Terrorism
Terrorism in 2004: causes and countermeasures
1. Macnas - 3/29/2004 1:30:36 PM
Welcome to the terrorism thread, (whoever thought I’d ever be saying that?), where we’ll discuss terrorism’s many manifestations and proponents, its origins and ideology, it’s effects on our world and the responses to it both past and present.
We’ll try and keep it as loose as is practicable, without deviating too far from the thread subject matter. There are enough people here from around the world to get a good mix of experience and informed opinion. If you get pissed off with each other and can’t keep it under control, don’t lose it in here. Go to the Inferno and have at it, come back when you’re ready.
Now, there is always the danger when discussing subjects such as this of lapsing into Tom Clancy mode, and we start to post like war crazy propeller heads, getting carried away with technicalities and the like.
Where this happens, and it undoubtedly will, feel free to shout “CLANCY!” at the guilty party, and hopefully they’ll put the brakes on what’s shaping up to be the plot for the next “Tech Ops Centre” instalment.
I’ll kick things off with what I consider to be an interesting “compare and contrast” exercise, after that it’s an open house.
2. Macnas - 3/29/2004 1:31:08 PM
From 1979 to the late 80’s, the Mid-East terrorism network could be drawn many ways, but whichever way you did it, Syria was at the top of the page.
The big names like Ahmed Jibril and the PLFP, Abu Nidal and Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the LARF, the training camps in the Bekka valley and the Iranian supported Hizbolla, can all be connected back to Syria, particularly Major General Muhammad Khawli of the Syrian airforce.
Similar to the actions of both super-powers exploiting various insurgents during the cold war proper, Syria used the terror network to destabilise the Middle East, and try to become the major power player.
Today, we can tear up our diagrams, and we will find it hard to get anything on paper other than that bearded lanky guy and a few of his mates they are chasing around the mountains in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Terrorism as we have recently seen it seems to have evolved into the state where there is no clear chain of command, no base of operations, where anyone can be a target, and the terrorists can be anywhere and anyone, given the Muslim population across the world.
It might be the purest form of terrorism yet, and we have yet to see whether the response to it so far is having any real effect.
Do you think the nature of terrorism has changed, and have the old players really retired??
3. alistairConnor - 3/29/2004 3:53:27 PM
Problem with definition here.
Terrorism is a much broader subject than you seem to be addressing here, Mac, and I think we're in danger of missing the wood for the trees if we don't attempt a bigger historical and geographical picture.
Where shall we start? Dostoievsky?
4. Wombat - 3/29/2004 4:17:27 PM
We can start with the Sicarii (Zealots) who attacked Roman officials--and those they saw as their Jewish collaborators--in what is now known as Israel and Palestine. Ironic, isn't it?
5. rdbrewer - 3/29/2004 4:21:50 PM
Let's start with the father of modern terrorism, Arafat.
6. Macnas - 3/29/2004 4:26:13 PM
We could, but will it add any value to discussions here? (What discussions? sez you)
I don't see, or did not originally see, this thread as terrorism 101.
There are many publications and many online resources where the history of terrorism is available if such knowledge is desired.
However, looking back at past events would be part of any discussion here, but it has to be specific.
My second post above is an attempt to combine current terrorist activity and that which took place in the 70's, 80's and into the 90's, which is a broad enough time frame from which to cherry pick data.
7. Macnas - 3/29/2004 4:27:20 PM
That was in response to post 3, (alistairs)
8. Wombat - 3/29/2004 4:34:27 PM
A good starting point would be the end of World War II. Since today's world is made up of countries and governments that emerged after WWII, and ideological concepts and rivalries that came from that era, it would establish a good baseline. Modern terrorism developed out of the anticolonial struggles of the 1940s and 50s, and the application (or most often, misapplication) of lessons learned during that time.
9. alistairConnor - 3/29/2004 4:59:00 PM
I suppose that the point I would like to make is that terrorism, like poverty and taxes, will be with us always -- it's good public policy to roll it back as far as possible.
I think a bit of historical perspective is useful, because I don't believe that anyone is likely to be successful in overcoming it without understanding the motives of the perpetrators.
10. Macnas - 3/29/2004 5:07:19 PM
I think a good compromise would be an examination of post war Palestine, the Irgun/Hagganah/Stern groups terror campaign of and comparisons with terrorism in today’s Israel/Palestine.
11. marjoribanks - 3/29/2004 5:54:14 PM
Good on yer, Macnas.
---
How about we start with this news, about yet another highly credible terrorist threat thwarted in the UK.
Two key quotes, then some comments -
British anti-terrorism police swept through London and other parts of Southeastern England today arresting eight people suspected of preparing a terrorist attack and confiscating about 1,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the key ingredient in making explosives.
and
Last week, police officers carrying machine guns appeared around key buildings in central London. An advertisement campaign to alert subway riders to suspicious bags left on trains or in stations has also been launched.
The BBC reported that all of the men arrested were British nationals of Pakistani origin. Mr. Clarke said their ages were between 17 and 32. He also said that British officials were holding discussions with leaders of the Muslim community to "address any concerns they may have."
12. marjoribanks - 3/29/2004 6:05:34 PM
I take from this news two things, both of which have been convictions of mine for a long time.
1) It will be quite hard for Islamists to pull off a large-scale attack on British territory. For one thing, you don't have porous borders so that men or materiel can be shifted without great difficulty - and points of migration are monitored with great attention.
Then, Britain has less "inconvenient" due cause legislation, and the various security agencies are pretty much free to mount surveillance at home. On top of that, despite Britain's multi-culturalism, migrants tend to live in closely defined geographic areas and monitoring them is not particularly difficult. When you toss in the fact that Britain is already, by far, the most snooped-on society in the world - you can see that security agencies have a good shot of keeping the lid on and preventing the really big schemes.
2) At the same time, you have the fact that these are Pakistanis migrants, no doubt mostly totally assimilated, street-accented, slicked-back-haired, indistinguishable from the mainstream of immigrants. You have this phenomenon of the middle-class extremist nowadays, and these are the most dangerous of all - like the 19 hijackers of 9/11, like that son-of-a-rich-family Paki suicide bomber/tourist in Israel, and possibly like these plotters.
I suspect that this is going to be the pattern for now, for the short and medium term. While the leadership of al Qaeda reconstitutes itself or shifts, you will have free-lance extremists carrying out operations in areas where they are very familiar with the terrain, where they are alienated, and where they want to "make a mark."
Thus, you will see Pakistanis strike in the UK, Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, other Mahgrebis in Italy, etc. etc.
13. jayackroyd - 3/29/2004 6:52:29 PM
My terrorism question is why hasn't anything happened here since 9/11?
It can't be the homeland security thing; they're still trying to figure out where to put which cubicle.
It could be that they're stopping stuff and not telling us, but somehow that seems unlikely, politically. And, in fact, when pressed Rumsfeld said in an interview that he doesn't know of anything we've stopped, domestically.
It could be that they're blocking bad guys at the borders and at that awful line at JFK.
It could be that it's hard to keep people thinking bad thoughts once they move here; SUVs, plasma TVs and 57 kinds of toothpaste corrupts them.
But we are supposed to be a prime target. Why hasn't anything happened?
14. alistairConnor - 3/29/2004 6:53:04 PM
Algerians in France...
I dunno. We had a bout of that, seven or eight years ago, during the worst of the Algerian civil war.
15. Wombat - 3/29/2004 6:55:29 PM
Jay:
Could it be that 9/11 was a one shot?
16. jexster - 3/29/2004 6:56:56 PM
Great idea! I dunno where to post...International Conflicts, AP, Elec...with the Imbecile Emperor terrorism is out of control!
