Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5800201 - 06/28/06 05:43 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I think the Bush administration is just pissed that the NY Times has basically made it known they will actively investigate and divulge, without discretion, classified government actions in the middle of a war. I don't think the government response is entirely specific to this one leak.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5800204 - 06/28/06 05:43 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

You tell me. I don't subscribe to the New York Times. I wanted to read their report but not so much I was willing to subscribe to it. I caught wind of it through an article similar to the above from the Associated Press, I believe. I didn't save the link.

They implied the same here related to civil liberties

Quote:

The White House had initially argued that the president could approve warrantless surveillance in terrorism cases under his powers as commander in chief, but critics contended that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978, required communications surveillance in the United States to be approved by the secret intelligence court.




That in itself is not a big deal to me. If people are engaging in illegal activities through the phone, banks or net, oh well, they shouldn't be doing anything illegal then.

I could care less if the government wants to waste its time spying on me. I'm clean as whistle.

What I care about is the press being intimidated from reporting something the public should know about, if they ever do come across something really afoul, out of fear of being mis-prosecuted under treason and espionage laws.

Here's what I don't get, the statement shared with the public that they were going to follow terrorists money trails was pubic knowledge. Why the over reaction to the press keeping people advised that the government was keeping up with the program?

Bush should've been happy the public was being informed he was doing his job and what he said he would on the war against terrorism.

I don't understand the over reaction. So what if they reported that they were using a bank in Belgium to get the information. It just adds credibility that the program actually exists. They said publically that they were going to be tracking it. How does it give a terrorist any advantage to know the source? If it's being tracked, of course it's being tracked through a source that can supply that sort of information. Where was the threat and what's with the over reaction to report?

It's not like the terrorists can switch banks and go back under the radar like before the money tracking program. The one in Belgium records the activity of all of them. It's useless information to them.

What is the White House so freaked out about?

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Edited by gettinjiggywithit (06/28/06 05:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5800314 - 06/28/06 06:20 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

There was nothing illegal, the Times said so themselves.

The big deal? It is not just enough that you can stop these people from using banks. The whole idea was to use this surveillance to identify and arrest or assassinate the people involved. Or spy on them to see who their friends are and get lots of them. And then take their money. A total shitbag move by the Times.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5800386 - 06/28/06 06:41 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Yes, they can do that through tracking money trails. It was public knowledge that they were going to track money trails.

You read the report and are subscriber. What specifically did the NY Times report, that gave out some information other then what was already public knowledge, that the terrorists could use to their advantage to evade being captured?

Please also add along with what was secret and should not have been reported, how a terrorists would use that information to their advantage.

If you have nothing, then I ask again, what was with the over re-action?

If you have something specific that was reported and how it could be used, other then what was common knowledge or useless information, I may be able to better understand the over-reaction to the report.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Edited by gettinjiggywithit (06/28/06 07:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5800581 - 06/28/06 07:58 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Read this. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014540.php

The point is that the NY Times didn't just report that Bush was doing what he had promised to do, they reported in great detail HOW it was being done.

And the program -- the perfectly legal program -- was working. Despite your assumption that the terrorists knew financial transactions were being monitored, the program had caught several -- either because they didn't believe it was being done (i.e. they just chalked it up as a giant bluff from The Great Satan) or because they thought they had found a way around the system.

Now the Jihadis KNOW it wasn't a bluff, and now they KNOW that despite their best attempts at covering and concealing their tracks, if the transaction goes through SWIFT they're toast. That level of specificity is quite different from some vague threat from Bush that the US will be watching money trails.

And even though one might argue from a pragmatic (as opposed to legal or moral) point of view the political wisdom of actually taking the NY Times and the LA Times to court, no one in their right mind could disagree that the leakers to the papers -- all of whom necessarily would have to be covered under the Official Secrets Act in order to be privy to the information in the first place -- must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexDuckYouSuckerx
xBannedx
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 1,410
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
Re: NY Times [Re: Catalysis]
    #5800657 - 06/28/06 08:20 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Catalysis said:
I think the Bush administration is just pissed that the NY Times has basically made it known they will actively investigate and divulge, without discretion, classified government actions in the middle of a war. I don't think the government response is entirely specific to this one leak.




