Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases
The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:
Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.
Folks -- if they don't have enough intelligence to invade the right country then I doubt they have enough intelligence to monitor bank records. They can't even manage to look after their own federal spending, why do they need to look after mine?
Does anyone else worry that the USA might use its intelligent services to give its corporate entities an advantage over foreign ones?
If they use the information purely to look for money laundering or terrorism then that's cool, it would be 99% automated anyway... Looking for patterns and the like... But what if the security services use that information to give helpful hints to US companies over the international counterparts? Is that fair?
We are talking about large amounts of money, and most of us know that money can lead people to act less than morally, so it isn't a far stretch to believe that they might do that... Even be authorised to do that.
The fact that this is happening or the fact that this does not surprise me anymore. Every election year I tell myself I'll vote with my conscious and vote Libertarian. Screw that, I just want these f***ers OUT now.
-------
Bite Me Fanboy!!
It's not so secret any more!
Anyway...
Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.
Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
So the US found a quick way to access international payment flows. I wonder about their "successes", which sound a lot like the "take our word for it, we know Saddam has chemical weapons". Also SWIFT, a seemingly international organization, has in fact confirmed it is controlled by the US by agreeing to pass all its data to the US. I wonder what its Arab clients are thinking. SWIFT can probably now close shop.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
You americans can do whatever the fuck you want to your own citizens.
But please keep us europeans out of it.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Just passing along this comment I saw on Instapundit:
What has not been stressed is that SWIFT is not used for individuals. It is used for processing money transfers, stock transfers and bond transfers from companies, governments, banks, insurance companies and NGO's. What we essentially had on file was the holdings for almost all our clients and the clearance data for these transactions dating back for years. We had to keep all this on file to satisfy all the governmental regulations on taxations, etc.
Ooops too late...actually they crossed the line in a petty way once (w/ Plame) which was just plain stupid. Being ones to learn from their mistakes (unlike the sheep on the other side of the aisle), further use dubiosly collected information for political gain will be much more subtle.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Uh oh you caught me!
:-(
You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.
Yup, red handed. Was just trying to annoy you, my bad.
Can we go back to blaming communism?
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
First off, bank transactions are not 4th ammendment protected. Just like phone number pen registers. The information has to travel through third parties so it has been ruled that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" for said data.
More importantly, the SWIFT system is used to support massive international wire transfers, usually from one bank to another. We're not talking about Western Union transfers and we're not talking about your ATM records.
The really amazing thing is that if you read the entire article you'll see that the Administration has been going to great lengths to protect privacy with additional audits and the requirement of preparing internal subpoenas (yes, they're not vetted by a court) before making any request for data. To date the program has already been responsible for some major terrorist captures and was apparently quite successful.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Cheney doesnt even have the grace to be emberassed about it.
Rather, he blames the media for hating freedom and supporting the terrorist by showing that banks are monitored.
You know, if we dont keep secrets, oceania could win, right?
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
"Does anyone else worry that the USA might use its intelligent services to give its corporate entities an advantage over foreign ones?"
You mean like other governments do with us? Are you all really that naive about global politics?
Hasn't this information been used for years in the "war" on drugs and organized crime? US customs regulations require a declaration if $10,000 or more is brought in or out of the country. As I understood things, from what I was told and read when I made such transfers in the last six or so years, you don't have to do this for international bank transfers, since the banks automatically pass on the information.
i'm a lefty pinko who advocates the protection and expansion of civil rights: wanna know what the worst aspect of this (and the NSA phone call database, etc is?
how much time is being wasted by the FBI when investigative man power could be directed more effectively at more pressing issues.
Not only do they know how much money you move, but by getting into the retail databases, they also know what ( and when, and where ) you are buying.
Just hope that what you bought today legally doesnt become 'questionable' ( or down right illegal ) tomrrow. You might find a knock on your door.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And we know from their illegal phone tapping practices, bloated do-not-fly lists etc, etc, that by now they've collected the names of pretty much every other American (not to mention nearly all other humans; remember, this is an international system; very heavily used by European banks, for one), and that with six degrees of separation, they all have enough ties to be part of the open investigations.
What isn't mentioned at all in this Washington Post article, which the New York Times does mention, are such snippets as:Read the entire New York Times article for more. Chilling.
Given the impact this has on Europeans involved in international transfers as well, if you're European, have you already contacted your bank to urge them to use their influence with SWIFT to make this stop?! There's never much to be done when there's the need to call or write congress critters, but with European privacy laws actually being worth something (in theory), here's a chance to voice very strong displeasure and make this stop!
are they spying on the EFF?
how about the political parties.. granted they are government related but they are still "NGO's"
how many other "Left leaning" organizations is president clark.. i mean bush.. monitoring? (will he send the agrippa and roanoke against air america headquarters?)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Dang it must be hard being an American, knowing that you are being spied on by your government and its agencies from practically every angle possible. It's hard enough being a non-american knowing this, but I imagine it must be worse for you guys. I read posts all the time about how it's time to 'rise up', or 'complain to congress' or insert whatever cry for action you like. So far it seems though, and I say this as a foreign observer, that America is taking it all sitting down. There is very little action 'contra' going on. Sorry to hear it.
Hah! - it's almost ironic that the security word/image that I have to type in to post is 'defraud'...
This is exactly the sort of thing they should be doing.
If they should be checking up on financial transactions, why do they need to try to keep it secret?
Either make it a public policy and get it passed as a law or else don't do it. Same goes for illegal phone-tapping and other forms of spying on your own citizens.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
It would be greatly appreciated by the Billions of us that don't live there if you Americans would do something about your current government.
America increasingly represents the antithesis of 'freedom' and personal liberty especially for those in other countries. They are innovators in the strategic reduction of civil rights, at home and elsewhere. Freedom is not a brand, it's a right and you don't have to be American to have it FFS.
Cheney's predictable response: anyone who criticises mass surveillance is helping terrorists.
Uh, hasn't the IRS had access to this information forever? And I also seem to recall GWB announcing they were tracking financial info immediately following 9/11, just not how.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
"Stuart Levey, undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in an interview last night that the newly disclosed program -- the existence of which the government sought to conceal..."
"The White House complained last night that the disclosure could hurt anti-terrorism activities."
does anyone else wonder about this? so the guy gives an interview in which he talks about this Secret Program (?!) and then his bosses get mad because the NYT prints it? does this seem suspicious to anyone else?
Do something like what? Vote them out? We try that every four years but still end up with Politicians (capitalized because it's a distinct subclass of humanity) in power and after the 24-hour warranty runs out, they all turn into the same evil, self-serving, corrupt muck as the rest of their kind. Overthrow them by force of arms? We did that a couple hundred years ago and it worked well until the very intelligent and respectable gentlemen who created our nation stepped down and the Politicians took over. We seem to be lacking in intelligent and respectable gentlemen, or ladies, these days who would be willing to step in and clean house so a revolution would not produce a change. So we'll muddle along with what we have and try to work around it.
