Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleaNeway2sayHooray
Cresley Wusher
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/07/05
Posts: 7,653
Loc: Orphic Trench
NY Times
    #5798089 - 06/28/06 12:56 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Now the bush admin. is taking stabs at the press.I didnt see another post for this topic so please forgive me if this is a repost.

I dont see how they think this violates the espionage act.


Congressman Wants N.Y. Times Prosecuted

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee called Sunday for criminal prosecution of the New York Times, saying its report Friday on U.S. government surveillance of confidential banking records “compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies.”

Interviewed on “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the newspaper compromised national security when it exposed a Treasury Department program that secretly monitored worldwide money transfers to track terrorist financing. The program, instituted after the Sept. 11 attacks, bypasses traditional safeguards against government abuse.

Similar reports were published the same day by the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets.

“By disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies,” said King, referring to New York Times reporters and editors. “Nobody elected the New York Times to do anything. And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people.”

Calling the report “absolutely disgraceful,” King said he would call on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to begin a criminal investigation of the newspaper.

The Bush administration urged the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times not to publish their reports, but the editors of each newspaper concluded that it was in the public interest to go forward.

“One of the most hotly debated issues in the country right now is the conduct of the war on terror,” Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet said Sunday. “It is our job to publish what we know about the government’s role, to offer the public what it needs to know to participate in that debate.”

Officials at the New York Times had no immediate comment on King’s statements.

Senators from both parties declined to join the Long Island congressman’s call for an investigation and defended the role of newspapers as guardians against government abuse.

“We have seen the newspapers in this country act as effective watchdogs,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said on the same program.

“I don’t think that the newspapers can have a totally free hand. But I think in the first instance, it is their judgment….

“I think it’s premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it’s premature to say that the administration is entirely correct.”

On CNN’s “Late Edition,” Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said that although he would have preferred the New York Times not publish the information, “the truth of the matter is, they’ve uncovered an awful lot of things that the government has been doing that doesn’t make sense as well.”

Both senators cited Thomas Jefferson’s maxim: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

According to the reports in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the financial tracking program was part of an aggressive post-Sept. 11 effort to gather intelligence, tapping into the world’s largest financial communication network for information on bank transfers.

The network — run by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT — carries up to 12.7 million messages a day. Those messages typically include names and account numbers of bank customers — private citizens and huge corporations alike — that are sending or receiving funds.

To gain access to the information, the Bush administration used administrative subpoenas, which are not subject to independent governmental reviews designed to prevent abuse.

The SWIFT program is part of the administration’s broad expansion of anti-terrorism intelligence-gathering methods, which also include warrantless surveillance of some phone calls and e-mails into and out of the U.S. The New York Times first reported on that program, run by the National Security Agency, late last year.

On Sunday, Specter indicated that Congress and the White House were nearing agreement on a proposal to submit all such eavesdropping to the secret federal court that considers intelligence matters.

“We’re getting close with the discussions with the White House, I think, to having the wiretapping issue submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” he said. “That would be a big step forward for the protection of constitutional rights and civil liberties.”

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.

https://freepress.net/news/16240


--------------------
Mad_Larkin said:  Death is just a thang.
:clementine:
MrJellineck said:  Profits, prophets. That's all you jews think about.
sheekle said: life is drugs... and music... and cat... :snowman:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5798096 - 06/28/06 12:59 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Damn, they blew our cover! The terrorists had no idea they were being watched until the NY Times spilled the beans. :eyeroll:


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

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: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5798135 - 06/28/06 01:15 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I almost posted this yesterday just for the humor in the government saying they may press charges against the NY Times for committing espionage.:rofl2:

And people believe we have free press that isn't being intimidated by the government.

Yeah right.:hehehe:

:peace: :heart:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleaNeway2sayHooray
Cresley Wusher
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/07/05
Posts: 7,653
Loc: Orphic Trench
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5798161 - 06/28/06 01:28 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Its quite ridiculous they are trying to regulate something as large as the NY times.

To me its more of a "we know we have the power to do whatever we want and we are going to prove it" sort of thing.


--------------------
Mad_Larkin said:  Death is just a thang.
:clementine:
MrJellineck said:  Profits, prophets. That's all you jews think about.
sheekle said: life is drugs... and music... and cat... :snowman:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePanoramix
Getafix
Male

Registered: 11/26/03
Posts: 634
Loc: Everywhere else
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: NY Times [Re: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5798176 - 06/28/06 01:39 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Bush said he was going to do that exact same thing ("Follow the... follow the money" as he so inarticulately put it) about three or three and a half years ago or so. He told the press directly they were planning to monitor bank accounts. My question becomes not 'how can the Bush admin. seriously consider that espionage?' but rather 'how is that even considered news?'. <- Got some nifty punctuation going on there, eh?


