A Story Only Moonbats Care About
The extreme moonbat Left on Friday started going positively ape-s**t in their land of Oz when the New York Times decided to run a story on a new surveillance program run by the federal government. The LA Times joined them in this endeavor, and all they really did was peev off the country. See, what the NY times has done now, twice in six months, is reveal a top-secret program that we're using to locate and shut down terrorist networks. In response to this outrage at the Times, Bill Keller--editor of the NY Times--issued the following statement:
"We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
A matter of public interest? How so? And what worries would the NY Times and their enabling Leftists have to worry about? These conspiracy laden nuts think that ANYTHING the government does is bad UNLESS they're the ones doing it. Amazing that the generation of the sixties that wouldn't trust "the man" are now the ones demanding to be "the man," isn't it? It is to me. These people think they have grown up. Maybe in physical size, but certainly not in maturity or in intelligence, and they PROVE it daily with how they act.
The NY Times doesn't seem to have a problem with doing things like this, and I'm joined by a number of legal minds--including the guys at PowerLine, Hugh Hewitt, John Eastman, Mark Levin, etc.--that believe it's high time the Justice Department quit acting like a bunch of panty-waists, unwilling to ruffle a few feathers, and start prosecuting these people. The First Amendment may guarantee the "freedom of the press," but it doesn't protect that same press when they break the law. And, ladies and gentlemen, revealing classified programs is considered a crime. I want Lichtblau and Risen brought up on charges, drag Bill Keller into this as well, and prosecute them. Either they turn over their source, or all three can rot in jail like Judith Miller did. And it's worthy to note that after her release, the Times still let her go. So much for being the "brave" journalist the Times wrote fawning columns about.
On top of that, the Times' assertion that this is somehow violating the law is completely and totally unfounded. As John Eastman remarked on Hugh Hewitt's show, "I was unaware that international banking records were mentioned in the Constitution as being protected." Here, here. They're not. If we obtain them from the financial institutions of their own volition (that being that we ask them for this information, and they turn it over) there's no crime. Hacking their database is one thing. We asked nicely, and this information was turned over.
And we're not the only ones who are scratching our heads at the Chicken Littles at the Times. The WaPo makes this clear in an editorial today:
THE TREASURY Department's just-disclosed program of searching records of overseas bank transfers may provoke outraged comparisons to the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance and data-mining of telephone call records. At least if news reports and government statements concerning the revelations are correct, however, this program is far less troubling. As with all revelations concerning the secretive Bush administration, you have to worry about what you don't know. So far, however, it seems like exactly the sort of aggressive tactic the government should be taking in the war on terrorism.
For one thing, it appears to be legal. The government is receiving large volumes of data detailing financial transfers from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a Belgium-based consortium that acts as a kind of messenger service for banks around the world, electronically notifying banks of transactions other banks are attempting to complete. The government, if it develops suspicions about a person, can search the system for any transactions that person may have engaged in. While customer banking data are generally private under federal law, the statute does not appear to cover the society, which isn't a bank and doesn't have individual customers. What's more, a different law gives the president broad powers in a national emergency situation to investigate, or even prohibit, certain financial transactions.
It is also the sort of information the government should be examining in any effort to frustrate terrorist financing and develop leads about who is funding whom. While such data can certainly be misused, records of overseas financial transfers are less sensitive from a privacy point of view than, say, the contents of phone calls or e-mails. And some safeguards appear to be in place to make sure the information is not misused. The department receives the material under a subpoena, Treasury officials emphasized yesterday. SWIFT's representatives audit all searches, as does an outside auditing firm. Unlike a data-mining operation, where analysts try to identify high-risk individuals using patterns and trends embedded in huge data sets, analysts here are searching for transactions involving individuals about whom they already have suspicions.
So, the Times misses the marks with even their own colleagues. Granted the WaPo isn't calling for heads on a platter, but maybe they should. (Yeah, right. That'll be the day.) The Times is catching all shades of hell over this story, and it's because its' a non-story. This story is like Abu Ghraib all over again with the way these nutters are hyperventilating over it. This is exactly what we want the government to do, which is disrupt the activities and financial transactiuons of our enemies. It makes it a helluva lot harder for them to hurt us and kill our troops if a stranglehold is put on their money. And that is the primary reason we are doing this. It's not because we're looking at what people do with their money. We're tracking the money that these people use, and that goes double for these so-called "charities" that people send their money to; unbeknownst to them, it's going for the jihad being waged against us. And frankly speaking, any charity that is caught doing that needs to be shut down, post-haste, and it's members funneling the money need to be arrested.
It's time this nation reminds not only the government that it's at war, but also the news outlets. And that this sort of behavior exhibited by both the NY Times and the LA Times carries consequences. We're not talking about shutting down either paper (their doing a good enough job of that on their own), but we are talking about prosecuting those that need to be held accountable. That starts with the reporters writing the stories and talking to these leakers, and it goes straight up to the editor who approves the story.
It's time to start playing hardball with these nutters before they end up blowing the cover of something REALLY IMPORTANT, and end up causing the deaths of innocent lives here in America, or the lives of our troops abroad.
