Rush detained

[DawnCt1]

But Dawn, can you not see that some of us feel what's shameful is that this Administration simply didn't go through the proper channels for Congressional/Judicial oversight to see if the program was legal under the Constitution? If they would have, this entire situation could have been avoided. President Bush bears much of the responsiblity for not taking the legal steps to protect and defend the Constitution, as he promised when he took the oath of office. Hell, the man's got secret courts that he can take this kind of operation to get the proper warrants, and he blows them off as well. That's why this whole operation doesn't sit well with many Dems and some Republicans.

A small bipartisan group in congress were well aware of the program and the top secret nature of it. There was absolutely nothing illegal about the program and it did not need congressional approval. Let me suggest to you that you deposit $10,001 in your checking account, in cash, and see if the IRS is notified. That has been the law for decades. There is no law against "following the money". EDITED TO ADD; Even the NYTs said that there was no wrong doing.

 

[georgia4now]

It was well known that we were tracking their funds. That wasn't the secret. The precise methods, the countries, banks, etc involved was top secret and seriously compromised the program if not, down right destroyed it.

True.

Plus, if none of this is a big deal, WHY WAS IT ON THE FRONT PAGE OF 3 MAJOR PAPERS?

It IS news.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

True.

Plus, if none of this is a big deal, WHY WAS IT ON THE FRONT PAGE OF 3 MAJOR PAPERS?

It IS news.

I don't follow your line of reasoning. You're saying it should be news or should be kept secret?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

A small bipartisan group in congress were well aware of the program and the top secret nature of it. There was absolutely nothing illegal about the program and it did not need congressional approval. Let me suggest to you that you deposit $10,001 in your checking account, in cash, and see if the IRS is notified. That has been the law for decades. There is no law against "following the money". EDITED TO ADD; Even the NYTs said that there was no wrong doing.

So who leaked the info to the papers? Any ideas?

 

[DawnCt1]

So who leaked the info to the papers? Any ideas?

That's the big question. Hopefully there will be a serious investigation. Who ever did, deserves to be tried, convicted and imprisoned. Lets hope that happens.

 

[georgia4now]

I don't follow your line of reasoning. You're saying it should be news or should be kept secret?

I was actually referring to the posts on here that say the story was already disclosed, so it was not really news. My rebuttal was that if it was not news, why did it get so much press? Additional, sensitive info was leaked.

It's just sad that countries that were cooperating are either pulling out or threatening to pull out. And as for the post that asked "who leaked it?" I actually agree. I don't care who leaked it, or what side of the aisle they're on. They need to be dealt with.

The whole thing is a mess IMHO.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That's the big question. Hopefully there will be a serious investigation. Who ever did, deserves to be tried, convicted and imprisoned. Lets hope that happens.

Just did a little reading in the NYT. Found this from June 23:

Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.

20 people!! I guess they felt their concerns were important if they all spoke to the media. Should be interesting if it is investigated, but then again, knowing this Administration, the entire uproar could be cannon fodder to fire up the base against the liberal media, then dropped after the elections are over, much like the anti-gay marriage ammendment was. I guess we'll have to wait and see

 

[Geoff_M]

But Dawn, can you not see that some of us feel what's shameful is that this Administration simply didn't go through the proper channels for Congressional/Judicial oversight to see if the program was legal under the Constitution?

Really, you know this for a fact? For starters, the NYT themselves admitted that they could find nothing illegal about the program. Are you saying they are wrong? As for the issue of Congressional oversight, here's what the chairman of the Special Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Pat Roberts said on the radio yesterday with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: A number of questions on the SWIFT program, Senator. Were you briefed on this program's existence prior to the New York Times' and Los Angeles Times' story of last Friday?

PR: Yes.

HH: How often had you been briefed?

PR: Well, I'm not going to get into how often, but just let me say that staff and members both were briefed, and certainly prior to that story.

HH: Do you consider yourself to have been adequately briefed?

PR: No question.

HH: Was Senator Rockefeller, the ranking minority member briefed?

PR: Yes, I think so, although I'm going to have to hedge on that one, because he's been laid up with a back operation for a considerable amount of time. But his staff was briefed, and I think I can say with some certainty at least that Senator Rockefeller was briefed. This has been over a period of time.

HH: Were any other members of the committee, to your knowledge, Chairman Roberts, briefed?

PR: We have just reached the situation where we went from two to five to seven of the full committee, primarily on the NSA surveillance program. On this particular program, however, several other Senators expressed an interest in that, and were briefed personally, more especially, Senator Bond of Missouri.

...

HH: All right. Now I want to quote to you McManus (LA Times Washington bureau chief) saying...on your oversight. "We went to Congress to figure out what it was, he said, and it turned out that, a few members had been briefed, and that the Intelligence Committee as a whole hadn't been briefed until after Treasury began to believe the story was likely to come out. So if the question of briefing Congress goes to imortant issues of oversight, the oversight, I think any fair-minded person would say, that there was a minimal form of oversight. It wasn't complete oversight." Was he wrong?

