[SIZE="3"]
[CENTER]Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror [/CENTER] [/SIZE]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?th&emc=th
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: June 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials
Why don't our special forces just start jack-stepping now?
Also, what is to stop those doing this from practicing insider trading? No one would know and there would be no way to track it.
If you post a link don't post the entire fuckin article. Christ
Don't you think you could have been a bit more polite about that?
Why yes, yes I do. Thank you
There is nothing remotely mild to my dislike or off-hand to my comparison. The similarities are exact.
The similarities are exact.
Then they aren't similarities. ;-)
Look...simply claiming "it's true" doesn't exempt you from Godwin's Law. Everybody who violates Godwin's Law is willing to swear on a stack of ${book} that they're "just being accurate".
Besides, it's either "goose-stepping" or "jack-booted".
I call Godwin's Law.
How so? The Nazis weren't the only jack booted, goose stepping, totalitarian regime to abuse their citizenry.
I don't see a valid Godwin's without a specific reference to the Nazis.:confused:
I say let him go with a warning this time, and a two beer penalty (his cooler) for conjoining jackboot/goosestep with an expired poetic license.
How so? The Nazis weren't the only jack booted, goose stepping, totalitarian regime to abuse their citizenry.
I don't see a valid Godwin's without a specific reference to the Nazis.:confused:
Well, you wouldn't, since you agree with him...this is that "just being accurate" thing I was referring to. And he affirmed that that's what he meant, too.
Must be innocent because he didn't use the N-word, eh? How "nuanced".
Exactly where did I say I agreed with him? :eyebrow:
Exactly where did I say I agreed with him?
On every other post on the "Bush is Big Brother" meme. Are you claiming you don't agree with him, or just waving a red herring?
waving a red herring?
Interesting image.:D
However, stating that Bruce is giving someone a free pass just because he agrees with them is also a 'red herring'. You are assigning an unproven motive in an attempt to shift debate away from the merit of the original argument.
You are assigning an unproven motive in an attempt to shift debate away from the merit of the original argument.
Do you consider jackboots and goosestepping germane to "the original argument"? Yet calling Godwin's Law is not? How does that work?
Do you consider jackboots and goosestepping germane to "the original argument"? Yet calling Godwin's Law is not? How does that work?
I'm simply stating that you started moving the debate to Bruce's motives and away from the original argument. Instead of continuing to deconstruct the statement to show where Godwin's Law applied, you instead chose to attempt to assign Bruce a motive for his support of the statement. In other words, you blinked.;)
It's ok, UG does it with me all of the time.
I'm simply stating that you started moving the debate to Bruce's motives and away from the original argument. Instead of continuing to deconstruct the statement to show where Godwin's Law applied, you instead chose to attempt to assign Bruce a motive for his support of the statement.
There's no further "deconstruction" available; the elements are already atomic. Bruce claims Godwin's doesn't apply in this case unless someone actually uses the N-word; that's contradicted by the formal definition, by which this thread converged to Godwin's Law in *one* posting. He countered with further pettifogging about "where did I actually support the argument"; I invited him to take a stand either for or against it. If "Bruce's motives" aren't germane to "the original argument" when the motive in question is in fact
support of the argument, then no further discussion is possible.
There's no further "deconstruction" available; the elements are already atomic. Bruce claims Godwin's doesn't apply in this case unless someone actually uses the N-word; that's contradicted by the formal definition, by which this thread converged to Godwin's Law in *one* posting. He countered with further pettifogging about "where did I actually support the argument"; I invited him to take a stand either for or against it. If "Bruce's motives" aren't germane to "the original argument" when the motive in question is in fact support of the argument, then no further discussion is possible.
But you shifted the argument to Bruce's motives instead of ending the discussion.
If
Godwin's Law, were in fact a law, you would be arguing that there was a 'de facto' violation instead of a 'de jure' violation, while Bruce as the defense would argue that there cannot be a 'de facto' violation, since the law expressly refers to comparisons to Nazis and not simply authoritarian behavior.
BTW, where do you stand on the NRA's constant use of the word 'jackbooted'?:D
But you shifted the argument to Bruce's motives instead of ending the discussion.
If Godwin's Law, were in fact a law, you would be arguing that there was a 'de facto' violation instead of a 'de jure' violation, while Bruce as the defense would argue that there cannot be a 'de facto' violation, since the law expressly refers to comparisons to Nazis and not simply authoritarian behavior.
BTW, where do you stand on the NRA's constant use of the word 'jackbooted'?:D
rkzenrage (the original speaker) has confirmed that his intention was to a comparison to Nazis.
De jure.
As for your *new* red herring, the NRA: I assume you are referring to their objections to BATF raids, conduced by agents often referred to in the RKBA community as "JBTs" (an acronym for "jack-booted thugs").
I am not an NRA member. My feeling about their use of that term is that it does almost as much damage to their arguments as "Bush is a Nazi" does to the Bush-bashers. The very small difference being that it's not usually the first word out of their mouths on the subject, which is not the case in "the original argument".
Speaking of which, what's *your* stand on the original argument? You endorse the comparison?
On every other post on the "Bush is Big Brother" meme. Are you claiming you don't agree with him, or just waving a red herring?
Oh, so you have pigeonholed me with your "fer us or agin us", attitude. Tsk, tsk. :eyebrow:
I didn't state a position, merely noted you were not. Just dismissing the article/story because he compared their actions to the heavy handed totalitarian regimes, is not taking a position.
Don't you think this sort of thing goes on in Communist countries, or the African/South American military dictatorships, many of which have been known to do some jack booted goose stepping.
My position? Yes, I think it's typical of the draconian crap that's being done in the name of the War on Terror or Homeland Security. But, in this case everyone was given fair warning. Bush made it quite clear, right after 9-11, they would be scrutinizing money movement, not only here but around the globe.
I have no issue with comparing the current administration with Nazis or fascists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/washington/24swift.html?th&emc=th
However, it does not fall under Godwin's law, I do not use the term lightly.
I didn't state a position, merely noted you were not. Just dismissing the article/story because he compared their actions to the heavy handed totalitarian regimes, is not taking a position.
I was dismisisng the
posting for the Godwin's Law bustage, just as I and a lot of other people dismiss a lot of the liberal echo chamber for the same reason.
The
article I don't dismiss, as such, other than to note that the government's intention to scrutinize international cash movement for terrorist connections had been announced in general terms years ago (remeber all the stories about how it was impossible because all the money was moving though hawalas and Muslim "charities"?) and I hadn't assumed that intention had gone away, anymore than I assumed the
threat has gone away just because there have been few successful attacks lately.
The NYT gets the usual liberal brownie points for doing their Pulitzer-Prize best to disable an intelligence effort (and then will slam Bush for "intelligence failures" on the next page).
I'm expecting a drumbeat of this sort of thing--breathless accounts of how the Bush administration is Big-Brothering It's Way to The Police State (and of course is planning to cancel the '08 elections)--right up to November to try to get as many Dems into Congress as possible, followed by allegations of fraud everywhere they don't win.
I'm expecting a drumbeat of this sort of thing--breathless accounts of how the Bush administration is Big-Brothering It's Way to The Police State
It'd be harder to beat the drum if Bush didn't keep handing out the drumsticks.
It'd be harder to beat the drum if Bush didn't keep handing out the drumsticks.
Drumsticks nothing! Like Hoover, W. wants us to beleive in a chicken in every pot, or should I say, a terrorist behind every plot? The probem is that BushCo wants us all to become Catholic and eat red herring fish sticks every Friday while ignoring the birds coming home to roost. I'll stay agnostic, thanks for asking. :eyebrow:
It'd be harder to beat the drum if Bush didn't keep handing out the drumsticks.
Of course. Everything is Bush's fault.
Just the things he does.
And the things done by those he appoints.
Lookie' here... Dubya' is whining about being busted for not using warrants. What a shame people actually know about their East German tactics and treating Americans like animals... poor Dubya and Company. Let us pray for them, boo-hoo!
Bush assails 'disgraceful' terrorism banking revelations
Jun 26 1:20 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
US President George W. Bush attacked as "disgraceful" the public disclosure of a secret government program to monitor international finances and track down terrorist funding.
"Congress was briefed, and what we did was fully authorized under the law. and the disclosure of this program is disgraceful," Bush told reporters in the wake of last week's revelations of the roughly five-year-old program.
"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. And for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America," he said.
Several US newspapers reported Friday that the US government had secretly monitored thousands of international banking transactions since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington in order to track suspected terrorists.
The searches involved millions of records held by the Belgium-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), an international cooperative that serves as a clearing house for the transactions.
The cooperative serves 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries. Its database, officials say, has provided valuable information about ties between suspected terrorists and groups financing them, and directly led to the capture of Al-Qaeda operative Riduan Isamuddin, believed to have masterminded the 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia.
