Hmmm...
Considering chaning my name to Mohamed for solidarity.
Don't know if the world is ready for a female Mohamed though!!! : )

"I predict that worldwide financial transactions will come to a halt if there is ever a terrorist attack by someone named Smith"

Isn't Mohammad the most common name in the world anyways? (it shows up if you wiki it, sorry I can't seem to add the hyperlink on my Mac).

Talking about "Smith", the funny thing is my boss's last name is "Smith" and he's on the NO FLY list. Dude has to go up the counter every time to check in and show his DOD travel orders.

Just days after 9/11, The New York Times was bleating about there being a need to monitor financial transactions to trace terror network funding. Funny how they forgot about their own recommendations...

Finances of Terror

September 24, 2001
Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America’s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.

Funny. I see nothing in that 2001 New York Times snippet reccommending a program tracking every single international bank transfer of every single customer.

But thanks for playing.

Funny. I see nothing in that 2001 New York Times snippet reccommending a program tracking every single international bank transfer of every single customer.

And pray tell how is one to know which bank tranfers to track without tracking every transaction ? I think you logic would get you benched... ;-)

And pray tell how is one to know which bank tranfers to track without tracking every transaction ? I think you logic would get you benched... ;-)

No, actually my logic is fine.

a). You said the New York Times recommended Bush do exactly what he was doing in terms of monitoring every international financial transaction made by ever person.

b). The quotes you provided from the Times did NOT say Bush should monitor every international financial transaction. They gave other recommendations, but not that.

c). Therefore, the New York Times did NOT say what you claimed they said.

See? The logic fits.

As for how should one track bank transfers? Well, I didn't give any suggestions or recommendations on that front. I only addressed what the NYT did or didn't say, as did you. So, my logic on the bank transfer topic wouldn't get me benched because I offered no thoughts on the matter in Post #5.

Now, you've put words in the NYT's mouth, and in my mouth. That should warrant a benching of your own. Please don't respond if your intentions are dishonest. Thank you.

This is a trend with Vikram's comments. Every time he sees a post or comment where he disagrees with the underlying message (translation: it isn't conservative enough for him) he will write a one-liner with a very long excerpt from an ancient article or one that has nothing to do with the matter at hand but just seems, to a casual onlooker, like it might. So long as the citation has the most tenuous of relevance and allows for what he considers to be a zinger, it is okay.

SY:

Abhi quotes the Times:

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda

You say:

Funny. I see nothing in that 2001 New York Times snippet reccommending a program tracking every single international bank transfer of every single customer.

Are they singling out Muslims or tracking every transaction? (or maybe tracking every transaction to see if the $$ goes to someone with a Muslim name?)

Vikram,

I think there are three kinds of people in the world. They are:

1] Pre-911 people: They don't see any reason why the government should monitor anything for any suspected activities. They refuse to let the government connect any dots. According to them, the Government is the enemy - especially since the election was, ah, "stolen".

2] 911 people: They are forever paranoid and want the Government to nuke Mecca and all Muslim countries, take over the oil, and call it a day. Given a chance, they would execute all muslims in all Western Countries.

3] Post 911 people (like myself): They believe that even though a majority of muslims are not terrorists, a majority of terrorists are muslims. They believe in giving the Government certain amount of leeway to profile, monitor, detain and question potential terrorists. If this means giving up some amount of privacy, then it's a small price to be paid for the reduced chances of another 911 happening. They believe that Western democracies have the necessary checks and balances to assure that abuses of power are kept to a minimum. They believe that good people with names like Mohammed will have a tough time conducting day-to-day activities, but that's an unfortunate price to be paid, because there are a few bad Mohammeds as well. They believe that in the unfortunate event that more 911's happen, not only Mohammeds, but also Kapoors, Singhs, Hegdes and Gangulys will be targetted violently, and that's what they want to avoid.

M. Nam

No, actually my logic is fine.

No Sherlock your logic is not fine, you obviously missed this line...

The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners

So if all account owners should be identified in their words, then why can't all transactions be tracked. They didn't say anything about excluding any transactional information either. Anyway, the NT Times wrote a brief opinion, not a detailed plan of financial forensics. They are hardly experts on national security or state policy. Heck, they cannot even remember their own words.

I don't know what your intentions are... but they strike me as specious.

No Sherlock your logic is not fine, you obviously missed this line...

The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners

Of course I missed this line.

Because it wasn't there in the original passage you quoted.

