more important than winning a war?
I'm sure you've all seen the story...
The NYT justifies thier actions by claiming it is a matter of public interest.
I'm sure that on Jun 5th 1944, they would have also considered the significance of June 6th, A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST!!!
Secret U.S. Program Tracks Global Bank Transfers
The Treasury Dept. program, begun after the Sept. 11 attacks, attempts to monitor terrorist financing but raises privacy concerns.
By Josh Meyer and Greg Miller, Times Staff Writers
12:06 PM PDT, June 23, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government, without the knowledge of many banks and their customers, has engaged for years in a secret effort to track terrorist financing by accessing a vast database of confidential information on transfers of money between banks worldwide.
president?
I think it could depend on the president: does he sound like a drunk? You know, can't form a coherent sentence, and you don't know if he's stupid or just lying?
Does he send our army off on wild goose chases when we need them to hunt down terrorists?
Oh, jeez, I'm sorry to be talking about a constitution - that stuff is way over your head. That your man swore to defend it doesn't matter, because of course he's a Republican, and thick as a fucking brick.
You really don't understand the issues, do you? You really don't see a problem with giving up democracy as long as it's your moron in office.
into the green zone and bush haters would say it's bush's fault.
face it, the name of the game is tear down bush AT ALL COSTS
American bank records instead of using the same money to finance patrols or counterbattery to prevent these problems?
Because he's shilling for people who are not concerned about Iraq, they're concerned about securing their position as the dominant parasites in American life. That's why. Sure, you could say he's just an idiot, but I don't think it's that simple.
But you knew all that.
So why is he spending tons of $$ fishing through American bank records instead of using the same money to finance patrols or counterbattery to prevent these problems?
With your vast experience in international banking, I'm sure you have a firm grasp on these issues and are'nt just TALKING OUT YOUR RECTUM.
so go ahead, explain......
into the green zone".
So why is Bush spending money fishing thru bank records, instead of acting on that threat?
If Osama is holed up in Afghanistan, why send most of the Army to Iraq?
Is he stupid? Or does he have an ulterior motive?
"He" is not just Bush. Here, "he" is the administration, ie, the political appointees that run the show. Politically, they know what they're doing. Technically, they don't care so much.
This is fishing. Sometimes you fish because you have no better ideas. We're engaged on 2 fronts, and these dumb fuckers have no better ideas.
If they are still organized enough to be using conventional banking, Bush's campaign has been a total failure. If they aren't using conventional banking, this is a waste of resources.
Given Bush's reliability in the past, what's your guess?
Who's talking out his ass, small one?
The worst part about this is that they are trying to stir up a controversy that does not exist. This is completly legal and Congress was kept in the loop. The Democrats are not opposing this. The NY Times is the opposition to this. And they always know best.
Their excuse that the terrorists already knew about this is bullshit! How the fuck does the NY Times know what the terrorists know? The terrorist do know about it now. Another bullett in the gun gone.
The NY Times threw a hissy fit about superspy Valerie Plame's name being leaked. This might be a little worse.
the President should do whatever he feels like. I sure would if I was President. You know, fuck every good looking babe in the country, at least twice. You can have the skanks and sloppy seconds.
See, I'm a natural born Republican. Most of us are. But then, some of us grow up.
Again, Bush had permission to do this from the courts and the Democrats were kept informed. I don't hear them opposing this. If you don't see the importance of this then you should really take a step back and give some thought before posting. Your knee is jerking a bit too much lately.
These terrorists need money. Somebody sends it to them. This obviously helps us identify either/or the financial providers or the sleeper cells. Well, at least it used to.
and read the 4th amendment in the meantime.
You have such a bitter bitter view of things.
You need to stop eating your own bullshit long enough to see that your grandiose, self important views are sooo shaded by the “I served and you didn’t so STFU attitude”, that you can't see any reality.
What did your military career teach you about international banking forensics?
