It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War Over "War Secrets": Why The NY Times Is Not Treasonous (Op/Ed)

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
But, did we go to court and try every Nazi killed in WWII? Or how about every Japanses soldier in a banzi attack?

That's very different, and I think most people realize why. In those cases, we're looking at declared war between nations where state-sponsored armies engaged state-sponsored armies.




The NYT is aiding the enemies of the state by providing intell...........

What "intel"? This information was already in the public domain. I'll repeat something I posted earlier this morning:



Yes... the game is on and we're being played.

However, the players forgot a few things...


Boston Globe

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

"There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. "The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."



Counterterrorism Blog

Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada's Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.

While monitoring SWIFT-handled transfers is a useful tool in identifying and tracking certain suspicious transactions, its importance should not be overstated. The information in SWIFT's hands is no better than the information which it is provided by the banks handling the transactions at both ends. And there is already an obligation on banks in the US and Europe to report all "suspicious transactions".





posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The Bush admin and its supporters blame the media for many of the problems that they created. It is easier to blame other people rather then face up to reality.

On the one hand Bush supporters claim that they are spreading democracy and in the next breath they say that the only opinion people should have is theres.
Anyone see what is wrong with this picture ?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
How spying on the financial activities of private citizens all around the world with the excused of tracking terrorist is legal.

Have you ever thought about that one? no?

How many terrorist are out there that are rich enough to be tracked internationally?

Perhaps some but no many.

No, . . . tracking all financial information from private citizens is the issue here . . . but for what reason.

If the government wants to know how terrorist get finance they should track Saudi Arabia and their business partner including the many here in the US link with government positions and big oil interest.


Okay, level with me, girl:

How did the Chechen militants managed to get money to procure weapons for several years? How did the Basque separatists managed to get money to procure materials and weapons for several years? How did the Red Army Faction managed to stay in business for several years? How did ELF (Earth Liberation Front) managed to get money to procure materials, even money for lawyers, to spread their campaigns and terror tactics for several years? There are several more terrorist or radical groups around the world who are able to get money easily to stay in "business", so to speak. Most of them aren't even funded by Saudi Arabia. Sometimes they used "fronts" as a way to gain money.

Get real, please. I'm sure the City of London might have something to do with it but I have no tangible evidence of the City's vast and hidden financial records.

The point is about tracking a private citizen's financial activities only if that private citizen has been TAGGED or NOTED for his/her role in some questionable or suspicious activities with certain people or organizations by the federal authorities IN THE PAST.

If you haven't donate a large amount of money to the Hezbollah in the past several years, marg? No? Then don't worry! The government is not out to get you if you haven't done anything wrong.

When I would give away $1 million to a really worthy cause I never heard of before, I would wanted to make sure that cause is legitimate and the money has been well spent for that cause alone and not being used for something that I do not support or even aware of and keep the government off my back.

Unfortunately there are always some shady people around the world finding ways to set up "fronts" or "fake causes" to generate or bilk money from sincere, philanthropic-minded people.

One last thing, marg: Suppose you have million dollars taken or stolen from your bank by a smart thief or thieves, would you wanted your state and federal authorities to help you track down the money through some financial transactions? I learned that most thieves generally spent the money they stole from people within days.

[edit on 6/28/2006 by pawnplayer]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Very true, but again I think it is ultimately going to end up being a non-issue for you as well.

This is a non-issue for me, in regards to timing and all this hoopla you guys got going on down there. Honestly, it just seems like more of the same thing that people have been yelling about for the past while. Maybe I've just gotten too used to hearing it. It just boggles my mind how much the US has changed. You never used to fight amongst yourselves this much.


It is an issue in the sense that it really bugs me that the US government can get away with accessing my information through the Patriot Act if the company that turns over the info is in the US. That's not new to me though, I found that out when my province outsourced its medical billing to a US firm several years ago.



They won't be selling very many newspapers if they continue to show nothing but hypocrisy, IMO.

