"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by 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.

Duh thats why every appelate court ruling holds that the President has such powers and that FISA is merely a means to employ such powers but NOT the only means.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by 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.

He conjectures the mere involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan was the catlyzing force that lead these individuals down the path of terrorism. Motive has yet to be established. Moreover, even were that he case other equally likely motives are not even considered.

[Ramo]

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.

Not every physicist is an expert on, say, condensed matter. People have their specializations.

Why don't you tell me how SWIFT is supposed to operate if it's both super secret and includes virtually every commercial bank?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Using chess metaphors while debating

Using chess metaphors badly while getting your ass handed to you in a debate....

Neoconmega

[Ramo]

He conjectures the mere involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan was the catlyzing force that lead these individuals down the path of terrorism. Motive has yet to be established. Moreover, even were that he case other equally likely motives are not even considered.

Jesus Christ you've got to be incredibly naive to think that Iraq etc. wasn't the catalyzing force. I don't see how you can honestly think otherwise. That's insane.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

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.

Not every physicist is an expert on, say, condensed matter. People have their specializations.

Why don't you tell me how SWIFT is supposed to operate if it's both super secret and includes virtually every commercial bank?

Evn if I could explain the intracacies of the SWIFT program why should I put even more info out on the net given what the NYT said. Isn't enough damage that the NYTs article has given the following new information that people generally weren't aware of.

Such items as ATM transactions are not monitored via swift
but not to be outdone by this revelation the NYTs indicates that limitted agreements with some companies and credit card companies and the likes of western union were monitored.

or

That information isn't provided in real time but takes a matter of weeks for the info to get analyzed and into the hands of the US.

None of that kind of operational detail means much though in the hands of terrorists.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

He conjectures the mere involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan was the catlyzing force that lead these individuals down the path of terrorism. Motive has yet to be established. Moreover, even were that he case other equally likely motives are not even considered.

Jesus Christ you've got to be incredibly naive to think that Iraq etc. wasn't the catalyzing force. I don't see how you can honestly think otherwise. That's insane.

Why? Is it naive to think OBL struck us for Iraq or Afghanistan invasional reasons. Oops his attacks preceded those actions.

Maybe it was naive to think the 1993 world trade cener bombings... no ooops.

But surely the Danish cartoon riots.... nope.

The bali attacks... nope again

Has to be the Riyadh attacks...

Or the Tanzania and Kenya attacks... nope and nope.

Maybe John Walker Lindh... No he was in Afghansitan prior to.........

I give up there must be some kind of reason to think that it has everything to do with Iraq especially considering these people are of Pakistani orgin.

[Ramo]

Yes, Pakistani Brits are being radicalized by our current military actions in the Islamic world, principally Iraq. Any familiarity whatsover with Pakistani communities in the West would tell you that. I didn't say everything has to do with Iraq. I said that this clearly does. I don't know how this can be disputed.

Such items as ATM transactions are not monitored via swift

What use does that have? Money in, money out. That doesn't tell you how money is spread or what it is used for. Having access ATM records would be exactly the sort of useless data from which little could be divined.

but not to be outdone by this revelation the NYTs indicates that limitted agreements with some companies and credit card companies and the likes of western union were monitored.

I already addressed this last time Drake brought up these points. Yes, a program on bank transfers does not monitor credit card records. Which says absolutely nothing about the monitoring of credit card records.

That information isn't provided in real time but takes a matter of weeks for the info to get analyzed and into the hands of the US.

Obviously. We aren't super-magical beings that can trace bank transfers en mass throughout the world instantaneously. No one would take this possibility the least bit seriously outside of the imaginary worlds of National Review "journalists."

What we have here is a ****ty excuse for an attack on the freedom of press. Just like the rights' ****ty excuses for attacks on due process and freedom from unwarranted searches.

[Ramo]

Duh thats why every appelate court ruling holds that the President has such powers and that FISA is merely a means to employ such powers but NOT the only means.

The point was that you are wrong. The left has not been trying to treat foreign intelligence gathering identically to domestic criminal investigations. Rather, it has been trying to get Dear Leader to accept some sort of judicial review - enshrined in FISA.

And those are Appellate court rulings that are pre-FISA (i.e. Truong). Youngstown spells out that the President, even in prosecuting war powers, is not above the law; his powers are at the lowest ebb when specifically over-ruled by Congress.

FISA says that the NSA program is illegal, and note that no court has seriously argued that FISA is unconstitutional.

But the legal issue is less important than the moral issue: that searches ought to be subject to some standard of judicial review. Arbitrary executve power is abhorrent to a free society, and goes against everything that makes this country great.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

Lots of folks in the center think that given the time it takes to prepare a FISA request, it makes sense to have a faster process. The problem with what the admin did was that they didnt get their alternate process passed by Congress.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I think I gave some money for the war widows in Northern Ireland during the 80s. Or, way to miss the point, LotM.

The remark was a response to Winston's comment that some people are more concerned about civil rights than terrorists. Damn right we are, and for the reasons I listed. I'm more likely to be killed in a car accident than by a terrorist. Terrorism is rather low on the list of things that are likely to mess with me, where as, my government has.

and my point is that "messed with" is deliberately ambiguous, to the point of not being meaningful.

The number of Lebanese killed by Israeli aircraft is small compared to the number of Lebanese who have been "messed with" by the Lebanese govt, I suspect. Probably even smaller then the number of Lebs killed this year in auto accidents. But thats missing the point.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

At the time, the secular state that imprisoned Qutb, Nassers Egypt, was a bitter enemy of the West. IIUC Qutbs beef with the west was NOT about say, military aid to secular dictatorships. Thats YOUR beef. It was about the way that the ideologies from the West infected the muslim world.

[lord of the mark]

its now being said that the info that revealed key details of the plot came from the guy being held in Pakistan. And that the Pakistani interrogators used very harsh methods, possibly including torture.

[lord of the mark]

"Qutb was extremely critical of the racism he witnessed in the United States, as well as the openness between the sexes in American society (he was aghast at activities such as the then-popular "sock hop"). Qutb objected to what he viewed as the primitiveness in America. He noted with disgust how some Americans had little respect for the dead, and how youth flirted and danced at church gatherings. Qutb also found American society superficial and centered around material goods. He also noted what he considered was the excessive American admiration of muscular strength in the performance of sports (such as football), which he also identified with sensuality, cultural primitiveness, and superficiality. In an article published in Egypt after his travels, Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were "primitive" and shocking. His experiences in the U.S. partly formed the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he became perhaps the most persuasive publicist of the Muslim Brotherhood. The school of thought he inspired has become known as Qutbism."



Id say its not unfair to say that Qutb hated "our freedoms" Its also true that his practical goal was to prevent "our freedoms" from becoming "their freedoms" to prevent the sock hop et al from infecting the muslim world. Clearly to do this meant not merely overthrowing secular regimes, but imposing an Islamist regime that would completely cut the Islamic world off from the infecting influences. If you want to say that this does not constute "attacking us for our freedom" you may. If you actually beleive a world could exist in which the entire muslim world could be insulated from the West, such that western freedom could survive without the Islamic world being at all exposed to it, than that might be meaningful. However between "they attacked cause they hate our freedom" and "their attack on us had nothing to do with our freedom" the latter is a more misleading oversimplification.

[NeOmega]

anybody want to know about SWIFT? They have a website:

http://www.swift.com/

they also have a magazine, IIRC.

Not very super secret.