Hopping Mad
So Pissed I Can Barely See Straight
If I had a subscription to the New York Times, or the LA Times, I would cancel it today. I would not want to give money to, or be associated in any way with, any person or entity that commits treason.
And there's no other word to describe publishing a story about a top secret, totally legal, tremendously effective program to help catch hidden terrorists. The operation was brilliant and simple. Here's how it went.
You've heard of someone "wiring" money, right? Have you ever thought about what exactly it means to "wire" money. It's not like they put the money on a wire. And it's not like they just place a phone call. To ensure that the wire is legitimate, and that it's from a real bank, a standard communication had to evolve, with protections in place to ensure legitimacy. Hence a company---in Belgium of all places---that provides the actual format for the messages sending money worldwide. Everyone, but everyone, in the banking world uses these messages, called SWIFT messages.
So the government, since 9/11, has been subpoenaing these SWIFT messages to determine whether patterns exist, and to trace the money flow from known or suspected Al Queda operatives. The government has been "following the money."
So simple and brilliant, I'm frankly surprised that the low-level agent who thought it up was allowed to do it.
Of course, now that the New York Times and the LA Times printed details of the program, I'm not so sure it's going to be quite as effective. I thought that the Times' deliberate obfuscation of the limited scope of the call monitoring program was treasonous, but this...this is dastardly.
Don't they believe that some government operations should be done in secret? Don't they understand that there are consequences to their actions? Don't they friggin' know who the enemy is? Why do I get the feeling there's a bunch of editors at the Times who would like nothing better than to print the faces, names, and home addresses of all of our Special Operations guys? Or at least run details of their planned operations?
There's a word for that.
Treason.
If I had a subscription to the New York Times, or the LA Times, I would cancel it today. I would not want to give money to, or be associated in any way with, any person or entity that commits treason.And there's no other word to describe publishing a story about a top secret, totally legal, tremendously effective program to help catch hidden terrorists. The operation was brilliant and simple. Here's how it went.
You've heard of someone "wiring" money, right? Have you ever thought about what exactly it means to "wire" money. It's not like they put the money on a wire. And it's not like they just place a phone call. To ensure that the wire is legitimate, and that it's from a real bank, a standard communication had to evolve, with protections in place to ensure legitimacy. Hence a company---in Belgium of all places---that provides the actual format for the messages sending money worldwide. Everyone, but everyone, in the banking world uses these messages, called SWIFT messages.
So the government, since 9/11, has been subpoenaing these SWIFT messages to determine whether patterns exist, and to trace the money flow from known or suspected Al Queda operatives. The government has been "following the money."
So simple and brilliant, I'm frankly surprised that the low-level agent who thought it up was allowed to do it.
Of course, now that the New York Times and the LA Times printed details of the program, I'm not so sure it's going to be quite as effective. I thought that the Times' deliberate obfuscation of the limited scope of the call monitoring program was treasonous, but this...this is dastardly.
Don't they believe that some government operations should be done in secret? Don't they understand that there are consequences to their actions? Don't they friggin' know who the enemy is? Why do I get the feeling there's a bunch of editors at the Times who would like nothing better than to print the faces, names, and home addresses of all of our Special Operations guys? Or at least run details of their planned operations?
There's a word for that.
Treason.
Oh ... My ... God ...
I disagree with you in so many ways, but I will attempt to get to the core of the issue.
I would prefer a state where privacy rights are recognized and upheld, even at the expense of a certain measure of safety. Towards that end I support active restraint on the powers of government even at the expense of personal safety.
I reject the Bush Administration's justification of the power grab by the Executive Branch as a 'wartime' power.
I do not trust the Bush Administration because it has been quick to play on fear, slow to admit errors, quick to make errors, and has demonstrated a willingness to break laws for its political ends.
Even though you most likely don't share these views, there are those of us who think this way, and are VERY patriotic. Personally, I am glad that the freedom of the press is alive and well.
One more thing, I am a registered Republican.
Posted by
michael.dufel |
8:02 PM