Thats pretty much just a Readers Digest version of the initial story.


--------------------
Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
    #5800749 - 06/28/06 08:44 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I read the link. It too did not mention anything specific that a terrorist could take advantage of.

If the sole key to this programs success was for the terrorists to not know or believe that their money trail was being followed, then WHY oh WHY, did we hear so much about their intentions to do just that after 9/11? Their plan and intention to follow the money trail in the first place should've been kept classified as well from the get go.

It doesn't add up.

At the end of the link article, the concern was that terrorists would now have to find another way to move money around and not through the private and secure banking or wiring systems anymore.

Take some time, make yourself a terrorist and think about how difficult that would be, to hold and move large sums of money around globally by other means. If anything, it is going to force suspicious activity more out into the open and or make it easier to catch them holding large sums of un-accounted for cash in their personal possessions.

I think their taking it more seriously now, if they didn't before, just makes it harder on them to move money around and therefor easier for them to become more obvious doing it and get caught in the act.

They'll have to liquidate and literally start traveling with brief cases of cash. Suspicious liquidation activity should be showing up as we speak, and all suspects should be tailed. I'm sure we've been watching their travel trails already too. What happens when they get caught with brief cases of $100,000 or more? Who, not doing anything illegal, travels around with that sort of cash in their pocket?

The way I see it, if this report is going to force them to withdraw from the system that kept movements securely hidden, it forces them out into the open and scrambling for other methods.

If there was a better way to securely hide and move money around, then through the private international banking and wiring system, they would've been using it already anyway.

The way I see it, this "leak" gives anyone hunting them, an advantage now with the terrorists feeling forced out into more open space with their activities.

For all we know, the "leak" was an intentional inside strategy to do just that, force them out into the open.

Fun and games boys and girls. It's duck hunting season. Cigar anyone? :gethigh:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5800907 - 06/28/06 09:27 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

I read the link. It too did not mention anything specific that a terrorist could take advantage of.




I give up. If you honestly cannot see what is right in front of your nose, nothing else I can supply to you will help.

Quote:

If the sole key to this programs success was for the terrorists to not know or believe that their money trail was being followed, then WHY oh WHY, did we hear so much about their intentions to do just that after 9/11? Their plan and intention to follow the money trail in the first place should've been kept classified as well from the get go.




Sigh. Do you not recall the political climate in place at the time the intention to go after their finances was announced? The adminstration was under ENORMOUS pressure to reassure the public that they were doing something... ANYTHING... to "connect the dots". Hell, the NY Times itself called in an editorial for basically the exact same thing to be done. Now they and the rest of the adversarial press are doing their damndest to make it impossible for the US to get any freaking dots to connect.

Did my comments regarding the jihadis interpreting it as nothing more than bluff not catch your attention? There is a gigantic difference between a "plan" or an "intention" and a functioning successful program. The jihadis understand that. Why don't you?

Quote:

If anything, it is going to force suspicious activity more out into the open and or make it easier to catch them holding large sums of un-accounted for cash in their personal possessions.




Umm, no. Despite what you see in the movies, these guys don't traipse around with briefcases handcuffed to their wrists. Drug barons have no difficulty moving very large sums of cash around indetectably on an ongoing basis. I have no doubt the jihadis can do the same.

Couriers leave no paper trail. Bank transactions do. Capturing a courier with a sack of cash tells you nothing about where the cash originated, nor does it tell you where it's going. Bank transactions do both -- through multiple layers.

Quote:

The way I see it, if this report is going to force them to withdraw from the system that kept movements securely hidden, it forces them out into the open and scrambling for other methods.

If there was a better way to securely hide and move money around, then through the private international banking and wiring system, they would've been using it already anyway.

The way I see it, this "leak" gives anyone hunting them, an advantage now with the terrorists feeling forced out into more open space with their activities.




Here's the problem with the way you see it -- and with the way the MSM sees it -- it is not up to you to decide your pet way of doing things has more advantages than the considered opinion of the people elected to handle these responsibilities. You seem to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the people charged with making these decisions. Do you really think your arguments have never been considered by those in charge? Guess what -- they have been considered. And the decision was made that going the SWIFT route was more advantageous.

