Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) is a United States government program to access financial transactions on the international SWIFT network that was revealed by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times in June 2006. It was part of the Bush administration's War on Terrorism. After the covert action was disclosed, the so-called SWIFT-agreement was negotiated between the United States and the European Union.

Overview

A series of articles published on June 23, 2006, by the New York Times,[1] the Wall Street Journal[2] and the Los Angeles Times[3] revealed that the United States government, specifically the Treasury and the CIA, had a program to access the SWIFT transaction database after the September 11th attacks.

According to the June 2006 New York Times article, the program helped lead to the capture of an al-Qaeda operative known as Hambali in 2003, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing, as well as helped identify a Brooklyn man convicted in 2005 for laundering money for an al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan.[4] The Treasury Department and White House responded to the leak the day before it was published, and claimed that the leak damaged counterterrorism activities. They also referred to the program as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" ("TFTP"), similar to the Terrorist Surveillance Program in the NSA wiretapping controversy.[5]

The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was viewed by the Bush administration as another tool in the "Global War on Terrorism". The administration contends the program allows additional scrutiny that could prove instrumental in tracking transactions between terrorist cells. Some have raised concerns that this classified program might also be a violation of United States and European financial privacy laws, because individual search warrants to access financial data were not obtained in advance.[6] In response to the claim that the program violates U.S. law, some have noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Miller (1976) has ruled that there is not an expected right to privacy for financial transaction records held by third parties and that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed".[7]

Immediately following the disclosure, SWIFT released an official press statement asserting that they did give information to the United States in compliance with Treasury Department subpoenas, but claiming that "SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas".[8] Belgium's central bank, the National Bank of Belgium, was exposed on June 27, 2006, to have known about the U.S. government's access to the SWIFT databases since 2002.[9] Belgian Christian Democratic and Flemish party claimed on June 28, that the actions of the CIA with SWIFT were in breach with Belgian privacy laws.The Belgian parliamentary committee (Comité I), that deals with the workings of the Belgian State Security Service reported that SWIFT was indeed in violation with Belgian and European privacy laws.[10] The New York branch of the Dutch Rabobank is said to deliver information on its European customers to the U.S. government, in contempt of European privacy laws. The Dutch Data Protection Authority claims that Dutch banks could face fines if they hand over data on their customers to the U.S. government.[11] Consequently the European Union (EU) has obtained the possibility to send a high-ranking magistrate as High Representative of EU to United States of America for the Financing of Terrorism, in order to monitor the TFTP activities. This magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguière, has a permanent office in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Department of Treasury.[12]

Disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden alleged the NSA was systematically undermining the SWIFT-agreement. No dementi was issued by the American side, and the European Parliament voted to suspend the agreement.[13][14] A suspension would however require the consent of a two-thirds majority of EU governments.[15]

EU-U.S. relations

Legal treaty development

After European concerns with wholesale SWIFT data export were raised, it became necessary for the United States to negotiate a treaty with the EU in order to be able to continue accessing the SWIFT database. The Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was negotiated during 2009. The treaty was first rejected by the European parliament,[16] however after a few months and a visit by U.S. Vice president Joe Biden to the parliament,[17] the European Commission introduced a proposal with strengthened safeguards,[18] which was then adopted.[19]

Scope

The scope of the treaty is to use financial payment messaging data to prevent, investigate, detect, and prosecute conduct pertaining to terrorism or terrorist financing. Terrorism is defined as acts which involves violence or are otherwise dangerous to human life or create a risk of damage to property or infrastructure with the intent to intimidate a population or government or an international institution to act or abstain from acting or to seriously destabilize or destroy fundamental structures of a country or international organization.

Process

The United States Treasury serves production orders to a designated provider of financial data. SWIFT is the only designated provider today. The request shall identify as clearly as possible the data necessary for the purpose of the treaty. The request should clearly substantiate the necessity of the data, and be tailored as narrowly as possible. Payments within the Single Euro Payments Area are excluded.

Safeguards

The U.S. Treasury shall process the data only for the purpose of the treaty and data mining is not allowed. The data must be secured and cannot be interconnected with any other database. Access to data shall be limited to investigations of terrorism. All searches must be based upon preexisting information or evidence of connection with terrorism. Information may only be shared with law enforcement, public security, or counterterrorism authorities in the United States or the EU. Given that the NSA collected the data directly from EU citizens, circumventing these safeguards.[18]

Citizen's rights

Any person has the right to obtain a confirmation through the data protection authority in the EU member state that the person's data protection rights have been respected. Any person has the right to seek the rectification, erasure or blocking of his or her personal data where the data is inaccurate or the processing contravenes the treaty.

