox and talk radio⦠you donât. I propose an experiment: Only listen to the highest-rating programs on Fox and talk radio for a week. Then go back to NYT and NPR, etc. and see for yourself.Quote from riserburn:
The only "wet dream" I see is yours in thinking that you have some monopoly on the truth or that you have come across some revelation of the existence of a conspiracy. In reality, the only thing I'm actually hearing from you is the regurgitation of propaganda consumed by you from your preferred choice of media. Personally, I prefer to get my news from a source that isn't bitching and moaning about what their competitors are doing or thinking.
Of course this is a business, but Fox news and talk radio didnât rise to the occasion by a âcampaign to discredit the validity of their competitors.â They didnât have to gain market share by persuasion because people were already frustrated by an industry that failed to reach them. In fact, Fox News and âBig Radioâ didnât even have to compete at all. The market share was just siting there waiting for them to take it. When industry elites become rigid and closed minded âwhen they become the dumbest people in the room-- market share is easy prey. This is exactly like Detroit during the time Japan took the industry by storm. Itâs like the dark ages of Apple, before Jobs returned and saved the company. In both cases, they sat in their arrogance, writing-off their loss of market share as the result of the choices made by âstupidâ customers. In the end, they failed to analyze themselves and do what was necessary to save their shirts.
Incidentally, if I have an ax to grind itâs how post WWII babyboomer scholars have ruined the social âsciencesâ in higher education. Journalism is just one of its casualties. I hope that by now at least some of these schools are trying to understand Limbaughâs success, rather than writing it off as, âwell, every society has their millions of idiots.â Iâm not sure they understand that decisions in what is âfit to printâ are actually business decisions. Deciding what is fit to print based on blind distrust of our own country and contempt of its interests and foreign policy simply turns a lot of people off. Thatâs bad for business.
Fox News, Fair and Balanced...
Hee hee hee...
<img src=http://www.aperfectworld.org/cartoons/foxnews.png>
Hee hee hee...
<img src=http://www.aperfectworld.org/cartoons/foxnews.png>
Quote from Sam123:
There you go again with Fox news and talk radio as the source of prejudice, partisanship, and propaganda, while at the same time, NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS, etc. are impartial and neutral. Everyone knows they all have prejudice, but now we have access to a wider interpretation on what is âfit to print,â which is a good thing. And donât pretend you listen to Fox and talk radio⦠you donât. I propose an experiment: Only listen to the highest-rating programs on Fox and talk radio for a week. Then go back to NYT and NPR, etc. and see for yourself.
Of course this is a business, but Fox news and talk radio didnât rise to the occasion by a âcampaign to discredit the validity of their competitors.â They didnât have to gain market share by persuasion because people were already frustrated by an industry that failed to reach them. In fact, Fox News and âBig Radioâ didnât even have to compete at all. The market share was just siting there waiting for them to take it. When industry elites become rigid and closed minded âwhen they become the dumbest people in the room-- market share is easy prey. This is exactly like Detroit during the time Japan took the industry by storm. Itâs like the dark ages of Apple, before Jobs returned and saved the company. In both cases, they sat in their arrogance, writing-off their loss of market share as the result of the choices made by âstupidâ customers. In the end, they failed to analyze themselves and do what was necessary to save their shirts.
Incidentally, if I have an ax to grind itâs how post WWII babyboomer scholars have ruined the social âsciencesâ in higher education. Journalism is just one of its casualties. I hope that by now at least some of these schools are trying to understand Limbaughâs success, rather than writing it off as, âwell, every society has their millions of idiots.â Iâm not sure they understand that decisions in what is âfit to printâ are actually business decisions. Deciding what is fit to print based on blind distrust of our own country and contempt of its interests and foreign policy simply turns a lot of people off. Thatâs bad for business.
As always Sam123 makes clear the (lack of) logic behind the cliches. Nice post.Quote from Sam123:
You think the Goering quote is relevant and applicable because you believe the only enemy we have is an illusion we created. Iâm sure you also believe Bush did 9/11 to ârally the masses.â Talk about a sucker born every minute⦠Whole cultures are based on hysterical conspiracy theories. I guess you are one of them.
