Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it legal?

The TV news is reporting that this was LEGAL watching and tracking of
international terror funding. It also says that both Republican and
Democratic representatives were informed that it was happening and
THEY asked the NYT not to go with the story because it was legal
and because it would ruin terrorist tracking that was working.

One of the names mentioned was the radical lefty Murtha.

I think more research must be done before we can determine that this is 'legal'.

Those representatives that said it was legal are rather well versed in
what is and isn't legal. They all agreed it was. However, if you know
any constitutional lawyers that disagree, feel free to post that info here.
Otherwise - us lay people will have to let those who know the law tell
us if it is legal or not. Considering both dems and republicans who
were briefed on the situation said it was legal ... it probably was.

In this article the NYT did not in any shape or form find anything wrong with the practices of tracking international financial records. There is nothing illegal going on and this practice has been overwhelmingly been approved by congress (since the '70;'s I believe)evenby some of the more liberal members.

What has upset the current administration is that a very bright white light has been placed on a tactic that over time a lot of these terrorist and criminal organizations/individuals will become less careful about. They will push the envelope to move as much money as they possible can without being detected. When the NYT flipped on the light, the cockroaches will scatter and who knows how much information will have to be trashed because of this.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the NYT reporting to the public information that is in our best interests. Since there was nothing wrong being done here, where is it in our interests to have this info brought to light? This was no more than partisan skullduggery. It served me absolutuely no purpose to know this information. I could care less if the admin is mining criminal and terroist financial records. They can even mine mine is so desired. Maybe they will feel sorry for my financial state and shut down the IRS....


Since when is it the NYT's (or any news organizations) job to determine what should and shouldnt be secret? It is our governments job, whether Republican or Democrat (cant stand either), to use whatever tools alllowable within the law to protect our sovereignty and borders. The NYT went out of their way to circumvent one of those tools or at minimum, potentially reopened up the eyes of the bad guys that may have become sloppy with their money and how they move it. That makes it harder for the US to follow the tracks of these idiots...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Lost_Mind]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Lost_Mind]

But is it legal in the 200 countries where they're operating?

See my addition to my previous post.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Journal also said the existence of the program may be
controversial in Europe and other parts of the world ...

Controversial? So what? That doesn't make it illegal.
Europe and other parts of the world? So what? I'm sure
many parts of the world would love to see America fail.
If they don't like something that has been SUCCESSFUL in helping
us fight terrorism then I'm not surprised - and I still don't care
if they like it or not.

Forgive me that I don't trust them to be honest and above board.

I don't trust politicians either. It's natural not to trust them.
And it's built into the system that dems and republicans shouldn't
trust each other - we keep an eye on each other and keep our
elected leaders honest that way.

However, considering that both dems and republicans agreed
that it's legal ... it most likely is

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
There is nothing illegal going on and this practice has been overwhelmingly
been approved by congress ... Since there was nothing wrong being done
here, where is it in our interests to have this info brought to light?

PERFECTLY said Lost_Mind. I wish I had more WATs votes, I'd award
them to you. Exactly ... this is legal; it's been going on for a long
time; it's been approved by both republican and democrat representatives;
and it's WORKING. There was no reason to report it - except that the NYT
wanted to sensationalize and twist things to be anti-Bush. Gee .. wonder
who they'll be endorsing in 2008 ... Hillary for sure.

Maybe they will .....shut down the IRS....

AHHHH! That would definately be a wonderful day. I think if that
happened it would become a national holiday. What a frigg'n waste
of money our tax system is! It absolutely needs an overhaul!

Rather than go through quote wormholes I will address those extra points.
The satanic cult would be freedom of religion.
The Al Gore example would be using the Second Amendment to enforce Freedom to Pettition.

Speech and Press are both part of the first amendment (as is religion, asmembly and petition). All are equal freedoms, all are equally enforced and most importantly all are equally protected.

One should not exclude the rest of the amendment to only embrace the part that they like. The public opinion of the NRA is that they only want Americans to keep firearms. The NRA does acknowledge the part where the people have the right to forcefully overthrow the US government if needed, but they remain rather quiet on the subject.

The issue here should not be the first but rather the fourth amendment:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Personally I believe that all sessions of Congress, the Supreme Court and the daily meetings of the President should be forced to comtemplate the following words for a minimum of 30 minutes. But that is just my opinion.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Not always.

Sometimes it is in the 'interest of the people' for the press to shut the hell up.

This system has been in place and has been successful.
It is perfectly legal to track terrorist money in this fashion.
The TV news reports that representatives from both sides
were briefed and they agreed that it was legal.
The TV news reports that those representatives tried to
get the NYT NOT to run the story for two months - for
security reasons.

