The big revelation in today's papers are that the government has been monitoring a huge international database of financial transactions, looking for evidence of terrorist funding so they can trace it and shut it down.
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.
Nobody should be suprised by this. We know the administration was monitoring phone calls, and we know they were trying to trace terrorist funding. It makes sense that they'd take the same approach to bank records that they took to phone calls.
So is this program another warrantless wiretap program? Yet another power grab by the administration in the name of fighting terror?
Yes and no. As constructed, I have fewer problems with this effort than I do with the eavesdropping program.
First, it's not warrantless:
Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.
They're just National Security Letters, true, which require very little in the way of factual support. But it's better than just ignoring the whole warrant/subpoena process. Of course, it appears that the only reason they bothered with subpoenas was because Swift demanded them. But at least they got them.
Second, it's mostly international records, and there are safeguards to keep the records of American citizens private.
Among the safeguards, government officials said, is an outside auditing firm that verifies that the data searches are based on intelligence leads about suspected terrorists. "We are not on a fishing expedition," Mr. Levey said. "We're not just turning on a vacuum cleaner and sucking in all the information that we can."
The auditing firm is a nice touch. But regardless, I have no problem with scanning foreign transactions. It's similar to what the NSA was created to do: monitor foreign communications. They don't need a warrant to do so, because foreigners have no protections under the Constitution.
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
So, as I understand it, if we keep this war going, all the extraordinary presidential powers to snoop continue forever. So we have successfully evolved from representative government to presidential dictatorship.
2 - Arch Conservative
It never ceases to amaze that all of the lefties whose hearts desire socialism and the intervention in government in every aspect of our lives when it's one of thier own on some social engineering mission have such problems with anything the current administration attempts in an effort to locate the terrorirsts.
But then again as Michael Moore says..." there is no terrorist threat." Only enron and haliburton execs staging events like 911 and the train bombing in spain to make it look as if there is to fatten thier own pockets.
3 - gonzo marx
and it NEVER ceases to Amaze and bewilder me when so called "conservatives" who are Apologists for this Statist regime continue to defend the police state dictatorial practices of a regime which expands government, blatantly flouts both the Spirit and Letter of our Laws and Constitution, erodes civil Liberties, and violates the Constitution with signing statements and warrantless intrusions...
it appears to me, that many of these are good and decent People , who are caught up in the bullshit "us versus them" mentality aganist FELLOW CITIZENS rather than lookinig at common grounds and goals merely because they hold blind Trust in their gangs elected officials and the Masters who hold those officials souls in their wallets
silly me..here i had thought "conservative" followed people like Goldwater and Buckley, rather than Wolfowitz and Cheney and Kristol
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
4 - Arch Conservative
The point was that anyone who wants personal information can get it if they try hard enough.
It would seem and I believe that the governemnt is doing it to protect us from scumbag islamic fundamentalist, terrorist nutjobs
maybe if there was a way in which the govt would only collect info on people like me who are fine with it and not you but then the terrorists would only target people like you and not me we'd all be happy gonzo
5 - JustOneMan
Hey arch..Gonzo Marx is pulling a little Joe Biden plagurism routine...more proof that the left is devoid of any morals, ideas and or priciple...
PS excelsior is a code word for Cuckold...
6 - JP
Arch, has it ever occurred to you--perhaps in a moment when you weren't using the word "liberal" as a form of slander--that the root of the word "liberal" is the same as the root of "libertarian" and of "liberty"? Why does it surprise you that people of both groups (liberal and libertarian) have found common ground in questioning the extreme measures the Bush administration has adopted in the name of "security"?
7 - gonzo marx
Arch..what you believe is for you to own...
my point is that the Facts steer us towards thinking that this Administration is doing exactly as it said it woudl...grabbing as much Power for the Executive as it can
read Gonzalez work while he was legal Council, and actually tally up what he claims to be "ok", from extrodinairy rendtition to waterboarding to searches and wiretaps without a warrant
now..just for a second, imagine this was Clinton doing this crap...do you honestly think you can sit here and say you would NOT be freaking out right now?
jus for a MOment, place the shoe on the other foot...or even imagine you have some libertarian roots ("live free or die") and take away that you are a member of this political "gang"
can you honestly say you are happy with the bigger government, deficit spending, pre-emptive starting one fight without finishing the other, and then out of the "axis of evil" going after the ONE country of the three that does NOT have nukes while stirring up NK and Iran into getting their shit built soonest?
i'm curious as to your honest Response Arch/Bing
Excelsior?
8 - Alix
In case it was not clear. This program is LEGAL. This program has helped bring down terrorists. this program is now dead. Thanks NYT.
9 - Dave Nalle
This program was originally developed to fight the War on Drugs, and as far as I know it was never truly secret, just not highly publicized. I know that from years ago when I occasionally made large cash deposits and received wire transfers for one of my businesses I was aware that if they were large enough they were being tracked. Can't recall where I got the information, though. And like a lot of things the government does it's mainly been legal because it has never been seriously challenged. I think that if a challenge got to the SCOTUS it might be struck down as illegal.