Furthermore, our government does not control media, unlike Nazi Germany. Our government is elected. Our media is not. So if you want to apply Goeringâs quote correctly, itâs the media, not government, that creates the illusions and perpetuates the propaganda:
"Of course the people want to protect their national interests and defend their country. But after all, it's the propaganda from media that influences policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the makers of propaganda. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them there is no enemy and that we are creating unjust wars, and denounce those who try to defend the country as fascist war hawks, and exposing the country to greater danger."
In addition, When most journalists believe the same things and possess the same closed-minded prejudice (seething hatred of Bush, hatred U.S. foreign policy, etc.), I donât see that being much different than a state-run media dishing out propaganda.
Freedom of Press demands a professional institution that educates free thinking professionals. Journalists donât think freely. They donât even know how to think freely. If they were truly educated about the âuniverseâ in their universities, there would be a healthy distribution of thoughts, beliefs and ideas. As a result, the professional practice and ethics in Journalism would avoid the persistence of undermining our national interests in the face of our enemy just to get Bush.
Fortunately, itâs the freedom of Press, Speech, and public common sense that will eventually fix Journalism and why talk radio and Fox news have been legitimized mainly because both venues spend a lot of time pointing out the folly of Established Journalism.
If the NY Times story on financial monitoring didn't break important news, why did they feature it on page 1? Why did not only the administration, but guys like John McCain and Democrats like John Murtha also argue with the editors not to publish it?
Basically this comes down to a question of whether or not the government is entitled to keep secrets. The logic of the NY Times' position is that the government is entitled to keep only those secrets the Times decides to allow it to keep. I would think any reasonable person could see that is not a policy any government could accept. The fact that the Times is highly biased and has a record of protecting Democrat officeholders is also not comforting.
If the government has the right to keep secrets, then it has the right to punish those who reveal them. If the Plame affair justified a special counsel investigation, surely the series of leaked stories about data monitoring and CIA detention facilities also justify a serious investigation. At the very least, the reporters should be put before a grand jury and forced to reveal who leaked to them or sit in jail until they decide to comply.
Anything less and we are justified in concluding the leaks either were not as serious as the administration claims, or it simply is not serious about security.
Basically this comes down to a question of whether or not the government is entitled to keep secrets. The logic of the NY Times' position is that the government is entitled to keep only those secrets the Times decides to allow it to keep. I would think any reasonable person could see that is not a policy any government could accept. The fact that the Times is highly biased and has a record of protecting Democrat officeholders is also not comforting.
If the government has the right to keep secrets, then it has the right to punish those who reveal them. If the Plame affair justified a special counsel investigation, surely the series of leaked stories about data monitoring and CIA detention facilities also justify a serious investigation. At the very least, the reporters should be put before a grand jury and forced to reveal who leaked to them or sit in jail until they decide to comply.
Anything less and we are justified in concluding the leaks either were not as serious as the administration claims, or it simply is not serious about security.
There you go again reading into statements and conjuring up points that simply aren't there. Prejudice? Partisanship? Did I say that? Ummm....no. Propaganda? Yes....I said that, but it doesn't pertain to any contexts of taking sides on social or political issues. If the disenchanted market share of news information viewers were reversed, with the majority media 2 decades ago leaning to the right, there's no doubt that left wing media sources would rise to fill that void. It's all about pandering to a particular market audience that would otherwise turn off their TVs. They don't give a shit what your political affiliation is as long as you tune in.Quote from Sam123:
There you go again with Fox news and talk radio as the source of prejudice, partisanship, and propaganda, while at the same time, NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS, etc. are impartial and neutral.
You simply don't get it do you? Not surprising when you tend to have a habit of comprehending only what you want to hear and disregarding everything else.
So as long as they are pandering to your point of view it's worth listening/reading? LOL.Everyone knows they all have prejudice, but now we have access to a wider interpretation on what is âfit to print,â which is a good thing.
Once again, you're not paying attention. I said that I have watched FOX and listened to talk radio; as in past tense. The thing that turned me off is the constant propaganda about "fair and unbiased"; as if they need to remind everyone every 30 minutes. It seems that none of them can go 15 minutes without uttering and ranting about the other "liberial media" sources. I just want to hear what's going on in the world. I don't care what they think about their competition.And donât pretend you listen to Fox and talk radio⦠you donât. I propose an experiment: Only listen to the highest-rating programs on Fox and talk radio for a week. Then go back to NYT and NPR, etc. and see for yourself.