I never fail to be surprised at the short memory which many people seem to suffer from. There are plenty of people out there who aren't going to remember what was written almost five years ago.



But, anyhow I just heard where the Belgium government has now washed their hands of anymore of this....which has me confused.

The US subsidiary handed it over in accordance with US laws. Any company doing business in the US is subject to US law.

I already know what my govt is going to end up saying. The laws that have been passed to protect Canadians personal information only appy to Canadian companies doing business in the US and government contracts with US companies. SWIFT is not a Canadian company and therefore, nothing wrong happened. Then they will tell us they are doing the utmost to protect the privacy of Canadians and never speak of it again.



[edit on 28-6-2006 by Duzey]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
pawnplayer

We already know thanks to leaks that the Bush administration is not only listening to supposedly terrorist but also regular citizens.

And I am supposed to sit down and wave my flag to yet another sign of the abuse of power.

Powers that are supposedly legal because the Bush administration say so.



The point is about tracking a private citizen's financial activities only if that private citizen has been TAGGED or NOTED for his/her role in some questionable or suspicious activities with certain people or organizations by the federal authorities IN THE PAST.


Just like the eavesdropping program I am to believe that. Right”

Do you really believe that? That is only the bad guys? How trusting are you of the dirty corrupt politicians that are making laws and holding our political system.

Do you really think that the big interest like Saudi Arabia that has been known to finance terrorist are going to be track down, eavesdropped and persecuted. Do you?

How silly of me, for even thinking that is not just for the bad guys.

Wake up and smell the realities of dirty, bad and corrupt political system that has gotten hold of our country.

You are missing the entire point of the secrecy that is not so secret and the sensationalism of something that doesn’t deserved.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Anyone with any smarts would know that transactions of money of a large sum are monitored. So, the Times did nothing wrong. If anyone really thinks that excess of 50,000 dollar or more of a transaction wouldn't be monitored, is a bit uneducated. I happen to know a banker, and they are instucted to report such "suspicious transactions", for one. Bush, and his big mouth is just a ploy to stamp out any form of dissent. These people are really stupid, and it is so obvious to understand. It's all about scaring the hell out of everyone, so as not to question the administration. Simple as that. If you wanna figure out what's going on, you most often need to keep it simple. The fact is, if Bush can get some air time, bashing and threatening federal prosecution, that is the best thing that can happen for the Pres. It scares any dissenters to the point of silence. If you ask me, it's probably done totally on purpose. I wouldn't doubt it if noone gets punished for this. It's probably just a damn commercial by the administration. And like one person said. "It's a good diversion from other more serious issues".



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
IT WASN'T SECRET!!!!

SWIFT AS THE PROGRAM IS KNOWN AS HAS A PUBLIC WEBSITE AND A MAGAZINE!!!!!!!!!

NYT went to the website and read the magazine produced by SWIFT, thats all. NO SECRET!

EDIT: ACTUAL WEBSITE!!!
www.swift.com...
AND THE MAGAZINE!!!!!!
www.swift.com...

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Johnny Ohm]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by Johnny Ohm



NYT went to the website and read the magazine produced by SWIFT, thats all. NO SECRET!

EDIT: ACTUAL WEBSITE!!!
www.swift.com...
AND THE MAGAZINE!!!!!!
www.swift.com...

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Johnny Ohm]


REPLY: As mentioned in your other post on this, the SWIFT website has absolutely NOTHING to do with the SWIFT program, and, no, the NTY's got it from a leak. In actuality, the NYT's was the one who said, in 2001, that the government should do something about tracking terrorist money; now they're complaining because we did it?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
1) The fact that they were reporting about it does not mean they were complaining about it.

2) As has been pointed out in this thread numerous times, it was no big secret, it was among other things, discussed in an executive order posted on the White House website.

The phony outrage over this is becoming almost absurd, you folks need to go back to LGF and get some new Rovian "talking points" to repeat ad nauseum, this one isn't working...



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
WOw, and just like the other one YOU DIDN'T READ THE ENTIRE SITE!!!!

Ignorance everywhere on here...

Also, BUSH, THE PRESIDENT, Talked about Using SWIFT in 2001!!!! It hasn't been a secret since 2001, wait, it was never a secret, they have a PUBLIC WEBSITE AND MAGAZINE!!!

Of course you say that SWIFT isn't the same SWIFT, just has the same name, does the same thing, and is the same thing, you just decide not to read it because it would expose the truth...

In Fact, since you are so harcore in your ignorance...
Cooperating in the global fight against abuse of the financial system for illegal activities
www.swift.com...
ALso, isn't Blatantly LYING against the rules on here? This is THE SWIFT WEBSITE yet in two different posts you say it isn't, a blatant lie!

[edit on 29-6-2006 by Johnny Ohm]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by thermopolis
But, did we go to court and try every Nazi killed in WWII? Or how about every Japanses soldier in a banzi attack?

That's very different, and I think most people realize why. In those cases, we're looking at declared war between nations where state-sponsored armies engaged state-sponsored armies.




The NYT is aiding the enemies of the state by providing intell...........

What "intel"? This information was already in the public domain. I'll repeat something I posted earlier this morning:



So it the current 'attacker" is smart enough not to have a central "authority" or state, that means the US must treat them as individual crimminals........thats just silliness to be kind.

The problem NTY's defenders have is trying to play it off as a "small" town rag......The impact is already being felt in law suites being filed in 33 countries.

This is a black and white, right and wrong issue. Not eternal gray..........

Kill enemies trying to kill "us". Try crimminals that "j-walk".............



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
There is nothing to defend as they did nothing wrong!!!

NYT REVEALED NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

SWIFT HAS A PUBLIC WEBISTE AND A MAGAZINE!!!!!!

GET OVER IT!!!!!!

In Fact, I am going to make a topic on just that now!



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
So it the current 'attacker" is smart enough not to have a central "authority" or state, that means the US must treat them as individual crimminals........thats just silliness to be kind.

I'm not advocating being kind at all. And yes, these people are either mass-murderers, or planning to be mass murderers. War is a declaration between nation-states, not states-and-individuals.



The problem NTY's defenders

If you read the piece that began this thread you'll understand I'm not defending them at all... in fact, you'll realize I think the Times is part of a much larger problem.


Is it possible at all to discuss the speculation brought up in the original post, or shall we always degrade into partisan bickering that can do little else but blame "the other side"?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Remember the Plame leak? If anything is treason, then this was. Stop using the T word, folks, it's easly applied to failed fascists, y'know ?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
War is a declaration between nation-states, not states-and-individuals.
"snip"

The problem NTY's defenders

If you read the piece that began this thread you'll understand I'm not defending them at all... in fact, you'll realize I think the Times is part of a much larger problem.

Is it possible at all to discuss the speculation brought up in the original post, or shall we always degrade into partisan bickering that can do little else but blame "the other side"?


Partisan bickering?
Woah oh mighty one, stop the train

Remember a place called tripoli? Barbary pirates, Teddy sent in the marines.......

The larger issue in all this media coverage is an arrogance centering around a "myth" of being above the law...........so called "journalist" are really two bit extremely partisan "hacks" trying to bring down a president. In reality they (the media) are aiding the enemy. This isn't a left/right issue or even a mythical "people right to know" issue. It is national security..........

If the "times" really cared about the people that read their rag, they would have called law enforcement instead of trying to play "gotcha" with the prezzzzzzz.

Personally, I think "media" is flooding the planet with "fluff" rather than reports true news.

On your original subject.......YES it is mind control for the "sheep"............



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
On your original subject.......YES it is mind control for the "sheep"............


I thought it was about mind control as soon as I read it, Thermopolis. And in a way i'm sure it is. I'm just wondering who the actual targets are. Besides, you have to admit that there does APPEAR to be more going on here than just typical propaganda. Can we just clear our heads and attempt to think objectively for one moment? Breathe in, breathe out...breathe in breathe out.

