Terrorist bank records

[DC_DEEP]

From this morning's edition of the Washington Post (probably in all the other news outlets, too...) The New York Times, once again, has compromised our "nashnul sukurty" by publishing an article describing the Bush Administration's acquisition of international banking records over the last 5 years.

Hmm, I wonder if it's going to be just like the phone records debacle. They will claim it was only international transactions, and they only scrutinized those transactions of "known or suspected" terrorists.

I'm thinking of betting the farm that, after some investigation, we will find out that !!!GASP!!! it also involves domestic banking transactions... in fact, all transactions involving any US financial institution. Time will tell, yes? In the meantime, you better be damned glad that your SSN is on your (recorded) IP address AND your bank transactions AND your phone records.

 

[B_PATRICKMCC55]

I read the entire article this morning in the New York Times. The no longer secret program (thanks NYT) seems from what the Times says, to be strictly controlled, based overseas, only deals with foreign wire transfers, has 2 independent audit groups overseeing what is looked at, and highly successful in locating and terminating sourcing for terrorists, and the terrorists themselves. All other illegal activity, such as money laundering by organized crime or drug dealers is prohibited.
I can not fathom why the Times decided to expose this program. It really brings to bear how much they despise this administration, and how they will probably hurt the people of the United States much more than the Bush administration.

 

[Lex]

It all comes down to trust.

You know, if the administration was more upfront about the things they do (secretive) that do NOT have such a bearing on security, News Media (one would think) would be less inclined to expose these types of program because there would exist a higher level of trust.

Where there is trust, there is no need to expose and make each other appear vulnerable. The NYT exposing this program may actually help the administration's cause, rather than hurt it as it seems to have been a program that worked well. The majority of Americans seem willing to let the Administration do whatever they want to in the name of "national security." We shall see.

 

[Pecker]

For pity's sake, when are some of you going to accept that we are at war and that we will be for many years to come?

While you wring your hands over phone calls and bank accounts, the Sears Tower is obliterated and hundreds, if not thousands, more die? You can bet that part of the investigation of those idiots in Miami was financial and their phones were tapped.

What's next?

 

[DC_DEEP]

I read the entire article this morning in the New York Times. The no longer secret program (thanks NYT) seems from what the Times says, to be strictly controlled, based overseas, only deals with foreign wire transfers, has 2 independent audit groups overseeing what is looked at, and highly successful in locating and terminating sourcing for terrorists, and the terrorists themselves. All other illegal activity, such as money laundering by organized crime or drug dealers is prohibited.
I can not fathom why the Times decided to expose this program. It really brings to bear how much they despise this administration, and how they will probably hurt the people of the United States much more than the Bush administration.

Well, Patrick, that's what was initially thought about several of the other secret programs; further delving into the issues is usually going to turn up details to the contrary.

As for it hurting the US or its citizens, that is at least the administration's claim. Exposing the fact that our government is scouring communications and financial records, though, is not the same as divulging, for instance, that a code has been broken; I don't really see how it makes things easier for real terrorists. It would seem to me to be the other way around. If a code is broken, but that fact is kept secret, then sensitive communications can be used against the terrorists. If the breaking of the code is made public, then the enemy can simply go to "code plan b." However, if they know that phone and computer communications are being monitored, and all international financial transactions will be scrutinized, what other avenue will they be able to use? It should actually serve to let them feel the noose tightening around their cowardly little necks. And national security or not, I think I have a right to know if my government is illegally harvesting my private information.

 

[Dr Rock]

For pity's sake, when are some of you going to accept that we are at war and that we will be for many years to come?

um... when we ARE at war? sacrificing lives for business scams is the lynchpin of reaganomic policy, not an act of war. it's not even as if this has anything to do with national security. the idea that we can "win" an imaginary "war" by adopting the strategies of our mostly-imaginary opponents does not hold much water.

 

[ETA123]

For pity's sake, when are some of you going to accept that we are at war and that we will be for many years to come?

While you wring your hands over phone calls and bank accounts, the Sears Tower is obliterated and hundreds, if not thousands, more die? You can bet that part of the investigation of those idiots in Miami was financial and their phones were tapped.

What's next?

Actually, the investigation was possible because they'd been infiltrated and there was an FBI man on the inside. They had no explosives, no real coordination, no means to carry out any attacks, sorry, but the voiding of the Constitutional Right to Privacy had nothing to do with busting inviduals whose only real crime was thinking evil thoughts.

While you defend the erosion of rights, they continue to vanish.

 

[DC_DEEP]

For pity's sake, when are some of you going to accept that we are at war and that we will be for many years to come?

While you wring your hands over phone calls and bank accounts, the Sears Tower is obliterated and hundreds, if not thousands, more die? You can bet that part of the investigation of those idiots in Miami was financial and their phones were tapped.

What's next?