Hell, according to them even teachers are terrorists.
17. Macnas - 3/29/2004 7:11:48 PM
I do not think there is another 9/11 scale attack required, it has had the desired effect, possibly the inevitable effect of polarising the western (for want of a better word) world and the Muslim world.
As in the 1980's, there is enough US military present in the Middle East such that targets are not an issue.
If there is going to be another large scale attack against the US it will be in Iraq or Afghanistan and it will be directed at the military, in the style of the Beirut suicide bombings.
18. Wombat - 3/29/2004 7:13:48 PM
Attacks on US troops would not be considered terrorist attacks by most definitions.
19. Macnas - 3/29/2004 7:18:45 PM
So does the target define the terrorist?
Does an organisation that blows up a train one day, and soldiers the next, have the right to call themselves part-time terrorists?
20. jayackroyd - 3/29/2004 7:20:49 PM
Could it be that 9/11 was a one shot?
It's unique. It's unique in its cleverness, in the number of participants, in the degree of coordination and its effect. At the time, I was trying to comfort people by saying that they can't do this kind of thing very often. They don't have the resources. That this is a one shot deal.
I'm in a prime, soft target, Grand Central Station, about once a week. They've done some stuff to harden it, and they harden it further when there are indications of a threat. (Let's leave aside the fact that the indications are more likely to be probes than threats.)
If I knew six suicide bombers, I'd have no problem setting up an operation. We'd go to the Oyster Bar, a big underground restaurant at Grand Central with a curved ceiling. We'd arrive at different times, and we wouldn't check our backpacks. Two of us would sit in the restaurant proper, two of us at the the counters, two of us in the saloon.
The damage and death wouldn't approach September 11, but the effect would be chilling. Literally half a million people go through there every weekday. Why haven't they done this?
21. jayackroyd - 3/29/2004 7:22:58 PM
19
Was the Blitz a terror attack? How about the US firebombings at Dresden or in Japan? Or the nukes? Or any number of bombings in VietNam?
Does it not count if it is a state's military that does it?
22. jayackroyd - 3/29/2004 7:24:10 PM
18
You wouldn't, in particular, characterize the Beirut bombing as a terror attack, 'bat?
23. Wombat - 3/29/2004 7:25:46 PM
Not at all. However attacks on an "occupying power" and their collaborators fall into a gray area, in which it is of every interest of the occupying power--be it Nazi Germany, Israel, or the United States--to describe its attackers as "terrorists."
Would you call Hamas attacks on Israeli soldiers manning checkpoints in the West Bank "terrorist" attacks? How about attacks on Israeli settlers in Gaza or the West Bank? Or attacks on Israeli civilians in Israel proper?
24. Macnas - 3/29/2004 7:26:14 PM
Well now that you mention it, I do think of terrorism as a tactic, be it carried out by a state or an individual or grouping.
Yes I do think of the Blitz as a prolonged terror attack, and Dresden and many other such incidents.
25. Wombat - 3/29/2004 7:31:30 PM
Jay:
It is interesting to note that the US government definition of terrorism changed after Beirut:
Definitions of Terrorism
Since 1983, the U.S. Government has used the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). The statute contains the following definitions:
1 The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
2 The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
3 The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty. Acts of terrorism also include attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site.
The definition of terrorism used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is as follows:
"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Terrorism as defined by the United Nations is "A...criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes...."
26. PelleNilsson - 3/29/2004 7:31:35 PM
I think it could be useful to classify terrorist groups as pragmatics or utopists.
The pragmatics have concrete and, in theory, attainable goals and, therefore, obvious targets. Exampels are Irgun et al, ETA, IRA, Hamas.
The utopists have abstract goals, for example "crush capitalism" and less obvious targets. One example would be the Baader-Mainhof gang.
It seems to me that Al Qaida started out as pragmatics, "US out of Saudi" but now that that has been achieved it is moving towards the utopic variety. There is no obvious goal associated with the attack in Spain, just a desire to hit the West in general.
27. jayackroyd - 3/29/2004 7:33:14 PM
Would you call Hamas attacks on Israeli soldiers manning checkpoints in the West Bank "terrorist" attacks? How about attacks on Israeli settlers in Gaza or the West Bank? Or attacks on Israeli civilians in Israel proper?
These are the questions I was trying to beg by exploring the principles.
28. Macnas - 3/29/2004 7:36:05 PM
re 25
I'm not sure but I don't think the UN has an agreed definition of terrorism.
re 26
I wish I had said that.
29. Macnas - 3/29/2004 7:41:26 PM
And now I must go home.
30. alistairConnor - 3/30/2004 12:24:26 AM
I think we do indeed need to ask the question "what do these people want"? Not so that we can give it to them, but because if we don't understand their motivations we have very little chance of guessing what they are going to try next.
"US out of Saudi", it seems to me, is only a start for Qaeda. Utopist? I'm not so sure. What they want, strategically, I would guess, is a separation between the "Christian" West and the Arab/Moslem world, so that it can regenerate its strength and purity, etc...
That's the hard part for us in this struggle... because the easiest response is to give them what they want. If things get bad, there will be a tendency to expell Arabs from Europe, Europeans and Americans will not feel safe in Arab countries, etc...
Where they may be characterised as utopists, is in the fact that they are (I hope) overestimating the popular support such tactics will win them in the Arab world.
31. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 12:26:08 AM
I think they want to establish Islamist governments in as many states as possible. The other things they say, in support of Palestine, in opposition to US troops in Saudi Arabi are just slogans to raise popular support for their broader cause.
32. wonkers2 - 3/30/2004 1:25:06 AM
Brzezinski's answer to terrorism "The Choice Global Domination or Global Leadership 242 pp, Basic Books $25
"Mr. B. says that American national security is profoundly tied to international security, and so the country's security is increasingly in the hands of others. The old link between national sovereignty and national security has finally been severed. In this new era the U.S. must be willing to work with other democracies to reduce the 'convulsive and persolating strife' that lies behind today's global violence and terrorism
"Accordingly, Mr. B. argues that Washington must use this moment of unrivaled American power to build an 'increasingly formalized global commmunity of shared interest' that can provide a long-term basis for global peace and security. If the slogan of the Bush administration is 'America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people,' Mr. B's slogan might be 'America will never be able to defend the security of its people without the help of others.'
"His critique of Bush is understated but hard hitting and is effective precisely because he accepts two key White House assumptions. He agrees that American power is indispensable in providing the framework for global order.
"Mr. B also accepts the administration's view that the U.S. faces radically new security problems in which the threats are coming not from established great powers but from illiberal states, backward societies and aggrieved peoples. Globalization and the growing ease of communication and transport project American ideas and society into the world but also provide tools for the weak to organize and hit back." NYT 3-30
33. Macnas - 3/30/2004 11:13:59 AM
re 11 & 12
Marj's posts give insight into the reality of the threat that exists in any open country, by that I mean a country that allows foreign nationals full access to live and work.
And before I sound like a "country-of-your-choice" national party member, I have no issue with this state of affairs. But I would be blind if I did not recognise the inherent risk this openness brings. The Brits can find balance as pointed out by Marj, as they have many tools to use, not least of which are the powers of the police and security organisations.
The Prevention Of Terrorism act enables the Brits to do pretty much as they please, in terms of surveillance and information gathering, arrests and procedure, withholding certain civil rights that would otherwise hinder the police, the "you think it, you might as well have done it" conspiracy charge, it is a powerful weapon.
It was born from the many IRA campaigns which caused such destruction across the British mainland, and was basically a copy of the special powers used in Northern Ireland since the 70's.