When you wrote that sentence, it made it's first appearence in this thread, both in abhi's article and in the comments section. CERTAINLY not in the 2001 passage you cited, nor anywhere else. I don't know if it's in the recent Times article that simply wasn't quoted in abhi's article... but that wasn't what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about the passage the Times wrote in 2001.

Are you always this deliberately obtuse? (That's a diplomatic way of saying 'liar liar pants on fire'.)

Aha! You provided a link. Sorry I never click on those (especially since I'd think the words you highlighted would be considered sufficient enough, and they weren't). But I will now. Wait a tic...

To answer my own question (post 9):

According to the Times:

"At first, they got everything — the entire Swift database," one person close to the operation said.

Intelligence officials paid particular attention to transfers to or from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates because most of the 9/11 hijackers were from those countries.

Officials realized the potential for abuse, and narrowed the program's targets and put in more safeguards.

I Think Vikram is correct. The NYTimes is exposing a program that, in essence, they once advocated.

I Think Vikram is correct. The NYTimes is exposing a program that, in essence, they once advocated.

Manju, Vikram, why does it matter? You seem to equate exposing with condemning? Is the NY Times condemning this program when once they advocated it?

Abhi:

Manju, Vikram, why does it matter? You seem to equate exposing with condemning? Is the NY Times condemning this program when once they advocated it?

I think the issue is (and I don't have an opinion on this yet) that since the program is secret, exposing it in effect nullifies it. Whether or not the NYtimes gave away enough details to nullify the program is currently being debated.

recent comment re the times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/opinion/02pub-ed.html

I think the issue is (and I don't have an opinion on this yet) that since the program is secret, exposing it in effect nullifies it. Whether or not the NYtimes gave away enough details to nullify the program is currently being debated.

But again, this line of thinking has to be countered with the fact that a Newspaper's editorial page is separate from its news reporting. If one of the NY Times opinion writers suggested one thing 5 years ago under different cicumstances (remember that the Executive Branch's abuse of power and Constitutional over-stepping wasn't a known issue then) it doesn't really have any relevance now. If the Times hadn't broken this story then the WSJ or the LA Times would have. Suggesting that a newspaper is contradicting something it once advocated when in fact all they are doing is reporting is a false argument by Vikram and one that plays right into the hands of the GOPs election year strategy which goes something like this:
"We've made a mess of things so let's blame the press and call them un-patriotic. The one thing we know is that nothing will get votes like calling those who disagree with us un-patriotic."

Abhi:

"The one thing we know is that nothing will get votes like calling those who disagree with us un-patriotic."

Can you provide any exapmles of this? The more prominant the rebulican the better. Of the top of my head the only "prominant" person I can think of using this line of argument is Ann Coulter.

Suggesting that a newspaper is contradicting something it once advocated when in fact all they are doing is reporting is a false argument by Vikram and one that plays right into the hands of the GOPs election year strategy which goes something like this:

A more responsible reporting by the NY Times would have taken into account why their stance in 2006 has changed (I assume their editorials do represent the paper's overall opinion on a subject) compared to what they strongly recommended in 2001, rather than now running frivolous articles about where the Vice President & the Defense Secretary have their holiday homes in Maryland.

Aha! You provided a link. Sorry I never click on those

All articles posted on this blog post a couple of lines/summary with a link to the entire article... or are you too obtuse to understand that protocol ?

If their really is a Chinese wall between the editorial board and the rest of the newspaper, why hasn't the editorial board come out to support the now exposed SWIFT Program? They could even theoretically condemn the Times for publishing--i.e., in effect canceling--it.

Can you provide any exapmles of this?

Manju please, challenge me at least :)

This very post IS an example of what I am talking about. The Bush admin is blowing this whole NY Times story way out of proportion in order to use it to tar their liberal enemies as less patriotic. I usually don't get time to watch but The Daily Show will provide you with a nice nightly summary. I suppose you want a more concrete example here though. Something really in your face right? How about this from Congressman Charlie Norwood about two weeks ago on the floor of the House of Representatives:

"Many — but not all — on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win," said Representative Charlie Norwood, a Georgia Republican. "The American people need to know precisely who they are." He added, "It is time to stand up and vote. Is it Al Qaeda, or is it America?"

3] Post 911 people (like myself): They believe that even though a majority of muslims are not terrorists, a majority of terrorists are muslims.

