PDA

View Full Version : Terror leak


Lynn7
06-26-2006, 02:45 PM
Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story
Jun 26 12:37 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent


WASHINGTON


President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

The program has been going on since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It was disclosed last week by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times.

Using broad government subpoenas, the program allows U.S. counterterrorism analysts to obtain financial information from a vast database maintained by a company based in Belgium. It routes about 11 million financial transactions daily among 7,800 banks and other financial institutions in 200 countries.

"Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," the president said. "What we were doing was the right thing."

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do," Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, "You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."

Meanwhile, the administration said it has informed major allies that the secret program has adequate privacy safeguards and will continue.

Tony Fratto, chief spokesman for the Treasury Department, said the contacts were made following the disclosure. "We have made a point of reaching out to our partners in the international community to make sure they understand our views and the safeguards we have in place," he said. "We want to make sure it was clear to our partners that we value this program."

In advance of Bush's remarks, the New York Times defended itself against criticism for disclosing the program.

In a note on the paper's Web site Sunday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the Times spent weeks discussing with Bush administration officials whether to publish the report.

He said part of the government's argument was that the anti-terror program would no longer be effective if it became known, because international bankers would be unwilling to cooperate and terrorists would find other ways to move money.

"We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling," Keller said, pointing out that the banks were under subpoena to provide the information. "The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere."

The note to readers was published the same day Rep. Peter King urged the Bush administration to prosecute the paper.

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.

Keller said the administration also argued "in a halfhearted way" that disclosure of the program "would lead terrorists to change tactics."

But Keller wrote that the Treasury Department has "trumpeted ... that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash."


And this is what the press secretary had to say:
Tony Snow: 'The NEW YORK TIMES and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live.'

I agree with Tony Snow- I think the NYT and others have lost their minds.

shoe1985
06-26-2006, 03:27 PM
This is a very interesting read. I think we all knew that they were using bank accounts to track terror suspects. It is one the oldest known tactics.

I feel more time needs to be put into providing jobs and helping the american people with healthcare now. Can we please let homeland security take care of this stuff already. Why do we pay them when the President and his staff are doing all the work?

EVILxxx
06-26-2006, 06:45 PM
The problem with what the Times did Shoe is that they gave out the Specific Bank that the government had been eyeing this Beligium company for awhile now. They just blew the whole investigation wide open.

The Postmaster General
06-26-2006, 08:12 PM
If The TIme can get this information, why couldn't have terrorists. While I don't agree from a moral standpoint with blowing an investigation open, I think the president needs to be spending a little more time concerned with how to prevent this information from getting to Jimmy Olson. Wagging fingers isn't going to take down terrorists either.

shoe1985
06-26-2006, 08:48 PM
Someone had to tell them about this. Find them and fire them. Things like this need to be very closely guarded. We have enough people fighting these wars and the only way to stop killings from happening is do what is needed to be done. If it is through banks do it. The media needs to back off. They are getting a little out of hand.

EVILxxx
06-26-2006, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
If The TIme can get this information, why couldn't have terrorists.

Well the terrorists don't have government insiders funneling them information... or atleast I hope they don't.

The Postmaster General
06-27-2006, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by EVILxxx
Well the terrorists don't have government insiders funneling them information... or atleast I hope they don't.


Yeah, but how The Times got the information is a moot point from my POV. The fact remains that the information got out - probably to the highest bidder or to the best buddy. What's to not say that an insider can chum up with a terrorist just as much as a journalist? What's to say that a journalist can't be a terrorists?

I know how Bush likes these kinds of sayings, so I'll just say that the horse was obviously let out of the barn long before anyone reported that the door was open.

Lynn7
06-27-2006, 02:58 PM
A regular woman called into a radio show today and wondered why there had been such a big fuss made about Valerie Plame when this New York Times thing which actually DOES affect our country's security is being defended? Could it depend on what side you are on politically as to how these things are handled?

The Postmaster General
06-27-2006, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Lynn7
A regular woman called into a radio show today and wondered why there had been such a big fuss made about Valerie Plame when this New York Times thing which actually DOES affect our country's security is being defended? Could it depend on what side you are on politically as to how these things are handled?


Um - The right also attacked the papers over the Plame thing, as if it was all the fault of journalists and not the people in the government who actually let it get out. I said the exact same thing in response to that situation - papers report shit. That's what they do. That's why it's called a newspaper.

However, secret information isn't called "stuff to tell journalists about."

I don't care if the paper reports it or not. While I, myself, am all about keeping secrets, the papers aren't. Like I said on the Plame scandal and with this - you can't trust journalists, but you are supposed to be able to trust high ranking government officials with keeping secrets involving national security.

This makes two cases where the administration has responded to a security leak by spiting the messenger. Whether or not it was the patriotic duty of a newspaper to not report a story is highly up for debate, I guess. However, there is no debate whatsoever that people are supposed to keep classified information classified.

It's like if there was a friend you had who was notorious for gossiping, and you confided in another friend who you trusted, then the trusted friend told the person who liked to gossip and the next day everyone knew. Are you seriously going to make a big deal about chewing out the person who is known to gossip, or are you going to chide your close trusted friend or even better - take responsibility for your own actions?

Chances are, judging by this administration, whoever let the secret information out, was probably some guy who's last job was installing carpet in the governor's mansion or something. Whatever ---

Bush is keeping in with his smoke and mirrors reputation with this one. He's basically chewing out the horse that was let out of the barn after one of his people left the door open.

**"You a bad horse! You should stay here on the farm."**

"Mr. Bush, I need some money to fix the barn door."

**"Oh, these are hard times, we at war. Can't use money for that now. We have to secure the fences around the farm, and make sure these horses can't get off the farm again."**

"Yeah, but the horse just jumps over the fence. Why can't we just fix the door."

**"It's a bad horse. We'll build the fences high - real high. Hehe. That'll discourage and humiliate them. They'll learn a lesson."**