The New York Times, Democrats and the terrorists all working together. . .

The details of how the terists did it were leaked -- in the 9/11 Report.

The attack cost <500K USD in travel, living and flight training expenses and reimbursements. The money was sent, if at all, using the Hawala, not SWIFT, funds transfer system which has operated for 1000s of years.

Anyone that wires money knows it gets looked at -- it's moving through the Federal Reserve system in the case of domestic or directed into it in the case of int'l -- for chrissakes. Then, there's a huge overlay of currency transaction and suspicious activity regulation, know your customer, and other regs. Have you ever sent a package overseas? Do you think it goes unlooked at? Same thing with wires.

Never was a story here.

 

provide specific examples.

 

Are you guys really that dumb to believe all this hype about the New York Times revealing secret information for the first time to the American public and the world. If you believe the terrorists are that dumb we are in a world of trouble.

Did you ever see the Movie "Enemy of the State"? The 1998 movie, starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman, portraying the NSA as an evil Big Brother spying on Americans. These tactics are old news!

 

The point is, we have a government that is entrusted to make decisions about revealing this information, not unelected newspaper editors with their own , obvious political agenda.

The administration has an obvious method to demonstrate how important this type of information is. It hsould put the reporters before a grand jury and demand the names of the leakers, then fire them, terminate their pensions and prosecute them. If they don't follow that approach, I think it is fair to question how important or sensitive the information was.

 

Yes the government is entrusted, but the Framers knew the danger of power in the hands of those who function with impunity.

If this administration would open themselves up to scrutiny by the opposition party members of the senate and the house, then perhaps I would feel more comfortable. Since they have been shut out of the process, we need a press who is willing to reveal what is really happening behind the curtain.

There is no oversight when everything is done in secret....

 

AA,

So far these "caught you" stories are nothing more than kids writing "Narc" on the back of an unmarked car watching a drug den. That kind of thing.

What are you going to charge them with?

It isn't like they've uncovered some real deal espionage and reported it.

There's no vital interest of the United States being compromised here -- the papers and the admin. know that.

 

Listening to American's phone conversations without warrants is a specific example.

 

This is a high stakes game of hide and seek. Rules and tactics are constantly changing. IMHO the New York Times reporting about the NSA's activities is solely for political/propaganda purposes, because it's all OLD NEWS and you guys are taking the bait as usual.

For Example:


February 9-21, 2001: NSA Supposedly Mapped, Disrupted, and Monitored bin Laden’s Network In a series of articles for UPI, journalist Richard Sale reveals many details about the NSA’s electronic surveillance of al-Qaeda. “The United States has scored notable successes in an information war against the organization of terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden. US hackers have gone into foreign bank accounts and deleted or transferred money and jammed or blocked the group’s cell or satellite phones.” It is also mentioned that “Bin Laden is surrounded by US listening posts.” The articles discuss the extent to which the NSA’s Echelon satellite network is monitoring al-Qaeda, and even seems to make an oblique reference to monitoring the al-Qaeda safe house in Yemen that enabled the NSA to discover valuable information on hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar (see December 29, 1999). The articles also reveal that since 1995, bin Laden tried to protect his communications with a “full suite of tools,” but “codes were broken.” An expert adds that “you don’t use your highest level of secure communications all the time. It’s too burdensome, and it exposes it to other types of exploitation.” The articles also imply that Echelon is used in illegal ways. An anonymous former senior US intelligence official says, “This isn’t about legality. This is about trying to protect American lives.” [United Press International, 2/9/2001; United Press International, 2/13/2001; United Press International, 2/21/2001] While bin Laden’s communications were certainly thoroughly monitored before 9/11 (see Early 1996-October 1998), no evidence has come to light since 9/11 that the US was hacking into bank accounts or jamming signals.
People and organizations involved: al-Qaeda, National Security Agency, Osama bin Laden, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, Echelon
February 9, 2001: Bin Laden’s Financial Network Supposedly Laid Bare US officials claim significant progress in defeating bin Laden’s financial network, despite significant difficulties. It is claimed that “bin Laden’s financial and operational networks has been ‘completely mapped’ in secret documents shared by the State Department, CIA, and Treasury Department, with much of the mapping completed in detail by mid-1997.” [United Press International, 2/9/2001] While it is unclear exactly how much the US knew about bin Laden’s finances before 9/11, it is known that the names and details of many organizations funding bin Laden were known as far back as 1996 (see 1996). Shortly after 9/11, Richard Palmer, head of the CIA’s Moscow station in the 1990s, will say of al-Qaeda, “We could have starved the organization if we put our minds to it. The government has had the ability to track these accounts for some time.” [Name Missing, n.d.] The New York Times will later conclude that by 9/11, “The American government had developed a good deal of information about al-Qaeda’s finances, but it was not widely shared among agencies.” [New York Times, 12/10/2001]
People and organizations involved: Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Central Intelligence Agency, Richard Palmer
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...mplete_911_timeline&startpos=600#a012401italy

 

Sorry idiot but that's not illegal. The police can break down your door and ransack your home in search of illicit drugs. Whether the fruits of that search are admissible is another story.

Next time a cop asks you to take a breathalyzer, tell him the 5th amendment protects you from providing self incriminating evidence.......

 

This is off topic but you can refuse to take a breathalyzer. That's why they ask.