Now, if one extends your argument to a technical solution, the results are not going to be adequate. For the same reasons as I cited. A better solution will entail that aberrations in transaction behavior indicative of money laundering be captured. Tracing all Muhammads willy-nilly is a waste of taxpayer money.

why hasn't the editorial board come out to support the now exposed SWIFT Program?

Because of what I said earlier:

5 years ago under different cicumstances (remember that the Executive Branch's abuse of power and Constitutional over-stepping wasn't a known issue then)

sorry to chip in again with another point - conferences on anti money laundering have been going on since 2002. Pls do a google search. none of this is a secret. the point that ny times should have made is that name-based profiling is fatuous for the same reasons i stated above.

i am not an nyt reader, but i sense their reports are more emotional than logical. so while wsj can get away with the same report with its deadpan tone, nyt gets a black eye.

A better solution will entail that aberrations in transaction behavior indicative of money laundering be captured. Tracing all Muhammads willy-nilly is a waste of taxpayer money

True, but the rub is knowing what constitutes an aberration. The enemy is smart and will be constantly changing their modus operandi and patterns. Any forensic strategy hamstrung by a narrowly defined search pattern will be quickly identified and evaded, even without help from leaks....

Abhi says:

why hasn't the editorial board come out to support the now exposed SWIFT Program?

Because of what I said earlier:

5 years ago under different cicumstances (remember that the Executive Branch's abuse of power and Constitutional over-stepping wasn't a known issue then)

Exactly. One would have thought this has been pointed out enough times by now, but what MoorNam, Vikram, and Manju seem to be missing is that the objection isn't to the existence of the SWIFT program, or wiretapping of telephone calls, etc. The problem is that these programs are being done without any oversight, without any checks and balances, and pursuant to a claim that the President can do essentially whatever he wants under his "commander-in-chief" authority. Recall Alberto Gonzalez admitting that the reason the administration didn't seek a change in the law to accommodate the wiretapping scheme is that they didn't think Congress would approve of it. That is what is dangerous. Asking that the rule of law be upheld isn't some quaint "pre-911" mindset; it is merely expressing the sentiment that we hold onto the most basic values of the Constitution and that we can successfully confront terrorism without giving up these values.

Abhi:

That's the best you can do? Congressman Norwood is not too far up there. But I'll concede his rhetoric is over the top. Having said that, arguing that the NYTimes behavior hurts national security does not automatically consitiute "doubting their patriotism."

But here are some examples of more prominent people calling those who disagree with them unpatriotic:

1. Kerry now says that it is “unpatriotic” for American companies to shift jobs overseas, that corporate taxes should be higher for such companies than for “patriotic” companies, and that we should insist our trading partners raise their labour and environmental standards — read, “costs” — to our own

2. Trodding deep into President Bush's back yard, Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark assailed the president for making "unpatriotic" military decisions in Iraq and deceiving Americans about the war.

3. Dean added: "The truth is, Karl Rove breached our national security for partisan gain and that is both unpatriotic and wrong."

4. "To have a couple of people who escaped four, five, six times and deferred, deferred and deferred, calling [Kerry] anything or doubting his heroism is in and of itself unpatriotic," Heinz Kerry said.

The problem is that these programs are being done without any oversight, without any checks and balances, and pursuant to a claim that the President can do essentially whatever he wants under his "commander-in-chief" authority

This is a resonable point though it is presented in an exteme form (without any checks and balances). I think this was more of a problem with the wiretapping, as only a handful of Dems knew about it. But SWIFT seems to be well known among the Dem leadership and many of them urged the NYTimes not to run the story.

Nonetheless, I think it is dangerous to allow officials to leak secrets to the press even if they have a legit concern...they should not be allowed to make national security decisions. We should have a system set up where concerns are bought to a bipartisan commitee.

That's the best you can do?

Manju, all four of your examples are of Democrats who have been victims of a "they are unpatriotic" campaign by Republicans first. By citing these examples you aren't proving that Republicans aren't playing to the lowest common denominator, all you are doing is showing that when the Democrats see that such a strategy works they try and emulate it. The fact that Republicans employ such a strategy, are masters of it, and that it actually works (as in this case), was my point. To me, blaming the NY Times for covering this issue is like saying, "Hey government, manipulate me more please. It is working."

Abhi:

Manju, all four of your examples are of Democrats who have been victims of a "they are unpatriotic" campaign by Republicans first.

