Rep. King Seeks Charges Against Papers Over Terror Reporting: Foxnews.com

[SkinFaninOKC]

The N.Y. Times is a mouthpiece for the enemies of this country. Timothy McVeigh bombed the wrong building.

You, nelms, are an f-in-idiot. Perhaps you feel Atta and his crew crashed into the wrong buildings??

[Predicto]

You, nelms, are an f-in-idiot. Perhaps you feel Atta and his crew crashed into the wrong buildings??

Please don't call him names.

Not only does it violate the rules of the Board, but every time someone does personally insult Nelms, he feels morally justified to start firing off a couple dozen personal insults himself. We need less of that all around.

[SkinFaninOKC]

Please don't call him names.

Not only does it violate the rules of the Board, but every time someone does personally insult Nelms, he feels morally justified to start firing off a couple dozen personal insults himself. We need less of that all around.

Maybe right wing nut job would have been nicer???

[Redskins Diehard]

Maybe right wing nut job would have been nicer???

Serious question. Why do we have to characterize "nut jobs"? Doesn't the term stand alone?

[nelms]

So the result is that the US expresses a foreign policy of invading any country in the world that is run by a bad person whenever we feel like it is in our immediate interest to do so, because bad people like to do bad things together? That's quite a policy shift.

Siumple fact: the American Public was sold the story that this war in Iraq was a necessary follow-up to the War in Afganistan, a matter of self-preservation because of the events of 9/11. You agree that this is not the case. However, I think MadMike continues to believe that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11, despite the lack of any evidence to support this view.

Huh? You are totally misrepresenting my post. Nice job.

[Predicto]

Huh? You are totally misrepresenting my post. Nice job.

I am not misrepresenting your post. I am extrapolating from it. If you say that invading Iraq was justified despite the lack of any connection between 9/11 and Saddam, but only because Saddam was a "bad guy" (which he undoubtedly was, then what policy is that based upon other than "we can invade any counrty led by a bad guy because bad guys often cooperate with other bad guys and some other bad guy attacked us recently..."

[Midnight Judges]

I am not misrepresenting your post. I am extrapolating from it. If you say that invading Iraq was justified despite the lack of any connection between 9/11 and Saddam, but only because Saddam was a "bad guy" (which he undoubtedly was, then what policy is that based upon other than "we can invade any counrty led by a bad guy because bad guys often cooperate with other bad guys and some other bad guy attacked us recently..."

Predicto, you seem to have made the incorrect assumption that Nelms had some kind of consistent policy. Dude supports whatever Republicans do, period. It's that simple.

[nelms]

I am not misrepresenting your post. I am extrapolating from it. If you say that invading Iraq was justified despite the lack of any connection between 9/11 and Saddam, but only because Saddam was a "bad guy" (which he undoubtedly was, then what policy is that based upon other than "we can invade any counrty led by a bad guy because bad guys often cooperate with other bad guys and some other bad guy attacked us recently..."

I don't care about the bad dictator man in some African country. Or the bad dictator man in some South American country. They are not a threat to us (at least not today). Saddam Hussein had proven that he was a threat to American interests in this vital region in the past, that's why we kicked his ass in the first Gulf war. And his dicking around with WMD's after the first Gulf war did him in. Period. After 9/11, we could not afford to let someone like him continue to threaten our interests in the Middle East. If Saddam was the dictator of Chile, I wouldn't really give a **** about him.

[Seabee1973]

If the photo is untampered with then saddam or a supporter made the painting as a propaganda tactic. Saddam of course was not behind 9-11 and did not support Al-Qaida.

.

If Saddam did not support alqueda would they have not been in his country? Why was al-queda's second in charge in Iraq?

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.169852178&par=0

[twa]

I am not misrepresenting your post. I am extrapolating from it. If you say that invading Iraq was justified despite the lack of any connection between 9/11 and Saddam, but only because Saddam was a "bad guy" (which he undoubtedly was, then what policy is that based upon other than "we can invade any counrty led by a bad guy because bad guys often cooperate with other bad guys and some other bad guy attacked us recently..."

You seem to overlook Sadamn was a enabler of terrorists and planned aggression against the US and our allies, more proof of which comes out all the time.

There are plenty of "bad guys",but not many crazy enough to act against the US.

[Seabee1973]

I can't tell, but it looks a lot more real then his sig did. You can see the shadows in the big picture, where you couldn't in the smaller one on his sig.

I seen the same shadows in both pictures

[Redskins Diehard]

I seen the same shadows in both pictures

The fact that I entered houses in Afghanistan with this same picture, and others like it, has been completely ignored by the doubters.

