ACLU Seeks To Expose More On Spying Programs
Posted on July 19, 2006
In an effort to determine the breadth of the Bush administration’s massive surveillance programs, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with several government agencies seeking details of financial tracking efforts not only with regard to the SWIFT program revealed in June, but also several other financial organizations that ACLU research indicates are likely targets.
“The American public has a right to know just how many spying programs this administration has created without Congressional authorization or judicial oversight,” said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. “We hope these official requests will help answer that question – and if illegal spying is taking place we will demand an end to it.”
Without any kind of court verdict in regards to legality on the NSA surveillance program, the ACLU continue to stomp their feet, consistently labelling it as “illegal” when there has been no official ruling of any kind. When the NY Times revealed the SWIFT program to our enemies even they saw nothing illegal about it. However, the ACLU have their panties in a twist over it, and obviously don’t think the NY Times revealed enough secret information to our enemies.
The ACLU’s request for information was filed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Treasury Department, including the Secret Service and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or “FinCEN.”
In addition to SWIFT, the ACLU’s FOIA request asks for information about data collected by the government from several financial institutions that are likely targets of such monitoring:
Bolero The Bill of Lading Electronic Registry Organization is an electronic exchange of trade for documents such as bills of lading (descriptions of shipped goods that control ownership of property when it is in transit). Owned in part by SWIFT, Bolero counts many of the world’s largest corporations as customers.
CHIPS The Clearing House Interbank Payment System, another financial transfer service, is privately owned by the New York Clearing House Association. It primarily handles international funds transfers denominated in U.S. dollars for banks and their large customer transactions. Customers include most of the major U.S. banks.
Fedwire A wire transfer service run by the Federal Reserve, Fedwire allows U.S. banks to transfer funds to other participants on behalf of each other and their customers.
I’m not sure what the big deal would be if we are monitoring these financial institutions. If they are dealing in international transactions, I hope they are. In my opinion the ACLU’s suspicions of “research” have no bearing into whether more information should be revealed. The ACLU’s whining about American’s “right to know” secret spying programs sounds alot like the Bill Keller excuse of “public interest.” Hopefully, since this program is supposed to be classified and therefore exempted from FOIA, the ACLU’s request will be refused.
“Congress supposedly killed the ‘Total Information Awareness’ program,” said ACLU Legislative Counsel Timothy Sparapani, referring to the all-encompassing data-surveillance program once headed by Admiral John Poindexter. “But it’s clear that this administration has never abandoned its misguided emphasis on mass, suspicionless data spying. We will do what we can to shed light on these activities, but it is also more important than ever that Congress and state and local authorities undertake a comprehensive investigation into just what this administration is up to.”
This is absolutely irresponsible and reckless as usual. Without any regard to danerous consequences in revealing our terror fighting programs to everyone, including the very enemies they are designed to target, the ACLU hopes to “shed light” even more. It is obvious that the ACLU, like many other moonbats out there, can not are deluded into making our president the enemy instead of recognizing the true enemy and the real dangers posed at America. Heck, the defend those folks!
They are also very upset that Bush blocked a Justice Department inquiry into the NSA program.
The American Civil Liberties Union today strongly rebuked President Bush for his direct involvement with the suspension of an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into the warrantless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
I’m not sure what they are strongly rebuking, because the president had every right to do this.
Moonbats are going nuts (well, they can’t go where they already are – but I digress), but the fact is that Gonzales is correct: The President does “make that decision”, and it was a good decision to make. Just because “outraged democrats and civil libertarians” scream for disclosure doesn’t mean they are entitled to it, nor do the “lawyers” involved in the ‘probe’. Fact is as we have found out in such stories as Fitzgerald GJ and other stories, that DOJ lawyers “who are close to the investigation” have a problem with keeping their mouth shut. That’s what the DOJ determined and therefore didn’t issue them clearances they needed.
In any case the program is legal – it has never been determined otherwise despite Spector’s dreaming – and as such, the President has a right to protect it as the valuable tool in the War on Terror that it is.
And still touting out the tired ” no on is above the law” argument, they got really upset over the Specter/Bush NSA compromise. They seem to think that touting out Bob Barr wearing the “conservative” label loudly will somehow convince people that this issue is a bi-partisan concern. But as, Macsmind says, Bob Barr is living in fantasy land.
When Spector announced the compromise, some conservatives had a “WTF” moment, but I told you, “I see a smirk”. The fact that both the ACLU and Bob Barr are bugged just confirms my original diagnosis. Notice that all of the ACLU and Barr’s objections are “hypothetical” and quite frankly insulting to the character of President Bush.
Again, for the hand-wringing going on, no one has yet to come forward and say, “I’ve been harmed!” by the very effective NSA program. The fact is the program works, safegards are in place, and the socialist ACLU and Bob Barr should take a powder and get over it.