I'm not too sure about this. There have been examples of the rhetoric going over the line (the Swift boat veterans) but that is a universal in politics (think, Fahrenheit 911). I think the Dems are using the "you’re doubting my patriotism" line as a way to avoid arguing matters of national security. This is why I asked for specific examples.

Also note that Kerry was calling US corporations unpatriotic, so I don't know if the "turnaround is fair play" argument is relevant here.

Here's an interesting quote with regards to patriotism and the government:

There is nothing patriotic about our pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.

-- President Bill Clinton in 1996

Link

You can make all the excuses for singling out Muslims you like, but if profiling doesn't work, it doesn't work. What's to stop an Al-Qaeda operative from using a pseudonym, and don't many Bombay and other mafiosi who may well be involved in terrorist financing have non-Muslim names and backgrounds? Profiling names seems like a really ineffective way of getting the job done. Rather like kicking people who "looked Arab" off flights post 9/11.

oh-SP - now you're reading too much into this - the thing is, there is something to be said about using racial/ethnic parameters to determine transaction aberrations. This is a counter-argument to Post #24.

Practical "fraud" detection systems do not work in the sense of "aye" and "nay", contrary to what the universities teach. The implementation focuses on identifying the "risk" of a certain transaction as being fraudulent. The "risk" has to be balanced with the "cost" of investigation and the parameters that come into play are - 1. dont let anyone truly dangerous get through and 2. dont make the case load for the investigators so heavy as to bog down the whole process.

Let us consider the above principles in respect to some real-life examples.

- The transactor sends $5000 to Muhammad at postal code 55555
- The transactor sends $5000 to Muhammad at postal code 55555 every four weeks.
- A post office at postal code 55555 receive money orders for $5000 in the name of for A. Muhammad, Abdul Mohammad, Abdul Shakoor Muhammad from senders in Beeston, Syria, Sumatra.
- A post office at postal code 55555 receives money orders for $5000 from five different Western Unions within a 10km radius within 2 hours.

The risk of fraud with the first incident is 10. The risk of fraud with the second incident is 0. The risk of fraud with the third and the fourth incidents is upwards of 60 using logic on hotspots and aberrant convergence of transactions.

The thing is, this fraud detection relies significantly on intuitive rule building and which is why the spooks are hiring the "minorities" these days to know the mind of the muslim. All you umreekis can really rake it in -chuckle-.

Good solutions are as much about process and organization as they are about technology - it showed in how the police and the rcmp handled the Toronto conspirators. it also reflects in how the community is reacting - not in rage or outrage, but with compassion - or so the view is to me.

btw - the above is not theory - it is an adaptation of past experiences in another solution space

1] Pre-911 people: They don't see any reason why the government should monitor anything for any suspected activities. They refuse to let the government connect any dots. According to them, the Government is the enemy - especially since the election was, ah, "stolen".

Bullshit. The US government *HAD* all the dots before 9/11. It is quite well documented by now how agency bickering (due in large part do Dubya "Fuck-Up" Bush's "changes") resulted in the complete and utter failure to make connections.

3] Post 911 people (like myself): They believe that even though a majority of muslims are not terrorists, a majority of terrorists are muslims.

You mean like Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, the KKK, the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the Turkish government...the list goes on and on. Those are just the big ones.

They believe in giving the Government certain amount of leeway to profile, monitor, detain and question potential terrorists. If this means giving up some amount of privacy, then it's a small price to be paid for the reduced chances of another 911 happening.

Our founding fathers understood this conflict well; one noted that "Those who would sacrifice liberty for life deserve neither." It's absolutely correct; the one thing that separates us from every other nation is that we hold these ideals more sacred than life itself, that we are willing to die for them because they are that important.

Security? We could have stopped 9/11 without giving up our privacy if our government hadn't been gripped in incompetence. All the privacy we have given up over the past 5 years hasn't made us any safer. AQ hasn't attacked us because of our new "security" measures. They haven't attacked us because they only get around to attempting attacks every 5 or 6 years.

They believe that good people with names like Mohammed will have a tough time conducting day-to-day activities, but that's an unfortunate price to be paid, because there are a few bad Mohammeds as well. They believe that in the unfortunate event that more 911's happen, not only Mohammeds, but also Kapoors, Singhs, Hegdes and Gangulys will be targetted violently, and that's what they want to avoid.

I will not explicitly tell you to f*** yourself, but the thought is clearly present. You're afraid of getting targeted, so you're willing to accept other people being targeted? This has happened before. Anyone remember how the Nazi's operated?

