“ACT ON ALL FRONTS, INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL ONE”

Via Power Line—currently all over the NYT’s treasonous hide—this New York Times editorial from September 24, 2001:

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities …

If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.

The despised Bush regime did exactly as requested, and the NYT responded by exposing the program’s details:

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 …

Data from the Brussels-based banking consortium, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, has allowed officials from the C.I.A., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies to examine “tens of thousands” of financial transactions …

Hey, they asked for it. Seems the NYT isn’t too keen on its own version of the what would you do game. Jim Treacher’s view:
image
More from Power Line, which notes this grateful NYT response to a fan’s email:

Thank you for your thoughtful – and very welcome – email.

We appreciate your taking the time and trouble to write!

Hit the link to see the email that provoked the NYT’s gratitude. Then read Jules Crittenden  in the Boston Herald. And also—as you should do constantly—Iowahawk.

Posted by Tim B. on 06/28/2006 at 11:40 AM
    1. Has anyone checked to see if that’s the NYT‘s usual automated response to any email they receive or if, indeed, it is a personalized response to what was viewed as a favourable response to their programme-destroying report?

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 06 28 at 12:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. “…banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States…”

      The SWIFT system only monitors funds movement from institution to institution, and contains no personal data. Could the NYTimes be any more misleading in this characterization.

      Any “Americans” affected are Americans only in the sense that a corporation, or other institutions, are American-based.

      And by the way, who are these “others in the United States”? And why should they avoid scrutiny. It’s a fairly commonplace notion that no expectations of privacy exist for business records held by third parties.

      As it is, Treasury regulations require disclosure of transactions involving amounts of $10,000 or more.

      Posted by Forbes on 2006 06 28 at 12:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts.

      And the Congressional rebuke of these actions is where exactly?

      Exactly.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 28 at 12:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. This is what I sent M. Keller after reading that the EU is now objecting to the “untransparency” of the Swift program:

      “Still ‘puzzled,’ you stupid f*ck?”

      Posted by mimritty on 2006 06 28 at 12:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Forbes.

      Yup, I’ve seen those computer prints.  The Treasury does a very good job on those.

      Most of the interesting stuff is overseas-Saudi bank cross to London bank etc.  As I understand it, we’re going to lose co-operation on that stuff through the NYT exposure.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 28 at 12:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. I should have added that it’s not just the 10’ers that get hit.  Transactions that don’t fit you’re profile and transactions that are an obvious attempt to evade the 10 rule also get hit.

      But again, it’s the foreign to foreign that are the most important.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 28 at 12:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. In part of an email to Jonah Goldberg at the Corner/NRO, I indicated that THE ‘sources’ (treasonous idiots within the U.S. government) and THE ‘leakers’ (treasonous idiots to whom the ‘source’ gives secret information, example, the NYT) should be treated in the same fashion as Aldrich Ames, OR the Walker family of spies, OR Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 12:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, if a couple thousand Americans get killed by terrorists because of this, the NYT can comfort itself by that old “omelet-eggs” thing.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 28 at 12:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. yojimbo

      I should have added that it’s not just the 10’ers that get hit

      Absolutely correct. Having a person that I hold very near and dear working for a major financial institution, involving certain groups, or peoples for ‘laundering’, ‘fraud’, and/or ‘suspicious transactions’ of any kind, the dollar amount looked at or into, is almost inconsequential.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 12:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. #7—El Cid: All I ask is that the Feds go after these classified leakers with the same gusto as they did after the alleged leak of Valerie Plame’s name.

      If a few newspaper employees sit in jail cells—as a result of their refusal to cooperate with a criminal inquiry—during the course of said investigation, so be it.

      Though I’m still waiting for the paragon’s of the press to call for the appointment of a “special prosecutor,” but I won’t be holding my breath.

      Posted by Forbes on 2006 06 28 at 01:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. 10 Forbes

      Your request(s) are reasonable, mine are extreme. Unfortunately, neither will come into being.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 01:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. “frog march”, is for the person who is NOT from the Left, only.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 01:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. Do you mean to imply that outing this program rises to the same level as outing some “brave” CIA employee sitting on her butt in Langley?

