[darth-vader000]

Wow,

MSNBC

So as we lose more and more freedoms, privacy and civil liberties when do we stop looking like America Land of the Free and more like USSR with its secret police.

I don't particularly think we could be too far off. All of these secret programs getting leaked shows how little we truly have here.

What is the price of victory against the war on terror - right now it seems our American way. American soldiers for generations spilled their blood to protect that ideal, now even freedom of the press is under assault, with this administration.

[Ganesha]

Hopefully, they use there records to help track down tax cheats. You know the ones that are hurting the war on terror by denying the government the funds it needs to fight it?

[davesimondotcom]

Overreaction, Darth... considering the government broke no laws in doing this.

If there is a Constitutional issue, someone should take it to court.

[Rumor]

He said that access to the data that had been collected was limited to people with appropriate security clearances.

So they can be taken home and mysteriously stolen?

I would like to know a little more on how they determine if a transaction is supspect of terrorist activity. This is kind of vague.

[darth-vader000]

I didn't say they broke the law just that as we fight the war on terror we resemble America the free less and less.

[tie]

They aren't looking at bank records, just international swift transactions, as far as I can tell. I don't make international bank transfers very often, and don't care if my transfers have been monitored. I think there should ideally be lots of oversight, though, and it should be public -- with rules set up by Congress and international agreements, not just security officials. I think monitoring is reasonable.

I haven't read your article, but the NY Times article on the same subject said that at least one person had been fired for abusing the monitoring system.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

I didn't say they broke the law just that as we fight the war on terror we resemble America the free less and less.

I don't think that the government knowing when I send money to Afghanistan (I don't) is losing freedom.

[Kevin]

Talk about fear mongering.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Talk about fear mongering.

No, only Republicans are ever accused of that.

It's actually proof of our freedoms NOT breaking down. Despite pleas from members of Congress, the Administration, and many others, the New York Times went ahead and published this information.

Now our SAFETY might be more at risk because of the strength of the freedom of the press.

But hey, whenever you can try to paint the Bush administration as evil, don't hold back!

The plain and simple truth is that there is no abuse, there never was any accusation of the sort, but the New York Times published knowing that it was going to give the terrorists insight as to how we are going about fighting them.

This is akin to publishing the plans for D-Day in our time. Maybe not as big of a breach, but certainly a breach.

But they'll win a Pulitzer Prize.

[darth-vader000]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

This is akin to publishing the plans for D-Day in our time.

Wow really, on the same level, so spying on Americans and how they spend money is as important as the plans for D-day

Its funny the people who support this always throw out the argument that its unamerican to question the actons and tactics on the war on terror.

for the moment I have the right to speak out against that, but even that is being undermined as its not right for me to speak out against the government.

[vmarks]

Welcome to 2001.

That's right. 2001.

This was authorized under the PATRIOT act. And then RE-authorized.


Quibble over the implementation and oversight if you wish, but please, let us not pretend like this is something new.

[darth-vader000]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Welcome to 2001.
That's right. 2001..

That doesn't mean its right, its not right that some of these laws were pushed for by Pres. Clinton. Doesn't matter if it was done in 2001 or 2006, all I'm saying is our freedoms are gettng chipped away. While this dosen't seem to bother most it does me and a few others.

One question I have is how much is too much and will it be too late when it reaches that level? While many people seem to laud these invasions of privacy when will looking into "unamerican" activities effect you?

Back a few years ago the few of us protesting the war were painted as traitors and unamerican for not supporting the war on terror and our safety because of WMDS. Now most people now are calling for the end of the war and the WMDS were a lie.

Likewise I suspect that as time goes on and more and more freedoms go by the board people may change their tune but it may be too late then as we will be a police state. you know the type of country that holds "enemy combatants" in jail without due process or even a trial. Uses gulags and torture to extract information out of its enemies. Taps phones without warrants. Searches through financial records (with warrants) is this 1950s USSR or 2006 America? I bet you'll be hard pressed to find the difference.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

That doesn't mean its right, its not right that some of these laws were pushed for by Pres. Clinton. Doesn't matter if it was done in 2001 or 2006, all I'm saying is our freedoms are gettng chipped away. While this dosen't seem to bother most it does me and a few others.