You sir, are a coward and a moron. I sincerely hope that you are not an American citizen, because you clearly do not deserve to be one.

Hey- i really like ur blog..uve got some real good stuff here
I just wanted to say that -
1.at the risk of sounding racist in the reverse sense, we've got to remember tht the govt is being run primarily by 'white ppl' with very inadequate understanding of asian cultures and thought processes - societies back there have a totally different mindset different priorities.
i mean look at india for eg. the revolutionaries in pre-independence india cud be labelled 'terrorists' cudnt they?
i mean they had all the things going for them - 1)extremism 2)outright defiance of law 3)suicide operations 4)deep hatred towards the brits
in the end, the only thing tht kept them from such a classification was the fact tht many non-violent ppl and several other countries endorsed their cause.
they did the exact same things AQ has done- bombed buildings and killed the brits esp the leaders
yet, in the end, it came down to the fact tht gandhi and the other ahimsa preachers supported the cause if not the means
the britishers did not see that until the very end - they were doing the exact same thing in india what america is doing in the middle east.. tapping all resources for self-gain and trying to control places tht dont technically have anything to do with them.

2.there are many ppl in the arab world who do act as the silent protesters such as the preachers and the common ppl who may not support the means of the AQ but they do support the cause- which is the disengagement of america from the middle east in all ways possible.
i used to live in kuwait during the first and second gulf war - its the US base for the iraq war because it's the closest neighbour.
i swear to u - every single day the troops were there atleast a 100 gallons of oil used to be brought back by US army trucks every 2 hours from the iraqi side and the kuwaiti oil well area. the estimates from all the other sites was probably a 100 gallons for 2 hours as well.

the question arises - is bush an asshole or is he an asshole?

how much oil do the troops need to sustain themselves - not more than 50 gallons per DAY. where does all the rest of it go?
do they trade it with other countries? do they ship most of it back for their own use? who knows. but what i do know is that the US has meddled far too much in the affairs of the middle east and this tension will never really go away even if u kill every dictator and terrorist there exists in asia ans africa.

Asians and Africans are naturally hot-blooded- both genetically and by upbringing. When they do really believe in something, they will fight for it, especially if it is a religious cause because it means more to them than anything.

I agree when ppl say most americans are real nice and accepting of different ppl but the heart, the core is still very much the same isnt it?
the racist approach outshines itself in the govt.s doings. practicality apart, commercialization apart, economy apart, who has really looked at what the country is doing to the middle east?
Israel-fully loaded with the latest technology when Palestinians still fight with sticks, stones and rifles.
Afghanistan - the very thought tht it 'placed' a govt in order to be in control of the area.

Seriously, I understand the capitalistic approach of the govt, but when it comes to people's lives, there can be no reasonable explanation for their actions. Arab people may not follow the AQ but do in their heart of hearts understand it.
And nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.

But again, this line of thinking has to be countered with the fact that a Newspaper's editorial page is separate from its news reporting. If one of the NY Times opinion writers suggested one thing 5 years ago under different cicumstances (remember that the Executive Branch's abuse of power and Constitutional over-stepping wasn't a known issue then) it doesn't really have any relevance now.

Abhi, it's irrelevant because the NY Times DIDN'T suggest what others are pretending to be so indignant about. All the passage in question says is "mandate the identification". What does it mean? It means, give a transaction an identification number for future reference. It does NOT mean allowing [i]carte blanche[/i] to track down and monitor the fincancial dealings of anyone who isn't a suspect, although those who are deliberately trying to muddy the issue would have you think that. Thus, no hypocricy, no turnabout, no flip-flopping, no waffling, no what-have-you from the New York Times.

(And besides, wouldn't it be good manners to at least give credit to the right-wing blogs that dug up the article everyone is now citing?)

What's particularly laughable are these claims that the NY Times for revealing a "secret" program. Because.

a) The New York Times AND the LA Times AND the Wall Street Journal published this story at the same time. And only the Times gets singled out.

b) Bush himself announced this so-called "secret" program five years ago! (Some links for you, Vikram):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/27/BL2006062700760_pf.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-2.html

and

c) How is was the Swift program exposed?? I make monthly international transactions to my family overseas. Whenever I do this, I receive a notice saying something like "Your Swift identification number is _____." So, how much of a leap does it take if we know there is a banking surveilance program, and anyone who makes international transactions knows all about the Swift program? Anyone with TWO ID numbers can make the calculations.