Officials say it has also helped identify a US man convicted of helping an Al-Qaeda member launder 200,000 dollars through a Pakistani bank.
"What we were doing was the right thing. Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so," said Bush. "If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing.
"And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror," said Bush.
Meanwhile, a high-ranking US Republican demanded a criminal prosecution of The New York Times following the newspaper's disclosure of a secret government operation to monitor international finances.
Representative Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called the actions of the leading US newspaper "disgraceful" and said he believed it had violated counterespionage laws.
"The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people," the lawmaker said as he appeared on the "Fox News Sunday" television program.
"And I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of the New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher," he stressed.
Officials say it has also helped identify a US man convicted of helping an Al-Qaeda member launder 200,000 dollars through a Pakistani bank.
King said The Times had "compromised America's antiterrorist policies" for the second time in less that a year.
Last December, the paper published a report saying that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to listen in to thousands of telephone calls made by Americans without a warrant issued by a special counterintelligence court.
That disclosure had also prompted charges that the paper was undermining US national security.
"The time has come for the American people to realize and The New York Times to realize we're at war and they can't be just on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release," King argued.
The appeal, however, was met with skepticism by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who said lawmakers needed to learn more about the operation before any action is taken.
"I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct," he argued.
Rights groups have criticized the Bush administration for the sweeping surveillance of telephone calls and financial transactions, accusing it of trampling on civil liberties and legal safeguards.
The New York Times has confirmed that the White House asked it not to run the story but defended its coverage of both the banking and the NSA controversies.
"We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them," executive editor Bill Keller said in a letter to readers Sunday.
Lookie' here... Dubya' is whining about being busted for not using warrants.
He didn't need warrants.
And he's out there trying to take a moderate position ahead of the chairman of the House Homeland Security Comittee who's calling for indictments and prosecution.
I think King's got a stronger case for an indictment of the NYT than you do for "the Feds need a warrant to monitor international wire transfers while SWIFT staff and an independant auditor watch".
Time will tell.
He doesn't need em' for tappin' wires or snooping at Goggle or your library either now because of the new anti-American-anti-Patriot acts either, right?
What is really sick is that anyone who knows how many gave their lives to maintain this nation and what is stands for could be ok with any of the filth that now spews from Dubya & Co.
And he's out there trying to take a moderate position ahead of the chairman of the House Homeland Security Comittee who's calling for indictments and prosecution.
Why bother getting one's hand dirty when theres always a dog on a leash willing to do it for you.
GW is still the leader of the party. It's really not hard to set up a good cop, bad cop and let the other guy look like the hardass. Mind you, GW probably couldn't do it, but Rove sure could.
So if you think it's "dirty work" I guess you won't want a special prosecutor a la Fitzgerald appointed *this* time...
Sad to see present-day "journalists" in the MSM going through the cargo-cult motions trying to re-create Woodward/Bernstein/Ellsberg. But this isn't Vietnam and Bush isn't Nixon, no matter how many are smitten with nostalgia envy. "Always perfectly prepared to fight the previous war..."
True, Nixon is a Cub scout by comparison.
It looks like
Canada will now be a center of money transfer scrutiny.
Toronto will become the permanent home to a global organization aiming to combat international money laundering and terrorist financing, the federal government announced Friday.
The stated purpose is;
"This government has announced significant new measures to help increase Canada’s capability to detect and respond to a potential terrorist attack," said Day. "Whether it is strengthening our own laws, enhancing transportation and border security, working with international allies or combating the crime of terrorist financing, we are taking action to protect Canadians."
Maybe the Canadian government may not want any surprises from US investigations.
The finance minister, who stressed that Canadians who conduct overseas banking are subject to foreign government scrutiny, said the issue involves balancing the needs of privacy and law enforcement.
Canada's privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, recently called an inquiry into whether Canadian transactions were probed as part of a U.S. financial monitoring program.
That link is members only.:(
And just for the record, the NYT itself is now unconvinced that it should have done what it did.
It basically says it is still a close call and the only reason not to publish is because the program might be legal and there was no proof of abuse.
Of course this begs the question of how they would find out about abuse of a program they were lucky to even discover existed.
Sad to see present-day "journalists" in the MSM going through the cargo-cult motions trying to re-create Woodward/Bernstein/Ellsberg.
This is actually very clever writing even if we totally disagree on Bush. :)
did someone say they needed one of these?
