[SimeyTheLimey]

This is a serioius question, because I really don't understand the thinking and that leaves in my mind only possible answers that are rather disturbing in their implications for a country that faces a terrorist threat that supposedly we all agree is real.

I have said before that there is a legitimate difference of opinion about whether terrorism should be tackled with the tools of war (military force, intelligence agencies, the legal rules of war that differ from civilian legal concepts in key areas), and a purely law enforcement approach. You can see terrorism as either an act of war, a crime, or as both. It's not easy to define, so the response isn't intuitive.

It has seemed to me that many liberals are at best ambivalent about using the tools of war. When you drop bombs or bullets on people, you necessarily don't give them trials. When an intelligence agency weighs intelligence, the process and sometimes the standards are different from those used by prosecutors and courts. And finally, the laws of war are quite difference from those used in domestic law enforcement in areas including the use of force, and the handling of captured combatants. While I am sure many liberals have a variety of views and I have no interest in oversimplifying those differences, it nevertheless seems to me that liberals at best seem to be ambivilent about using the tools of war because of the implications of using such tools. It seems to me that liberals, by and large, are much more comfortable with using only means that restricted to the tools of law enforcement.

That brings me to the law enforcement-only approach and the most recent news that is a good example. I am puzzled by the New York Times' view of the law enforcement operation designed to track the illegal money laundering operations used by international terrorism organizations. The classified methods revealed by the NYT this week are essentially the same methods used to track illegal money laundering by other criminal conspiracies, such as drug dealing networks, arms dealers, and so on. This has been successful in apprehending terrorists and cutting off funds for terrorists such as the Bali bomber, but also including networks funnelling funds from the US to Islamic and also Irish terrorists.

This is the use of law enforcement tools to tackle terrorism. In fact, it is the use of international cooperation to tackle a transnational crime. If we assume (and I think we can assume) that the New York Times is opposed to the use of the tools of war to fight terrorism, can we now say that the New York Times is opposed to the use of law enforcement tools as well?

If so, then my question is to what extent do liberals share the position of the New York Times? And if it is shared, what are its limits? Are liberals simply opposed to anything that might apprehend terrorists before they strike? Is terrorism something they are comfortable with and feel that we should not try to prevent? If not, then what tools are left if you eliminate law enforcement as well as the use of the military and intelligence agencies? I'm assuming that nobody is counting on magic wands.

There are, of course, two more extreme and disturbing possibilities. One, of course, is sympathy with the enemy. I don't think that for the most part is the reason. The other is such extreme opposition to this administration that nothing else, not even catching terrorists before they strike, is deemed important. Again, if the New York position that seems to rule out the use of law enforcement tools as well as the use of the tools of war is the position, then you do have to wonder about what the source of such thinking is. The New York Times' position closes off so many other explanations, that I find it baffling.

So liberals, please help me out. Does the New York Times speak for you? Do you wish to condemn their position? And most importantly, if the New York Times's universal opposition (at least while Bush is in office) to fighting terrorism does not speak for you, what methods would you find acceptable?

[besson3c]

You have asked some difficult questions.

My opinion (as somebody you could lump in as being a liberal, although I have no particular loyalty to the party) is this:

Every action to lock things down, to become more hard core in our security, has a set of tradeoffs - both in terms of civil liberties and resource allocation (and possibly in other areas too). My problem is when the government goes too far and overboard in trying to lock everything down, and doing so in a secretive way. I don't trust any government, and am bothered with the idea of issuing a free pass, a blank check, all in the name of security and protecting us from a threat that can so easily be manipulated in its existence and/or magnitude.

I believe that there are many areas where we can not reach a level of absolute security, and certainly not so without tradeoffs. I'd be much happier if the society (and both parties) were privy to this and part of these discussions. I do not want this country to be turned into a police state where I'm pumped full of fear of my neighbors. Where does all of this stop? That is the question at the back of my mind... Are we hunting the boogeyman and calling him a terrorist, or are we actually offering security in a way that benefits - not needlessly controls the population?

The problem is, this government doesn't offer much in the way of credibility. This might be why the knee-jerk reaction of many from the left is that of FUD. I hope that we can someday move past this and have this discussion as a country, but I'm not sure what it will take at this point. I strongly believe that it is incredibly naive to just faithfully trust a government, particularly when they have given you no logical reason to do so.

Some might say that making our security methods more transparent provides the terrorists with a tactical advantage. I ask again: where does it stop? What the police do or do not do is pretty publicly accessible information - does this provide criminals with a tactical advantage? Don't forget, that the second largest terrorist attack on our soil was a civilian terrorist act, we are far from sheltered against the crazies living in our own country.

This can go back and forth: lock down police force, lock down anti-terrorism forces, but what does all of this gain us? There is no such thing as absolute security, period. The best we can do is come up with an intelligent and reasonable deterrent, and don't obsess over the possibilities of another security breach - I do not want to live in constant fear.

There are many things to be afraid of, terrorism is just one thing.