Quote:

For all we know, the "leak" was an intentional inside strategy to do just that, force them out into the open.




Not an impossibility. But as I said in a different thread, in human affairs just about anything is possible. What counts is whether or not such a thing is probable. And I'm going to need at least one solid piece of evidence before I believe the US government would deliberately blow an ongoing operation with a proven track record that was a cast iron bitch to set up in the first place, due to the required involvement of the Euro-weenies. Before you blow something like this, you have to be one hundred per cent positive that whatever you put in place is going to work better, because if you change your mind down the road you can't go back. And despite your speculation to the contrary, the interception of (let alone backtracing of) money carried by unknown mules or shipped in containers of furniture or whatever is not going to happen with any kind of frequency. See the incredibly bad record of shipments of drug money -- NOT drugs, but drug MONEY -- being intercepted as proof of that.

Despite your pretense of impartiality on this subject -- your usual disclaimer of just exploring possibilities -- it is apparent from your reflexive pooh-poohing of each response presented to you that you do indeed have your own agenda:

"Oh well, even if the Times DID reveal classified information, it doesn't matter because the government was going about it all wrong anyway because they are too stupid and we're better off doing things the way I see it. And besides, even though the government was stupid to do it this way for the last five years or so, they are smart enough to con the Times into participating in their brilliant disinformation scheme now."

Whatev'.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
    #5801091 - 06/28/06 10:19 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I grabbed, understood and accepted every point made. I see everything you are saying and know the difference between believing something to be a bluff, a spoken intention, and actual action. I'm speaking in addition to it all, beyond it all. Do you understand the difference?

Out of curiosity, fill me on what evidence you have that makes you believe the terrorist would assume Bush was bluffing (lying) or saying things he intends to do that he actually doesn't follow through with (misleading people). Has Bush done this before?

You believe our Commander in Chief would crumble and spew out what should've been classified information related to National Security during a time of emotional distress for the nation? I don't think he's that dumb or weak or willing to divulge top secret strategies classified in the name of National Security to "comfort the people".

If you want to trap someone you don't tell them where you are going to trap them first.

Doesn't add up.

Quote:

Despite what you see in the movies, these guys don't traipse around with briefcases handcuffed to their wrists. Drug barons have no difficulty moving very large sums of cash around indetectably on an ongoing basis. I have no doubt the jihadis can do the same.

Couriers leave no paper trail. Bank transactions do. Capturing a courier with a sack of cash tells you nothing about where the cash originated, nor does it tell you where it's going. Bank transactions do both -- through multiple layers.




If it's that simple and easy to do, (leave no electronic or papper trail)then any one worth catching was already doing that.

Did anyone read the actual report and have information on what besides the Belgium bank being used as the Source for tracking the trail, was divulged to give terrorists a new and previously unknown advantage? Does anyone have information on who (level of importance) has been caught through the program or what plans were foiled as a result of the "follow the money, "top secret" program?

I do understand everything you have pointed out and it looks like a 3 ring circus to me with a monkey in the middle.


:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5801725 - 06/29/06 01:26 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I am studying to be a journalist and I read several news sources daily. The New York Times is one of, if not the best source that I read. They provide unbiased straight forward reporting without any fear. I respect them greatly.


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: NY Times [Re: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5802155 - 06/29/06 04:24 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

> They provide unbiased straight forward reporting without any fear.

What a load of ... There is not a mainstream news orginization out there that provides unbiased straight forward reporting. The NYT is right up there with Fox News for pulling towards an extreme. Take off those rose shaded glasses and take an honest look at what you are defending.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKonnrade
↑↑↓↓<--><-->BA
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 13,833
Loc: LA Suburbs
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
Re: NY Times [Re: Seuss]
    #5802168 - 06/29/06 04:35 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I tend to trust BBC news, they've got less motivation to manipulate the affairs in america. Their coverage of america is subpar, being an international news corporation, but what you do get is a bit less biased.