What do you know about Constitutional authority applied to forensics involving foreign countries?
Nothing you have said has a shred of reality or truth attached.
I guess you should stick to your “I served and you didn’t so STFU attitude”, it seems to be all you know or a qualified for.
Give him a fish and he'll be Tom Berringer saying,
"WE need all the swinging dicks we can get down here"
apart from generalized mudslinging - you could try to make it.
You have such a dumbass, uninformed view of things that you're reduced to lying about people's good faith answers that they don't owe you. See if anybody expects a good faith response from you.
Going thru Americans' records is a constitutional issue, even if it were done at Gitmo.
So answer the question - you think Osama has an ATM in his cave? Or is he loose in NY, due to your hero's stellar performance in office.
Or snark away if you have no answers.
BTW, I nearly forgot: sign up or shut up. That sure seems to piss you fellows off. I guess it gets under your skin, don't it?
Do you even know why you are opposing this? What is the constitutional issue? Do you have any idea? Does it make you feel smart to say "constitutional"? Do you really think this has to do with ATMs?
Please! I beg you! Think just a little bit before you post. I can literally sense the drool on your keyboard as you rant.
is absolutely every bit as important as D-day!
Besides, it's not about the public interest. Anybody who pisses off a Republican is a traitor anyway. Just ask Ann COulter.
So on the one hand, Bush has reduced terrorists to a few cavemen; but on the other hand, he'll spend tons of money fishing through bank records, just in case the cavemen have ATMs in their caves.
We're at war!!! That justifies locking all Democrats into concentration camps.
For an supposed ex marine with such profound understanding of the role of intelligence in warfare, I am certain that you find it perfectly acceptable to let Al Qaeda (aka the bad guys in the right wing lexicon of the war on terror) know that we are monitoring their bank transfers and also their calls to agents inside the US. To use your logic, during WWII the Republicans should have let the world know that Enigma and Ultra had been broken and that we knew what the enemy was going to do before they did it. Brilliant. Glad to see you have a new found respect for the Constitution, of course the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Ammendments need to be ignored don't they.
As for your assertion that all Democrats are considered traitors, that is a little extreme.
However, now that you bring it up,
Article III of the Constitution defines as Treason, defined, proof required, punishment for. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Now that you mention it, maybe several Democrats should be tried, convicted, and shot!
Your argument is derailed from reality. Terrorism is a criminal act and a strategy. You can't declare war on it anymore than you can declare war on the Blitzkreig. We didn't declare war on anything after Timothy McVeigh committed the Oklahoma City bombing. Our minds were clear about it then. We knew it was a crime, not an act of war.
The "war" on terrorism is a metaphorical one. A "moral equivalent of war" type thing, or something. Like the War on Drugs, and the War on Poverty.
So, how does wide authority to look through our bank records and listen to our phone calls translate into winning Iraq and Afghanistan?
BTW, not even those two are declared wars, and we've already won those. It's our political objectives that haven't been achieved, not our military ones.
I'll add: we won the Cold War against a very powerful Soviet Union without abridging our freedoms, without this overt survielance of our phone calls, or our bank records. We weren't worried about losing a city then, we were worried about losing every city.
Listen to what you're saying and look at what you're writing. It's just insanity. Pulitzer? Not the point! US citizens should go to the mat for the NY Times in this instance. No matter what the paper has done before, they've now done us a service.
always thinking with your head instead of feeling with your colonics.
"I'll add: we won the Cold War against a very powerful Soviet Union without abridging our freedoms, without this overt survielance of our phone calls, or our bank records. "
Well not quite...
-- Modified on 6/27/2006 6:09:23 PM
Yes, I admit he did it. But he didn't have the power of the entire executive branch with him. Given the moles that got away, you have to question how relevant it was.
No, he didn't grab the power to run through everybodies bank records, phone calls. If anything, even he was selective. You might not agree with his selections, but he would have never conceived of doing what the Bush Administration is.
