Posted on 06/24/2006 8:47:03 PM PDT by neverdem
Once more the spoiler. Despite the earnest persuasion of the White House to preserve a useful weapon in the war against the terrorists, the New York Times has revealed the workings of a covert surveillance program, indisputably within the law, to use administrative subpoenas to examine, through a Belgian financial consortium known by the acronym SWIFT, the financing of international terrorism. Once the story was out, the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal covered it as well. Now the program is damaged, perhaps severely so, and the financing of terror is harder to track. This is another unnecessary leak, six months after the New York Times revealed a secret National Security Agency terrorist surveillance program.
In its earlier scoop, the New York Times could reasonably argue legal uncertainty. Not this time. The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller in 1976 that no right to privacy attaches to the type of third-party financial-transaction information SWIFT has provided to the Treasury Department. The Right to Financial Privacy Act, enacted by Congress in 1978 in the wake of United States v. Miller, allows just the administrative subpoenas Treasury has been using. So does the Patriot Act. The SWIFT transactions that Treasury has been examining are international in nature. The searches are specifically targeted at suspected or known terrorists, a "sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity," as Treasury Secretary John Snow puts it. The claim that the rights of American citizens are infringed is irrational, unduly partisan, or both.
The program clearly works. Treasury pointed immediately to the capture of the terrorist known as "Hambali." Hambali, or Riduan Isamuddin, masterminded the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 innocent men and women. He has been in U.S. custody since his arrest in 2003 in Thailand, and the SWIFT...
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
CBS lost its anchorman.
The NYT is not going to get a "Pentagon Papers."
Prosecuted under what law?
If this isn't criminal, then they need to make it a crime. Disclosing the fact that the NSA was monitoring electronic traffic last December should be prosecuted under the Espioage Act; maybe this as well. Willfully disclosing state secrets should be a crime, especially in a time of war. We executed the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html
Does this apply? Saw it in another post.
Once again the NYT,LAT etc have shown that because of their mutual hatred of President Bush they have once again betrayed our country. There is no doubt that these traitors are agents of Al-Quaeda. They would have published with glee that we had the Project Enigma codes of the Germans during WW2. When do our laws protecting the country from treason began to take effect. How much more aid to the enemy will we have to suffer before these traitors are put into prison where they belong?? I returned from Iraq after a 13 month tour in November and I shudder to think how many of my comrads were killed because of information that these traitors in the New York Times gave to the enemy!! JessM
And we're not in a time of war.
If the terrorists hit another building inside the U.S., may it be the NY TIMES.
How much more harm does the NYT have to do to this nation before qualifying for RICO violations?!
we should rendition them to Al Qaeda////let some heads roll
>>The Right to Financial Privacy Act, enacted by Congress in 1978 in the wake of United States v. Miller, allows just the administrative subpoenas Treasury has been using.<<
I looked up the code. It requires cause and notification to the customer. it looks like the current program involved large quantities of records to sift through and did not include notification.
>>§ 3405. Administrative subpena and summons
A Government authority may obtain financial records under section 3402 (2) of this title pursuant to an administrative subpena or summons otherwise authorized by law only if—
(1) there is reason to believe that the records sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry;
(2) a copy of the subpena or summons has been served upon the customer or mailed to his last known address on or before the date on which the subpena or summons was served on the financial institution together with the following notice which shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of the law enforcement inquiry:<<
People on this board really don't have any idea what RICO is, do they?
Aiding and abetting the enemy when the countries at war.
And this would not count as "aiding and abetting the enemy" the way revealing specific spying activities might.
And by specific, I mean specific activities against certain groups or by certain agents.
The 'Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations' Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.