Following the money to terrorism? If not, why not?

[patrice]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401163.html

So now George Will agrees with (the Council on Foreign Relation's) Lawrence Wright, who happens to agree with what John Kerry said during the 2004 campaign about an important part of combatting terrorism would be through international cooperation amongst law-enforcement professionals and getting banks to reveal the records of certain kinds of customers.

I know "we" chose Invasion and Occupation over law-enforcement, but certainly someone is/has been following the money. Aren't they?

Why would Republicans be against going to international banks, through their respective governments, to get what could be valuable information in combatting Terrorism?

[babylonsister]

1. IMO, the awarding of sole-source contracts to Halliburton and

the info coming out of how they squandered (and lost!) so much money would reflect poorly on this admin. So no one wants to dig too deep (with the exception of Henry Waxman; he's been all over it, but I haven't heard of any results).

[patrice]

2. Yes, but, since no one knows who they are investigating,

because warrants aren't necessary, we'd never know what they turned up.

But then that wouldn't necessarily mean that the information yeild from the banking investigations wouldn't be used, perhaps even for multi-national business competition/war.

I'm wondering if the price of Republican silence re spying without warrants is that BushCo stay away from snooping around banks. They have a pretty bad track record there with BCCI et al.