As far as "highly-rated" programs........ROLF!!!!!! This is the same network that brings such quality programs to the masses as American Idol, The Teen Choice Awards, Trading Spouses, Renovate Your Family, and Skating with Celebrities. Ummmm.....yeah. They truly have an unbiased agenda and your best interest in mind.
So they saved their collective asses and raised their profit margins by pandering to people like you. Well bully for them. What cracks me up is that people like you listen to some talking head's opinion on the radio, regurgitate the contents to the rest of us, and claim to be a free thinker..... LOL.Of course this is a business, but Fox news and talk radio didn'tât rise to the occasion by a âcampaign to discredit the validity of their competitors.â......................In the end, they failed to analyze themselves and do what was necessary to save their shirts.
Lush Limburger is a drug addict and a hypocrite. He achieved his success by spewing his nonsense while he was stoned. If he had any integrity and actually believes half the shit that comes out of his own mouth, he would have admitted his crimes to society and willingly turned himself in to be convicted and incarcerated. It would still not come close to what he has said in the past about what drug addicts and criminals deserved. You're simply so enamored and brain washed by his "brilliance" you're willing to overlook this bit of hypocrisy. Every society most certainly has "their millions of idiots", but some idiots require an audience to be "successful".I hope that by now at least some of these schools are trying to understand Limbaughâs success, rather than writing it off as, âwell, every society has their millions of idiots.â
Liked that did you? My favorite part is where government doesn't "create illusions and perpetuate propaganda".Quote from roberk:
As always Sam123 makes clear the (lack of) logic behind the cliches. Nice post.
LOL...Moderator. Figures.
Nik, I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful response. However, I completely disagree with your conclusions and assessment of the situation.Quote from traderNik:
Hi Hap
My big question about this article is this - what in the hell is the big deal here? Does anyone seriously think that the terrorists do not know that if they send money through the international banking system, the US authorities may see the transaction? This whole idea that Osama Bin Laden read this article and was able to fine tune his plans, thus making it easier for him to kill Americans, is baloney, imo. There is nothing in this article that would provide a terrorist with anything!! It is a serious mistake to underestimate one's enemies. Does anyone really believe that these terrorists do not have access to wealthy people and entities who know about the swift system and can advise them about the possibility that their transactions will be surveilled? Is not Osama himself a product of a wealthy Saudi business family? Does anyone seriously believe that he is/was unaware that international money transfers are cleared through central agencies, and that post 9/11, the U.S. would be surveilling every possible source for information?
Furthermore, let us take the example of a terrorist who was not aware that international money transfers are cleared through the SWIFT system. How many of this type are using international banking to move money around the globe? To me it is almost impossible that anyone this unsophisticated wouldn't't be using the 'hawala' (hope I have that right) system of money transfer.
First of all, it is your opinion, and apparently that of the NY Times, that the information in the article would not be of any use to Al Qaeda (assuming that was the reason the Times published the article, and not because headlines and Pulitzers combined with hatred of the Bush Administration make national security a secondary consideration, if that).
So let me ask you this: Are you a counterterrorism expert? Are any editors or reporters of the NY Times counterterrorism experts? Do you, or they, have the knowledge and experience of terrorist financing and operations to say unequivocally that the release of this information is guaranteed to be of no value to Al Qaeda? If there is any doubt whatsoever, the answer is no. Treasury and security officials, those VERY familiar with terrorism financing and operations, pleaded with the Times not to publish the article. Heck, even John "Cut and Run" Murtha, asked them not to publish the article because he thought it may somehow, some way, endanger the troops on the ground.
A counterterrorism and terrorist finance expert, former FBI agent Dennis Lormel said:
âFor my colleagues who have been skeptical of the U.S. Governmentâs efforts in terrorist financing, this program, the cooperation with other financial providers, such as First Data Corporation and Western Union, contributed significantly to the A- grade given the Government for Terrorist Financing by the 9/11 Commission.â
And speaking of the 9/11 Commission, according to ABCâs âWorld News Tonight, its chairman, Thomas Kean, also asked the Times not to report this SWIFT information, and was quoted as saying:
âI think we have one less tool because weâve â weâve found that al Qaeda â when they find out things weâre using to intercept messages, intercept money, intercept whateverâtheyâd stop doing that. We were, probably, a step ahead of them and in this area, weâre not ahead of that step anymore.â
Second, if the terrorists are as smart as you say, and this program is as useless as you say, then we shouldn't have captured any terrorists with it, right? Well, we have. We caught the Al Qaeda operative Hambali who masterminded the 2002 Bali resort bombing, with the program. We also caught a Brooklyn man who was aiding a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by trying to launder money through a Karachi bank. Clearly, this program was paying dividends, and who knows where it might have led?
