Replies

>>The intelligence program revealed by the Times is unquestionably legal. There isn't any serious doubt about it - both case law and statutory authority support the government. Bank records are not entitled to the same presumption of privacy as phone calls.<<

I believe that you are not correct. The law appears to require both cause and notification. This program in contrast appears to examine millions of records without specific cause or notification.

>>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:

Sorry, but that provision does not apply in the case of suspected terrorist activities, and has been superceded by, among other things, the USA Patriot Act/CIP program. We're not even talking about domestic banks or depositors here, for whom numerous safeguards exist. For example, federal agents are only allowed to seek information based on intelligence tying specific individuals to Al Qaeda; they must document the intelligence behind every search request, maintain an electronic record of every search, and more. There is not even the vaguest suggestion that these rules were not followed in the SWIFT case.

Even so, the Supreme Court has squarely held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information. The government may obtain them without seeking a court warrant, because the bank depositor has already revealed his transactions to his bank--or, in the case of the present program, to a whole slew of banks that participate in the complicated international wire transfers overseen by the Belgian clearinghouse known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift.

To get specific information about individual terror suspects, intelligence agents prepare an administrative subpoena, which is issued after extensive internal agency review. The government does not monitor a terror suspect's international wire transfers in real time; the records of his transactions are delivered weeks later. And Americans' routine financial transactions, such as ATM withdrawals or domestic banking, lie completely outside of the SWIFT database.

To suggest that the Federal Government is required to send advance notice of subpoena or summons to suspected terrorists or their associates is so laughable that I doubt even the most addle-brained libertarian would dare make such an argument; although some self-destructive Liberals might.