Government monitoring financial transactions

[ggdwill]

I haven't read all of the intricate details regarding the financial monitoring program that everyone has been in a hoopla recently about the Times reporting, but it seems to me that the Times hasn't done anything wrong and that in fact the government has. Frankly, I'm glad that the Times exposed them and has helped to protect individual privacy.

What the government has been doing is monitoring the financial activity of "known terrorists". Well, if they're known terrorists, why don't they just go arrest them or kill them? The only reason that I could fathom for not immediately confronting these guys is that they will lead us to higher ups in the terrorist organizations. Well, we already know who the higher ups are and more or less where they are! There's a reason why we went to Afghanistan in 2001 and no to Italy. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it's been proven that many of the recent terrorist attacks around the world don't even involve higher-ups, but are merely carried out by small groups of angry Islamic fanatics born and raised in the West.

At least in America, where the Fourth Amendment still apparently means something, the government should have to have a warrant to look at anyone's financial information. And if they already know these guys are terrorists, as they claim, then they shouldn't have any problem getting one.

This controversy is exactly the same as the one surrounding the NSA's phone monitoring program that the press exposed last year.

It really is disturbing that our neoconservative government is using the widespear terror of terrorism as a means of fundamentally changing the American way of life. Isn't this exactly what the purpose of 9/11 was in the first place? We should not be wasting time and money surrepticiously collecting vast amounts of information to sift through (especially when the government claims they already know who the bad guys are) and then bullying the press when they point out the absurdity. Instead, why not fundamentally change the Muslim way of life by wiping a few of their cities of the face of the Earth? Then, in stead of us being terrified of them, they'd certainly be terrified of us.

[Spano]

I haven't read all of the intricate details regarding the financial monitoring program that everyone has been in a hoopla recently about the Times reporting, but it seems to me that the Times hasn't done anything wrong and that in fact the government has. Frankly, I'm glad that the Times exposed them and has helped to protect individual privacy.

I disagree. Basically, my question for the NYT is: what is your motive in publishing this? Have they any evidence of wrongdoing by the government against innocent Americans? Have they found a secret and illegal program carried out with malevolent intentions? No and no. By all the accounts I've seen, this program was a legitimate tool against terrorists and it's confidential status was important to its effective operation. If the NYT wanted to in combat terrorism, they would not have published this story. There was simply no need to expose it, other than as a petty way to cast the administration as dark and nefarious.

It really is disturbing that our neoconservative government is using the widespear terror of terrorism as a means of fundamentally changing the American way of life.

This strikes me as conspiracy theory. Please provide evidence that the actual goal of the government is not to combat terror, even in their own ineffective way, but to actually use terrorism as an excuse to "change the American way of life." As far as I can tell, the administration seems to be honestly, if ineffectively, attempting to combat terror.

[ggdwill]

I disagree. Basically, my question for the NYT is: what is your motive in publishing this? Have they any evidence of wrongdoing by the government against innocent Americans? Have they found a secret and illegal program carried out with malevolent intentions? No and no. By all the accounts I've seen, this program was a legitimate tool against terrorists and it's confidential status was important to its effective operation. If the NYT wanted to in combat terrorism, they would not have published this story. There was simply no need to expose it, other than as a petty way to cast the administration as dark and nefarious.

Please provide evidence to back up all of these assertions. Also, it would have been appropriate to address my points about getting to higher-ranking terrorists and that much Islamic terrorism is carried out by random fanatics carried out in the West.

This strikes me as conspiracy theory. Please provide evidence that the actual goal of the government is not to combat terror, even in their own ineffective way, but to actually use terrorism as an excuse to "change the American way of life." As far as I can tell, the administration seems to be honestly, if ineffectively, attempting to combat terror.

I never said that it was intentional. Whether or not they realize it, they are fundamentally changing the American way of life as a means of combating terrorism. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they did realize it.

[KendallJ]

At least in America, where the Fourth Amendment still apparently means something, the government should have to have a warrant to look at anyone's financial information. And if they already know these guys are terrorists, as they claim, then they shouldn't have any problem getting one.

1976, United States v. Miller. The Supreme Court found that bank customers had no legal right to privacy in financial information held by financial institutions.

I haven't read all of the intricate details regarding the financial monitoring program that everyone has been in a hoopla recently about the Times reporting, but it seems to me that the Times hasn't done anything wrong and that in fact the government has.

Seem, being that this was the first assertion, that the onus would be on you to back it up.

What the government has been doing is monitoring the financial activity of "known terrorists". Well, if they're known terrorists, why don't they just go arrest them or kill them? The only reason that I could fathom for not immediately confronting these guys is that they will lead us to higher ups in the terrorist organizations. Well, we already know who the higher ups are and more or less where they are! There's a reason why we went to Afghanistan in 2001 and no to Italy. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it's been proven that many of the recent terrorist attacks around the world don't even involve higher-ups, but are merely carried out by small groups of angry Islamic fanatics born and raised in the West.

This amounts to "I don't think the govt's logic makes sense." If you accept it as true, its entirely circumstantial unless you posit to me what logic does makes sense. By itself it is conspiracy theory, and doesn't deserve much response.

I never said that it was intentional. .... However, I wouldn't be surprised if they did realize it.

uh huh... no conspiracy theory there...

Edited June 29, 2006 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

There was some discussion about the NSA monitoring in this (link) thread. Also, there's a Meta-Blog thread on the more recent financial transaction monitoring.

[Mike]

Please provide evidence to back up all of these assertions. Also, it would have been appropriate to address my points about getting to higher-ranking terrorists and that much Islamic terrorism is carried out by random fanatics carried out in the West.

I never said that it was intentional. Whether or not they realize it, they are fundamentally changing the American way of life as a means of combating terrorism. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they did realize it.

Who said that the monitering of finances of known terrorists is only to track other known terrorists? The most important part of it as far as I can see is how tracking the finances of known terrorists (especially those in other countries that we cannot get to) can lead us to people here and abroad who we don't yet know are terrorists, but we can begin to investigate if we find out they are taking money from (or giving it to) known terrorists. The same is true of the NSA phone taps; we are monitoring the phone calls of people we know are connected to terrorists, not only to find out what they are planning, but also to discover yet-unknown terrorists and terror cells in our country or elsewhere.

Mike.

[gags]

I haven't read all of the intricate details regarding the financial monitoring program that everyone has been in a hoopla recently about the Times reporting, but it seems to me that the Times hasn't done anything wrong and that in fact the government has. Frankly, I'm glad that the Times exposed them and has helped to protect individual privacy.

I have not yet heard a credible claim that the SWIFT program (the subject of the NYT story) broke any US laws. Also, the 9/11 commission acknowledged that one of the few areas where this Administration has been doing an effective job preventing future terrorist attacks is in connection with the monitoring of financial transactions.

Prior to the Times publishing this story, Both Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton (Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission) met with the editors to specifically ask that they refrain from doing it. Naturally the Times refused and went to press. Why? Based on the evidence, it seems that the Times is more interested in tweaking and embarrassing this Administration than in seeing that we have continued success in the war against Islamic fundamentalists.

Edited July 9, 2006 by gags