I think our government should be monitoring bank accounts.

[rogerashton]

OK, I'm probably in the minority, but I'd like to see the government chasing gansters (some of whom are members of our ruling class) as well as terrorists by following the money. It was a Texas republican, Gramm I think, who in early 2001 denounced financial monitoring as "totalitarian." The failure to monitor terrorist finance until after 9-11 is one aspect of Republican contributory negligence, in my opinion. HOWEVER --

If the program is effective, it would be better for our enemies to know about it. Defensive measures that are effective deter enemy action only if they are known, as Nobel Laureate game theorist Tom Schelling pointed out back in the 1950's. Keeping it secret only works if it is only partially effective, relying on our enemies to use financial networks that are easy to monitor. But we know they don't do that -- they use the informal networks that don't go through the banks.

MOREOVER if you agree with me that bank monitoring is needed, there is a legal way to do it. The Republican dominated Congress could pass a law authorizing it. Until that happens, it is illegal, and the government that does it is a scofflaw at best and a dictatorship in effect.

[liberal N proud]

1. BUT: What keeps a tyrant from using the information they collect about you

that is not to protect the safety of the nation and it's people?
Rather they use it to manipulate you and to oppress you. Say they use the information they collect from your bank account combined with the information they collect from your phone records and internet traffic to identify you as a enemy of the state simply because you are a member of a political web group and you donate to that group.
Do you think that is OK?

The problem with them having unchecked access to everyones records, be it phone, internet, mail or financial is the danger that it would be used for the wrong purpose. This is the United States for God sakes and laws were created to protect the people from a corrupt government. The people of this nation have allowed this corrupt regime to trample the laws into the ground because they were hoodwinked by 9/11 disaster. The fact that 9/11 has enabled the bu$h regime to steal our protection is the real disaster of 9/11. It also gives the terrorist what they want, a people living in fear.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I believe that right now

bank records can be examined if a subpoena is obtained. In other words, there must be reasonable cause.

[HereSince1628]

3. I believe that certain sized movements are required to be reported

by the bank aren't they?

[RangerSmith]

16. I know over $ 10,000 is...

I'm not sure about the reporting laws for foreign transfers though.

In theory I agree with the OP on this.

I mean think about it... the whole wiretap thing is even a bigger pile of steaming BS in light of the fact that they weren't being turned down when asking for subpoenas. These clowns just decided to go ahead and do what they wanted when they wanted.

Monitoring money in and out of the country is not an invasive practice. Money laundering, tax avoidance, etc, etc... there are many more reasons out there to be doing it than not, but I think the devil is in the details... doing it outside the proper procedural channels. Same old illegal shit.

[KansDem]

12. That's why we have judicial oversight (or at least are suppose to)

I'm not too well informed on these kinds of matters, but I would think that such searches require a court warrant so that abuse does not happen. Supposedly, an impartial judge would review the request to see if it is indeed a valid one. That's why the Bushistas are in hot water over their illegal wiretapping--a warrant to do so would help to assure that the wiretap wasn't purely for political reasons, or for some other reasons besides what the warrant specifies.

Checks and balances are necessary to prevent the kinds of abuse propagated by the Bushistas.

[acmejack]

4. Let's simply outlaw privacy-it will make it harder for the terrorist's!

I'm with the OP. We don't need no steenking liberty. Freedom is vastly over-rated, just ask Alberto.

[treestar]

5. It is the price of freedom that every crime will not be found out and

punished. That is all.

The bank can cooperate if they think there really is a case to be made against somebody.

But the government has to have a reason they think that someone in particular is committing a crime.

Limiting the government's powers may mean tolerating some crime going unpunished. We just think it is the necessary price of freedom. If the government had the power to prevent all crimes, then the government would have the power to define crimes at the whim of those holding office, without reference to the law. That would mean we had zero protection from crime.

Until people get that they will continue to fall for this particular piece of Bushit.

[Vinca]

6. Two words: search warrant.

It would be nice if this administration familiarized themselves with the phrase.