European TFTP

EU may request the aid of the United States to build up a European TFTP.

History

2013

2012

2011

2010

2001-2006

At the end of June and beginning of July 2006, press coverage in the European and US media questioned the role and responsibilities of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) in relation to the transfer of personal data to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury (“UST”). SWIFT is a Belgian based cooperative active in the processing of financial messages. It was revealed that personal data, collected and processed via the SWIFT network for international money transfers using the bank identification code (“BIC”) or “SWIFT” code, had been provided to the UST since the end of 2001 on the basis of subpoenas under American law for terrorism investigation purposes. - Article 29 Working Party, Opinion 10/2006 on the processing of personal data by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

New York Times' disclosure controversy

There have been discussions on whether the New York Times should be prosecuted for its actions[21][22] for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and other related federal statutes. In response, some have questioned why the New York Times alone should be singled out for discipline, since the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal divulged information about the TFTP at the same time.[23] The New York Times itself argued in a June 28, 2006 editorial that its reporting about the TFTP is protected by the First Amendment and serves a vital role, providing "information the public needs to make things right again". The New York Times editorial further argued that terrorists would have to be "fairly credulous" to believe their finances were not being tracked and that the reporting bore "no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.[24]

Some have also questioned whether the information in the original June 23, 2006 newspaper articles was even secret, despite its U.S. government classification, because of previous newspaper articles discussing SWIFT. Specifically, a 1998 Washington Post article, in the wake of the U.S. embassy bombings, mentioned that the "CIA and agents with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services – operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS – that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily."[25] Also, a September 21, 2001 Baltimore Sun article mentioned SWIFT "headquartered in Belgium" and conjectured about the ability of the U.S. National Security Agency "to follow the money through its electronic intercepts of such transactions".[26] Still others have questioned the secrecy of the TFTP because the Bush administration has made public announcements that it planned to track terrorist-related finances. For example, in a speech shortly after the September 11th attacks, George W. Bush elaborated on the Administration's intention to track terrorist funding, saying "if [financial institutions] fail to help us by sharing information or freezing accounts, the Department of the Treasury now has the authority to freeze their bank's assets and transactions in the United States".[27]

However, critics of the decision to disclose the classified program's existence, including U.S. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, responded by arguing that there is a vast difference between stating general intentions to track terrorist finances and actually revealing the exact means employed to do so. Some of these critics called attention to the New York Times itself making no mention of either SWIFT or the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program in a November 29, 2005 article ironically detailing the Bush administration's apparent lack of progress in tracking terrorist finances.[28] Moreover, in an editorial on the press's obligations in wartime, the Wall Street Journal clarified the basic differences between its approach to the story and that of the New York Times. As for Secretary Snow, he disagreed with executive editor of The New York Times Bill Keller's claim that terrorists are now exclusively using "other means"[29] to transfer funds, by stating that terrorists "have continued to [use] the formal financial system, which has made this program incredibly valuable".[30] Testifying before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on July 11, 2006, Stuart Levey, the Department of the Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, stated:

"Since being asked to oversee this program by then-Secretary Snow and then-Deputy Secretary Bodman almost two years ago, I have received the written output from this program as part of my daily intelligence briefing. For two years, I have been reviewing that output every morning. I cannot remember a day when that briefing did not include at least one terrorism lead from this program. Despite attempts at secrecy, terrorist facilitators have continued to use the international banking system to send money to one another, even after September 11th. This disclosure compromised one of our most valuable programs and will only make our efforts to track terrorist financing—and to prevent terrorist attacks—harder. Tracking terrorist money trails is difficult enough without having our sources and methods reported on the front page of newspapers."[31]

On October 22, 2006, Public Editor of The New York Times Byron Calame stated that he did not think the article should have been published, reversing his strong support of the Times in his June 2 column. "I haven't found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal...The lack of appropriate oversight—to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention—was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight".[32]

