NY Times and intelligence leaks

scaeagles · 06-26-2006, 01:53 PM

Just because you know something does not mean you should make it public, does it?

International banking transaction surveillance program reported on by NY Times

Early reports are that this program has no controversy surrounding it as the NSA monitoring program did. This was a program to monitor internaitonal financial transactions to identify and track terrorist operations. Follow the money.

The NY Times apparently had 20 different sources for their story. There are calls for charges under various intelligence and espionage laws.

Just because you know something as a reporter, should you report it? Or is it a case of shooting the messenger? I am disgusted hat 20 people would divulge such a classified program to anyone in the press, and am also disgusted that the NY Times couldn't bring iself to hold the story.

If a reported knew of D-Day before it happened, should they have reported on it?

Motorboat Cruiser · 06-26-2006, 02:17 PM

The UN Security council report from 2002, which is still viewable online stated:

"“The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.”

So how was this just leaked when the information has been available online since 2002? Also, it is my understanding that the WSJ ran the same story. Why is the NY Times being singled out?

scaeagles · 06-26-2006, 02:23 PM

As far as the UN security council report, can't speak to it. I guess that perhaps terrorists might monitor such, but I do know here has been success with the program after the UN reported it and prior to the NY Times leak.

As for the WSJ, they would deserve the same treatment as the NYT should the stories prove to violate law.

I am not trying to pick on the NYT - I would harshly criticize anyone who reports on classified programs such as this.

Alex · 06-26-2006, 02:39 PM

There is a difference between saying "phone lines can be tapped" and "hey, Claude Jones, the drug dealer on 43rd and 16th, the Feds have been tapping your phone lines since last Tuesday."

Odds are this is somewhere in between and I don't know enough to know exactly where. But that seems somewhat irrelevant. Pretty much everybody seems to agree that it was a legal program and the hook on which Bill Keller hung running the story was that it was "open" to abuse. Not that abuse was happening (as is a case more easily made with the wiretapping story) but just that it could happen.

If a legal program is legally classified, I don't like the idea of the editorial team at a newspaper deciding what gets to remain classified. However, I also support most of the protections that allow the New York Times to run such stories (even if I think them misguided) so I probably have to live with the tradeoff.

That said, the government is thoroughly justified in tracking and punishing whoever is leaking the information to the New York Times.

ETA: Being somewhat familiar with banking regulation I can also say that pretty much any large transation (whether domestic or international) is either monitored by the government or regulations require banks to keep certain information should the government ever decide they want it. Smart terrorists will know this as it is not a secret and will work to avoid it already. But then odds are good that relatively few of the terrorists are smart.

Gemini Cricket · 06-26-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

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.

^ This is a bipartisan amendment that protects Americans' rights. What Bush is doing is against everything the Amendment stands for. His wire tapping and now snooping into our bank records is outrageous. What is his probable cause to search all the individuals he's looking into? This 'war on terrorism' is a blank check for the man. He should be impeached.

I applaud the NY Times. They're not always my favorite paper, but they did what was right. I'd rather know the shady things this Administration is doing than pretend that they are incapable of wrongdoing.

scaeagles · 06-26-2006, 03:10 PM

A bipartisan amendment? What exactly does that mean?

Hate to tell you this GC, but there are laws on the books already related to monitoring of the US banking industry which have been upheld as Constitutional that have absolutely nothing to do with anything the Bush administration has done.

scaeagles · 06-26-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Intelligence about those communications implicates no legally recognized privacy interests. To begin with, they are predominantly foreign, and international. To the extent the U.S. Constitution might be thought to apply, the Supreme Court held nearly 30 years ago that records in the hands of third parties — including financial records maintained by banks — are not private, and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, to the extent Congress later supplemented privacy protections by statute, those laws regulated disclosures by financial institutions. SWIFT (Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is not a financial institution.

Source

Gemini Cricket · 06-26-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A bipartisan amendment? What exactly does that mean?

What do you think it means?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Hate to tell you this GC, but there are laws on the books already related to monitoring of the US banking industry which have been upheld as Constitutional that have absolutely nothing to do with anything the Bush administration has done.

Sure. This whole thing is in the news and Bush is so pissed off about it because he and his Administration have nothing to do with it. Uh huh.

Anyone who supports Bush at this point in time needs to find better heroes.

scaeagles · 06-26-2006, 07:20 PM

Calling the fourth amendment, which is part of the bill of rights, a bipartisan amendment shows a lack of historical knowledge. There wasn't a two party system at that point in the history of the US. The Constitutional convention at which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned had nothing to do with bipartisanship in the least. This is why I was trying to get you to define it.

I didn't say Bush had nothing to do with it. The SWIFT monitoring is new in the post 9/11 era. Monitoring of bank records is not (note the reference to Supreme Court decision over 30 years old saying domestic banking records are not private). Been around for a long, long time, prior to the Bush administration. Yet everything that you consider to be an invasion of privacy is somehow the fault of and directly caused by the Bush administration.

Be pissed at the program. Fine. I have no problem with someone who wants to argue against it.

Anyone who is so blinded by political rage that requires finger pointing in the same direction for everything they dislike, regardless of the history of those things, is irrational and cannot be taken seriously on such subjects.

Due to the confrontational content of my post, please note that my signature line does not apply to any conversation I have with anyone here. I just put it in because I thought it was funny.

innerSpaceman · 06-26-2006, 07:41 PM

I just don't get the broohaha at all. Was it ever a secret that our gov't was monitoring international financial transactions for possible terrorist connections? How is leaking such a "d'uh" piece of information treasonous or espionage in any way? What am I missing?

06-26-2006, 01:53 PM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	NY Times and intelligence leaks Just because you know something does not mean you should make it public, does it? International banking transaction surveillance program reported on by NY Times Early reports are that this program has no controversy surrounding it as the NSA monitoring program did. This was a program to monitor internaitonal financial transactions to identify and track terrorist operations. Follow the money. The NY Times apparently had 20 different sources for their story. There are calls for charges under various intelligence and espionage laws. Just because you know something as a reporter, should you report it? Or is it a case of shooting the messenger? I am disgusted hat 20 people would divulge such a classified program to anyone in the press, and am also disgusted that the NY Times couldn't bring iself to hold the story. If a reported knew of D-Day before it happened, should they have reported on it?
	Submit to Quotes

06-26-2006, 02:17 PM	#2
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	The UN Security council report from 2002, which is still viewable online stated: "“The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.” So how was this just leaked when the information has been available online since 2002? Also, it is my understanding that the WSJ ran the same story. Why is the NY Times being singled out?
	Submit to Quotes

06-26-2006, 02:23 PM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	As far as the UN security council report, can't speak to it. I guess that perhaps terrorists might monitor such, but I do know here has been success with the program after the UN reported it and prior to the NY Times leak. As for the WSJ, they would deserve the same treatment as the NYT should the stories prove to violate law. I am not trying to pick on the NYT - I would harshly criticize anyone who reports on classified programs such as this.
	Submit to Quotes

06-26-2006, 02:39 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	There is a difference between saying "phone lines can be tapped" and "hey, Claude Jones, the drug dealer on 43rd and 16th, the Feds have been tapping your phone lines since last Tuesday." Odds are this is somewhere in between and I don't know enough to know exactly where. But that seems somewhat irrelevant. Pretty much everybody seems to agree that it was a legal program and the hook on which Bill Keller hung running the story was that it was "open" to abuse. Not that abuse was happening (as is a case more easily made with the wiretapping story) but just that it could happen. If a legal program is legally classified, I don't like the idea of the editorial team at a newspaper deciding what gets to remain classified. However, I also support most of the protections that allow the New York Times to run such stories (even if I think them misguided) so I probably have to live with the tradeoff. That said, the government is thoroughly justified in tracking and punishing whoever is leaking the information to the New York Times. ETA: Being somewhat familiar with banking regulation I can also say that pretty much any large transation (whether domestic or international) is either monitored by the government or regulations require banks to keep certain information should the government ever decide they want it. Smart terrorists will know this as it is not a secret and will work to avoid it already. But then odds are good that relatively few of the terrorists are smart.
	Submit to Quotes

06-26-2006, 03:10 PM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	A bipartisan amendment? What exactly does that mean? Hate to tell you this GC, but there are laws on the books already related to monitoring of the US banking industry which have been upheld as Constitutional that have absolutely nothing to do with anything the Bush administration has done.
	Submit to Quotes

06-26-2006, 07:20 PM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Calling the fourth amendment, which is part of the bill of rights, a bipartisan amendment shows a lack of historical knowledge. There wasn't a two party system at that point in the history of the US. The Constitutional convention at which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned had nothing to do with bipartisanship in the least. This is why I was trying to get you to define it. I didn't say Bush had nothing to do with it. The SWIFT monitoring is new in the post 9/11 era. Monitoring of bank records is not (note the reference to Supreme Court decision over 30 years old saying domestic banking records are not private). Been around for a long, long time, prior to the Bush administration. Yet everything that you consider to be an invasion of privacy is somehow the fault of and directly caused by the Bush administration. Be pissed at the program. Fine. I have no problem with someone who wants to argue against it. Anyone who is so blinded by political rage that requires finger pointing in the same direction for everything they dislike, regardless of the history of those things, is irrational and cannot be taken seriously on such subjects. Due to the confrontational content of my post, please note that my signature line does not apply to any conversation I have with anyone here. I just put it in because I thought it was funny. Last edited by scaeagles : 06-26-2006 at 07:28 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

06-26-2006, 07:41 PM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I just don't get the broohaha at all. Was it ever a secret that our gov't was monitoring international financial transactions for possible terrorist connections? How is leaking such a "d'uh" piece of information treasonous or espionage in any way? What am I missing?
	Submit to Quotes