There are many times I think the reason why we haven't had an attack in a while is because the terrorists are trying to exhaust our resources, and increase the divide and level of fear among us so that our nation becomes unstable - unstable to live, work, or do business in, and unstable politically. To me, this is almost as bad as an isolated breach once in a while.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What the police do or do not do is pretty publicly accessible information -

No, that's not true. Specifics about how law enforcement cracks complex crimes such as money laundering are highly restricted -- for the same reason why intelligence operations are kept secret. If you tell the mafia or al-Queda how you track them, they will change their methods.

Likewise, individual prosecutions are kept confidential. Even defense lawyers don't have access to that information. Grand jury deliberations are also closed to the public.

Given this correction, how does this change your response? Are you also hostile to law enforcement in general? Everything you said above could be applied to any law enforcement.

[besson3c]

I guess to answer your question Simey, I don't really know what we should be doing. I want to start looking at these decisions from a very objective position: what will it gain us? What will we lose from this? I want to be able to do this without being accused of siding with the terrorists or being unpatriotic or any of that other sort of crap.

Until we get there, I don't really have a satisfying answer for you, I'm afraid.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I want to be able to do this without being accused of siding with the terrorists or being unpatriotic or any of that other sort of crap.

You want to do what? What is the "this" in that sentence?

If you mean "look at this in an objective way" that is a non-answer. The question is whether you are willing to accept a law enforcement methodology to stopping terrorism. If the answer is yes, then you have to accept that this necessarily involves government secrecy of methods, and a degree of trust in law enforcement. If that is impossible for you, then the answer is no, you are not willing to use law enforcement to track terrorism.

And if that is the case, then again, are you willing to see law enforcement track the Mafia, drug dealers, traffickers in human slaves, or all the rest? The methods are essentially the same. Is it all complex detective work you are opposed to?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

No, that's not true. Specifics about how law enforcement cracks complex crimes such as money laundering are highly restricted -- for the same reason why intelligence operations are kept secret. If you tell the mafia or al-Queda how you track them, they will change their methods.

Likewise, individual prosecutions are kept confidential. Even defense lawyers don't have access to that information.

Given this correction, how does this change your response? Are you also hostile to law enforcement in general? Everything you said above could be applied to any law enforcement.

See, this also gets complicated because when you traverse through the list of criminal acts in a systematic fashion, there are acts that I believe perhaps should be kept secretive. Money laundering is a good example.

As far as mafia/terrorist adaption, I think they can move and adapt faster than our bureaucracies can, and certainly faster than our military can. Why did Rumsfeld say that he thinks that Bin Laden is hiding on the Pakistani border (or wherever it was), and we are coming after him with our tanks and planes, so he better watch out? *This* offers them a tactical advantage. In some cases, a small and covert police-like operation is more efficient than big bureaucracies.

In short, I think that like computer hackers, the terrorists can make mistakes and learn from them quickly. It is our job to put up a secure network that can't easily be compromised, but accept that every now and then it will be compromised. Does my analogy using computer networks make sense?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You want to do what? What is the "this" in that sentence?

If you mean "look at this in an objective way" that is a non-answer. The question is whether you are willing to accept a law enforcement methodology to stopping terrorism. If the answer is yes, then you have to accept that this necessarily involves government secrecy of methods, and a degree of trust in law enforcement. If that is impossible for you, then the answer is no, you are not willing to use law enforcement to track terrorism.

And if that is the case, then again, are you willing to see law enforcement track the Mafia, drug dealers, traffickers in human slaves, or all the rest? The methods are essentially the same.

That is a very leading question. I don't think the question needs to be framed in the way you have.

See, and where these conversations break down is that I suspect that I'll be attacked as having different objectives than you. Believe me, we both want the same level of safety in this country.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

That is a very leading question. I don't think the question needs to be framed in the way you have.

See, and where these conversations break down is that I suspect that I'll be attacked as having different objectives than you. Believe me, we both want the same level of safety in this country.

You just said that investigations into money laundering should be kept secret. That is precisely what the New York Times published this week. So I take it you disagree with the NYT decision?

I am making it awkward for you, because this is the issue. The NYT put itself in opposition to the law enforcement approach to tackling the financing of terror. I want to know if you (and others) share their opposition. I'm sorry if I am making you uncomfortablem but I am not sorry if I am making you think through the issue.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Likewise, individual prosecutions are kept confidential. Even defense lawyers don't have access to that information. Grand jury deliberations are also closed to the public.

Given this correction, how does this change your response? Are you also hostile to law enforcement in general? Everything you said above could be applied to any law enforcement.

I'm not resistant to law enforcement in general, but I think we have setup clear boundaries with our internal police force, more-or-less. Conversely, it feels like with fighting terrorism we just sort of make things up as we go along, and things are revealed to the public as we go along by facts such as our torture techniques being "leaked" to the public.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You just said that investigations into money laundering should be kept secret. That is precisely what the New York Times published this week. So I take it you disagree with the NYT decision?

I am making it awkward for you, because this is the issue. The NYT put itself in opposition to the law enforcement approach to tackling the financing of terror. I want to know if you (and others) share their opposition. I'm sorry if I am making you uncomfortablem but I am not sorry if I am making you think through the issue.

