NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/bush.terroristfinancing.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

The program has been going on since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It was disclosed last week by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. (Full Story)

Using broad government subpoenas, the program allows U.S. counterterrorism analysts to obtain financial information from a vast database maintained by a company based in Belgium. It routes about 11 million financial transactions daily among 7,800 banks and other financial institutions in 200 countries.

"Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq. (Watch what actor Gary Sinise said about troop aid talks with Bush -- 2:56)

"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," the president said. "What we were doing was the right thing."

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do," Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, "You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
Editor defends decision

In advance of Bush's remarks, the New York Times defended itself against criticism for disclosing the program.

In a note on the paper's Web site Sunday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the Times spent weeks discussing with Bush administration officials whether to publish the report.

He said part of the government's argument was that the anti-terror program would no longer be effective if it became known, because international bankers would be unwilling to cooperate and terrorists would find other ways to move money.

"We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling," Keller said, pointing out that the banks were under subpoena to provide the information. "The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere."
Lawmaker: Times should be prosecuted

The note to readers was published the same day Rep. Peter King urged the Bush administration to prosecute the paper.

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.

Keller said the administration also argued "in a halfhearted way" that disclosure of the program "would lead terrorists to change tactics."

But Keller wrote that the Treasury Department has "trumpeted ... that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash."



I wonder if anyone is as scared as I am right now.

BOO!

what, your scared that Bush is going to spy on terrorist money transactions? Times should be punished for undermining the effort on tracking down terrorists!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/bush.terroristfinancing.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

I wonder if anyone is as scared as I am right now.

Nope.

Nah

BOO!

what, your scared that Bush is going to spy on terrorist money transactions? Times should be punished for undermining the effort on tracking down terrorists!

I don't care how you try to scare me. I don't want ANY, even the most infinitecimal, risk of my private information falling into this administration's hands. I'd rather die at the hands of a terroist.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/bush.terroristfinancing.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories



I wonder if anyone is as scared as I am right now.
No, I'm cool with it.

"Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said

You know, I was more concerned about the Freedom of the Press.

I don't care how you try to scare me. I don't want ANY, even the most infinitecimal, risk of my private information falling into this administration's hands. I'd rather die at the hands of a terroist.

I.e your an idiot.

This program is legal, so there's absolutely nothing wrong about it. I want the government to use its ability to spy on terrorists to its fullest Constitutional limits; I have no problem with government accessing my personal information as long as it is legal.

Aye. No shit....

The finances of the senior officials in this administration and the henchmen equal "what's good for the United States"

Right.
If the GOP gets reelected, and there's no sign of a possible civil war in the United States, or anything even more preferable like a Cascadian Secession, i will probably get rid of my American citizenship. Too bad the likes of Al-Qaeda are just as bad as this administration, otherwise they might be worth supporting...

You know, I was more concerned about the Freedom of the Press.
Good point. Still not scared though, just confirms my opinion that certain Bush supporters, like Rep. Peter King, are bad for America.

I.e your an idiot.

LOL, look in the mirror first. You're the one who's willing to give up peices of your life so that those evil brown people might not get a chance to try and blow you up.

I don't care how you try to scare me. I don't want ANY, even the most infinitecimal, risk of my private information falling into this administration's hands. I'd rather die at the hands of a terroist.

I completely agree. This administration are the worst of them all, and the chance of actually dying at the hands of the terrorists are fairly slim. I'd even say chances will only decrease if we keep to our own and stop harassing other people. As soon as a foreign army invades us, we'll take them all out, until then: live and let live.

I'm almost sure now that Huxley and Blair came back in time from the future of the US and wrote their books.

I can't believe how much the Bush Administration supports the "The end justifies the means" mantra.

"If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of." It's the PRINCIPLE, man.

btw Strath, NOBODY is EVER going to invade the states with an army. EVER.
Except maybe china. :P

No, I'm cool with it.

Considering past statements like "Nobody could have predicted the levees breaking", I want to see what Congress actually has to say about it.

I don't care how you try to scare me. I don't want ANY, even the most infinitecimal, risk of my private information falling into this administration's hands. I'd rather die at the hands of a terroist.

who sez they dont already have your info in a huge database somewher under a mountain? So what, now the government is gonna come after you because you bought yourself a porno movie with a questionable title? lol! Please, get your aluminum foil hat back on, and retreat back to your room with coat hangers hanging from the ceiling. They might be comin for ya right now!! "Bad feds, bad feds, whatcha gonna do when they come for you??"

You know, I was more concerned about the Freedom of the Press.

The program was classified and it was Constitutional. The Times had no right to out such a program because there was full justification for the government restraining that information from public release and there was no wrongdoing by the government that would necessitate it.

the question is, will Bush and/or the government arrest these reporters and shut down the newspaper, if that happens, then we know we have a problem.

who sez they dont already have your info in a huge database somewher under a mountain? So what, now the government is gonna come after you because you bought yourself a porno movie with a questionable title? lol! Please, get your aluminum foil hat back on, and retreat back to your room with coat hangers hanging from the ceiling. They might be comin for ya right now!! "Bad feds, bad feds, whatcha gonna do when they come for you??"


wouldn't suprise me.

;)

if governments just told the truth all the time and kept no secrets, then situations like this wouldnt exist where ppl find out about things then get pissed off.

LOL, look in the mirror first. You're the one who's willing to give up peices of your life so that those evil brown people might not get a chance to try and blow you up.

:rolleyes: So you would rather get brutally murdered, then have the government know you had bought a sofa the other day. Wow thats really private information, it's so personal and is an infringement on our rights if they know this...not.

the question is, will Bush and/or the government arrest these reporters and shut down the newspaper, if that happens, then we know we have a problem.

There's no question at all. They won't shut down the newspaper and it is highly doubtful they will find an excuse to arrest the reporters.

I completely agree. This administration are the worst of them all, and the chance of actually dying at the hands of the terrorists are fairly slim. I'd even say chances will only decrease if we keep to our own and stop harassing other people. As soon as a foreign army invades us, we'll take them all out, until then: live and let live.

There's a difference between infringing civil liberties and maintaining legal surveillance programs like this one. If the government refuses to use all of the legal means at its disposal to fight terrorism it is not protecting civil liberties, it is just being stupid and incompetent.

It's also jeopardizing the lives of people worldwide; it would be unacceptable for the police to not use all of the legal tools at their disposal to fight crime and it is equally unacceptable for the NSA to do the same when fighting terrorism.

I don't care how you try to scare me. I don't want ANY, even the most infinitecimal, risk of my private information falling into this administration's hands. I'd rather die at the hands of a terroist.
hmm... you wanna protect your private information (your Secret stuff) while at the same time, appaluding those that leak secrets to everyone...

I wouldn't go after the papers, but the leaks themselves.

why cant everybody in the world just get along?:rolleyes:

I dont ever seem to recall that terrorist should have the same rights as us.

I wouldn't go after the papers, but the leaks themselves.

*cough* deepthroat *cough*

Dude, if that scares you, you've got another thing coming.....That's just sad, being scared of that.

question, why the hell didnt they prosecute that blabbering senile traitor??

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/bush.terroristfinancing.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories



I wonder if anyone is as scared as I am right now.

Republicans scare you, Democrats scare me.

Republicans don't scare me. I pity them, but they're too laughable to be frightening.

*cough* deepthroat *cough*
Yep... him too.

The point is, once it hits the papers, it's too late, so the leaks need to stop before they hit the papers.

I.e your an idiot.


Good call, and i agree 100%;)

Republicans don't scare me. I pity them, but they're too laughable to be frightening.

Quite, but the Democrats aren't much better in the standings. Both are not equipped to run this country.

Scared? Pfft... this doesn't even suprise me anymore.

