rick baird wrote:
<zzztttzszdsssst> anyone hear any static on the line? I thought I just did On 7/3/06, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:You still do not address the issue of GW doing illegal acts and having no checks & balances applied. It interests me that even his own conservative Supreme Court told him he is exceeding his authority with his choices regarding Gitmo, yet you have no general concerns about GW's power grab? Tell, me, do you believe that his actions have made the World safer from terrorists? I am a pragmatist, and after all is said and done, I tend to look at the results. What I see does not impress me. Does it impress you? What, in your opinion, has GW done concerning terrorism that is effective and useful? rick baird wrote:I wasn't clear. How much need to HIDE the program. If the bad guys know that we're correlating electronic financial data, they use non-electronic means to move money.they may have known we're tracking, but not how, at least not before last friday.Doesn't telling the public serve to further that purpose? What if it turns out that the feds tracked the Madrid bombers and did nothing because they didn't want to disclose their secret?I know what you're getting at - the WWII practice of sacrificing smaller losses so as not to let the enemy know we'd broken their code. Our WWII enemies didn't know we'd broken the code, but if they'd known they would have just changed the code. terrorists knew we were tracking money movement, just not how. They've changed tactics, but they don't know which methods of mony transfers were being watched and which ones weren't. Plus, the purpose of the program is to stop terrorist acts, Madrid certainly qualifies and suicide bombers are of no use to us dead.If this government had had a public debate on using the financial systemI remember the debate clearly - if you could call overwealming consensus a debate.Er, debate BEFORE making the program a secret. Not after it was exposed.I meant before the program was secret. As I said, the nytimes editorialized that this was exactly what we should be doing, not a week after 9/11. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/24/opinion/24MON2.html?ei=5070&en=36a8f99782d8f4ff&ex=1151553600 The president said on multiple occasions that this was exactly what they were going to do, and everyone said 'huzzah!' Even the times pointed out how Treas Secretary John Snow took them on a tour of some of the things they were doing, to keep them in the loop - not so they would publish details - but would help them understand how hard they were trying.There's a difference between saying "we're doing this" and revealing "this is who, what and how we're doing this" since everyone knew we were, agreed that it should be done.The feds can't have it both ways. If everyone knew we were using a financial tracking system, why classify it? Government power grab, that's why.Please address how this being a multi-government and multi-private entity cooperative, is a power grab by our government? I guess I'm not smart enough to get that.the public's right to know our methods trumps the need to keep those methods secret?Without specifics, the report would be easily pooh-pooed, wouldn't it?exactly my point, without the details this wouldn't have been news, and the government wouldn't have poo-poo it, they would have said, 'yes, thank you very much, we are indeed watching the money. anyone object? nobody? thank you.'The times report didn't increase oversight, it killed the program and embarassed those who were helping us, and will have the net effect of aiding those who fund terrorism.If the program had been held up as a shining example of international cooperation from the outset instead of kept a state secret, nobody would have been embarrassed. It was the fact that this government kept it a secret that caused the embarrassment.true. but would the shining example of international cooperation been nearly as effective? will it ever be effective again because of this disclosure?In my mind, it's akin to the difference between "we're moving troops" and "we're moving troops from here to there for the purpose of this, at this time on this day". the times story is more like the latter than the former.I gathered as much :-) I'm not too smart, but if I were a terrorist wannabe, I'd model my organisation on the crime syndicates. All the financial tracking in the world hasn't broken them, now has it? Furthermore, I'd realise that even if the US has some lightweight 'consumer friendly' monitoring in place, the rest of the world can be a bit more unfriendly. That is, there's no free lunch.You are a lot more intelligent than a lot of terrorists. And simply because you won't catch all of them, doesn't mean you won't catch any of them. Are you arguing that simply because the mafia is relatively successful at avoiding arrest, trying isn't worth the trouble? Are you also suggesting that the FBI should publish the details of the means of their intelligence gathering methods, simply because most mobsters already know which things to avoid?There are those who feel that revealing the details is like revealing troop movements, but that's a far stretch. SWIFT didn't stop London, Madrid or Bali, did it?no, it didn't stop them. but it was used to catch the mastermind of the Bali bombing, and the brits have said that it was 'very helpful' in their investigation of the London bombings. combined with my previous point, it seems you are assuming that terrorists are a single monolythic, top down, disciplined entity, instead of the loose association of like minded but disparate smaller cells. some make mistakes, some of them big.Like all civil rights, the people are supposed to be the watchdog. Lets watch the circulation of the Times and see if the people vote with their wallet or not.Have you seen their stock price of late? it's been dropping at about twice the newspaper industry average rate over the last year or two. considering the media blitz their reporters and editors (and those who are defending them) have embarked on, I think they are very concerned with a loss of circulation and advertising. Rick-- --------------------------------- Booth Martin http://www.Martinvt.com --------------------------------- -- This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000 or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact