Carol Platt Liebau: Not Everything Is Fit to Print

Friday, June 30, 2006

Not Everything Is Fit to Print

The Wall Street Journal lays out some meaningful distinctions between its decision to publish the SWIFT story and that of the New York and LA Times.

9 Comments:

Blogger Dittohead said...

Rather strange that at no point in time did the government advise the WSJ that they did not want the story printed.

10:57 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Well, since the WSJ editorial page is a quasi-official arm of the Bush administration, maybe they assumed it couldn't be called a leak.

1:40 PM  
Blogger Carol Platt Liebau said...

First, if you'd read the piece, you'd see that the WSJ ran the piece only after learning that the Times was going to -- and the administration was aware that the paper would give it a less biased shake than either Times

Second, the op/ed pages had nothing to do with the SWIFT story; it was the exclusive province of the news pages, which are, in fact, considered liberal.

3:31 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

A "less biased" shake -- that means printing the Bush version, right?

Which, by the way, is exactly what the New York Times did in the runup to the war -- took every lie as a press release and printed it verbatim. And that's one major reason we're in Iraq.

Now they're not playing lapdog for this corrupt -- no, evil -- administration, and your noble Righties are literally calling for the Times' editor to be tortured to death.

Lovely to see what a Republican version of America looks like. Oddly, it's just like Saddam's Iraq. You get thrown in jail for burning a flag, and you get tortured to death for speaking out against the leader. Oh, but you guys say you're for "freedom" so it's all right.

6:57 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

I see that WSJ printed the story and then waited a week and until after a highly partician resolution was passed in Congress to finally make a public statement. Whimps!

Considering that Afghanistan is the largest opium producer, I suspect they are very well informed about effective and non-effective mean to launder money. Likely a cat & mouse play between cops and robbers.

Anyone can do an internet search and find the NYT story was in the public domain and even Bush publically broadcast his intensions of monitoring banking and financial transactions internationally. Why did Bush disclose this to the enemy? If criticism is warranted for disclosing this, shouldn't it be Bush himself, other administrators and government officials.

Now with SCOTUS ruling on Hamdam V. Rumsfeld, we learn that many of Bush's legal arguments claiming executive powers are false.

Hopefully, the GOP and Bush can calm down and let the rule of law work instead of using swift-boating tactics to sway its base of supporters and condemn and silence the fourth estate. And in so doing create a constitutional crisis.

The GOP was outraged and full of condemnation over the outing of a covert CIA agent until they found out the leaker was the president himself.

7:27 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

So ditto,

If I do that internet search, will I find that Bush laid out a more general plan than what the Times reported on? To say we're going to be checking banking records as a tactic in the war is different than reporting on a specific incident. Or am I missing something?

The SCOTUS ruling is nothing more than another egregious overstepping of authority, the likes of which we haven't seen since Roe v Wade. It's supposed to work like this: Congress authorizes and funds our involvement in a war, the Prez fights it, and the Supremes stay the hell out of it. They have NO role in the fighting of a war. And I find it ironic that the evil Alito, who would take away women's rights to kill their babies, said that precedent should play a major role in rendering decisions, yet, with precedent from the 1940's favoring Bush's actions, the five idiot lefty Supremes ignore it. The country needs one of these five to either die or retire ASAP so Bush can appoint another competent justice.

The GOP was outraged until they found out the agent wasn't covert.

10:45 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:17 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Marshall,

I'm afraid you've been fooled again. It would not surprise me if in a days time of internet searches, one could obtain thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of pages on the program.

There even is a website http://www.fatf-gafi.org

You can also search Bush's speaches, the Treasury speaches, testimony to Congress, the DOJ speaches, United Nation's documents and foreign sources.

Months ago Jack Snow took journalists on a six day tour of the program, because he wanted a puff piece saying how successful he was in fitting the war. Unfortunately, he got an article suggesting there are legal problems, lack of oversite and checks and balances by the GOP rubber stampers.

SCOTUS is a third branch of the government and has responsibility to see that domestic laws, international laws and US treaties (such as Genva Conventions) are upheld.

The righties show their true color. Carol suggests it would have been better if the terrorists had attacked the Supreme Court. And you Marshall want justices to die. Something is seriously wrong with you people.

Here is FATF recommendations from their website:

Recognising the vital importance of taking action to combat the financing of terrorism, the FATF has agreed these Recommendations, which, when combined with the FATF Forty Recommendations on money laundering, set out the basic framework to detect, prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism and terrorist acts. For further information on the Special Recommendations as related to the self-assessment process, see the Guidance Notes.

