I'm a bit surprised that the topic of the NYTimes', WaPo's, and WSJ's revealing the formerly secret - and so-far successful - financial sleuthing done against terrorists hasn't generated a thread of its own. Link to satire.

I don't know how I'd handle this if I were the President. These papers' publication does strike me as irresponsible editorial policy, but we do have a wide conception of freedom of the press in this country. But with people from Dick Cheney to John Murtha urging - unsuccessfully, ultimately - restraint upon the NYT, maybe Ann Coulter had a point when she opined that if any building had to be blown up on 9-11 it should have been the NYTimes'. Better that these issues be explored in court than exploded elsewhere, of course, but will Gonzalez choose to prosecute? If he does and if it goes up to the SCOTUS, this is one case that CJ Roberts won't have to recuse himself from.

I knew Bush was tracking their banking long ago, as would any person who listens to his speeches since 9/11. And you can find on the website of the service exactly what the systems was designed for and it does. This all seems like information in the public domain if you ask me.

I'd rather a prosecutor ask a Grand Jury - and then a Petit one.

I'd rather everyone stop acting like this is some top secret operation and using it as an attack on the press.

But hey, I guess the Republicans are finally going to find something to rile up the base, that damned liberal media!

So, GMGINSFO, dead people at the NYT building is O.K., dead people at Twin Towers is not O.K. See how silly that sounds? This is what is wrong with Ann, her followers, and the wrong-wing nut jobs that are ruining this great nation.

EVERYONE knew the administration was tracking international money movements. Last week, Keith Olberman played a montage of at least a dozen clips wherein Bush says things like, "we're tracking their finances," "we're watching the banks," "if someone moves money from one country to another, we'll find out about it..." I mean, how stupid would a terrorist have to be to think that he can move money around without triggering the warning signals?

This is all about Bush/Rove stirring up the base: let's go after that left-wing, blue state, *New York*, elitist, anti-American enemy of freedom.

Has Bush ever answered the question of what he has done within the west wing to secure that vital national secrets don't get released to the media?

No, this is about an ultra-left entity like the NYT trying everything they can to humiliate the president (who, believe me, can do that on his own very well) and put Americans in harm's way. Americans and the terrorists did not know that through a specific bank in Belgium is where the financial actions passed and where the U.S. tracked the information; nor did we know exactly how this whole process transpired, from originating banks to terminating banks. We do now.

The Times and the people behind this ought to be prosecuted and punished (so should anyone who had leaked this). Their actions are reprehensible and despicable. It's further proof that such uber-leftists really do not care about winning this war on terror and protecting Americans. Their only concern is how to make Bush look like some fascist dictator or other idiot.

Free press, checks and balances, First Amendment...they're all soooooooo pre-9/11.

Heck, he doesn't need any help from the NYT for that!

And I'm sorry, prosecuting the press for printing truthful information? AFTER the press in question conferred with the administration on the issue? What exact laws were broken here? If any were violated, they were only violated by the leakers, not the people who published.

And how exactly does this make America less safe? How could we possibly be less safe than we are right now? The incompetence of the Bush administration, including their decision to attack a country that posed absolutely no threat to us (a decision that involved, in part, the leaking of classified information during wartime as a means of the political "gotcha" game, BTW), have done more to make us unsafe than any action taken on the part of the press, and that includes that idiot Geraldo Rivera revealing the location of troops during the illegal invasion of Iraq.

If anything, the NYT HELPED the administration, by ensuring those terrorists stupid enough not to be hiding their financial dealings will now get the message. That means we can be sure to have more "threats" out there for the administration to use to justify their illegal wiretapping, state-sponsored torture, domestic spying on non-violent Americans and slandering of innocent GLBT citizens. Not to mention the usefullness of this story in shoring up the "base." I mean, if the conservatives couldn't be mad at the evil "liberal" press, they might wake up and realize the abject failure this administration has proven to be on all fronts.

Is this just a more complicated version of First Amendment rights? Isn't this just an issue of the rights of the individual vs. the rights of society?

What I want to know is, what did the NYT hope to accomplish by divulging this information? If it's a matter of making the public aware, then the Freedom of Information Act should protect them. If they just wanted to pull down the Bush Administration's collective pants down in public, and make them run for cover, then they deserve to be punished. I guess it all comes down to intent.

In case you were wondering where the Constitutional terms came from, I'm in Paralegal Student mode once again, after a three-year absence. It's sooo nice to be back in school, and get the opportunity to use my brain again . Let's hope I stick with the program this time, and graduate by the end of next summer. Keep your fingers and toes crossed!

Care to read something from SWIFT's own website (no log-in or password needed and open to the public -- including the terrorists -- to read for themselves)? Of particular interest is point #2:
http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=6149

I work in the financial services industry and EVERYONE (and I mean EVERYONE) already knew that this was going on. It was not a state secret by any stretch of the imagination.

[ July 07, 2006, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: aquaman ]

Why hasn't the Administration and its water carriers gone after the WSJ harder? Because it's not politically expedient, right?

Don't shoot the messengers - find those who were granted security clearances who blabbed. But couldn't any of us figured this out? Isn't the financial tracking related to the War on Terror just a line out of the War on Drugs playbook? God, I hope that's the end of the the two wars' similarities.

No, prosecute the press for violating espionage laws, for publishing information detrimental to the safety of the American people, for publishing information vital to our national security.

Hell, even the Left's saint-of-the-moment, Congressman Murtha, pleaded with the NYT to not release this information because it would be "damaging to the U.S., its interests, and our efforts to capture terrorists."

I sure hope, but do not expect, the full force of law to go after the NYT, its publisher and editor, and anyone else involved in this. Long-term prison sentences would be quite appropriate.

For publishing information that was in the general domain? Again, you knew the government was doing this if you'd listened to any speeches about terroism since 2002. They've said they are tracking their finances, and the place you would assume financial transactions take place is...A BANK!

Maybe we should be prosecuting the people that run the tracking service, as it says very clearly on their page what they do.