Whoa, Nik. The Times itself reported that SWIFT examinations have no impact upon domestic banking transactions!!!The NYT evidently balanced the potential damage to U.S. counterterrorism efforts with the probative value of exposing another effort on the part of the Bush administration that may push the boundaries of what is legal. I am beginning to understand something. The hard right here at ET are not representative of the majority right in the USA. I can't believe that there aren't others on the right who would agree that they do not want their privacy intruded upon, and they do not want any government to operate outside the boundaries defined by the right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted surveillance.
âThe data does not allow the government to track routine financial activity, like A.T.M. withdrawals, confined to this country, or to see bank balances, Treasury officials said. And the information is not provided in real time â Swift generally turns it over several weeks later. Because of privacy concerns and the potential for abuse, the government sought the data only for terrorism investigations and prohibited its use for tax fraud, drug trafficking or other inquiries, the officials said.â
Actually, Forbes magazine reported that American banking transactions are performed by a completely separate entity from SWIFT:
âIn the U.S., domestic funds transfers are handled by the Automated Clearing House, which relayed information on some 14 billion payments last year, worth a total of more than $30 trillion, including bank-originated transfers and U.S. government transfers.â
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/06/23/swift-terrorist-money-transfer-cx_lm_0623swift.html
SWIFTâs own press release states that there were multiple levels of oversight and redundant procedures in place to protect SWIFTâs clients before the company complied with US government-issued subpoenas:
âSWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas. Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with.
âAll of these actions have been undertaken with advice from international and U.S. legal counsel and following our longstanding procedures on compliance, established by our Board.
âSWIFT is overseen by a senior committee drawn from the G-10 central banks and has informed them of this matter.â
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...e,1,1009916.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
So Nik, this classified national security program:
1) Does not violate domestic or international banking laws;
2) had the cooperation - and oversight - of the largest central banks around the globe;
3) was regularly checked out via international legal counsel examinations;
4) was approved by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, and;
5) had zero impact on Americans except to try and protect them from Islamofascists who would love nothing more than to slit their throats.
I simply don't see how the privacy and rights of American citizens are being violated here.
(Cont'd)
Finally, regarding one of the Times reporters who wrote the tell-all article, Eric Lichtblau, the Cornell Daily Sun reported that:
"...[h]itting closer to home for Lichtblau, a copy of a story the reporter had written about how easy it was for undercover agents to gain access to supposedly secure departments in the federal government was found translated into Arabic in an Al Qaeda terror den. "
http://cornellsun.com/node/17349
Who's reading the NY Times? Al Qaeda, and with good reason.
I agree that they are not "working hand in hand with the terrorists and the Dems to destroy the country." But IMO they have made national security secondary to headlines and winning Pulitzers.This article was about the NYT's ongoing effort to undermine the administration by pointing out their alleged abrogation of the rights of citizens. To say that they are working hand in hand with the terrorists and the Dems to destroy the country... well, I am not going to bother with my description of that, since you asked me a polite question.
I agree with you here. Both sides do not have the high moral ground when it comes to politics.Is all this playing politics? Is the main motivation of the NYT to depose the Republicans, so that their Dem friends can win the next election? If this is the case, it is no worse than the same kind of politicking we see from the right. I don�t believe that either party has the moral high ground when it comes to playing politics. It's all part of the game.
Perhaps the NY Times and the liberals are not "shooting for" innocents being blown up, but when they reveal classified programs meant to disrupt such carnage, it does make one wonder what their motives are. Clearly they do not appear to be in the best interests of their fellow Americans' security.One member here posted a picture of the grotesquely burned bodies lying in the debris of a terrorist attack, and said 'This is what the liberals and NYT are shooting for' or something like that. I think that kind of statement is more irresponsible than the NYT actions here.