[doc mercer]

7. Monitoring

2 words why I am uncomfortable with this program: GEORGE BUSH

[Quantess]

22. Yes!

2 words: Chimpy Asshole
3 words: The Vice President
4 words: Administration can't be trusted.

[CJCRANE]

8. They already know where the big money's going...

straight to their cronies and patsies.

I bet they knew before 9/11 as well - $500,000 went into that operation, much of it allegedly from sources connected to B*sh's "allies".

[rogerashton]

9. There is no form of law enforcement that cannot be abused.

I agree that GW*B cannot be trusted with the power to monitor bank accounts, but, hell, he can't be trusted with the power to order the beer for the frat party -- can't be trusted with any of the powers of the president -- so why is that an argument against having banks monitored? The Repubs did their best to implicate the Clintons in the death of Vince Foster, so, by the same logic, we should oppose laws against murder. Make sense?

The thing about money is, some people have a lot more of it than others do, and it is the people who have a lot of money who are the ones that have the most to lose by having bank accounts monitored. As for those of us who contribute to liberal causes, do you really think they couldn't find that out without monitoring your bank account? Do you make any real effort to keep your liberalism secret, in any case? Do you make contributions by credit card? Who has that information? The idea that privacy can be protected in the modern world is just an illusion, and it leads to wasted and misuided efforts. There is no purpose in opposing or lamenting what is inevitable. We need to spend our efforts finding ways to make it work for us, rather than them.

I am not surprised, but am disappointed, that no one seems to have read past the first line, to have picked up on the key points I wanted to make: 1) if there really is an effective program of this kind, it OUGHT to be public knowledge, and the NYT could not have damaged "national security" by writing about it, and 2) in any case it is illegal, although the Republican Party had power enough to legalize it. The standard of discussion on this board is unfortunately very low.

[CJCRANE]

13. Can you point to anything effective

the neocons have done using their "war powers"?

Go ahead and read "New Pearl Harbor" and find out that they had all the tools at their disposal to stop 9/11. They simply chose not to use them, or squashed any investigation that attempted to.

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. Do you really think

that folks using cash for illicit purposes are utilizing the banking system?

Come on now. They launder the money by running it through various business ventures. And they hide it in birdhouses and other places. Kind of hard to detect. In the meantime, * claims that the government has the right even in the absence of probable cause and without notice to acquire personal financial data. We all have sacrificed our financial privacy and we all have become suspects. For decades there have been legal procedures available where law enforcement can show probable cause can gain access to private financial information. We are all f*cked. Money translates into power - as does the ability to use knowledge of private financial transactions to manipulate behavior. Next step is the manipulation of data to create evidence of guilt.

[rogerashton]

18. small scale crooks, yes.

Billionaire crooks, no. But that's why there will never be any need for the soi-disant "left" to defend financial privacy.

[Coyote_Bandit]

24. Hmmmmm

(1) The guys who suicide themselves for whatever reason and on the behalf of whatever organization are small potatoes and will not likely be detected or stopped via means of financial surveillance. They largely trade in cash, tangible property and prepaid expenses rather than use bank accounts. Meanwhile, the information compiled conducting financial surveillance can be compromised or used in numerous ways - mostly to the detriment of individual citizens.

(2) As for the larger organizations, well, that is all a game of shadows and mirrors anyway. Just depends on who is or is not in favor at any particular moment - and whether or not our leaders think they can use a particular organization. I seem to remember at one point or another we funded both Saddam and Osama.

I used to work in an international private bank. There are many procedures in place to track international financial transactions over extended periods of time - procedures which are applied to both citizens and non-citizens. Those who have wealth can protect it (from liability concerns) by moving it offshore and either investing in assets abroad or placing it into an offshore asset protection trust. Those kinds of transactions are going to be documented and leave a paper trail. It's not that nobody knows where the money is or how it was used. Our court system simply does not have the jurisdiction to recover the funds.