PR: Well, I would say he's wrong. I've been briefed, and I know other members of the Intelligence Committee have been briefed, staff has been briefed, leadership has been briefed. We did that during the nomination of General Hayden, when I read down a list of who had been briefed on, through the years of the NSA program, and again, I don't want to mix programs, but it's very similar. It would be a very similar thing with a Treasury situation. We had heard a lot of rumors about the Times going to run with this story again, another story that could be very harmful. That's when they brought out everybody they could think of to urge the Times to change their mind. And I mean, it's one thing to write a story where we pay deference to the press, and maybe there's something classified in that. There's a lot of things that are overclassified. I understand that. But it's another thing when you say look, here is one of the highest classified programs we have, it's one of our most effective tools to stop terrorism, it is effective. Please do not write this story.

Link

BTW, the parade of officials that went to the NYT to ask them not to blow the story included bipartisian members of Congress (including none other than John Muthra, for crying out loud!) and several members of the "9/11 Commission". You'll also notice that you've bearly heard a "peep" out of the Democratic leadership on this one (contrast that to the NSA story). There's a reason, with the NSA story at least there was an arguable belief of the program's illegality in those quaters... in this case they realize that they have no similar leg to stand on. In fact, in this case it appears that a large percentage of them had no misgivings about the program.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Really, you know this for a fact? For starters, the NYT themselves admitted that they could find nothing illegal about the program. Are you saying they are wrong? As for the issue of Congressional oversight, here's what the chairman of the Special Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Pat Roberts said on the radio yesterday with Hugh Hewitt:BTW, the parade of officials that went to the NYT to ask them not to blow the story included bipartisian members of Congress (including none other than John Muthra, for crying out loud!) and several members of the "9/11 Commission". You'll also notice that you've bearly heard a "peep" out of the Democratic leadership on this one (contrast that to the NSA story). There's a reason, with the NSA story at least there was an arguable belief of the program's illegality in those quaters... in this case they realize that they have no similar leg to stand on. In fact, in this case it appears that a large percentage of them had no misgivings about the program.

Yes, I already heard it from Dawn...did a little more reading on it and now understand the program a bit better. Thanks. Now as I said, the investigation, if there is one, should be interesting...

 

[TCPluto]

Can we please get back to Rush's "Impotent Neo-con's Go Wild" weekend?!?!

OK, you're starting to weird me out here.

For you to be so interested in Rush's personall (sex) life is quite sick, in my opinion.

You buy the supermarket tabloids too, don't you??

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

OK, you're starting to weird me out here.

For you to be so interested in Rush's personall (sex) life is quite sick, in my opinion.

You buy the supermarket tabloids too, don't you??

Read the OP, Pluto...we're talkin' Rush/Viagra/Dominican Prostitutes here, 24/7, baby!!

In all seriousness, man...lighten up!!! Sheesh...

 

[TCPluto]

we're talkin' Rush/Viagra/Dominican Prostitutes here, 24/7, baby!!

The joy you take in it is disturbing, the detail you seem to want, or at least to interject into it...

Rush and his viagra should never have been a story, anywhere. The prostitutes and goats are a figment of your sick mind, nothing more.

After it got out, it should have been a story for 2 seconds, tops. It should have warranted nothing more than a couple of late night TV jokes.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

The joy you take in it is disturbing, the detail you seem to want, or at least to interject into it...

Rush and his viagra should never have been a story, anywhere. The prostitutes and goats are a figment of your sick mind, nothing more.

After it got out, it should have been a story for 2 seconds, tops. It should have warranted nothing more than a couple of late night TV jokes.

The only joy I take out of all of this is seeing you and those of your ilk get your collective panties in a knot because someone is ripping on your hero. One, mind you, that had made plenty of public assumptions of his own in the past...one who called little preteen Chelsea Clinton the Clinton family dog...or insinuated that Hillary was a lesbian, or that she had an affair with Vince Foster...or murdered Vince Foster...please!! He's a real hero, that Limbaugh character that you seem to like so much on the radio...a real moral compass for you to hitch your wagon to.

Now tell me, have you heard that it wasn't a goat?!? I mean, I'm sure you Dittoheads must know!! Do tell...what kind of animal was it...I'm dying to know!!!

 

[TheDoctor]

The NYTs did not write the article to expound on their philosophy or editorially disagree with the war, the Bush administration or government policies. In writing the article they revealed top secret information that totally compromised a very effective program of blocking terrorists funds. The same kind of funds that blew up the WTC, that bombed the London subways, that promote terror around the world. They compromised those bankers and those countries that cooperated in that program. They put those individuals who cooperated at serious risk and made them all potential targets for Al Queda. So it isn't a matter of, are you for us or against us. Its a matter of providing critical information to the enemy in a time of war. It was shameful.