I ask this question again...why were there pictures of Saddam, UBL, and American landmarks in the same pictures in Afghanistan? Someone please explain.

[Seabee1973]

The fact that I entered houses in Afghanistan with this same picture, and others like it, has been completely ignored by the doubters.

I ask this question again...why were there pictures of Saddam, UBL, and American landmarks in the same pictures in Afghanistan? Someone please explain.

The same question can be said if there was no collaberation between al-queda and Saddam why was there Al-queda mebers in iraq? Some as early as 1998

[Larry]

The same question can be said if there was no collaberation between al-queda and Saddam why was there Al-queda mebers in iraq? Some as early as 1998

Um, because the #2 item on Osamma's "to do" list is "Overthrow Saddam"?

[Mad Mike]

Like I said. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I just don't think people understand how easy it would be for Saddam and UBL to cooperate with little or no visible trail. Al Qaeda needs cash? Saddam sends a truckload from his hidden stash. Note that there was no paper trail to the hidden American money we found. Saddam just hid it and that was that. Does anyone really think he would ask UBL for a reciept?

Is it so hard to imagine that Saddam supported Al Qaeda?

Saddam: So you say you want to hijack an airliner and you need to practice? Have I got a deal for you! I happen to have this airliner sitting in a field (this is a documented fact)... Just send a few people over, we'll run them through the course, no names, no records, they can take the lessons back and teach the rest of your people. No one can prove a thing.

What's that you say? One of your top people was injured? Send him over, we'll fix him up! He can stay with us! No. No trouble at all, I do this all the time, Just ask the last three most wanted terrorists in the world! (Note that this is no exageration. All three WERE in Iraq.)

So you need to set up a chemical weapons camp? No problem You can use this little place up in northern Iraq... Trace it to me? No worries, it's out in the boonies. I don't know a thing (wink, wink)!

Is any of this REALLY so hard to imagine from a guy who tried to assasinate a former US president, hated Amerca, wanted revenge for the first gulf war, openly supported terrorism and had documented contacts with al Qaeda?

But hey, I'm crazy because my gut instinct tells me he was involved.

[Mad Mike]

Um, because the #2 item on Osamma's "to do" list is "Overthrow Saddam"?

No. His number two item was to overthrow the Saudi Royals. That's a documented fact.

From Bin Laden's Fatwa:

But with the grace of Allah, the majority of the nation, both civilians and military individuals are aware of the wicked plan. They refused to be played against each others and to be used by the regime as a tool to carry out the policy of the American-Israeli alliance through their agent in our country: the Saudi regime.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Note that over half of his Fatwa is one long rant against Saudia Arabia (the land of the two holy places) who he acuses of colaborating with us.

And what does he say of Iraq?

More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children.

Try reading and learning rather than spouting off theorys you cannot support.

[skinz1972]

It's not that YOU are being informed. It's the fact that the ENEMY is being informed.

I really hope criminal charges are filed against the N.Y. Times and the reporters involved. This is an act of treason.

nelmes,how do u know busho didnt leak it?

[Larry]

But hey, I'm crazy because my gut instinct tells me he was involved.

No, you're crazy because you have this delusion that your gut is a good enough reason to justify the first war of conquest in US history.

I'll agree with you, the odds of anybody finding a verifiable paper trail showing Saddam being briefed about 9/11 in advance, and Saddam helping with the planning, are, shall I say, somewhat long.

Which is why my position has been, since even before the war, that if Bush is going to try to claim 9/11 as a reason to invade Iraq, he'd better have some iron-clad evidence that he can reveal later.

(Which is also why, IMO, the Bush administration has been bery carefull, for years, to constantly imply a linkage, but to absolutely never say there was one.)

Let's face it: Ossama didn't tell anybody about 9/11 in advance. He didn't get to be the most wanted terrorist (still alive) by being stupid. And telling a loony like Saddam anything about an upcomming operation would have to be just about the ultimate example of stupid. The Bush White House may leak like the Titanic, but Osamma's life depends on him keeping his mouth shut.

And by the same token, even Saddam has got to know that openly associating with Ossama would be a bad idea.

It's certainly possible that I could be wrong, but if there was a connection between Saddam and AQ, I'd think at most it would be along the lines of "I need some ground-to-air missiles." "Don't tell me what they're for."

(In fact, I'd bet any linkage is even more likely to be along the lines of "We won't meet again. If you need anything, contact Sergant Schultz at Supply Depot 17. (He knows nothing).")