The NYT did America a major disservice. It aided the enemy.
It put our operatives in jeapordy. It sensationalized something
that is LEGAL and is working for our security.

If this had been illegal - then it would be a different story.
This is a story that didn't need to be told.
The NYT should be ashamed of itself.


[edit on 6/27/2006 by FlyersFan]

Hold on a second. Are you (and the monkey in the White House) going to try and convince ANYONE that terrorists are NOT aware that the government is tracking them and that this tracking includes their fiscal resouces? The government tracks every banking transaction you and I make, so its not going to be news to ANYONE that the government is tracking the accounts of those suspected as being terrorists.

The government wants us to believe that the terrorists were intelligent enough to pentrate the United States undetected, circumvent the greatest air defense system in the world, crash passenger planes into key targets on the east coast, but they aren't smart enough to figure their actions and finances are being monitored?

This wasn't news. Anyone who is offended by this release of information is an idiot or is just toeing party lines (same thing I guess). Where was your indignation when it was exposed that the government was illegally spying on its citizens? Where was your indignation when the Patriot Act was exposed as the power grab it is? Where was your indignation when the President attached signing statements to all the laws that were passed, giving him powers beyond any other President? This false indignation is joke and is just more right wing arm waving to draw attention away from the fact that your civil liberties are about to be steam rolled again.

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
but they aren't smart enough to figure their actions and finances
are being monitored?

They weren't bright enough to know that their cell phones were
being monitored.

.... is an idiot

Back atchya'.

or is just toeing party lines

You mean 'towing' .. right?
(who is the idiot?? )

Originally posted by Ahabstar
The satanic cult would be freedom of religion.

You said they killed someone! Freedom of religion does not cover murder because it's part of your religion! Jesus! Perhaps if the 'sacrifice' was a willing participant and it was registered and acknowledged as such, you might have an argument, but sacrificing someone is not a freedom of religion issue.

The Al Gore example would be using the Second Amendment to enforce Freedom to Pettition.

You said he shot someone! The right to keep and bear arms does not give or imply the right to shoot anyone!

Your arguments are absurd!

FlyersFan The article I quoted on the bottom of the previous page said 200 countries. Maybe they rounded up. That just means that this extends into every country in the world.

And I'm not claiming that this is illegal. I'm ASKING are we sure that it is legal? Because our government says so? Does the rest of the world say so?

If this president is using the IEEPA, and it's legal, then it's a known process and is no secret. Then what is everyone in a huff about? If it's on Wikipedia, then the terrorists have access to it.

No one has answered this aspect of the issue.

The terrorists know their finantial transactions are being tracked. That's been happening all along. What's the big secret?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
but they aren't smart enough to figure their actions and finances
are being monitored?

Yeah, cellphones have caught so many al Qaeda operatives too. al Qaeda hasn't used cellphones for years because of the fact they know they are being listened in on, and can be used to locate them. Come on, even Faux News knows this.

You mean 'towing' .. right?
(who is the idiot?? )

QWERTY... fat fingers.

Doesn't change the context of the post in any way. You're reaching with your faux indignation. Where was it when real issues were facing real people?

We all know that the U.S. government and Israel have been trying to cut off all funding
that might support the new Palestinian government.

Tracking international banking transactions would definitely be used to follow the flow
of any money meant for relief efforts including money from Islamic charities.

I can't help but wonder if part of this plan was meant to deliberately undermine
the survival of the Hamas lead government.

I think everyone is in a huff about it because the NYT went out of their way to shine such a bright light on it when it was absolutely unnecessary to do so.

Yes, the terrorists may be aware of the US watching transactions, in a general sense, but to go out of your way to remind all of those that hadn't been paying attn. or had become lazy/sloppy or less discreet in thier actions is unfathomable.

Even if is was illegal, why for Petes sake, would some one want to destroy the effectiveness of the tactic? Why would one want to compromise the security and integrity of the hard work of those collecting the info and putting the dots together to protect us? There is no rhyme or reason to doing this. This comes across as nothing more than agenda driven crap.

I have to wonder what all the drama is about too. Naturally, NYT put there own political spin on the article, but this is legal and in no way a violation of civil rights.

Why would anyone want to undermine the protections of our Constitution and The Bill of Rights?

Why would anyone in public office fear the results of an audit of their finances?

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Even if is was illegal, why for Petes sake, would some one want to destroy the effectiveness of the tactic?

Erm.... Because we don't want our elected government to break the laws of our beloved country, maybe? Is that idea or feeling novel to you?

How about we get rid of first amendment as well? That could create some really effective tactics in combatting crime. Heck, how about we all are relocated to some giant penitentiary type facilities. It would be so much safer. Shower once a week should be enough, and an hour of fresh air a day will do. Lead the way, Lost_Mind, and change your moniker to Lost_Freedom.