I assume that the irony is lost on a obvious scholar such as yourself, but I find it hilarious when you bemoan the fact that Americans won't rise up and revolt, while at the same time being such a blubbering little pussy that you won't even out yourself among friendlies in the predictably left-leaning reactionary US-bashing circle jerk that is the comment section on Slashdot.
Ah, yes... The spirit of Guy Fawkes lives on in you, AC. Keep fighting fascism, brave soldier!
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
> Impeaching bush isn't the answer at all, when we have an election we really only have one choice to make - which of 2 people (who have been chosen by groups of rich bastards, or corporations to become the next president) is the lesser asshole?
Personally, I think there was as huge difference in the assholiness of the two people we chose between in 2000 and in 2004.
Unfortunately, we've been making the wrong choice.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why is parent a troll for stating the obvious? And the child post who asks why it should be kept secret is modded up? I don't get it. (Actually, I do, I'm being facetious) These transactions are monitored for obvious reasons, none of which fall under the 4th Amendment. So if you are trying to track down terrorists, regardless if you believe it to be just or not, this would be a great way to find them. I think it was irresponsible for the press to place this information out there, just as it was as irresponsible for whomever leaked the information from the Govt. If you do your taxes, then the Govt has been given all the information they need. As for individual transactions, those are supposed to be reported anyway if there is a move of funds. So, if you fail to report that movement, you've violated a law. Like it or lump it.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Everyone knows, Let's through a blame-game and them add it to the archives (use-mode)
> When I read many of the reactionary complaints (from inferior types addicted to being judgmental as a way of maintaining a false superiority)its easy to detect that many of the criticisms don't stem from any virtuous concerns but are the mutterings of people with a seething nature more sympathetic to criminal elements they share an identity with.
So, are you saying we should eagerly give up our freedom for security?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases"
well it was before you idiots put it on the front of slashdot...gee can't a guy get some privacy??
shanegrant.com
It looks like the Dutch national bank agreed on the CIA using this information without informing the public.
c ontrole_CIA_op_geldverkeer.html
If a puny Dutch national bank knows it the rest of our governments are probably aware as well.
Please start putting blame on America only after blaming your own leadership please.
Link in dutch Nu.nl "Dutch National Bank knew of CIA tapping bank data"
http://www.nu.nl/news/763087/22/rss/DNB_wist_van_
"...its easy to detect that many of the criticisms don't stem from any virtuous concerns but are the mutterings of people with a seething nature more sympathetic to criminal elements they share an identity with..."
That is the argument. You are either with us or against us. Black or white.
My world is more about color than that. It's easy for me to see how a seemingly "protective" program becomes one about Government control. No I don't want terrorist to rule my life - nor do I want the Government to be in a position to quiet decent, spy on political opponents, or dictate what is appropriate behavior.
These new programs that have been in-acted by this administration go beyond hunting for Muslim Extremist-Terrorist. These programs are being used to monitor and attack far-left domestic extremest as well (such as ELF). No these are not a "good bunch of guys" - but where is the line. Will the spying be used to stop "right-wing nut jobs" as well? Or is it going to be used to "quiet" those who speak out against war-profiteering?
It's a nice thought that we can be cozy and secure. But I would rather have a government that is kept in check so that a Vice President who has a cozy relationship with a government contractor can not get away with disclosing a CIA operatives in a retaliatory move against someone who speaks out against White House policy.
So far the record has been pretty clear - those who have spoken out against the governments motives for going to war have been right - despite being branded as "un-patriotic" or "anti-American". This administration has proved time and time again that it can not be trusted to do the right thing as the sole-source of secret intelligence.
-CF
Jeez dude get a clue.
Russia isnt so nice and they hide things, they go the shit and 50megaton nukes.
Oh but because they have 1000s of them and subs we cant invade em coz we're toast.
Who sold the chemicals? That damn photo of RUmselfd shaking hands with Saddamn in the80s is so damn funny!!!
Btw, Rumselfd also was a director of a company that allowed/helped north korea with reactors and now dont want iran to have any.
Its a global scam, they just want all OIL resources.
FACE it people, OIL is the reason for the last 150years of human achievements. He who has >50% of its resources wins.
No matter how many lies, or deaths or billions or trillions spent, he who has it rules. Even if its part ownership or proxy.
Get a clue people. With out oil there wouldnt be so much plastics/food/power and hence people!!!!!!!!!!
Coal cant achieve that role.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Real people under the radar use gold, why do you think its price has gone up.
Its only gone done because of short selling by crude evil bankers who are working for Satan.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The government's use of NSLs is actually improved and the abusiveness of them decreased because of (fairly) recent changes. Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act made them pretty bad. But the Supreme Court said "nuh uh!!!", so now they have a lot more judicial and congressional oversight, including the requirement that they must report to Congress semi-annually.
Wikipedia
So far it seems though, and I say this as a foreign observer, that America is taking it all sitting down.
We're not taking it sitting down. We're taking it in the ass, bent over the lap of a bound lady liberty. And the funny thing is, there's a bunch of folks saying they absolutely love it, because George Bush said they love it.
"C'mon, you know you love it!" he says. But still they don't squirm like he likes, so he says, "Terrorism! 9/11!"
And then they orgasm. "Oooo, I just love you, Mr. President!" And they say, "Those other people who don't love getting raped in the ass by their government are nothing but liberal crybabies." Because it's easier for them to call names and ignore the waxing fascism than it is for them to admit the truth: they support a fascist regime that has not made us one iota safer.
They, the party that once called for reduced government interference in our lives, are whining about how fucking great it is that the government is more involved in our lives to the point where they know how we spend our money and whom we call, and they are telling us how to think.
So, no. We're not taking it sitting down. We can't sit down. Our asses are sore.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The government is like windows: it needs to be rebooted from time to time.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
No, you're wrong. The problem is ultimately that the people don't know and don't care what the government is doing, and vote (if they vote) based on personal charisma, catchy slogans and appeals to fear.
If the people collectively awarded power only to those that provided responsible policies, then the politicians would be tripping over each other to provide responsible policies. Instead the people vote for those whom, based on their television persona, they'd most like to have a beer with. So, we get used car salesman as leaders.
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
The real choice is liberty versus control. -- Bruce Schneier
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Although I know it's bad form on /. to actually get both sides of any story, I thought I'd post SWIFT's official corporate position on the matter. See here.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Its function is to monitor the transfer of funds around Australia.
Australia is not moving too much around - so it gives full 24/7 coverage.
Go back to 1996e s/lr270201.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/lstori
Note the quote from 2001
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s377915.htm
"Anything suspect will come up."
From 2000
"..takes us back to Russia, of course, with money coming into different bank accounts."