Now it is being used to prevent/combat terrorism from another direction, and the tools still fit the job in hand. Immigrant people, close community, lack of trust with the police force and all the other baggage that goes with ethnic minorities.
continued..
34. Macnas - 3/30/2004 11:14:34 AM
continued..
Marj, a number of those arrested are British nationals, that is, born in Britain of Pakistani parents.
I've always found this disturbing, and I think of such people as being more akin to what Pelle terms "Utopists", in that they are engaging in a terrorist act in support of an idea that should be incomprehensible to them. While religious identity and the preservation of those things that make us different from others is natural, even unremarkable, the idea of British nationals detonating a bomb in London because of....what exactly? something Osama Bin Laden said? the fact that the army is in Iraq?
It cannot be fully understood I don't think, and it does not bode well for the rest of the Asian community.
35. alistairConnor - 3/30/2004 11:57:01 AM
33, 34 : this is why I believe that the UK is not a soft target for Qaeda, as some have claimed. Plenty of experience with terrorism, and an extensive toolset including all the necessary permissions to ride roughshod over civil liberties. I also disagree with Wombat's view that a major terrorist attack would be the end of Blair. (I already disagree that the Madrid attack was the end of Aznar, in the way many people seem to think it was, and I don't think that the British can be shaken into changing policies by terrorism).
Similarly, I don't see France being a soft target -- the security apparatus has experience, specifically with Arab terrorism, that goes back 50 years (albeit in a vastly different context at that time).
36. Macnas - 3/30/2004 12:03:55 PM
I think I might qualify that last statement by which I mean as a member of the Asian community, one will have a rough time of it in Britain.
Being Irish in Britain during the last few decades could be a miserable affair, depending on the particular police force of your area (note west-midlands police, the biggest shower of bastards under the sun).
37. Macnas - 3/30/2004 12:13:37 PM
re 35
I agree that both Britain and France would be extremely awkward targets for a terrorist attack. The British experience notwithstanding, France has had a plethora of small-scale terrorist attacks down through the years, from many different groups.
A walk around either capital city would reveal a large armed presence, with particular emphasis on perceived potential prime targets. Indeed, over the years many Americans used to say to me that they found it remarkable the amount of armed police and military they would see in cities across Europe, as compared to the 'States.
Maybe not anymore, what is the current state of affairs in the US with regard to the amount of security an ordinary punter might encounter in his day to day??
38. alistairConnor - 3/30/2004 12:34:01 PM
Spain was an inviting target, in that it was a "key ally" of Bush in what Qaeda wishes to construe as his crusade against Moslems.
There are a number of things that made Spain a soft target. A major one is Aznar's revolting, despicable handling of Spanish/Moroccan relations over the past eight years. Presumably he needed a weaker neighbour to push around, to satisfy his nationalistic machismo. Time after time he played the arrogant, domineering former colonial power -- most prominently, over fishing rights, and with the comic-opera liberation of the Parsley Islands.
One result of this might have been to make it easier to recruit anti-Spanish terrorists among the Moroccan diaspora; but more importantly, co-operation between the Spanish and Moroccan police was execrable, and that's what left the door open.
39. alistairConnor - 3/30/2004 12:36:56 PM
Extrapolating from the Spanish experience, one would expect Qaeda to be targeting Albanians in Italy for recruitment. (cf Burlesquoni's handling of Albanian immigration...)
40. Wombat - 3/30/2004 4:17:07 PM
Al Qaeda would be recruiting Somalis and Eritreans in Italy.
41. Wombat - 3/30/2004 4:21:36 PM
Terrorist groups could usefully be classified into two types: Revolutionary and National Liberation/Separatist groups. Revolutionary groups seek to overthrow the existing government/political system in a state, while National Liberation/Separatists seek to expel "foreign" occupiers, or to gain recognition, autonomy, independence in a particular region within an existing state. Note that the two types need not be mutually exclusive.
42. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2004 4:51:21 PM
Yes, and among them we find those who were once described as gang leaders and terrorists but are now revered as founding fathers and freedom fighters. Nelson Mandela and ANC are prime examples.
43. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 5:11:02 PM
Not to mention American revolutionists.
This is the problem I have in this discussion. Can you call the IRA terrorists? Can you call the Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists? Both groups are pursuing what they see as their only military alternative. They have no state to provide them with uniforms.
But they were targeting civilians. OTOH, states have, at least in the 20th century, routinely targeted civilians in large numbers. Israel, in assassinating an opponent (is that itself not a terrorist act?), also killed bystanders. Does that make it terrorism, if the assassination itself does not qualify?
44. Wombat - 3/30/2004 5:14:17 PM
The list of former terrorists who are/were national leaders is a long one. During my terrorism research days in the 1980s in Britain, we had a joke defining a successful terrorist as someone who has danced with the Queen. When I lecture on terrorism I juxtapose (thanks to the wonders of power point) a photo of Eamon Devalera taken after he surrendered during the Easter Rising with one of him in full presidential regalia. I do the same with Nelson Mandela's mug shot and photo of him and Queen Elizabeth in the royal carriage during a state visit.
Other "successful" terrorists:
Michael Collins
Jomo Kenyatta
Robert Mugabe
Menachim Begin
Yitzhak Shamir
Samora Machel
and many more, I am sure.
45. Macnas - 3/30/2004 5:16:08 PM
That is why I think of terrorism as a tactic, as opposed to a definition of a person or group.
Like many nations around the world, we here in Ireland were governed for decades by old gunmen, once called terrorists or "murder gangs" as the jargon went back then.
46. Macnas - 3/30/2004 5:26:05 PM
re 43
The IRA used terrorism as a tactic, almost exclusivly so. It shot British soldiers when it could, but also tried to make the province ungovernable by killing civilians, policemen, prison officers, cleaning contractors, mechanics and shop keepers.
47. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2004 5:28:52 PM
I agree with all this, but in the case of al Qaida we have three problems which differ from the past:
- Societies are more vulnerable and the weapons the terrorists can use are more effective.
- The diffuse goals of al Qaida makes detection/prevention more difficult.
- Does al Qaida even exist in the normal sense of the word?
48. Macnas - 3/30/2004 5:38:21 PM
re 47
And thereby making counter measures all the harder.
I found it interesting that the Brits had infiltrated the group it picked up for the bomb making in London, possibly a first in terms of an al Qaida affiliated group.
Is al Qaida more like a franchise than anything else?
49. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 5:47:40 PM
Is al Qaida more like a franchise than anything else?
That's a great metaphor. And, referring back to Alistair, that is what they are trying to be. They don't have the resources to engage in the campaigns they talk about, but if they can get enough local organizations on board, they can alleviate that problem.
This is one reason they prefer spectacular, even if infrequent, attacks. It creates publicity. Sells the franchise.
50. Wombat - 3/30/2004 5:49:31 PM
In many ways Al Qaeda did resemble a franchise--or more accurately--a consultant organization, which provided training, technical assistance, and organizational support. After their Afghanistan refuge was destroyed, Al Qaeda may be more of a concept and an inspiration than an active group.
51. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 5:54:37 PM
I think that understates the effort, and the effectiveness of that effort, that the US and its allies have undertaken to eliminate, rollback (whatever) al qaeda. It wasn't just the Afghanistan refuge--which, mind you, was by far the most important action taken. They've continued to pursue members of the group, and made it very difficult for them to coordinate other attacks.
But the US invasion of Iraq has given the franchise a new and compelling slogan, even as corporate headquarters has been weakened.
52. jexster - 3/30/2004 5:55:03 PM
William Lind is the LAST person you'd think I would pay any attention to. He is the Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation.
