[tie]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

See my response that somehow went right above your post.

I didn't realize I was so predictable.

I stand by my assessment. Simey's post has all the standard insane stuff.

"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?"
"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."

I'm glad that Simey "for the most part" doesn't think liberals are sympathetic with the enemy, and only thinks we "feel that we should not try to prevent" terrorism, and/or are so opposed to this administration that "not even catching terorists before they strike, is deemed important."

Then Simey continues with the standard bag of tricks by insulting people who reply to him:
- "Have you forgotten the enemy are the terrorists? Yes, I thought so." (to besson3c)
- "Can you deal with separate issues? Or is it all just one big mush in your mind?" (to me)

Etc. etc.

[greenG4]

I didn't insult anyone. Am I still a good conservative? Seriously, people on both sides, when feeling thier position is threatened, will resort to personal attacks. It's human nature I guess. It takes a lot to hold an intellectual debate. Often times, we begin to feel frustrated when our positions/ideas are not understood, which leads to falacy thinking personal attacks. It's unfortunate.

[Macrobat]

Ironically, in 2001, the New York Slimes itself was editorializing grandiosely about how the Administration should attack terrorism in PRECISELY the way they have now chosen to criticise said Administration for utilizing:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.php

Now that they cannot actually criticize the Administration for not using this tactic, they decide to deliberately sabotage yet another totally legal and effective method of terrorist tracking.

Whoops, their slip is showing.

Their agenda is - plain as the nose on your face - anti-Administration, and not anti-terrorist.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Ironically, in 2001, the New York Slimes itself was editorializing grandiosely about how the Administration should attack terrorism in PRECISELY the way they have now chosen to criticise said Administration for utilizing:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.php

Now that they cannot actually criticize the Administration for not using this tactic, they decide to deliberately sabotage yet another totally legal and effective method of terrorist tracking.

Whoops, their slip is showing.

Their agenda is - plain as the nose on your face - anti-Administration, and not anti-terrorist.

Haha, "New York Slimes." It really is a hallmark of conservatism.

But I want you to read that editorial. The Times called for new legislation that would make it easier to track terrorist financing. This report was about how the administration didn't rely on any new legislation, but broke precedent by examining large amounts of data from SWIFT without individual warrants.

[greenG4]

Do you REALLY think the administration would so grossly break the law? Obviously under their interpretation (and according to the NYT story), they beleived thier actions to be within the boundaries of the law. Therefore, no additional legislation was needed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, "New York Slimes." It really is a hallmark of conservatism.

But I want you to read that editorial. The Times called for new legislation that would make it easier to track terrorist financing. This report was about how the administration didn't rely on any new legislation, but broke precedent by examining large amounts of data from SWIFT without individual warrants.

When were warrants ever required for financial information?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

When were warrants ever required for financial information?

I'm just repeating what the story said: That the administration didn't use warrants. Maybe only some kind of subpoena is required. It's not clear whether they even went that far. The articles say they used National Security Letters, but my understanding is that the constitutionality of those has been challenged.

You tell me. Is the government allowed total access to all financial records of Americans just in case something fishy turns up in them? Or are they required to have some type of legally-approved subpoena in order to examine them? My understanding is that there are financial privacy laws that do require such approval first. If so, how does what the CIA/Treasury is doing fit into any of those requirements?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

The point of my post way back there was that many of the people up in arms right now weren't speaking out when the Clinton Administration did similar things.

Being the opposing party is a critical role but it doesn't mean you always disagree.

Both parties are guilty of this kind of thing where they complain when the others are in power and don't when they are. It's human nature.

What did Clinton do that was similar? I honestly don't know. You're not referring to Waco are you? Because although that was a royal fup-uck, it wasn't anything like these eavesdropping issues we're talking about.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Is the government allowed total access to all financial records of Americans just in case something fishy turns up in them? Or are they required to have some type of legally-approved subpoena in order to examine them? My understanding is that there are financial privacy laws that do require such approval first. If so, how does what the CIA/Treasury is doing fit into any of those requirements?