I personally suffered as a result of this program when I tried to wire $666.66 from JihadiNo1 to 72 Virgins Inc.

c) How is was the Swift program exposed?? I make monthly international transactions to my family overseas. Whenever I do this, I receive a notice saying something like "Your Swift identification number is _____." So, how much of a leap does it take if we know there is a banking surveilance program, and anyone who makes international transactions knows all about the Swift program? Anyone with TWO ID numbers can make the calculations.

sidebar. my opinion is that ill-posed problems such as money laundering are best mitigated through process transformation rather than technology. my pet peeve is massive "data mining" investments that rely too much on blackbox dynamics. it is a superior initiative to get multiple vendors in money transactions to align on business processes and client idnetification. But anytime some phd comes in with promises of bayesian discriminant analysis or neural networks etc., pass him/her a hershey kiss and get them to sit in the broom closet out of the way .

SY- take a look at the evolution of the SWIFT system. The intent was to have accuracy in money transfer. A side effect is of course that because of its success, usage has converged on the system. Of course, the non-boolean dynamic in the hindic system throws everything for a loop and is a major source of frustration for the suits. i am of course talking about havala. please be on the lookout for news releases on the "nefarious indian money laundering system known as havala" - in principle it is as "evil" as the SWIFT code system - the reason the system spooks folks is its reliance on human trust for transactions - and absence of traceability.

Goes again to show that if a society wants to crack down on an alien culture - the stupid way would be to unleash operation infinite force to break the "other" - a slower process which would realize significant more success would require integration, assimilation, education and conversion.

I am not sure what your question is. I believe you were asking if knowing one's swift ID informs you that the transaction is being monitored. The answer is, not really.

No, I didn't phrase my question fully. (I was being rushed to go out for dinner. Sorry.)

I'm quite aware that the Swift ID is simply for identification purposes. What I was asking is, it's already been common knowledge for years that there is a banking transaction spy program, and that Swift numbers are very familiar to anyone who participates in those transactions. So, if it's revealed that the government uses these numbers to monitor people, what secrecy has been breached, exactly? Anyone who conducts such transactions could put two and two together. Yes? Terrorists aren't THAT dumb that they couldn't figure that one out. Could they?

Security? We could have stopped 9/11 without giving up our privacy if our government hadn't been gripped in incompetence. All the privacy we have given up over the past 5 years hasn't made us any safer. AQ hasn't attacked us because of our new "security" measures. They haven't attacked us because they only get around to attempting attacks every 5 or 6 years.

jimmy, thanks for actually getting to the bottom of the whole matter!

i can't believe all the noise, verbal vomit and incompetence coming out of the bush administration post-9/11! it is just ridiculous and makes me sick to the stomach. the tactics they use are mostly a means of psychological manipulation, reaching out to the core of human survival instincts: fear.. fear of survival. they are using measly tactics masked by a lot of less-than-intelligent reasoning to push their agendas. who are they kidding?! the only reason they are getting away with all this crap is because of they have successfully instilled the notion of personal threat and fear of survival into american public.

perhaps what's needed does not lie in propagating the noise by nick-picking through it, but in looking beyond it to get to the core of the matter.

SY:

What's particularly laughable are these claims that the NY Times for revealing a "secret" program.

The story is a little peculiar, which is why I haven't really come to a conclusion yet--though I'm leaning toward the story shoudn't have been printed. Some questions you may be able to answer:

1. If it didn't harm national security, why are some Dems upset and why did they urge the Times not to run the story?

2. If everyone knew about the program, why was it front page news (upper right hand corner too)?

3. How can there be no congressional oversite (the major reason the Times ran the story) if everyone knows about the program? Does it make sense that everyone knew except congress?

Here's a summary for those that want to skip some of the first 40 comments.

(1) The NYT advocates in 2001 for strict tracking of money laundering activities. I want everyone to know that my 70-year old auntie also advocated for this in a letter about the same time as the NYT piece. I strongly suspect that some ambitious NYT reporter -- probably Shaila Dewan or Robert Worth -- opened my auntie's letter and plagiarized its contents. Damn them! My 9-year old nephew, who said that "bad people need to get their allowance from someone", probably also read my auntie's letter since the idea of tracking money laundering operations is too novel for anyone except my beautiful auntie to think of. How dare the NYT steal her idea!