He is also a military historian of some stature who has a very keen insight into terrorism and why Bush is losing the "war" against it. There's the clue for one reason he is losing, as Lind and Clarke and Clark and Zbig among other have pointed out Bush doesn't know what he is fighting, or who he is fighting or where the front is.
As I put it Bush is flailing not fighting.
Here is some recent stuff from Lind on the subject most of which appears at The Defense and the National Interest Website, a website run by DC intelligence analysts and military types who are in open revolt against Bush's misconceived strategic and defense policies. There's much more there in the comments section including some early analyses predicting failure in Afghanistan and Iraq which have largely proved true.
This first is a good one on the recent Battle That Wasn't Pakistan and what it means for the fight against Al Qaeda
On Fourth Generation Warfare
Terror War (a transcript)
Reality 1 Neocons 0
Fifth Generation War
53. Macnas - 3/30/2004 5:59:02 PM
So perhaps al Qaida (Qaeda?) is now more like the concept of anarchy in the early 1900's in terms of its manifestations or more correctly actions carried out under its umberella.
Nonetheless, and maybe Wombat could lend his hand to this, any action, but particularly "spectaculars" as the IRA used to call large operations, cost a lot of money and still require someone to say 'we are going to do this, and this is how we are going to do it.'
There still must be some connectivity amongst the various factions who do these things, there must be money channelled from somewhere to fund things, there must be expertise available to successfully plan/carry out these style of attacks.
Who, where, how?
54. jexster - 3/30/2004 5:59:37 PM
Marj's posts give insight into the reality of the threat that exists in any open country, by that I mean a country that allows foreign nationals full access to live and work
The problem now being highlighted by Clarke. In addition to defining the GWOT as a war on a tactic (terror, what an error!) Bush has also seen it in classic cold war terms - a war against STATES.
But this isn't a war against states. It is a war against a globalized network of thugs, more or less a Mafia with other objectives. It is a war BY states, even Saddam's iraq, against a stateless global enemy.
By misconceiving the nature of the war, Bush is losing it. He is fighting allies, states and where he has to do that, what he has done is further alienate the populations that fuel our real enemy.
That's the neocon fantasy in a nutshell.
55. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2004 6:06:59 PM
What is emerging here are some doubts about the nature of al Qaida, inparticular among academics. The point being made is that terrorism anlysts implicitly and unconsciously try to fit the scraps of information they have into some familiar, western model structure. That can be a bureaucratic structure with defined jobs and hierarchies, or as mentioned, a franchise or a consulting organization. Hence we get al Qaida members described as "financial officer", "head of logistics, "head of planning unit", "chief of operations" and so on. The point being made is that these presumed structures may obscure rather than explain the nature of things.
56. alistairConnor - 3/30/2004 6:12:42 PM
I found it interesting that the Brits had infiltrated the group it picked up for the bomb making in London
Did they? I missed that. Got a link?
I understood it started from a phone intercept, i.e. more or less random telecom snooping.
57. Wombat - 3/30/2004 6:15:54 PM
Thanks to its years of safe haven in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda has had a chance train thousands of operatives from dozens of countries. They can use local or regional fundraising networks--or as does the IRA, use organized criminal activities--for financial resources. They will be able to operate and organize in countries that have a sizeable Moslem community, a weak and/or sympathetic central government and security services, and the potential for geographical isolation where the government writ does not extend. Examples would be Indonesia, Philippines, Maghreb countries.
Compared to 9/11, and IRA "spectaculars," recent activity attributed to Al Qaeda, while sophisticated, does not appear to go beyond that of a run-of-the-mill terrorist group, particularly if they are striking a soft target.
58. jexster - 3/30/2004 6:17:55 PM
Before that Wombat....thanks to the Reagan Administration's misguided policies in that country for creating a union of wahabi jihadists..someone told me that Al Qaeda means "database"...I dunno..but it makes the point clearer who we are fightin and who we are not
59. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2004 6:20:32 PM
Macnas. I hadn't seen your #53 when I posted.
Yes, one can imagine a very loose network where ideas are bandied about and if one of them gets enough support in terms of funds and other resources it gets implemented. Sort of a permanent ad hoc group peopled by "idealists" similar to how the internet and linux communities were structured in their early days.
60. alistairConnor - 3/30/2004 6:22:01 PM
The Spanish operation was quite ambitious, I understand, but largely failed -- I think there were a series of bombs intended to collapse a wall of the station, something like that, which didn't go off?
61. Macnas - 3/30/2004 6:25:04 PM
You know alistair, I think I may be altogether mistaken.
I heard on the wireless, and it might be a load of cobblers as I see no such statement anywhere in the news.
62. Macnas - 3/30/2004 6:31:57 PM
re 59
Pelle, I know I shouldnt, but I am laughing.
63. jexster - 3/30/2004 6:34:07 PM
Cutting through and past the bullshit with his rapier like intellect...pardon the length of the paste...It is too central to understanding the truth to truncate
Obe-Juan Cole defines the issue:
The Iraq War represents an enormous opportunity cost in the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and its constituents. After the Afghanistan War, the Bush administration forgot to ask Congress for any money for Afghanistan reconstruction, and Congress helpfully put in $300 million. This year, the Bush administration will put $1 billion into Afghanistan, an immense country devastated by 25 years of war (for which the US bears some responsibility), in which the Taliban is having a resurgence. It is a tiny amount. The US has 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, but has not caught Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri, and some of the major successes in capturing al-Qaeda figures have been achieved by the Pakistani military. Afghanistan's poppy cultivation is expanding and the drug trade is creating opportunities for narco-terrorism. The Afghanistan GDP is $5 billion a year; $2 bn. of that comes from poppy cultivation for heroin production.
Since the end of the Afghanistan War, al-Qaeda has struck at Mombasa, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid and elsewhere. Some chatter suggested that Ayman al-Zawahiri himself ordered the hit on Istanbul. The attack on a Spanish cultural center in Casablanca in May of 2003 now appears to have been a harbinger of the horrible Madrid train bombings last week. How much did Spain spend to go after the culprits in Casablanca? How much did Bush dedicate to that effort? How much did they instead invest in military efforts in Iraq?
64. jexster - 3/30/2004 6:35:13 PM
Instead of dealing with this growing and world-wide threat, the Bush administration cynically took advantage of the American public's anger and fear after September 11 and channeled it against the regime of Saddam Hussein, which had had nothing to do with September 11 and which never could be involved in such a terrorist operation on American soil because its high officers knew exactly the retribution that would be visited on them. Only an asymmetrical organization could think of a September 11, because it has no exact return address. Even for a state to give aid to such an operation against a super power would be suicide-- how could you be sure the superpower would not find out about the aid?
The initial outlay for the war against Iraq was $66 billion. Then Bush came back and asked for another $87 billion. He will ask for a similar amount again after the November election if he is reelected. It is outrageous that Congress allows him to postpone this request instead of being held accountable for it. The Iraq adventure is likely to have cost the US nearly $250 billion by next year this time. The US is no safer now than it was before the Iraq war, since Iraq did not have any weapons that could hit US soil and would not have risked using them even if it did.
Let me repeat that. A few billion for Afghanistan. $250 billion for Iraq. Bin Laden and his supporters are in Afghanistan. What is wrong with this picture?
There is not and cannot be such a thing as a "war on terror." Terror is a tactic. There can be a global counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and kindred organizations. But a large part of such a struggle must be to deny al-Qaeda recruitment tools and propaganda victories
65. jexster - 3/30/2004 6:35:20 PM
. The way the Bush administration pursued the war against Iraq, as a superpower-led act of Nietzschean will to power, simply made it look in the Middle East as though al-Qaeda had been right. Biin Laden's message was that Middle Easterners are being colonized and occupied by the United States.