The article states a lot of limitations that were imposed on this program. So, no, the gov is NOT allowed complete access to all financial records. There is no Big Brother here looking at everyone's bank statement.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by greenG4

The article states a lot of limitations that were imposed on this program. So, no, the gov is NOT allowed complete access to all financial records. There is no Big Brother here looking at everyone's bank statement.

Yeah but those were either self-imposed or imposed by swift.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm just repeating what the story said: That the administration didn't use warrants. Maybe only some kind of subpoena is required. It's not clear whether they even went that far. The articles say they used National Security Letters, but my understanding is that the constitutionality of those has been challenged.

You tell me. Is the government allowed total access to all financial records of Americans just in case something fishy turns up in them? Or are they required to have some type of legally-approved subpoena in order to examine them? And how does what the CIA/Treasury is doing fit into any of those requirements?

Part of the problem seems to be that you assume there are requirements. But here, the New York Times mislead you. They say that warrants were not sought, leading you to assume that they could have been sought or should have been sought. However, as a constitutional matter judicial warrants are not required for financial information held by financial institutions. The Supreme Court made that clear back in 1976 in United States v. Miller. Those kinds of records are not private at all for 4th Amendment purposes. And because 4th Amendment judicial warrants are not required, federal courts can't issue them.

Now, there could be statutes requiring other kinds of warrants, but Congress doesn't have to require them and generally does not. There could also be administrative subpoenas (which might include national security letters). Congress does this all the time when, as here, the Constitution does not provide for a judicial warrant. Again, Congress doesn't have to require even an administrative subpoena requirement or any kind of elevated requirement. If neither Congress nor the Constitution requires warrants or any other kind of process, then none is required.

Where they are required, it is by statute. As a statutory matter, it is highly unlikely that there is a strong constitutional basis for challenging them. This is perhaps a lesson about lawyering that you might want to take to heart because it bears directly on the New York Times' extremely weak arguments presented in their article. Sometimes in law there is a completely slam dunk answer to a legal question. For example, the question of whether the Fourth Amendment applies here and if there is a constitutional warrant requirement. I can tell you catagorically and off the top of my head that there is not and I know full fact that I would be correct.

Most legal issues, however, aren't so easy or so clear cut. This is especially the case with complex statutory issues. Even slam dunk statutory interpretation usually has a little ambiguity in it, such that while a court might be convinced with ease, a lawyer could still make a decent argument for the other outcome. (This is why cases are litigated without the losing lawyers being charged ethically for making losing arguments). Thus, this issue may be a slam dunk for the Administration (and I have it on good authority that it is). But still, someone might make some kind of objection however crazy everyone else thinks it is.

Now, the NYT by their own admission sat on this story for months. They have had time to have lawyers look at this extensively. If there was a good reason to suppose the program they would say so simply and clearly making a strong case that lawyers might recognize as an argument that passes the laugh test -- as indeed, they did with their earlier NSA story. Here, they haven't done that. They have simply said that some anonymous lawyer somewhere wasn't sure about the Administration's argument. That is weak indeed. And it is because they couldn't come up with anything stronger.

As I have said several times, I haven't spent the hours and Westlaw money necessary to do the research myself on this, but I have a friend (a very talented lawyer with much better credentials than me) who has. I have talked to him briefly and he has told me that there is a clear answer (or at least, what lawyers mean by clear), and that the law was fully complied with to the point where he called it "a slam dunk." If and when he publishes, I will link to it.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

What did Clinton do that was similar? I honestly don't know. You're not referring to Waco are you? Because although that was a royal fup-uck, it wasn't anything like these eavesdropping issues we're talking about.

No, it's not an eavesdropping thing, but I was drawing parallels. You can go back and read the whole thing.

But basically, I was asking where the Hadifa-type outrage was when our own ATF shot the wife, child (and dog) of a citizen. Not claiming Randy Weaver is an angel, but he wasn't ever convicted of anything.