      <a >

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 28 at 01:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, the Times (both of them) are certainly patriotic. The greatest papers in the entire world.

      Oops, looks like you didn’t close the sarc tag, yojimbo!

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 06 28 at 01:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. THE TERRORIST-TIPPING TIMES (aka NYT).

      I remind you of the case of the Treason Times, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation. As the New York Post reported last September, the Justice Department charged that “a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office—potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.” Times reporter Philip Shenon was accused of blowing the cover on a Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation.

      “It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times,” U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times’ legal department.

      How odd this persons name comes to the forefront, again.
      Michelle Malkin

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 01:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. El Cid

      Yeah, the original intent of the statute was fighting tax evasion and tax shelter abuse.

      In the Western Region, those prints landed on the third floor of the Federal building in Los Angeles where experienced field agents identified problem areas.

      Spent many a “joyful and happy day” in Fresno(always during the summer!!!) working on all of these “special projects” and “pilot programs”.

      Yuk
      Double yuk
      Yuk cubed

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 28 at 01:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. How odd this persons name comes to the forefront, again.

      AND, how odd the ‘leaker’ NYT, had not a damn thing happen to it, nor the ‘source’.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 01:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. yojimbo

      Yeah, the original intent of the statute was fighting tax evasion and tax shelter abuse.

      We have that kinda’ stuff? OH NO…next you’ll tell me that there is NO Santa, or Easter Bunny. I must cover my ears, sorry eyes…:).

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 01:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. El Cid

      Certainly not.  Nothing to see here, just moveon.

      This reasonably coincided with the government discovering the “computer age”.

      The “best and the brightest” were forever coming up with fun things to do.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 28 at 01:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. The New York Times have long been glorifiers of terrorism. On the morning of September 11th 2001, whilst their city was undergoing the most violent terrorist assault in history the NYT had a puff piece celebrating the former leaders of the Weather Underground Bill Ayers and Bernardette Dohm. The article was titled “No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives.

      Posted by Ross on 2006 06 28 at 02:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Crittenden piece is outstanding, and is even getting good reviews on the Herald website (though I am given to understand that it is far more conservative than the Globe).

      Still, you have to wonder how long it will take for the moonbats to start flinging poo.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 06 28 at 02:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. What!!! The Grey Hag has committed treason again! Not to worry (yawn), the NYTERRORIST has learnt that it will not suffer any consequences from giving aid and comfort to the enemy, just as it did a few weeks ago by releasing secret information on monitoring Terrorist phone calls. (See Schoenfeld’s article, pgs 23-32 of March ‘06 Commentary and his article, pgs 16-17 of July ‘06 Weekly Standard on NYT’s violations of the Espionage Act.) But are these the only outrages against the security of US citizens and soldiers committed by the Grey Slut? A summary of all the NYT reporting of “facts” actual and fabricated giving aid and comfort to the enemy would fill dozens of posts. Here are just three aimed at undermining Coalition efforts in Iraq:
      3/14/06, In a brief, unsigned article buried deep within the newspaper, the Hag admitted that a major “scoop” in the newspaper which made HEADLINES the previous Saturday was nothing more than a load of camel ca-ca. The front-page article, by the Times’s house terrorism apologist Hassan Fattah, told the grisly tale of the ‘prisoner’ she discovered who had been photographed in a black hood at Abu Gharib. However, the Times had the wrong guy—and, as the Times did not point out, that his story had big holes.
      12/4/05. NYT runs bogus story on eve of Iraqui election about voter ballots being smuggled into Iran to try to upset election.
      On 6/ 6/05, the New York Times’ acknowledged that one of its editors had inserted false information into an op-ed that ran that day in some editions about conditions in Iraq.
      The NYT also specializes in suppression of the news, distortion, outright propaganda in favor of enemies of the USA. Only one example of each to save space:
      Suppression:Nov. 6 The NYT laughably reports on the Muslim riots in France without ever indicating that the rioters are Muslim. (The NYT suppression of news of the Holocaust is well-known, and was publicly admitted to by the Times)
      Distortion:The NYT’’s selective editing disgrace reached the pages of the New York Post: “The family of a Marine killed in Iraq slammed The New York Times yesterday for selectively excerpting a letter he wrote predicting his own death, while the paper scandalously ignored a long passage in which he praised America’’s mission…“I (his uncle)wrote to the Times and said it would be proper to honor Jeff by completing the story. They never responded.””
      Propoganda for enemies of the USA.:The support of the NYT (articles by Herbert Mathews) for Castro is documented in a book by Anthony DePalma in which he states that ““Matthews called Castro a defender of the Cuban Constitution , a lover of democracy and a friend of the American people.”” He notes that ““The image created by Matthews stuck, helping Castro consolidate his power and gain international recognition. US attitudes toward the conflict in Cuba changed, dooming Batista.””