Pecker, do you think that these cowardly terrorists chose USA as a random target? Uh, I'm doing more than just wringing my hands, sweetheart. Turning a blind eye toward the reasons that these freaks attack, and simply wringing our hands and flinging dollars and american lives at the symptoms, will never help the situation, only escalate it.

 

[Pecker]

Let's ask Mr. Clinton to apologise in behalf of the US and they'll go away happy.

Right.

And then we ask them politely to bend over so we can kiss their terrorist asses.

Appeasement won't work, guys. These people don't hate Bush. They hate everybody.

 

[yhtang]

For pity's sake, when are some of you going to accept that we are at war and that we will be for many years to come?

I would accept that there is a "dirty" and unconventional type of war out there. I just hope that the powers that be do not find casue to suspec teh existence of "weapons of mass destruction" in USA itself. If that should happen, who would bomb or invade whom?

 

[ETA123]

Let's ask Mr. Clinton to apologise in behalf of the US and they'll go away happy.

Right.

And then we ask them politely to bend over so we can kiss their terrorist asses.

Appeasement won't work, guys. These people don't hate Bush. They hate everybody.

So tell me, what exactly does not violating the Constitutional rights of US citizens have to do with appeasement? That's some extremely convoluted thinking. If we don't let the government wipe their ass with the Constitution, we're appeasing terrorists?

If you'd like to talk about appeasement, let's talk about Reagan's response to the marine barracks bombings that killed over 200 marines (hint, he pulled out all the troops and acqiuesced to the demands of the terrorists). Or, maybe we could discuss Reagan's policy of selling weapons to Iran to secure the release of hostages (not to mention using the proceeds to fund death squads in Nicaragua). Or maybe we could discuss Daddy Bush and his administrations blocking of UN resolutions demanding that Saddam halt the use of chemical weapons against Iran? Or hell, if you like, we could even discuss the pulling out of US troops from Saudi Arabia in the past few years while closing the Air Force bases there (which happens to be one of the demands put forth by Bin Laden that Bush acquiesced to). Or, perhaps we should discuss the $43 million paid to the Taliban by the Bush administration in early 2001?

You really need to educate yourself on what creates the situations that this country is faced with (little hint, the majority of it arises from two things, the unwaivering support of Israel from this country, and the willingness to disregard the will of the people in countries like Saudi Arabia).

Your blatant disregard for historical fact detracts from what little argument you have.

Another little hint for you - if those politicians whose policies you support so strongly had their way, this forum wouldn't exist.

So tell us, if our troops are allegedly fighting for "freedom" yet that freedom is being eroded constantly, and with the willing support of people like yourself, what has been gained other than a lot of lives and the respect of the world? The US is now viewed by most of the world as the largest THREAT. Not an ally, not a friend, not even a mere strong presence, but a threat.

This may come as a shock to you, but Clinton has little if anything to do with the current situation. It dates back to Reagan, Bush Sr. and the situations they created. Hell, they were FUNDING Bin Laden until the end of the 80's.

Educate yourself. A good first step is to quit watching Fox News and start reading accurate information from reliable sources (note: Fox, NewsMax, Worldnet Daily and the like are NOT reliable sources).

 

[VeeP]

Educate yourself. A good first step is to quit watching Fox News and start reading accurate information from reliable sources

...like...? (and please don't say The New York Times... )

 

[findfirefox]

...like...? (and please don't say The New York Times... )

There's no trustful media outlet.

 

[B_PATRICKMCC55]

"As for it hurting the US or its citizens, that is at least the administration's claim. Exposing the fact that our government is scouring communications and financial records, though, is not the same as divulging, for instance, that a code has been broken; I don't really see how it makes things easier for real terrorists. "

First and foremost, at no time did the NYT claim that what the Government was doing was illegal. It is searching International Bank Wire transfers, and it is searching that data outside the USA. Acknowledged by the NYT as "perfectly legal, yet troubling to some".
Dont know how it makes it easier? When the LA Times disclosed that the US was tracking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan by cell phone tracing, they went to satellite phones that couldnt be traced. By informaing the enemy how we are tracking them, makes it imperative for the enemy to change their path.
I believe the NYT and most journalists could care less if their reporting impedes the fight on terror. They are driven by the need to "expose" and to uncover, at any cost. Nobody is looking at your bank records.

 

[jeremyA]

If you are concerned about being spied on all the time in the 'interests of fatherland security' as you should be then you can do what i did which was to downlaod and use a copy of pgp from www.pgpi.org and get your emails and private files protected from unwanted eavsdropping with some pretty good privacy.it won't stop em for long if they seriously want to read your emails or look at your files because they will just come round to your house and drill holes in your kneecaps untill you tell them what they want to know,but it will help with your boss or significaant other or even most governmant departments being able to read stuff you dont want read.

 

[ETA123]

There's no trustful media outlet.

Sure there is, just not in the US. However, there are those in the US that are less biased and full of crap than others. For instances, ABC will typically be closer to being accurate than Fox ever dreamed of being (considering they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, as illustrated by the hiring of Tony Snow as Press Secretary).