Or where were the people outraged by religious intolerance of our government when Reno gave the go-ahead to storm Waco and ended up sacrificing the lives of many innocents in the process. Yes, Koresh and his people had shot at ATF, but would the Branch Davidians even been on the radar if they were a mainstream religion?

Or how about when Clinton/Reno sent riot-gear clad officers into a residence to take a 6 year old boy and send him back to a country his mother died to get him away from? But now Republicans are racists if they want to send an illegal back to his/her home country.

Simply drawing parallels. My point is if you are going to be outraged by the Bush Administration, you should have been outraged by the actions of the Clinton Administration. But Clinton got a pass by many because he was a Democrat. That's IMHO.

[dcmacdaddy]

Yes, let's fight the war on terror as a war.

For starters, let's define the target as a group of actors and/or nations instead of an idea. You can't "fight" an idea with military weapons. So, let's come up with a list of specific groups we wish to fight and nations we wish to attack--I would say any nation harboring and/or supporting significant numbers of these groups that make up our enemies qualifies for designation as an enemy--and then go ahead and invade these countries. I would like to see invasions of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan next; For all their supposed support to the US in the War on Terror these two nations are still the biggest producers/protectors of anti-US terrorists.


When we have identified our specific targets let's pursue them relentlessly and not give up half-way. You know, like we did in Afghanistan, allowing the Taleban to remain a vital fighting force--in fact, growing in strength--and providing protection for Al Qaeda.


And when we do engage in war against our specifically identified enemies, lets treat anyone we capture on the battlefield as prisoners of WAR--since you know, we are fighting a war--and not make up some new fancy-schmancy term for those we capture. If we are going to claim to be at war let's act like we are at war and follow the rules of war.


So, I am OK with using our military to fight the war on terror. But let's treat it like a war--with defined enemies and defined geopolitical objectives that allows us to determine when we have won/lost--instead of an amorphous project to fight an idea. My biggest issue with the way the current "war" on terror is run has to do with tactics and procedures and the fact that we are not fighting ALL those who support anti-US terrorism. I would like to see the US military clearly articulate a list of enemies to the US that we will be pursuing in this war and the countries that support those enemies. Finally, I would like to see the US invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to ensure that terrorist supporters in those countries are rooted out and eliminated.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Part of the problem seems to be that you assume there are requirements. But here, the New York Times mislead you. They say that warrants were not sought, leading you to assume that they could have been sought or should have been sought. However, as a constitutional matter judicial warrants are not required for financial information held by financial institutions. The Supreme Court made that clear back in 1976 in United States v. Miller. Those kinds of records are not private at all for 4th Amendment purposes. And because 4th Amendment judicial warrants are not required, federal courts can't issue them.

OK, the courts have said the 4th amendment doesn't apply. I understand that and agree with that (not that I knew that before, but after this issue arose, some quick internet searches confirm it). But that doesn't end the issue of whether warrants or subpoenas of some type are required.

My understanding is that, as a direct result of that decision, Congress shortly afterward passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which does require approval of some kind before the government can examine bank records. Perhaps other laws, including the patriot act, loosened up those requirements. The Wall Street Journal/NY Times story on this said that National Security Letters were used, but those have been limited by the courts. I look forward to reading some good explanatory legal opinions on it.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

No, it's not an eavesdropping thing, but I was drawing parallels. You can go back and read the whole thing.

But basically, I was asking where the Hadifa-type outrage was when our own ATF shot the wife, child (and dog) of a citizen. Not claiming Randy Weaver is an angel, but he wasn't ever convicted of anything.

Or where were the people outraged by religious intolerance of our government when Reno gave the go-ahead to storm Waco and ended up sacrificing the lives of many innocents in the process. Yes, Koresh and his people had shot at ATF, but would the Branch Davidians even been on the radar if they were a mainstream religion?

Or how about when Clinton/Reno sent riot-gear clad officers into a residence to take a 6 year old boy and send him back to a country his mother died to get him away from? But now Republicans are racists if they want to send an illegal back to his/her home country.

