The national security letters have prompted criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who claim they invade the privacy of Americans' lives, even though banks and other financial institutions typically turn over the financial records voluntarily.
The New York Times reported on expanded use of the technique by the Pentagon and CIA in an article posted Saturday on the Internet.
Ah yes, all it takes is for a civil liberties advocate to express concern and the Times is all over it. If the Times didn't know about it before, it must be illegal and must be exposed!
So is it illegal?
Whitman did not indicate the number of requests that have been made in recent years, but said authorities operate under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the National Security Act.
Ok, sure, they are apparently legal, but surely this administration has used them willy nilly to see granma's bank records and to find out which liberal opponent of the war has direct deposit to the local adult movie rental place, right? The fact that the Pentagon spokesman couldn't indicate the number of requests must be suspicious!
None of the officials reached by the AP commented about the extent of use by the Defense Department agencies, but the Times said military intelligence officers have sent the letters in up to 500 investigations.
But the times did say up to 500 investigations made use of them. So in 52 months since 9/11, 500 investigations have thought it might be helpful to see suspects' bank records. Ten per month. Wow. I feel my civil liberties chilling as we speak. Let me go get a sweater.
And I always love the little details that indicate that the sainted President Clinton used the same tool but without drawing the ire of the New York Times:
Another government official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said one example of a case in which the letters were used was the 1994 case of CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who eventually was found to have been selling secrets to the Soviet Union.
Ah yes. I sometimes wonder how the New York Times could work so hard to undermine our efforts to prevent another 9/11. Considering that the Times is located in the biggest target city we have, it is puzzling.
But perhaps it is not so puzzling after all. I mean, if you make your company so useful to the enemy that they figure it is best to keep you up and running, that would buy some protection, would it not?
Nah! What a ridiculous notion! It is ridiculous, isn't it?
