"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Thr troops fired first. The Catholics fired back in self-defense.

"The Catholics" Bit of a wide remit there mate.
I thought the troops were fired upon from a nearby tower block, but chose instead on the commanders orders, in his complete lack of experience to fire upon a group of innocent unarmed protesters on the ground level instead, killing 7, Silly me.

Recently we had a demonstration in London about the Lebannon conflict in which a demonstrater claimed "We are all Hollbullah now" on her placard - I thought, no I'm not and your an *******. Think beyond the box at times, It'll serve you well.

Toby

[Ramo]

I dont know what motivates any individual jihadi. It is true, however, that the ideology that Al Qaeeda is driven by is Qutbist in origin, and Qutb WAS offended at Western pluralism, and what AQ most dislikes about secular muslim states is NOT their proclivity toward dictatorship but their proclivity toward secularism and pluralism.

Its too bad Bush doesnt articulate this better, but its still true.

Right, lotm. Secular states in the Islamic world. Not in the West. The beef Qutb had with the West is that we're presumably propping up said secular states.

[Ramo]

While one might argue about the foreign intervention part, it truly is a nonsequitor in this case.

In what way?

More importantly the criminal investigation praises ring extremely hollow considering the fuss and obstruction the US left has argued for in almost every circumstance.

It's sad and pathetic that the modern American right characterizes the defense of principles like due process and judicial review of searches as "obstruction" to criminal investigations.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


It's sad and pathetic that the modern American right characterizes the defense of principles like due process and judicial review of searches as "obstruction" to criminal investigations.

Its sad and pathetic that the modern American left characterizes the use of principles like due process and judicial review as a necessary means to effect deterence and foiling of imminent threat all the while mischaracterizing those efforts as criminal investigation.

[Ramo]

Unbelievabel that you continue to spout this drivel.

The fact that SWIFT is so all encompassing is exaclty why it was so damaging that it was revealed. The inference that we were able to track international money transfers to the noneducated would be to suggest large dollar transcations were traceable not necessarily large and small $ transfers. Akin to the $10,000 notifications US banks are required to notify to the IRS.

Put another way it would be the equivalent of saying we have plan airiel surveilance in a war zone. Enemies figure this means they have night and low cloud cover opportunities to move undetected only to find out from the press that unbeknownst to them the US has state of the art infrared surveillance techniques that allow spying in any circumstance.

Absurd bull****.

Terrorist financiers like OBL are loaded. Why are they unable to hire people knowledgable about the international banking system? This mechanism for tracking financial transfers wasn't a secret to anyone whose business is to know about this - including the bad guys. Period.

State Dept. counter-terrorism expert Victor Comras writes in his blog:

Yesterday’s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news. But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:

“The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.”

Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada’s Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.

While monitoring SWIFT-handled transfers is a useful tool in identifying and tracking certain suspicious transactions, its importance should not be overstated. The information in SWIFT’s hands is no better than the information which it is provided by the banks handling the transactions at both ends. And there is already an obligation on banks in the US and Europe to report all “suspicious transactions” The problem is that FINCEN and the corresponding FIUS in other countries have simply been overwhelmed by the enormous amount of transactions that are reported to them (see my earlier blog) Another problem is that European Banks are just getting around to providing (and requiring) information, such as names, account numbers and addresses of originators and recipients of transactions channeled or handled by them through SWIFT or other international transfer facilitators (see my earlier blog). And most banks outside of Europe, the United States and other OECD countries, still do not require, or verify, such information.

The fact is that there is really very little privacy today when it comes to the international transfer of funds. That is why criminal networks, money launderers and terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Hawalas and cash couriers for such transactions.
June 23, 2006 09:35 PM Print

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php

Again, it's absolutely pathetic how much the right is willing to defer to gov't claims.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

While one might argue about the foreign intervention part, it truly is a nonsequitor in this case.

In what way?

Perhaps because the only helpful lessons in the article were how the Brits were successful, not necessarily how they weren't. The bits about foreign intervention are merely bloviating conjecture on motive.

[Ramo]

Its sad and pathetic that the modern American left characterizes the use of principles like due process and judicial review as a necessary means to effect deterence and foiling of imminent threat all the while mischaracterizing those efforts as criminal investigation.

What the hell does that sentence mean?

[Ramo]

Perhaps because the only helpful lessons in the article were how the Brits were successful, not necessarily how they weren't. The bits about foreign intervention are merely bloviating conjecture on motive.

Bloviating conjecture on motive? Again, what the hell are you trying to say?

His point is, compare and contrast the whole Iraq venture to the Brits' recent law enforcement in terms of stopping acts of terror.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php

Again, it's absolutely pathetic how much the right is willing to defer to gov't claims.

This is such old news and has been thoroughly debunked.

Many other liberals have cited this U.N. report for the proposition that the SWIFT program was common knowledge before the Times exposed it. Let's examine that claim and see whether it can withstand scrutiny.

First, in order to show that the Times' report was "old news" that could not have damaged national security, liberals would have to demonstrate that the terrorists knew three things: 1) that SWIFT's international headquarters in Brussels maintains a database that includes information on the vast majority of all international banking transactions; 2) that the United States had persuaded the foreign bankers who operate SWIFT's Brussels headquarters (and perhaps their governments) to give the U.S. access to that database; and 3) that the nature of the records in the SWIFT database is such as to allow terrorists and their financiers to be tracked and identified.