Wrong. This program was not secret and the only thing shameful is the political attacks being mounted by bush and cheney for poltiical purposes. This program was not confidential and the key details were in the public domain. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/
______________
WASHINGTON -- News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

On Monday, President Bush said it was ``disgraceful" that The New York Times and other media outlets reported last week that the US government was quietly monitoring international financial transactions handled by an industry-owned cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT, which is controlled by nearly 8,000 institutions in 20 countries. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal also reported about the program.

The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of ``treason," telling reporters in a conference call that it ``scares the devil out of me" that the media would reveal such sensitive information. Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, requested US intelligence agencies to assess whether the reports have damaged anti terrorism operations. And Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to pursue ``possible criminal prosecution" of the Times, which has reported on other secret government surveillance programs. The New York Times Co. owns The 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."

Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task.

``Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."

Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database.

SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses ``are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information," according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. ``The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."

 

[auntpolly]

The joy you take in it is disturbing, the detail you seem to want, or at least to interject into it...

Rush and his viagra should never have been a story, anywhere. The prostitutes and goats are a figment of your sick mind, nothing more.

After it got out, it should have been a story for 2 seconds, tops. It should have warranted nothing more than a couple of late night TV jokes.

I have to agree with you. No one should be paying attention to Rush, ever. He spews venom that we should all just ignore, and I'd prefer not to sink to his level. People who agree with him and use him to justify their own small minds -- I just pity them.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Wrong. This program was not secret and the only thing shameful is the political attacks being mounted by bush and cheney for poltiical purposes. This program was not confidential and the key details were in the public domain. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ecret_some_say/

The wingnut fringe on the right never lets facts get in the way of a good accusation. Funny how this is supposedly treason yet outing an agent in the field to get back at someone is AOK.

 

[imsorry]

Well...his lawyer says it won't stand up in court - and besides that...viagra will sure make his ratings *grow* now!

 

[TheDoctor]

The wingnut fringe on the right never lets facts get in the way of a good accusation. Funny how this is supposedly treason yet outing an agent in the field to get back at someone is AOK.

How can this program be considered secret when it is disclosed on the SWIFT website? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/28/BL2006062801268.html
_____________
But the existence of SWIFT itself has not exactly been a secret. Certainly not to anyone who had an Internet connection.

SWIFT has a Web site, at swift.com .

It's a very informative Web site. For instance, this page describes how "SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities."

(And yes, FATF has its own Web site, too.)

An e-mail from White House Briefing reader Tim O'Keefe tipped me off to just how nutty it is to suggest that SWIFT keeps a low profile. Among other things, he explained, "SWIFT also happens to put on the largest financial services trade show in the world every year," he wrote. "Swift also puts out a lovely magazine ."

Furthermore, as I noted in Monday's column , it has been my personal experience that your garden-variety wire-transfer form mentions SWIFT. Mine warned: "With respect to payment orders executed through SWIFT, the SWIFT operating rules shall govern the payment orders."

I wrote in yesterday's column that in spite of leveling a monstrous charge against the New York Times -- of putting American lives at risk and aiding the enemy -- the White House has never definitively explained how any of these disclosures actually impair the pursuit of terrorists.

 

[transparant]

Now tell me, have you heard that it wasn't a goat?!? I mean, I'm sure you Dittoheads must know!! Do tell...what kind of animal was it...I'm dying to know!!!

And you think Rush is sick? He might have been addicted to pain killers and is taking viagra - I'm starting to wonder what it is that you are addicted to.

 

[TheDoctor]

Happy birthday to Rush Limbaugh. He's 55 years old. You have to give Rush credit... He's probably the only Republican in the country with a cheap prescription drug plan." --Jay Leno

"Rush Limbaugh and his third wife has broken up. Apparently, she came home early and found him with their pharmacist." —Jay Leno

"Rush Limbaugh and his wife are divorcing and experts say this could get ugly. I'm confused, are they splitting up or having sex?" —Craig Kilborn

"Rush Limbaugh spoke out on the Iraqi prison pictures situation today. He said it's entirely generated by the media. What? Is this guy on drugs?" —Jay Leno

"Pretty ironic, that the only Republican with a prescription drug plan is Rush Limbaugh. Actually today Rush said he would have no comment on his drug problem until he could figure out a way to blame it on the Clintons." —Jay Leno

"Rush Limbaugh is a drug freak. Apparently, he was able to lose the 'big fat' part but not the 'idiot' part." —Jon Stewart

"Rush Limbaugh is now in rehabilitation and it's going well. It's interesting, one minute you're Rush Limbaugh, great conservative radio talk show host, and the next day you're standing in line with other patients waiting for Darryl Strawberry's autograph." —David Letterman