|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
SWIFT, was suppose to be a well guarded Top Classified secret?
The existence of SWIFT itself is not a well guarded classified secret, no. The fact that SWIFT was co-operating in tracking financial transfers of terrorists was the well guarded classified secret -- until the NY Times let the cat out of the bag.
Quote:
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.
And you still don't understand the situation. Until Bush persuaded the folks running SWIFT to open up their records, transactions going through SWIFT could not be accessed by intelligence agencies. If someone wanted to track money going from Bank A in Morocco to Bank B in Zurich, he would have had to get the co-operation of both Bank A and Bank B. More to the point, he wouldn't even KNOW which banks to approach.
But SWIFT is the hub, the nexus, the central clearinghouse for wire transfers. If you have access to SWIFT, you have access to all the marbles. You can see both ends of the transaction, and the preceding transactions as well. ALL transactions, in fact.
A jihadi unaware of the fact that SWIFT had been compromised would zip a package of money from Bank A to Bank B to Bank C to Bank D in a matter of hours in the belief that by the time the money was withdrawn from Bank D there was no practical way it could be traced back to its origin. Unfortunately for him, US intelligence could trace it back to Bank A.
Quote:
It has provided much circus humor, though.
What's with the circus fixation, anyway? Is one of your relatives a clown or something?
Regardless of your own failure to comprehend the ramifications of this exposure, here are the facts:
-- The program was legal. -- The program was classified. -- The program was successful. -- The NY Times violated the Espionage Act. -- The Ny Times's sources violated the Espionage Act. -- The usefulness of the program is now exactly zero.
Phred
--------------------
|
xDuckYouSuckerx
xBannedx


Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 1,410
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
|
Re: NY Times [Re: Seuss]
#5803574 - 06/29/06 03:03 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
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.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood, I was being serious. The guy obviously knows a great deal about tracking terrorists and money laundering, as well as possessing basic reading comprehension skills, I posted the link so that he could seriously persue a career with the CIA, sorry you mistook it for sarcasm.
-------------------- Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
David,
Did you read that particular Report?
Can you (anyone?) post exactly what classified details were leaked and reported that was not public knowledge or openly available to the public?
I've been searching the net short of getting a subscription to read it myself and can't find any sting op details that were reported.
Bush announcing his plan in 2002 to track all bank data wasn't a secret.
Swift isn't a secret.
The fact that SWIFT works against global illegal activity and the fact that they are the sole institution that has access to all banking transactions is not a secret.
If they are the only source, who else would the white house use?
At least three posters in this thread are under the impression that specific details (classified information)regarding specific sting op activity was revealed. Yet, none of them will post exactly what was printed word for word in the NY Times Report.
I found one detail that seems to be what was classified information to the Public. It has nothing to do with sting op details being released by the NY Times.
What the public didn't know it seems, is that Bush doesn't need a warrant to track anyone on the planet through SWIFT's data files.
David if you read it, is all of the huff really just about democrat concerns that Bush can look at private records without a warrant?
If so, that's a whole different issue and debate.
The question would then be, "Should Bush be allowed to do that to track terrorists down?" I could care less. However, if the Belgium government upon further review, decides that a "civil servant" (their words) should continue to be allowed access to peoples private financial records, or decide because of concern expressed through the report, that he'll now need a warrant first, I don't see what the big problem is either way.
If this is really what the huff is about and what Bush is miffed over, loosing that power and being forced to get a warrant first, who has what to say about that?
The problem seems to be that Bush is mad because SWIFT and the Belgium government may now take away his Carte Blanch privilege to track anyone, without anyone outside of his inner circle knowing, who they are tracking and why.
If Bush is tracking people legitimately with probable cause, what does he care if he may need a warrant now, because of this report?
If the terrorist were only able to find out from the report that their money trails were being tracked without a warrant instead of with one, does that give them any new significant advantage they didn't have before. If so, what? Anyone? Use your wildest imagination on that question. Maybe I'll better understand what was "blown", besides some power tripping egos, by the report.