66. Macnas - 3/30/2004 6:37:44 PM
Jaysus Jex, just give us the link.
67. jexster - 3/30/2004 6:41:14 PM
The link is much longer...it is also not directly relevant to the topic of this thread...but the paste is of the pertinent portions.
As I said, sorry..but you don't need to know anything else...That is why we are losing the war
68. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2004 6:43:24 PM
To return to jay's Message # 43 we may call Hamas, IRA and ETA terrorists but it would be wrong in my opinion to put them together with al Qaida (let's use that name as a shorthand whatever its true nature is).
One qualitative difference is that you can theoretically stop these groups by giving in to their demands. But al Qaida's underlying objective would seem to be to cleanse the Muslim world by introducing "true" islam with a strict interpretation of sharia. But to do that you would have recreate society as it was 1300 years ago and that cannot be done.
It is significant that the Taliban tried to do just that in Afghanistan.
69. Macnas - 3/30/2004 6:44:02 PM
Thats fair enough.
Now I must go.
70. Wombat - 3/30/2004 6:50:19 PM
Al Qaeda has been termed a "millenialist" terrorist group, as their goals are literally to implant their form of Islam throughout the world.
It has been suggested that there may be a correlation between the goals of an terrorist organization and the weapons and tactics used: The more ambitious (or meglomaniacal) the goals) the less inhibitions the group may have in using indiscriminate attacks (and a potential for WMD).
71. jexster - 3/30/2004 6:50:36 PM
It is rather ironic to say the least that when you examine the development of terrorism of the Islamic kind that you find under every rock, the footprint of US conservative administrations, adminsistrations that rail against "social engineering" of the most rudimentary sort in this country - providing basic housing, education, and medical care to the very poorest here, but who embark on much much larger enterprises in areas that are totally foreign to them.
Inevitably we wind up with ever worsening unintended consequences....the very type of consequences that these warriors believe support their arguments against social enginnering in the first place
72. Wombat - 3/30/2004 6:55:01 PM
The roots of Islamic terrorism long predate the existence of the United States and its presence as an actor in the Middle East.
73. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 7:06:24 PM
That's true, I guess. But the same roots are the basis for al Sistani saying "We've waited 700 years. We can wait for a few more months."
You know, I started to write "I agree this is not about the United States" and stopped myself. Jexster's wrong, in my view. It's not about US foreign or domestic policy. But I think it is about the promulgation of the US consumerist culture.
Neal Stephenson put it this way:
The problem is that once you have done away with the ability to make judgments as to right and wrong, true and false, etc., there's no real culture left. All that remains is clog dancing and macrame. The ability to make judgments, to believe things, is the entire point of having a culture. I think this is why guys with machine guns sometimes pop up in places like Luxor, and begin pumping bullets into Westerners. They perfectly understand the lesson of McCoy Air Force Base. When their sons come home wearing Chicago Bulls caps with the bills turned sideways, the dads go out of their minds.
74. alistairConnor - 3/30/2004 7:10:50 PM
Stuff that has cultural meaning to Americans (Halloween, Disneyland...) comes across in the rest of the world as the absence, even the antithesis of culture. That's part of the misunderstanding that the Bush people seem so intent on aggravating.
75. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 7:24:52 PM
I don't agree that it's Bush people. I think American culture is a powerful force, no matter who is in charge. It's even affecting France, which is one of the cultures most resistant to change that I've ever visited.
76. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 7:26:39 PM
Or Japan. People say "bye-bye." American English is hip. Matsui and Ichiro are idolized because they have succeeded in US baseball leagues.
77. Wombat - 3/30/2004 7:31:52 PM
Alistair:
It is less the "antithesis" of culture than a supercession of an existing culture by another.
Part of my time in Britain coincided with the uproar over Salman Rushdie's novel and its alleged impiety in regard to Islam. The university where I was based convened a "town meeting" to discuss this. There was a major difference in perceptions between Arab students and the others. As the discussion went on--and degenerated--one of the Arab students (a Saudi, who I could swear was later in footage with Bin Laden taken in Afghanistan) outlined his form of Islam's quarrel with the west (not the US in particular). The role of women, exposure to pornography (very broadly defined, encompassing what would be most sitcoms), decadence, acceptance of blasphemy, and the pervasiveness of the afromentioned in the media.
I would hesitate to call this a "root cause" of Bin Laden's terrorism, but perhaps it is a contributor to the profound alienation that some Moslems living in the west appear to feel, and which may drive them into the arms of religious extremism.
78. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2004 8:59:15 PM
Jexster takes his analysis to the point where he can put the blame on Reagan. That is not far enough. It is true that the Reagan administration encouraged the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It is also true that many young Muslims from many countries joined that fight. But the fundamental questions is why they were prepared to do so. And why has al Qaida had thousands of volonteers in their train camps?
I have an answer that may be too facile and in need of refinement. The Soviet ideology includes atheism which has to be fought against. So why fight the West? Because the West is not, as pointed out by jay and Wombat, seen as Christian but as a hedonistic culture completely lacking in morals, i.e. essentialy atheist. Thus, the threat from the West is equivalent to the threat from the Soviet Union, but more insidious, hence more serious.
79. Wombat - 3/30/2004 9:40:22 PM
According to the Guardian, MI-5 had infiltrated the group that had obtained the explosives. Interestingly, one of those arrested worked at Gatwick Airport.
80. jayackroyd - 3/30/2004 9:44:41 PM
but more insidious, hence more serious.
It's the insidiousness that I think gets them. Look at bin Laden, raised in a deeply hypocritical, deeply hedonistic environment that he has ultimately rejected as sinful.
I can see why people would admire an abstemious billionaire, who rejects the trappings of western culture out of principle (um, but not their dialysis machines). People admire Warren Buffet for similar reasons.
81. arkymalarky - 3/31/2004 2:22:50 AM
It is less the "antithesis" of culture than a supercession of an existing culture by another
I'm saying this in all earnestness, that rural Americans are feeling the feelings in that quote, and in fact I've written about it elsewhere (the potentially violent extremes of that would be the survivalists/Patriots types). The social conservative, religious focus of those who are tied to a different culture in America has been successfully exploited by politicians, at least up to now.
82. Macnas - 3/31/2004 10:20:19 AM
re 81
Arky, could you beat that out a bit more for me? It sounds kind of interesting.
83. Macnas - 3/31/2004 10:30:49 AM
I would say that the propagation of certain aspects of American culture among say, young Muslims, might add some fuel to the fire, but only on a superficial level.
Even among those members of al Qaida who have been investigated in the recent past we find young people seemingly at ease with indulging in certain aspects of what we call Amer. pop culture, while at the same time observing its diametric opposite in islamic fundamentalism.
And no, I do not think it is clever camouflage.
(I'd like to see, in another thread or elsewhere, a good essay on what modern day American culture exactly is.)
84. arkymalarky - 4/1/2004 2:19:13 AM
Mac,
I will try to, without getting too bogged down, in the Politics thread.
85. arkymalarky - 4/1/2004 2:36:00 AM
I thought I was in International, so I'll do it here, but the best source of info on this topic is Spudboy, who hasn't been around the Mote in quite a while.
Basically, rural Americans are more traditional, irrespective of race, socio-economic status, etc (just as they are in other "modern" countries, from what I gather). They have certain cultural ways and values that they are very defensive of and that they feel modern culture threatens. One of the reasons many of them are conservative politically is that they believe in personal responsibility and self-direction, and they don't want government infringement on their lives. They see the government as wanting to inject modern American culture into their communities "for their own good," in a parental role, rather than respecting their choices and letting them live the lives they want to live.
