Presumption of Privacy
The National Security Agency wiretapping of calls in which at least one party is within the United States is an example of our government violating civil liberties in the name of counterterrorism. Any domestic electronic surveillance without a court order, no matter how useful, is clearly illegal.
However, counterterrorism experts that have monitored transfers over the Swift international financial system point out that there has been an over-reaction to this completely distinct issue. Going after terrorists' money is a necessary element of any counterterrorism program, as President Bill Clinton pointed out in presidential directives in 1995 and 1998. Monitoring international bank transfers, especially with the knowledge of the bank consortium that owns the network, is legal and unobjectionable.
The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, passed in 1977, provides the president with enormous authority over financial transactions by America's enemies. International initiatives against money laundering have been under way for a decade, and have been aimed not only at terrorists but also at drug cartels, corrupt foreign officials and a host of criminal organizations.
These initiatives, combined with treaties and international agreements, should leave no one with any presumption of privacy when moving money electronically between countries. Since 2001, banks have been obliged to report even transactions entirely within the United States if there is reason to believe illegal activity is involved.
The attacks on the liberal press is part of a political strategy by the Bush regime to scare their supporters. Their angry objections that the New York Times made revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists was a political ploy. They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny.
Bush and Congressional Republicans want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against the liberal media, who they claim are helping terrorists. Press accounts of Republican outrage actually gave the revelation of the financial monitoring program an even higher profile. It should be noted that they were careful not to denounce the conservative Wall Street Journal, which published the same information as the Times.
However, counterterrorism experts that have monitored transfers over the Swift international financial system point out that there has been an over-reaction to this completely distinct issue. Going after terrorists' money is a necessary element of any counterterrorism program, as President Bill Clinton pointed out in presidential directives in 1995 and 1998. Monitoring international bank transfers, especially with the knowledge of the bank consortium that owns the network, is legal and unobjectionable.
The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, passed in 1977, provides the president with enormous authority over financial transactions by America's enemies. International initiatives against money laundering have been under way for a decade, and have been aimed not only at terrorists but also at drug cartels, corrupt foreign officials and a host of criminal organizations.
These initiatives, combined with treaties and international agreements, should leave no one with any presumption of privacy when moving money electronically between countries. Since 2001, banks have been obliged to report even transactions entirely within the United States if there is reason to believe illegal activity is involved.
The attacks on the liberal press is part of a political strategy by the Bush regime to scare their supporters. Their angry objections that the New York Times made revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists was a political ploy. They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny.
Bush and Congressional Republicans want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against the liberal media, who they claim are helping terrorists. Press accounts of Republican outrage actually gave the revelation of the financial monitoring program an even higher profile. It should be noted that they were careful not to denounce the conservative Wall Street Journal, which published the same information as the Times.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home