Simply drawing parallels. My point is if you are going to be outraged by the Bush Administration, you should have been outraged by the actions of the Clinton Administration. But Clinton got a pass by many because he was a Democrat. That's IMHO.

The Randy Weaver incident happened under GHW Bush. I'm not even sure that Reno was officially AG yet when the Waco siege started, about a month into Clinton's term. They were definitely responsible for the Elian Gonzales thing.

But a lot was certainly made of all those incidents. A huge amount, IMO. A lot more than this bank spying story, which has been kind of a dud. Hell, an American citizen blew up the OK Fed building as revenge for Waco.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The Randy Weaver incident happened under GHW Bush. I'm not even sure that Reno was officially AG yet when the Waco siege started, about a month into Clinton's term. They were definitely responsible for the Elian Gonzales thing.

But a lot was certainly made of all those incidents. A huge amount, IMO. A lot more than this bank spying story, which has been kind of a dud. Hell, an American citizen blew up the OK Fed building as revenge for Waco.

I believe that Reno was AG by the time Waco happened, I could be wrong. And you are right about who was President for Ruby Ridge (August 1992).

My point is generally that the outrage from the press is always stronger when a Republican is President. That's IMHO, of course.

The reason this story is a dud is because that's exactly what it is. The NYT is trying to make a scandal where none exists. And their motivation is clearly to make the Bush Administration look like it is violating civil rights.

It just confirms my personal media "motto:"

All the print news gives me fits.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

OK, the courts have said the 4th amendment doesn't apply. I understand that and agree with that (not that I knew that before, but after this issue arose, some quick internet searches confirm it). But that doesn't end the issue of whether warrants or subpoenas of some type are required.

My understanding is that, as a direct result of that decision, Congress shortly afterward passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which does require approval of some kind before the government can examine bank records. Perhaps other laws, including the patriot act, loosened up those requirements. The Wall Street Journal/NY Times story on this said that National Security Letters were used, but those have been limited by the courts. I look forward to reading some good explanatory legal opinions on it.

Sure, and here is the explanatory legal opinion. I promised a couple of days ago to link to my friend's legal article when it is published, and here it is.

I'm not going to quote it. I want you to read it in its entirety and make sure you follow his citation links too. But I will flag a couple of things. Notice that there are several statutes involved that gave the Administration the authority for this program. Some were passed in the 1970s after Miller. Some were passed after 9/11, including the very kind of new authority the NYT editorialized in favor of and which you have said you would like to see.

I'll add also a couple of things that aren't directly in his article. First, to point out that Adam did his research independently over the weekend and it represented at the time something of a reverse engineering job. Adam is a very careful and talented lawyer but statutory law is hugely complex and voluminous, and you can sometimes arrive at the same (and equally valid) statutory authority via different statutes. He didn't know at the time he wrote it that his answer was the same as that reached by the Bush Administration lawyers. However, this afternoon after he published he got word through the grapevine that Undersecretary of the Treasury Levey (who Adam did not talk to prior to publication) says Adam's analysis is correct and essentially the same as they used.

Second, there is an implication he and I chatted about today that isn't in his article (he was actually quite irritated at himself for forgetting ) which affects the question of whether a court would hypothetically uphold such a program. There is an analysis that is widely used (and which Adam has recently written about -- this is why he was galled to have overlooked it) by courts to determine how much deference to give to executive actions. This is the tripartite analysis used by Justice Jackson in his concurrence in the Steel Seizure case (Youngstown Steel). Essentially, Presidential actions can be weighed depending on whether they depend on Executive inherent powers plus powers delegated by Congress via statute (highest authority), Executive inherent powers alone (medium authority), or Executive inherent powers minus Congressional authority where Congress actively opposes (least executive authority). Because in this case, the executive acted pursuant to statutory authority, it falls into the highest category. So if this ever were to go to a court, it is virtually certain to be upheld as lawful.

Finally, notice how different Adam's analysis is from the slapdash and vague references in the New York Times piece. They had plenty of time to put some good lawyers on this. I highly doubt they didn't realize the president had express statutory authority but they didn't bother saying so in their article. Either they are incredibly sloppy or they just didn't care.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by 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?

