Let us try to discuss some issues where we share a commonality of views.
I believe that the U.S. government has misrepresented the truth as to whether newspapers, such as the NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post disclosed "secrets" about government monitoring of telephone calls that begin or end in the U.S., and about government data mining of telephone blling records of telco customer accounts, and about whether U.S. government monitoring of SWIFT financial transaction messages was a "secret" program, that "the terrorists didn't know about...unitl the NY Times and the LA Times disclosed this "secret program" in their June, 2006 reporting.
I believe that the government is accusing the newspapers of disclosing "secrets" that result in increasing risks to national security, that "may harm Armericans", not because the reporting by the newspapers has revealed information about NSA, CIA, and Treasury electronic surveillance, was heretofore, not public knowledge, details of which were already available in the public domain, but was motivated by the government's negative reaction to reporting by the newspapers that challenges or simply examinies the legality of such programs, and whether the "secret" programs were carried out with proper and specific judicial warrants, where the law required it.
The newspapers also called into question whether the information that was obtained, via these "secret programs", was obtained in a manner that would permit it to be accepted as evidence in criminal prosecutions, or whether this surveillance, if it was conducted without proper judicial oversite, would actually jeopardize the right of the accused to receive a fair trial, or whether it would risk the ability to prosecute some criminal cases, at all.
The violation of privacy rights of Americans by the government surveillance programs was also raised as an issue in the reporting of the newspapers.
I believe that the CIA determined that the confirmation by "senior administration officials", of reporters' inquiries, in 2003, as to the question of whether "Joe Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA, was disclosure (leaking) of classified information. I believe that, before mid 2003, the information that "Joe Wilson's wife" or that Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA, was not information that was public knowledge, i.e., in the public domain, and that this changed, afer Robert Novak's July, 2003 column.
Now....here is an example of how I support my contentions....I'm posting a message that has been available in the public domain since 1996. This can be verified at the following internet link. It describes most of the "secrets" that the government claims that NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post recently revealed in their news reporting:
Quote:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....05499a7c831626
From: Orlin Grabbe - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 30 1996 12:00 am
Email: Orlin Grabbe <kalli...@delphi.com>
Groups: misc.invest
[This is part II of The End of Ordinary
Money. Part I was previously posted on
the Internet, and will appear around
June 1 in the July issue of Liberty,
Box 1181, Port Townsend, WA 98368.]
......So when you deal in cash, expect to give a note to the
government, a crumb to the friendly FinCEN AI. But AI has
a voracious appetite, so the reporting doesn't stop with cash.
The heart of any modern monetary system is the digital
transfer of electronic money through the telecommunication
links among bank computers. Internationally, banks are
connected by a computer messaging system operated by the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication (SWIFT). Domestically, banks within a
country use equivalents of the U.S. clearing systems operated
by the Federal Reserve (Fedwire) and the Clearing House
Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). A Federal Reserve
Policy Statement of December 23, 1992 asks financial
institutions to include (if possible) complete information on
the sender and recipient of large payment orders sent through
Fedwire, CHIPS and SWIFT. "Historically, law enforcement
efforts to curtail money laundering activities have focused on
the identification and documentation of currency-based
transactions; however, recent investigations have focused on
the use of funds transfer systems," the statement notes.
The focus on funds transfer brings in the resources of
the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA has
been monitoring civilian communications ever since it
installed IBM computers at Menwith Hill in the U.K. in the
early 60s to keep track of international telex messages.<b> NSA
tentacles are now ensconced not only in transatlantic
communications, but also in Pacific satellite transmissions,
the regional Bell System offices, the SWIFT messaging
system, the CHIPS clearing computers in Manhattan, and
Fedwire.</b> In addition, a satellite surveillance system picks up
high frequency transmissions of specially constructed
computer chips which are activated by certain types of
transactions-oriented financial software. U.S. agencies are
not alone in financial monitoring. As a trivial additional
example, the Council of Europe has recommended Interpol
be given access to SWIFT to assist in money-laundering
detection [11]. .....
.....This is pretty much the way the foreign exchange
market works. If a New York bank deals dollars for
deutschemarks with a London bank, they send each other
confirmations through SWIFT. Then the New York bank
will turn over a dollar deposit in New York to the London
bank, while the London bank will turn over a deutschemark
deposit in Frankfurt to the New York bank. The Frankfurt
bank simply switches the name of the owner of the
deutschemarks from the London bank to the New York bank.
The New York bank now owns X-number of fungible,
unregistered (but completely traceable) deutschemarks at the
Frankfurt bank.
[11] "The means should, in fact, include access by Interpol
to the telecommunications system SWIFT . . .," Draft
Explanatory Report on the Convention on Laundering,
Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from
Crime," September 8, 1990.
|
Now....see how the example above demonstrates that you can do similarly,
regarding the issue of whether Ms. Plame's employer was public knowledge
before mid 2003?
This is the way we document, we document.....this is the way we support our statements.....early in the mornin' !