(2) The NYT and others report on current administration activities to track money-laundering operations. Some in the government (President Cheney and his sycophant, especially) object to the uncovering of this program because the terrorists certainly had no idea that their money was being tracked. "What? Our money? No way, bro!"

(3) Certain commentors in this blog who've bought into Coulter et al's fallacy of a left-wing media, seek to divert the discussion. Instead of discussing how we -- as people who may have similar last names to people on a blacklist -- are affected by yet another example of ignorant non-desis and non-middle easterners contriving yet another blacklist (the one after 9-11 in airports was terrible and really affected our communities), they instead want to debate whether the NYT editorial wing is being hypocritical or not. Seriously, who -- besides my auntie -- cares? I hope she sues those reporters, btw.

I'm all for avoiding the substantial issues in this post (i.e., the efficacy of profiling, the effect exposure of the program may have on terrorist activities, and how those affect our communities.) Can we talk about my auntie some more? She makes amazing rasmalai and gives damn fine hugs.

And for the record, MoorNam, your litany of the types of people gave my friend and I a good laugh. There are people, like me, who lived in NYC through 9-11, worked 2 blocks from the firepit and had to smell it everyday for months. I am quite sure that there are terrorists; I have seen their work first-hand. I'm definitely a post-9-11 person.

Like other post-9-11 people that I know in NYC, I know that 9-11 doesn't excuse my government from abiding by laws and agreements that are intended to protect domestic and international citizens from civil rights and human rights violations. I'm talking about the Geneva Conventions, about domestic civil liberties, and other agreements flaunted by President Cheney's government. People named Singh, Shah, or Mohammed should not have to be inconvenienced because some white bureaucrat (who would still never think of profiling the McVeighs of the world) now decides to make a list full of brown people. A post-9-11 person can, should and will fight against that. Are you a 9-11 person, too?

@Manju:
1. Because the Democrats are pussies and don't have the spines to stand up for American liberties. I'm so sick of them I changed my registration to independent last year.

2. Because everyone did *not* know about the program. Bush, Cheny, and Rumsfield do not and never have constituted "everybody." The SWIFT program is known because it is a fairly established program. The SWIFT program is not the issue here; the issue is that the SWIFT program is being used in an illegitimate manner AND that this manner violates numerous civil liberties.

3. You mean like Guantanamo? Haditha? Abu Gharib? Knowledge != oversight. If the politicians are cowards, they won't stand up for what is right unless it is also politically expedient. Right after 9/11, every poli voted for the "Iraq" war, despite full knowledge that the argument for war was incomplete and inaccurate. Hell, the public has been clamoring for a time table for the war for almost 2 years, and the first votes on this were only held in the past few months.

It is the job of the American press to keep the government in check when the government is incapable of doing the job itself. This is the reason that freedom of the press is explicitly protected by the 1st Ammendment. Without the press to inform the people of the government's misdeeds, how will the people keep the government in check?

1. If it didn't harm national security, why are some Dems upset and why did they urge the Times not to run the story?

1. Because the Democrats are pussies and don't have the spines to stand up for American liberties. I'm so sick of them I changed my registration to independent last year.

No, that's not true. The fact is, that assertion about the Democrats is false. Only one Democrat "urged" the Times not to run the story. And the one Dem we know about was the co-head of the 9/11 commission, and his urging was made in a joint statement with the other co-head, a Republican.

A second Democrat also voiced concern, but didn't exactly protest. Anyway, it was hardly "some" Democrats.

Click here to see for yourself how the story was overblown.

2. If everyone knew about the program, why was it front page news (upper right hand corner too)?

Because - just like with the NSA program monitoring phone calls - what IS new is that many of the searches are warrantless, and possibly illegal. That's why they're so upset. Because the public knows about that part. It's not as if the administration hasn't been crowing about this program for the past five years.

3. How can there be no congressional oversite (the major reason the Times ran the story) if everyone knows about the program? Does it make sense that everyone knew except congress?

Again, Bush announced his intent to track terrorists' banking transactions five years ago. He didn't say it would be warrantless. He didn't give any specifics. Oversight doesn't begin and end with awareness of a program. It's also supposed to be awareness of the details. That's so if the line between legal and illegal is crossed, it's there to be seen. It's not impossible by any means that congress could know of Bush's intentions, yet not know anything about the specific methods and details of the program.

SY:

The fact is, that assertion about the Democrats is false. Only one Democrat "urged" the Times not to run the story.