--------------------
Don't worry, I'm wrong.

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: Panoramix]
    #5798197 - 06/28/06 01:51 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

It's news so big, threats of espionage charges are being considered against the NY Times :rofl2:


Seriously, the people are getting more restless, and angry and wanting answers about a lot of things. I think the government is scared that the press , wanting to meet those demands is going to start pushing it. I think it's an intimidation maneuver by the government to keep  the press restrained from some real investigative work and reporting about what the government is up too.

I think the waters are being tested from both sides to see how far either can push the other and get away with it.


:peace: :heart:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleaNeway2sayHooray
Cresley Wusher
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/07/05
Posts: 7,653
Loc: Orphic Trench
Re: NY Times [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5798239 - 06/28/06 02:17 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:

I think the waters are being tested from both sides to see how far either can push the other and get away with it.







:thumbup: :thumbup:

I agree


--------------------
Mad_Larkin said:  Death is just a thang.
:clementine:
MrJellineck said:  Profits, prophets. That's all you jews think about.
sheekle said: life is drugs... and music... and cat... :snowman:

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: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5799268 - 06/28/06 12:48 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Now the bush admin. is taking stabs at the press.




Turnabout is fair play. The press has only been "taking stabs" at Bush for five and a half years now. And of course the latests stabs are not just against the administration, but against the security of the entire country.

Quote:

I dont see how they think this violates the espionage act.




Probably because you don't understand the relevant legislation, much less the underlying principle behind the legislation. Try reading this as a starter --

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bush_should_welcome_a_fight_wi.html



Phred


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

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: aNeway2sayHooray]
    #5799525 - 06/28/06 02:09 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Many stupid things being stated above.

To begin with, I seriously doubt that the Times will be indicted for espionage. So far I've only heard one Congressman, Peter King, asking for criminal charges, so the notion that the "government" is threatening this is laughable. The leakers should be charged, but I'll doubt that the Times will be compelled to do anything other than turn over their sources, if that. They should turn over the NSA leakers too. It is a criminal act for a government employee to divulge secrets. It is not and cannot be left up to individual employees to decide what is and is not a secret.

Secondly, regarding the notion of a monolithic press, it simply does not exist. Many, many news organizations are deploring the irresponsibility of the Times. I doubt that very many want criminal charges but they are quite adamant in their condemnation of this idiotic decision.

Thirdly, regarding the notion that "people are fed up and want answers," this is also not such a monolith either. Most adults realize that there is a need for covert action and that it occasionally has successes and there is thus a quite clear justification for keeping certain activities out of the public eye. Every internet sting that nabs a pedophile relies on secrecy. Every time an undercover cop prevents a murder he relies on secrecy. Most of the people are all for the government acting covertly, although they expect the actions to be taken within the law. The Times themselves admitted that this program was legal. They just wanted to put up a pointless headline to sell papers and didn't give a flying fuck that they were totally queering an effective program. They remain mystified at the huge backlash against them.
There are three groups of people who have become utterly separated from the general population.
Big time career politicians and bureaucrats
Big time media
Big time academics
They all have Pauline Kael's disease who, when apprised of Nixon's election victory, was stunned because nobody she knew voted for him. Intellectual incest is when you only talk to like minded people. Invariably it leads to deformed thinking.

This program was legal, effective, reliant on secrecy and it's exposure had absolutely no positive effects for anyone except terrorists who had been unaware of it. The Times was asked repeatedly to not report this and strongly, which Keller lied about. He said the requests were half-hearted. When cabinet members, Congressman (even Murtha), both Chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Senators all call to urge you not to publish, that is not half-hearted. From John Snow:

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.

Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

My bold above
If you guys think it's a good idea that the press be the ones who decide what is and is not secret you are abysmal fools. What election did they ever win? And just for added laughs, we have this editorial from the same idiots dated Sept. 24, '01:
Finances of Terror

September 24, 2001
"Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America’s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies."
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-demanded-financial-tracking-to-combat-terrorism

The whole editorial is at the link


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
    #5799528 - 06/28/06 02:10 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Turnabout is fair play. The press has only been "taking stabs" at Bush for five and a half years now. And of course the latests stabs are not just against the administration, but against the security of the entire country.