Republicans do not scare me, Democrats do though. I also am not concerned about this program or any other such as the patriot act. If you have nothing to hide why worry. The government can look at my financials or anything they want I have nothing to hide or worry about. :D

Here's a link to the full newsletter, but this essay really nails it:

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0606.html

The Value of Privacy



Last month, revelation of yet another NSA surveillance effort against
the American people rekindled the privacy debate. Those in favor of
these programs have trotted out the same rhetorical question we hear
every time privacy advocates oppose ID checks, video cameras, massive
databases, data mining, and other wholesale surveillance measures: "If
you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no
cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's
wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do
something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these
-- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy
is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right,
and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and
respect.

Two proverbs say it best: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who
watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he
famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of
the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him
hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest
-- or just blackmail -- him with. Privacy is important because without
it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to
marketers, and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be
at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing
nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not
deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for
reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the
privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn
them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to
the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call
out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility
of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own
home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be
inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted
criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic
to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat
of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own
uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes,
constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future --
patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by
whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and
innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is
observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversations in the past
four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on?
Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail
or instant message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe
the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly,
momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then
we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and
our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us.
This was life in the former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our
personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy."
The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises
under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic
authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security
without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police
surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why
we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

A version of this essay originally appeared on Wired.com.
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70886-0.html

Daniel Solove comments:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/05/is_there_a_good.html
or http://************/nmj3u

I don't agree with the media compromising security issues (Geraldo got yanked off the air faster than he could spit for doing just that), but I also believe that this growing acceptance that our privacy is not necessary is even more wrong. Ultimately it's the principle of the matter, when you willingly give up control of your own life one piece at a time, how do you tell those responisible when they have gone too far? You've already set a precedent, and with that inch given, it's been shown that they'll definitely take the mile.

Republicans don't scare me. I pity them, but they're too laughable to be frightening.

Quite, but I do not pity them for this particular action. Any government, be it liberal or republican, would probably do the same thing in this situation.

I don't agree with the media compromising security issues (Geraldo got yanked off the air faster than he could spit for doing just that), but I also believe that this growing acceptance that our privacy is not necessary is even more wrong. Ultimately it's the principle of the matter, when you willingly give up control of your own life one piece at a time, how do you tell those responisible when they have gone too far? You've already set a precedent, and with that inch given, it's been shown that they'll definitely take the mile.

There are defined limits to the Constitutional power of the government that cannot be overturned without repealing amendments to the Constitution or challenging precedent. Neither of them are possible and were not even challenged in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

The government should be allowed to go as far as the law allows and no further. However, it should also not restrain itself from using the legal tools at its disposal to keep people safe.

If the government is only monitoring transactions of known or likely terrorists, I have no problem with the program. But once they start going down the road of, "We've got this great tool, why not snoop around regular civilians' transactions and look for anything out of order," I'll be very uncomfortable with that.

The guy who leaked the story to the Times is the wrongdoer, here - not the paper. You can't impinge the freedom of the press like that.

If the government is only monitoring transactions of known or likely terrorists, I have no problem with the program. But once they start going down the road of, "We've got this great tool, why not snoop around regular civilians' transactions and look for anything out of order," I'll be very uncomfortable with that.

Please note that in the case of this program, Congress was well apprised about what was going on. Apparently, the New York Times thought that Congress was not sufficient oversight.

I haven't heard any Democrats complaining about this program, have you?

I don't care how you try to scare me. I don't want ANY, even the most infinitecimal, risk of my private information falling into this administration's hands. I'd rather die at the hands of a terroist.
You think that this admin will kill you in a worse method than a terrorist will?

LOL, look in the mirror first. You're the one who's willing to give up pieces of your life so that those evil brown people might not get a chance to try and blow you up.
Why bring race into it? I think that life is valuable enough to let the government have information that will prevent terrorist attempts to infringe on our rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/bush.terroristfinancing.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories



I wonder if anyone is as scared as I am right now.


Why is this scary?

Republicans scare you, Democrats scare me.


I'm afraid of americans.