Both major national US newspapers feature extreme bias. If I recall correctly, my local LA Times is pretty damn liberal. I don't know what the leaning of the NY times is.


--------------------

I find your lack of faith disturbing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: NY Times [Re: Konnrade]
    #5802264 - 06/29/06 06:22 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Konnrade said:
I tend to trust BBC news, they've got less motivation to manipulate the affairs in america. Their coverage of america is subpar, being an international news corporation, but what you do get is a bit less biased.

Both major national US newspapers feature extreme bias. If I recall correctly, my local LA Times is pretty damn liberal. I don't know what the leaning of the NY times is.




Over the top, off the rails liberal, bordering on a tragicomic holding to discredited and failed Marxist ideals. They are to the left of LA and WaPo.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5802409 - 06/29/06 08:19 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

I'm speaking in addition to it all, beyond it all. Do you understand the difference?




"In addition to"? "Beyond it all"? What on earth are you going on about now?

The central FACT of the matter (and yes, it is a FACT) is that once again the New York Times (and others) has informed the entire world -- including the jihadis -- of the existence of a classified intelligence gathering operation, in violation of the Espionage Act. Anything "beyond it all" pales into insignificance. But if by "in addition to it all" you really meant to say that in addition to revealing the program's very existence they also revealed the methodology and the key hub through which the program works (i.e. the SWIFT center in Belgium), then we are in agreement.

Quote:

Out of curiosity, fill me on what evidence you have that makes you believe the terrorist would assume Bush was bluffing (lying) or saying things he intends to do that he actually doesn't follow through with (misleading people).




The very fact that terrorists have been caught by the program, duh. Clearly those who have been caught either assumed:

-- Bush was bluffing
-- Bush was overestimating the information such a program could provide
-- Bush would never get the international co-operation required for the program to be effective
-- They (the jihadis) were smart enough to game the system
-- a combination of the above.

But hey, guess what? Now the Jihadis know that every one of the above assumptions was incorrect, thanks to the NYT.

Quote:

You believe our Commander in Chief would crumble and spew out what should've been classified information related to National Security during a time of emotional distress for the nation?




I note you once again fail to understand how the US government works as described by the Constitution. Ultimately it is the Executive Branch -- in the form of the Commander in Chief -- who decides what information is classified and what is not. Not you, not the New York Times.

But let's look at the supposed foolishness of his telling the jihadis he's going to launch a money-tracking and interdiction effort. This is one of those rare situations where it is possible to get a twofer by announcing a vague intention but not the specifics. Bush's announcement would lead the more cautious jihadis to invest time and effort and money setting up front companies, bogus charitable organizations, multiple shell corporations in multiple countries, etc. to no avail, since having total access to SWIFT records negates all or almost all these precautionary moves in which the jihadis have confidence.

Quote:

I don't think he's that dumb or weak or willing to divulge top secret strategies classified in the name of National Security to "comfort the people".




Announcing a strategy -- especially a strategy as obvious as going after jihadi funding -- is neither dumb nor weak. And once again, it is the Commander in Chief who decides what is classified and what is top secret.

Quote:

Did anyone read the actual report and have information on what besides the Belgium bank being used as the Source for tracking the trail, was divulged to give terrorists a new and previously unknown advantage?




You still haven't grasped the significance of the SWIFT system. If you have access to the SWIFT records, you have access to the details of every international electronic money transfer made.

Quote:

Does anyone have information on who (level of importance) has been caught through the program or what plans were foiled as a result of the "follow the money, "top secret" program?




Yes. From the NYT article -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washin...agewanted=print

Quote:

Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.




The article lists some others as well.

Quote:

I do understand everything you have pointed out and it looks like a 3 ring circus to me with a monkey in the middle.




Cute metaphor. Can I ask you to translate it? Are you willing to give us your opinion on whether the NY Times destroyed yet another classified intelligence gathering operation now?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexDuckYouSuckerx
xBannedx
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 1,410
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5802478 - 06/29/06 09:00 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
I read the link. It too did not mention anything specific that a terrorist could take advantage of.