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 28 at 03:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. #22 continued, See also #15, 20.

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 28 at 03:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. #2 “The SWIFT system only monitors funds movement from institution to institution, and contains no personal data.”

      The SWIFT system will contain personal data, on the MT103 message, i.e. when payment is made via RTGS.  The identity of the sender and recipient is included in the message.

      Posted by 2dogs on 2006 06 28 at 04:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. I enjoyed Crittenden’s article – spot on. I noticed the brief biog at the top of the page states ‘Crittenden has covered crime, science, foreign affairs and military matters in New England, Israel, India, Pakistan, Kosovo, Kuwait and Iraq’. Is there something about New England we don’t know about?

      Posted by AlphaMikeFoxtrot on 2006 06 28 at 04:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. Interesting photo. Looks like that cryonics business worked out great for Ted Williams.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 28 at 04:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. #24—2dogs: I stand corrected regarding the type of data that can be included in SWIFT messages.

      So as to clarify the SWIFT mission, here’s their compliance statement:
      ****
      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.

      The challenge facing the financial industry is to implement measures that prevent illegal behaviour without penalising the efficient processing of legitimate financial transactions. SWIFT is fully committed to doing its part to address this challenge and remains committed to its policy of cooperation to fight money laundering and illegal activities within the scope of its activity.

      * The FATF is an inter-governmental body, which develops and promotes policies to combat money laundering. The FATF monitors progress in building effective anti-money laundering systems, it reviews laundering techniques, and it promotes the adoption and implementation of money laundering counter-measures in non-member countries.
      ****
      And yet, the NYTimes need to communicate to the terrorist world that investigators look at this data in order to filter out terrorist financing actiities.

      Disclosure of classified intelligence means and methods is certainly a violation of the Espionage Act.

      Why is this any different than disclosing troop and ship movements?

      Posted by Forbes on 2006 06 28 at 05:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. Just reported on Fox News…17 Countries are now considering the stopping of cooperation in tracking terror money.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 06:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sounds like we need to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the New York Times.  Let the chips fall where they may and may the NYT editors and reporters begin practicing tossing salad.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 28 at 06:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. Belgians will probe U.S. bank privacy row

      We need to ask what are the legal frontiers in this case and whether it is right that a U.S. civil servant could look at private transactions without the approval of a Belgian judge

      UPI

      Evidentially, this is the first of what Fox News reported.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 07:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. I expect those smug fatcats at the NYTraitor are feeling very pleased with themselves now.  They’ve finally managed to do some real damage.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 28 at 07:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. I mentioned Aldrich Ames, in an earlier post. Had I exposed what the NYT exposed, my cell may have been next to Mr. Ames.

      Think I’ll legally change and identify myself as a member of the media. I can get away with murder, damn near, if not.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 07:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. Addendum to #30

      By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE
      UPI Editor at Large

      WASHINGTON, June 28 (UPI)—President Bush was swift to react angrily against the New York Times for exposing U.S. monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications) as a suspected conduit for the transfer of terrorist funds. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese accused the newspaper of giving “aid and comfort to the enemy,” which is tantamount to treason. Belgian and European authorities also reacted angrily against the Bush administration for tapping SWIFT’s Belgian-based supercomputers without the green light of a Belgian judge. The hullabaloo generated much heat and little light.

