NY Times Vs National Security

[Mastreditr111]

I am aware... but breaking the law, for whatever reason, is still breaking the law. Whether causing harm was your active goal or not, it is still irresponsible enough that they should be held accountable to whatever degree possible.

 

[eyrei]

I am aware... but breaking the law, for whatever reason, is still breaking the law. Whether causing harm was your active goal or not, it is still irresponsible enough that they should be held accountable to whatever degree possible.

Revealing what is already public knowledge (even if only for those who pay attention) is not a crime.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Was this particular program public knowledge? THIS EXACT ONE? Or just something like it? Because there is an important distinction. A viable judicial precedent for dealing with situations like this MUST be established, and sooner rather than later.

 

[eyrei]

Was this particular program public knowledge? THIS EXACT ONE? Or just something like it? Because there is an important distinction. A viable judicial precedent for dealing with situations like this MUST be established, and sooner rather than later.

I think the only thing exceptional about this program was that it targetted Americans, which is why it was leaked, and then reported. The program itself is probably illegal by many interpretations...

 

[Drewcifer]

I have heard that many who have more knowledge of the matter question the legality of the program, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) for one.

If there is a secret program that is illegal, or perhaps illegal, how is it going to be challenged if the press is afraid to report about it?

 

[MobBoss]

I think the only thing exceptional about this program was that it targetted Americans, which is why it was leaked, and then reported. The program itself is probably illegal by many interpretations...

Oh come on. Are you alleging that its only purpose was to target americans unlawfully? Sure sounds like it.

No. This program was meant to catch terrorists. And it did just that.

Revealing what is already public knowledge (even if only for those who pay attention) is not a crime.

This program was not "public knowledge" and you know it. It most certainly wouldnt have caused such a stir if it were "public knowlege".

 

[eyrei]

Oh come on. Are you alleging that its only purpose was to target americans unlawfully? Sure sounds like it.

No. This program was meant to catch terrorists. And it did just that.

I said nothing of the sort. However, the only reason it was leaked, and then newsworthy was because it targetted American citizens, which very possibly makes it illegal.

This program was not "public knowledge" and you know it. It most certainly wouldnt have caused such a stir if it were "public knowlege".

That American citizens were being targetted was the only part that was new. That certainly didn't tip off terrorists to anything relevant to the vast majority of them that they didn't already know. I'm pretty sure we caught the stupid ones already...

 

[Mastreditr111]

Again, I think that there are no laws protecting financial privacy, as money is far too intertwined with the government. Read the old post for clarification.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

The definition of "wrong" is decided by courts of law, not a private organization. If the NYT was really interested in advancing justice, they would report their discovery to the Dept of Justice, or some other related office.

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.

That's like saying that it's ok to reveal a nation's war plans, because their enemies already know they'll be attacked eventually.

And btw, what's "hawala"?

 

[MobBoss]

I said nothing of the sort. However, the only reason it was leaked, and then newsworthy was because it targetted American citizens, which every possibly makes it illegal.

Not in the least. Every time something like this gets reported people cry "illegal, illegal", but I have yet to see any charges of any type filed because of any such program. Also, so what if it targets american citizens? Are they somehow inviolate in their status as to be above scrutiny? What is the problem of tracking such large sums of money internationally when you have no right to privacy in the matter?

 

[eyrei]

Again, I think that there are no laws protecting financial privacy, as money is far too intertwined with the government. Read the old post for clarification.

I'm honestly not sure of the legal aspects. However, after the perception of abuse of power over bypassing the FISA court, it is only logical to be suspicious. If we could truly be sure that all information not relevant to the supposed "War on Terror" was discarded, it might be easier to swallow the intrusion. Our government has no need or right to all this information about us, especially when governments throughout history have abused 'national security' to spy on their citizens. I fear such changes in our government far more than I fear terrorists, and the freedom of the press to report on such pseudo-legal activities is one of the protections against such changes.

I wonder what libertarians think of all this...

 

[Mastreditr111]

This much is true, and is much of the reason why I am concerned with establishing a firm judicial precedent here, before anything can be drastically overblown on either side of the argument.

 

[eyrei]

Not in the least. Every time something like this gets reported people cry "illegal, illegal", but I have yet to see any charges of any type filed because of any such program. Also, so what if it targets american citizens? Are they somehow inviolate in their status as to be above scrutiny? What is the problem of tracking such large sums of money internationally when you have no right to privacy in the matter?