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s161881.htm
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
hmmm... ""medieval-minded theocratic crazies"" ....careful how you bandy round a phrase like that... some might argue that somes up the current management of the USA quite nicely :-)
When looking at issues like this one and the wiretapping program, try to remember the big picture before you start arguing for or against these. Whether or not you believe the Bush administration can be trusted with these programs is largely irrelevant. If these programs are tacitly accepted for Bush, then they are accepted for whoever is elected in 2008. And in the years beyond. So to those of you defending these programs saying we can trust Bush, would you trust Hilary with them? If not, maybe you should think about why the framers of our constitution thought it was a good idea to limit the powers of the different branches of government.
What the fuck are we doing in Europe, having US listening and monitoring stations listening in on us from our own soil?
If Americans want to elect Bush, thats there problem, but we should be protecting our interests, not theirs.
Uh oh you caught me!
:-(
You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.
Yup, red handed. Was just trying to annoy you, my bad.
Can we go back to blaming communism?
You know what I'm curious about? Whether the chap that set up 9/11 imagined this kind of outcome, even in his wildest dreams. I guess one man can in fact change the world, all he needs is some guns, a few planes and a couple of well-indoctrinated morons.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Maybe now they can find the missing 2.3 trillion dollars and maybe the Defense Department's Office of the Inspector General will finally be able to improve the pentagons accounting standards
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
I didn't know Truman had investments in the beer industry.
:(){
...actually putting in things like "blackmail", "extortion" and "sexual favors" on the notes line of my checks are finally being tallied through the use of OCR on those bank check images.
I'm going to have to start using "presidential donation", "educational subsidy" and "technological research". That way, I can not only stay off the radar, but perhaps get a tax deduction as well.
This sounds somewhat similar to the authority granted to the government under Section 314(a) of the USA Patriot Act, with one notable exception. It's authorized by an executive order rather than a specific law passed by Congress.
I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.
I honestly don't get why this is causing so much ruckus. I thought everyone already knew that bank transactions are being monitored by the government, and have been for years.
This is in contrast to the previous revelation about NSA wiretapping, which seemed genuinely new.
If you check a bit further you will find that this has been done with warrants legally issued. Thats what the WSJ article said yesterday. Anytime they can show probable cause they can get a warrant, same as always. The big question is releasing this info to the public so the terrorists can find a different way to move money without getting caught. If you can track the money you can find the bad guys, cut off the money and the bad guys have to find more, slows down their plans. Makes me wonder who's side these papers are on, it's not the same one I'm on.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The news program All Things Considered interviewed the undersecretary responsible for the program yesterday (6/24/06). The interviewer didn't really pull any punches and the answers were pretty interesting. I highly recommend going to NPR's web site and listening to it.
When asked what layers of security were in place to prevent misuse, the reply was that in order to perform a search, the analyst had to show that the individual or group being queried had been identified as having a potential terrorism link. That request had to be vetted by a supervisor, then by a representative from SWIFT. Then, when the query is performed, if no evidence is found, then the information is discarded at the analyst's level. A government auditing team reviews the information that is gleaned and a third party auditing team (from Booz Allen) audits the government.
The undersecretary said that they did remove an analyst earlier this year for abusing the system. The auditing system caught him.
The undersecretary also said that about 10% of the searches performed provided evidence of links to terrorist organizations. That, he said, was a very high rate compared to other intelligence methods.
For me, personally, if that's the way that the government is using the SWIFT database, I don't have a problem with it. If the queries are targeted, as opposed to a broad sweep, it strikes me as a legitimate use of an intelligence asset.
Interestingly enough, the general attitude of the security and privacy experts that ATC interviewed was fairly positive about the program.
-h-
Boeing has long been a target of the French DGSE intelligence service:
/ dgse.htm
In early 1993 the CIA obtained a long DGSE list of the most important intelligence targets in the United States, which included Boeing, among other companies. The DGSE agents were mainly interested in the navigation system of Boeing's new jumbojet to pass on to French companies, including the Airbus syndicate.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/france
What's good for the goose...
You're right, I *do* suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Everything the man has done from the day he stepped into office has managed to make my life and my country worse.
Nor does it help that his defenders gleefully try to malign anyone who criticizes this train wreck of an administration, calling them anti-Americans, armchair terrorists, and worse. They also try to prove our insanity by saying that (in the case of "Dr. Sanity") we blame Bush for acts of God, like Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami. If anyone goes around blaming hurricanes on human beings, it's Pat Robertson.
What we object to is our government's *reaction* to these events. The staffing of FEMA with incompetent ideological cronies was not an "act of God." The decision to redirect most government spending towards military pursuits, leaving us underfunded, undermanned, and underequipped at home, was not an "act of God." The ideology of "a government small enough to drown in the bathtub" didn't come from God, but from people who still have our President's attention and commitment.
Nor do we ask for the appeasement of terrorists. What we ask for are foreign policies that don't hand them one PR victory after another, helping them to radicalize vast swaths of the Islamic population. From Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghirab to rendition and torture, we are creating terrorists in the name of fighting terror. Frankly, it's not "appeasement" to recognize that had we spent the money squandered in Iraq on peaceful foreign aid, the true terrorists would find it much more difficult to get recruits. If we'd spent it on energy independence, our money wouldn't pour into the hands of people like the Saudi royalty, who use it to keep their people oppressed while using us as scapegoats to distract their own people. If we'd spent it on domestic programs, we would have saved more lives than were lost on September 11th. Had we not spent it at all, America would be on much more secure financial footing, and we'd have 100,000 soldiers home taking care of their families, rather than 2500 who never came home at all.
But then we'd have a mad dictator in power. Instead of a civil war. I'm about ready to call that one a toss-up.
So, yes, the man pisses me off to the point that it's hard to calm down when discussing him. Anyone who loves this country and can see where it's headed should be suffering from a severe case Bush Derangement Syndrome.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Look at the YEAR in which they were used.
... and rather short on facts about chemical weapons.
If Saddam had them 20 years ago, that does NOT make him a threat TODAY.
No one is saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons at any time in the past. We know he did. We were the ones who were helping him develop them for use in the Iraq/Iran war.
And your articles are rather long on descriptions of Saddam lounging by a pool in a speedo
Dude, Iraq fought Iran.
Iraq was a secular totalitarian state.
There was NO danger of them changing to a Theocracy while Saddam was alive.
So just leaving Saddam and the sanctions in place would have achieved your stated goal without the loss of a single US soldier's life.
If it's not about oil, then make the case without mentioning oil.
Because you cannot do so, without fantasy scenarios that Saddam's existance would have prevented, it is/was/will be about the oil.
So? No one is saying he was an angel. Just that he was not a threat to the United States of America or our allies.
Do not confuse "bad person" with "threat to the US".
Do you have some kind of calendar-phobia?
You keep bringing up actions from years before the last invasion. What he did in 1990 has no bearing on whether we should invade in 2003. There were THIRTEEN YEARS between those two events.
I don't know about "feel convenient", but it certainly fits the established facts.
And again you support the position that it was about the oil. Or, more exactly, about who controls the oil.
So, be as sarcastic/flippant as you want to be about it. The fact remains that you do not have a justification that does NOT involve the oil.
Oil does not vote. Oil does not elect representatives. There is nothing noble about going to war for oil. Therefore, saying that the war was for oil cannot be "craven".
Only in your mind, only in your mind.
Germany was actively invading other countries and attacking our ally England.
Iraq had
I forgot about the secret IRS wire tapping and gathering of financial data
OH!!! That's it! We have missed the whole point, entirely! If it is a perfectly kosher program, then where does the need to throw the U.S. constitution out the window come from? Why the lack of full disclosure, and why try to keep it quiet, speaking out only when it becomes clear that they have been found out, and the Times and the W. Post are going to let the cat out of the bag?
And lest you say that it is because we don't want the terrorists to know we are watching them
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Is when Bush does something like this, people come out of the woodwork to explain how the intentions are good.
It doesn't matter if the administration's intentions are good. The point is we have a court system and separation of powers for a reason. And it is the law of the land.
No matter how good one's intentions are, if they violate this (by not getting actual subpoenas), they're comminting a grave crime, and creating a situation where one branch (in this case the one headed by one man) can begin to take control of the actions of the entire government.
It's a constitutional issue. And this is another egregious violation of it. This is beyond absurdity now. We the people created this government, we should have to put up with it not following the restrictions we set down upon it. These people should be ejected from office.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
As Thomas Jefferson said in QUERY XVII: The different religions received into that state? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecuter, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
It's the far Right-wing nuts. They're the only ones who cannot get it through their heads that a Theocracy is not a Fascist state. So they repeat their Limbaugh-mantra hoping to sway more intelligent people with the repetition of "fascism".
All you're doing is displaying your political ignorance. Iran is a Theocracy. Iraq was Fascist. They were at WAR with each other.
The issue is not whether they report on "known terrorist supporters".
The issue is whether people who have no terrorist connections at all are being monitored.
In the US, you might want to take a look at a small group of Quakers that, somehow, ended upon the the government's "threat" list.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/opinion
Go for it. I bet the US government checks up on you before any European government does.
It's kind of like how the NRA nuts defend their right to carry concealed weapons, because it will make criminals think twice about committing crimes against citizens, since potentially anyone *might* have a gun on them. Why not just wear the weapon openly and remove all doubt that you're armed?
Maybe these guys just looking for an excuse to blow someone's head off, rather than actually achieving the goal of detering criminal activity.
8==8 Bones 8==8
But answer me this: what part of what he describes would be difficult for the USA government to do? Is it a good idea to simply let them have the power to do these things and assume they'll never exercise it?
There is nothing secretive about this program. First, Congress was kept informed. Second, the public has been told long loud and clear that the government is watching financial transactions with the aim of shuting down terrorist funding. Third, this program looks at institutional transactions, not private bank accounts. Fourth, the government already has complete access to *all* personal financial information as part of the tax system, and all transactions over US$10,000 are already reported to the government as part of the war on drugs. In other words this program has far fewer implications for privacy and civil liberties issues than the stuff that the IRS and law enforcement have been doing every day for a long time. Finally, the only new information in this story is detailed information about ways and means - or information about exactly what financial transations they are looking at and how. This is information that will be useful to terrorists who want to evade detection, but not information that will be useful to members of the public who want to know what their government is up to.
Actually the bulletproof argument in favor of the WMD claim does not involve whether or not they actually existed. Existence is a hindsight issue. The real argument is that Saddam wanted people to *believe* he still had them. The belief that someone has WMD is a detterent, actually having them is not required. Remember, the UN mandate / peace treaty from the first Gulf War did not merely require Saddam to get rid of the WMD, he had to do it under UN supervision. When he destroyed the WMD all he had to do was invite a UN inspector to watch. He did not, he wanted people to believe he still had them. He was successful.
I'm not surprised by *any* of the news I hear about any of our records being tracked. If you remember, shortly after 9/11, Admiral Poindexter proposed a Total Information Awareness, with this logo, which would be the aggregation of all commercial, financial, and medical data of everyone. A database of everything that everyone knows about you.
It was shorly cancelled after criticism, but it turns out that the program is still up and running. So expect to hear more stories about the government having all of our records. Expect them to have *all* of our records.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I seem to remember somewhere a reference about credit card transactions getting into government hands. Something about someone wanting the extra balance on their card mailed to them. But the credit card companies stalling and delaying for a few days, allegedly to get permission from Homeland Security?
Oh. Here's a related story. Two payments from two different sources on a credit card got Homeland Security involved, the second payment rejected, and a $140 overcharge.
So they're in the telephone system...
They're in the credit card system...
They're in the banking system.
I think at this point, we probably shouldn't be asking so much what they are into, but what they are not.
>Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet?
Banks are regulated heavily and pervasively. They have been since the Great Depression so it's burned deep into their corporate cultures. It would be a surprise if the government needed to go so far as to threaten them.
"Heavily regulated" includes the power, which has been used in the case of insolvent banks that might have started a panic, to issue an order one day and have the bank not reopen the next day. (In practice it will reopen the next day but under a new owner).
Hm.. So you're saying that these things can be done legally, but they're not doing it that way? Then it seems to me that the papers are on the side of the law. Which side are you on again?
The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of things we could do to help stop terrorism. We could have a national curfew. We could implant GPS devices in our citizens so the government knew where everybody was all the time and arrest anybody who's found to no have the implant. After all, what do they have to hide?
We could do a bunch of crazy shit that crosses the line, but we have laws that protect our privacy for a reason.
You might be a terrorist . . .
. . . if your name is Osama Bin Foxworthy.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Bad logic here. According to you NRA defends right to carry concealed weapons precisely for the reason they are concealed and there is no way for criminal to know it. - Not everybody can /will carry weapon if law alowed it. So criminals would just pick those unarmed .
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Once again the US government is caught up in a SWIFTboating scheme...
to the people who say "i don't have anything to hide, so its ok with me", i say, this is another huge symptom of the government/certain people in the government wanting to take our rights away. theres something called the 4th amendment... some people keep saying its ok, but when are they gonna get that we are gonna have to stand up for our rights or they'll keep taking them away till there aren't any left.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Ron Paul for President 2008 http://www.infowars.com/
I am a physicist and I consult on national vulnerability, and I can tell you that a terrorist will not come through an airport with any radionuclides. That is patently ridiculous. What is far more likely to happen is that someone with a bunch of money will find someone in Russia with little to no money (who formerly worked for the Strategic Rocket Forces) to provide them with a working (if decrepit) tactical nuke. Then, they would have some shipping company bring the container to New York or Miami and set it off. That's just to let you know about what OUR nightmares are -- and in the future, post about what you know.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
AFAICT, he's understating the situation. The nazi link, e.g., is not merely by methodological similarity, but also because some very high level nazi's made deals at the time of the surrender...and some of them went to work on for the agnecy that later became the CIA. (Nazism was dead...and they were experienced anti-communists... over time they worked their way up in the ranks.)
