To: Fishtalk
It is my understanding that it is the
details contained within the story (the existence of SWIFT in Belgium as the sole clearing house, certain methods of monitoring, etc.) which ere not known, and which were the security risk.
Of course we have all known that they monitor money in some way. How they did it was what shouldn't have been printed.
321 posted on
07/02/2006 9:04:02 AM PDT by
Miss Marple
(Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.)
To: Miss Marple
Excellent post Miss Marple and that is exactly what the NYT printed that makes everyone so mad,
publishing the details. So Unnecessary to do so.
It's really all politics all the time for those ideologues like the NYT. They hate bush and will do anything to stop anything he does. Even a President trying to fight a war. There are no bounds for that paper and they need to be punished. Punish them and I know they will fold like a cheap suit.
345 posted on
07/02/2006 9:29:18 AM PDT by
rodguy911
(Support new Media, ticket drive-bys--America--Land of the Free because of the Brave)
To: Miss Marple
the details contained within the story (the existence of SWIFT in Belgium as the sole clearing house, certain methods of monitoring, etc... Any reporter who is not familiar with Swift transactions and its place in international banking processes is not qualified to report on any international finance stories.
Oh, wait, journalism majors are not required to take any economics courses, or understand any financial concepts. No wonder they report the way they do.
586 posted on
07/02/2006 2:36:13 PM PDT by
Bernard
(God helps those who helps themselves - The US Government takes in the rest.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson