What if I thought it was in the public interest to publish his home address or his childrens' routes to and from school? Or his Social Security number? I'm sure someone is interested in that information and they aren't so different in nature from the terrorists who threaten us.

From yesterday's Boston Globe:

"But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT."

Here's the $64,000 question folks - What, SPECIFICALLY, would a terrorist do on June 22nd that he would not do on June 23rd as a result of the New York Times article?

Bonus Question - Why is there no outrage being directed at the Wall Street Journal? Or the Los Angeles Times? Why is it the N.Y. Times, AND THE NEW YORK TIMES ONLY, the target of these accusations?

Anonymous --

Why would a speeder stop speeding if a big sign and flashing lights say "police ahead"? Are you so dense that you can't see the difference between knowing you might be under surveillance vs. knowing you are definitely under surveilance?

The mob guys all know they are being watched, but they don't know where and how. If a paper publishes an article stating "mobsters being watched from rooftops with special long-range viewers and audio capture devices," wouldn't that hurt the surveillance effort? Get with the program dope.

As for the NY Times, they were the ones who refused to hold back the story. The other papers went with the story only after the Times said they were going with it. The weak link was the Times. They are the ones who should take the heat.

Now, before you post, try to read about your chosen subject and think first.

Are you so dense that you can't see the difference between knowing you might be under surveillance vs. knowing you are definitely under surveilance?

Anyone with a pulse would know - the President SAID that we were definitely conducting surveillance on financial transactions. He said so REPEATEDLY and PUBLCILY.

Get with the program dope.

You're the dope, you didn't answer the question. I asked for SPECIFICS, you give me generalities. What would a terrorist do differently on June 22nd as opposed to June 23rd. So far, all the bloviators on the right have come up with NOTHING!

Anonymous,

Follow along, I'll make this simple...

Here is an example:

We ALL know the CIA exists and engages in clandestine activities throughout the world. We, the American people know it, and so does EVERYONE else around the world.

We ALL DO NOT know the exact nature and details of those activities especially those activities that are Classified.

Stating generally that we are using every means available to track terrorists including tracking their financial activities is one thing. That is of course COMMON SENSE.

But detailing the exact specifics of a classified program is entirely different.

Contrary to what some 'Leftists' believe, Freedom of Speech and the Press does NOT trump National Security secrets. PERIOD.

We ALL know the CIA exists and engages in clandestine activities throughout the world. We, the American people know it, and so does EVERYONE else around the world.

We ALL DO NOT know the exact nature and details of those activities especially those activities that are Classified.

Still dodging the question with a "non-answer" answer.

But detailing the exact specifics of a classified program is entirely different.

Except that's not what the Times did. Read the article, moron. NOTHING in the article divulged operational details that were not already in pubic domain or trumpeted by the Bush Administration as part of their "anti-terror" record.

um...perhaps you need to re-read the NY Times article then.

They themselves refer to the program as SECRET...which they would not have done if ALL of the details, which they then went on to divulge, were "in public domain"

Great article Robert!

Context is important, o pointed-head one. "Secret" as used in the context of the article does not refer to the program itself (which you can go and look up on the SWIFT website if you wish), but rather the Administration was keeping the program secret to avoid oversight.

The program wasn't secret because of what it was, rather it was a political secret so that it could run unfettered.

um...Except, they call it "a secret Bush administration PROGRAM"

A SECRET Program which was detailed (OVERSIGHT) to certain key members of Congress of both parties for years.

You apparently have NOT read the report nor have you any idea of the Congressional involvement with the SECRET program.

As I said previously...and my friend, follow along, I'm sure even you can understand this...

The knowledge that the U.S. government was tracking financial transactions of suspected terrorists was NO secret. Nor is it a secret that the CIA engages in clandestine activities throughout the world. But to detail specifics that ARE classified is ILLEGAL. PERIOD.

And one last point, to use your own words against you.

You said, "the Administration was keeping the program secret"

My friend, of course they were...the details were classified and LEGAL. If the Administration was keeping it secret (and therefore classified), then the NY TImes AND the leaker broke the law...thanks for agreeing with me.

the NY TImes AND the leaker broke the law...thanks for agreeing with me.

IF the program was "secret" (and I am not conceding that since President Bush was constantly talking about tracking terrorist money), the leaker can be prosecuted. The Times, however, is protected by the First Amendment unless someone can show that the public's right to know is outweighed by national security interests (here's a hint - the court has about as much chance of making that determination as Pat Buchanan has of being elected President of Mexico).

I'm sorry, the Republicans are getting their knickers in a twist over something that was discussed OPENLY by the President and can be located with a 5-minute search on Google. There's nothing there but a bunch of people wanting to stifle free and open press (though again, the Wall Street Journal gets away scot-free...)

Wow...did you have a hard time paying attention to your teachers when you were in school?

Listen again...

