How do you feel about all the hubbub over the gov'mnt monitoring bank transactions?

[sinewave]

Well? There's been a lot in the press lately about how many on the Republican side are upset over several newspapers publishing information on this program. What's your opinion?

 

[Darthphere]

I find it funny since theyve always monitored bank transcations. If I was to deposit 20 million into my account that currently has $23 in it, they will monitor that money and maybe bring me in to answer some questions. This really isnt anything new.

 

[jaguarr]

Personally? I think this administration has tried to keep a lot of secrets from their constituents and they try to hide behind the "This prevents us from winning the War On Terror" hyperbole often when decrying that they got outed for it. Never mind the fact that we'll never, EVER actually fully WIN a War On Terror in a kabillion years. I'm glad to see some semblance of actual investigative journalism and holding our government accountable for their actions. They've shown over the last 20 years that they aren't really willing to hold themselves accountable for their actions, so at least the press is finally stepping up to the plate and doing it for them.

jag

 

[sinewave]

Personally? I think this administration has tried to keep a lot of secrets from their constituents and they try to hide behind the "This prevents us from winning the War On Terror" hyperbole often when decrying that they got outed for it. Never mind the fact that we'll never, EVER actually fully WIN a War On Terror in a kabillion years. I'm glad to see some semblance of actual investigative journalism and holding our government accountable for their actions. They've shown over the last 20 years that they aren't really willing to hold themselves accountable for their actions, so at least the press is finally stepping up to the plate and doing it for them.

jag

agreed.

i'd like to hear some opposing views on this, too.

 

[Darthphere]

I dont know what the big deal is, theyve been doing this far before 9/11. WHy make a big deal now? And you guys know im not really defending the Bush administration. Im just saying.

 

[PLAS]

maybe as a form of check illegal enrichment?

that's the only good thing I can think to come out of this

 

[R. Shaw]

I believe both sides have come out and said there's nothing illegal at all about this. Just a little under five years ago, NYT called for a monitoring system to root out and cut off terrorist funding. That's what the program is doing. But when you publish articles describing this specific program, you know a program you called for, what are you thinking? I've never even been to NYC but I still remember what happened. It certainly seems like the Times doesn't. Publishing a tell all on a program that practically everyone but the "Bush lied, kids died" crowd sees no problem with, that is actively taking down terrorist funding, which you called for earlier, is a bone headed move. It just adds fuel to what conservatives have to say about the NYT.

 

[Addendum]

Swift: The Website! You know, that secret program that was in the NYT

Damn, it's only a secret if A) you lack access to the Internets, and B) you can't read

 

[lazur]

Personally? I think this administration has tried to keep a lot of secrets from their constituents and they try to hide behind the "This prevents us from winning the War On Terror" hyperbole often when decrying that they got outed for it. Never mind the fact that we'll never, EVER actually fully WIN a War On Terror in a kabillion years. I'm glad to see some semblance of actual investigative journalism and holding our government accountable for their actions. They've shown over the last 20 years that they aren't really willing to hold themselves accountable for their actions, so at least the press is finally stepping up to the plate and doing it for them.

jag

Yeah, except there's nothing illegal or questionable about what they're doing, so how are they being held accountable again? All this news story did was clue in those engaged in terrorist activity that it was happening.

The New York Times should be held accountable for publishing classified information. What they did was treasonous. Period.

 

[Darthphere]

Yeah, except there's nothing illegal or questionable about what they're doing, so how are they being held accountable again? All this news story did was clue in those engaged in terrorist activity that it was happening.

The New York Times should be held accountable for publishing classified information. What they did was treasonous. Period.

Informing americans about what the government is doing with THEIR bank accounts is treasonous?

 

[jaguarr]

Yeah, except there's nothing illegal or questionable about what they're doing, so how are they being held accountable again? All this news story did was clue in those engaged in terrorist activity that it was happening.

The New York Times should be held accountable for publishing classified information. What they did was treasonous. Period.

