NYT`s Keller wrong. Some never knew about SWIFT
| Permalink | |
Keller made a point that everyone, including terrorists, have long been on notice that we are doing everything we can to track their finances.
Not quite everyone. According to
Reuters,
26 Jun 2006,
Belgium probes legality of US bank record searchesBelgium's government said on Monday it was investigating the legality of counter-terrorism searches by U.S. officials of thousands of private records held by Brussels-based international bank cooperative SWIFT.
U.S. media reported last week that the U.S. Treasury Department had been tapping into records of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications since Sept. 11, 2001 for evidence of potential activity by terrorist groups.
Belgian Justice Minister Laurette Onkelinx learned of the searches from the media and asked Belgium's national security services and counter-fraud office to produce reports into the matter before the end of the week, a ministry spokeswoman said.
"She wants to know if these actions taken by the U.S. and SWIFT are okay under Belgian law," Annaik De Voghel said, adding security officials would discuss the issue later this week.
Interesting. The very organization in Europe who should have known about the monitoring of international transfers had no clue that this was going on. So much for the excuse that "everyone already knew".
Well, if everyone didn't know before, they certainly know now. How did these idiots get to be in charge of the most powerful papers in America?
A favorite excuse now by the left is to quote from Media Matters - a declaration of war,
In a September 24, 2001, speech, Bush announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." He added, "It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement, and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions."
They use this announcement from President Bush to show that the terrorists were already alerted to our government's tracing of money, so the NY Times did nothing different. A disingenuous liberal argument. All bank robbers know that banks have alarm systems. So if a bank puts up a sign that says we have alarms it is not telling the robbers where those alarms are. It would be disingenuous for any newspaper to then print the exact location of the panic buttons for the robbers and then proclaim innocence of any wrongdoing by declaring, "Hey, all bank robbers know you have alarms."
President Bush saying he was going to follow the money was so nebulous as to be non-threatening to would be money-launderers. The SWIFT disclosure was akin to pointing to the location of the panic buttons. Do not pass go; do not collect $200.00.
Related Blog:
villainous company,
Bill Keller: The Unitary EditorThe unfolding train wreck at the New York Times continues. Executive Editor Bill Keller has demonstrated a truly impressive mastery of the flexible urban viewpoint for which the Times is justly renowned. He argues, at various times, that we should not allow governments to keep secrets, that the decision was "agonizing", that our friends in the international community (folks like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - if only the Times had gotten a tip on that impending airstrike!) - can only benefit when we allow greater transparency in our secret anti-terror programs.
But nowhere in all this talk of openness and transparency did Mr. Keller find time to mention that the publication of classified information is against the law. And make no mistake: revealing our national secrets is illegal.
Blogs linked here: customer servant, conservative cat, , liberal commonsense,republispin, , the dumb ox, the colbert report, bloggin outloud, free constitution, the business of america is business, the pirate's cove
Find other bloggers discussing these subjects: belgian law, belgium, brussels based, certain, counter terrorism, fraud office, images, interbank, justice minister, laurette onkelinx, media, ministry spokesman, national security, new york times, photo, private records, security officials, swift, terrorist groups, treasury department
Comments from Old Comment System
- Keller and the NYT did grievous harm to all entities fighting terrorism. Dispite Belgium's protestations, they were well aware of the US/SWIFT activities and will continue cooperating because it's in their own best interests. They and perhaps other countries must make a show of shock, SHOCK, that there is spying going on. I will contest the position of villainous company "that the publication of classified information is against the law. And make no mistake: revealing our national secrets is illegal." It is, in fact, not against the law to publish state secrets. Unless, the publishing entity is knowingly and willfully involved in obtaining the data, they are free, under the 1st Amendment, to print the information. It may be unfortunate, but that's the rule. We do have to live with the fact that we must trust people who are inherently untrustworthy. After a week of blowing wind, take note that essentially the matter has been dropped by the government. The Justice Dept knows that no charges can be successfully prosecuted. The J.D. will be, however, making life difficult for editors and reporters for the forseeable future. The press cannot be forced to give-up sources, but contempt charges and jail time till they talk is an insentive for all but the most calloused reporter. In many ways, this was very much like the Valerie Plame CIA outing case. Anybody who cared to know Plame was a former spook could or did know. Val certainly made no secret of the fact. Her outing was past the expiation date, but that didn't matter to the Liberals. She was a super-secret spy and by golly the Republican Admin was going to pay the price for breaking a law that didn't apply. Now, it's turn-about is fair play time. The information was public, no law was broken, no secret government program was revealed as SWIFT is a private enterprise opertaion, but by golly, some Liberal is going to pay for breaking a non-existant law and revealing the existence of a public banking entity. All the while, the government employees who are leaking real secrets are getting off scotfree because everyone is too busy blaming the other guy for stuff that didn't happen or didn't matter. And no one has yet decided if there's a difference between a leaker and a whistleblower. That's another reason for no court action - nobody wants the difference decided because it's too damned convenient and beneficial to leak secrets through a whistleblower.
- Linked to this post..The press cannot be forced to give-up sources, but contempt charges and jail time till they talk is an insentive for all but the most calloused reporter.........good read!
Comment by: Indigo Red ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://plancksconstant.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on July 7, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment by: Angel on July 7, 2006 05:50 PM
Translate to Deutsch Nederlands Français Italiano Português Español 中國傳戙 Русско Ελληνικά 日本語 한국어 ترجم إلى عربي अनुवाद करना Gizoogle
You may republish any content from Planck's Constant and use it for any purpose
without needing my permission as long as you link back to the original article.
Read my License.
Social bookmark this Post
RSS -Subscribe