There's a lot more to it than that, and it's not just a conservative feeling, but a "Jacksonian" liberal one, as well. Those who aren't on the fringes feel their way of life is being threatened by the government in a variety of ways, but the fringes shape the rural stereotype and increase the condescending attitude that is so offensive.
In AR this conflict is manifested in the attempt to shut down rural school districts and completely remove local control and influence of rural parents on their kids' schools, converting the system to state and national control. This has united rural people across racial and geographical and socio-economic lines in ways that are unprecedented here. The closest thing to what's happening now occurred in 1888 with a farmers' (and in other states, laborers) movement that crossed racial boundaries.
This site is a good and effective mainstream organization advocating for the rural POV in government policy, rather than headin' for the hills with a gun: Rural School and Community Trust
86. robertjayb - 4/1/2004 3:11:48 AM
Arky,
I've been thinking about spudboy in connection with this thread. I will email him via his Orcinus blog and ask him to look in---maybe he will have comments.
87. rdbrewer - 4/1/2004 5:01:39 AM
Spudboy is a died-in-the-wool polemicist. This does not make one an authority on anything but persuasion on a particular side of an issue. I don't recall him ever writing a balanced piece of strictly rational analysis.
88. jayackroyd - 4/1/2004 5:05:21 AM
rdb, on the other hand, specializes in balanced, strictly rational analysis.
89. rdbrewer - 4/1/2004 5:09:36 AM
A subjectivist, by definition, will never recognize that there are those who are more objective than himself.
90. wonkers2 - 4/1/2004 5:11:01 AM
But his polemics are based on a lot of carefully researched facts and background knowledge.
91. rdbrewer - 4/1/2004 5:12:43 AM
That may be true, Wonk, but you left out the word "selectively". He researches toward a pre-conceived conclusion or rhetorical goal. He has no interest in finding the facts and then deciding what the conclusion is.
92. jayackroyd - 4/1/2004 5:13:59 AM
A subjectivist, by definition, will never recognize that there are those who are more objective than himself.
Back atcha, rdb.
93. wonkers2 - 4/1/2004 5:15:35 AM
Well, I am usually biased in the same direction as spudboy.
94. rdbrewer - 4/1/2004 5:40:53 AM
Jay, one reason I try to keep my posts to you short is because they are constantly fraught with basic reasoning flaws.
Here's one from yesterday, for example. Ace parodies Clarke's dim view of Condi Rice with old-fashioned racist language. But for Jay, that's just proof Ace is a racist. Ace even acknowledged the rationale behind the parody in order to separate himself from the emoters who would draw such a hate-driven conclusion. But you, as a subjectivist, are blind to any other possible (or probable) interpretation. With the magical power of subjectivity, your pre-determined possible conclusion about Ace becomes, for you, a probable, well-reasoned one.
This happens every day. I see it instantly, and if there is a lot of it, I find it revolting, because this global, ballpark-it style of feeling-logic does not make the world a nicer place in which to live.
Jesse Jackson compared Bush v. Gore to Dred Scott. Of course, there is no comparison. His emotional determinism only served to foment anger, strife, and bad feeling on both sides. It made the world an uglier, more hate-filled place. That is what loose, feeling-driven reasoning is good for. And you'll never be able to see that.
Neither will Spudboy.
95. Macnas - 4/1/2004 12:00:12 PM
Arky, thank you for that.
96. alistairConnor - 4/1/2004 12:18:07 PM
Jay, one reason I try to keep my posts to you short is because they are constantly fraught with basic reasoning flaws.
For a second, RDB, I thought you had a flash of lucidity... yes, the shorter your posts, the fewer basic reasoning flaws they contain...
But no, the whoooole wooooorld is subjective, except for RDB who posesses the gift of absolute truth... you're back on message... always good for a chuckle.
97. alistairConnor - 4/1/2004 12:37:05 PM
Back on subject :
My favourite radio commentator (who takes a consistent Bush/Likud line, and gives me frequent chuckles, just like RDB) stated, in his usual preremtory manner, without exposing his reasoning or references, that the lynchings in Falluja were the work of the local branch of Al Qaida... all part of the global strategy.
I found this surprising.
98. Macnas - 4/1/2004 1:13:15 PM
Just as an aside...
Without getting involved in what y'all think of each other, I'd like to see as many good, provocative, interesting and informative posts as possible here, from anyone capable of producing them.
I don't think there is any debate worth having over the right and wrongs of terrorism.
Depending on where you stand, if you are the perpetrator or a supporter of the perpetrator you see an act of terrorism as a necessary tactic, and if you are the victim or the targeted entity you see it as an outrage.
It is hard to look back over past incidents of terrorism and say what was wrong or right. Some stand out a mile and there is no debate, such as 9/11.
But if I were to look back at my own history and try and judge it, well, I'd be a fool, as it does not matter what I think now, it worked as a tactic for us when we used it against the British.
Rdb suggested a few posts back that we discuss Arafat as the father of modern terrorism. While I agree that Arafat has used terror, I'd hardly give him the title of father of modern terrorism. The founding fathers of the state of Israel would have taught him a thing or two about it.
So I'd suspect it would have turned out to be a debate as to just how big a murdering bastard Arafat is, and how much blood he has on his hands. But that is not what this thread is about.
I'm interested in this subject, I know a lot about some of it, nothing about the rest of it. I want to know more, I want to read what you know, what you think and what your opinion ON THE SUBJECT MATTER is.
As for the rest of our opinions, well, we all have them don't we.
99. Macnas - 4/1/2004 1:32:22 PM
re 97
There is a definite move against NGO security agencies (read mercenary if you like), the Brits reckon on there being something like 1000 ex-SAS/Royal Marines/Paras working as security, and god knows how many US ex-forces are there in the same line of work. It would seem that they are an easier target than US military.
What was done to the corpses was revolting, and nobody deserves that. Getting shot at and killed is what happens in that line of work, but I don't think anyone had counted on mutilation.
On the question of it being an al Qaida operation, I would seriously doubt it, the bad guys in Falluja don't need anyone to hold their hand to do something like this.
I would not say that the ambush itself and the mob afterwards were connected, the shooters would have got away asap, the mob developed on its own and mutilated the bodies.
100. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2004 1:50:58 PM
We seem to agree that terrorism is a tactic to achieve a goal, more or less precisely defined. But how is the tactic going to lead to the goal? What mechanics do the terrorists count on? Macnas mentioned that IRA aimed at making Northern Ireland ungovernable. I would like to expand on that.
I think it is important for the terrorists to incite repression by the state or the occupying power, i.e. surveillance, control, identity checks, arbitrary arrests and detentions and so on. Such repression will be felt by the whole population and cause resentment. The terrorists can exploit this in two ways. They can recruit followers because all terrorist groups always have "freedom" in their slogans. But the most important result they aim for is that the spiral of repression - more violence - more repression will cause "internal contradictions" (marxist/anarchist lingo) to build within the power structure so that the whole thing collapses or at least loses its sense of direction. Hamas is clearly going that route. Baader-Meinhof and the French group Action Directe did it too, but they seriously understimated the cohesion of democratic states.
101. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2004 1:54:52 PM
Back to Iraq. I doubt there is any coordinated effort behind the attacks but obviously they do have effects. One must ask oneself how much of their resources the troops spend on protecting themselves and how much remains for doing something useful.