I've been avoiding the NYTimes article because I haven't read it and therefore don't have an opinion about it.

[besson3c]

Simey: there are all complicated issues, and issues which we are probably lacking a significant amount of data on to formulate an opinion we can both feel more confident about.

I just hope I have complicated your existing opinion. If I have done so, my time writing here will have been worthwhile. We, as a nation, really need to move past the slimy political rhetoric and decide what we should actually be doing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm not resistant to law enforcement in general, but I think we have setup clear boundaries with our internal police force, more-or-less. Conversely, it feels like with fighting terrorism we just sort of make things up as we go along, and things are revealed to the public as we go along by facts such as our torture techniques being "leaked" to the public.

Nobody is being tortured in an investigation into money laundering. Please stick to the subject at hand. Was the New York Times right or wrong? Every investigative technique they revealed is also done with respect to other crimes. So if you are not opposed to such investigations in to non-terrorist crimes, are you only opposed to the investigation of financial crimes associated with the funding of terrorism?

Thaks for answering, but does that difference make sense really? It's OK to prosecute drug dealing but not terrorists?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Nobody is being tortured in an investigation into money laundering. Please stick to the subject at hand. Was the New York Times right or wrong? Every investigative technique they revealed is also done with respect to other crimes. So if you are not opposed to such investigations in to non-terrorist crimes, are you only opposed to the investigation of financial crimes associated with the funding of terrorism?

Thaks for answering, but does that difference make sense really? It's OK to prosecute drug dealing but not terrorists?

Why don't you post the article for me to read?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Simey: there are all complicated issues, and issues which we are probably lacking a significant amount of data on to formulate an opinion we can both feel more confident about.

I just hope I have complicated your existing opinion. If I have done so, my time writing here will have been worthwhile. We, as a nation, really need to move past the slimy political rhetoric and decide what we should actually be doing.

Asking you an awkward question about an issue you would rather duck is not "slimy political rhetoric." However, trying to change the subject to things like torture might be.

And as for deciding what we should be doing, isn't that the job of our elected political leaders (and not newspapers)? All of this that we have been discussing is authorized by congressional statutes. It's not made up on the fly as you have been suggesting.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Asking you an awkward question about an issue you would rather duck is not "slimy political rhetoric." However, trying to change the subject to things like torture might be.

I wasn't addressing anything you said, I was speaking in general terms.

I'm not avoiding any issue. I got the impression your question was more broad in general, so I was answering it broadly. I was not trying to answer specifically whether I agree with the NYTimes article, partially because I haven't even read it yet, but also because I feel this conversation should be more broad in scope.

And as for deciding what we should be doing, isn't that the job of our elected political leaders (and not newspapers)? All of this that we have been discussing is authorized by congressional statutes. It's not made up on the fly as you have been suggesting.

If not made up, it doesn't seem remotely clear what our boundaries are. For instance, there was much debate about whether we should abide by the Geneva Conventions.

I'm learning more and more about what a Representative Democracy actually entails, and while you're right that technically it is the jobs of politicians to make decisions, it is our jobs as private citizens to act as a check and balance to the things we do not feel are just, and the jobs of Congressmen and women to escalate this to the federal level where they will hopefully listen and respond.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Nobody is being tortured in an investigation into money laundering. Please stick to the subject at hand. Was the New York Times right or wrong? Every investigative technique they revealed is also done with respect to other crimes. So if you are not opposed to such investigations in to non-terrorist crimes, are you only opposed to the investigation of financial crimes associated with the funding of terrorism?

Thaks for answering, but does that difference make sense really? It's OK to prosecute drug dealing but not terrorists?

IMHO, the report was an act of treason. I hope they find the leak and throw that person in prison for a very long time. If a person is willing to talk to the press, who else are they willing to talk to?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I wasn't addressing anything you said, I was speaking in general terms.

I'm not avoiding any issue. I got the impression your question was more broad in general, so I was answering it broadly. I was not trying to answer specifically whether I agree with the NYTimes article, partially because I haven't even read it yet, but also because I feel this conversation should be more broad in scope.




If not made up, it doesn't seem remotely clear what our boundaries are. For instance, there was much debate about whether we should abide by the Geneva Conventions.

I'm learning more and more about what a Representative Democracy actually entails, and while you're right that technically it is the jobs of politicians to make decisions, it is our jobs as private citizens to act as a check and balance to the things we do not feel are just, and the jobs of Congressmen and women to escalate this to the federal level where they will hopefully listen and respond.

This is frustrating because you keep changing the subject. I set the question up as discussing the fact that liberals in general seem to me to be uncomfortable with some of the implications of fighting the war on terror as a war. Your reference to the legal debate over the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is an example of that.

However, I also said that while that is a legitimate debate, it is not this debate. This debate is over the applicability of criminal law enforcement to terrorism. What the newspapers revealed (and destroyed) this week is the use of law enforcement techniques against terrorism. That is the subject, and it is quite narrow.

So again, what is your view of the use of law enforcement techniques against terrorism? Do you support fighting terrorism using the same tools that are used to fight other crimes, or not? And if the answer is no, then what would be acceptable to you?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is frustrating because you keep changing the subject. I set the question up as discussing the fact that liberals in general seem to me to be uncomfortable with some of the implications of fighting the war on terror as a war. Your reference to the legal debate over the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is an example of that.

However, I also said that while that is a legitimate debate, it is not this debate. This debate is over the applicability of criminal law enforcement to terrorism. What the newspapers revealed (and destroyed) this week is the use of law enforcement techniques against terrorism. That is the subject, and it is quite narrow.

So again, what is your view of the use of law enforcement techniques against terrorism? Do you support fighting terrorism using the same tools that are used to fight other crimes, or not?

Why don't you post your article so that I can have a fighting chance to formulate an opinion?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why don't you post your article so that I can have a fighting chance to formulate an opinion?

How old are you? www.nytimes.com. Front page, yesterday. Ditto www.washingtonpost.com and www.latimes.com.

You are a citizen of a democracy. You can't complain that political leaders are making decisions if you don't pay attention.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

How old are you? www.nytimes.com. Front page, wednesday or Thursday.

What's with the attacks Simey? If you are actually looking for honest discussion on this, why not provide the courtesy of the article in question, or to some other article that addresses the same issue? I have not read any articles about this issue.

Can this thread not remain civil?

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

How old are you? www.nytimes.com. Front page, wednesday or Thursday. Ditto www.washingtonpost.com and www.latimes.com.

Maybe you have heard of those sources? I'm sure that Kos or the Democratic Underground have talked about this issue as well.

So you've taken the time to write seven long posts filled with verbal masturbation, yet you get rude and upset when people ask for a link to the article? Something that clearly should have been provided from the start.

You clearly suck at the internet.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What's with the attacks Simey? If you are actually looking for honest discussion on this, why not provide the courtesy of the article in question, or to some other article that addresses the same issue? I have not read any articles about this issue.

Can this thread not remain civil?

It's like asking your mother to get up and get you a glass of milk. At some point, mother is going to say "go get your own damned milk, you are just as capable of walking as me." Didn't your mother never say that to you?

Frankly, I would have thought you had read the news before commenting on it here. But since you are too lazy, here, wade through these 5 pages. NY Times

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It's like asking your mother to get up and get you a glass of milk. At some point, mother is going to say "go get your own damned milk, you are just as capable of walking as me." Didn't your mother never say that to you?

Frankly, I would have thought you had read the news before commenting on it here.

I was commenting on what you wrote and what you were asking, you wanted the subject to become more narrow in scope. Since this is your thread, I'll provide you the courtesy in abiding by your steering decisions, but I'm not going to steer this thing for you.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Busemann

So you've taken the time to write seven long posts filled with verbal masturbation, yet you get rude and upset when people ask for a link to the article? Something that clearly should have been provided from the start.

You clearly suck at the internet.

Yeah, very rude and stupid.

V

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

So liberals, please help me out. Does the New York Times speak for you? Do you wish to condemn their position? And most importantly, if the New York Times's universal opposition (at least while Bush is in office) to fighting terrorism does not speak for you, what methods would you find acceptable?

Since you keep referring to the NY Times, it would be nice to know what the NY Times' position really is on this SWIFT thing. The best place to find out is today's editorial about it, which says "Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts."

So the NY Times wants some kind of oversight of police and executive power. Yup, I can say that the NY Times speaks for me on that one. You?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But since you are too lazy, here, wade through these 5 pages. NY Times

Thanks for the link...

I think that an independent security agency should be monitoring all bank records for significant red-flag type transactions and patterns over a longer period of time. This service is already offered by my bank through an affiliated company (although perhaps it focuses on large debits rather than large credits), but I think that perhaps this should be a completely typical, or even mandatory service for all US bank accounts and credit cards, and that these firms should aim to pick up on all strange patterns.

This way, we are not only protected from terrorism, but from corporate fraud, from money laundering, and from any other source of fraud or wrongdoing. These agencies should work with government to deal with these cases as they occur. If money is deposited into an account in a way that doesn't set off a flag, I think that a warrant should be provided to search further through financial records. Hopefully these agencies will become skilled enough to pick up on all patterns so that this is rarely necessary.

This way, the issue is not simply about looking for terrorist patterns on suspected bank accounts, but for red flag transactions on any account, thus making this entire issue moot.

That is my tentative opinion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Since you keep referring to the NY Times, it would be nice to know what the NY Times' position really is on this SWIFT thing. The best place to find out is today's editorial about it, which says "Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts."

So the NY Times wants some kind of oversight of police and executive power. Yup, I can say that the NY Times speaks for me on that one. You?

Noone wants that to stop? Only it just did stop. It stopped because the NYT decided unilaterally to communicate the methods used to al-Queda.

In terms of the legalities, the program the NYT gutted was authorized by congressional statute. When Congress tells the executive how to carry out its duties, there isn't much room for complaint about lack of oversight.

The courts, of course, aren't involved because there is no constititional or statutory jurisdiction for the courts to be involved. In this country, courts only decide cases and controversies, they don't issue advisory opinions. Especially not to Belgian financial entities.