On the other hand, if you have lots of money and want to use the money to surreptitiously fund covert or terrorist organizations then you are going to require a worldwide network to launder that money. And it is going to take you some time to accomplish your goal. You are going to need to move that money through multiple banks in different countries using different exchange rates and numerous quasi-legitimate business endeavors as a front for the transaction. That requires an organization. See point #2 above.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

14. They wouldn't use it to bust corporate criminals or gangsters

[rucky]

15. Sure, just get a FISA warrant first.

it usually takes less than 24 hours & the government can do it after the fact. but I suppose that's too-restrictive for the Bushie types.

[gratuitous]

17. And there is a system already in place

It's called the rule of law, and there are procedures, reviews, you know, checks and balances, provided for to limit the potential for abuse of this process. And considering the track record of this crooked administration, I want as many people as possible overseeing their little schemes because I don't trust them.

Certainly monitoring financial transactions of certain specified suspicious characters or organizations is a useful method of building a criminal case. But wholesale harvesting of bank records is just fraught with the possibility of abuse and governmental oppression. Considering this bunch has wrongfully imprisoned people by mistake, spied on Quaker groups in Florida, and infiltrated peace discussion groups in California, their track record for responsibly handling information isn't very reassuring. This administration's concerted and orchestrated denouncement of the latest exposure of their secret little program indicates to me that once again they've been caught out doing something they know to be illegal, or that would be ruled illegal if subject to judicial review.

[Doctor_J]

19. There is no better example of a slippery slope

than this one.

[baldguy]

20. There are a few bank accounts I'd like to take a look at.

Richard Mellon Scaife
Grover Norquist
Ken Lay
Dick Cheney
Jack Abramoff
Ralph Reed

I'm sure there are others.

[rogerashton]

23. Right -- and that's why

the boss class want to handle it in this way.

If the Republican congress were to make it legal, then there is at least a chance that some future progressive government might use it to look at THEIR transactions. But let Bush do it illegally -- with the Republican congress forgiving the illegality -- and then, if a future Democratic government tries to look at the accounts you mention, "OH! That's illegal!"

It seems to me we need to focus on the problem -- which is Republicans -- and not just knee-jerk oppose whatever the pubs may be doing today. Of course, we need principles, but that kind of reflex response isn't principled, isn't consistent, and isn't effective politics.

[applegrove]

21. If they get a warrant.. SURE! That's always been the case.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Ok read thiis and then think about it

I will put it to you this way... anybody with any savvy in the international arena knows that money has been tracked like this since at least the 1980s, it is not a secret. It is part of international agreements to avoid money laundering due to drug trafficking and other illegal activities. Perchance, terrorism falls in that category...

It is HOW the bushes have gone about it that is wrong and highly illegal... but the systems have been in place for a long time. A good example, if you should all of a sudden move 10K dollars, either internally, or externally, that triggers actions by banks who have to inform federal officials. You can import that money LEGALLLY as long as you tell customs... and for some silly reason 10K is the amount given at least in North America... it can be 10,000 pesos, Canadian Dollars or US Dollars. If you should send money to a country in the list of terrorist statse, that will trigger actions by banks, that are federally madated. If you should also send a large ammout of cash to I don't know Eastern Euriope, sane efect, they have always had to quietly inform the authorities of suspicious activity, and if there is a pattern usually a warrant is issued by a court, especially if they suspect RICO and other violations.

I think OBL knows that... and that is the tip of the iceberg, so I don't think he is retrieving 10K from his accounts in NY... hell I doubt his accounts are in NY if he has any, but rather Saudi Arabia (that refuses even now to enter into this regulatory environment, hmmm, or Switzerland which prides itself of having quite a bit of ahem discretion for their clients)

[rogerashton]

27. Do we disagree?

I don't think so.

[noonwitch]

26. Personally, I just assumed that they were doing this

It doesn't bother me all that much. Anything I buy that I don't want the government to know about, I pay cash, mainly because I don't think that they really need to know what I buy at the grocery store or what cds or books I buy.

But I really assumed that the government was tracking the financial transactions of terror suspects. It makes sense to me as a tactic, and I don't think that the NYT did anything wrong by letting the public know what most of us figured, anyways.