Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
If the SWIFT program was outed as far back as 2001, what is the purpose of publishing an article - especially in light of the recent phone-tapping stories - with such ominous headlines:
---
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
"A secret program has given counterterrorism officials access to financial records involving thousands of Americans, officials said."
---
Why call it secret if it really wasn't?
Come on host, everyone knows the NYT is anti-war. Fine, theyre anti-war no big deal. But why pretend to be unbiased, why pretend to be upholding the First Amendment and other lofty excuses, when all you are doing is taking a partisan swipe. It insults people's intelligence more than anything else. |
What do you mean by,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
If the SWIFT program was outed as far back as 2001.....
|
Haven't I supplied enough links to persuade you that it was outed as far back as 2001?
Doesn't John Hinderaker's partisan hit piece define what it would take to satisfy him that the "secret SWIFT monitoring programs" was actually in the public domain? He may be correct in assuming that terrorists don't read 2002 UN reports, or scour the internet looking for them, and that "liberals" are the ones who do that. I don't think that Hinderaker can make any case that the September 21, 2001 reporting about NSA interception of SWIFT international banking transactions was not widely distributed....the proof that it was is that the "story" is still displayed on all of these news media websites, and has been there for anyone to come across for the last 58 months.
Can you make any case that the NY Times disclosed a secret program?
What have you offered in your post that would increase my knowledge of what actually happened, as far as this coordinated attack from the highest levels of US political leadership, against the NY Times reporting?
The Times at least has a transparent motive for describing their reporting the way they did. They are in the business of selling newspaper advertising, which requires stimulation of their circulation numbers.
What are Bush and Cheney's motives? Are you comfortable with the spectacle of them criticizing the NY Times reporting, as a "disclosure of secrets"? It is interesting that your reaction to me providing you with unique new information about the SWITCH monitoring by the US government, information that you, and obviously John Hinderaker, found nowhere else...is to attack the NY Times and dismiss me as a partisan....
My "partisan" contribution to this forum brought more truth and accuracy to this issue than your president, vice president, and shills like John Hinderaker will ever bring to it. The fault in this does not lie with me, or with the NY Times, because neither you, nor I, knows if the Times reporters approached the white house with questions, and were met with a reaction that SWIFT is a secret source and method that we won't discuss, and you shouldn't publish...
or not. We do know now, with reasonable certainty, because of what I've posted on this forum, that details of SWIFT were in the public domain for nearly five years. We can reasonably suspect that Bush and Cheney are either clueless about that fact, or they used SWIFT monitoring as an excuse to data mine, private, proprietory, international and domestic financial transaction instruction messages, for at least the last 58 months.
Please tell me whether or not you object to me providing you with all of this new information.