In short, it's likely that there will never be any evidence of direct, demonstrable linkages, because it's outrageously unlikely that there ever were any such obvious linkages.

-----

But all of that aside, the real problem with your reasoning is that the justification that was used for this war was self defense.

Now, self defense is a legal and moral right that's recognised pretty much world wide. Bush was perfectly correct when he said that we don't need approval, from the UN or anybody else, to defend ourselves.

Nor is the President obligated, if the US is being threatened, to tell the people exactly what he knows or how he knows it.

But, to use the analogy I used even before the war:

If you shoot somebody and claim self defense, then there'd better be a gun found on the body.

Claiming that "Well, it's possible that he bought a gun, somewhere, without a record. And he's been calling me some bad names." doesn't cut it.

(Neither does finding some tools in his garage, and claiming that "Well, he could have used this drill to make a gun barrel, if he had some lead and some gunpowder.")

[flashback]

I know I'm just being a stubborn fool trying to inject facts into this Bushist Jihad, but here they are, anyway. :gus:

Reports of US Monitoring of SWIFT Transactions Are Not New

The Practice Has Been Known By Terrorism Financing Experts For Some Time

By Victor Comras

Yesterday’s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news. But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:

“The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.”

Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada’s Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.

While monitoring SWIFT-handled transfers is a useful tool in identifying and tracking certain suspicious transactions, its importance should not be overstated. The information in SWIFT’s hands is no better than the information which it is provided by the banks handling the transactions at both ends. And there is already an obligation on banks in the US and Europe to report all “suspicious transactions” The problem is that FINCEN and the corresponding FIUS in other countries have simply been overwhelmed by the enormous amount of transactions that are reported to them (see my earlier blog) Another problem is that European Banks are just getting around to providing (and requiring) information, such as names, account numbers and addresses of originators and recipients of transactions channeled or handled by them through SWIFT or other international transfer facilitators (see my earlier blog). And most banks outside of Europe, the United States and other OECD countries, still do not require, or verify, such information.

The fact is that there is really very little privacy today when it comes to the international transfer of funds. That is why criminal networks, money launderers and terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Hawalas and cash couriers for such transactions.

June 23, 2006 09:35 PM

[chomerics]

Huh? You are totally misrepresenting my post. Nice job.

Balls on you. . . :doh: Your whole existrance is nothing more then a misrepresentation of OTHERS opinions, yet in this case, he was not misreprsenting, he was rephrasing what you stated.

[chomerics]

Like I said. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I just don't think people understand how easy it would be for Saddam and UBL to cooperate with little or no visible trail. Al Qaeda needs cash? Saddam sends a truckload from his hidden stash. Note that there was no paper trail to the hidden American money we found. Saddam just hid it and that was that. Does anyone really think he would ask UBL for a reciept?

Is it so hard to imagine that Saddam supported Al Qaeda?

Saddam: So you say you want to hijack an airliner and you need to practice? Have I got a deal for you! I happen to have this airliner sitting in a field (this is a documented fact)... Just send a few people over, we'll run them through the course, no names, no records, they can take the lessons back and teach the rest of your people. No one can prove a thing.

What's that you say? One of your top people was injured? Send him over, we'll fix him up! He can stay with us! No. No trouble at all, I do this all the time, Just ask the last three most wanted terrorists in the world! (Note that this is no exageration. All three WERE in Iraq.)

So you need to set up a chemical weapons camp? No problem You can use this little place up in northern Iraq... Trace it to me? No worries, it's out in the boonies. I don't know a thing (wink, wink)!

Is any of this REALLY so hard to imagine from a guy who tried to assasinate a former US president, hated Amerca, wanted revenge for the first gulf war, openly supported terrorism and had documented contacts with al Qaeda?

But hey, I'm crazy because my gut instinct tells me he was involved.

Yes, you are crazy, and your gut instinct was wrong. Why am I not surprised?

THere is absolutely NO, I repeat NO evidence linking a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden HATED Saddam. This is apparently ignored in some eyes.

As for Zarqawi being in "Iraq", and I do use the term lightly because he was in an area not under Saddams control. . . He was supportring other movements against different people. Invading Iraq for having Zarqawi is kind of like saying we should invade ourselves because Atta and the 9-11 hijackers were in the US.

BTW, what ever happened to "If you harbor them we will consider you an enemy?" I guess he was talking only about Afghanistan, seeing how Pakistan is still ruling in poower, and Bin Laden is still alive. You know, the person who WAS RESPONBSIBLE for 9-11, not Saddam, a person who one time in the future may decide to align himself with someone who doesn;t like us. :doh:

[Midnight Judges]

If Saddam did not support alqueda would they have not been in his country? Why was al-queda's second in charge in Iraq?

