I'd just like to point out that while bank records have indeed been SupremeCourtly decreed not private, what the Times and the Journal and others revealed IS illegal activity on the part of the Bush administration.

It is still a legal requirement that a warrant be issued, that a court of some kind say it's ok to snoop at bank records. The reason this is a newsworthy story is the pattern of abuse this program continues from the thread of the NSA phone surveillance method. Court approval and warrants could easily be obtained, and yet the Bush administration thumbs its nose at bothering. It's not so much what they do (since a court might allow it anyway), it's that they flaunt the American system of checks & balances, and instead insist on behaving like a dictatorship ... simply because they want to and want to establish unfettered powers for the presidency as an institution.

Same thing with the signing statements that Bush has issued, claiming his administration does not have to obey laws passed by Congress. He has issued more of these than all other presidents combined, and it's noteworthy that Republican senator Arlen Spector has declared an intention to sue the White House over this nefarious practice.

Bush is clearly demonstrating a doctrine of being unchecked by the courts and unchecked by Congress. If this is not trying to set up the presidency as a dictatorate, then I don't know what is.

That's simply not true that a warrant is necessary in this situation.

U.S. v. Miller removed from financial records the protection of the 4th Amendment.

See v. City of Seattle gave SC endorsement of administrative subpeonas.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president authority to use administrative subpoenas to compel production of financial documents in a time of emergency.

In 2002 and every year since then the President has notified Congress that he was using the powers granted to him un the IEEPA to pursue terrorists globally (an expansion of the annual "terrorism" state of emergency that has been in effect for the Middle East since 1995).

The IEEPA requires that the White House report to congress on such issues. The White House, Treasury Department, and Congressional intelligence committees all say that this reporting has been happening.

You can debate the value of such a program and whether it should happen, but so far I have seen nobody raise any kind of compelling case that it was illegal. The closest the New York Times came was saying that "some legal scholars express concern about the program." The ACLU (an organization I generally support) has come right out and said it is illegal but have not said what laws were broken.

I should temper what I've said. I don't know that it simply isn't true. I do know that so far I haven't seen anybody make a compelling case that it is true (so far it has simply been "truth by declaration" hoping to make it so) or a compelling refutation of the case that it is legal.

Hmmm, I wish I didn't find this story so ho-hum and much adieu, or I might be tempted to check into the facts more.

You're of the opinion that the president is in violation of the constitution. That he intends to remain in violation of the constitution, and that all three branches of government so far have no problem with this violation of the constitution and you find it a ho-hum story and much ado about nothing?

That is exactly my point, which you have yet to address. What I am saying is that people like Bush and Cheney are blaming the press for leaking information that Bush himself, days after 9/11, said he was going to do. They are also saying that this is bad for America. If everything dissenting voice is bad for America, then are they saying this country is fragile? Too vulnerable for this sort of exposure? It's the same claim the GOP used against anyone who is critical of the war in Iraq. 'Don't say that, it's bad for the morale of the troops.' Again, are they saying that the troops are too fragile to weather such criticism.

I think you understand my post(s), Alex. But often when I come up with a point you suddenly attack the way it is written instead of addressing the point that I have no doubt you understand (not agree with, but understand). I refuse to believe that after 5 years of posting in threads with you that you are so confused and unclear by what I mean when I talk about this Administration.

I didn't attack the way it was written. If your point is that people are claiming this leak will bring America down then your point is irrelevant since nobody has said that. When question you changed it to claiming that people were saying it would compromrise the war on terrorism. This is much more valid, but when questioned again you changed it back.

Therefore, since I assume you don't intend to be irrelevant that you haven't quite said what you meant. But I stand corrected.

Apparently you equate someone saying that something is bad with saying it is maximally destructive. I do think I understand your posts about the administration. You are so irrationally vitriolic that it doesn't matter to you if your claims and statements about the administratin make any sense so long as they fulfill your belief that they are essentially pure evil and deception. That this view then enables you to do exactly that which you claim to hate so much in them (manipulation and ignoring of facts to serve predetermined ends) and bristle at any suggestion that you provide support for the claims you make. Your discussion on issues related to the president generally boil down to "I don't care about facts! He's a doo doo head!"

In this thread you have simultaneously said that the leak is no big deal because it is common knowledge and practice. You have also said it is a huge deal that should get Bush imeached. And then you criticized people for saying that this leak could bring down America, which nobody has said and is the point I took issue with. It is very easy to "win" a debate when you get to make up what the other side says.

Finally, a chance to respond. :)

Quite honestly, I believe this story was intentionally leaked to the NYT so that the administration could then attack them. Otherwise, they have far worse problems than what the Times chose to report. If the Times commited treason then there are a number of traitors in this administration. The Times would have no story to report if it hadn't been leaked to them from the administration. And considering that this administration already has a history of leaking information to the media whenever it serves their purposes, I find it a plausable scenario (not much different from when they passed a document to CBS news, then crucified Dan Rather when he reported it). Standard operating procedure. This would also explain why there is no mention of the Wall St. Journal anywhere to be found. Regardless of who leaked it first, they are equally guilty for publishing the story, IMO.

And you still don't answer my question. Your post is ridiculous.

My opinion of this Administration is not going to change. The way I say things isn't going to change either. Either get used to it or get over it.

Ahem. Settle.