      SWIFT is the heart and lungs of the global banking industry, operating a secure electronic exchange service for fund transfers between some 7,800 banks in 200 countries. The network routes a staggering $6 trillion daily—America’s annual GDP is $10 trillion—between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and all manner of financial institutions. Its banks of supercomputers process orders at the rate of several trillion moves per second.

      The National Security Agency’s electronic vacuum cleaners that suck in over a billion bits of information daily, in scores of languages, are the only ones capable of doing the heavy sifting of gazillion accounts. The New York Times also broke the story of NSA’s global eavesdropping program, which allows NSA’s search engines to browse back to the United States and figure out the American end of a conversation with a terrorist suspect in another continent.

      UPI

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 07:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. All this fuss about nothing – what exactly in the NYT article would have tipped terrorists off? Bush himself has publicly disclosed they are tracking suspect financial transactions. There is nothing in the NYT article that threatens US national security.

      Posted by bongoman on 2006 06 28 at 07:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. Exactly, Bongoman! How about a metaphor these dumb wingnuts can understand:

      A bank robber already knows the cops are looking for him. So what’s the harm if the newspaper tells him where not to hide?

      Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 28 at 07:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. bongoman

      Man you have to stop beating your bongo. Like you know, when as a young person ‘they’ said, beating your bongo will make you go blind or drive you crazy? Well in your case, it evidentially was true.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 08:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. Case in point, bongoman…

      Oklahoma Judge on Trial for Alleged Indecent Exposure on Bench

      snippets…….

      Former Judge Donald D. Thompson, a veteran of 23 years on the bench, is on trial on charges he used a penis pump on himself in the courtroom while sitting in judgment of others.
      ————-
      She testified that during a trial in 2002, she heard the pump during the emotional testimony of a murdered toddler’s grandfather.
      ————

      The grandfather “was getting real teary-eyed, and the judge was up there pumping on that pump,” she said. “It was sickening.”

      Fox News

      Stop beating your bongoman.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 08:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. More histeria.

      Seriously, does anyone believe Tony Snowjobs suggestion that any self respecting terrorist isn’t goign to suspect such programs were in place?

      Especially seeing as the NYT was so instrumental in giving the right their beloved war.

      Anyone who has tried to wire more than a couple fo grand since 911 knows there’s paperwork to fill out regarding anti-terrorims measures.

      [THE PAGE-LAYOUT-DESTROYING UNFORMATTED URL THAT THIS NO-FOREHEAD, GAP-TOOTHED, BRACHYCEPHALIC, INCONSIDERATE DICKHEAD HAD HERE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE MANAGEMENT.]

      Check out E.D Hill gettign in touch with her inner Anne Coulter on Faux News.

      [LINK REMOVED. INSTEAD CHECK OUT YOUR OWN SELF GETTING BANNED FROM THIS SITE FOR NOT HAVING THE COMMON COURTESY TO FORMAT YOUR LINKS, AND MOREOVER, FOR BEING AN ALL-AROUND ASSHOLE INSTEAD OF JUST AN IDIOT WHO OBVIOUSLY CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO CLICK A COUPLE OF BUTTONS. THE MANAGEMENT.]

      Posted by Addamo on 2006 06 28 at 08:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ahhhh, yes. The second bongo beater.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 08:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Grey Hag voted for the financial monitoring program before they voted against it.

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 28 at 09:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Our “beloved war”.

      What. A. Moron.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 06 28 at 09:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. I know that Addamo and Bongoman cannot spell, read or think, so it’s useless to point out the obvious to them. At one time their clownishness gave me a good laugh, but now their complete stupidity makes them useless as a source of fun.

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 28 at 09:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: ‘Head of Counterintelligence—Al-Qaida.’” Coulter wrote Wednesday in her syndicated column. “You just have to read the New York Times over morning coffee, and you’re done by 10 a.m.”
      —————
      “Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots,” Ann recalled. “She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.

      “Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger has just been named al-Qaida’s ‘Employee of the Month’ for the 12th straight month”.

      News Max

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 09:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Seriously, does anyone believe Tony Snowjobs suggestion that any self respecting terrorist isn’t goign (sic) to suspect such programs were in place?”

      Addamo brings you . . . Great Moments in History

      “Seriously, does anyone believe that Adolph Hitler isn’t going to suspect that the allies are trying to crack Enigma?”

      “Seriously, does anyone believe that Joseph Stalin isn’t going to suspect that the U.S. is trying to guard atomic secrets from him?”

      “Seriously, does anyone believe that Benedict Arnold would risk the noose to betray his country?”

      “Seriously, does anyone believe that Addamo would post a link that wasn’t a model of credibility?”

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 28 at 09:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ummmmm, paco.

      Addamo brings you <—you forgot the blaring trumpets and drum roll—>
      Great Moments in History

      🙂

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 09:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. #44 Briefly continued for Addamo’s sake:
      Seriously, didn’t the Japanese think that the United States was trying to crack its code.
      (Addamo-What do you think Roosevelt would have done to the testicles – if they had any- of the NYT editors if they had printed that the US had broken the code?)

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 28 at 09:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Seriously”….lol.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 09:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. 46 stats

      OR given them a book titled, How to speak Navajo.

      OR…We got your Enigma, right here.

      Seriously.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 06 28 at 09:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. It’s almost as bad as them phone tapping terrorists who are planning on blowing things up!

      I heard the other day that they dared to arrest someone before they had blown anything up in Florida! That is just not cricket.

      Sigh.

      Posted by JamesP on 2006 06 28 at 10:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. #44 & 46, paco and stats, you’ve gone too far back.  Everybody knows the serious history began with Vietnam and Watergate.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 28 at 10:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, thank goodness it was a no-account Chicago paper that ran the story that we had broken the Japanese code.  Roosevelt wanted to hang them up by the …, um, big toes, but since no one else picked up the story, they let it drop rather than call attention to it.  They faced the same kind of problems the government faces today with espionage trials:  a trial means sharing information with the enemy.  Of course, with the profligacy of the NYTimes, everything is already being shared.

      Everybody needs to keep raising a stink.  Everytime a EU country starts squeaking to try to cover their asses, we need to write another letter to both coasts of the Times, and the Wall Street Journal (I can’t tell you how disappointed I am that they ran that story, I don’t care what their slant is.)

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 28 at 10:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, and Adammo, you’re a bigger fool than even I thought, and I thought you were a pretty big fool.

      Seriously.

      You really live in a bubble, don’t you, with limited access to reality?

      You and ol’ bongoman are sure lucky there are adults around to care for you.  Otherwise you’d have to pay the consequences of your foolishness.  (I hate to break it to you, but you will probably have to pay the price at some time in your life.  Justice just works that way.)

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 28 at 10:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. The fact is the NYT article did not disclose anything that wan’t already in the public domain. Where’s the treason?

      Posted by bongoman on 2006 06 28 at 11:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Bush Administration had previously made public references to SWIFT.

      Baseless fearmongering.

      Posted by bongoman on 2006 06 28 at 11:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. Obviously some of the people responsible for the bombings in Asia never got the memo about the tracing of financial transactions.

      It was common knowledge that the US and others were trying to get a handle on financial transactions.  What was not known was the context, scope and pervasiveness of the process.  This was a very coordinated effort.  You have to give the Bush Administration very hight marks.  You would have to be pretty high in one of the intel agencies to have the overall context of this operation-something the terrorists didn’t have before the NYT.

      To simply say that there is nothing new here because we all knew that Bush was going after financial transactions is really coyote stupid in the extreme.  I’d expect more out of a high school debate team.  Now why don’t you two just run along and go play on the freeway.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 29 at 12:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. I have never heard of one positive suggestion out of any of these people.  Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.  Whine, Whine, Whine.

      They don’t like the war. We have
      a law enforcement problem.  Well, these are all law enforcement techinques, but they don’t like these either.