Are you able to read?
Quote:


If the sole key to this programs success was for the terrorists to not know or believe that their money trail was being followed, then WHY oh WHY, did we hear so much about their intentions to do just that after 9/11? Their plan and intention to follow the money trail in the first place should've been kept classified as well from the get go.



OK, let me give some examples. Lets say that Bush says "We are going to go after Al Qaida!". OK, thats an understood, yet very vague, goal. Lets say that some editor at the NY Times, a few weeks later through an illegal source, publishes an article "Al-Qaida Fundraiser in Cairo under investigation", mentioning the name of undercover CIA operatives, the methods used to track the operatives, and the fundraisers name. You see how thats much, much different, right? One of them doesn't really give much top secret information up and the other most definatly does. Thats the problem now.
Quote:


Take some time, make yourself a terrorist and think about how difficult that would be, to hold and move large sums of money around globally by other means. If anything, it is going to force suspicious activity more out into the open and or make it easier to catch them holding large sums of un-accounted for cash in their personal possessions.



Not really. When we know of one source that they are using, it's in our best interest to keep following that source, not to give it up and hope that the tactics that they switch to are easier to follow.
Quote:


I think their taking it more seriously now, if they didn't before, just makes it harder on them to move money around and therefor easier for them to become more obvious doing it and get caught in the act.




But you admit that the method that was working, the one that the NY Times reported upon, now isn't going to work? All of that money, lives, time, for naught. And it's the fault of the NY Times and their illegal leak.
Quote:


They'll have to liquidate and literally start traveling with brief cases of cash. Suspicious liquidation activity should be showing up as we speak, and all suspects should be tailed. I'm sure we've been watching their travel trails already too. What happens when they get caught with brief cases of $100,000 or more? Who, not doing anything illegal, travels around with that sort of cash in their pocket?




You just don't understand the issue here. If you know more about tracking terrorists than the CIA, go volunteer your services. If you don't, then shut up and let them do their job.
Quote:


The way I see it, if this report is going to force them to withdraw from the system that kept movements securely hidden, it forces them out into the open and scrambling for other methods.



The entire point is that they weren't securely hidden! It's like a phone tap, it works because the person doesn't know that it's there and they say stupid things on the phone. If Tarqa and Al-Habbiby don't know that we see a connection in attacks in Iraq and money being moved into their bank account, then we have a huge advantage. Why give up that advantage for some hope that they'll have to switch tactics? Do you think it's easier for the US to track a source thats already been given up, or to find an entirely new source?
Quote:


If there was a better way to securely hide and move money around, then through the private international banking and wiring system, they would've been using it already anyway.



You just aren't too bright, no offense. Do you recognize the need for secrecy in these sorts of investigations or not? I dont' think that you do. Maybe you should go suck some more ignorance out of the guardian, or something.
Quote:


The way I see it, this "leak" gives anyone hunting them, an advantage now with the terrorists feeling forced out into more open space with their activities.



Well, when it's your opinion versus that of the US Government thats been tracking terrorism, I gotta side with them.
Quote:


For all we know, the "leak" was an intentional inside strategy to do just that, force them out into the open.



Hardly.


--------------------
Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKonnrade
↑↑↓↓<--><-->BA
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 13,833
Loc: LA Suburbs
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
Re: NY Times [Re: xDuckYouSuckerx]
    #5802520 - 06/29/06 09:20 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

God damn do I hate the quote parades in this forum... so much info, so little attention span :tongue:


--------------------

I find your lack of faith disturbing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
    #5802533 - 06/29/06 09:24 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Taken from the Power Line link-

Quote:

What I wanted to understand: what would terrorists and those who wish the US harm know now, with the Friday disclosure of the program, that they wouldn't have already known from the first few weeks after 9/11 when President Bush announced that the administration would do everything it could to get all data from every bank around the world.






Quote:

Kean said that when he was briefed by the Treasury Department on the program, "I was told very few people knew about this facility," which provides transaction processing services for over 7,000 financial organizations located in 194 countries worldwide.

"I was told that very few financial houses in this country knew about it; it was not well known even by people in banking," Kean said. "The terrorists didn't know the financial transactions went through this one group.  Top-notch people in the US didn't even know."