But more broadly, investigations into complex crimes must take place in secret. That seems to be what the NYT opposes (or maybe they think it just sells newspapers). Maybe I should have asked if liberals support the effective use of law enforcement to tackle terrorism?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Thanks for the link...

I think that an independent security agency should be monitoring all bank records for significant red-flag type transactions and patterns over a longer period of time. This service is already offered by my bank through an affiliated company (although perhaps it focuses on large debits rather than large credits), but I think that perhaps this should be a completely typical, or even mandatory service for all US bank accounts and credit cards, and that these firms should aim to pick up on all strange patterns.

This way, we are not only protected from terrorism, but from corporate fraud, from money laundering, and from any other source of fraud or wrongdoing. These agencies should work with government to deal with these cases as they occur. If money is deposited into an account in a way that doesn't set off a flag, I think that a warrant should be provided to search further through financial records. Hopefully these agencies will become skilled enough to pick up on all patterns so that this is rarely necessary.

This way, the issue is not simply about looking for terrorist patterns on suspected bank accounts, but for red flag transactions on any account, thus making this entire issue moot.

That is my tentative opinion.

Other than the warrant requirement (it's not required by the Constitution, and Congress has not enacted a statutory one), what you are describing is pretty much the status quo.

So in other words, the NYT destroyed a valuable law enforcement program for nothing. They helped terrorists and made the country and its people more vulnerable for nothing. Are you willing to condemn that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Noone wants that to stop? Only it just did stop. It stopped because the NYT decided unilaterally to communicate the methods used to al-Queda.

In terms of the legalities, the program the NYT gutted was authorized by congressional statute. When Congress tells the executive how to carry out its duties, there isn't much room for complaint about lack of oversight.

The courts, of course, aren't involved because there is no constititional or statutory jurisdiction for the courts to be involved. In this country, courts only decide cases and controversies, they don't issue advisory opinions.

But more broadly, investigations into complex crimes must take place in secret. That seems to be what the NYT opposes (or maybe they think it just sells newspapers). Maybe I should have asked if liberals support the effective use of law enforcement to tackle terrorism?

It is the media's job to find out what the government is actually doing, and that is the way it should be. If these boundaries were clearly defined, these sorts of stories would not be necessary.

You might say that the terrorists can game these boundaries, but then again, maybe we should come up with boundaries that will allow more predictability in how the terrorists will attempt to game them? Or, create boundaries that do not provide a feasible way to be gamed in the first place, making life more difficult for the terrorists.

I just don't buy into the whole notion that secrecy always results in additional security.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It is the media's job to find out what the government is actually doing, and that is the way it should be. If these boundaries were clearly defined, these sorts of stories would not be necessary.

You might say that the terrorists can game these boundaries, but then again, maybe we should come up with boundaries that will allow more predictability in how the terrorists will attempt to game them? Or, create boundaries that do not provide a feasible way to be gamed in the first place, making life more difficult for the terrorists.

I just don't buy into the whole notion that secrecy always results in additional security.

It's also the job of prosecutors to prosecute crimes. Maybe we should start jailing reporters? Or perhaps is some degree of responsibility called for? If the Times is to be a watchdog, then it needs to learn when not to bark. Otherwise it will sooner or later be muzzled because it isn't responsible.

As it is, there is absolutely no question that this program is legal. Congress told the executive to do what it is doing. Congress and the president are elected, the new york times is just a business. What is unclear about that?

And what makes this story "necessary?" The need to sell newspapers by misleading the public?

And on secrecy, can I ask again whether this goes also for other criminal investigations? Should we tell the mafia or human traffickers when and how we are investigating them?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Other than the warrant requirement (it's not required by the Constitution, and Congress has not enacted a statutory one), what you are describing is pretty much the status quo.

Is it the status quo? I'm not asking this in a combative way at all, I honestly don't know. Do all bank accounts and credit cards have this sort of service attached? Are they monitoring debits and credits? Are they escalating problems that are picked up?

So in other words, the NYT destroyed a valuable law enforcement program for nothing. They helped terrorists and made the country and its people more vulnerable for nothing. Are you willing to condemn that?

Well... it isn't their fault that the boundaries set in place by the government are so incoherent. By making it their job to not report on information that is of concern to the people, we are taking away an important check and balance.

I also don't understand why they couldn't have just obtained a warrant? They probably could have had one nearly immediately if there were procedures in place to streamline time-sensitive security issues.

You might say "if you have nothing to hide, who cares who searches through your financial records?" I agree with that actually, but then again, if the government has nothing to hide, why don't they just get a search warrant?

[tie]

Are liberals simply opposed to anything that might apprehend terrorists before they strike?
...
One, of course, is sympathy with the enemy.

Oh obviously. What amazing insights. If you think about it carefully, you'll realize that liberals are terrorists.

I agree with you completely. I think we should bomb random countries which are not related to terrorism. This will scare the terrorists, because it is possible, by random chance, that we will attack a country where they are.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It's also the job of prosecutors to prosecute crimes. Maybe we should start jailing reporters? Or perhaps is some degree of responsibility called for? If the Times is to be a watchdog, then it needs to learn when not to bark. Otherwise it will sooner or later be muzzled because it isn't responsible.