      They don’t like any approach taken yet they have never offered one constructive suggestion as to what should be done.
      Little children
      Little children
      Little children

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 29 at 12:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. American newspapermen are all over the place (surprise, surprise) on this, as linked at Jim Romenesko’s site. I found this letter from Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald interesting:

      ‘Now the New York Times tells us that the United States’ use of SWIFT data to hunt down and capture terrorists is old news, citing an obscure UN document from 2002. This raises the question of why, last week, the NYT trumpeted it as frontpage news, and why, in months of earnest discussions with the Bush administration, they did not raise this. That’s the only conclusion we can draw from their failure to include this in the points they showcased in their previous defenses over the past week. It appears that the world’s greatest newspaper was unaware of this. Either that, or the editors felt strongly that this dead horse needed another beating, and did not care to point out it was not original reporting.’

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 06 29 at 03:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. I really believe that Bongoman and his ilk don’t realize they’re on the wrong side. In their zeal to oppose anything and everything they’ve labeled BUSH, they can’t see they’ve crossed the line.  Bongoman, let me tell you something.  That isn’t cacik dribbling down your chin.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 29 at 04:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. #58, Texas Bob,
      There’s an old Texas proverb that says that when you throw dirt, you lose ground.  I try to keep to that, but….  What’s the phrase?  “Stuck on stupid”, I believe the saying goes.

      They want us to give their “opinions” serious consideration, but they offer nothing but the trite, the clich�, and the rankest cant.  I used to be the sort of person who gave people the benefit of the doubt about motives, etc., but no more.  If they don’t get it by now, they won’t get it until Mohammad is sawing on their collective neck.  They don’t matter.  People who do nothing but regurgitate what they’ve been fed, don’t matter.

      I’ve had my fill of them and the ideology they rode in on.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 29 at 04:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. This leak will keep terrorist financing off SWIFT/RTGS for a while, and the terrorists would probably consider other formal systems such as FedWire to dangerous for a while, too.

      There are some tax investigations going into some money transfer firms such as Western Union at the moment, which means they are also too risky for the terrorists.

      That leaves some very informal systems like Hawala.  If the authorities set up some bogus Hawala agencies as a honeypot, they could prove very successful in capturing terrorists over the next few years.

      Posted by 2dogs on 2006 06 29 at 05:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. #59 saltydog, you’re right and you put it so much more eloquently than I was thinking. I was just going to say Screw ‘em.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 29 at 05:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. #61 Texas Bob,

      HA!  “Screw ‘em” is good.  There’s a lot to be said for brevity.

      (Sorry, it’s late.)

      #60 2dogs,

      Suitcases seem to be enjoying popularity these days.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 29 at 06:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey, did ya know?A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.
      The New York Times has the story, but their buddies at Gaza asked them not to print it.
      (Hat tip to Maybeth)

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 29 at 08:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bongoman needs to send his advice to the NYT Editor who wrote an explanation of why he (the editor) should not go to jail, but did not include the reason put forth by bongtwit. Considering that the reasons given hardly bordered on the coherent, it is a wonder why the genius editor never came up with bongos extremely clever rationale. Could it be that…?

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 29 at 08:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m still waiting to hear what the terrorists would now do differently following the NYT article.

      Posted by bongoman on 2006 06 29 at 08:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bongoman, you keep saying everyone knew about this plan prior to the NYT releasing their story.  The public did NOT know the details of how this program works. The difference is akin to an opposing football team knowing you’re going to run a play and knowing exactly which play you’re going to run.
      The New York Times and Keller have damaged US efforts, yet again, to effectively combat the enemy.  Why are you trying to defend this?

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 29 at 09:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, bongoman, please do explain.  Why do you consistently defend the tactics of the enemy?

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 29 at 10:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think I can explain bongoman. Given that he seems to think (well, believe) that terrorists aren’t going to do anything different now, there are two possible rationales for such a belief:

      1) The terrorists are dumber than a box of rocks and too fanatical to care that they’re using compromised channels, and they’ll continue to do so.

      2) The terrorists were long aware of these surveillance programs and weren’t using the compromised channels anyway. The Bush administration has been tracking millions of bank statements and transactions just for fun and sport for the last few years, because that’s the kind of intrusive, privacy-destroying thing they like to do all the freakin’ time.

