A leaky boat
The New York Times' SWIFT Financial transaction story
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror - New York Times: the administrations' use of a Belgian banking data clearing house to track movement of money to and among extremist organizations was an action that kicked off a reaction and debate most notable for its defensiveness
U.S. Secretly Tapping Global Bank Records and lack of obvious symmetry. The first point that ought to be made is that the existence of the reported story does not necessarily contradict the worth of the program or negate it. Its primary significance was as part of the pattern of expanded Presidential powers
Analysis: CIA program expands Bush's power - Yahoo! News. This notion was lost on the reaction from the right commentariat, the self-righteousphere, (full of auto-indignation, oblivious of other days). When I caught Rep. Weldon (R. PA) on the news-hour
Online NewsHour: Analysis | President Condemns Media Leaks | June 26, 2006 | PBS last week I could tell that a decision had been made somewhere to ramp up the rhetoric beyond ordinary limits on this. Weldon's hypocrisy is boundless, as his insistence on pushing the Able Danger program in to the news last year in no way had official blessing, or universal political cover, and seemed to be a blatant leak done for personal aggrandizement. The New York times responded to this with their own self conscious defensiveness
Bush Condemns Report on Bank Records (see the list of internet commentary this article concludes with) and a wan rebuttal by the editor
Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report - New York Times which just seemed to enrage those inclined that way even more. Within days the Times followed this up with a stronger editorial as it became necessary to increase the tautness of their argument
Patriotism and the Press - New York Times. The Washington Post among other papers who had covered this story added analysis as well
Piling On the New York Times With a Scoop. Listening to the end of the week media reflections. I found myself caught up in what were the politics of what we are seeing - even though I recall reading recently that no one who believes in history ought to take politics seriously. On the Diane Rehm show
Diane Rehm Friday News Roundup one guest stated the key distinction is whether this program occurred with or with out [genuine] congressional oversight. If it can be demonstrated that there was true oversight then the Times perhaps should not have run the story
Why federal snooping of the international bank database is a good idea. It appears; however, congressional knowledge here was limited to the - look but don't speak, don't touch - model, distributed to only a smattering of members at that. This leaves congresses hand tied and begs for another estate to become involved. EJ Dionne (see his own column on this A Dissident's Holiday) added that Republicans like this discussion and desire to prolong it. They see it as helping them with the (their) public, and also how they can use it to paint discredit on new negative information concerning the administrations challenged engagement with reality. The facts themselves are of tertiary interest. This can be seen in a blunt opinion piece by Scott Lily
Selective Outrage - Center for American Progress mentioned on Diane Rehm's broadcast. Also there was reporting by Dan Froomkin, a web only columnist for the Washington Post. Who helpfully points out
A SWIFT Kick in the Head far from being a clandestine organization whose data collection was a closely guarded secret. SWIFT has a public web site and puts out a magazine. From just the literature I've read or browsed, articles by historian Matthew Aid or John Cassara's new book Hide & Seek: Intelligence, Law Enforcement, And the Stalled War on Terrorist Finance. John A. Cassara, (this book just arrived at U. Marylands. library last week) for neither conventional organized crime and racketeering or terrorism is this approach novel. For years, Osama bin Laden to the the extent the U S noticed him at all, it was through his fundraising activities. The president himself has heralded that al qaeda's finances will be subject to all the scrutiny the western world can muster
Behind Bush's Fury, a Vow Made in 2001 - New York Times. Not any of this is a news flash really, but politics now requires a war on the media, and embarrased bankers assuged.
For your consideration. Somewhere in a building, location undisclosed, agency undisclosed there is a floor off limits except to a special group of anonymous federal agents. In this room exists a (hypothetical...) database, a comprehensive inventory of guns in the United States. Not just acknowledged owned guns. Not just "bought through the system" the official retail system guns, but guns at gun shows, guns bought and sold on the stoop, in the garage, out the back of your pick-up truck, for cash no questions. Even guns with no apparent serial numbers. All guns, possessed by you, by anyone. Not just this either, but where you keep your guns and what ammunition you have on hand for them. Where you buy that ammunition. Your bumper sticker? They know about it. A jpeg of your bumper is in the file: "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers". "Check," the entry says, "the suggested protocol is authorized."
Because they are eventually coming for your guns. As the Law and Order juggernaut the right salutes picks up steam, increasingly the thought of a million yahoos running around armed talking about posse's and protecting the heartland from the brown peril and the ZOG government in Washington, it all makes them nervous. For the most orderly arrangement only the state should have guns. What would right-stream pajama-based "independent" media do, given that as a 'slam dunk' tip to run on their "blogs"? The last I looked the right leaning blogs had reduced their beating of this story to an absurdity. Michelle Malkin was up in arms over the media having mentioned at some point past that Cheney and Rumsfeld own vacation houses on the eastern shore. Here, she tangles lately-arrived-at notions of privacy, with public information. Apparently the rich and powerful are not, perhaps never were, part of the public. All the same it seems increasing certain that the administration will choose to bring the New York Times or the Post to court before the next presidential election. Especially if the news is not to their liking or manufacture.
This is a double hypocrisy. They can't have it both ways. Can't hide behind 'inherent power' to declassify at will, poor memory when leaking and presidential pardons; for themselves. Only to claim with the same forked tongue that leaks are treasonous. It is obvious that the constant in all this is the instinct to attack and punish those that show either incompetence or questionable actions undertaken by this administration with no real partnership of the American people.
11:57:18 PM  ;;
|
|