Keen was ready to charge them with espionage for revealing our Program, which Bush announced would do everything it could to get financial data from every bank in the world, used SWIFT because he said he was told, "very few financial houses and even the "top notch" didn't know about SWIFT?

Quote:

Swift provides transaction processing services for over 7,000 financial organizations located in 194 countries worldwide.




SWIFT, was suppose to be a well guarded Top Classified secret? :crazy:

Is it such a secret with it providing services to over 7,000 financial organizations, in 194 countries world wide? 

Is it such a secret to "top notch people and financiers" when it has been running a public website http://www.swift.com/ with archives going back to the year 2000? 

SWIFT looks like a pretty well established and known to the industry, corporation with share holders to me. Look at the SWIFT Link web-site. They've even made the Head Lines of the Wall Street Journal, they've won industry service awards and "top notch people" and financial houses in the U.S didn't know about them?

It gets better. Look at what other "top secret classified information" any Joe can find on their web-site-

Quote:

Cooperating in the global fight against abuse of the financial system for illegal activities
SWIFT is solely a carrier of messages between financial institutions. The information in these messages is issued and controlled exclusively by the sending and receiving institutions




Looks like Keen was feed a load of over exaggerated cacca by the Treasury Department to get him all worked up against the NY Times.

Whoever in this thread said this news bit of the "leak" about SWIFT wasn't even news worthy (looks like white house drama to me) was right.

It has provided much circus humor, though. The NY Times reported nothing secretive about the existence of SWIFT or what it does and Keen took some trumped up bait to make a public threat of espionage against them. The only sad part is that Congressmen Keen and the U.S. Treasury Department have nothing better to do with the time they are paid to serve the country and tax payers money.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexDuckYouSuckerx
xBannedx
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 1,410
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5802589 - 06/29/06 09:42 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

www dot cia dot gov

There ya go buddy, if you know more about our intelligence capabilities than the US Government, if your methods are superior to theirs, then go right ahead, join up. I'm surprised you haven't used your extensive knowledge to capture bin-Laden and get your $10M reward yet.

Edited by Seuss (06/29/06 09:47 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: NY Times [Re: xDuckYouSuckerx]
    #5802611 - 06/29/06 09:50 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

You built that whole reply to me around a fantasy hypothetical NY Times report that you made up, and that has nothing to do with the actual report being discussed in this thread?  :thumbdown:

Why not just run around posting baseless ad hominem and flames without the made up false news reports to make replies too, to feel like someone who has something intelligent and relevant to add to the thread?  :smile:

How old are you and what have you accomplished so far in life if I may ask, since you felt a need to get personal around here? 

When such a report actually shows up in the NY Times, post it and maybe we'll talk about it. :smirk:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: NY Times [Re: xDuckYouSuckerx]
    #5802615 - 06/29/06 09:52 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

There ya go buddy, if you know more about our intelligence capabilities than the US Government, if your methods are superior to theirs, then go right ahead, join up. I'm surprised you haven't used your extensive knowledge to capture bin-Laden and get your $10M reward yet.




Please read the forum rules with respect to debate and flames. This is an ad hominem, a type of fallacy used when one is unable to argue against the evidence presented by the opposite side. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem for a better description. This type of attack on the poster, rather than on the content of the post, is not tolerated and will result in the offender being banned from the site if it continues.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Government Information Awareness Edame 630 1 07/13/03 06:04 PM
by Crobih
* Porous Mexican Border as a Terrorist Entry Point
( 1 2 all )
Autonomous 4,118 36 01/05/04 11:19 AM
by Xlea321
* How to handle terrorists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Phred 5,925 63 02/20/04 06:21 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* The Case Against War EchoVortex 1,139 3 10/31/02 06:24 PM
by Anonymous
* Rice Faults Past Administrations on Terror PsiloKitten 355 0 10/31/03 03:03 PM
by PsiloKitten
* I fear my own government more than I do terrorists chodamunky 926 3 05/03/03 10:35 PM
by Madtowntripper
* Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 3,758 32 11/06/02 04:01 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* The administration
( 1 2 3 all )
SoFarNorth 3,644 55 08/22/02 12:32 PM
by toxick

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,847 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.