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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (172089)	7/2/2006 3:58:42 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

There is a big difference between "everybody knows X is doing something about Y" and "X is doing this about Y and they are using Z to do it." There is also a big difference between something mentioned in an obscure publication of small circulation and something being mentioned in one of the most influential publications in the world. Agreed. I think Patterico crystalizes the self-contradiction in the NYT defense: Keller tells us that, hey, the terrorists knew anyway: But this was a case where, clearly the terrorists, or the people who finance terrorism, know quite well, because the Treasury Department and the White House have talked openly about it, that they monitor international banking transactions. It’s not news to the terrorists. Keller, you’re a smart guy, and I know you know better than this. There is a difference between publishing a story saying “Government Monitors International Banking Transactions,” which, without detail, would be greeted by a big yawn — and publishing the story that you did publish, which exposed the classified details of how the government does this. As See Dubya has already observed, you can’t have it both ways. Either ths story revealed nothing secret and sensitive, in which case it didn’t deserve front-page coverage and the agonizing that you and Dean Baquet and Doyle McManus say you went through — or it did, in which case you can’t credibly argue that the terrorists were told nothing useful. patterico.com

To: Constant Reader who wrote (172089)	7/2/2006 4:31:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793912

Prior to this publication, mass media mention of "following the money" did not name specific programs... There is a big difference between "everybody knows X is doing something about Y" and "X is doing this about Y and they are using Z to do it." Thank you for the background for your assumption. Yes, there's a difference. Whether the different matters has not been demonstrated. Nor has an argument for its likelihood been argued. My assumption, and I acknowledge that it is an assumption, is that if I know that my large transactions may be monitored, then someone in the business of making such transactions surely does. The particulars of the mechanism for monitoring are way below my radar. Monitoring is monitoring. I know not to move large chunks of money around that I cannot explain. Sure, I suppose there might be some idiot child of AQ that didn't get the message, but the probabilities are small. If there is some evidence or logic to suggest that the probabilities are large, or that there's something about Swift that might make folks think it was exempt, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise the difference is pretty much academic.