Quote :

"Bush condemns disclosure of secret anti-terror program Program that searches bank records lawful, president says Monday, June 26, 2006; Posted: 12:23 p.m. EDT (16:23 GMT) 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. 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. "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." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed, with the exception of TWW's Soap Box."

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

6/26/2006 2:25:30 PM

Quote :

""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.""

I had no clue that there were so many terrorists in the world that we know about and that they are makin 11 million transactions daily.

6/26/2006 2:33:20 PM

great thread title

6/26/2006 2:40:32 PM

Excellent, you are right on track for a thread derailment without adding any content to it yet (see, how that works?).

6/26/2006 2:44:21 PM

well not only does the thread title say nothing descriptive like it could, such as "Bush criticizes New York Times for exposing anti-terror program"...but she didnt even make a point why bush and friends dont get it

thanks to 1cypher though, for riding my nuts and not posting anything worthwhile of his own

me personally...i hate the media

6/26/2006 2:46:09 PM

Quote :

"well not only does the thread title say nothing descriptive like it could, such as "Bush criticizes New York Times for exposing anti-terror program"...but she didnt even make a point why bush and friends dont get it"

Who gives a shit, you're gonna click on it anyway out of your extreme boredom, and it took you 1-4 seconds to figure out what the thread was about. And if you are going to take the time to be a dick with the "great thread title", just post "doesn't get what", and get the discussion rolling. It doesn't take too much not to be a shit face, you just haven't figured that out yet.

Quote :

"thanks to 1cypher though, for riding my nuts and not posting anything worthwhile of his own"

Sure I did, maybe I didn't expound on the idea that Bush said

Quote :

"He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, "You try to follow their money."

despite tracking more than just terrorists, but I think even a pothead could figure out between what I quoted and what I said what I was getting at. Stop trying to turn ever thread into a pointless battle, you are single handedly killing this section.

6/26/2006 2:55:20 PM

Quote :

"Stop trying to turn ever thread into a pointless battle, you are single handedly killing this section."

The continuous trolling is what is killing this section.

If you don't like somebody then don't waste bandwidth with this shit.

6/26/2006 3:02:21 PM

one word:

bush got COULTER'D


this was needless and pointless, but fuck if seeing bush all pissed off wasnt worth it

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 3:03 PM. Reason : it was]

6/26/2006 3:03:34 PM

He doesn't get the importance of privacy in our society.

He seems to think that if it can aid the war on terror, that it must be worth it. That's not so.

You have to consider the consequences of the different actions and decisions.

He obviously hasn't considered the consequences or he has and just doesn't understand and value the key role that privacy plays in everything.

6/26/2006 3:04:45 PM

Quote :

"He obviously hasn't considered the consequences or he has and just doesn't understand and value the key role that privacy plays in everything."

The folks that voted him in don't seem to mind.

6/26/2006 3:05:52 PM

the phone records stuff and this latest business has come out since 2004, so we really don't know.

also: isn't his approval rating among republicans pretty low?

6/26/2006 3:10:28 PM

Quote :

"He doesn't get the importance of privacy in our society."

He does. Thats why all of these programs are kept quiet and he condemns anyone who outs them.

He's afraid of a another terrorist attack that could give the dems the white house in '08.

6/26/2006 3:10:34 PM

Quote :

"great thread title "

Gotta agree with Tree (wow, can't believe I just said that ) I thought this would be another thing dealing with the Colbert Report.

6/26/2006 3:11:41 PM

Quote :

"He's afraid of a another terrorist attack that could give the dems the white house in '08. "

hopefully hes affraid of other results of a terrorist attack other then just the political repercussions

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : t]

6/26/2006 3:12:52 PM

Quote :

"He does. Thats why all of these programs are kept quiet and he condemns anyone who outs them."

I was just about to make that joke. Damn you, Mr. Joshua.

6/26/2006 3:14:16 PM

i would think a terrorist attack would give the republicans the white house. everyone seems to think they're better at the war on terror.