Only a few of the Democrats-Liberals-Leftists-Bush Opponents-War Opponents have finally come out on this.

War or Crime?

I'm not really a member of any of those categories but I think the War on Terror should be fought both as a war and as a criminal matter.

And I think the NYT should be made to pay in some manner. However, the cost might be the further division of the right and left and I don't think the President wants that to happen, but it might be best in the long run.

The NYT had no GOOD reason for violating national security.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Sure, and here is the explanatory legal opinion. I promised a couple of days ago to link to my friend's legal article when it is published, and here it is.

That seems pretty convincing to me. But I have to say, the idea that the government can search through a large database of people's (including Americans') financial transactions, though apparently legal, doesn't feel right to me. But I suppose lots of things that are legal don't feel right to me.

[kobi]

Where's the 1st Amendment?
Are we throwing the US Constitution out the window now?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That seems pretty convincing to me. But I have to say, the idea that the government can search through a large database of people's (including Americans') financial transactions, though apparently legal, doesn't feel right to me. But I suppose lots of things that are legal don't feel right to me.

Thank you.

Presumably you now agree that the NYT should not have blown this legally-authorized and effective anti-terrorism investigation?

[FeLiZeCaT]

I think shooting the messenger is the biggest mistake.

The source needs to be confronted.

When it is possible to have a hack known, it should be made widely public, so that the people in charge of the software or the system should be either made accountable for the sloppy job, or responsibilized to repair it.

The NYT is only the whistle blower.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That seems pretty convincing to me. But I have to say, the idea that the government can search through a large database of people's (including Americans') financial transactions, though apparently legal, doesn't feel right to me. But I suppose lots of things that are legal don't feel right to me.

And that is the problem. When people take it upon themselves to violate national security because it didn't FEEL right to them. That is why I get angry at people who let their emotions serve functions they were not designed to handle.

I think these folks need to be shown the error of their feelings.

Just who the hell do they FEEL they are?



That is what I meant when I coined the phrase FUZZY BRAINED LIBERALS. The person/people responsible for the NYT leak deserve the appellation.

And all along you thought I was just being insulting?

No. It was descriptive and apt.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Presumably you now agree that the NYT should not have blown this legally-authorized and effective anti-terrorism investigation?

what have the terrorists learned from this that they might not have known previously? anyone involved with covert actions know that leaving a trail is a very bad thing and that others will be looking for any hint of it.

al-qaeda probably used codewords prior to the NSA wire-tapping article came out. surely they've learned more from their own naivety (and having cells get compromised) than reading about the tactics months/years later in a newspaper article.

while these tactics might not be new to al-qaeda et al., they are to the US public, and that scares lots of people when the gov't gets overly intrusive into the lives of its citizenry, even if benignly.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

what have the terrorists learned from this that they might not have known previously? anyone involved with covert actions know that leaving a trail is a very bad thing and that others will be looking for any hint of it.

al-qaeda probably used codewords prior to the NSA wire-tapping article came out. surely they've learned more from their own naivety (and having cells get compromised) than reading about the tactics months/years later in a newspaper article.

while these tactics might not be new to al-qaeda, they are to the US public, and that scares lots of people when the gov't gets overly intrusive into the lives of its citizenry, even if benignly.

The New York Times itself said that several terrorists have been caught using the program. So obviously, they didn't know not to do what it was that got them caught. Now terrorists do know.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The New York Times itself said that several terrorists have been caught using the program. So obviously, they didn't know not to do what it was that got them caught. Now terrorists do know.

No.

The stupid terrorist got caught.

The clever ones are still waiting to be found, and they may never be found, regardless of the means used.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

I think shooting the messenger is the biggest mistake.

The source needs to be confronted.

When it is possible to have a hack known, it should be made widely public, so that the people in charge of the software or the system should be either made accountable for the sloppy job, or responsibilized to repair it.

The NYT is only the whistle blower.

