First rule of TWOT: Do not talk about TWOT

Oh snap:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/

Terrorist funds-tracking no secret, some say
Cite White House boasts of tighter monitoring system
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

...

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

``There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

I just felt a great disturbance in the force- as if ten thousand people on the internets copying and pasting platitudes on "D-Day" and "Treason" cried out- and were silenced. ;)
 
I thought we were discussing the advisability of publishing the details of HOW the program worked, not that there was general knowledge that the government was actively searching for bad guys.

John
 
Check this out:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "In fact, I'll show you the classified documents right here..."
Which begs the question: Are security violations acceptable when committed by Republicans? If not, shouldn't you folks be a little more upset over Sen. Santorum than the New York Times? After all as pointed out below, this program wasn't secret.

Back to the questions posed by Mad Martigan,
Is this your opinion or is this wording found anywhere in your FAS link?
Click to expand...
Neither. It is contained within the text but not in that specific wording.
The very first sentence of the report should make it obvious:
"Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal
agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation."

So what commitee would be responsible for overseeing this program?
Click to expand...
Judiciary and Intelligence. Incidentally, there are also rules that appear to have been violated here by his witholding the information from the chairman and co-chairman of these committees. He claims "Congress was informed"....but which congressmen?

Did Congress already use its "Power of the Purse" to approve funding for the program?
Click to expand...
I don't know, did they? Where did the money come from to run this? Was this from a discretionary account or were the funds specifically allocated by this program?
Let me pose a hypothetical analogy here: If a 16 year old's mom gives him $40 for entertainment expenses and he uses that money to purchase crack...does that imply that she approves of his action through her 'power of the purse'?
Do you have any documentation implying that congress approved funding for this program specifically?
^ I really want an answer to this from you, Mr. Martigan.
 
GoSlash27, I really want an answer from you to the question in posts #33, #35, #38, and #51.

Your underlying premise - that the Administration should consult with Congress before embarking on controversial undertakings - is unassailable.

Your persistent, unsupported claim of an unspecified Constitutional requirement for Congressional prior approval simply detracts from your position.

In short, the Administration was wrong to keep the SWIFT monitoring secret from Congress, but wrong does not automatically equal illegal.
 
gc70,
Where did I claim that? If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. Near as I can see, you made that claim on my behalf.
All I'm saying is that the Constitution implies (not specifically mentions) congressional oversight and that oversight pretty well supports the notion that this sort of program *should* have prior approval.
Look back through my posts. I never called it 'illegal', I called it "mostly on the up and up".

As you correctly point out, "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "illegal".
 
If you didn't get up so early on Saturdays, you wouldn't have to wait so long.



Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "In fact, I'll show you the classified documents right here..."
Which begs the question: Are security violations acceptable when committed by Republicans? If not, shouldn't you folks be a little more upset over Sen. Santorum than the New York Times? After all as pointed out below, this program wasn't secret.
Click to expand...
I haven't said this program was secret. You may also notice that Santorum said he couldn't go into details because they were classified. If the fact that we are concerned with WMDs, the fact he gave away, were really classified, then I would be upset.

Back to the questions posed by Mad Martigan,
Quote:
Is this your opinion or is this wording found anywhere in your FAS link?
Neither. It is contained within the text but not in that specific wording.
The very first sentence of the report should make it obvious:
"Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal
agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation."
Click to expand...
That would be a more obvious answer to my question had I asked what congressional oversight was instead of how it is applied.

Quote:
So what commitee would be responsible for overseeing this program?
Judiciary and Intelligence. Incidentally, there are also rules that appear to have been violated here by his witholding the information from the chairman and co-chairman of these committees. He claims "Congress was informed"....but which congressmen?
Click to expand...
I would be interested to know which congressmen knew as well.

Quote:
Did Congress already use its "Power of the Purse" to approve funding for the program?
I don't know, did they? Where did the money come from to run this? Was this from a discretionary account or were the funds specifically allocated by this program?
Let me pose a hypothetical analogy here: If a 16 year old's mom gives him $40 for entertainment expenses and he uses that money to purchase crack...does that imply that she approves of his action through her 'power of the purse'?
Do you have any documentation implying that congress approved funding for this program specifically?
^ I really want an answer to this from you, Mr. Martigan.
Click to expand...
The answer to your hypothetical is no. I don't know the answer to the otehr questions.
 
Thank you. But there's one more question that requires a specific yes or no answer:
"Do you have any documentation implying that congress approved funding for this program specifically?"
 
Thanks again.

So...back to the subject at hand....

I feel *personally* that our constitutionally protected rights are not negotiable, not subject to expediency of war, and not available to trade for safety.
Anybody disagree with that?
 
I don't disagree. I also personally feel the subpoenaed review of many monetary transactions with many levels of oversight is not an unreasonable search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top