      My money’s on #2 as the basis of bongo’s “thinking”.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 29 at 10:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. You’ve got to talk to bongoman in his own language.

      Hey, Bongoman! Paco come in peace. Paco want to know, why you always say “enemy coming; me go collect coconuts now”? Why you do this? You like ‘em enemy tribe better? You got blowpipe in loincloth or you just glad see ‘em? Bongoman not know that, by ‘n by, him maybe catch dart in neck from enemy tribe? Maybe bongoman think enemy warriors just say, “Oops! We plenty sorry about that bongoman”? Bongoman think this, Paco got prime swampland him sell to Bongoman cheap.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 29 at 11:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m still waiting to hear what the terrorists would now do differently following the NYT article. 
      Why not call your pal Osama on his direct line and ask him? (Hell, I’m still trying to figure out what the Nazis would have done had they known their Enigma code had been broken. Ditto for the Japanese and their code. Can you help me on that?)

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 29 at 11:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey, ol’ Bongodude obviously knows more than any of the rest of us.  He speaks in declarative sentences.  He has no remnant of a question about his assertions.  He knows what the terrorists are about.

      Hey.  He knows what the terrorists know.  Now how would he manage that?

      Is that you, Bongomohammad?

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 29 at 01:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. The one question that remains unanswered is this. Who decided that the NYT and/or Bongoman and the other resident bat in the belfry was empowered to declassify information, and decide what is or is not vital?
      The problem with right wing thugs like you Bongoboy, is that you and your buddies at the NYT are elites who try to rule over us and decide the course that this nation will take. Thus, you usurp the authority of our elected leaders and undermine our constitutional government. This assault on our constitutional system of government will not go unchallenged, man. You elitist thugs will have to pry my republic out of my hands, you fascist.

      Power to all of the people!

      Posted by Blue Hen on 2006 06 29 at 03:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. I don’t understand some of these claims made in comments above that the reporting of the SWIFT program was an old story, and everyone knew about it.

      So how come the NYTimes blasts this old story on the front page above the fold, declaring it to be the disclosure of a classified intelligence program.

      This leads to the conclusion that the NYTimes was lying, and as such, not reporting news, or even “news,” which causes me to question the truthiness of what else the NYTimes publishes. Are the Timesmen just lying sacks of shit?

      Can someone help me out?

      Posted by Forbes on 2006 06 29 at 04:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. Are the Timesmen just lying sacks of shit?

      Yes.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 29 at 06:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, neither bongoman nor his buddies have been banned yet, so I can only conclude he has no legitimate reply to your questions, or else he’s still passed out next to his bong.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 06 29 at 06:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. lying sack of shits with an anti-American, pro-Stalinist stench

      Posted by stats on 2006 06 29 at 06:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bongoman? Bongoman? cricket chirp…….cricket chirp………cricket chirp………cricket chirp…….

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 30 at 02:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. Eh.  I had a biting and scathing reply to bongoman, but then realized…ah, he ain’t worth my wroth.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 30 at 07:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Skeert.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 30 at 09:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. Reality engagement appears to be a bridge too far for some of these people.  The underlying Times article does mention how these programs have reaped rewards on the GWOT.  Some of the terrorist groups are financially sophisticated but many are not. I’m sure that the more sophisticated groups looked at those arrests ard were able to connect the dots and searched for alternative measures.  Most don’t have that level of sophistication to change.  Now they may not have to.  Most of these foreign govts were more than happy to go along with these measures as long as they never reached the light of day.  Now that the specificity has hit the fan they may be forced to withdraw by their Euroweenie constituents.

      Things would be alot better if President govern by focus group had grabbed OBL when he was offered by the Sudanese.  I would like to see some of these clowns address that issue sometime.  You might call him the un-leadership President.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 30 at 12:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. hey, folks, it’s all in the name of honest reporting. Coming next from the NYT: a list of covert CIA operatives in foreign countries. The public has a right to know!
      (oh and bongoman before you bother retorting with Plame, she was inactive).

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 05:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. wow, the trolls fled pretty fast from this one, didn’t they?

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 05:25 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.