A "secret police" is a very dangerous (and necessary?) part of government. They are rather like an immune system that way. If the design isn't perfect, they are likely to attack the organism that produced them. (Well, that analogy is stretect further than it can stand. Unlike an immune system, secret police forces are capable of "owning" thier own resources out of sight of their controllers...and that can cause them to act quite independently, and without much concern for their putative parent body.)
My personal preference would be to have a less powerful "secret police" even at the cost of allowing some "disease organisms" to slip in, but this is clearly a matter of degree. More careful oversight is another important consideration...but who will watch the watchers? Corruption is a historical habit of human organizations.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hah, that's a good one: the idea that if your neighbor is playing the stereo too loudly, the government should respond quicker to it if he's Mexican. (And of course, Mexicans are illegal aliens--just look at them!)
Are you adequate?
... and those two words are: False Dichotomy.
HAND.
Hint Ronald McDonald has killed quite literally thousands as times as many people as Osama Bin Laden,
chew on that for a while.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
"only to those that provided responsible policies"
And who might that be? The responsible individuals who would make good leaders are smart enough not to even run for office much less get elected, so we get to chose from the leftovers. Every country with elected leaders is pretty much in the same boat on this one.
And spending less as a percentage of GDP than at any time during the previous administration. The US is currently spending half of its 20th century average on defense. Many other countries have let their militaries rot due to Pax Americana and have severely slashed funding -- the US has been cutting expenditure, but everyone else is cutting it faster (except for a few like China). And when you consider how much of the world GDP is the US, it should not be surprising that the historically paltry percentage makes up a big chunk of that. The historical rule of thumb for peacetime military expenditures required to maintain basic security was 5% of GDP. The US currently spends far less than 5% even with the cost of the current misadventures.
combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet
The US spends a lot more on education (~$600B) than on defense. That it has been getting worse has nothing to do with the amount of money spent on it, which already exceeds most other industrialized countries by about any relative measure. Ironically, the DoD is one of the few organizations in government that actually returns relatively good results for the investment even as it continues to shrink (i.e. the military competently does what it is supposed to do).
Law enforcement has had a way to get records from banks for many years, think "drug related money laundering". This is called removing the profit motive for a crime. They show probable cause to a judge who orders the records turned over. Just like trying to get a phone tap, same proceedure. The only thing newsworthy in this whole thing is that they are getting the records from a worldwide clearinghouse of this kind of information. The rest is just standard proceedure. Most European governments have fewer restrictions on this than the U. S. does.
The side I'm on is the one that is always against terrorists. I am a veteran and I vote, deal with it.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
So basically, you're saying that regardless of whether or not a weapon is concealed, crimes would still be committed anyway
By that logic, wouldn't it make more sense *not* to conceal a weapon, so you know definitively that at least *some* of the people won't become victims, rather than leaving the situation entirely random?
8==8 Bones 8==8
Is it a good idea to simply let them have the power to do these things and assume they'll never exercise it?
No. It is a fundamental law of human behaviour: All power gets used.
If you grant power to someone that power will eventually be used. History suggests sooner rather than later. Things you'd think would never happen in a million years have a way of being done well ahead of schedule. And any power will be used to the benefit of the people wielding it unless there are obvious negative consequences in doing so. Secret power is absolute power, because it can be used for anything with no consequences to the wielders.
And for anyone still using the "you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong" line, I would like to point out that that line requires assuming that the organs of the state Never Make Mistakes. Good luck with that.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
i worked, as an unclassified consultant, on a program in the early nineties which involved the commerce dept, the fbi, and various dod agencies to mine financial transaction records for all americans. checks, atms, credit cards, everything.
the data we saw had been anonymized, but they have been building tools to do this forever.
the excuse of the day was detecting money laundering to catch drug trafficers. its amazing how only the names change.
You really said nothing to refute my point. Yes, these things can and have been done legally. Yes, they help stop crime. Sure, maybe most European governments have fewer restrictions than the U.S.
So what? If the government isn't doint it legally, they're doing it illegally. So, plain and simple, that means it's illegal. There's the problem. I don't care if it stops crime. It's illegal, and there's a reason it's illegal.
Because European governments have fewer restrictions, that should convince me that it's ok for our government to capitalize on that? No, it doesn't work that way. I don't care where in the world our government is operating, our laws should still apply to them, especially when it comes to the freedoms of our citizens.
As I sad before, and you failed entirely to respond to, there are a lot of things we could do to stop terrorism. Don't allow the populace out on the streets. Now anybody found outside is a prime terror suspect. That doesn't make it right.
The side I'm on is the one that is always against terrorists. I am a veteran and I vote, deal with it.
Your being a veteran has nothing to do with this debate. The only reason you'd mention it is because you obviously feel that makes your vote more important, which is utter bullshit. If that was the case, you'd think some of these retired generals would be taken a little more seriously, wouldn't you?
I question the value of this fishing expedition. Seems to me that there is higher likelihood of abuse than effective use. I doubt if anyone who genuinely wants to fund one of these groups would use a bank transfer addressed to the group or its members. Especially when Hawala is a more anonymous and effective transfer system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala
is anyone actually suprised by this asshattary anymore ?
>All the banks knew, SWIFT is a society made from a collection of banks. They all took the >view that doing business in the USA over-ruled their duties under banking laws and their duty >under US law.
Yes and the national banks that are there to protect national interests where sleeping, or they were not and warned thier governments who then did nothing to protect us. I think the real story for a European national here is the fact that our governments gave away our privacy.
Just yelling "f*ck america" is dumb.
Someone may wish to inform congress of this fact because several congressmen, including one quoted in the fair and ballanced (tm) Fox News article you link to below. I'd like to see some evidence that my bank records are not subject to the same protections that other evidence collected against me would be. I'm not saying you're not correct but not even Stuart Levy mentions that fact when defending this program. If what you say is true, that would be an easy trump card for them to play in defending this program.
There is not just a conern about "your money's privacy" there is a concern about your and my privacy in total. Levying a tax is not the same as snooping through your financial transactions and it's very prejudicial to suggest otherwise. These two things are apples and oranges.
Yes, I see that congress was informed. In the article you site, it says:
"He (Snow) said Congress had been briefed on the program."
Note that it doesn't say what agency of with authority over the White House is checking to see that they're carrying out this program in a manner that is contitutionally compliant because, in this case, briefed means that the White House is telling them what they're doing but no one is able to check their statements against the facts, just like in the domestic wiretapping program. Briefed does not equal oversite. Oversite means that someone in charge is watching and verifying they're doing their jobs properly and honestly.
Also, I'd like to point out that I did do a Google search on the topic. I was entirely unable to find any statements leading me to believe that any members of congress asked the press not to run the story. I was, however, able to find plenty of ink about how the White House asked them not to run the story. From the very article you pointed us to:
"Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.
The New York Times and Los Angeles Times quoted their editors as defending their decision to publish the financial data tracking effort despite being asked by the administration to withhold publication."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200733,00.html
"But he (John Snow) was unhappy that the program's existence was revealed in news accounts. The Bush administration tried to talk reporters out of running the story."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5507145
Last I cheked, neither Treasury Secretary John Snow nor "Treasury Department officials" were congressmen or agents answering directly to congress.
every year in car accidents than died in 911. And while it was a great trajedy and attack on US soil, the solution is a free enegy/hydrogen based economy. Not blowing up the midde east.
Unquestioning loyalty and unmitigated hate are BOTH equally unhealthy behaviors. These behaviors indicate that the person expressing the emotion is beyond the reach of critical thought. (By critical thought, I expressly mean the ability of a person to examine a situation with an open mind.) This attitude formation prevents dialog or negotiation from resolving the situation, and often leads to arguments that devolve to name calling or (in extreme cases) violence.
But it should be noted that there is a difference between hate and a complete lack of trust and credability. For example, I don't hate the president. He seems like he'd be a amicable enough guy to hang around with at a party, but I can't put my trust in the man. He's fooled me too many times:
-
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Nope.
-
Saddam has links to al Qaeda? Nope.
-
Katrina victims will receive the support they require in a timely fashion? Nope.
-
US citizens will only be spied on using a court order? Nope.
Mr. Bush is a "C" student and a failed business man, and it's showing. So you'll understand that while he may be a great guy and an optimist, he can only only fool me (and other people) a limited number of times. No president should ever be this bereft of competence. Trust and respect must be earned, and while lies, ineptitude and patriotism may work for some people, he's fooled me too many times to be trustworthy. Good intentions are nice, but don't get the job done. Any sensible employer would have replaced him by now, so please don't begrudge me (or others) the opinion that he should be replaced, too.Close but no cigar. Try scientists, Rock, Physics, Nucular etc....Bet they did snag a pint or too though.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Hint Ronald McDonald has killed quite literally thousands as times as many people as Osama Bin Laden,
chew on that for a while.
How many people klled in 9/11 knowingly made a choice to enter a tower they knew would collapse that day?
It seems you confuse free will with murder. How hard it must be for you to cope with reality with that fundamental lack of understanding as a base.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Government Grows Tired Of Declaring Wars on Nouns, Decides to Try and Declare War On Gerunds
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
hmm, many western countries have power groups that maintain influence over many years too, they don't seem to move that much. Condoleeza Rice (for a high profile exmple) has been advising presidential decisions for 20 years or so, plus a lot of links with the oil industry over that time (damn, they got to love you to name an oil tanker after you, right?). I'd say this equals if not exceeds the duration of power held by leaders in non-western countries. Also "theocratic" would be maybe stretching it but the US for example has seen a strong resurgence in fundamentalist Christian philosophy influencing everything from presidential opinion to education. Not as extreme in some ways as fundamentalist muslim countries but nevertheless influential.
This is a very sensible and moderate response. The analogy is nearly perfect.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
He has an interesting obeservation and he is modded a troll? I wish I ahd my mod points right now.
Yes, I see the mispellings. That's what I get for being ashamed and upset at the quality of debate that is in this thread and posting too fast.
If I saw a few more comments like "Yes, this seems to have caught some terrorists that have killed hundred of innocent people but I don't think it is still worth the potential abuse and erosion of civil liberties" it would a sign that people have actually thought about this issue and not just had a reaction because Bush or America did it. (Reference example - the US has used it to capture the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali nightclub. That bombing killed 202 people, for example - almost all non-Americans). There are terrorists out there that behead innocent women for not wearing a veil, send carbombs into groups of children just to get one American soldier, and hundreds of other evils that need to be defeated. They are trained to take advantage and abuse our laws whenever possible - captured (authentic) training manuals for example say to always claim you are tortured when captured by the "infidels" even if you are not. Is this program worthwhile to defeat them? That is a valid point that should be argued, and reasonable people might come to different conclusions. But not even mentioning what the program is currently used for and ignoring the terrorists methods, that shows me that there are people out there who are not approaching this logically or using reason.
Again, it would be nice if not only /. posters would research the relevant law before they accuse the President of trampling civil rights, but it would also be nice if the NY Times, the Post, and all the other liberal MSM's would do some legal research as well.
Someone may wish to inform congress of this fact because several congressmen, including one quoted in the fair and ballanced (tm) Fox News article you link to below.
If you are going to be such a smartass that you won't even read a byline, I can't help you. The article was an AP story carried by Fox. AP is of course left-leaning (by American political standards). The reality is that several congressmen who are on their respective intel committees did call the newspapers asking them not to run the story (I actually saw this on a news report). Remember that these congressmen are sworn not to divulge what they have been briefed on, so they can't just come out and confirm the stories!
There is not just a conern about "your money's privacy" there is a concern about your and my privacy in total. Levying a tax is not the same as snooping through your financial transactions and it's very prejudicial to suggest otherwise. These two things are apples and oranges.
Again, if you can't see the irony in placing a privacy right (nowhere articulated in the Constitution) above the very property right the privacy concerns (clearly articulated in the Constitution) then I can't help you. That the left distrusts the government completely, except to take away and redistribute my property is another irony that you may fail to grasp.
And I seriously think that there is a large segment of conservative America that honestly thinks that Bush has to trample our civil rights to defend us. Bush was give temporary emergency powers in the wake of 9/11. They've had FIVE YEARS to put the legal structures in place to carry out these kinds of investigations legally. Hell, there was even a special court setup for this sot of thing PRIOR to 9/11 that rarely ever turned down warrant requests. Why is it that court warrants and REAL congressional oversight were acceptable and effective for every president we've elected prior to this one
You assume that everyone agrees with you about the "trampling" of our civil rights. What exact program are you referring to that didn't exist in some shape or form prior to 9/11? I think if you look at Echelon (which CBS News and all the MSM have conveniently forgotten about now that Bush is President) you'll see that the government was doing this back when it was Governor Bush. As for the Patriot Act, that merely took existing tools that law enforcement has used for decades and applied it to intelligence.
As far as warrants go, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say all searchs have to have warrants, just that searches not be unreasonable. I'll bet the framers would be all for intercepting the international calls of enemies of the Republic without warrants (the Clinton adminstration actually did searches without warrants, in the FBI spy case). Perhaps liberals believe that we would need a warrant to listen to a call Adolf Hitler made to agents in America in 1944? This is a war, not a law enforcemn
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The amazing thing is that we can't really refute what chuckshot is saying.
Yes a lot of things point that direction. In fact, the more we find out, the more is found to point to a global & total information awareness scheme.
What i do find scary is not that it's possible, but that the best argument found against it currently is, They wouldn't do something like that - would they?
If we want a free world, we need to free it, it is not free untill there are noone who are not free.
You are not free untill the rest of the world is, either you're opressing, being oppresed, or being ignorant; being ignorant is counterproductive of freedom.
If you're free you still have responsibility, responsibility limits freedom, but responsibility is preferable to oppression, ignorance will either lead to you or someone else being oppressed.
Politics are politics, most are just in it for the ride and spin-offs, I greatly suspect many even top leaders to be so, if you don't get rid of those, they'll be spinning off you.
If you want to make a difference, do something activily about your opinions, if you spend more than half an hour a month on such your political views, you're doing more than most of the other sheep of humanity.
If you want to make a difference, just keep arguing, the fact that people like jack thompson gets listened to is due to the fact that he does the ground work to get heard.
If you you publicly speak out your opninons, some people will think you're crazy, but at least you'll be heard. The promise of being heard is what I think pluralistic democracy is truly about.
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
I think there were a several reasons that this administration decided a war with Iraq was in their best interest. Historians will deem some of the theory's reasonable and legitimate, others as not supportable by fact. If, that is, historians are allowed to openly and honestly investigate these issues, this may not be a possibility in the future. A lot of past history being taught is inaccurate, incomplete, over simplified or just plainly used as propaganda. Often this is due to information being classified, and the volume of that increasing.
I believe that the 911 events were used in premeditated manner by the perpetrators to elicit just such a response. It is well know now that Bush had Iraq in his sights before 911. I find it hard to believe that the perpetrators of 911 were not aware of this. A mostly absentee president who was in power via a close election that was beginning to appear stolen. The economy in a steady downward spiral after several years of steady gains by his predecessor of the opposing party. There were many hints of coming legal troubles for the leaders of his own party. The chances of his reelection were not very good.
This presidents cabinet was and is infested with neo-conservatives and totally in bed with the big energy and construction companies that make trillions from the Middle East oil and natural gas reserves. The spread of the theocratic Islamic states in the area were and still are a huge concern for these global corporate interests. It is unlikely that these states would decide to just sit on these resources, after all that is about all most have going for them. They would however be very likely to demand a much better deal that the totalitarian or monarchy's that exist in most today. I can even see how Bush and company thought they could plant a democratic republic in the Middle East. It is not implausible that such could happen. It is just that like everything else this type attempts they tried to do it on the cheap. End result, as usual penny wise a pound foolish, the cost will be many times what it should have been if the effort is ever successful at all.
Even the politically unchallenged war in Afghanistan is not all that it seems to be. Afghanistan lies between the Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and the ports on the Arabian Sea. These relatively undeveloped nations hold huge natural gas reserves that have for some time now been courted or already actively assisted under contract by US energy companies in the development of these reserves and the construction of pipelines.
The results of 911 were the same as one would get by smacking a hungry dog in the nose with a rib eye steak. Today one of the theocratic Islamist's most formidable opponents in the Middle East has been not only neutered, the half dead carcass serves as a breeding ground for new recruits. Even worse it may very well be democratically elected into a theocratic Islamic state itself in the near future. In the end though I have to say this war is not directly about oil, not in the way many believe. It is about WHO gets to make the money off the oil, natural gas, and all the activities that surround and support the industry.
BTW this is also what the deal is with coal as well. The technology exists to burn coal cleanly, or to convert it to LPG and thus even plastics efficaciously. The whole oil and natural gas or coal debate is a red herring, it is simply all about WHO gets to make the money in the short term. If you are under thirty you will probably live to see a transition away from oil as the predominate energy source, because it will be exhausted as a source or too expensive to get at. The same people that make trillions off oil now will move to making trillion more off coal and biomass.
Matthew
1. The House and Senate intelligence committes were informed, which are the normal means of congressional oversight. 2. Read my first post. 3. Read my first post. 4. You apparently don't know anything about US law and have never filled out a tax return.
BTW, domestic spying is not illegal and never has been. The 4th ammendment protects against unresonable search and seizure, but that just means that the government needs a good reason to spy on you, and they have to fill out the right paper-work. It doesn't mean that they can't spy on you at all.
"The Democrats are more fascist (yes, I know what the word means) and inept than the Republicans will ever be"
:)
Apparently you don't. It may be somewhat fair to say that the Democrats of today have socialist tendency's but fascist, naw they can't compete with Republicans there. The definition of fascist does however describe todays corporate butt sucking, bible thumping, flag waving, issue baiting, war mongering Republican party very well. And as for "inept", well I will agree that the Democrats seem to be inept at politics lately, or maybe it is just a matter of ethics that keeps them from sinking to the new lows of the Republican party. All in all though it looks to me like the "decider" has provided all the data necessary to complete the definition of inept to perfection. This guy would be a riot to watch if he was not in command of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Just think how much better off we would have all been if he would have went into stand up comedy. You know I hear Hitler was a closet artist, actually a pretty good one.
"I don't want the children to have healthcare if it has to be paid for by non-voluntary contributions out of my wallet. The same goes for old people and drugs, and poor people and food."
I suspect you would like to get rid of SSI or dump it into a 401k type account as well. I hope for your sake that all our 401k type retirement accounts are safer than I suspect they are. Because one of those "children" may be the one responsible for what to do with your sick "old" "poor" ass someday. Be a shame if you ended up in a bottom of the barrel nursing home, where the people responsible for feeding you, medicating you and wiping you ass had to resort to stealing your food and medication to take care of their own. Be a shame if they left you laying in your urine soaked, feces soiled drawers for hours due to staffing shortages cause by budget cuts.
"But I suppose I'm just one of those crazy extremists. Ummm... actually, I am."
Hey at least we can agree on something
Matthew
You are so right with the 'scariest part being', "They wouldn't do something like that, would they?? I am constantly amazed at what people 'allow' to happen to their freedoms which are being eroded away minute by minute. And I do speak out...to those whom I 'think' might be able to hear it...you would be surprised at the comments and feedback such as: "Well, I guess they (you know, the omnipotent 'they') know what they are doing." My reply is, yes, they do, too bad the American people as a whole do not know what they (once again, those omnipotent ones) are doing. The only thing I see that's forstalling it a bit are the weather calamities, etc. And even that won't hold them back for long. I called SS a few years ago when my husband died, so that I could clarify certain things...she had my 'whole' life history on that computer in front of her. I must admit, even with my thinking being where it is, I was a bit stunned by that. At any rate, I find this 'banking overview' that they are doing now just one more feather in their cap. It's not about voting as much as just plain speaking out collectively - although I do not foresee that occurring...so I'll just plant and grow my flowers and carry on, business as usual.