American citizens are guaranteed certain rights under the constitution, and one of those rights is immunity to warrantless searches without probable cause. Such rights are important because they are what separates a democracy from an authoritarian government. National security, especially based on a dubious 'war', is not a good enough reason to begin to erode them.

Charges have not been filed because they would have to be filed by the executive branch against itself, which simply isn't going to happen with this administration. It would take an act of congress to intitiate such an investigation, and this may well happen should the GOP lose control of either house in November.

 

[MobBoss]

American citizens are guaranteed certain rights under the constitution, and one of those rights is immunity to warrantless searches without probable cause.

NOT, repeat NOT what this program was about. So this does not apply.

Such rights are important because they are what separates a democracy from an authoritarian government. National security, especially based on a dubious 'war', is not a good enough reason to begin to erode them.

Once again, there is no "searches" being conducted here. No one is busting into someones home in the middle of the night and looking up their bank records.

Charges have not been filed because they would have to be filed by the executive branch against itself, which simply isn't going to happen with this administration. It would take an act of congress to intitiate such an investigation, and this may well happen should the GOP lose control of either house in November.

Be real. Its never going to happen because any charges filed would be hugely specious at best. Only the most frothing mouthed democrats would ever go for such a move thank goodness. The halfway sane ones would ensure that such a move never succeeds.

 

[jameson]

The definition of "wrong" is decided by courts of law, not a private organization. If the NYT was really interested in advancing justice, they would report their discovery to the Dept of Justice, or some other related office.

Whose investigation could be killed off by the simple expedient of refusing to grant them security clearances, like happened in the warrantless wiretapping case.
Now I'm less clear about the mechanics of whistleblowing legislation here, but I very much doubt it forces newspapers to sit on this kind of news for years while litigation is pending and allegedly illegal activity continues. Eventually you'll have the magic words "national security" used like they were used in Latin America before.

That's like saying that it's ok to reveal a nation's war plans, because their enemies already know they'll be attacked eventually.

No it isn't. My initial post made that clear.

And btw, what's "hawala"?

An alternative kind of money transfer system. Here is a good explanation of how it works.

 

[eyrei]

NOT, repeat NOT what this program was about. So this does not apply.



Once again, there is no "searches" being conducted here. No one is busting into someones home in the middle of the night and looking up their bank records.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note the mention of papers, referring to documents, some of which would deal with finances.

Be real. Its never going to happen because any charges filed would be hugely specious at best. Only the most frothing mouthed democrats would ever go for such a move thank goodness. The halfway sane ones would ensure that such a move never succeeds.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but partisan politics go a long way in Washington, as shown by the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton. I don't think I am being unrealistic at all, since I don't think the Democrats any more sane than the Republicans.

 

[MobBoss]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note the mention of papers, referring to documents, some of which would deal with finances.

Nope. We are talking wire transfers here...not bundles of paper money or paper records of same.

Nor does this cover actions taken in Belgium (or overseas) for goodness sake.

 

[Tulkas12]

Since we are not in a formal war, it is my opinion that the executive has no right to do any of this in general. It is questionable whether this is legal, but be wary of the shouters... The executive would not have pursued it if they didn't at least think they had a farce of a case(one htat could be in courts for years while the program continues). As for privacy concerns? I seriously question anyone moving hundreds of grand and wanting privacy over the matter. I can't think of anything, that wouldn't be dubious in nature, that would justify privacy of such transactions. Mail is one thing but massive international monetary transactions? Do we really want this to be private anyways?

This whole thing brings up another point though, the government is going through a system called Swift. They account for most of these transactions, my point being, why do people not have a problem with these people keeping records of everyone's transactions? Is it that they think it wouldn't be followed by governments. . . Most of the time if the government is looking for someone domesticaly they go to the credit companies. The government itself seems ineot at doing their own workd, so where do you guys stand on this issue in a more broad sense?

 

[MobBoss]

Since we are not in a formal war, it is my opinion that the executive has no right to do any of this in general. It is questionable whether this is legal, but be wary of the shouters...

Pardon me, but there is not a single democrat dissenting to this program or alleging that it is in any way illegal. Pretty much both parties are in agreement over this that it was a bad call by the NY Times to print such a story at this point in time.

 

[Paradigne]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note the mention of papers, referring to documents, some of which would deal with finances.




You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but partisan politics go a long way in Washington, as shown by the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton. I don't think I am being unrealistic at all, since I don't think the Democrats any more sane than the Republicans.

The US governmant has EVERY RIGHT to know EVERY PENNY coming in and out of this country. That's why it is illegal to carry large amounts of undeclared cash on international flights. Blame the IRS...