The curious details on the Bank Records story.
Very briefly. I find it interesting that both the NYTimes and the LATimes had versions of the bank records story ready to go. As the program appears to have been operational back to 2001, I just find it odd that in the last three months, both suddenly got the story. Somebody wanted this story out. (Note that this program has been run out of the CIA(?) and the NYTimes team is Lichtblau/Risen who broke the NSA story.)
It appears that the government has been talking to both publications for awhile trying to keep them from publishing.
But, maybe most interesting to me is that when the publication was imminent, the Treasury Department tried to get out in front by giving it's own friendlier version to an AP reporter (US Tracks Suspected Terrorist Financiers.) This is brilliant really, by creating a very friendly AP version of the story, they guarantee that most local papers will carry this version rather than rewriting/reporting on the critical NYTimes or LATimes versions.
Take a quick read of the "friendly" AP piece. Is there anything negative to the administration in it at all? Any questions of privacy, legal issues, executive powers? This is the version that will be printed in most local papers.
(ALSO: Still more Suskind. Haaretz has a story on First Data, "a subsidiary Western Union, with branches throughout the Arab world and a high volume of money transfers," cooperating with "the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Treasury to monitor communications and financial transfers after September 11, in operations of questionable legality.)
It appears that the government has been talking to both publications for awhile trying to keep them from publishing.
But, maybe most interesting to me is that when the publication was imminent, the Treasury Department tried to get out in front by giving it's own friendlier version to an AP reporter (US Tracks Suspected Terrorist Financiers.) This is brilliant really, by creating a very friendly AP version of the story, they guarantee that most local papers will carry this version rather than rewriting/reporting on the critical NYTimes or LATimes versions.
Take a quick read of the "friendly" AP piece. Is there anything negative to the administration in it at all? Any questions of privacy, legal issues, executive powers? This is the version that will be printed in most local papers.
(ALSO: Still more Suskind. Haaretz has a story on First Data, "a subsidiary Western Union, with branches throughout the Arab world and a high volume of money transfers," cooperating with "the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency and the Treasury to monitor communications and financial transfers after September 11, in operations of questionable legality.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:19 AM
3 Comments:
Yes the administration wants the story out and they are trying to avoid the negative "light" that the wire tapping story produced.
I just got done watching Tony Snow's daily press conference. The spin is that this has been going on since 9/11, only people with ties to terror are being financially investigated, and it is the governments responsibility to keep track of and dry up finances tied to terror. So it's all on the up and up and good for the country.
I suspect that good reporters will find more than that, like general inspections of records, not just terror suspected people.
What bothers me about these type of programs is not so much an intentional abuse of people bythe government, but the unintentional abuse because the administration is so inept.
By
Unknown, at 11:16 AM
Good point about the AP story.
This admin is getting pretty good at damage control. But being both incompetent and corrupt, they give themselves plenty of opportunities to practice it.
By
Anonymous, at 11:25 AM
Yeah. I just found the effort to get out in front of this one interesting, especially after the reactionary responses and denials to the Secret Prisons story and the two phone tapping stories.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:38 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home