Post v.13

Not a great surprise but always interesting to note. One principle, governmental access of an individual's private financial information. Two completely divergent opinions by the editorial board of the New York Times.

One opinion (delivered with utmost solemnity) if the access is taking place under at least a fig-leaf of legality by the US government:

When government agencies are involved in continuing investigations that might infringe on Americans' privacy, it is important that some outside entity is keeping track of what is going on. That principle is particularly true now, when the United States is trying to learn how to live in a perpetual war on terror.

Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts.

A second opinion (delivered with a care-free wink and nod) if the access is taking place under absolutely no fig-leaf of legality by the German government:

Liechtenstein is one of three tiny states on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s list of "uncooperative tax havens," along with Andorra and Monaco. That lack of cooperation has been very good for the principality and its 35,000 residents, who have one of Europe’s highest standards of living thanks in great part to what folks there delicately call "wealth management."

Not surprisingly, Liechtenstein’s leaders have focused all of their indignation on the theft of confidential data. "Fiscal interests cannot be placed ahead of the rule of law," fumed Prince Alois. We are not encouraging anyone to steal data. But who is putting fiscal interests ahead of the rule of law here? That’s what providing a secret haven for other countries’ tax evaders is, and Germany is right to crack down.

The joys of consistentcy.