I never said that there was anything illegal about it. Ethics might be a whole other discussion. But, the government HAS tried to be rather secretive about something that's not exactly classified information and has raised a stink about what amounts to fairly accessible information if you know where to look being published by the New York Times which makes it much more visibile to the masses. Never mind the fact that it DOES concern American citizens private finances and is therefore something they have a right to be privvy to, in my humble opinion. So, yes, the government is being held accountable for their actions and policy by the American public being made aware of it on a broader scale. If the government really has nothing to hide about what they have been doing, then they shouldn't have anything to raise such a fuss over, should they, since it's all perfectly legal and everything, right?

jag

 

[Darthphere]

I feel odd in this discussion, because in this case I think the Bush administration is being unfailry criticized by something that was already going on and put in place by Clinto years ago. If theyre overreaching thats left up to the experts but aslo, to call the NYT treasonous is pretty harsh since really this isnt somehting that has been hidden.

 

[lazur]

I never said that there was anything illegal about it. Ethics might be a whole other discussion. But, the government HAS tried to be rather secretive about something that's not exactly classified information and has raised a stink about what amounts to fairly accessible information if you know where to look being published by the New York Times which makes it much more visibile to the masses. Never mind the fact that it DOES concern American citizens private finances and is therefore something they have a right to be privvy to, in my humble opinion. So, yes, the government is being held accountable for their actions and policy by the American public being made aware of it on a broader scale. If the government really has nothing to hide about what they have been doing, then they shouldn't have anything to raise such a fuss over, should they, since it's all perfectly legal and everything, right?

jag

Yes, you're right! Nothing the government does in terms of investigating and therefore preventing terrorist acts (and other crimes) should be classified. In fact, they should publish a book annually on all of their techniques and all of their actions. That'll definitely help keep us protected!

 

[jaguarr]

Yes, you're right! Nothing the government does in terms of investigating and therefore preventing terrorist acts (and other crimes) should be classified. In fact, they should publish a book annually on all of their techniques and all of their actions. That'll definitely help keep us protected!

But it wasn't classified information. It's something that's been going on for years and wasn't a huge secret, though it wasn't widely publicized. So, why's the government got their panties in a bunch over it, then? That alone makes one wonder if the program has been abused and they're worried about getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar. And besides, not EVERYTHING the government does is crucial to preventing terrorist acts and other crimes and I get really tired of that broken crutch being hauled out every time they want a convenient excuse for doing whatever it is that they're doing. That rhetoric shouldn't just be a free pass to do whatever they want. If anything, it should be a reason to scrutinize more closely what they are doing because they obviously use it as a hot button to get people to acquiese without really asking many in depth questions. Especially where it comes to infringing on their own people's privacy.

jag

 

[lazur]

But it wasn't classified information.

You're wrong. This was a program designed to monitor the banking transactions of terrorists specifically. The program was SET UP FOR THAT PURPOSE. It's one thing to say that the government has a program in place designed to monitor large transactions, and completely another to say that the government has a program in place SPECIFICALLY monitoring the transactions of known terrorists and known terrorist organizations. Hello??

It's something that's been going on for years and wasn't a huge secret, though it wasn't widely publicized.

Again, wrong.

So, why's the government got their panties in a bunch over it, then? That alone makes one wonder if the program has been abused and they're worried about getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Yes, anytime the government becomes angry over actions taken against them, it MUST be because they're up to no good. It could never, ever be because of a LEGITIMATE concern - aka revealing sensitive, classified information regarding a program designed to protect the American people.

And besides, not EVERYTHING the government does is crucial to preventing terrorist acts and other crimes and I get really tired of that broken crutch being hauled out every time they want a convenient excuse for doing whatever it is that they're doing.

I didn't realize that you were such an expert on EVERYTHING the government does. Mine eyes have seen the light!

That rhetoric shouldn't just be a free pass to do whatever they want.

Ugh, they didn't. There's nothing illegal OR unethical about what they're doing. Therefore, what they're doing is lawful - therefore it was classified as LEGAL, and therefore it's not doing "whatever they want".

If anything, it should be a reason to scrutinize more closely what they are doing because they obviously use it as a hot button to get people to acquiese without really asking many in depth questions. Especially where it comes to infringing on their own people's privacy.

