# I pit the short-sighted self serving twits at the New York Times **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359 "2006-06-27T17:01:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/281 "2006-06-30T06:16:49Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > It would help if you knew what you were talking about, before you say shit like this. > > CMC [color=#f8f8f8]fnord![/COLOR] Stay angry, my friend. Stay angry. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/282 "2006-06-30T06:53:36Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Stay angry, my friend. Stay angry. Stay ignorant, my friend. Stay ignorant. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/283 "2006-06-30T10:30:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, I wwent back and looked at all those links and I could not find where Bushlt aked abou the prrogram. Back in 2001 he talked about a Financial Tracking Program, but SWIFT was not mentioned. If I missed something, which I very well may have, feel free to point to it. SWIFT is just a tool being used, and was [publicly recommended (warning: PDF file)](http://www.theclearinghouse.org/reference/comment_letters/2004cl/000552.pdf) for this purpose well before the NYT’s article. > [@](#): > > Regarding this particular case, again, I see no choice but to let the administration make the call. If you don’t, you allow the NY Times to make it. Making national security policy decisions is not their job. Now as I’ve said both in GD and here, it seems that that adminsitration’s protestations were half-hearted. So maybe the secret program had dimished in effectiveness and they really didn’t care about it being revealed. Maybe they see this as an opportunity to stop the leaking that’s been going on. And I think that is a good thing. Or maybe it wasn’t secret in the first place, since the administration itself is the one who talked about it years before. You’re starting to give osmium and iridium a run for their money. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/284 "2006-06-30T11:35:48Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You’re starting to give osmium and iridium a run for their money. 😃 Nice! ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/285 "2006-06-30T14:17:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Since you seem intent in ignoring the words I write, I think continuing our coversation is useless. I apologise if i’m not getting your position; like I said, i’m not the best debater on here by a long shot, so if I don’t understand what you’re saying, please dumb it down for me. I assure you i’m really not misunderstanding you on purpose. > [@](#): > > I will comment on this though, as it makes no sense to me. Some groundwork: > > You feel that the mention of 9/11 is legitimate and should be included in the debate. Yes. > [@](#): > > You feel the pictures are not legitimate in the debate. Yes. > [@](#): > > Most everyone else thinks that pictures are not legitmate in the debate. And plaenty are saying so. Yep. > [@](#): > > You say that others asre better debaters than you, and you leave them to do the convincing. Yet you are trying to argue the same point about the pictures they are. Ah, I think you may have misunderstood. Yes, i’m entering the debate on whether the pictures are reasonable or not. I’m _not_ entering the debate on the NYT and their story, or whether the program was secret or not. I’m not debating whether 9/11 is an appropriate topic or not. I’m debating _the pictures_. I don’t need to debate the picture issue with anyone else because everyone else seems to agree. > [@](#): > > Yet, regarding the other issue, about mentioning 9/11, you offer no resistance to any of the posters who disagree with something you say you feel strongly about. Instead, you’ve mentioned it only to me, one of the few who agree with that position. Right, because I thought my own opinion was relevant. I’m not debating whether mentioning 9/11 is legitimate or not, merely pointing out my own position on the matter so you understand where i’m coming from. > [@](#): > > It seems that if the paragraph above, as well as what you’ve said in other posts in this thread, is true, you would 1)Leave the plethora of better arguers to convince me and 2) step up and counter their arguments regarding the mentioning of 9/11. I am leaving the NYT story debate to others, the “was the program actually secret?” debate to others, and whether 9/11 is legitimate to mention to others. \*I’m only debating whether the pictures are legitimate. \* ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/286 "2006-06-30T16:07:03Z")
The Republicans are following the siren call of their right-wing media base, who, like the National Review, are calling for sanctions against the Times. The cry is always the same: the Times (though again, not the Journal) has harmed our national security by the disclosure of this double super secret program. Well, then. If that’s their argument, let’s use the word the mainstream press is so scared to apply: liars. From now on, remember this: anyone who tries to claim that the Times exposed a secret program and helped the terrorists (I’d mention the Journal, but hey, they won’t) is a liar… - Alex Koppelman Continue its oversight of the program? There’s never been any oversight of the program. The fact is that because there has never been any oversight of the program, there isn’t one person in this body, who will vote on this resolution, who can attest to this statement. They’re asking us to vote on something that we absolutely cannot attest to. Not any one of you can attest to this as a fact, because it isn’t a fact." … – Nancy Pelosi Think of what we heard from leading Republicans over the past few days. They’ve called the disclosure of the swift anti-terrorist program a disgrace, they’ve accused a newspaper that first wrote it, the the new york times, of forcing its, arrogant elitist left-wing agenda on the rest of the country. If all of this is true, I have no choice but to conclude that our President, President bush himself, is a disgraceful, arrogant left-wing elitist, because it was Mr. Bush who leaked the story. - Louise Slaughter They tell us that they’re protecting our civil liberties while they’re tapping our phones and spying in our libraries and looking into our bank accounts. They tell us to trust us on everything. They tell us to trust us on — trust them on everything because they’re protecting their civil liberties. Well, I don’t think I can trust this administration to protect my civil liberties and those of the people that I serve.” – John Dingell The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals. Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved money around through international wire transfers. – NY Times The media is guilty of publishing stories which might harm the political interests of the President, not which could harm the national security of the United States. But Bush supporters recognize no such distinction. – Glenn Greeenwald Had the New York Times not published the two stories that led to this charge of treason and demand for criminal prosecution, it is not just the public that would not have been informed, it would have been the courts and the Congress who would not have been informed either. I will repeat this for emphasis: what the President in fact wants is not merely the power to keep information from the public, but the power to keep information from the courts and the Congress. When the President in fact wants is to have secret, unilateral and pre-emptive power to determine for himself, without judicial review, without Congressional oversight, without regards to Constitutional, statutory or international law exactly what it means to faithfully execute the laws of the land. What is at stake is this unprecedented grasp for unilateral power for one man, in one party, in one branch of government, alone, without knowledge or review by any other branch of government, to determine alone what it means for the leader of the free world to faithfully execute the laws. He presumes to put himself above Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams and more than two hundred years of American Presidents who never made claims so sweeping, secretive and contemptous of the first principles of our democracy. – Brent Budowski ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/287 "2006-06-30T16:29:42Z")
> [@lawoot](#): > > Don’t know of this has been linked to yet or not… > > [Keith Olbermann](http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/28/keith-strikes-back-against-nyt-bashers/) against the NYT bashers - shows clips of bush talking about this program maybe a dozen times since 9/11, plus also talks about SWIFT’s publicly-accessible website, and SWIFT’s _magazine_. Yuppers, sounds super-top-secret to me. That’s totally diiiiiiiiiferent! Dubya did it, therefore it’s good. When the Librul Media does something it’s by definition good. Haven’t you ever seen any of **mgellin’s** or **duffy** ’s posts before? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/288 "2006-06-30T16:30:48Z")
(Joe’s secretly placed a Folger’s Crystals Braincramp in the previous post - let’s see if anyone notices) -Joe ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/289 "2006-06-30T17:28:53Z")
(That’s why we give you that handy Preview button.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/290 "2006-06-30T17:49:55Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > SWIFT is just a tool being used, and was [publicly recommended (warning: PDF file)](http://www.theclearinghouse.org/reference/comment_letters/2004cl/000552.pdf) for this purpose well before the NYT’s article. Well, it seems it’s not “years” Not even two years. MOre important, we have two crucial unkowns: 1. Just how effective was the program? I’ve heard claims that it had been fruitful, nothing to the contrary. 2. Did the effectiveness of the program nose dive at any point? Does the effectivess curve over time look horizontal, go up, trend down, or drop percipitously at some particualar point?Perhaps after the puclication date of this article? > [@](#): > > Or maybe it wasn’t secret in the first place, since the administration itself is the one who talked about it years before. You’re starting to give osmium and iridium a run for their money. I have to tip my hat to the reference. I’ve been saving a similar one for a particular poster. So, nice. It would have been better if it was delivered when it was clear that someone (I) was not understanding your point or stubbornly holding on to one without presenting a counter-argument. Still, nice. You’re getting better at this. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/291 "2006-06-30T17:51:58Z")
Oops, could someone please fix the coding in my last post. And for what it’s worth: I watched Chris Matthews last night. In his “Hardbrawl” segment with Kate O’Beirne, Tom Oliphant, Michael Smerconish, Eugene Robinson, Matthews asked the four if they would have made the decision the NY Times did and published the info. Three of the four said that would NOT have. Chris Mathews said he would NOT have. The only one who said he would have was Oliphant. But even he admitted that those who would not have a very strong position. I bring this up only to demonstrate that the position against the NY Times is not some extreme, Kool-aid drinking, sycophantic, Bush ball-licking position that many on these boards have tried to portray it as. Another testament to the SD’s ideological bent, which only surprises me in degree. And no, that is not meant as a slam in any way. I would recommend Matthews’ book, American; Beyond our Grandest Notions. I bought it right after I saw Matthews come on the Phil Donahue show and give him a world-class smackdown. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/292 "2006-06-30T17:52:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > (That’s why we give you that handy Preview button.) Too busy! No time for two clicks! I’m late, late for a very important date! -Jope ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/293 "2006-06-30T18:31:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And for what it’s worth: > I watched Chris Matthews last night. In his “Hardbrawl” segment with Kate O’Beirne, Tom Oliphant, Michael Smerconish, Eugene Robinson, Matthews asked the four if they would have made the decision the NY Times did and published the info. Three of the four said that would NOT have. Chris Mathews said he would NOT have. The only one who said he would have was Oliphant. But even he admitted that those who would not have a very strong position. Actually, Robinson did NOT say what you think he said. > [@](#): > > MATTHEWS: Would you have made this call? > > ROBINSON: It would have been hard. I mean, I would have, my inclination would have been, maybe there‘s something to the national security argument, however, I might also have been swayed by the fact that this administration has so consistently overreached its powers, so consistently insisted on doing everything in secret, often for no good reason, that you, that has to weigh against the … From [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13632311/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13632311/) I found his abbreviated statement to be ambivalent at best. So, I’m shocked, _shocked_! (Sorry, Claude). An intelligent talk show host would have suppressed the story, and the editor of the National Review would have suppressed the story. A former newspaper journalist would have printed the story and an assistant editor at the Washington Post would (probably) have printed the story. **magellan** I don’t mean this post to indicate that you are a fringe opinion, just that Matthews’ program didn’t really indicate what you might have intended. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/294 "2006-06-30T19:04:21Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Actually, Robinson did NOT say what you think he said. > … > **magellan** I don’t mean this post to indicate that you are a fringe opinion, just that Matthews’ program didn’t really indicate what you might have intended. Yeah, I looked at the transcript and it’s not there. I watched the show and thought he answered “no” among some cross-talk. That impression was reinforced when Oliphant said “Minority view” as a preamble to his answer. Now, he might have meant minority as in 3-2. But I’m pretty sure I heard Robinson say “no”, which makes Oliphant’s offeriing of hjis preamble make even more sense. I tried to check out the video for the show, but I don’t have the right software (IE 6) and can’t load it on my Mac from the Microsoft site). Maybe someone can check. I do recall that Robinson was hesitant, which spurred Matthews to volunteer his answer. I think his answer was in some crosstalk at about this point: > [@](#): > > MATTHEWS: Make a decision, Gene. You don‘t want to start a fight with “The Times.” I‘ll say it, I wouldn‘t have run it. > > SMERCONISH: I wouldn‘t have run it. It‘s hard for me to articulate the standard. It‘s sort of like pornography, I know it when I see it, it‘s a balancing of a public need to know against a need of al Qaeda not to know, and in all draws, and I think this is a close call, don‘t reveal. I stiil think it is interesting that Matthews would not have run the story.I don’t think anyone can label him as a right-wing automaton. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/295 "2006-06-30T19:28:06Z")
The fucking terrorists have known since _at least_ 1991 that their international banking transactions were being tracked and monitored, when, after [Senator John Kerry launched an investigation into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=377430&page=6), their banking activities were exposed to the world and their bank was shut down entirely. > [@](#): > > By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and **exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing**. As Kerry’s investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients–it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to “fight the evil influence of the West,” and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry’s investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America’s first great post-Cold War security challenge. > > \ > > But Kerry refused to back off, and his **[public] hearings began to expose** the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry’s subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, **it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda**. > > And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to _Time_, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a “global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad.” > > By July 1991, Kerry’s work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, “one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history.” No one could possibly be so stupid as to think that all that could go down and the terrorists, including future al Qaeda leaders who had accounts there (including Osama bin Laden, ftr), would even remotely, _possibly_ not have a fucking clue that their bank activity was being closely scrutinized. Get. Real. The subcommittee’s [Legislative Recommendations](http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/22legrec.htm) have been **published** since 1992 for Og’s sake! And it was in part due to the press exposing the abominable lack of action or follow-through on the part of the Justice Department (along with pressure from the New York District Attorney’s office), that finally forced the government into actually _doing_ something about it. > [@](#): > > [The BCCI Affair - 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY](http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/01exec.htm) > > The Justice Department, along with the U.S. Customs Service and Treasury Departments, failed to provide adequate support and assistance to investigators and prosecutors working on the case against BCCI in 1988 and 1989, contributing to conditions that ultimately caused the chief undercover agent who handled the sting against BCCI to quit Customs entirely. > > The January 1990 plea agreement between BCCI and the U.S. Attorney in Tampa kept BCCI alive, and had the effect of discouraging BCCI’s officials from telling the U.S. what they knew about BCCI’s larger criminality, including its ownership of First American and other U.S. banks. > > The Justice Department essentially stopped investigating BCCI following the plea agreement, **until press accounts** , Federal Reserve action, and the New York District Attorney’s investigation in New York forced them into action in mid-1991. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/296 "2006-06-30T20:16:14Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > The fucking terrorists have known since _at least_ 1991 that their international banking transactions were being tracked and monitored… Yes, but did that include using SWIFT? My understanding is that while there were efforts to track money, that some money was able to moved without notice, and that by tapping into SWIFT post 9/11, we were able to see things that were previously off the radar. Does anyone have concrete evidence showing that is not the case? Or “is” the case? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/297 "2006-06-30T20:42:29Z")
> [@lawoot](#): > > Don’t know of this has been linked to yet or not… > > [Keith Olbermann](http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/28/keith-strikes-back-against-nyt-bashers/) against the NYT bashers - shows clips of bush talking about this program maybe a dozen times since 9/11, plus also talks about SWIFT’s publicly-accessible website, and SWIFT’s _magazine_. Yuppers, sounds super-top-secret to me. _sigh_ I love Keith Olbermann. Anderson who? Kinda hard to keep the program secret when it has its own _magazine_, eh **magellan01**? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2006, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/298 "2006-07-01T01:04:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, it seems it’s not “years” Not even two years. MOre important, we have two crucial unkowns: > > 1. Just how effective was the program? I’ve heard claims that it had been fruitful, nothing to the contrary > 2. Did the effectiveness of the program nose dive at any point? Does the effectivess curve over time look horizontal, go up, trend down, or drop percipitously at some particualar point?Perhaps after the puclication date of this article? It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The OP pitted the NYT for exposing a secret that wasn’t a secret at all. If the program was effective, it was in spite of the terrorists having knowledge of it. If it sucked big donkey balls, then it was a waste of time. > [@](#): > > I have to tip my hat to the reference. I’ve been saving a similar one for a particular poster. So, nice. It would have been better if it was delivered when it was clear that someone (I) was not understanding your point or stubbornly holding on to one without presenting a counter-argument. Still, nice. You’re getting better at this. It was delivered to the appropriate target at the appropriate time, and osmium has since conceded, but iridium foolishly thinks it has a chance. Oh, and mods, can you please fix magellan01’s coding in post 290? I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m the source of that twaddle. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/299 "2006-07-01T02:21:30Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The OP pitted the NYT for exposing a secret that wasn’t a secret at all. If the program was effective, it was in spite of the terrorists having knowledge of it. Sure it matters. The “secret” was not the existence of SWIFT, but that starting in 2001 we were tapped into it. And while the terorist organization going back to probably the first WTC attack, knew that we were looking to track money, we didn’t utiize SWIFT to 2001. So, it was a new, unannounced aspect of the financial surveillance the governement was doing. That, at least, is what makes the most sense to ma based on the incomplete information we have. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2006, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/300 "2006-07-01T02:37:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > we didn’t utiize SWIFT to 2001. [from _Liberty_ magazine, November 1995](http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/ElectronicProperty/MoneyLaundromat) > [@](#): > > Internationally, banks are connected by a computer > messaging system operated by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial > Telecommunications System (SWIFT). Domestically, banks within a country use > equivalents of the U.S. clearing systems operated by the Federal Reserve > (Fedwire) and the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). A Federal > Reserve Policy Statement of December 23, 1992 asks financial institutions to > include (if possible) complete information on the sender and recipient of > large payment orders sent through Fedwire, CHIPS, and SWIFT. “Historically, > law enforcement efforts to curtail money laundering activities have focused on > the identification and documentation of currency-based transactions; however, > recent investigations have focused on the use of funds transfer systems,” the > statement notes… > > The focus on funds transfer brings in the resources of the National > Security Agency… > > U.S. agencies are not alone in financial monitoring: the Council of Europe > has even recommended Interpol be given access to SWIFT to assist in money > laundering detection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=16)