Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22665)	7/2/2006 1:44:57 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541556

"We can agree to disagree from our respective partisan corners. There doesn't appear to be a center on this issue." Agreed. I also don't see it as a partisan issue, although it is certainly being made into one. "Thousands" of people may have known. Meaning millions DIDN'T know. They sure do now. To repeat, if the administration had tried to quash the story on political grounds, I'd agree the Times did nothing wrong. But, at that time, it wasn't a political issue, it was an issue of operational intelligence.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22665)	7/2/2006 2:59:51 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541556

The issue here is that this wasn't sensitive operation information I am unable to identify any sensitive operational information in it either. The one bit that causes me concern is the cooperation of the Swift folks internationally. They may have been offered political cover in secrecy, for example, on which we have reneged. Or they may withdraw their cooperation. The other concern I have is that I can't find anything illegal in this program. Or anything offensive, either. Yes, I know I have a different standard about invasion of privacy that some. But we all already know that big transactions are monitored and this is just more of the same. I'm not sure there was strong enough need to know in this case to warrant any risk at all in publishing it.