I still hold out the challenge for someone to provide me with one national security project that the ACLU has not objected to. They have objected to every effective government program designed to protect us all the way down to metal detectors in airports. I’m sure they have their intelluctual arguments for all of their anti-American behavior, but what ever happened to common sense?
Linked at OTB
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “ACLU Seeks To Expose More On Spying Programs”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
So if all of these programs were inacted under Clinton you would have been completely fine with them? You would have been find with FDR, Carter and Kennedy having this power?
Where does your trust come from? Do you trust Bush absolutely, or are you really that afraid of terroist attacks?
I think the only one out of the list above that I would not have trusted creating programs to spy on our enemies would be Carter.
The ACLU is filing junk Freedom of Information Act request as the Freedom of Information Act has an exception when talking about national security.
An activist judge has already purposely violated and misused the Act to force the administration to publish the names of detainees at GITMO.
They are expecting most people to be ignorant of what the Act actually states.
…and hopefully Kerwin, the administration won’t be so stupid as to allow this ridiculous request this time around.
Thomas: A dumb question to be sure, meant to show some partyline dancing of course. No, I wouldn’t trust Clinton, Carter or Kennedy with a mop job let alone a spying program. I trust Bush (though I’m not his biggest fan) with spying on our enemies because he has shown he can get it done when it comes to military matters. If someone has proof he’s breaking the law, please share this information with Congress, because you have evidence that they don’t.
Typical of the eUnuch Nations. The rest of my opinion cannot be printed on this blog. The language would be considered way off color and not appropriate in mixed company. Nough said on that subject.
“Without any kind of court verdict in regards to legality on the NSA surveillance program, the ACLU continue to stomp their feet, consistently labelling it as ‘illegal’ when there has been no official ruling of any kind.”
No, Mr. Stephenson. The ACLU isn’t labeling the SWIFT program illegal. Here’s what Mr. Steinhardt said:
“and if illegal spying is taking place we will demand an end to it.” (emphasis added)
Mr. Steinhardt was clearly saying that the ACLU needs more information to determine whether illegal spying occurred. Do you ever actually bother to read stuff before you cut and paste it?
In case the ACLU does not realize it, it is up to the executive brance to prosecute any crimes and the judicial brance to determine if the law has been violated and to measure out an apropriate penalty.
The ACLU is not a brance of the United States government and thus does not have the right to determine if a law has been broken.
The ACLU has a partnership with a foreign government, The UN, and I would not let them see any top secret U.S. documents.
“The ACLU is not a brance of the United States government and thus does not have the right to determine if a law has been broken.”
The word, Kerwin, is ‘branch’. Is it your assertion that no individual or organization that is not part of a branch of the US government may express any opinion whatsoever on the legality of any actions by governmental entities?
If that is your assertion, how do you reconcile it with the free speech provision of the First Amendment?
“An activist judge has already purposely violated and misused the Act…”
You’ve just expressed an opinion regarding the legality of the judge’s action, Kerwin. Are you a branch of the US government? No?
You thus do not have the right to determine if a law has been broken. At least, that’s what you’ve just told us.
“Without any kind of court verdict in regards to legality on the NSA surveillance program, the ACLU continue to stomp their feet, consistently labelling it as “illegal” when there has been no official ruling of any kind.”
Would you like to see official rulings? then let the EFF’s case go forward.
meatbrain,
These are the words I was responding to.
‘“The American public has a right to know just how many spying programs this administration has created without Congressional authorization or judicial oversight,” said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. “We hope these official requests will help answer that question – and if illegal spying is taking place we will demand an end to it.”’
The ACLU sounds like it believes it is a branch of the government of the United States. It is up to the various sections of the federal government to hold itself accountable. The media has already made the public aware of the situation and we do not need to know the details.
“The ACLU sounds like it believes it is a branch of the government of the United States.”
Stop pretending to be able to read minds, Kerwin. It only makes you look sillier.
“It is up to the various sections of the federal government to hold itself accountable.”
Do you mean that no one who is not a member of “the various sections of the federal government” — that is to say, no one who is only a citizen — may say anything about the activities of any government body? If you, you must retract the comment about the “activist judge”. Since you are not a section of the federal government, your own logic tells us that you are not permitted to make such comments. It’s up to some other branch of the federal government to hold the judge accountable for his actions — not a mere citizen named Kerwin Brown.
You apparently wish to forbid the ACLU from commenting on the workings of government — but you are unwilling to follow the very rules you would impose on others.
“The media has already made the public aware of the situation and we do not need to know the details.”
You may wrap yourself in a cocoon of ignorance if you wish, Kerwin. What right do you have to impose ignorance on others?