Beating Around The Bush
Why on earth would a group of Haitians with nothing better to do than play like they are terrorist do so given the priority of post 9-11 national security? Well if convicted they will have a few decades to think about.
A group of seven Miami misfits decided to boast to an FBI informant their allegiance to al-Quaida and now some in the mainstream media are stating that the task of prosecuting such figures is a joke. The Oregonian, a notoriously left wing publication, has even gone so far as to say if these individuals had jobs with the blah- blah (over the top per hourly wage for flipping burgers, healthcare, free housing, etc) that they would not have been congregating. Needless to say this side of the coin did not acknowledge the possibility that other Muslim terrorist cells (genuine or not) operating in North America may think twice about who they are chatting with and the actual content of their conversations.
The arrest of these persons may have been an attempt to steer away from The New York Times’ (along with The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times) article that ran days prior. In summary the article detailed what is known as The Bank Secrecy Act, which is a portion of the overall security package known as The Patriot Act. The Bank Act was groundbreaking in the scope and field of investigations as it relates to questionable financial transactions. Items such as large cash deposits or odd depository trends fall under The Act’s discerning eye. Additionally the SWIFT (Society of Worldwide Inter-bank Financial Telecommunication) network of Belgium was being used to monitor transactions. These tools allow the federal government greater monitoring capabilities than ever before.
This all sounds fine and dandy, right? It should appear on the up and up unless one is engaged in questionable activities. Unfortunately this is not shared with several in the big media machine. The Times and others felt it was necessary to throw a ‘big brother is watching’ and embrace ‘civil liberties’ spin with their reporting. However in their reporting they erred in two incidences. The first was that the FDIC, for those in Belle Glade that is the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation; a government agency that insures deposits in the event of a bank failure; has by law and a general responsibility to the public the authority to monitor banks through the Federal Reserve’s Comptroller of Currency division . It is a regular, often annual, occurrence for FDIC insured banks to be audited at the state and federal level. How many banks fall under the eye of the FDIC? Oh your author would claim 99% of them do. In other words the idea of the federal government having the ability and authority to monitor banking transactions is not some profound nugget of new information. Additionally in the matter of SWIFT, the organization is not some secretive group as The Times and others attempted to present.
The second failure of The Times and others was their inability to see the wide range of prosecutorial fodder that could be obtained with this measure. The last conviction of a crime boss in America, ‘Big Joey’ Massino of the Bonnano mafia family, was accomplished by the use of accountants and bank records. Not only does this authority allow effective evidence gathering in the war against terror but also in the pursuit and conviction of criminal figures and criminal groups.
In a move that surprised your author, President Bush fought back and publicly decried that the papers were acting irresponsible and endangering national security. Your author would like to see these publications come under a greater light and to determine if some of them have violated federal national security laws. Bush in what would be uncharacteristic of his administration could ban these papers from attending press briefings. Your author under The Infinite Speculator's essays section has already analyzed the likelihood that The Times and several of their competitors in the mainstream media print businesses are facing a hard road, which would explain some of their ridiculous assertions they have made against Republicans, Conservatives and The President in recent years. Speaking specifically of The Times and their continual lambasting of the President, the paper seems to glom onto the notion or idea of possessing the next Woodward and Bernstein and another Watergate is around the corner, even if we have to create it!
Whether he bans The Times or not will have little impact on what is becoming a noticeably bias media. They and others will continue to dance around the First Amendment to advance their agenda, while questioning the relevancy of other Amendments. No what Bush should do is close rank and stop the leaks that have plagued him the past several years (Scooter Libby-Valerie Wilson, internal problems at the CIA) and move forward. As my essay suggests these news agencies are doing a fine job of self-implosion. Then he can get back to focusing on terrorists- genuine threats or wannabe disenfranchised losers.
A group of seven Miami misfits decided to boast to an FBI informant their allegiance to al-Quaida and now some in the mainstream media are stating that the task of prosecuting such figures is a joke. The Oregonian, a notoriously left wing publication, has even gone so far as to say if these individuals had jobs with the blah- blah (over the top per hourly wage for flipping burgers, healthcare, free housing, etc) that they would not have been congregating. Needless to say this side of the coin did not acknowledge the possibility that other Muslim terrorist cells (genuine or not) operating in North America may think twice about who they are chatting with and the actual content of their conversations.
The arrest of these persons may have been an attempt to steer away from The New York Times’ (along with The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times) article that ran days prior. In summary the article detailed what is known as The Bank Secrecy Act, which is a portion of the overall security package known as The Patriot Act. The Bank Act was groundbreaking in the scope and field of investigations as it relates to questionable financial transactions. Items such as large cash deposits or odd depository trends fall under The Act’s discerning eye. Additionally the SWIFT (Society of Worldwide Inter-bank Financial Telecommunication) network of Belgium was being used to monitor transactions. These tools allow the federal government greater monitoring capabilities than ever before.
This all sounds fine and dandy, right? It should appear on the up and up unless one is engaged in questionable activities. Unfortunately this is not shared with several in the big media machine. The Times and others felt it was necessary to throw a ‘big brother is watching’ and embrace ‘civil liberties’ spin with their reporting. However in their reporting they erred in two incidences. The first was that the FDIC, for those in Belle Glade that is the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation; a government agency that insures deposits in the event of a bank failure; has by law and a general responsibility to the public the authority to monitor banks through the Federal Reserve’s Comptroller of Currency division . It is a regular, often annual, occurrence for FDIC insured banks to be audited at the state and federal level. How many banks fall under the eye of the FDIC? Oh your author would claim 99% of them do. In other words the idea of the federal government having the ability and authority to monitor banking transactions is not some profound nugget of new information. Additionally in the matter of SWIFT, the organization is not some secretive group as The Times and others attempted to present.
The second failure of The Times and others was their inability to see the wide range of prosecutorial fodder that could be obtained with this measure. The last conviction of a crime boss in America, ‘Big Joey’ Massino of the Bonnano mafia family, was accomplished by the use of accountants and bank records. Not only does this authority allow effective evidence gathering in the war against terror but also in the pursuit and conviction of criminal figures and criminal groups.
In a move that surprised your author, President Bush fought back and publicly decried that the papers were acting irresponsible and endangering national security. Your author would like to see these publications come under a greater light and to determine if some of them have violated federal national security laws. Bush in what would be uncharacteristic of his administration could ban these papers from attending press briefings. Your author under The Infinite Speculator's essays section has already analyzed the likelihood that The Times and several of their competitors in the mainstream media print businesses are facing a hard road, which would explain some of their ridiculous assertions they have made against Republicans, Conservatives and The President in recent years. Speaking specifically of The Times and their continual lambasting of the President, the paper seems to glom onto the notion or idea of possessing the next Woodward and Bernstein and another Watergate is around the corner, even if we have to create it!
Whether he bans The Times or not will have little impact on what is becoming a noticeably bias media. They and others will continue to dance around the First Amendment to advance their agenda, while questioning the relevancy of other Amendments. No what Bush should do is close rank and stop the leaks that have plagued him the past several years (Scooter Libby-Valerie Wilson, internal problems at the CIA) and move forward. As my essay suggests these news agencies are doing a fine job of self-implosion. Then he can get back to focusing on terrorists- genuine threats or wannabe disenfranchised losers.
posted by The Infinite Speculator @ 4:45 PM
0 comments