Why would they be tracking anyone they didn't have reason to suspect? If they have reason, they have their warrant. What's the big deal?

FYI anyone. This isn't a left-right thing to me. I vote Green.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
For a tip top shot across the NYTimes we have this from Captain's Quarters:
"The backlash from the Times continues today, this time in Ottawa. Canadian politicians have expressed concern over the use of SWIFT data to track terrorist financing, giving the floundering Liberals an issue to exploit against the ascendant Conservatives:
Bank of Canada governor David Dodge knew in 2002 that the U.S. government wanted data from an international banking organization for use in its war on terror. ... Like other central bankers around the world, Dodge does not appear to have raised any red flags in the past four years.
John McCallum, finance critic for the federal Liberals, said Canadians should be worried if personal information was sent to the CIA.
It would fly in the face of Canadian law and banking practice, said McCallum, a senior executive with Royal Bank of Canada before joining former prime minister Paul Martin's cabinet as minister and secretary of state for financial institutions. ...
No one involved with the Canadian banking system, SWIFT or the U.S. government will say what Canadian financial data, if any, might have been seen by U.S. authorities, but Canada's privacy commissioner is looking into the program.
This should put to rest the argument that "everyone knew we were tracking financial data" as an excuse for the actions of the New York Times. Of course everyone knew we tracked financial transactions in our efforts to defeat terrorism; we've talked about that from the start of the war. George Bush made that point in his September 20 speech. What the terrorists did not know -- and what the Times revealed -- were the specific tactics involved.
Now that this has been revealed, we have embarrassed our allies and put them in politically vulnerable positions. The head of the Canadian banking system had full knowledge of our program, and he knew better than to talk about it. Now that the Times has blown the program and his involvement in it, he may well get removed from his position. At the least, he will be forced to make a number of explanations about his cooperation with our efforts, and likely the Commons will want to know specifics about the kind of data released -- which will give the terrorists an even clearer picture of our covert tactics against them.
How many more nations will follow Canada's lead? Belgium has already announced an investigation into SWIFT and its managers for their participation. The nations who provided us with cooperation in our efforts to fight terrorism have found embarrassment, criminal investigation, and potential career catastrophes as a result of their assistance to the US.
How many people will want to help us now? How many financial managers will agree to help us track terrorists through global banking systems now that we have shown ourselves so inept at keeping secrets? For that matter, this incident will reflect on our intel services across all units -- and it will act as a powerful disincentive for individuals and nations to give us any cooperation or assistance in any future program that protects our national security.
This is the damage that the New York Times has wrought on our nation. Bill Keller and his ace reporters have done much more than kneecap our ability to find terrorists through their financial transactions. They have discredited American intelligence services, aided by a handful of criminals who violated their security clearances to have our covert tactics blabbed to the world by the Times. This is what happens when unelected, benighted, arrogant fools decide that they have the right to determine what classified information should be publicized, with the motivation of profit over national interest." Bold by me
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007341.php#comments
--------------------
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
#5803801 - 06/29/06 03:59 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Phred,
No need for the diagrams, and no need to assume that I do not understand things that I do. That is simple stuff.
Here is the question and I can only assume you must think the terrorists are stupid. If it was announced that all global financial data would be tracked to apprehend terrorists back in 2002, what supports the confusion that you say the terrorist had about this?
I read where you said that you believe they thought Bush was bluffing when he said he was going to do it. You still haven't supported that belief with evidence that they did indeed believe he was bluffing.
Does this clear anything up about where I am coming from? I have understood what you are saying from the first reply of yours. No need to keep repeating the same thing as if I didn't hear you the first time.
The question remains and is simple. What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the Jihadists believed Bush was bluffing? Without supportive evidence, that is pure speculative assumption on your part.