:lol:

They've been "taking stabs" at the Bush administration by reporting what's going on.  They're called facts.  But if you want to brush it off as "attacks" simply because the facts are not so flattering to the right, then go right ahead.  Also, there's a huge difference between reporting unflattering facts and using force to try to suppress the media.  What was that stuff you used to say about "initiation of force"?  I think you need to blow the dust off your libertarian handbook and have another look through it.


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

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: Silversoul]
    #5799542 - 06/28/06 02:15 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Do you even read either the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post? I don't see LA Times much but the WaPo and the NYTimes are far more than "reporting facts." Their choice of what they report, where they put it, how it is couched, choice of modifiers, all point to gratuitous maligning of the Bush administration. If you think all Dan Rather did was report the facts you are completely in throes of BDS yourself.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: NY Times [Re: Phred]
    #5799598 - 06/28/06 02:34 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Turnabout is fair play. The press has only been "taking stabs" at Bush for five and a half years now. And of course the latests stabs are not just against the administration, but against the security of the entire country.





That's called checks and balances. Our media is suppose to report what's happening to keep the govt in check. Would you rather the media not report on the govt at all? How is a democracy suppose to function if the people are ignorant of what is going on?


--------------------
"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

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]
    #5799616 - 06/28/06 02:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Then why doesn't the Bush Administration just Sue the NY Times for slander and liable?

Like silver pointed out, Bush and others have declared on National Television that they planned to follow the money trail of the terrorists. That wasn't top secret classified information that would hinder any investigation or sting operation. It's my understanding that what got his feathers in a fluff was that the NY Times report implied the program was breaking laws.

I read yours and Phreds replies, you made a lot of understandable, reasonable and good points to consider.

None the less, it concerns me that the government can do anything and hide it behind "National Security" "War Time" If the war in Iraq or on terrorism never ends, they can bar the press from reporting all sorts of incriminating evidence against government corruption if they can claim "It was a part of a secret sting operation".

Somethings not right about that.

Where's the checks and balances? Where is the organization keeping our government within the Laws when the only Law enforcement is funded and run by the government?

The investigative news media is the closest independent organization the American public has.

I'm glad you agree that the espionage charge against the NY Times is silly and if they feel there was a breach of classified information, they should be going after the leeks to the press, not the press.

However, if the leeks were giving information of law breaking within the law making establishment itself, thats BS if they end up prosecuted and in jail for it while the law breakers get off Scott free.

:peace: :heart:


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

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]
    #5799786 - 06/28/06 03:28 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Even the NY Times admitted this was entirely legal. The idea that it wasn't a secret because everybody knew about it is just specious excuse mongering. "Everybody" didn't know about it and it had been useful. See the letter from John Snow above. Now it's shit.

The checks and balances on the government are in the government. It is not the monolithic gargantua that the paranoids make it out to be. Is the press a valuable part of that too? Absolutely. But, and I repeat myself, who elected these arrogant assholes that they have the right to gratuitously ruin effective programs with some specious "right to know" bullshit. The only logical conclusion to that argument is that only secret programs that they approve of should be kept secret. Or maybe none at all, since there will always be somebody who doesn't like something. This was clearly an example of the pointyheaded bitch Bill Keller usurping foreign policy and for no good reason other than to fuck with Bush. Or so he thought. It isn't exactly panning out that way.

As an aside, the shrill nest of whackos the Times has become is very negatively affecting their bottom line. They are hemorrhaging money and subscribers. The editor before Keller resigned in disgrace and the tone of the editorial page and the letters they choose to publish is 100% anti-conservative to the point of derangement. They have become the NY Nation. I subscribe and read it everyday just to see what the enemy is saying in my town.


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

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: Silversoul]
    #5799798 - 06/28/06 03:34 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
They've been "taking stabs" at the Bush administration by reporting what's going on. They're called facts. But if you want to brush it off as "attacks" simply because the facts are not so flattering to the right, then go right ahead. Also, there's a huge difference between reporting unflattering facts and using force to try to suppress the media. What was that stuff you used to say about "initiation of force"? I think you need to blow the dust off your libertarian handbook and have another look through it.




Both of these paragraphs are quotations from Phreds RealClearPolitics.com links.

Section 798 applies specifically to what the New York Times did last December, when it published a story revealing that the National Security Agency was listening in on calls from al Qaida suspects abroad to people in the U.S.

Last week the New York Times struck again, revealing details about how the U.S. tracks terrorist financing through a consortium in Belgium. Because of the worldwide publicity these stories generated, there can be no doubt al Qaida is aware of them, and will change its practices because of them.