Does the U.N. report, which can be accessed here, satisfy these elements? Clearly not, for a number of reasons.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that any terrorist--let alone all terrorists--ever read the U.N. report. The fact that the report was on the U.N.'s web site where it could be found, after the fact, by liberals searching for information about SWIFT does not demonstrate that any terrorists knew about it. So on its face, the suggested "proof" is inadequate.

Second, if we're going to assume the terrorists read that particular U.N. report, let's assume they read it carefully. Paragraph 31 does not say that the United States had gained access to the data maintained by SWIFT's international headquarters in Brussels. On the contrary, the paragraph refers specifically to "systems in the United States of America" which were being monitored by the U.S. These systems included Fedwire, which is operated by the Federal Reserve Board, CHIPS, an American bank-owned alternative to Fedwire, and the SWIFT operation "in the United States," which is located in New York. Paragraph 31 nowhere hints that SWIFT's Brussels headquarters had a massive database of international money transfers, or that the U.S. had gotten access to it.

This is perhaps why the government of Belgium--which is much more apt than a group of terrorists to read United Nations reports--had no idea, prior to the Times' report, that SWIFT's Brussels headquarters had allowed the U.S. government access to its database. When the Belgian government learned that last month, it launched an investigation,

Third, let's assume the terrorists read not just paragraph 31, but the entire U.N. report. If they did so, they would find no indication that SWIFT's headquarters contained the mother lode of international financial data, to which the U.S. had already gained access. On the contrary, paragraph 90 of the report says that "it has become more difficult to trace and identify [al Qaeda's] assets." If the terrorists actually read the report, which is highly unlikely, they would have gained false comfort from it.

Fourth, we know for sure that U.N. report of December 2002 didn't blow the secrecy of the SWIFT program, because that program achieved its most notable success eight months later with the capture of Hambali. Further, we know that even as of last month the program's cover hadn't been blown, because it was described as instrumental in several investigations that were ongoing when the Times printed the illegally leaked information about the program. So as of last month, the terrorists hadn't yet changed whatever behavior allowed them to be tracked by SWIFT. Now that they know how we've been tracking them, they can investigate the SWIFT system, reverse-engineer the transactions that led to the capture of Hambali and other terrorists, and, in all likelihood, negate the benefits of this highly successful program.

Liberals' reliance on the 2002 U.N. report is typical of how they so often argue: seize on a word here and a phrase there, make wild assumptions, ignore the obvious, and assert the incredible in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Likewise in addition to the Hambali case the UK case likewise relied on financial tracking for rollup activities after the fact based upon transactions that preceeded the NYT disclosure.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


What the hell does that sentence mean?

Simply put it means you expect every intelligence gathering activity to meet the criteria associated with criminal investigation. That was not and has never been the standard required for military intelligence gathering in the interests of national security to prevent harm and damage to national interests.

Seeing everything through the prism of criminal investigation is a fools vision. It is clearly understood that some evidence so gained is not admissable in criminal prosecutions but that doesn't mean that it is illegal nor for that matter unconstitutional to gain it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Perhaps because the only helpful lessons in the article were how the Brits were successful, not necessarily how they weren't. The bits about foreign intervention are merely bloviating conjecture on motive.

Bloviating conjecture on motive? Again, what the hell are you trying to say?

That he conjectures motive and moves steadily down that path from conjecture.

Lessons learned imply factually based topics not mere conjecture.

[Ramo]

You don't have to read the UN report to know about this aspect of the banking system. You just have to be well educated in finance. Given, again, that virtually every commercial bank uses this tracking system, this can't be a super-secret program by necessity of the number of people operating commercial banks.

[Ramo]

Simply put it means you expect every intelligence gathering activity to meet the criteria associated with criminal investigation. That was not and has never been the standard required for military intelligence gathering in the interests of national security to prevent harm and damage to national interests.

Seeing everything through the prism of criminal investigation is a fools vision. It is clearly understood that some evidence so gained is not admissable in criminal prosecutions but that doesn't mean that it is illegal nor for that mater unconstitutional to gain it.

Duh. That's why Congress passed FISA. And Dear Leader isn't willing to tolerate even this minimal standard of judicial review.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


You don't have to read the UN report to know about this aspect of the banking system. You just have to be well educated in finance. Given, again, that virtually every commercial bank uses this tracking system, this can't be a super-secret program by necessity of the number of people operating commercial banks.

What a load of horse****. I dare say my wife who is degreed in finance from Wharton (best US Business school at the time she graduated) had no idea of SWIFT nor its international banking implications. Trust me, her knowledge on these matters is far superior than the likes of yours.

[Ramo]

That he conjectures motive and moves steadily down that path from conjecture.

Lessons learned imply factually based topics not mere conjecture.

What motive are you possibly talking about? Regarding the Iraqi invasion? He was specifically refuting the neoconservative thesis about regime change being the key to stopping terrorism, not entire list that defenders of the invasion have offered up.