NY Times Vs National Security

[eyrei]

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.

The word 'papers', in the 18th century sense, meant anything containing information. Obviously the constitution isn't going to cover wire transfers, or email, or computer data. It is all the same thing.

 

[eyrei]

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...

The IRS has the right to determine the assets and income of US citizens for tax purposes. That is completely different than intelligence agencies trolling for terrorists by collecting all sorts of information about citizens who have done nothing wrong. This is also just one part of a larger program of data collection...

 

[MobBoss]

The word 'papers', in the 18th century sense, meant anything containing information. Obviously the constitution isn't going to cover wire transfers, or email, or computer data. It is all the same thing.

Actually, you are wrong. We have specific law pertaining to electronic data, however, they dont apply to large money wires overseas.

Face it eyrei, the 4th amendment is to prevent the government from invading your home for no reason without a warrant. Nothing wrong with that. But that is not what we are talking about here. You are the ONLY person here trying to say this is a privacy issue. Its not.

 

[usarmy18]

Heh, this whole New York Times deal reminds me of a T-Shirt I once saw.

Rope. Tree. Journalist.
Some assembly required.

 

[CaptainF]

Actually, you are wrong. We have specific law pertaining to electronic data, however, they dont apply to large money wires overseas.

Face it eyrei, the 4th amendment is to prevent the government from invading your home for no reason without a warrant. Nothing wrong with that. But that is not what we are talking about here. You are the ONLY person here trying to say this is a privacy issue. Its not.

I think its a privacy issue if the government wishes to know how I spend my money without a warrant.

 

[MobBoss]

I think its a privacy issue if the government wishes to know how I spend my money without a warrant.

Bah...most of the grocery stores these days give you a discount card on which they record every single item you buy. They use to to gauge marketing trends and what people buy. Big deal.

Credit card companies know how you spend your money. So do credit reporting agencies. So does anyone who does a credit check on you (this include practically everyone - I mean how fair is it for insurance companies to change your rate based upon your credit score?).

The government already knows how much money you make as it requires you to report it annually.

Outside of your house, there is no such thing as privacy. The sooner you realize that the sooner you understand how things work.

 

[eyrei]

Actually, you are wrong. We have specific law pertaining to electronic data, however, they dont apply to large money wires overseas.

Face it eyrei, the 4th amendment is to prevent the government from invading your home for no reason without a warrant. Nothing wrong with that. But that is not what we are talking about here. You are the ONLY person here trying to say this is a privacy issue. Its not.

No laws override the constitution, and I am not the only person that thinks that such programs are contrary to that amendment. If what you say were true, why do police still need probable cause to search your person or your vehicle?

 

[MobBoss]

No laws override the constitution, and I am not the only person that thinks that such programs are contrary to that amendment. If what you say were true, why do police still need probable cause to search your person or your vehicle?

Not if its located in Belgium. Here I am talking about electronic wire transfers overseas being traced and you want to compare it with someones house, car or person located here in the USA. Not the same thing.

By the way, can you give me evidence of a single democrat (preferably congressman) that is speaking out against the swift program? Because I sure cant find any, not even from the most librul.

 

[jameson]

SWIFT has offices in the USA, too. The Belgian involvement is because their headquarters are located there, but SWIFT is as much subject to American law as it is to belgian law.

 

[MobBoss]

Here is a little story: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19640758-28737,00.html

Quick snippet:

Confirmation this week that the surveillance program led to the 2003 arrest of Bali bombing mastermind Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, hasn't prevented an outcry from privacy watchdogs. The London-based Privacy International says it has filed complaints in 32 countries, including Australia, arguing that the disclosures of financial transactions have been made without any legal basis or authority. PI director Simon Davies says the surveillance program "shows yet again how the US wilfully disregards the privacy rights not only of its own citizens but also the rights of foreign nationals".

But Steve Emerson, terrorism expert and author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, says that kind of reaction is "over the top".

"These groups are going to contend any type of government oversight is unacceptable," Emerson says. "I think every government has a right to be doing it: I don't think it's a violation of anyone's human rights."

Gary Schmitt, of the American Enterprise Institute, categorised the critics as a predictable political combination of leftists and anti-government civil libertarians. He said opinion polls indicated most people regarded the program as a "reasonable thing to do in a post-9/11 world".

A spokesman for SWIFT this week confirmed that following discussions between SWIFT, the G10 central banks and the Bush administration, access to data is "limited and targeted solely to terrorist investigations".