I believe Bush asked 3 dems to call the NYTimes:Lee Hamilton, Tome Keen, and Jack Murtha. Details are still murky as to what they did but it seems they all leaned toward not publishing. In any event, the response from the Dems has been tepid criticism at most, but generally supportive. Both Harry Reid and Chuck Shumer seem to back the administration---saying the program is legal and working---though they thru in some obligatory criticism, according to the Washington Post.

2. Because - just like with the NSA program monitoring phone calls - what IS new is that many of the searches are warrantless, and possibly illegal

According to the NYTimes article Abhi links to, they used "broad administrative subpoenas" Even Harry Reid in the Washinfton Post acticle I hyperlinked to said: "it doesn't seem to be based on the same shaky legal analysis" (as the NSA program). Also, the NYTimes found no abuses, ie the information obtained was used only for the legitimate purpose of counter-terrorist surveillance.

3. Again, Bush announced his intent to track terrorists' banking transactions five years ago. He didn't say it would be warrantless. He didn't give any specifics. Oversight doesn't begin and end with awareness of a program. It's also supposed to be awareness of the details.

According to the times:"While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission." No Dem who was party to the briefings has come out and said they weren't informed on these details, including the use of warrants.

And of course, the times reported that the program worked, citing two arrests. My only question is whether the article means the end of the program.

Off topic, but also in a strange way, slightly related to this topic, is the way in which the news tab here on Sepia Mutiny is used as a repository for anti Muslim chauvinism. This goes beyond the legitimate posting of stories on Muslim extremism and runs to the extent of posting articles from the RSS newspaper, posting about Little Green Football style documentary screeds about 'The Truth About Islam'. I have noticed how these posts amazingly get large numbers of 'Interested' clicks in a short amount of time. Amazing!

Amusingly, someone has now posted a 'Trouble with Hinduism' article in response to this bigotry as a means of showing how it works both ways. Good. Chauvinists are using the news tab for their bigoted agenda. You should at least be aware of it. It is so tedious to see these monomaniacs waging their campaign and abusing what is an open and useful facility on SM.

It is so tedious to see these monomaniacs waging their campaign and abusing what is an open and useful facility on SM.

We are in the process of overhauling the News Tab and it will help take care of this problem.

Does anyone know what happens to these millions of $$ that they block or seize? The government must have piled up quite a bit of dough since 9/11. What is it doing with the money?

Jane...

You nailed it.
Where in the world is Carmen.. er.. the money they've been 'freezing'. Does it still earn interest?

I believe Bush asked 3 dems to call the NYTimes:Lee Hamilton, Tome Keen, and Jack Murtha

Kean is actually a republican. It still does not change the substance of your argument. His son is running as a republican in NJ .

Here's what I consider a more impact of this story than the alleged national security benefits, regardless of what American politicians are saying or who thinks what:

Remittances are the largest source of external financing in many developing countries. According to official statistics, in 2005 remittance flows—defined as the sum of workers’ remittances, compensation of employees, and migrant transfers in the balance-of-payments statistics collected by the International Monetary Fund—are estimated to have exceeded $233 billion worldwide, of which developing countries received $167 billion. Unrecorded flows moving through informal channels push the total far higher, as they are conservatively estimated to amount to at least 50 percent of the recorded flows.

Remittances bring substantial benefits to developing countries:
• Household survey evidence, confirmed by crosscountry analyses, indicates that remittances can have
a significant impact on reducing poverty.
• Remittances are associated with increased household investment in education, entrepreneurship, and
health—all of which have a high social return under most circumstances.
• Remittances tend to be countercyclical and thus support economic activity in the face of adverse shocks.
• By generating a steady stream of foreign exchange, remittances can improve a country’s creditworthiness
and enhance its access to international capital markets.

From the World Bank's 2006 Global Development Finance report, page 3 (pdf).

What if your first name is Timothy or Ariel or George or Dick or Tony or Ehud or Terry or Winston or Carl or Scooter or Jack? Shouldnt your money be blocked or rather "reviewed" if you have one of the these names. Some people that happen to have these first names have caused more death and terror than anyone named Muhammad ever has, im just saying

My favorite part of that article:

"Mohammed and Ahmed have become problematic names because they are so common on the list of terrorists," said Nixon Baby, who runs a Western Union franchise in Bur Dubai, a neighborhood packed with South Asian businesses.

Nixon Baby is his / her name? I'll bet that name never ends up on the terrorism lists :-)