You never had this "freedom." The Patriot Act expanded the government's powers to require US financial institutions to report wire transfers, but long before that the Supreme Court ruled that there are no constitutional rights to privacy of financial information held by US financial institutions. There are also statutes and regulations that preexist the Patriot Act that require financial institutions to report money transfers. It's how governments combat money laundering, drug dealing, sanctions-evading, arms-dealing, and other financial and finance-intensive crimes, and that has been the case for a very long time (long before 2001). Basically, if you are against this, then you are simply against any form of law enforcement of complex international financial crimes, because the means and the law (and the office in the Department of the Treasury) is essentially the same.

Add to the fact that these are institutional financial transactions, not individual ones, involving institutional transfers of large sums. You and I don't have access to the SWIFT system. It is used by (and owned by) major banks. Moreover, the actual ownership of the system is Belgian, not US. SWIFT provided this information voluntarily, as indeed, they should. No doubt also that SWIFT is providing exactly the same cooperation to other countries. For example, the EU has essentially parallel laws on the books regarding financial compliance as the US has.

SWIFT is the financial industry-owned co-operative supplying secure, standardised messaging services and interface software to 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries. SWIFT's worldwide community includes banks, broker/dealers and investment managers, as well as their market infrastructures in payments, securities, treasury and trade.

About SWIFT

Statement on compliance
Cooperating in the global fight against abuse of the financial system for illegal activities
SWIFT is solely a carrier of messages between financial institutions. The information in these messages is issued and controlled exclusively by the sending and receiving institutions. SWIFT does not hold assets nor manage accounts on behalf of customers. It does not clear or settle transactions.

Given its importance in the financial community, SWIFT takes its role in the global fight against money laundering and other illegal activities extremely seriously:

1. Responsibilities - It is SWIFT policy that its services should not be used to facilitate illegal activities. Users are urged to take all reasonable steps to prevent any misuse of the SWIFT system.

2. Cooperation - SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF*), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities.

3. No comment policy - Due to the sensitive nature of these contacts, SWIFT does not comment on them.

The challenge facing the financial industry is to implement measures that prevent illegal behaviour without penalising the efficient processing of legitimate financial transactions. SWIFT is fully committed to doing its part to address this challenge and remains committed to its policy of cooperation to fight money laundering and illegal activities within the scope of its activity.

SWIFT Statement on Compliance.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

Wow really, on the same level, so spying on Americans and how they spend money is as important as the plans for D-day

They aren't spying on Americans OR how they spend money. These are large money transfers over international wires.

And yes, it's important. Notice in my statement I said that the New York Time's publishing of this story, despite pleas from government officials, members of Congress, etc. was "This is akin to publishing the plans for D-Day in our time. Maybe not as big of a breach, but certainly a breach."

Brush up on your reading comprehension skills, maybe.

My point was simply that the New York Times knew this program was secret in order to use it to catch terrorists (which it has already done, by the way), and they published it anyway. They are trying to make a scandal out of it, but it's only going to let the bad guys in on our techniques. Which is like telling Hitler we are heading to Normandy instead of letting him believe we were going to attack around Norway.

Some secrets are secrets not because the government is screwing with the citizens, but because it is protecting them.

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

Its funny the people who support this always throw out the argument that its unamerican to question the actons and tactics on the war on terror.

Again, reading comprehension. Show me the exact phrase where I have ever called anyone unamerican. Start with this thread.

Find it yet? Oh yeah, that's because it doesn't exist.

What you need to worry about is people who think that the Bush Administration is taking freedom away all over the place when there is really nothing of the sort going on here.

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

for the moment I have the right to speak out against that, but even that is being undermined as its not right for me to speak out against the government.

You have every right to speak out against anything you want to speak out against. But before you do, you might want to actually understand what you are speaking out against.

Read the NYT article. Watch a few TV news programs. Even anti-war Rep. Jack Mertha says that they shouldn't have published for the sake of national security.

[Kevin]

I will say it again. These people don't care about the country. They only care about smearing the president.

No matter what cost.

It's simply sad.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by darth-vader000

Wow,

MSNBC

So as we lose more and more freedoms, privacy and civil liberties when do we stop looking like America Land of the Free and more like USSR with its secret police.

I don't particularly think we could be too far off. All of these secret programs getting leaked shows how little we truly have here.

What is the price of victory against the war on terror - right now it seems our American way. American soldiers for generations spilled their blood to protect that ideal, now even freedom of the press is under assault, with this administration.

The larger question is, what is gained by publicising this information? This, plus NSA phone record data mining, serve no purpose other than to push 'hot buttons' and/or give a heads-up to those who use these transactions.