NY Times Vs National Security

[jameson]

If this program was indeed considered "classified" (ie. secret), then revealing its existence is a crime, tantamount to treason. If it was revealed by a foreign press, it would be moot, since only a national of the state can be considered owing allegiance to cause treason. Even though newspapers are not people, they are corporations, and therefore legally considered equivalent to a human being. By this extension, the US should consider the New York Times an American citizen, since it was granted articles of incorporation by the United States. Therefore, the NYT is an American national that can be held responsible for committing crimes, including that of divulging classified state information.

It is my understanding though that US law forbids the government from classifying information relating to government wrongdoing, and the thrust of the NY Times article is exactly that: the US government monitoring money transfers in the way it does may violate privacy laws. So this program being classified would be moot in that case anyway.

Anyway, the notion that publicizing this information somehow harms the war on terror seems rather fanciful to me; US government officials have already talked publicly on multiple occasions about how they're going after the terrorists' finances and financial transactions, and I doubt that any evildoer with half a brain would think that this doesn't include SWIFT (as far as I'm aware the single biggest organization handling international money transfers worldwide). They most likely use the hawala system instead.

 

[MobBoss]

It is my understanding though that US law forbids the government from classifying information relating to government wrongdoing, and the thrust of the NY Times article is exactly that: the US government monitoring money transfers in the way it does may violate privacy laws.

Please explain to me how tracking money from Saudi Arabia to say Syria is going to violate USA privacy laws? This is NOT a domestic issue. Privacy is not an issue in regards to it either. Unless, of course, you are under the opinion that terrorists should have American Citizens privacy rights while plotting against us overseas.

Anyway, the notion that publicizing this information somehow harms the war on terror seems rather fanciful to me; US government officials have already talked publicly on multiple occasions about how they're going after the terrorists' finances and financial transactions, and I doubt that any evildoer with half a brain would think that this doesn't include SWIFT (as far as I'm aware the single biggest organization handling international money transfers worldwide). They most likely use the hawala system instead.

Knowing that we are coming after them and knowing exactly HOW we are coming after them are two very different things. The Japanese KNEW we were out to beat them in WWII....what good would it do us to tell them HOW we were going to do it?

 

[jameson]

Please explain to me how tracking money from Saudi Arabia to say Syria is going to violate USA privacy laws? This is NOT a domestic issue. Privacy is not an issue in regards to it either. Unless, of course, you are under the opinion that terrorists should have American Citizens privacy rights while plotting against us overseas.

I'm going to have to assume you didn't read the original NY Times article, since the rub about the program is exactly that financial transactions by Americans are included in the scrutiny. Let me quote:

"One person involved in the Swift program estimated that analysts had reviewed international transfers involving "many thousands" of people or groups in the United States. Two other officials placed the figure in the thousands. Mr. Levey said he could not estimate the number."

Here's the link in case you're interested.

In any case, I'll bet that this article would never have seen the light of day if only foreign transactions had been affected.

Knowing that we are coming after them and knowing exactly HOW we are coming after them are two very different things. The Japanese KNEW we were out to beat them in WWII....what good would it do us to tell them HOW we were going to do it?

Read what I posted again, it adresses that.

 

[Paradigne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason


To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress has, at times passed statutes creating treasonlike offences with different names (such as sedition in the 1789 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses, and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

 

[eyrei]

So, if a newspaper had reported a story on "Magic" the program used to break the Japanese military code and notified the Japanese so that they could change to a new code thus harming our war effort - you would be ok with that since newspapers have a "great deal of responsibility to report information they obtain"?

Funny, but I disagree. I think the NY Times did indeed harm our national security in doing this and should be held accountable.....they should also be forced to turn over the name/identity of the person who leaked the story.

Also, this program was much different than that used to freeze assets. This program could be used to trace money transfers from say Saudi Arabia to Syria that were thought untraceable. Not the same thing.

You avoided my point regarding the fact that the existence of this sort of activity has been public knowledge for several years...

 

[Bronx Warlord]

One person involved in the Swift program estimated that analysts had reviewed international transfers involving "many thousands" of people or groups in the United States. Two other officials placed the figure in the thousands. Mr. Levey said he could not estimate the number."

Esitmations and facts are apples and hand grenades ya know

Oh... and Eyrei is now president of my fanclub. All requests for 8x10 glossy's as well as autographs and public speaking arangements should be forwarded to him. Thank you.