As it is, there is absolutely no question that this program is legal. Congress told the executive to do what it is doing. Congress and the president are elected, the new york times is just a business. What is unclear about that?

And what makes this story "necessary?" The need to sell newspapers by misleading the public?

And on secrecy, can I ask again whether this goes also for other criminal investigations? Should we tell the mafia or human traffickers when and how we are investigating them?

I actually do agree with what you are saying here Simey, up to a point. I think there is a dual responsibility here that must be shared.

I think the government needs to take responsibility to setup clear boundaries. If they can make a case to search through bank records without a warrant in a way which sets a precedent and is clearly defined, and if this is ratified, they have done their part.

The media needs to take responsibility to know when to question these precedents, when to editorialize, and what information should be kept secret (basically, the essence of your gripe with the NYT, from what I can gather).

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Other than the warrant requirement (it's not required by the Constitution, and Congress has not enacted a statutory one), what you are describing is pretty much the status quo.

So in other words, the NYT destroyed a valuable law enforcement program for nothing. They helped terrorists and made the country and its people more vulnerable for nothing. Are you willing to condemn that?

So you don't like the NYtimes, like we didn't already know that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Is it the status quo? I'm not asking this in a combative way at all, I honestly don't know. Do all bank accounts and credit cards have this sort of service attached? Are they monitoring debits and credits? Are they escalating problems that are picked up?



Well... it isn't their fault that the boundaries set in place by the government are so incoherent. By making it their job to not report on information that is of concern to the people, we are taking away an important check and balance.

I also don't understand why they couldn't have just obtained a warrant? They probably could have had one nearly immediately if there were procedures in place to streamline time-sensitive security issues.

You might say "if you have nothing to hide, who cares who searches through your financial records?" I agree with that actually, but then again, if the government has nothing to hide, why don't they just get a search warrant?

We are only talking here about large international wire transfers between major financial institutions. This has nothing to do with domestic individual bank accounts.

There are a number of laws that deal with reporting of major financial transfers. The ones I am most experienced with are the sanctions regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Treasury. That office is involved in this issue, but it is a different set of regulations. However, I understand that there are tracking mechanisms designed to combat fraud and money laundering. There have been for decades, this is nothing new.

There is no warrant needed for several reasons. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court squarely held that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. As a matter of statutory law, Congress neither requires, nor provided for a warrant in this type of transaction. In addition, the transactions are outside the US.

The New York Times is in no doubt that it broke the law, and that also this program is legal. They aren't claiming that there is anything illegal here. They are just hoping that they won't be prosecuted. On that they are probably correct, but I think patience with them is running out.

[Wiskedjak]

Military action and policing can be very effective for defending against terrorism. However, to tackle terrorism you must either eliminate all existing and potential terrorists or attempt to attack the root cause. So far, you've only been attacking the symptom and in the process possibly aggravating the root cause.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

We are only talking here about large international wire transfers between major financial institutions. This has nothing to do with domestic individual bank accounts.

There are a number of laws that deal with reporting of major financial transfers. The ones I am most experienced with are the sanctions regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Treasury. That office is involved in this issue, but it is a different set of regulations. However, I understand that there are tracking mechanisms designed to combat fraud and money laundering. There have been for decades, this is nothing new.

There is no warrant needed for several reasons. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court squarely held that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. As a matter of statutory law, Congress neither requires, nor provided for a warrant in this type of transaction. In addition, the transactions are outside the US.

The New York Times is in no doubt that it broke the law, and that also this program is legal. They aren't claiming that there is anything illegal here. They are just hoping that they won't be prosecuted. On that they are probably correct, but I think patience with them is running out.

I'm confused then. If these sorts of safety nets are in place, what is the point of SWIFT? To search records without a warrant? What is the big deal about obtaining a warrant?

Again, trying to learn, not be combative here...

[Kerrigan]

Simey, I think the hardcore liberals are fighting shy of the original post because they know the positions they hold on terrorism are poorly developed at best.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Noone wants that to stop? Only it just did stop. It stopped because the NYT decided unilaterally to communicate the methods used to al-Queda.

In terms of the legalities, the program the NYT gutted was authorized by congressional statute. When Congress tells the executive how to carry out its duties, there isn't much room for complaint about lack of oversight.

The courts, of course, aren't involved because there is no constititional or statutory jurisdiction for the courts to be involved. In this country, courts only decide cases and controversies, they don't issue advisory opinions. Especially not to Belgian financial entities.

But more broadly, investigations into complex crimes must take place in secret. That seems to be what the NYT opposes (or maybe they think it just sells newspapers). Maybe I should have asked if liberals support the effective use of law enforcement to tackle terrorism?

1. The administration has repeatedly talked publicly about tracking terrorist financing. The reporting that they are, in fact, tracking terrorist financing is not a revelation, nor will that tracking stop now.

