Bank Data Mined in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror

NY Times ^ | 6/22/2006 | ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

[avital2]

i am fed up with these leaks and newspaper editors making decisions on what affects our national security. who elected them? therefore i think we should start boycotting all advertisers in the NYTimes, LATimes - writing letters to them that we are doing so to make our point. Prosecution, yes, but let's do something now!

[fix]

I take a different view on this. I can't help but wonder how many Freepers would be calling for Clinton's head if he had done this. I'm all for combating terrorists, but in my view the Administration is beginning to look like they are goose stepping across the Constitution in their efforts. The real question is, what are they doing that we don't know about? I had no problem with the wiretapping/CDR reporting issue, but this one is, in my humble opinion, a violation of the 4th Amendment. If we permit this to be established as a precedent, we have to ask ourselves what Hillary would do with this kind of power.

[prairiebreeze]

More Clintonista holdovers are blabbing to the NY Slimes about secret programs, revealing more classified programs. Un-freakin'-acceptable!!!

I want to build a hanging scaffold. And buy some rope.

[jess35]

Also, the higher-ups may have decided to let some disinfecting sunshine in

You mean like with the NSA story? ;)

It's far more likely that career leftists in Washington, particularly within the CIA, have leaked these classified programs because they believe the administration can't properly defend itself because of the inherent secrecy built into these operations. Programs like this are an easy target because they put the administration in a defensive position. The Times doesn't care if their story is misleading or makes it more difficult to track terrorist activities. They're just out to score a point against President Bush and it doesn't matter how many people might die in future attacks because of their irresponsible behavior.

[SE Mom]

Doesn't this make you want to SCREAM?

Hard to know who is more detestable- the SOB who leaked to the Times..or the Times for deciding to publish it even while the government pleaded with them not to...

[jess35]

this one is, in my humble opinion, a violation of the 4th Amendment.

How so? I'm pretty sure the 4th amendment argument was shot down in United States v. Miller.

[prairiebreeze]

Sorry if I re-pinged you to this SE Mom. I was so livid I couldn't think straight.

The Slimes and the Clintonistas are equally guilty. And should be prosecuted.

[fix]

Well, if "papers, persons, and effects" does not cover banking transactions, then what exactly does it cover?

[pollyannaish]

I have a question for people in the know.

Is it possible that who ever is leaking this stuff is actually a useful dupe? Could it be part of the plan?

I am beginning to wonder a little bit about that.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The left had no problem with government spying on us through the banks prior to 9/11.

[prairiebreeze]

That would mean the WH is aware and sanctions the leaks. Somehow that just doesn't square with the Presidents stern public admonitions of the NSA phone leaks. The President needs to go public again, and have AG Gonzales right next to him who can then follow up with at statement that "charges are anticipated at the end of the investigation". Then charge and prosecute the sons a **tches.

Michelle Malkin has some great WWII posters on her web site right now. Here's one because they are even more applicable today.

[jess35]

Personal papers within your home, not papers belonging to a banking institution. 4th amendment rights cover individuals, not corporations.

[pollyannaish]

Ok, start with the premise that I hate the NYT. But they are very predictable.

If you were setting someone up, wouldn't you try to make it look real? I'm not saying that this is the case, just looking at the big picture here. What made this a big story is that the administration did not want it published...which pushed the NYT into running it for the publics own good. Without that, it would have been a little tiny article.

I am not being facetious here. There are big things happening and we (and the NYT) know very little about what is ACTUALLY going on. I can't help but wonder if the NYT's own predictability has allowed them to be played very, very easily.

Just a thought.

[SE Mom]

:)

You have to wonder, when they sit there and discuss this in the lofty NYT's offices...WTH are they THINKING?

This was SO unecessary- we all knew after 9/11 the gov was doing this kind of thing...they TOLD US in broad terms.

Just what exactly do the seditious bastards at the Times think the government is going to do to protect us? Make a public service announcement asking Al Q to cease?

[prairiebreeze]

Well phoo, apparently I can't copy the pix. See them below.

http://michellemalkin.com/

[prairiebreeze]

It's much more likely IMHO that we have those who are waging a war against the war divulging secrets and not giving a rip about aiding the enemy.

[prairiebreeze]

Just what do the seditious bastards in the government who are leaking to the seditious bastards at the Slimes think they are doing?!

[pollyannaish]

But are sanctioned "leaks" really leaks?

I'm being serious. The President and his team play chess while everyone else is playing checkers—to quote an old cliche. Another is that he is a poker player. Poker is often all about the art of misdirection. And sometimes the most effective way to win is to manipulate your "enemies" for your own purposes.

I just have a gut feeling here. We are making a bunch of progress on different fronts right at the moment and have some serious anti-terror momentum world wide. We could not have gotten here without some pretty crafty work. In addition, history often shows us that leaks are intentional misdirection with a purpose.

That said, I don't believe that the phone leaks were intentional. And if the President comes out angry on this, I will take it back. But if we don't hear much from him...I'm going to consider it a part of the game.

[pollyannaish]

You probably right. And in light of the poster..I'm going with it.

[SE Mom]

ROFL:)