 

[jameson]

At least, the official quoted was involved in the Swift program; that makes his estimate more credible than any one of us could guess at ourselves.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Oh this is true, at the same time when Mohammed in LA is sending money to Raj in Pakistan in large ammounts every month... I have no problem with it being looked into. It's not like they are getting there money from say France or Northern Ireland.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm going to have to assume you didn't read the original NY Times article, since the rub about the program is exactly that financial transactions by Americans are included in the scrutiny. Let me quote:

"One person involved in the Swift program estimated that analysts had reviewed international transfers involving "many thousands" of people or groups in the United States. Two other officials placed the figure in the thousands. Mr. Levey said he could not estimate the number."

Once again...what part of "international transfers" are covered by US privacy law? As has been discussed before, the privacy rules and needs for warrants stop at the shores of the United States do they not?

In any case, I'll bet that this article would never have seen the light of day if only foreign transactions had been affected.

I wouldnt assume that at all.

You avoided my point regarding the fact that the existence of this sort of activity has been public knowledge for several years...

I think you directly wrong on that point.

 

[jameson]

Once again...what part of "international transfers" are covered by US privacy law? As has been discussed before, the privacy rules and needs for warrants stop at the shores of the United States do they not?

Because the money transfers involve ' many thousands" of people or groups in the United States' ?
By the way, I was wrong before about SWIFT handling only international money transfers. A swift peek at their website shows that they offer financial services processing for all bank transactions, not necessarily only international ones.

 

[MobBoss]

Because the money transfers involve ' many thousands" of people or groups in the United States' ?

International transfers is what your quote said, not transfers from within the USA. Regardless if the owner is American, once its international it is no longer subject to US privacy law.

Btw, correct me if I am wrong, but dont all wire transfers above a certain amount have to be declared to the US treasury? Since banks have to report on your interest earned via such accounts to the government and track transfers of large amounts of money, why do you think privacy even pertains to such accounts?

 

[Mastreditr111]

There is no financial privacy in this country, nor is there a right to it. Finances are, and to a certain extent must be, under the nominal control of the government for a variety of reasons, mostly financial (taxes, fraud), with a few other reasons that run along the lines of this argument.

 

[Masquerouge]

I'd like to know how people see that debate's impact on Freedom of Speech. There was a poll a few weeks ago when a lot of American said that the basis of democracy was freedom of speech.
If you think that matters of national security should not be discussed in newspapers, do you see this as a reduction of Freedom of Speech? If not, why not?

 

[Mastreditr111]

It is not that they shouldn't be discussed, just that there should be a certain level of discretion involved.

 

[Paradigne]

The paper in my opinion showed BLATANT disregard for the american people for nothing more than the hopes of making a few extra bucks. What should be done to them??? The american consumer should quit buying that paper. It is our only course of action.

The person who leaked the information should be found and tried for treason (as defined in my previous post)

 

[Mastreditr111]

The leaker, certainly, and the paper, possibly, depending on how far the law extends... There are some areas where freedom of speech is just irresponsible. The military is one, and we accept that. Cannot counter-intelligence be another?

 

[eyrei]

I think you directly wrong on that point.

Then you might want to go look up some of GWB's explanations of what progress we were making in the "War on Terror". It started many years ago, but gained momentum immediately after 9/11, though I believe it was standard policy to freeze the assets of known terrorists before that. In fact, it was probably the first 'offensive' the US made. Since your entire argument that the NYTimes should be punished in some way is based on them having done some harm, you might want to do some research and find out if they have actually done any harm.

For instance, from 2001:Washington Post

 

[Mastreditr111]

Then you might want to go look up some of GWB's explanations of what progress we were making in the "War on Terror". It started many years ago, but gained momentum immediately after 9/11, though I believe it was standard policy to freeze the assets of known terrorists before that. In fact, it was probably the first 'offensive' the US made. Since your entire argument that the NYTimes should be punished in some way is based on them having done some harm, you might want to do some research and find out if they have actually done any harm.

Regardless of harm actually done in this case, if they broke a law, they should be punished. If there is no such law, they should in any case be required to reveal their source or be charged with obstruction of justice.

Saying they can't be touched because they did no real harm is like saying an attempted murderer can't be tried because he didn't actually do any harm to his intended victim.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

MobBoss has yet to prove that the terrorists were unaware of this program, or that the leak of the existence of the program helped them circumvent it in anyway.

Under those circumstances, the biggest concern I see coming out of this story is that the CIA once again conducted possibly illegal activities in Europe. What with that and secret prisons and rendition, we're really making friends over there.

 

[eyrei]

Regardless of harm actually done in this case, if they broke a law, they should be punished. If there is no such law, they should in any case be required to reveal their source or be charged with obstruction of justice.

Saying they can't be touched because they did no real harm is like saying an attempted murderer can't be tried because he didn't actually do any harm to his intended victim.

The murderer in your example intended to do harm.