2. You know very well that there are financial privacy laws that are relevant to these actions. Our government used to get court approval to do this kind of thing, and now they don't, opting instead for national security letters. That is a change in policy that, in my country, is examined before being changed.

3. The Bush administration's motto seems to be "trust us, we're good people and we're fighting terrorism." "We would never abuse such a power. Really." Well I'm sorry, but that's just not how my country works. We're good and trustworthy because our system includes oversight, not out of some inherent goodness and trustworthiness on the part of specific people like Bush or Gonzales.

[Nicko]

A few months ago here in Nairobi, a top minister in the government didn't like what the national newspaper was reporting about a particularly large corruption scandal involving hundreds of millions of dollars being unaccounted for, and guess what happened? An 'elite' squad of police fitted out in ski masks raided the national newspaper's main office, sacked it, and stole their computers.

Sure, one might expect this kind of thing to happen in a corrupt developing country, but Kenya is still technically a democracy.

The fact is, in a country like Kenya, the free press is the only way for the public to find out what their government is doing. If you shut down or punish the media you are left with a police state.

Who is Cheney to presume to criticize the free press in a democratic country?

[Kerrigan]

What a lame argument Nicko. The topic at hand isn't whether or not Bush should invade the New York Times for reporting a scandal.

The question at hand is why the New York Times published classified information to effectively disable a legal method of tracking terrorist financing. Similar methods are used to track the finances of other money launderers such as organized criminal groups and arms dealers, but the NYT has never tried to blow the cover off those operations. Why?

I honestly don't think that liberals can defend their positions on terrorism. All they can do is appeal to our emotional sides with arguments about the death of civil liberties or the injustices of neocolonialism, as though it were still the 70s. When asked to defend specific points, they have nothing to say.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

1. The administration has repeatedly talked publicly about tracking terrorist financing. The reporting that they are, in fact, tracking terrorist financing is not a revelation, nor will that tracking stop now.

2. You know very well that there are financial privacy laws that are relevant to these actions. Our government used to get court approval to do this kind of thing, and now they don't, opting instead for national security letters. That is a change in policy that, in my country, is examined before being changed.

3. The Bush administration's motto seems to be "trust us, we're good people and we're fighting terrorism." "We would never abuse such a power. Really." Well I'm sorry, but that's just not how my country works. We're good and trustworthy because our system includes oversight, not out of some inherent goodness and trustworthiness on the part of specific people like Bush or Gonzales.

On point 1, I agree that the overall story is neither new nor problematic. Of course we all assumed that the government is doing this (and also other governments, such as in the EU). However, the Times revealed specific methodology. It's one thing to know that the government prosecutes crime, it is another to tell criminals exactly how the government does it. That is all the New York Times did. There was no other reason for their article, because, as you say, the fact that the government is doing this isn't in a broad way any kind of revalation.

That brings me back to my question -- whether liberals in fact support the use of law enforcement against terrorists. If we told the Mafia exactly how the FBI tracks them, the Mafia would be condiderably helped. The same goes for al-Queda, only the stakes are higher.

On point 2, Congress passed the statutes that you are complaining about. Do you have respect for the political process or not? You seem to be saying that if you don't like a law passed in Congress, then you have a right to break other laws. That isn't political debate, it is civil disobedience (at best). Notice, the New York Times could write about how Congress didn't require a warrant in the statutes without revealing anything about a specific investigation. They chose not to do so. They chose instead to blow an ongoing investigation. That is irresponsible.

On point 3, the Bush Admininistration happens to be the Administration in office at the present time. But law enforcement takes place regardless of who is in office. When the Democrats are in office, I will expect to trust the Democrats to carry out the laws written by Congress as well. My definition of whether or not I support law enforcement doesn't depend on the party in power. Does yours?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Nicko

So you don't like the NYtimes, like we didn't already know that.

And he doesn't like liberals because they "sympathize with the enemy."

I'm glad for the oversight. If Congress doesn't take its responsibilities seriously, and the administration is lying to the public and to Congress, then the media needs to step up. Of course, Simey will never admit that the administration lied. Keep looking for those WMD, Simey.

I don't see why the program has stopped because it has been made public.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm confused then. If these sorts of safety nets are in place, what is the point of SWIFT? To search records without a warrant? What is the big deal about obtaining a warrant?

Again, trying to learn, not be combative here...

SWIFT is just a clearing house for major banks to send money to one another internationally. It's basically an e-mail system where financial accounts are settled by washing accounts against each other. It is how money moves from country to country, bank to bank to pay for goods and services.

The reason SWIFT cooperates with governments is because governments have a legitimate interest in combating transnational crime. Basically, if you ship a box of widgets from the UK to the US, you will be paid for them by presenting a letter of credit to your local bank in the UK. The bank will pay you, and then the banks will then settle with one another through SWIFT. But what if you shipped heroin? And what if you don't want the transaction to be traced back to you?

That is the point of cooperating with law enforcement. The banks don't want their legitimate system to be used by criminals.

[Nicko]

Ok I just read the article, what is the big deal? The NYT disclosed the program and now that the public knows about it, they can make informed decisions on whether its a good idea or not.