Circus's are filled with performing entertainers and three rings of activity pulling at ones attention. The metaphor is related to the Dems Reps and NY Times from my view on all of this.
Ducksucker,
You really missed the boat on this post. The report was never about sting op tracking details being revealed. Zero information about WHO and what was tracked was revealed in the report ( that I can find). If you have evidence of such from the actual report being discussed, post it instead of your fantasies about what was revealed. In the mean time, all you have done is ramble off topic about an imaginary report in your head. Do you comprehend and understand that?
If you think someone doesn't understand something you are saying, you can act like a mature civil adult and ask questions for clarification. That is different then flaming. Flaming (personal name calling) is what people do who have no valid points or arguments to make. Things you said are flat out flames, not even sarcasm. OTD is the forum you go to when you have nothing better to do but flame the crap out of people.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
What the terrorists did not know -- and what the Times revealed -- were the specific tactics involved.
"tactics". Can they be any more vague?
Can you please share with us and post the specific details of the tactics the article reported?
Maybe I will subscribe so I can read it for myself what people are saying was revealed that no one seems to know what was revealed. 
Without my seeing exactly what was leaked and reported, how can I make an honest and informed ascertation regarding if it was a dumb move or not? I still don't have that information and no one will post it.
I read a lot fluff and stuff, but nothing from the actual report that is anything classified and leaked besides what I said about Bush not needing a warrant to track anyone he wants too. That's a whole different subject related to civil liberties, and Bush maybe having to much power, which is what prompted the report in the first place.
Why do you guys keep side stepping that?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
No need for the diagrams, and no need to assume that I do not understand things that I do.
You can protest you understand things all you want. It is abundantly clear from your comments that you do not grasp the central issue here. You don't appear to grasp many (if any) of the subsidiary issues either. Either that or you are pretending you don't in the hopes of getting someone to flame you for exhibiting stupidity, then you can complain to a mod and get that person banned.
That is called "baiting" or "trolling" and is every bit as nasty a tactic as flaming. I am giving you the benefit of a doubt and assuming you are not trolling. That leads us to the inescapable conclusion that you honestly don't understand.
Quote:
Here is the question and I can only assume you must think the terrorists are stupid. If it was announced that all global financial data would be tracked to apprehend terrorists back in 2002, what supports the confusion that you say the terrorist had about this?
I've answered this at least twice already. This is exactly the kind of obstinacy I refer to above. One more time. I will type as slowly as I can so you can follow along.
Announcing the intention to do something is not the same thing as accomplishing it. As has been noted, SWIFT is not under the direct control of the US. It is a European institution, located in Belgium and run by Euro-weenies.
The jihadis didn't even have to gamble that Bush was bluffing. All they had to do was assume he would be unable to get the co-operation he needed. Just because Bush says he wants to do stuff doesn't mean other people will go along with him. And the jihadis (unlike you, apparently) are aware of that fact of life.
The fact they continued using the SWIFT system doesn't mean they were stupid. Their assumption that Bush had been unable to secure the co-operation he needed was not an unreasonable assumption to make, given the statements coming out of Europe in opposition to the way Bush was handling things.
Quote:
I read where you said that you believe they thought Bush was bluffing when he said he was going to do it. You still haven't supported that belief with evidence that they did indeed believe he was bluffing.
Does this clear anything up about where I am coming from? I have understood what you are saying from the first reply of yours. No need to keep repeating the same thing as if I didn't hear you the first time.
The question remains and is simple. What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the Jihadists believed Bush was bluffing? Without supportive evidence, that is pure speculative assumption on your part.
And again we see this obstinacy. I DID provide proof. Once again (I'm typing slowly now) the proof is that the program caught jihadis who either thought it was a bluff or a hollow threat or that Bush would be unable to get the co-operation he needed from the Euro-weenies. If they KNEW the SWIFT system had been compromised, would they have gone ahead and used it anyway? Nope. They thought they were safe. They were wrong.