I. Ratification and implementation of UN instruments

Each country should take immediate steps to ratify and to implement fully the 1999 United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Countries should also immediately implement the United Nations resolutions relating to the prevention and suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, particularly United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.

II. Criminalising the financing of terrorism and associated money laundering

Each country should criminalise the financing of terrorism, terrorist acts and terrorist organisations. Countries should ensure that such offences are designated as money laundering predicate offences.(See Interpretative Note)

III. Freezing and confiscating terrorist assets

Each country should implement measures to freeze without delay funds or other assets of terrorists, those who finance terrorism and terrorist organisations in accordance with the United Nations resolutions relating to the prevention and suppression of the financing of terrorist acts.

Each country should also adopt and implement measures, including legislative ones, which would enable the competent authorities to seize and confiscate property that is the proceeds of, or used in, or intended or allocated for use in, the financing of terrorism, terrorist acts or terrorist organisations. (See Interpretative Note and Best Practices Paper)

IV. Reporting suspicious transactions related to terrorism

If financial institutions, or other businesses or entities subject to anti-money laundering obligations, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are linked or related to, or are to be used for terrorism, terrorist acts or by terrorist organisations, they should be required to report promptly their suspicions to the competent authorities.

V. International co-operation

Each country should afford another country, on the basis of a treaty, arrangement or other mechanism for mutual legal assistance or information exchange, the greatest possible measure of assistance in connection with criminal, civil enforcement, and administrative investigations, inquiries and proceedings relating to the financing of terrorism, terrorist acts and terrorist organisations.

Countries should also take all possible measures to ensure that they do not provide safe havens for individuals charged with the financing of terrorism, terrorist acts or terrorist organisations, and should have procedures in place to extradite, where possible, such individuals.

VI. Alternative remittance

Each country should take measures to ensure that persons or legal entities, including agents, that provide a service for the transmission of money or value, including transmission through an informal money or value transfer system or network, should be licensed or registered and subject to all the FATF Recommendations that apply to banks and non-bank financial institutions. Each country should ensure that persons or legal entities that carry out this service illegally are subject to administrative, civil or criminal sanctions.
(See Interpretative Note and Best Practices Paper)

VII. Wire transfers

Countries should take measures to require financial institutions, including money remitters, to include accurate and meaningful originator information (name, address and account number) on funds transfers and related messages that are sent, and the information should remain with the transfer or related message through the payment chain.

Countries should take measures to ensure that financial institutions, including money remitters, conduct enhanced scrutiny of and monitor for suspicious activity funds transfers which do not contain complete originator information (name, address and account number).
(See Interpretative Note)

VIII. Non-profit organisations

Countries should review the adequacy of laws and regulations that relate to entities that can be abused for the financing of terrorism. Non-profit organisations are particularly vulnerable, and countries should ensure that they cannot be misused:

by terrorist organisations posing as legitimate entities;

to exploit legitimate entities as conduits for terrorist financing, including for the purpose of escaping asset freezing measures; and

to conceal or obscure the clandestine diversion of funds intended for legitimate purposes to terrorist organisations.
(See Best Practices Paper)

IX. Cash couriers

Countries should have measures in place to detect the physical cross-border transportation
of currency and bearer negotiable instruments, including a declaration system or other
disclosure obligation.

Countries should ensure that their competent authorities have the legal authority to stop or
restrain currency or bearer negotiable instruments that are suspected to be related to
terrorist financing or money laundering, or that are falsely declared or disclosed.

Countries should ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are available
to deal with persons who make false declaration(s) or disclosure(s). In cases where the
currency or bearer negotiable instruments are related to terrorist financing or money
laundering, countries should also adopt measures, including legislative ones consistent with
Recommendation 3 and Special Recommendation III, which would enable the confiscation of
such currency or instruments.
(See Interpretative Note and Best Practices Paper)

Note:
With the adoption of Special Recommendation IX, the FATF now deletes paragraph 19(a) of
Recommendation 19 and the Interpretative Note to Recommendation 19 in order to ensure internal consistency amongst the FATF Recommendations. The modified text of recommendation 19 reads as follows:
Recommendation 19
Countries should consider the feasibility and utility of a system where banks and other
financial institutions and intermediaries would report all domestic and international currency
transactions above a fixed amount, to a national central agency with a computerised data
base, available to competent authorities for use in money laundering or terrorist financing
cases, subject to strict safeguards to ensure proper use of the information.

10:32 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Where in all that does it describe the specific strategies to be employed for a specific target? Rules and regs and recommendations do not equate to specific targets. That there is a program is not the same as saying how it is implemented. What part of that distinction escapes you?

12:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google