I notice that none of the people replying to my post actually had anything to say about the facts presented therein.

 

[VeeP]

There's no trustful media outlet.

Well, I think you meant trustworthy, however in this context trustful has a certain irony to it, too. :biggrin1:

Kind of my point. I'm just dying to know which outlets ETA123 considers to be "reliable"...

 

[RideRocket]

And then we ask them politely to bend over so we can kiss their terrorist asses.

Appeasement won't work, guys. These people don't hate Bush. They hate everybody.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Why is it so difficult for everyone to understand and realize that these Islamic terrorists wish to destroy our civilization and way of life? And lest we play semantics, it's not their goal - it's their raison d'être.

The sooner "we" (collectively) realize this, the sooner we can stop the threat. A former secretary of state (or other top level administrator) has likened it to Germany 1937. Let's not wait for 1939 to happen all over.

 

[VeeP]

Sure there is, just not in the US. However, there are those in the US that are less biased and full of crap than others. For instances, ABC will typically be closer to being accurate than Fox ever dreamed of being (considering they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, as illustrated by the hiring of Tony Snow as Press Secretary).

ABC, huh. And you're basing this on what, exactly? Let's face it, every media outlet has some sort of slant and there is no 'pure' journalism anymore. It's all devolved into sensationalistic crap because our attention spans have dwindled to that of gnats and we'd much rather decide who in America Has Talent (the latest mind-numbing, piece-of-shit offering from none other than ABC, ironically).

I notice that none of the people replying to my post actually had anything to say about the facts presented therein.

I don't doubt that some or all of your information is factual. There has been many a mis-step on all sides over the years that helped get us into this mess. The problem I have with people who bomb-throw (heh, poor analogy) is that they always have the gripes, but never any alternatives to offer. Thwarting the ability of these fucks to communicate and fund their 'jihad' is exactly what we should be doing, IMO. And if they have to listen to my boring phone calls and look at my measly bank records in the process, so be it. I'm no happier about losing 'freedoms' than the next guy, but folks this is what the world comes to when we let something fester and spread like a cancer while we sit around with our thumbs up our freedom-loving butts.

Just what did we think "life as we know it will change" would end up meaning post-9/11? Do we honestly think these people lay awake at night contemplating ways to strip people of their civil liberties under the 'guise' of stopping terrorism? If we even knew the half of what they're intercepting we probably all be hiding under our beds. How about focusing a little frustration on those in this world who have such disregard for human life that they will actually mutilate others beyond recognition for the sake of their 'religious' cause. Just how much "reliable" coverage has that gotten? Already faded from memory, hasn't it... poof.

We'd never make it if we had to fight WW II over again.

 

[findfirefox]

ABC, huh. And you're basing this on what, exactly? Let's face it, every media outlet has some sort of slant and there is no 'pure' journalism anymore. It's all devolved into sensationalistic crap because our attention spans have dwindled to that of gnats and we'd much rather decide who in America Has Talent (the latest mind-numbing, piece-of-shit offering from none other than ABC, ironically).

Useless info, Americas Got Talent is on NBC.

To my main point, there is no such thing as journalism its all about how they can shock us today, if they do decide to report on something that's important its going to wind up on the back burner (for TV news) or on page 7 right next to "Cooking with Jen"

I don't doubt that some or all of your information is factual. There has been many a mis-step on all sides over the years that helped get us into this mess. The problem I have with people who bomb-throw (heh, poor analogy) is that they always have the gripes, but never any alternatives to offer. Thwarting the ability of these fucks to communicate and fund their 'jihad' is exactly what we should be doing, IMO. And if they have to listen to my boring phone calls and look at my measly bank records in the process, so be it. I'm no happier about losing 'freedoms' than the next guy, but folks this is what the world comes to when we let something fester and spread like a cancer while we sit around with our thumbs up our freedom-loving butts.

Just what did we think "life as we know it will change" would end up meaning post-9/11? Do we honestly think these people lay awake at night contemplating ways to strip people of their civil liberties under the 'guise' of stopping terrorism? If we even knew the half of what they're intercepting we probably all be hiding under our beds. How about focusing a little frustration on those in this world who have such disregard for human life that they will actually mutilate others beyond recognition for the sake of their 'religious' cause. Just how much "reliable" coverage has that gotten? Already faded from the tube, hasn't it... poof.

We'd never make it if we had to fight WW II over again.

I believe the difference between this "war" and other wars, such as WW2, is that with WW2 we were attacked, with this war we were not attacked by Iraq. If we had been attacked by Iraq then there would be much more support and this conversation probably would not be taking place.

I think the main point that is trying to be made here is that, is it alright to take away from our civil rights for any reason. Some people would say yes if it protects us some people might say no. I also think that people are wondering to what extremes will the government go to "protect us"