Discussing in very general words a widely known fact that the U.S. is tracking the financial transactions of suspected terrorists is perfectly fine. Yes, WE ALL KNEW THAT.

Discussing the classified details of a program and detailing the specifics of that program is NOT.

And (again) contrary to what you might think, invoking "Freedom of Speech" DOES NOT trump legal, classified National Security secrets.

Do you honestly think that if a U.S. newspaper were to detail the activities of each U.S. military raid in Iraq prior to it's operation on the grounds of "We're the Press and we have carte blanche when it comes to Free speech", that it would happen without consequence?

These are 3 facts that we know:

- The details of this program was classified
- This program IS Legal
- Congressional leaders of both parties were kept informed.

You know it's amazing...Leftists are actually trying to make the argument that the so-called "leaking" of Valeria Plames identity as a CIA agent was illegal, but the NY Times can, whenever it wants, detail classified programs and be protected....amazing...simply amazing...

Hey Anonymous,

If everyone knew about the program, why are stories like this popping up:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701912.html?referrer=emailarticle

>London-based watchdog Privacy International said it had filed complaints with data protection and privacy regulators in 13 European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong, arguing that the disclosures of financial transactions "were made without any legal basis or authority whatsoever.". . . Privacy International’s director, Simon Davies, said the secret CIA-Treasury program “shows yet again how the U.S. willfully disregards the privacy rights not only of its own citizens, but also the rights of foreign nationals.”

Why didn't they file this suit before? Didn't they know about the program? By the way, George Soros funds this pro-terror leftist outfit.

Keep crowing about how the program was common knowledge clown. You contradict your own lefty pals.

Anonymous,
I wasn't aware that bank transactions done from one foreign country to another foreign were being monitored by us. With the broad discussion about tracking financial records, it is certainly reasonable for a terrorist to suspect that if he transferred money to or from the U.S. that it was being monitored. I am certain that these terrorists were not wise to the breadth of complicity that other governments were giving the U.S. to track transactions that did not traverse the U.S. at all.

If what the Times published was so well-known then why did they publish the story as news? Why was it put on the front page?

There is a big difference between making a general statement that the U.S. is tracking terrorist assets and publishing "sources and methods".

To answer anons earlier question, the answer is so obvious that I was tempted not to answer. As no one else has let me reply. After the Times story was made public terrorist financiers now understand how vulnerable they are when they make payments via the SWIFT system and so they will no longer use SWIFT member banks to making international money transfers. Let me pre-empt anon's next "point" where he claims that terrorist already knew this. According to the report in the Times the SWIFT monitoring program did result in capturing terrorists and preventing attacks. Apparently not all the terrorists got the memo. Now, thanks to The Times, they have it.

Great response Robert.

Tom Elia over at New Editor had a snappy little parody about the NY Times forming a shadow goverbment.

I'm sorry to say but both sides are absolutely confused on this issue. Why not set records quite straight:

1) US as well as any other government can successfully request specific information from SWIFT. SWIFT always cooperated with this because in order for SWIFT to function well it -MUST- cooperate with the financial regulators in EVERY country. Should SWIFT refuse to do that, countries banking regulator simply makes it impossible for SWIFT to function. It had always been the case. SWIFT can't function at all if it can't work with the US.

Anyone who thinks the financial industry works in any other way is a fool.

2) Neither US nor another country can query blankly query SWIFT for all transactions that sort of kind of match the criteria specified (also known as finishing expeditions ) if the transactions do not touch the financial institutions of said country.

3) US and any other government may request and will receive information on all transactions that touch the financial institutions regulated by the government of such country. It is very well known that certain eastern european countries were getting a list of all SWIFT transactions originating or terminating in those countries several years ago ( tax/money laundering ) was the excuse.

4) Stop being dumb liberal quacks pretending you discovered something new. It is nothing new.

5) Stop being republican quacks pretending that no one ever looked under the rag before.

2) Neither US nor another country can just query

While I'm sure "Yawn" swooping in from on high to set the record straight for us mortals settles the matter for everyone, I suspect his knowledge of how SWIFT manages inquiries might have some additional credibility if we gave a rat's ass what some anonymous poster with no credentials has to say about anything.

I sure Yawn knows much more than me. After all, I only spent five years working at Citibank in New York in the Cash Management division (Petroleum, Metals and Mining department) and in the Foreign Exchange department. I also spent two years consulting to Reuters and attended, on their behalf, several SWIFT conferences sponsored by, among others, the Bank of England. I only made billions of dollars in payments (on behalf of bank clients) using the SWIFT system. I also managed Citibank's response to various subpoena's in the Marcos/Phillipines investigations trying to recoup funds stolen by Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos as well as other less known cases.

If Yawn says that "everyone" already knew what was contained in the Times report then I am sure he knows better than me (or The Times or all the other folks who have reported on or commented upon the matter). We are lucky to have such a genius trolling the comments section of OlbermannWatch.

You rich Bob?