6/26/2006 3:14:36 PM

I actually agree with Peter King on this one.

6/26/2006 3:16:15 PM

you know who else likes to control their media through prosecution?





[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 3:28 PM. Reason : image sizes]

6/26/2006 3:22:35 PM

I guess I know that the government secretly invades the privacy of the public and always has.

But I never expected Bush to defend it by attacking the papers that reported it.

I mean, what does he think papers are for? Advancing his agenda?

I wish NYT would just say, "Hey, PB, it's just business, baby. Gotta make that loot, you know..."

^Could you resize that? While I dig the sentiment, it's not a sound argument, by the way.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ddd]

6/26/2006 3:23:37 PM

The press hates freedom.

There, I said it.

6/26/2006 3:26:03 PM

^^it's not meant to be an argument. and i dont' think that this is as bad as the limitations on free speech in some middle eastern countries. but suing newspapers for treason is certainly going down that road.

6/26/2006 3:29:40 PM

I feel ya, sarijoul.

6/26/2006 4:10:10 PM

did you guys enjoy the looks on the West Virginia coal miners' families' faces when the media told them that all the miners survived and then had to tell them they reported a false story as much as you enjoyed Bush being angry at the NY Times for essentially publishing classified information?

The media should not be immune to all its wrongdoings...I'm not saying what they did was treason, but it certainly wasn't the right thing to do...freedom of speech and freedom of press don't mean you can just say anything...if it did we wouldn't have laws like libel or slander and we wouldn't have laws like, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded building

6/26/2006 4:32:10 PM

they're reporting what many feel to be an abuse of power by the executive branch. i consider that very relevant and what does this:

Quote :

"did you guys enjoy the looks on the West Virginia coal miners' families' faces when the media told them that all the miners survived and then had to tell them they reported a false story as much as you enjoyed Bush being angry at the NY Times for essentially publishing classified information?"

have to do with anything?

6/26/2006 4:44:52 PM

its an example of how fucked up the media is

they only report on what gets them big ratings

they didnt care about the feelings of the WV miners families when they broadcasted a hunch that the miners might be alive based on some radio communications they received

and they dont care about the government or the people or the war on terror, they just care about ratings

6/26/2006 4:50:41 PM

Quote :

"He doesn't get the importance of privacy in our society."

You're totally right. And financial transactions by foreign nationals through a bank in Belgium is just the privacy American citizens need to protect most.

6/26/2006 5:02:21 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: You're totally right. And financial transactions by foreign nationals through a bank in Belgium is just the privacy American citizens need to protect most."

So you don't get it either.

6/26/2006 5:05:16 PM

If the banks are under subpoena doesn't that mean that there was a court process in order to monitor transactions? I guess I don't get it either.

6/26/2006 5:09:11 PM

Explain it to me. How is the fact that a financial transaction going on between suspected terrorists of another nationality in another country is important to our society.

I understand that people need rights to privacy, and I also understand the need for probable cause. In fact, I actually support making the president get warrants in secret 72 hours later, like the law stands, but what I don't get is how people really think its that big of a deal.

6/26/2006 5:09:22 PM

The only real problem I can see with this is the timing of the outing coming on the heels of other things the public are afraid of, I can't see why this is a big deal.

6/26/2006 5:11:34 PM

I'm not saying what he's doing is illegal.

But what it says to me is this:

We will go to any lengths to stop terrorists. And we will admonish and threaten anyone who reports the lengths that we go to.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ss]

6/26/2006 5:12:45 PM

so if the NY Times ran a bunch of classified maps of current US special forces teams in Iraq would you still think big bad Bush was just admonishing and threatining the Times?

6/26/2006 5:14:39 PM

Reporting about things that are done in secret to catch terrorists damage the investigation. We used to have much more intel and monitoring of various organizations, then years back it was reported that we were monitoring their cell phones and communications. Almost over night the lines went silent.