Dave
10 - Alix
Dave, it was brought to SCOTUS and it was deemed that 3rd party money transactions are not private. No subpeona is needed for these transactions. The goverment did provide subpeona for the wire transactions then had to provide proof for the actual names and account #s. This story does not serve our benefit but the terrorists benefit.
11 - gonzo marx
Alix sez...
*this program is now dead. Thanks NYT.*
don't forget the LA Times or the Wall Street Journal, all three broke the Story
i also disagree with you that "the program is dead"...total bullshit, there was nothing new in the Articles...and nothing that is going to stop the program from continuing..
sheer naivete to think that criminals were unaware of the program, and circumvent it as much as is possible...even a street level drug dealer knows to "launder" how much more so terrorists who deal in the hundreds of millions? (bin Laden personal wealth estimated between 250 and 300 million, for exmple)
Excelsior?
12 - Alix
I say the NYT because they were the first to have the story months ago and printed it now because the other 2 papers had caught up to them in reporting. In regards to it being dead, the terrorists will have to go further underground to transmit funds. If it was widely known, then why did a legal program helping against terrorism need to be made public. I should hope that we all agree that some programs(legal) should be kept secret from terrorists even if it is believed that it is known by the terrorists.
13 - gonzo marx
Alix, you make no logical sense here...
if the Times held onto the Story for two months..then what is your problem with them? that they ran it when the Wall Street JOurnal was goping to do the same? one woudl think you would be just as upset by the WSJ forcing the Issue than about a paper that talked with the Admin and kept it under wraps for months...
as for the "terrorists" going further underground with their monetary transactions..i covered that previously...
and you do know of the Arab banking system where merchant bankers in the bazaars have a complete network of purely verbal transactions that have been in place of over 1000 years? no need for them to move money among themselves with ANY kind of paper trail...and anything International on a large scale HAS to go through SWIFT...so NO change there
Excelsior?
14 - Alix
The fact it was printed at all is why I'm upset. The other papers would have taken the lead from the NYT and not printed it if they realize the security reasons. If it was held for 2 months, then it was not a matter of emergency and public interest to be released. You still have not addressed the fact that what is the public interest to release the story. Is there nothing we should keep secret from terorists. If it was working without being made public, then why make it public.
15 - Alix
Swift handels about 89% of financial transactions($10,000 or more). That leaves another 11% they don't.
16 - gonzo marx
Alix sez..
*The other papers would have taken the lead from the NYT and not printed it if they realize the security reasons.*
speculation and not factually accurate..unless you are a mind Reader, you have NO way of knowing this
then Alix sez...
*If it was held for 2 months, then it was not a matter of emergency and public interest to be released. You still have not addressed the fact that what is the public interest to release the story.*
did you read any of the Stories?
if so, you would find that what was of main concern was due Process, and trying to find out the extent of the snooping, in the wake of the NSA wiretapping scandals ANYTHING that has to do with a warrant and 4th Amendment protections is germaine to the conversation, and thus ot the Press
hope that helps
Excelsior?
17 - Alix
If they held it for due process and the extent of the snooping and they found out it is legal, why put it on the front page. It is legal and no ones rights have been violated. Speculation would also be the same to assume the other 2 papers would have printed it anyway. We don't know and never will.
18 - Alix
Also both chairs of the 9/11 panel did not want it released. The correct members of Congress did not want it released and all said it is legal. This is not a partisan issue but a security issue.
19 - gonzo marx
no, we don't know..but YOU are the one who did the speculation...
*The other papers would have taken the lead from the NYT and not printed it if they realize the security reasons.*
not me
Excelsior?
20 - IgnatiusReilly
I must admit, I am baffled that people think this is some "revelation" by the press. While it might not be politcally correct to say, our country's enemies are smart and this seems like a rather obvious tactic the government would use.
The same goes for data mining phones. Every teenage drug dealer knows not to use the phones for "business", but somehow a group that was able to pull off 9/11 doesn't know such a basic concept.
While we might catch some low level thugs, the big fish are only going to be caught by informants and infiltrating the organization.
Cries of the sky falling from the right seem either disingenous or ignorant.
21 - Diz
IgnatiusReilly you've really hit the nail on the head here. It amazes me that people would actually think that this revelation is some form of security risk. Is it not common sense that "dem terrorists" are smarter than a bunch of 16 year olds pushing eighths of pot across town?
This is nothing short of an opportunity for Bush to lash out against the media thats been bashing him because this program, unlike others, has had proper oversight and is apparently legal. Now its time to hear about how dispicable the papers are for reporting this...because people are clearly going to mix this issue with the wiretapping scheme and all of the other "leaks" that have plastered headlines. Perfect opportunity for some damage control. Once again we're having the national security fire lit under our asses to keep us in line. God damn freedom of the press and all those other worthless constitutional rights.
22 - mschannon
No one's addressing Sean's article, which I think is quite reasonable and seeks a middle ground where individual liberties are protected while the government can go off and continue to fail to capture many terrorists.
If there's a problem, it's a growing lack of trust in the Bush administration and their anti-terrorism activities. Nothing the Times did in any way threatens that operation--like the terrorists didn't know that was going on?
Give me a break & find something real to whine about. Good job, Sean.
In Decaf Veritas