SWIFT Banking America
After the NY Times article revealing the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication) program was published, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Potemkin Party openly chastised the Times for revealing a key tool in the war on terror. Representative Peter King demanded that the NY Times be charged under the Espionage Act. The Potemkins stated that now the terrorists will know that their finances are being tracked. Oh, thou doth protest too much.
This reaction from the Potemkins even illicited laughter from Tom Brokaw. And a Boston Globe interview with Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat, demonstrated the obvious. Comras oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing. Comras said: "Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume their transactions were being monitored... We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."
To add to this, the clandestive, super duper, double, triple, top secret SWIFT has it's own website! It also has it's own monthly magazine! Thankfully our Edward R. Murrow- Keith Olbermann - uncovered both the website and the magazine, but he also aired the many video clips of Bush bragging about the 'bank tapping' of terrorists.
How dare the Times report on a program that the president has mentioned again and again and again. Exactly why did Bush and Cheney react so passionately about this article? Could it be that this administration isn't bank tapping terrorists, but rather Americans. More directly, Americans donating to Moveon.org or that other terrorist organization (according to the NSA) PETA!? Now exactly who is guilty of treason?
posted by Lisa @ 3:46 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Glad to see you're posting again. Too bad you got this one all wrong.
For those of us in reality, it is all correct. Sorry you're still deluding yourself with your love for Dubya.
Gosh, no chit-chat, no 'how ya' been?' I'm hurt!
A question then:
If the program wasn't secret, why did the LAT & NYT refer to it as such?
An analogy to illustrate what's actually happened here:
If the local police announced that they're going after traffic law violators, its a reasonable assumption the law violators would be aware the police were after them, but no neccesarily how or when or where. But, if the local news announced that the police were putting up cameras and sensors at the intersection of 4th and Main to catch folks running red lights, and that the police would be running a speed trap at exit 410 on highway 1 between 8am and 4pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays, it does two things. It ruins the efficacy of the police efforts, and drives even the stupid violators to adopt specific tactics to avoid getting caught. That's what the Times folks have done. As to the legal, I think an argument could be made about knowingly endangering innocent people by disclosing classified information.
Are you for real? BUSH is the one who referred to this as a secret program - that was the basis for him, Cheney, Snow, and other Republicans to come out against the Times. Like the NSA phone tapping program, both the LA Times and the NY Times questioned the legality of the program. Do you know how to read? We're sick of your moronic comments and baseless arguments.
Yes, anonymous, last time I checked I was real.
Speaking of reading, did you ever actually read the articles put out by the NYT and LAT? Did you catch any of the references they made as to the 'classified' nature(not to be confused with the section of the paper devoted to buyers and sellers)of the program itself, and the guvmint's attempts to hide their methods of detection so terrorists wouldn't know how they were caught?
I'm thinking not.
Moronic? Didn't take you long to devolve the discussion into name calling. Good show.
Where the heck is Lisa? At least she can snark tastefully...sigh.
Post a Comment
<< Home