I am just pleased as punch that you liberals are taking all of this so calmly.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The New York Times itself said that several terrorists have been caught using the program. So obviously, they didn't know not to do what it was that got them caught. Now terrorists do know.

I suppose that's the reason we can't catch any other criminals under a well-known legal framework. It is clearly a grave security risk to have our lawbooks public.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

No.

The stupid terrorist got caught.

The clever ones are still waiting to be found, and they may never be found, regardless of the means used.

If the choice is between catching stupid terrorists, and catching no terrorists, how about we at least catch the stupid ones? They can still kill people.

Besides which, I think you are using hindsight. The details about how banks transfer money was not common knowledge until a couple of weeks ago when this blew up. I only learned about SWIFT about a year ago, and I'm a lawyer. This is quite obscure stuff. So obscure that the NYT thought its disclosure rated a front page spread and scoop status.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I am just pleased as punch that you liberals are taking all of this so calmly.

I'm actually freaking out about these terrorists. First, they make the NYT and other papers give away key strategic information, tomorrow.. global domination I tell you!

I sure hope I can still get some duct tape from Walmart.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The New York Times itself said that several terrorists have been caught using the program. So obviously, they didn't know not to do what it was that got them caught. Now terrorists do know.

which NYT article(s) are you referring to specifically? i didn't see a link on this page or in the OP.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

By the way, if it can be proven that there was a legal precedent set in a very non-ambiguous way, you'll completely blow all of my assumptions and arguments out of the water. I'll completely and entirely side with you over criticizing the NYT.

I'm waiting.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

what have the terrorists learned from this that they might not have known previously? anyone involved with covert actions know that leaving a trail is a very bad thing and that others will be looking for any hint of it.

al-qaeda probably used codewords prior to the NSA wire-tapping article came out. surely they've learned more from their own naivety (and having cells get compromised) than reading about the tactics months/years later in a newspaper article.

while these tactics might not be new to al-qaeda et al., they are to the US public, and that scares lots of people when the gov't gets overly intrusive into the lives of its citizenry, even if benignly.

You are making excuses and trying to rationalize these acts of treason. I think it is interesting.

It's the GOVERNMENT'S job to decide what is or isn't useless or harmless information.

Now I can understand why Michael Moore has such a low opinion of Americans. He calls them stupid and that certainly applies to the leakers in this case. And because he hangs out with mostly liberals I know he knows what he's talking about.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

If the choice is between catching stupid terrorists, and catching no terrorists, how about we at least catch the stupid ones? They can still kill people.

Besides which, I think you are using hindsight. The details about how banks transfer money was not common knowledge until a couple of weeks ago when this blew up. I only learned about SWIFT about a year ago, and I'm a lawyer. This is quite obscure stuff. So obscure that the NYT thought its disclosure rated a front page spread and scoop status.

I think one is pretty naive to think that a scoop will defeat national security of a nation claiming the status of the only hyper-power.

Who are you kidding Simey, if not the people you believe will swallow your partisan-driven argumentation?

I am not. The weakness, which you have yet to address, is regarding the source. If the people you trust for your safety are unreliable, then thanks to the NYT for uncovering lack of professionalism, if not downright incompetence.

Remark: I did not even give support either to the left or the right with this argumentation. Simply making people accountable for what they are supposed to do.

Now what's your excuse to further emphasize division in a country that requires a united front to a national threat?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I am just pleased as punch that you liberals are taking all of this so calmly.

Well, waisting time on the whistle blower unnerves me big time, considering they published a leak for which you do not seem sensitive about at all.

You freak me out man.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I'm waiting.

For what? Did I miss something?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Oh, and by the way, FYI, if I had not known of this thread, I would never had guessed this even happened.

So Simey, I guess you are accessory to national treason?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

For what? Did I miss something?

Yes, I posted the legal explanation you asked for. See above. Also, see BRussell's concession that it convinced him.

That being so (unless you disagree with BRussell), your post above deserves follow up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Oh, and by the way, FYI, if I had not known of this thread, I would never had guessed this even happened.