6/26/2006 5:15:36 PM

Bridget, I appreciate your point, but I think its a slippery slope argument that isn't substantiated by the facts.

If we were willing to go to any length to stop terrorism, you'd see us already in a total police state. The fact is that this is one, minor but effective tool that was at our disposal to stop terrorists that the NY Times reported on, totally reducing its effectiveness.

I know that the media has a right to report on most things, but when it reduces the effectiveness of something, it might need to be reconsidered.

For instance, should the NY Times report our surpise maneuvers during wars if they get a leak about them? Like what would have happened if the NY Times alerted Germany to which beaches we would invade in WWII on D-day. Do you still think they should report it?

6/26/2006 5:16:26 PM

politics aside...

the media does whatever they want with no consequences...if they screw up something major, they simply post a correction on page 15F...if they leak out serious data about an ongoing investigation that is supposed to be private, they never seem to get punished for it

6/26/2006 5:17:56 PM

I don't think that legal action should be taken against the Times but I do think that the media in general needs to understand that we are at war and shut the fuck up about certain things. They have an obligation to report abuses of power by the government, this is not that. They need to shut the fuck up.

6/26/2006 5:19:01 PM

I kinda see where you're coming from, but this is too prefect for me to ignore, regarldess of how it is reaching a bit. I mean, come on, attacks on privacy and attacks on the freedom of the press...? That's classic!

Also, you could view the Times as alerting the terrorists or you could view it as them alerting everybody else who's being monitored (you know, the people who make up the majority of the transactions).

6/26/2006 5:19:09 PM

freedom of the press does not mean they can report anything they want

6/26/2006 5:20:03 PM

not to mention: as far as this "war" on terror goes. it's certainly not declared, nor will it ever end. thus, does the government then have war-time powers indefinitely?

6/26/2006 5:21:03 PM

Well, I hate this argument because it can get abused, but

What do they care if they aren't using the money for illicit purposes? Its not like the government is trying to hinder business, which is where most of those transactions go.

Besides, you know that every transaction above $10,000 cash gets reported due to AML regulations already in place, right?

Those are domestic transactions

6/26/2006 5:21:04 PM

We have a free press, but with that freedom comes a certain amount of responsibility. The Times fucked up.

Quote :

"thus, does the government then have war-time powers indefinitely?"

Who is arguing about war-time powers of the government?

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 5:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2006 5:21:38 PM

yes but some things the press CANT do are print false stories (libel), make false accusations in tv casts (slander), etc

its not an ultimate freedom, though the lack of accountability the media has almost makes it seem like one

6/26/2006 5:23:00 PM

well the wall st journal and the la times thought it was a reasonable move too.

6/26/2006 5:23:02 PM

so 3 newspapers that only give a shit about ratings make it ok?

6/26/2006 5:23:32 PM

if they only "gave a shit about ratings" (whatever that means for a newspaper, but whatever) then why did they talk to the administration about it for "weeks" before they released it?

6/26/2006 5:24:33 PM

heres a better question

WHY DID THEY RELEASE IT

6/26/2006 5:24:57 PM

this is what keller has to say about it (in full) sorry for the length:

Quote :

"I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response. Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror. It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish. The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor. The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so. Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements. Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them. "

6/26/2006 5:28:27 PM

pt. 2:

Quote :

" Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us. The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk. It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it. We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. 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. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program. By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they were doing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA. A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — 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 can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues. Thanks for writing. Regards, Bill Keller"

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 5:32 PM. Reason : bold]

6/26/2006 5:28:51 PM

Quote :

"The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk."

so during the weeks of speaking with the administration prior to running the story, the Times appears to have failed to understand when the administration told them that "exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk." I guess the Times was content with putting the program's usefulness at risk...probably for ratings

6/26/2006 5:32:39 PM

ok. stop making yourself sound dumb. newspapers don't have "ratings". sales, sure. ad revenue, sure. ratings? it's not tv or radio. there are no ratings.

6/26/2006 5:33:47 PM