I just thought you’d want to be reminded that you were wrong twice over: on your historical reference and your assesment of the contemporary story. hat way you have the satisfaction of admitting it again.

Care for a violin solo with that?

So?

You obviously have the time and the energy. You just want a reason to whine.

You may not be an idiot

Thank you.

but you re as crazy as a bedbug.

…That has GOT to be the stupidest simile I’ve ever read.

“I ll be honest with you. I m not writing peer – reviewed journal articles. I have neither the time nor the desire to access ProQuest to make a short comment in a left wing blog.”

So you have neither the time nor the inclination to check your facts before you repeat a totally assinine smear on the contemporary major media but you want to attack my typos? By all means, have at it.

What point were you making then Frank? That the New York Times was endangering US security by reminding the terrorists that were monitoring financial transactions? From the article you just linked to:

“The fact is that there is really very little privacy today when it comes to the international transfer of funds. That is why criminal networks, money launderers and terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Hawalas and cash couriers for such transactions.”

So either way your an idiot.

Reports of US Monitoring of SWIFT Transactions Are Not New: The Practice Has Been Known By Terrorism Financing Experts For Some Time
By Victor Comras

Yesterday s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news. But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:

 The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.

Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada s Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.

I feel better.

Now maybe I misunderstood, were you not making a ssertion about the NY Times coverage of counter-espionage against Nazi Germany during WWII? But of course you were.
No,I wasn’t, you psychopath. Even I didn’t think you would you go zipping back into the NYT archives, to prove a point I wasn’t even making.

As I posted at 8:42 PM — your post was three hours later — even you had time to research a response:

I make a remark, which has come into the language over the years, to mean that it was a stupid, if not counterproductive thing for the press to do  now.
It bordered on traitorous, only because there s no word for  I don t really care if it affects the war effort negatively.

It s called a public library.
What a jerk.
What library did you go to, O witless one?

But you have the time and desire to access WordPress to make a long comment in a left wing blog.
So?

Unlike you, I don’t have a paid subscription to the New York Times, and hours to research through time and space, to give “no quarter” to people for whom I have no respect, as you constantly remind us; as you write three part, mile long posts to “vanquish your enemies.”

You may not be an idiot, but you’re as crazy as a bedbug.

Idiot. The article does not view the censorship “favorably” as you put it. Did you even read it? Of couse you didn’t. The article reports on a Congressional hearing into the nature of the government’s censorship program after the Governor of Alaska raised concerns that the program may be infringing on the rights of US citizens. You’ll notice that at the Congressional inquiry members of the Roosevelt administration and the military came right and presented evidence of the program’s effectiveness and welcome the oversight role of the Congress in assuring that all safeguards were in place. From the article:

“Committee complaint that the Office of Censhorship, under the limits of existing censorship law, and therefore illegally, in passing upon communications between the continental United States and its possessions was met vigorously by the Attorney General s repeated assertions that the powers of the Commander in Chief made legislation unnecessary. Legislation was desriable, however, he held so that penalties for violations could be imposed by law.”

Stack this graph from 1942 against any from today’s New York Times piece and you’ll find that there is very little difference between what the NY Times was doing now what it was doing when we were fighting Germany and Japan.

Let’s get one thing straight Frank, you brought this up. You wrote:  If the MSM operated like this during WW II, we d all be speaking German now.”
Now maybe I misunderstood, we’re you not making a ssertion about the NY Times’ coverage of counter-espionage against Nazi Germany during WWII? But of course you were. To now suggest that you were only repeating some quaint colloquialism “which has come into the language over the years” only makes it worse. You’ve just admitted that you mindlessly accept and repeat whatever bullshit you hear that fits your preconceived world view.

And you’re right. I was not aware of this historical article or this incident when I woke up this morning. But I do have a sense of history and I know that the US press and Congress didn’t just roll over for the Roosevelt administration just because we were at war. So I did a little research. And lo and behold what did I find? Proof that you and your prepackaged, ready-to-eat world view was full of shit.

Now do you want to keep this up, Frank? Do you want to go on and on making an ass out of yourself?

You have not understood my concern.

You are worried about some people blowing up a building.

I am worried about the government taking that fear and using it to grab a bunch of powers it doesn’t need and could be abused.

For instance, grabbing all those phone records. The government then uses those records to find whistleblowers leaking embarrassing information about possibly illegal and abusive government programs. Torture, secret prisons… whatever.

Hypothetical, knowing what books people read from library or bookstore files, and putting anyone who read a Michael Moore book on a no-fly list. They already put some people who protest the war through the ringer when they want to fly.

It goes on and on.

Why does the government need my medical records, my banking records, my credit report, my phone records, my e-mail? Why should I make a list if I scuba dive? If I read a certain book. Why is the government infiltrating anti-war rallies with agents provacateur? At what point do I need to be more afraid of a gulag than a terrorist?

Well, it’s like I always say, “I’d rather be an intellectual elitest than a stupid prick.”

We ve been over this before. I am at least smart enough to know I m not an idiot.

I’m sure Dany Quayle thought of himself the exact same way.

So, what s your response? You take the ProQuest Time Machine to 1943, leaving a trail that no one without off campus access can follow, and tell me  I don t know the facts. Well, of course, I don t know those facts, and neither did you  til you went poking around the college library, unless you re going to tell me the Dec 12, 1943 issue of the NYT was in your hall closet.
Incidentally, in answer to your question

It’s called a public library.

I ll be honest with you. I m not writing peer – reviewed journal articles. I have neither the time nor the desire to access ProQuest to make a short comment in a left wing blog.

But you have the time and desire to access WordPress to make a long comment in a left wing blog.

What’s your answer?

(Choose one)
idiot
hilarious

… and yet it was you who was just plain wrong.

I make a remark, which has come into the language over the years, to mean that it was a stupid, if not counterproductive thing for the press to do — now.
It bordered on traitorous, only because there’s no word for “I don’t really care if it affects the war effort negatively.”

So, what’s your response? You take the ProQuest Time Machine to 1943, leaving a trail that no one without off campus access can follow, and tell me “I don’t know the facts.” Well, of course, I don’t know those facts, and neither did you ’til you went poking around the college library, unless you’re going to tell me the Dec 12, 1943 issue of the NYT was in your hall closet.
Incidentally, in answer to your question

Is he a traitor? You be the judge
According to that article — no.
Did he mention the right to privacy?
No.

As to the other article, that seems to view the censorship favorably, and, as such, differs from the NYT’s attitude now considerably.

I’ll be honest with you. I’m not writing peer – reviewed journal articles. I have neither the time nor the desire to access ProQuest to make a short comment in a left wing blog.

As we used to say, (and don’t take this literally, Data, Mr. Spock, Frameone: “If you wanna fight, join the Marines!”

Oh yeah:
and yet it was you who was just plain wrong
So, you’re associating “correctness” with arrogance. Why am I not surprised?

e one)
idiot
hilarious

TomY and z-adura, you’re both jerks who have the incredible gall to think you’re smarter than someone.

John Leo said last year, “Liberals claim intellectual superiority over conservatives, and conservatives claim moral superiority over liberals.”
Only on this blog do liberals claim intellectual and moral superiority over everyone.

Their humility could fit in a teacup, with room left over for a liberal cortex — which they are never inclined to use.

Oh now it was all just a joke funny, funny ha, ha.

Idiot.