Okay, let's begin with questions...questions are good, no?

1. Why did the Republicans care so much regarding this news article being published? Remember, we've established that it was public knowledge so no threat to National Security.

2. Why did the Democrats even make an issue out of it? The issue should be with the Repubs making an issue of it (they had ample opportunity to make the Repubs look like fools, but instead they took the bait). In other words, the issue shouldn't be with the program in and of itself, but rather with the Repubs making an issue out of a non-issue.

3. Why would the Times backtrack on their previous story like this? Come on this is the good ol' U S of A. They know people will dig up their previous story and make them look like complete hypocrits and fools. There are people who live for that sort of stuff!

4. Why would this bother the rest of the world so much when they have knowledge of this program (probably use it for the same reasons) and it is in no way a threat to them unless they are connected to a terrorist org?

Tons of potential here for it to be something other than just a further attempt at brainwashing American citizens in the typical partisan way. Not saying it's not a possibility...just that there are other possibilities because this situation just really has me stumped.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
4. Why would this bother the rest of the world so much when they have knowledge of this program (probably use it for the same reasons) and it is in no way a threat to them unless they are connected to a terrorist org?

Tons of potential here for it to be something other than just a further attempt at brainwashing American citizens in the typical partisan way.

I'll only address the part that deals with the rest of the world.

We know about SWIFT and SWIFT monitors for and passes along information about suspicious activities to the countries involved. They can then investigate. That's what SWIFT is supposed to do.

The difference is it is no longer SWIFT monitoring the activities and notifying the proper authorities. It is the US demanding all of SWIFT's data handed over so they can sift thorugh it themselves. This infringes on my privacy as I am not an American citizen and the Patriot Act should not apply to me. And no, I'm not a terrorist.

The reality is that my government already shares this info with the US through FINTRAC. A few key points from FINTRAC are these:



54(b) FINTRAC may only collect information from public sources that it considers relevant to money laundering or terrorist financing.

54(b) and 66(2) To access law enforcement databases, FINTRAC must enter into agreements that state the nature of and limits with respect to the information that FINTRAC may collect from those databases.

54(d) and (e) Reports and information received or collected must be destroyed within a specified period.

The laws put into place by my government to protect my privacy have just been sidestepped.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   


Remember a place called tripoli? Barbary pirates, Teddy sent in the marines.......


Errr, if you're thinking Teddy Roosevelt, you're a little off.
By about 100 years, give or take a few...



This isn't a left/right issue or even a mythical "people right to know" issue. It is national security..........


Then you ought to be campaigning to get the President arrested as a "traitor", since as has been pointed out about a dozen times already in this thread, numerous people in his administration have discussed this program before, most notably the President himself, in an executive order that was posted on the White House website.

[edit on 6/29/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Great Angle on this piece S.O.


I also started a thread on this topic(it is now closed Agreed by myself and MOD, Dont Tread On Me.)
After reading your piece I am glad we did close it.

My grandfather once told me:
"there are no coincidences in politics"

And your perspective on this non-event gets right at the heart of what may be going on behind the scenes. After all; isnt that what political strategists do?

I also agree with your hypotheosis, as to the desired end results, of such a move.

Also, the NYT being complicit in the whole prearranged event is not a completely off the wall theory. The bigger the conspiracy the less people will believe it is a conspiracy.

Way to deny ignorance!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
[The difference is it is no longer SWIFT monitoring the activities and notifying the proper authorities. It is the US demanding all of SWIFT's data handed over so they can sift thorugh it themselves. This infringes on my privacy as I am not an American citizen and the Patriot Act should not apply to me. And no, I'm not a terrorist.


Duzey..i'm not wishing to debate you here on this which is why I didn't reply earlier. I don't know what is being reported to you in your country, but i'm not sure SWIFT and the operation of it is being reported to you accurately is all. It just doesn't work like you're suggesting. Ummm they just don't hand over the records for no good reason.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join