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.169852178&par=0

Al Qaeda is in America too. Maybe England should overthrow Bush! :doh:

[flashback]

Some of the same facts, but also some new ones. Kilmer17, you said "it certainly hurts our efforts against terror. I cant believe anyone would deny that." I think the truth is actually "This can't possibly hurt our efforts against terror. I can't believe anyone would deny that." But actually, I can. Denial is what some people do best.

Terrorist funds-tracking no secret, some say

Cite White House boasts of tighter monitoring system

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

On Monday, President Bush said it was "disgraceful" that The New York Times and other media outlets reported last week that the US government was quietly monitoring international financial transactions handled by an industry-owned cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT, which is controlled by nearly 8,000 institutions in 20 countries. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal also reported about the program.

The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of "treason," telling reporters in a conference call that it "scares the devil out of me" that the media would reveal such sensitive information. Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, requested US intelligence agencies to assess whether the reports have damaged anti terrorism operations. And Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to pursue "possible criminal prosecution" of the Times, which has reported on other secret government surveillance programs. The New York Times Co. owns The Boston Globe.

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

"There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. "The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. "A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task.

"Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. "We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."

Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database.

SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses "are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information," according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."

Some worry that the new disclosures will nonetheless hamper US counter-terrorism efforts.

"I worked this stuff and I can guarantee that [revealing the SWIFT] information made a difference," said Dennis Lormel, a retired FBI special agent who helped establish the bureau's Terrorist Financing Operations Section before leaving government in 2003. "The disclosure will have an adverse impact on investigations. It was used in two specific instances where it helped to track terrorists. We also used it for lead value."

But the White House has also been very public about its efforts to track the overseas banking transactions of Americans and other foreign nationals.

Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist groups. The executive order was posted on the White House website.

The document called for "cooperation with, and sharing information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism."

Richard Newcomb, the head of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control at the time, later publicly credited the president for enabling US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to nab suspected terrorists, including followers of "Hambali, " Al Qaeda's leader in Southeast Asia. The New York Times report said Hambali's capture in 2003 came with the aid of information gleaned from SWIFT.

Administration officials have said this week that the disclosure of such details were particularly damaging to US security.

Nevertheless, in July 2003 -- a month before Hambali was captured -- Newcomb told the Senate Government Affairs Committee in detail about a program initiated after 9/11 between his office and the Pentagon to track Hambali's financial network in Southeast Asia. The scope of the project included Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore, focusing on the finances of Jemaa Islamiyah , the Al Qaeda group run by Hambali that was responsible for deadly bombings in Bali in 2002.

He said the operation "identified the key leaders, fund-raisers, businessmen, recruiters, companies, charities, mosques, and schools that were part of [Jamaa Islamiyah] support network. Thus far, we have imposed sanctions against two of these key nodes, and are coordinating action against several others," Newcomb told the committee.

Other public documents have also detailed post-9/11 efforts to follow terrorist money.

The Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks emphasized providing new authorities for the Bush administration to track and choke off terrorist funds around the world. One part of the act, dealing specifically with terrorist money, was described by the Treasury Department as the most ``significant [anti-money-laundering] law" since a 1970 law requiring banks to report cash transactions over $10,000.

That section of the Patriot Act required the Bush administration to ``adopt regulations to encourage further cooperation among financial institutions, their regulatory authorities, and law enforcement authorities" to track terrorist-related money laundering.

In testimony before Congress in early 2002, Juan C. Zarate , deputy assistant Treasury secretary in charge of terrorism and violent crime, discussed how the global exchange of information was a key element in choking off their source of funds.

He cited a special international meeting hosted a month after the attacks by the international Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, ``to eliminate existing impediments to exchanging information" between financial institutions and to find solutions to the challenges of tracking terrorist funds.

[Midnight Judges]

You mean Republicans are just playing politics and trying to slander the media? Nooooooooo!

[Air Force Cane]

that is patently ridiculous to say that it has not harmed the war on terror-

how many dummie terrorists do you know who have heard about the SWIFT program BEFORE it was front page news?

Thanks, but I will trust the reasoned judgement of common sense, our military officers, the White House, Justice Department and FBI.

For g-d's sake, even MURTHA told them not to run it because it would harm national security!!

Of course we don't expect leftists to really care about protecting the country- but don't expect us to swallow your koolaid that the NY Times is some innocent bystander here.