I am amazed at the trust some people here instill in their elected and non elected leaders in the US gov. Where does this blind faith come from?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Ok I just read the article, what is the big deal? The NYT disclosed the program and now that the public knows about it, they can make informed decisions on whether its a good idea or not.

And al-Queda can make informed decisions as well. So then even if the public makes the informed decision that the investigation was a good idea, it is no longer effective.

It amazes me that people keep forgetting this. It's why I am asking how serious liberals are about using law enforcement to tackle terrorism.

[Kerrigan]

So Nicko, since the same methods are used against organized crimes groups and arms dealers, as mentioned in the OP, should we shut down these law enforcement tactics too?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

On point 1, I agree that the overall story is neither new nor problematic. Of course we all assumed that the government is doing this (and also other governments, such as in the EU). However, the Times revealed specific methodology. It's one thing to know that the government prosecutes crime, it is another to tell criminals exactly how the government does it. That is all the New York Times did. There was no other reason for their article, because, as you say, the fact that the government is doing this isn't in a broad way any kind of revalation.

That brings me back to my question -- whether liberals in fact support the use of law enforcement against terrorists. If we told the Mafia exactly how the FBI tracks them, the Mafia would be condiderably helped. The same goes for al-Queda, only the stakes are higher.

On point 2, Congress passed the statutes that you are complaining about. Do you have respect for the political process or not? You seem to be saying that if you don't like a law passed in Congress, then you have a right to break other laws. That isn't political debate, it is civil disobedience (at best). Notice, the New York Times could write about how Congress didn't require a warrant in the statutes without revealing anything about a specific investigation. They chose not to do so. They chose instead to blow an ongoing investigation. That is irresponsible.

On point 3, the Bush Admininistration happens to be the Administration in office at the present time. But law enforcement takes place regardless of who is in office. When the Democrats are in office, I will expect to trust the Democrats to carry out the laws written by Congress as well. My definition of whether or not I support law enforcement doesn't depend on the party in power. Does yours?

I won't try to speak for all liberals, but I support my government's power being on a leash. This administration repeatedly claims that they're not abusing their power and that they're good, honest, terrorist-fighters. I believe that's almost certainly true. I doubt anyone in the government is using their powers to check on political enemies, for example. But I don't think it's a good idea to leave it up to their good will.

That appears to be the key difference between liberals and conservatives: Conservatives trust the government to do the right thing because they're good people, liberals trust the government to do the right thing because of a system put in place to make sure they do the right thing.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So Nicko, since the same methods are used against organized crimes groups and arms dealers, as mentioned in the OP, should we shut down these law enforcement tactics too?

Because the OP didn't give the whole picture. The same methods are used against organized crime if approved by an independent body overseeing those methods. What's being done here bypasses that usual process, and relies on legal decisions made by those within the executive branch to approve its own actions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I won't try to speak for all liberals, but I support my government's power being on a leash. This administration repeatedly claims that they're not abusing their power and that they're good, honest, terrorist-fighters. I believe that's almost certainly true. I doubt anyone in the government is using their powers to check on political enemies, for example. But I don't think it's a good idea to leave it up to their good will.

That appears to be the key difference between liberals and conservatives: Conservatives trust the government to do the right thing because they're good people, liberals trust the government to do the right thing because of a system put in place to make sure they do the right thing.

Okay, but in this case, the system was in place and STILL the New York Times decided to tell al-Queda. How do you account for that?

The government followed the rules set out in statutes passed democratically by Congress, and signed into law by the president. The international banking consortium followed the rules that govern the banking industry. So no rules apply to the New York Times?

And once again, my original question. All of these questions apply to ordinary law enforcement. The government used no powers here that it doesn't also have to track illegal fund transfers on behalf of drug dealers, arms smugglers, sanctions violators, foreign bribe-payers, slave traffikers, and so on. I haven't seen any controversy over law enforcement in those areas, so why is it that it is only when the government tries to stop terrorism that the New York Times tries to sabotage the effort? If terrorism is just a law enforcement issue, why do you seem to think different (and for terrorists, more favorable) standards should apply?

Originally Posted by BRussell

Because the OP didn't give the whole picture. The same methods are used against organized crime if approved by an independent body overseeing those methods. What's being done here bypasses that usual process, and relies on legal decisions made by those within the executive branch to approve its own actions.

Incorrect. The banking statutes passed in response to the Supreme Court holding that there is no 4th Amendment issue contain exceptions for law enforcement, counter-intelligence, and (more recently) counter-iterrorism. There is no warrant requirement, and never has been and I have no idea what "independent body" you are referring to but there is none, and again, never was one in this area of law. The executive branch has exceptions written into the statute by Congress. Of course, in this case it hardly needed them because here you are dealing with an international entity that voluntarily cooperated. Now, answer the questions based on the law as it actually is.

It's interesting also that you want checks and balances on the executive, even when the courts decided they weren't required by the Constitution, and two houses of Congress democratically elected by the people with the power to legislate decided that no additional process was needed. Yet the New York Times, a private business gets to wipe all that out unilaterally? Where is the check on that power? Who elected them? Talk about a danger to civil liberties!