In September 2006, however, the Belgian government declared that the SWIFT dealings with U.S. government authorities were, in fact, a breach of Belgian and European privacy laws. New York Times editor Bill Keller responded to Calame’s “revisionist epiphany” in a letter published on November 6, 2006. Keller felt that Calame’s premise that “the press should not reveal sensitive secret information unless there is a preponderance of evidence that the information exposes illegal or abusive actions by the government” set too high a bar. Keller explained, “The banking story landed in the context of a national debate about the concentration of executive power. The Swift program was the latest in a series of programs carried out without the customary checks and balances—in this case, Congressional oversight. Key members of Congress who would normally be apprised of such a program and who would be expected to monitor its safeguards only learned of the program because we did”.[33]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Lichtblau, Eric and Risen, James. "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror", New York Times, June 22, 2006. Accessed June 23, 2006.
  2. ↑ Simpson, Glenn R. "U.S. Treasury Tracks Financial Data In Secret Program", Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2006. Accessed June 23, 2006.
  3. ↑ Meyer, Josh and Miller, Greg. "Secret U.S. Program Tracks Global Bank Transfers", Los Angeles Times. June 22, 2006. Accessed June 23, 2006.
  4. ↑ Lichtblau, Eric and Risen, James (June 23, 2006). "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror". New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-10.
  5. ↑ Blustein, Paul, Gellman, Barton, and Linzer, Dafna. "Bank Records Secretly Tapped", Washington Post, June 23, 2006. Accessed June 23, 2006.
  6. ↑ Bilefsky, Dan (June 28, 2006). "Rights group complains". The Boston Globe.
  7. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), Argued January 12, 1976. Decided April 21, 1976. Accessed July 1, 2006.
  8. ↑ "Swift Press Release on the Program, Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2006. Accessed June 23, 2006.
  9. ↑ NBB 'aware' of Swift's actions since 2002, Expatica, June 27, 2006. Accessed June 27, 2006.
  10. ↑ Brand, Constant (2005-09-28). "Belgian PM: Data Transfer Broke Rules". Washington Post. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
  11. ↑ "Bank wacht boete bij zwijgen over informeren VS" (in Dutch). NRC Handelsblad. 2007-03-10.
  12. ↑ Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Press Release - Hearings of SWIFT representatives and Judge Bruguière, 8 April 2009
  13. 1 2 European Parliament Newsroom: MEPs call for suspension of EU-US bank data deal in response to NSA snooping, 23 October 2013
  14. 1 2 Ermert, Monika (23 October 2013). "European Parliament: No More Bank Data Transfers To US For Anti-Terror Investigations". ip-watch.org. Intellectual Property Watch. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
  15. ↑ EUobserver: Merkel to seek intelligence rule book with US, 25 October 2013
  16. ↑ Legislative observatory for TFTP Act 1
  17. ↑ Remarks of VP Biden to the European Parliament
  18. 1 2 EuropeanVoice.com: MEPs vote to suspend SWIFT agreement with US, 23 October 2013
  19. ↑ Legislative observatory for TFTP Act 2
  20. ↑ Simon Bendtsen & Peter Suppli Benson (26 February 2012). "Dansk politimand fanget i amerikansk terrornet". Berlingske (in Danish). Retrieved 26 February 2012.
  21. ↑ Devlin Barrett. "Lawmaker Wants Times Prosecuted", The Washington Post, June 26, 2006. Accessed July 3, 2006.
  22. ↑ O’Connor, Patrick and Allen, Jonathan. "GOP bill targets NY Times", The Hill, June 28, 2006. Accessed June 28, 2006.
  23. ↑ Editors. "Bush's hypocrisy once again comes into focus", The Albuquerque Tribune, June 29, 2006. Accessed June 29, 2006.
  24. ↑ Editors. "Patriotism and the Press", New York Times, June 28, 2006. Accessed July 3, 2006.
  25. ↑ Mintz, John (August 28, 1998). "Bin Laden's Finances Are Moving Target". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-07-11.
  26. ↑ Shane, Scott (September 21, 2001). "Authorities trying to track money back to bin Laden". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
  27. ↑ President Freezes Terrorists' Assets
  28. ↑ Lichtblau, Eric (November 29, 2005). "U.S. Lacks Strategy to Curb Terror Funds, Agency Says". New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-08.
  29. ↑ Keller, Bill. "Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report" New York Times, June 25, 2006. Accessed June 25, 2006.
  30. ↑ Snow, John W. "Letter to the Editors of The New York Times by Treasury Secretary Snow", June 26, 2006. Accessed June 26, 2006
  31. ↑ Levey, Stuart "Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary Terrorism and Financial Intelligence U.S. Department of the Treasury Before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations", July 11, 2006. Accessed July 23, 2006
  32. ↑ Calame, Byron (October 22, 2006). "Can ‘Magazines' of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?". New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
  33. ↑ Calame, Byron (November 6, 2006). "Bill Keller Responds to Column on Swift Mea Culpa". New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2010.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, November 29, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.