So Simey, I guess you are accessory to national treason?

Because you don't follow current affairs?

(Edit: you really are admitting to getting your news from the Macnn lounge? Aren't you embarrassed to say that?)

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

You are making excuses and trying to rationalize these acts of treason. I think it is interesting.

i think it's interesting how you arrive at your conclusions.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

It's the GOVERNMENT'S job to decide what is or isn't useless or harmless information.

only in national defense i hope. taken a little farther, that might hamper capitalism a little don't you think? i don't think our gov't should, in general, be deciding what is good or not for us.

the fact that we are trying to break cells by tracking financial transactions should not be news to anyone. all we know now is that the program is called SWIFT.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Yes, I posted the legal explanation you asked for. See above. Also, see BRussell's concession that it convinced him.

That being so (unless you disagree with BRussell), your post above deserves follow up.

I can't argue with what you have written. That sort of legal mumbo jumbo just bores me to tears, no offense. If you want to take my lack of an intelligent response as a victory (for those keeping score at home), go ahead, no problem (don't mean that passive aggressively either).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I can't argue with what you have written. That sort of legal mumbo jumbo just bores me to tears, no offense. If you want to take my lack of an intelligent response as a victory (for those keeping score at home), go ahead, no problem (don't mean that passive aggressively either).

I didn't write the article.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm actually freaking out about these terrorists. First, they make the NYT and other papers give away key strategic information, tomorrow.. global domination I tell you!

I sure hope I can still get some duct tape from Walmart.

Hey, let's joke around about national security! Sure. Why not?

But while we're laughing and playing grab ass I can't believe you hadn't already thought about this matter before this thread.

When I read that you didn't know how you FELT about this matter I was flabbergasted!

What the heck were you doing when we were discussing matters of terrorism? I think I recall your advocating Kerry's Law Enforcement approach to handling terrorism. You said something about it being more European and smarter?

So when the subject comes up here with Simey did you suddenly FORGET your position? Or was it just that you decided you liked Kerry's approach based on your FEELINGS at the time and of course feelings have no memory.

I need to calm down.

Those pricks raised the level of danger to my family and loved ones. You may not understand it or believe it but that speaks to your need to ignore the fact that we are at war.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I didn't write the article.

What's the source then?

[besson3c]

Hmmm.. just checked out the Weekly Standard site, looks very Right Wing. *shrug*

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Hey, let's joke around about national security! Sure. Why not?

But while we're laughing and playing grab ass I can't believe you hadn't already thought about this matter before this thread.

When I read that you didn't know how you FELT about this matter I was flabbergasted!

What the heck were you doing when we were discussing matters of terrorism? I think I recall your advocating Kerry's Law Enforcement approach to handling terrorism. You said something about it being more European and smarter?

So when the subject comes up here with Simey did you suddenly FORGET your position? Or was it just that you decided you liked Kerry's approach based on your FEELINGS at the time and of course feelings have no memory.

I need to calm down.

Those pricks raised the level of danger to my family and loved ones. You may not understand it or believe it but that speaks to your need to ignore the fact that we are at war.

Dear Abe/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2,

I think you need to poop and go have a lemonade. This is not a football game. Wasn't it you that said that the art of being a good poster is to write like you are having sex with your thread?

Show me your love making skills.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What's the source then?

He said his friend, a very talented person who'd clerked for a judge in some esteem was preparing the article for publication and Simey said he'd try and secure a copy for us.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What's the source then?

As I said above, the author is a friend of mine. He is a lawyer in private practice who writes op ed pieces occasionally

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Show me your love making skills.

besson3c! seriously, wtf are you doing!?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

As I said above, the author is a friend of mine. He is a lawyer in private practice who writes op ed pieces occasionally

Cool!

If there isn't legal precedent for this, I still believe everything I've said. If there is and it is the clear legal consensus, shame on the NYT.

The problem is, I don't know what the law states. However, it seems clear to me that if the NYT had their legal team look into this and decided to put their reputation on line, AND if several other papers did too, the legality of this is at least debatable.