People like you really concern me. In the same breath, you hold the government accountable for when we are attacked by terrorists, and also cut them off at the knees when they attempt to prevent it from happening in the future. You want them to protect you, but you don't want them to use the tools at their disposal to do so. It's like asking Superman to save a crashing airplane ... but without flying ... and without superspeed ... and oh yeah, you can't use super strength either. Good luck. Don't let us down now!

 

[jaguarr]

lazur, I'm not going to get into it with you if you're just going to try and make this all so personal without even really trying to listen to or understand where I'm coming from.

jag

 

[lazur]

lazur, I'm not going to get into it with you if you're just going to try and make this all so personal without even really trying to listen to or understand where I'm coming from.

jag

As I said, people like you really concern me. In the same breath, you hold the government accountable for when we are attacked by terrorists, and also cut them off at the knees when they attempt to prevent it from happening in the future. You want them to protect you, but you don't want them to use the tools at their disposal to do so. It's like asking Superman to save a crashing airplane ... but without flying ... and without superspeed ... and oh yeah, you can't use super strength either. Good luck. Don't let us down now!

 

[Darthphere]

As I said, people like you really concern me. In the same breath, you hold the government accountable for when we are attacked by terrorists, and also cut them off at the knees when they attempt to prevent it from happening in the future. You want them to protect you, but you don't want them to use the tools at their disposal to do so. It's like asking Superman to save a crashing airplane ... but without flying ... and without superspeed ... and oh yeah, you can't use super strength either. Good luck. Don't let us down now!

Dumbest. Analogy. Ever.

 

[lazur]

Dumbest. Analogy. Ever.

Only because you disagree with me. The analogy was spot on. You can't expect the government to perform tasks, which require certain tools in order to complete ... and then take those tools away from them without altering your expectations at all.

This is a super hero board (hint hint). I used that analogy because it fits both the situation AND the medium of communication.

But thanks for contributing your insightful words and really demonstrating your intelligence.

 

[Darthphere]

Only because you disagree with me. The analogy was spot on. You can't expect the government to perform tasks, which require certain tools in order to complete ... and then take those tools away from them without altering your expectations at all.

This is a super hero board (hint hint). I used that analogy because it fits both the situation AND the medium of communication.

But thanks for contributing your insightful words and really demonstrating your intelligence.

Its dumb because those are powers a right analogy would be the government using CIA technology, spy satelites, Echelon so forht and so on. Thanks for showing your crappy analogy skills.

 

[Darthphere]

Its not what you use, its how you use it.

 

[sinewave]

There are three things I don't get with this issue. 1) Why is the New York Times being singled out when the The Wall Street Journal, The LA Times and, I think, the Washington Post all ran stories on it as well? 2) If this is indeed a classified program, why did the Undersecretary of the Treasury Department agree to discuss the details of the program with the New York Times, along with several other anonymous government insiders? 3) Do people actually think the terrorists weren't aware that the U.S. government would attempt to track their funds?

All the compaining about this by the Republicans seems like a political stunt to try and gain an advantage over the Democrats in an election year.

 

[lazur]

Its dumb because those are powers a right analogy would be the government using CIA technology, spy satelites, Echelon so forht and so on. Thanks for showing your crappy analogy skills.

My God, my reply was to Jag, who essentially said that the government shouldn't be able to do ANYTHING (which we'll presume includes using spy satellites, the CIA, Echelon and so on) without the public having knowledge of it.

Why don't you stop jumping into the middle of discussions between two people you obviously cannot understand, or at least didn't take the time to read and understand before hand?

And quit being insulting. You're only showing your maturity when you stoop to that level.

 

[Darthphere]

My God, my reply was to Jag, who essentially said that the government shouldn't be able to do ANYTHING (which we'll presume includes using spy satellites, the CIA, Echelon and so on) without the public having knowledge of it.

Why don't you stop jumping into the middle of discussions between two people you obviously cannot understand, or at least didn't take the time to read and understand before hand?

And quit being insulting. You're only showing your maturity when you stoop to that level.

Yet, youre the one that called my intelligence into question first. Im sorry I hurt your feelings.

 

[lazur]

Yet, youre the one that called my intelligence into question first. Im sorry I hurt your feelings.

Actually, when you called my analogy "dumb", you did, sir. But thanks for being so astute.