So who here is a "leftist or anti-government civil libertarian"?

Look...the program is confirmed that it helps catch known terrorists. It is a good thing. It doesnt violate your privacy. Good majority of americans are for these type of programs that are proven to help catch terrorists. Nothing strange about that.

 

[IglooDame]

I wonder what libertarians think of all this...

Well, this one is undecided.

On the one hand, the US government has had a tendency lately to do whatever it wants and then throw the veil of "national security" and "War on Terror" over it to prevent criticism or judgement, and they haven't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, I don't see how international financial transactions would have any inherent privacy protections from Uncle Sam.

On the gripping hand, the smart terrorists probably have been aware of the monitoring for years, though I'm not sure how they could easily avoid its auspices anyway.

 

[MobBoss]

On the other hand, I don't see how international financial transactions would have any inherent privacy protections from Uncle Sam.

On the gripping hand, the smart terrorists probably have been aware of the monitoring for years, though I'm not sure how they could easily avoid its auspices anyway.

Two things.

I agree with you in that I dont see any inherent privacy protections in this situation so we agree there.

Secondly, so what if the smart terrorists figure it out...are we not under obligation to catch as many terrorists as we can, both smart and dumb? A dumb terrorist can kill you just as dead as a smart one can, so I fail to see a reason to discredit the program because "the smart ones figure it out".

Would you classify that Bali bomber terrorist they caught with this program as a dumb terrorist? Seems he killed more than his fair share prior to being caught.

 

[jameson]

I'll take your The Australian and raise you the Sydney Morning Herald :

American newspapers reported at the weekend that a phone call to an associate in Indonesia provided the breakthrough that led investigators to flat 601 in the Boonyarak Apartments in Ayutthaya, 80 kilometres north of Bangkok, where Hambali had been hiding for several weeks with his his wife.

Aware that phone intercepts could betray his location, Hambali had been using anonymous pre-paid phone cards, but US agents were monitoring the Indonesian number and were able to trace the call back to its origin.

Bangkok's The Nation newspaper - which first broke the news of Hambali's arrest - reported yesterday that a bungled attempt to renew a visa in the fake Spanish passport Hambali used to enter Thailand last month had also helped narrow the hunt to Ayutthaya.

Quoting a top-secret report by Thai anti-terrorist officials, the newspaper said a subordinate sent on the "visa run" to the northern province of Chiang Mai had been arrested and later revealed Hambali's whereabouts under interrogation.

Fortunately no need to highlight snide comments from conservative commentators here (at least, if you can call people who defend this kind of intrusion conservative, the terminology's getting confusing here).

Anyway MobBoss, are there polls out about what Americans really think about this ? Can you link to them ?

 

[MobBoss]

Anyway MobBoss, are there polls out about what Americans think about this ? Can you link to them ?

Sure. Here ya go from just yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201573,00.html

The poll shows there is strong support for the Treasury Department program tracking financial transactions in search of terrorist funding. Seven of 10 Americans support the program, including majorities of Republicans (83 percent), independents (67 percent) and Democrats (58 percent).

 

[jameson]

Thanks.

Here's another view, by the way. According to Ron Suskind, the efforts to go after the terrorists' finances started losing effectiveness by early 2004 because they had already wised up to them:

In the closing months of 2003...the carefully constructed global network of sigint and what can be called finint, or financial intelligence, started to go quiet.

In short, al Qaeda, and its affiliates and imitators, stopped leaving electronic footprints. It started slowly, but then became distinct and clear, a definable trend. They were going underground.

...."We were surprised it took them so long," said one senior intelligence official. "But the lesson here is that with an adaptable, patient enemy, a victory sometimes creates the next set of challenges. In this case, we did some things that worked very well, and they started to evolve."

Or devolve. The al Qaeda playbook, employed by what was left of the network, its affiliates and imitators, started to stress the necessity of using couriers to carry cash and hand-delivered letters. This slowed the pace of operations, if not their scale, and that was, indeed, a victory.

So, on the one hand,programs like this may have been effective (of course, we have no way to know what other ways were used to go after their finances, and if the SWIFT program was involved in this success), on the other hand, the program has been continued for over 2 years after this, apparently free of warrants still. I wouldn't trust any government with the ability to obtain financial records at will here.

 

[eyrei]

Not if its located in Belgium. Here I am talking about electronic wire transfers overseas being traced and you want to compare it with someones house, car or person located here in the USA. Not the same thing.

By the way, can you give me evidence of a single democrat (preferably congressman) that is speaking out against the swift program? Because I sure cant find any, not even from the most librul.

If it is so legal, why did they allow such limited congressional oversight and not seek congressional approval? Do we not trust our senators and congressment with information that the non-governmental employees of SWIFT have access to?

And I certainly don't base my opinions on what Democrats say any more than I do on what Republicans say.

 

[MobBoss]

Here's another view, by the way. According to Ron Suskind, the efforts to go after the terrorists' finances started losing effectiveness by early 2004 because they had already wised up to them

So it is a program that has worked and now denies the enemy from using such means to transfer money. Keep it in place so that they cant do business that way without us seeing it and catch the ones dumb enough to still do so.

I have no problem with that at all.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Secondly, so what if the smart terrorists figure it out...are we not under obligation to catch as many terrorists as we can, both smart and dumb? A dumb terrorist can kill you just as dead as a smart one can, so I fail to see a reason to discredit the program because "the smart ones figure it out".

Umm MobBoss wasnt there all these "documentories" and "New stories" out there that the US was tracking "terrorist" using bank accounts ?

Not to mention the US announcing very publicly it had been succesful in "freezing" and closing suspect abnk accounts and well as shutting down other means of money transfer.

Not to mention loud noises made by the media on Where and who these funds were comming from. Heck from the media we know that Osama sold faulty cruise missles to the chinese. (Clintons missle strikes)

Would that also be a breach of national security ?

 

[malclave]

There's a difference in knowing that finances are being monitored, and in knowing by what means the monitoring is being done.

Releasing specifics lets people know not to use the program if they have something to hide, and to use another means. Without the specifics, it's a bit more difficult for people with something to hide to know what to avoid.

 

[Neomega]

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.

Are you sure about that?
(Think before you say yes).

That was the poo the Bush administration was trying to sling when they were trying to
justify the NSA surveilance program... until it was revealed that was also recording all
calls, foreign and domestic.


BTW, if you mail a package to England, you still are secure from search and seizure.
They still have to get a warrant to open that package.

So, I asked Are you sure about that? The answer is no.

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.

Wrong. The IRS does not share information with the government. That is how they got Capone, because
he didn't declare his earnings to the IRS. Even if you make a $1000000 a year selling dope, you are supposed
to report it to the IRS. Due to the 5th amendment, information given to the IRS can not be used against you.

Fraud also requires a warrant before you can be searched.

Name a crime.. any crime.

"___________________", yup, need a search warrant to collect evidence for that too. Or probable cause.
Probable cause does not mean sending money to your aunt in India.
Probable cause does not mean exchanging currency.

Probable cause means a beer can jammed under your break pedal, and alcoholic stench on your breath.

EDIT: You cannot be free if you are DEAD!

What a great argument, you and Edith Anne Hill, think alike.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/E.D. Idiocy.wmv
When facts fail, appeal to emotion. Straight from FOX news.

Regardless of harm actually done in this case, if they broke a law, they should be punished.

This was addressed before you posted this, so you are going in circles:

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.

You can't classify illegal activities. Just because Cheney says it's legal, doesn't make it so. The Legislative branch writes laws, not
the executive. Of course, as a patriotic American, you already knew this.

Bah...most of the grocery stores these days give you a discount card on which they record every single item you buy. They use to to gauge marketing trends and what people buy. Big deal.

voluntary contract... irrelevant.

Credit card companies know how you spend your money. So do credit reporting agencies. So does anyone who does a credit check on you (this include practically everyone - I mean how fair is it for insurance companies to change your rate based upon your credit score?).

voluntary contract.... irrelevant.

The government already knows how much money you make as it requires you to report it annually.

The IRS does. The government still needs a warrant to search IRS records.

Outside of your house, there is no such thing as privacy. The sooner you realize that the sooner you understand how things work.

Worng and condensending at the same time. How entertaining.

Gary Schmitt, of the American Enterprise Institute, categorised the critics as a predictable political combination of leftists and anti-government civil libertarians.

American Enterprise Institute. Yay, Neocons telling us how predictable civil libertarians are. American Enterprise Institute is an unabashadly neocon think tank. So to counter... of course the supporters of this violation of the fourth amendment are your typical flag waving, constitution shredding, right-wing Bush apologists.