The paper didn't make some vague comments, it gave specific information. I'd say we should burn the NY times headquarters to the ground, but I'd have said that before this bit of skullduggery, too.


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

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]
    #5799827 - 06/28/06 03:42 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
Like silver pointed out, Bush and others have declared on National Television that they planned to follow the money trail of the terrorists. That wasn't top secret classified information that would hinder any investigation or sting operation. It's my understanding that what got his feathers in a fluff was that the NY Times report implied the program was breaking laws.



I don't know how you could say both of those statements at the same time. Clearly, your understanding isn't.
Quote:


I read yours and Phreds replies, you made a lot of understandable, reasonable and good points to consider.



Did you honestly read Phreds reply? Did you click on the link that he provided and read it thorougly? The paper didn't say "Oh yea Bush and cohorts might look at some banking shit, or something", it said SPECIFIC DETAILS, which SPECIFIC BANKS in SPECIFIC CITIES. Top secret information, "understand"?
Quote:


The investigative news media is the closest independent organization the American public has.



Laughably ignorant.
Quote:


I'm glad you agree that the espionage charge against the NY Times is silly and if they feel there was a breach of classified information, they should be going after the leeks to the press, not the press.




Nope, if the press knows something is top secret and reports it, they clearly violated the Espionage act. Since you clearly did NOT read Phreds link, I'll excerpt some of it here for you.

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits...or publishes ...any classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Quote:


However, if the leeks were giving information of law breaking within the law making establishment itself, thats BS if they end up prosecuted and in jail for it while the law breakers get off Scott free.



Welp, if the queen had balls, she'd be the king. She doesn't, and the leAks didn't. The leaks were giving up confidental, top secret information relating to the war on terror, very specific information. Your straw man argument and "what-if"'s aren't relevant at all. You aren't informed, you aren't arguing the issue and you aren't making any salient points.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: NY Times [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5799840 - 06/28/06 03:47 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

This is very off-topic, but pretty much every print newspaper is losing profits and subscribers at record rates, regardless of their political leanings. I would be very hesitant to assert that these losses are because of any sort of political rhetoric. The paper copy of the NYT may be losing subscribers, but I would bet pretty much anything I could round up on the the online copy of the NYT having a record number of readers in comparison to the past rates.

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]
    #5799871 - 06/28/06 03:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Thank you for sharing your opinions.  :smile: I'm not in this thread to argue anything. I originally jumped in to laugh at the idea of the NY Times committing espionage.

The terrorists knew from public admissions their money trail was being tracked. This is not new news to them or any of us.

I already said that I had no problems with or arguments against the points Zap and Phred raised.

What I don't find funny is this-

Read the report about laws being broken within the program. That's what this is about and that's what the NY Times wanted to report.

You have a right to turn 100% blind faith and trust over to our government that it is serving you in your best interest. I have a right not to do that, so far. It'll suck if they day comes where I am no longer publicly allowed to question their actions or risk being tried for treason and espionage.

:peace: :heart:


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

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: Redstorm]
    #5799916 - 06/28/06 04:07 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

I have no doubt the Times' internet readership is higher than it's ever been. They haven't had that presence all that long.

Since Jan '04 the stock has gone from 48 to 24, after several years of stability. It is remarkably coincident with the scandals and the negativity. Not necessarily the liberal bent but the overall shrill deranged tenor of the paper is turning people off. They don't want the NY Times to be The NY Nation


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

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]
    #5800001 - 06/28/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:

Read the report about laws being broken within the program. That's what this is about and that's what the NY Times wanted to report.






Please tell us what they reported was illegal.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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
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]
    #5803551 - 06/29/06 02:55 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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


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

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: 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

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: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5803583 - 06/29/06 03:05 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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.:shrug:


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?

:peace: :heart:

FYI anyone. This isn't a left-right thing to me. I vote Green.


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

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]
    #5803645 - 06/29/06 03:18 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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


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

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]
    #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.  :wink:


:peace: :heart:


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

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]
    #5803886 - 06/29/06 04:28 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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.  :crazy2:


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?

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
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]
    #5804098 - 06/29/06 05:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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


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

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]
    #5804143 - 06/29/06 05:52 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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


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

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: 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."

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: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5804905 - 06/29/06 10:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
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?  :lol:


--------------------
"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

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: RosettaStoned]
    #5806147 - 06/30/06 06:56 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
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

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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


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 0.041 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 14 queries.