But it is not because of Bush. Right? That is your logic? We can't arrest them, we can't monitor them, and we can't track them. Did you get your ideas from the Janine Garofolo Guide to Fighting Terrorism??
To answer your INSANE question:
When people are making a collect call to a cave in Afghanistan or receiving money from someone named Osama they just might have ties to terrorism. We just might want to pay them a little visit.
But there is no real threat, is there? It's all a big conspiracy. I've noticed you often use the word "strategy" in your posts. You have no strategy. You've already stated that there is no one you would vote for. You support no ideas, no political parties, and offer no solutions. You just oppose things.
PS- Don't bring up the Cold War. I'm sure you OPPOSED Reagan during that as well. How many times do you have to be wrong in one lifetime?
-- Modified on 6/27/2006 11:38:46 AM
-- Modified on 6/27/2006 11:39:17 AM
you are saying that you oppose all eavesdropping and monitoring of calls without a warrant unless Osama is on the line. I can live with that. That also explains why we have not been attacked since 9/11--Osama has been busy making over 10,000,000 phone calls.
You are a very smart man.
The government is violating my rights now!! I don't care if it's only being used against "those people." I don't care if it's Jesus Harvey Christ himself POTUS with those 12 guys as his cabinet the Virgin Mary as his Secretary of State, God the Father as his power behind the thrown and the Whole Army of Angels fighting the Legions of Satan himself, while Krishna and Brahmin bless the whole thing. The government can't make general sweeps of bank records or of phone calls. I will not assent to any of that shit!!!
Where is your outrage against "Big Government" now? Remember? Small enough to fit in a bathtub and all that? I guess it just sounded good. Do you really think that if you give the government this kind of power that it's going to be run by good guys getting bad guys? That's the marketing, and it's bullshit. It's just the kind of government the fucking worst people would gravitate to, and it's just the kind of government that needs those people. All because too many people are thrilled that we're catching bad people of color.
The only right you appear to care about is the 2nd Amendment right to play with your Colt .45, which purportedly defends you against a government turning despotic. So, that Colt .45 is supposed to defend you against a government armed with mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, WMD's, tanks, etc? Get fucking real about the rights that are important now! Your giving them away, selling yourself out.
With the worst education system in the industrialized world for 50 years, we're now blessed with guys like who are macho about defending the world against evil, but who couldn't recognize evil while it circumsized them.
I suspect you do care about Armageddon, but you dont trust these or any politicians as far as you can throw them.
Right. Yes, it's marketing to a cultural divide.
Yes, the 2nd amendment argument tickles the shit out of me, too. Biggest tempest in a teapot imaginable. I do like the .45, not the wimpy NATO 9mm, because I know for a fact that it will stop your target like a semi-trailer doing 85. OTOH, a bar card goes a whole lot farther in the USA. What I want to know is if I can have my own D-30
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/d-30-howitzer_003.jpg
The NRA boys seem to know that I can't, but I don't see why not.
Exactly what about this program do you belive is illegal?
Everyone, including the New York Times, admits there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING illegal with this program.
First I see that the NY Times puts a non-story on the front page, about a program that the administration has talked about openly. So, was there anything additional to report about it? I really thought if the NY Times had done a story, that it was about the program being misused.
Then, I found out that the administration wants to prosecute the NY Times for printing a non-story that aids and abets the enemy.
So, the newspaper is acting strange printing last year's story with nothing new, and the administration is acting stranger.
Right now, I have to put in as much OT as I can at work. Any "research" I'm able to get in is on the fly. I'll try to catch up next Saturday-- when I have my next day off.
Certainly the administration has been bragging about shutting down terrorist money, but I have never seen them talk about specifics. The NYT got very specifc about this particular program.
Their motive? They dislike Bush as much as any of the Left do. Anything they can do to potentially embarass him or slow him down, I'm sure "feels" good to them. Quite frankly this kind of thing blinds them...from a logic standpoint.