You keep claiming you understand the points, then you repeat over and over the same statements showing you DON'T understand.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Can you (anyone?) post exactly what classified details were leaked and reported that was not public knowledge or openly available to the public?
I have already posted a link to the NY Times article that requires no subscription to read. At least, I can read it, and I do not subscribe to the Times. Here it is again. If it doesn't work for you let me know and I'll cut and paste the whole thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washin...agewanted=print
What the jihadis didn't know before the NY Times blew the program is that the SWIFT database was an open book to US intelligence. Did some jihadis worry that it might not be totally secure? Probably. Did other jihadis suspect that it might not be totally secure? Probably. Did still others base their actions on the assumption that it was insecure? Probably.
We do know that a heck of a lot of Canadian and European officials are behaving as if they didn't know SWIFT had been compromised.
But it is indisputable that many jihadis (and maybe even most for all we know) also acted as if they didn't think SWIFT had been compromised. That's why they got caught.
Quote:
At least three posters in this thread are under the impression that specific details (classified information)regarding specific sting op activity was revealed. Yet, none of them will post exactly what was printed word for word in the NY Times Report.
Christ on a crutch, woman! That's because classified information was revealed, duh! The Times itself is very plain on that fact. They admit it with no shame whatsoever. Read the freaking link!
Phred
--------------------
|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
#5804895 - 06/29/06 10:35 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Phred...
Do you use firefox? If so then you would realize that there is a recent news tab at the top of the browser with about 30 headlines at a time. I read most of these articles also. These headlines come straight from the BBC. It is kind of weird that the usualy coincide with the NYT and the other paper I read, the Chicago Sun-Times. I occasionaly will read the Chicago Trib. and it seems mostly focused on local issues and will shy away from alot of controversial topics. At last the NYT and BBC tell it like it is.
-------------------- "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."
|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
|
By the way, im watching the fox news channel right now and they just said that terrorists already knew all about the United States looking into national banking acounts. It has been talked about before but no one really paid any attention to it until the NYT wrote a big article which gave the Republicans a chance to rip an obviously liberal news source.
-------------------- "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."
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
#5805814 - 06/30/06 02:54 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What the jihadis didn't know before the NY Times blew the program is that the SWIFT database was an open book to US intelligence. Did some jihadis worry that it might not be totally secure? Probably. Did other jihadis suspect that it might not be totally secure? Probably. Did still others base their actions on the assumption that it was insecure? Probably.
And how exactly do you know what the jihadis know? How many of them did you talk to to find that out? How do you know what they base their assumptions on? Can you prove they didn't know SWIFT was an open book to the US? Once again you grace us with your opinion and try to pass it off as fact.
Are you secretly from the middle-east and that's how you get all this inside info phred?
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
And how exactly do you know what the jihadis know?
Through the application of reason to available facts.
Quote:
How many of them did you talk to to find that out?
None.
Quote:
How do you know what they base their assumptions on?
By the use of common sense and by their actions.
Quote:
Can you prove they didn't know SWIFT was an open book to the US?
Easily. The program caught jihadis who continued to transfer their funding through the SWIFT system. What more needs to be said?
Maybe you have some explanation for why a jihadi who knew the SWIFT system was an open book to US intelligence would continue to use the SWIFT system, but I will freely admit that I myself am too stupid to come up with a plausible reason why someone in possession of such knowledge would act as if he wasn't.
What's your explanation?
Phred
--------------------
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
#5810553 - 07/01/06 06:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe the same reason that some people continue to use illegal drugs? Just because they are illegal doesn't mean you can't fly under the radar.
Something being an open book, doesn't mean that you are instantly going to get caught for writing in it. How the hell does the US know who is a terrorist and who isn't? It's highly plausible that they could be looking right at a terrorist money transaction and have no clue. Thus the system could have still been somewhat safe to use even with the knowledge that the US knew about it. Just a matter of how much risk one is willing to take.
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
|