This is only one piece in a larger puzzle of the government taking away our privacy rights. ( among others )
If you are correct in that only large transactions are tracked, then it doesnt direcly effect the average joe, but it still does not change the overall 'movement', and its still wrong to do. ( unless you are under direct investigation and its been blessed by the court )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It is reasonable to expect that the contents of your mail are private. It is unreasonable to expect that the address that the letter is sent to is private. This goes directly towards pen register information from the phone company. The number of who called and what number they called is not protected while the actual conversation is.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
At the risk of being a kiss-ass, kudos to you for your concise expression of what so many do not understand. It's not the great guy you give power to that you need worry over -- it's the ones who follow after, or even the not-so-great guy he will become. More people should read a bit of history. This should be f'ing obvious.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
Nothing in the financial records was done illegaly. It has all been done correctly according to several Dem Senators (Warner VA) on the weekend news shows. Everything done by law. The only story is the treasonous reporting of sources and methods by the newspapers that broke the story.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
back in the 40's douring WW2 then the Times and other media would be held for treasing or whatnot for making such reports.
80% of the American media (mainly those on the east and west coast) doesn't give a rats ass about keeping smething a secret douring these times. They hide behind freedom of the press and report anything and everythign that will damage America and make it look bad. Liberalism is a mental disorder! =)
The hippies from the 70's are heading up the media now days and using it to brain wash people.
I do some work in financial services, including working with SWIFT.
SWIFT is a network, not a database. It can store and forward data, but only for short periods of time.
SWIFT transactions can be done directly between organizations over the network, without stopping at SWIFT systems, making them slightly harder to track.
SWIFT is run by its 7,000+ member organizations, from all over the world. Most SWIFT members are banks, and the largest banks have the most influence among the members. So it's not US-based, but it's well stocked by US banks and corporations. It's not like the United Nations - the biggest players run the operation.
Since SWIFT is not a database, and not all transactions land on SWIFT computers, you can't really "query SWIFT" about financial data. You can only "query SWIFT" about the status of a message from party A or to party B. So to do data mining on SWIFT data, you would need to build your own SWIFT data warehouse and your own (massive) matrix of data relationships.
SWIFT is a network, like the Internet, but entirely private. The problem of gathering data from SWIFT communications is similar to the challenge in gathering data from AT&T's Internet backbone routers. But filtering the Internet data is easier - you can probably drop bit-torrent traffic, ISO's, binary software packages, iTunes media, etc. That's a lot of packets to ignore. If you're building a comprehensive financial database from uncorrelated data, in a multitude of formats and languages, you have to start by recording everything just to make some sense of the data.
Also, why would terrorist groups use banks? For the convenience? Certainly, wire transfers and ATM's are the *easiest* way to move money around the world. But if you were trying not to leave tracks, you probably would avoid banks or use one-time-use bank accounts for individual money transfers. People have been solving this problem in organized crime for decades, why wouldn't the same methods be available to Bin Laden or anyone else?
What would such a plan look like? Could it be done? Could it have been done (at least for the United States) for the amount of money already spent?
What if, after learning the pricetag for such a "war on terror" was going to be 100 billion+ dollars, the President had instead stated that instead of using the money in wasteful "blow up the desert" spending in the Middle East, we instead had a 10 year program (10 billion per year):
Ultimately, the goal would have been to educate America on being energy efficient and conserving energy, while at the same time providing for ways and incentives for the country to move in that direction. This would have to have included all manner of alternative energy - wind, solar, hydrogen, biofuels - and standard fossil fuels. Both in production and usage, as well as saving energy by being more efficient with processes and eliminating waste/errors in production and use (perhaps nationwide application of 6s methodologies). No one alternative energy system would work - but all of them together could possibly take a big chunk out the issue. We would have to have been smart (ie, quit subsidizing corn producers for ethanol production and use something better for it - like hemp or switchgrass or something - also, quit putting a tariff on sugar, etc).
In 10 years (5 of which have now passed), we should have been able to eliminate - if we worked hard at it, and had the 100 billion+ dollars that we have already wasted - the 20 percent or so dependence we have on Middle East oil. Ultimately, in the end, we would simply "pull out" once and for all - COMPLETELY - from the Middle East. Let them (all of them, including Israel) duke it out in whatever way they want. Yes, we would still be sending money to them via OPEC at first - but I bet we could whittle the amount we would need to send to OPEC for oil (because we would always need it, if only for chemical/plastics) to a small amount compared to today.
I know my ideas above are very simplistic, and leave out many things (like getting the big 3 to build energy efficient vehicles, among other things). I also don't think that (at least in the short term) such a plan could make our country completely energy independent (as I said before, we will always need oil in some part) - but I honestly think that if we had wanted to, we could have been five years into such a plan already, instead of having spent five years (and way more than 100 billion+ dollars) on a war that doesn't seem to have an end yet. Maybe such a plan could even had made us a manufacturing power again (of "green" industrial solutions, "green" energy systems, biofuels, etc).
I think about this - it saddens me that our "leaders" have chosen to ignore one of the biggest issues facing us today, and their war is doing nothing (it seems) to al
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
RE-READ THE CASE. The court ruled in Miller (overturning the circuit court): Since we find that respondent had no protectable Fourth Amendment interest in the subpoenaed documents, we reverse the decision below . Can't make it any clearer than that; there is no Fourth Amendment protection for bank records.
Note the presence of a subpeona. This is indicates due process and is exactly what the Bush administration is NOT doing in the case of this financial records database.
I think you need to go look up the word "subpoena." Any lawyer can send a subpoena, including me, including an US Attorney working for President Bush's Justice Department, and it does not require any judicial approval. There is no due process in a subpoena, unless it is challenged in court (which is what happened in Miller, and Miller - the depositor - lost).
Remember FISA courts have been in place since the late 70's to handle situations like this, only now FISA isn't good enough for Bush and he doesn't care to work with Congress to retool it for our new post 9/11 era.
Assuming for sake of argument that FISA is even constitutional, no court needs to look into a program not involving any expectation of privacy, which financial transcations do not, per Miller. I think there is a strong argument to be made that FISA intrudes into the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, and that FISA would be found unconstitutional, at least in part, by the Supreme Court. The Court might hold that enacting such a court would require a constitutional amendment. Congress just can't pass laws changing the executive branch's powers.
Wow, so the 4th amendment isn't strong enough to stand on it's own for you? The details of the case you sighted above make it appear that it wouldn't apply to the situation we're discussing.
Go back and read the case. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to situations wherein there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. For 30 years the law has been well-settled that there is no privacy interest in financial transcations. This is why people get Swiss bank accounts.
Enough free legal analysis for you. I must go to work!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Yet the NYT insisted on publishing anyway. Since the story is no real scandal; Why?
I18N == Intergalacticization
1. The NYT and WP articles themselves make it clear that this program is legal, and that congress was informed.
2. The government said publicly that they were monitoring financial transactions (monintoring financial transations - not secret). The NYT informed terrorist organisations about exactly which financial transations the government is monitoring and how (ways and means - secret). Just like I said in my first post.
3. Except that this program excludes personal data, unless the name or other identifying information are already know from other intelligence sources.
4. There are dozens of ways for the government to legally spy on its own citizens without going anywhere near FISA. The constitutional requirement is that it has to be "reasonable" which in some cases means that they don't need to fill out any paper-work at all.