June 24, 2006, For bank privacy, try Switzerland
And so we learn of yet another secret Bush Administration program eavesdropping on activities many Americans might have thought beyond the government's snooping ability absent a warrant, in this case, secret monitoring of bank wire transactions, which (naturally) the Vice-President was quick to condemn (the disclosure of, that is, not the program, which he obviously likes, having approved it and all).
This is an interesting area, because, of course, unlike the apparent monitoring of tens of millions of telephone records, one would ordinarily think that people might just have a tad less of a privacy interest in this kind of transaction, particularly international wired money transactions. On the other hand, such transactions often involve the rich. So, it's a balancing game, between the twin aims of the modern Republican Party, protecting the interests (including privacy) of the super-rich, and crapping on the interests of everyone else... Tough one, all things told.
I'm also a bit less troubled by the disclosed program because unlike looking at everyone's telephone records, looking at international money wire transactions is actually rationally related to tracing the kind of financial transactions that might be used to fund terrorism. In short, it reflects the kind of clear thinking and arguable competence that I have just come not to expect from the Bush Administration. (While the program is supposed to have led to the discovery and thwarting of at least some terrorist activity, I take such a claim with a grain of salt; still, it's at least possible, unlike the telephone records dodge, which seems mostly about an excuse to let an expensive contract to Choicepoint and to have the ability to potentially abuse political opponents, this bank monitoring program is arguably related to the subject at hand, and who in their right mind really thinks that an international money transfer will truly be "private" when any part of the transaction involves the United States?)
Anyway, I contrast this with the revelation of the Miami Seven indictments; one would think that if it were a really serious anti-terrorism operation (as opposed to a public relations operation), blasting the story all over the media would be the last thing we'd want to do. We'd want to roll the would-be Qaeda members into ongoing informants, so we could get, you know, actual useful intelligence on Qaeda operations, so we could thwart any threats.
Just saying...
Comments
How does the brilliant liberal base suggest our government locate and eliminate potential terrorist threats? All I ever see is "Baaaad Conservatives, you can't do that, it impinges on my personel privacy!" What's your solution, fool? Wait, I remember now: Let's just be "nicer" to and more understanding of other lifestyles, cultures, etc., and they'll make nice back. Check your history; life don't work like that!
Posted by anony mouse at June 24, 2006 10:58 AM
Perhaps this blog needs a cat to intervene between the dog and the mouse?
First question: didn't you READ THE DAMNED POST?
You fight terrorism the way you fight ALL CRIME: you do it with actual HUMAN BEINGS-- inflitration, snitches, informants, that sort of thing... the way you thwart ALL BAD HUMAN ENDEAVORS.
As to overall INTELLIGENCE-- same thing. HUMAN BEINGS, who have their eyes and ears where they matter... listening, interpreting, rather than EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE on high tech crap that results in big-time contracts and kick-backs, but little actual useful INTELLIGENCE compared to HUMAN BEINGS.
And when you have probable cause to do so, you GET WARRANTS, either to search, arrest, or wiretap. (And if probable cause-- what the FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS REQUIRED-- is too much of a problem, then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION; otherwise... too bad.)
It's really not so hard. We've faced MORE DANGEROUS THREATS BEFORE, and somehow managed to survive them by playing within the established rules for over 200 years.
Posted by the talking dog at June 24, 2006 12:33 PM