We're at war, maybe not in the conventional sense and perhaps in the ideological one you present, but war nonetheless. Our troops are on the ground, and any entity that endangers them, be it by supporting the enemy financially or, as I believe the Times has done, by making it more difficult to catch them while at the same time bolstering their confidence by seeing a major American newspaper do its utmost to hamper the government's efforts, is heinous. I don't think it's an "overreaction" at all.The final problem is this - is the U.S. at war right now? There is no consensus in this and that is why it doesn't really matter what I think about whether this would be treasonous if the U.S. were at war. So regarding your question about what I would think if we were at war well, it's a tough question. I don't see this as a war of sovereign against sovereign in the old sense (WWII). Maybe in the case of WWII this would be treasonous but I highly doubt that anything like this would have been published at that time. This is a war of western values vs. Muslim ones. Certainly there is no question in my mind that this is not even remotely treasonous in its present context and I think the (imo) over-reaction we are seeing is a result of the fact that the 'war in Iraq' is going badly, for the current administration and for the young Americans who are dying as a result of our presence there.
Finally, regarding one of the Times reporters who wrote the tell-all article, Eric Lichtblau, the Cornell Daily Sun reported that:
"...[h]itting closer to home for Lichtblau, a copy of a story the reporter had written about how easy it was for undercover agents to gain access to supposedly secure departments in the federal government was found translated into Arabic in an Al Qaeda terror den. "
http://cornellsun.com/node/17349
Who's reading the NY Times? Al Qaeda, and with good reason.
Richard A. Clarke and Roger W. Cressey are counterterrorism experts, and their opinions expressed in the piece below doesn't show agreement with your take at all...
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/o...dc78d0db854cf4&ex=1151812800&pagewanted=print
June 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributors
A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew
By RICHARD A. CLARKE and ROGER W. CRESSEY
COUNTERTERRORISM has become a source of continuing domestic and international political controversy. Much of it, like the role of the Iraq war in inspiring new terrorists, deserves analysis and debate. Increasingly, however, many of the political issues surrounding counterterrorism are formulaic, knee-jerk, disingenuous and purely partisan. The current debate about United States monitoring of transfers over the Swift international financial system strikes us as a case of over-reaction by both the Bush administration and its critics.
Going after terrorists' money is a necessary element of any counterterrorism program, as President Bill Clinton pointed out in presidential directives in 1995 and 1998. Individual terrorist attacks do not typically cost very much, but running terrorist cells, networks and organizations can be extremely expensive.
Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups have had significant fund-raising operations involving solicitation of wealthy Muslims, distribution of narcotics and even sales of black market cigarettes in New York. As part of a "follow the money" strategy, monitoring international bank transfers is worthwhile (even if, given the immense number of transactions and the relatively few made by terrorists, it is not highly productive) because it makes operations more difficult for our enemies. It forces them to use more cumbersome means of moving money.
Privacy rights advocates, with whom we generally agree, have lumped this bank-monitoring program with the alleged National Security Agency wiretapping of calls in which at least one party is within the United States as examples of our government violating civil liberties in the name of counterterrorism. The two programs are actually very different.
Any domestic electronic surveillance without a court order, no matter how useful, is clearly illegal. Monitoring international bank transfers, especially with the knowledge of the bank consortium that owns the network, is legal and unobjectionable.
The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, passed in 1977, provides the president with enormous authority over financial transactions by America's enemies. International initiatives against money laundering have been under way for a decade, and have been aimed not only at terrorists but also at drug cartels, corrupt foreign officials and a host of criminal organizations.
These initiatives, combined with treaties and international agreements, should leave no one with any presumption of privacy when moving money electronically between countries. Indeed, since 2001, banks have been obliged to report even transactions entirely within the United States if there is reason to believe illegal activity is involved. Thus we find the privacy and illegality arguments wildly overblown.
So, too, however, are the Bush administration's protests that the press revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists. Administration officials made the same kinds of complaints about news media accounts of electronic surveillance. They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?
Terrorists have for many years employed nontraditional communications and money transfers â including the ancient Middle Eastern hawala system, involving couriers and a loosely linked network of money brokers â precisely because they assume that international calls, e-mail and banking are monitored not only by the United States but by Britain, France, Israel, Russia and even many third-world countries.