Publius II
The extreme moonbat Left on Friday started going positively ape-s**t in their land of Oz when the New York Times decided to run a story on a new surveillance program run by the federal government. The LA Times joined them in this endeavor, and all they really did was peev off the country. See, what the NY times has done now, twice in six months, is reveal a top-secret program that we're using to locate and shut down terrorist networks. In response to this outrage at the Times, Bill Keller--editor of the NY Times--issued the following statement:
"We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
A matter of public interest? How so? And what worries would the NY Times and their enabling Leftists have to worry about? These conspiracy laden nuts think that ANYTHING the government does is bad UNLESS they're the ones doing it. Amazing that the generation of the sixties that wouldn't trust "the man" are now the ones demanding to be "the man," isn't it? It is to me. These people think they have grown up. Maybe in physical size, but certainly not in maturity or in intelligence, and they PROVE it daily with how they act.
The NY Times doesn't seem to have a problem with doing things like this, and I'm joined by a number of legal minds--including the guys at PowerLine, Hugh Hewitt, John Eastman, Mark Levin, etc.--that believe it's high time the Justice Department quit acting like a bunch of panty-waists, unwilling to ruffle a few feathers, and start prosecuting these people. The First Amendment may guarantee the "freedom of the press," but it doesn't protect that same press when they break the law. And, ladies and gentlemen, revealing classified programs is considered a crime. I want Lichtblau and Risen brought up on charges, drag Bill Keller into this as well, and prosecute them. Either they turn over their source, or all three can rot in jail like Judith Miller did. And it's worthy to note that after her release, the Times still let her go. So much for being the "brave" journalist the Times wrote fawning columns about.
On top of that, the Times' assertion that this is somehow violating the law is completely and totally unfounded. As John Eastman remarked on Hugh Hewitt's show, "I was unaware that international banking records were mentioned in the Constitution as being protected." Here, here. They're not. If we obtain them from the financial institutions of their own volition (that being that we ask them for this information, and they turn it over) there's no crime. Hacking their database is one thing. We asked nicely, and this information was turned over.
And we're not the only ones who are scratching our heads at the Chicken Littles at the Times. The WaPo makes this clear in an editorial today:
THE TREASURY Department's just-disclosed program of searching records of overseas bank transfers may provoke outraged comparisons to the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance and data-mining of telephone call records. At least if news reports and government statements concerning the revelations are correct, however, this program is far less troubling. As with all revelations concerning the secretive Bush administration, you have to worry about what you don't know. So far, however, it seems like exactly the sort of aggressive tactic the government should be taking in the war on terrorism.
For one thing, it appears to be legal. The government is receiving large volumes of data detailing financial transfers from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a Belgium-based consortium that acts as a kind of messenger service for banks around the world, electronically notifying banks of transactions other banks are attempting to complete. The government, if it develops suspicions about a person, can search the system for any transactions that person may have engaged in. While customer banking data are generally private under federal law, the statute does not appear to cover the society, which isn't a bank and doesn't have individual customers. What's more, a different law gives the president broad powers in a national emergency situation to investigate, or even prohibit, certain financial transactions.
It is also the sort of information the government should be examining in any effort to frustrate terrorist financing and develop leads about who is funding whom. While such data can certainly be misused, records of overseas financial transfers are less sensitive from a privacy point of view than, say, the contents of phone calls or e-mails. And some safeguards appear to be in place to make sure the information is not misused. The department receives the material under a subpoena, Treasury officials emphasized yesterday. SWIFT's representatives audit all searches, as does an outside auditing firm. Unlike a data-mining operation, where analysts try to identify high-risk individuals using patterns and trends embedded in huge data sets, analysts here are searching for transactions involving individuals about whom they already have suspicions.
So, the Times misses the marks with even their own colleagues. Granted the WaPo isn't calling for heads on a platter, but maybe they should. (Yeah, right. That'll be the day.) The Times is catching all shades of hell over this story, and it's because its' a non-story. This story is like Abu Ghraib all over again with the way these nutters are hyperventilating over it. This is exactly what we want the government to do, which is disrupt the activities and financial transactiuons of our enemies. It makes it a helluva lot harder for them to hurt us and kill our troops if a stranglehold is put on their money. And that is the primary reason we are doing this. It's not because we're looking at what people do with their money. We're tracking the money that these people use, and that goes double for these so-called "charities" that people send their money to; unbeknownst to them, it's going for the jihad being waged against us. And frankly speaking, any charity that is caught doing that needs to be shut down, post-haste, and it's members funneling the money need to be arrested.
It's time this nation reminds not only the government that it's at war, but also the news outlets. And that this sort of behavior exhibited by both the NY Times and the LA Times carries consequences. We're not talking about shutting down either paper (their doing a good enough job of that on their own), but we are talking about prosecuting those that need to be held accountable. That starts with the reporters writing the stories and talking to these leakers, and it goes straight up to the editor who approves the story.
It's time to start playing hardball with these nutters before they end up blowing the cover of something REALLY IMPORTANT, and end up causing the deaths of innocent lives here in America, or the lives of our troops abroad.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home