Why no threads about treasonous New York Times revealing national secrets again?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then what was the news value of the story if everyone already knew it?

The public at large might not have known it, even if anyone who cared could have guessed at it.

[MRT144]

its not treason, its negligent blabbermouthing

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Lots of hard cash is moving via courier apparently. The arguement that this is not damgaing as the terrorists already were wise to this is not so clear however considering the previous success this program had.

Again, SWIFT encompasses virtually every commercial bank. The NYT article is equivalent to Bush saying that we're monitoring terrorist finances in terms of giving intel to the enemy. So I guess that means that our treasonous Leader was revealing national secrets again?

So I take it the fact that numerous governement officals from various branches of governement who called for NYT not to release the classified information are less in the know about the relative value and viability of this program than Keller. Good to know.

Can we make sure the next Democratic president (God forbid I see one in my lifetime) makes sure to enact a special executive order that imbues the editor in charge at the NYT with powers of declassifying documents, signal intelligence, troop movements, as certainly the NYT understands the ramifications far better than any governmental stooge.

Myabe the DNC can have this as one of the party planks.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then what was the news value of the story if everyone already knew it?

Either the article was sensationalizing or the NYT is lying now. Even the article itself indicates the effectiveness of the now defunct program.

Quote 1

The program's Genesis

The idea for the Swift program, several officials recalled, grew out of a suggestion by a Wall Street executive, who told a senior Bush administration official about Swift's database. Few government officials knew much about the consortium, which is led by a Brooklyn native, Leonard H. Schrank, but they quickly discovered it offered unparalleled access to international transactions. Swift, a former government official said, was "the mother lode, the Rosetta stone" for financial data.

Note the commentary that few governmental officals knew of such a means to track international transactions. It would seem clear that this wasn't a commonly known approach. Why would anyone infer then that terrorists would have better carnal knowledge of the inner workings of international monetary transactions if the US government did not. (Yes I realize this is an easy swipe at the competence of US governemental officials)


Quote 2

The actual effectiveness of the program as evidenced by case studies

The Swift data has provided clues to money trails and ties between possible terrorists and groups financing them, the officials said. In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation.


Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.


In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.


The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said.

In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said.

Bolding mine -

Sanitization obviously for the intent of not blowing a valued program of some ongoing use.


I think either the NYT was lying then in the article or now in their claims that the program was not of use. Coupled with the vehement pleadings of governmental officials to not run the story there is only one logical conclusion. Up until the point the story ran the feeling was this program had some value.

[MRT144]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MRT144
its not treason, its negligent blabbermouthing

Negligence might be an excuse were it not for numerous calls from congress and admin pleading not to run the story.

[MRT144]

its depraved indifference?

[Ramo]

For the last time, SWIFT encompasses virtually every commercial bank. Letting people know that SWIFT exists does not tell the terrorists anything that they shouldn't have already known, i.e. by what Bush has been saying - that they should avoid major financial institutions. If the NYT acted treasonously, so did Dear Leader.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
For the last time, SWIFT encompasses virtually every commercial bank. Letting people know that SWIFT exists does not tell the terrorists anything that they shouldn't have already known, i.e. by what Bush has been saying - that they should avoid major financial institutions. If the NYT acted treasonously, so did Dear Leader.

Firstly, I am glad this is your last time spewing this (mis)information. There is no doubting that SWIFT does indeed encompass nearly every international banking firm. That is not challenged. What is clear from the article, however, is that this behind the scenes all encompassing SWIFT venture is not common knowledge to most people. Point of fact was that it wasn't understood by governmental officials until a Wall Street-er pointed out the utility of using SWIFT. Now if governemental officials up to that point were clueless to its utility what makes you think that terrorists were so much better informed? Do we have a suspicion that terrorists by and large have MBA's from Wharton in international banking?

Secondly, Given the track record that it did actually yield results from 2001 to present what makes you likewise think they had wised up to the fact?

Thirdly, given that many from the government still claimed its effectivity, why would you suppose NYT has better knowledge of its utility than folk from both sides of the aisle emploring NYT not to run the story?

Lastly, given all of this and the fact that regardless of its effectivity the information was classified why would the NYT suppose in arrogant fashion that it presumes what is and is not overly/redundantly classified?

[Ramo]

1. Dude, many the financiers of terrorists have huge amounts of oil money. There's probably an assload of MBA's hired by and likely some actually in the bin Laden family.
2. The name of the particular mechanism that the gov't uses to track financial transactions across the world isn't going to make a whit of difference as long as terrorists know this information is being tracked. Which, again, was given away multiple times by Bush.
3. Transactions through major financial institutions are still the easiest way to get money transfered. It's an issue of laziness on behalf of the terrorists, i.e. there's so much data that it's unlikely an individual transaction is going to get caught.
4. I don't make a habit of automatically presuming that gov't knows best, even when it counters commone sense. It seems like that's the new Republican philiosophy.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So I take it the fact that numerous governement officals from various branches of governement who called for NYT not to release the classified information are less in the know about the relative value and viability of this program than Keller. Good to know.

I trust Keller more than any Republican.

Can we make sure the next Democratic president (God forbid I see one in my lifetime) makes sure to enact a special executive order that imbues the editor in charge at the NYT with powers of declassifying documents, signal intelligence, troop movements, as certainly the NYT understands the ramifications far better than any governmental stooge.

Do you really not want to live that long? I really can't see the GOP holding on to the Presidency in 2008, barring some massive screwup by the Dems

Note the commentary that few governmental officals knew of such a means to track international transactions. It would seem clear that this wasn't a commonly known approach. Why would anyone infer then that terrorists would have better carnal knowledge of the inner workings of international monetary transactions if the US government did not. (Yes I realize this is an easy swipe at the competence of US governemental officials)

The terrorists don't need to know how it works to be suspicious of using major financial institutions to transfer large sums of money. Knowledge that that method is being watched should be enough to dissuade them from using it. Then again, AQ has spawned a bunch of wannabes like those losers in Miami that... well, aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

[Kuciwalker]

If it's so obvious that the terrorists would already know it, why is it a news story?

[Dinner]

The terrorist knew it but the general public did not. This was an attempt to educate the general public.

[Kuciwalker]

You think the general public doesn't already believe that the US can watch everything that ever happens with its super powerful spy satellites and computer hackers (as shown on TV)?

[DinoDoc]

Why don't we expose more sources and methods and give the public a better education? Anything you'd like enlighten us with from your Army days, Oerdin?