While this was not news to terrorists, it may, it appears, have been news to some Americans, including some in Congress. But should the press really be called unpatriotic by the administration, and even threatened with prosecution by politicians, for disclosing things the terrorists already assumed?
In the end, all the administration denunciations do is give the press accounts an even higher profile. If administration officials were truly concerned that terrorists might learn something from these reports, they would be wise not to give them further attention by repeatedly fulminating about them.
There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year. Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive. The attacks on the press are part of a political effort by administration officials to use terrorism to divide America, and to scare their supporters to the polls again this year.
The administration and its Congressional backers want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against those who would wittingly or unknowingly help the terrorists. And with four months left before Election Day, we can expect to hear many more outrageous claims about terrorism â from partisans on both sides. By now, sadly, Americans have come to expect it.
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/o...dc78d0db854cf4&ex=1151812800&pagewanted=print
June 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributors
A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew
By RICHARD A. CLARKE and ROGER W. CRESSEY
COUNTERTERRORISM has become a source of continuing domestic and international political controversy. Much of it, like the role of the Iraq war in inspiring new terrorists, deserves analysis and debate. Increasingly, however, many of the political issues surrounding counterterrorism are formulaic, knee-jerk, disingenuous and purely partisan. The current debate about United States monitoring of transfers over the Swift international financial system strikes us as a case of over-reaction by both the Bush administration and its critics.
Going after terrorists' money is a necessary element of any counterterrorism program, as President Bill Clinton pointed out in presidential directives in 1995 and 1998. Individual terrorist attacks do not typically cost very much, but running terrorist cells, networks and organizations can be extremely expensive.
Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups have had significant fund-raising operations involving solicitation of wealthy Muslims, distribution of narcotics and even sales of black market cigarettes in New York. As part of a "follow the money" strategy, monitoring international bank transfers is worthwhile (even if, given the immense number of transactions and the relatively few made by terrorists, it is not highly productive) because it makes operations more difficult for our enemies. It forces them to use more cumbersome means of moving money.
Privacy rights advocates, with whom we generally agree, have lumped this bank-monitoring program with the alleged National Security Agency wiretapping of calls in which at least one party is within the United States as examples of our government violating civil liberties in the name of counterterrorism. The two programs are actually very different.
Any domestic electronic surveillance without a court order, no matter how useful, is clearly illegal. Monitoring international bank transfers, especially with the knowledge of the bank consortium that owns the network, is legal and unobjectionable.
The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, passed in 1977, provides the president with enormous authority over financial transactions by America's enemies. International initiatives against money laundering have been under way for a decade, and have been aimed not only at terrorists but also at drug cartels, corrupt foreign officials and a host of criminal organizations.
These initiatives, combined with treaties and international agreements, should leave no one with any presumption of privacy when moving money electronically between countries. Indeed, since 2001, banks have been obliged to report even transactions entirely within the United States if there is reason to believe illegal activity is involved. Thus we find the privacy and illegality arguments wildly overblown.
So, too, however, are the Bush administration's protests that the press revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists. Administration officials made the same kinds of complaints about news media accounts of electronic surveillance. They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?
Terrorists have for many years employed nontraditional communications and money transfers â including the ancient Middle Eastern hawala system, involving couriers and a loosely linked network of money brokers â precisely because they assume that international calls, e-mail and banking are monitored not only by the United States but by Britain, France, Israel, Russia and even many third-world countries.
While this was not news to terrorists, it may, it appears, have been news to some Americans, including some in Congress. But should the press really be called unpatriotic by the administration, and even threatened with prosecution by politicians, for disclosing things the terrorists already assumed?
In the end, all the administration denunciations do is give the press accounts an even higher profile. If administration officials were truly concerned that terrorists might learn something from these reports, they would be wise not to give them further attention by repeatedly fulminating about them.
There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year. Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive. The attacks on the press are part of a political effort by administration officials to use terrorism to divide America, and to scare their supporters to the polls again this year.
The administration and its Congressional backers want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against those who would wittingly or unknowingly help the terrorists. And with four months left before Election Day, we can expect to hear many more outrageous claims about terrorism â from partisans on both sides. By now, sadly, Americans have come to expect it.
Quote from hapaboy:
So let me ask you this: Are you a counterterrorism expert? Are any editors or reporters of the NY Times counterterrorism experts?