102. alistairConnor - 4/1/2004 1:55:44 PM
The definition of terrorism is a tough question. The victims in Falluja were not exactly civilians. Is Falluja a war zone? Are private armies "fair game"?
103. Macnas - 4/1/2004 2:07:58 PM
re 100/101
I'd like to revisit this at some stage, as I have always had a interest in the Baader_Meinhof/Red army faction.
104. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2004 2:17:38 PM
I don't think there is any good definition of terrorism. The term itself is problematic because it covers acts that we sometimes prefer not to regard as terrorism. I seem to remember that the university now gives a course on terrorism. I'll try to find out what textbooks they use. Academics are fond of definitions, concepts, analytical models and so on, in particular in the humanities because it gives the subject an aura of "science".
105. alistairConnor - 4/1/2004 2:27:30 PM
There's an interesting case in France, a guy called Batista, a well-regarded left-wing intellectual and writer who is actually a former Italian Red Brigades terrorist. He was effectively granted asylum in the 80s (Mitterand announced that he would not be extradited to face trial in Italy).
He's been arrested recently, and the French government have said that they will comply with Italy's extradition request.
The French left calls this a betrayal, etc, but I can't see why he should be protected. In particular, the Italian left see no problem with putting him on trial (he has four murder charges to face), and find the French attitudes intolerably arrogant and patronising... so what's new...
106. alistairConnor - 4/1/2004 2:42:29 PM
Europe's "Mr Terrorism" will have a hard job balancing security and civil liberties
... how much security are we prepared to stand? I don't believe that European governments will use terrorism as a pretext to step up information gathering and storage for other ends, but spillover is certain to occur.
107. alistairConnor - 4/1/2004 2:49:38 PM
Oops... here's a wee bit of a development... I'll post it here.
'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.
She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".
And good-looking with it.
108. Macnas - 4/1/2004 5:03:02 PM
I have wasted so much time today, its not funny. I have some awful paperwork to do before end of day, and I have been looking at this website instead. It starts out as a kind of information gathering excersise about 9/11, but as you read on and get deeper into the site, it just turns out to be a huge conspiracy theory jamboree.
And I find that very entertaining, much more than change control paperwork.
Will someone mind the thread while I'm gone? I'm away at the weekend as usual, but I will not be around much next week either. Just remember to turn the gas off and put the cat out.
109. Wombat - 4/1/2004 5:32:25 PM
While there may not be a satisfactory definition of terrorism, I think that we can agree on a number of attributes that terrorist goals and tactics share.
As to Arafat being the father of modern terrorism, one should look to the FLN in Algeria and their rural and urban strategies against the French.
110. Wombat - 4/1/2004 5:41:10 PM
The Dutch terrorism scholar--and good friend--Alex Schmid devotes an entire section of his excellent book, Political Terrorism, to examining definitions and attempting a universal definition of terrorism. I don't have it on me, but I will see if I can reproduce it later.
The original mistake that the PLO made was viewing Israel as a colonial entity, which could eventually be driven out (like France and Algeria). The Palestinians are not capable of physically or politically driving Israel out of Palestine, since the Israelis have nowhere to go. Unfortunately, Israel has consistently refused to believe this, and takes Palestinian rhetoric at face value. The Palestinians are capable of killing Israelis, but they cannot "kill" Israel.
111. wonkers2 - 4/1/2004 5:58:14 PM
Sibel Evan's revelations are dyn-o-mite! Wonder why they haven't been reported by NYT or WP?
112. Marc-Albert - 4/1/2004 6:00:40 PM
RE: #107
I've always found that kind of post facto reasonning quite inept.
During the same week the FBI received "top-secret informations" that "an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place", the FBI or the CIA may very well have received just as reliable informations that "just weeks away",al-Qaeda was planning an antrax attack in the Seattle subway, or that terrorists were planning to blow up a major shopping mall in Oakland, CA or sink American vessels off San Juan, or attack a major resort in Guadalajara frequented by American nationals, or, or, or...
We know that the FBI and CIA receive literally hundreds of credible "top-secret informations" each year about this and that "very serious" plot to attack this and that at home and abroad.
So does the DST in Paris.
Monsieur-soo-smart, what is the FBI, CIA, DST, American and French government suppposed to do then? Order the evacuation of the country?
A few weeks after 9/11, newspapers in Canada revealed that the RCMP had received serious informations according to which terrorist elements in Canada were plotting major attacks throughout Canada and that Montreal (we have all those North African Arabs) was particularly at risk.
Should I blame the Canadian government for not having ordered the evacuation of Montreal, a city of 2.5 million, and thus putting my precious life at risk?
Monsieur-soo-smart, don't be like that good-looking but brainless FBI translator, and use your little grey cells.
113. Marc-Albert - 4/1/2004 6:10:56 PM
Of course, had there indeed been an attack in Montreal, all newspapers would have clamored post facto (as per #107) that "senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack Montreal before the strikes happened."
Quelle connerie!
114. Wombat - 4/1/2004 6:26:55 PM
Monsieur M-A:
At minimum, given the summer-long "spike" in Al Qaeda transmissions and activities that is now known to have taken place, the White House could have convened a multiagency working group, so that the FBI and CIA would have been able to describe what they knew, and impart a sense of urgency to finding out more.
This is what the Clinton administration did in the case of the Millenium bomb plot, which was successfully disrupted.
Nothing might have come from such a working group, and it certainly wouldn't have led to overdramatic actions that you so sarcastically create. However, we will never know whether or not 9/11 could have been disrupted, because the Bush administration--by its actions--did not take Al Qaeda seriously as a threat to the United States proper.
115. wonkers2 - 4/1/2004 6:37:44 PM
M-A, also the FBI sat on an alarm from one of its own agents (Phoenix?) that lots of Arabs were taking flying lessons at private flight training schools and his recommendation that someone do a suspicious Arab check at all flight schools. Somebody failed to act on this agent's recommendation connecting the dots.
M-A are you in the security biz, perchance?
116. Marc-Albert - 4/1/2004 6:57:52 PM
...the White House could have convened a multiagency working group, so that....
"Convene a multiagency working group". Hmm.. Now let me guess: you are, or have been for quite a long time, un bureaucrate :)
M-A are you in the security biz, perchance?
No, I'm an English to French translator (UN-related documents to Hibachi or Frito-Lay junk). I also amuse myself in designing and making English-style gardens in the Montreal area, in season of course (it's not quite the season yet, it's chilly, it rains and I'm bored).
117. Marc-Albert - 4/1/2004 7:05:07 PM
Hitachi or Frito-Lay junk
118. wonkers2 - 4/1/2004 7:44:32 PM
The weather is no better in Detroit and I, also, am bored waiting for sailing season.
119. jayackroyd - 4/1/2004 8:06:45 PM
Here's one from yesterday, for example. Ace parodies Clarke's dim view of Condi Rice with old-fashioned racist language. But for Jay, that's just proof Ace is a racist.
My general attitude towards Ace is summarized by Bagheera's and Baloo's advice to Mowgli about the Bandar-log--even if they're dumping shit on your head, ignore them.
You did choose, however, to use this particular post to praise him, and I did look at it, once again regretting my semiannual failure to follow Baloo's advice.
It's surprising you would choose this particular bit of racist screed to make your reasoned stand.
There is no reason, no evidence, no statement to support the notion that Clarke is racist. It's not surprising that Ace chooses to carry the adminstration's water on this particular smear. It's not surprising that he is delighted to have a way to write racist remarks, and then label them "parody." But parody has to have some vague connection to the person being parodied. There is none here.
Occam's razor suggests that the reason you don't post actual rational arguments is that you don't have any.
120. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2004 9:03:16 PM
The story Alistair posted in Message # 107 has not been followed up in any of the major media including the BBC, also not by Jexster, our own newshound. It is probably a canard.
Having said that and standing in for Macnas: can we please deal with day-to-day events in the multitude of threads available for that purpose?
121. jexster - 4/1/2004 9:10:49 PM
Because it just hit my newservice today!
__'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
UK Independent: "A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes
happened. She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was 'an outrageous lie'. Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
Don't rely on the media for timely reporting Pelle...
122. jexster - 4/1/2004 9:11:54 PM
Or accurate for that matter...it takes a keen eye, a sharp, incisive intellect, and some education and a lot of work...but you'll get there...
I will teach you
123. jexster - 4/1/2004 9:16:06 PM
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Drill Instructor: [after hitting Private Joker] You little scumbag. I got your name, I got your ass. You will not laugh, you will not cry, you will learn by the numbers I will teach you. Now get up, get on your feet. You had best un-fuck yourself or I will unscrew your head and shit down your neck.
124. jexster - 4/1/2004 9:16:44 PM
:) See Marge...the accumulated wisdom of modern times
125. jexster - 4/1/2004 9:17:11 PM
accumulated toys
126. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2004 9:28:18 PM
I just asked for contemporary issues to be kept out of here. Then you barge in with 5 consecutive posts on a contemporary issue. Sigh.
127. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2004 10:59:24 PM
Wombat Message # 10
I think it would be very helpful if you could provide some highlights from that book. We need some basic definitions to move forward.
128. wonkers2 - 4/2/2004 8:27:26 PM
Keep contemporary terrorism issues out of the terrorism thread? Give us a break! Where are we supposed to discuss contemporary terrorism? In the Good Life or Childhood Memories thread?
129. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2004 8:50:32 PM
You just don't want to understand, do you?
130. wonkers2 - 4/2/2004 9:09:19 PM
I just find overweening thread hosts tiresome.
131. wonkers2 - 4/2/2004 9:15:06 PM
And, please, what is your answer to my question?
132. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2004 9:45:52 PM
See Inferno.
133. arkymalarky - 4/2/2004 10:40:23 PM
I happened on this while looking up something else, and it seems to encompass the socially conservative view of modern cultural infringement on their values that I was trying to explain earlier. Very few people in the US take this view to its extremes in declaring modern "American culture" their enemy, but when they do they can be very difficult for the government to deal with.
134. arkymalarky - 4/2/2004 10:42:07 PM
On another subject, the essay also gives data from that teen survey comparing urban/suburban that I referred to somewhere else.
135. jayackroyd - 4/3/2004 12:08:52 AM
Our entire sense of community totters on the brink of annihilation, with few exceptions across American culture, and the next generation is paying the moral price. Urban and suburban alike, too many young people are failing to acquire the character requisite for being called American citizens. Until our communities - individuals and institutions alike - recommit to absolute standards and expectations, we can expect to run a continual moral deficit in young America.
This kind of hooey, from Arky's link has been a central part of American conservative criticism since at least the Reefer Madness 30s. They railed about the Beats in the 50s, the hippies in the 60s, the cokeheads in the 70s and so on. But they did grow up eventually, and then they started writing the same silly stuff.
This reminds me of the moment, in our big open office space, where one of the young programmers working for me was playing Skinny Puppy, which was an early 90s techno band. I said, "You know that stuff all sounds the same to me." And then, horrified, realized I was quoting my father when I was a teenager.
136. jayackroyd - 4/3/2004 12:10:21 AM
The driving under the influence thing is something of a cheat that piece as well. Urban kids don't have the same access to cars as suburban kids; suburban kids pretty much HAVE to drive to somewhere to get themselves under the influence of something, and then they've got get home again.
137. arkymalarky - 4/3/2004 2:35:25 AM
This isn't simply railing against the latest teen tendencies toward experimentation, scaring adults that a particular generation is going to hell in a handbasket. The difference between this and past reactions to that kind of behavior in teens is that conservative rural people have begun to believe an entire cultural shift, driven by big government and commercialism, is encroaching on their communities and changing them in ways they don't want (to be more like suburbs) or removing rural communities altogether, and that the government encourages that by reducing local control and replacing it with a modern view of what's best for them that they believe is not best at all, but threatens their ability to live as they choose. It's not a generational thing, though they feel it's effects are manifested most in teens; and it's not just conservative, though the lifestyle generally is.
The majority of these people are very reasonable and have some real reasons for concern about the survival of their ways of life. The extreme reactionaries of those are armed survivalists. It seems to me the Oklahoma City bombing did a lot to quiet that whole movement (I don't figure Spuds will zip in here and correct me, but I'll defer to him if he does), but we've still got a few in AR in the hills, and this used to be a real haven for them. In fact, this was one of the original centers of the patriot movement.
I only skimmed the essay and its conclusion in particular is silly, but the general attitude is what sounded very familiar--that our value of community is in danger and it's important to our cultural wellbeing. And that gets back to what resonated in the quote I originally pulled that Macnas asked me to elaborate on.
138. jayackroyd - 4/3/2004 6:10:44 AM
Thanks for the explication, arky, but I don't see that case in the piece you posted. Moreover, one of the things I find striking is how fast "rural" is vanishing. I grew up next to a dairy farm. My dad's place is still the same 6 acres, and the dairy farm is still there. But there are McMansions down the road.
It's also true that the Great Plains are emptying out--that towns are just shutting down in Nebraska, in Kansas. But that's something different.
139. arkymalarky - 4/3/2004 7:26:36 AM
No, after I read back through it I see you're right.
140. jexster - 4/3/2004 7:15:55 PM
Well Pelle, sorry the testimony cited in the Independent was given, is under investigation, and was the subject of 3 hours on the witness stand
Its made the press, Meet the Press in fact, this from co-chair Lee Hamilton...
Boy now we know why Cheney tried so hard to kill the commission.
141. jexster - 4/4/2004 5:07:55 AM
Earlier this week, I enjoyed the somewhat odd experience of speaking to the Washington chapter of the Council on Foreign Relations. I say "odd" because my own views on foreign affairs are anti-Establishment, while the CFR is the holy of holies of the Establishment elite. To aspiring young Establishmentarians, membership in the CFR is a Holy Grail, the equivalent of joining the Praetorians in Imperial Rome or, among the Masons, achieving the rank of High Wingwang or perhaps even Exalted Grand Wazoo.
I was there as part of a panel on Fourth Generation war. The Establishment would prefer not to notice the Fourth Generation, but Fourth Generation war has fastened its fangs firmly into the Establishment's backside in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, so "attention must be paid." Sometimes that means inviting us anti-Establishment types and hoping we don't break too much of the crockery.
The other panelists were two retired Army officers, both of whom have written some good things on Third and Fourth Generation war, and a retired Marine Corps general who served as moderator. One panelist noted the degree to which we remain stuck in the Second Generation, especially in what is taught in the various armed forces schools and staff colleges. Another took the neo-con line, predicting a "coming American century," which is about as likely as a coming Austro-Hungarian century. Surprisingly, we all agreed on one point: however good the American military may be from the battalion level down, what goes on above that level doesn't make much sense.
But the most significant aspect of the session was not what any of the panelists said. It was the utter inability of the audience, distinguished members of the Council on Foreign Relations, to understand any of it. They were as bewildered as the Gadarene (sic) swine
The Discrete Charm of the (Washington) Bourgeoisie
142. wonkers2 - 4/4/2004 5:36:26 AM
Organizational behaviorists call Cheney's and Rice's and the Council on Foreign Relations malady "trained incapacity." That is, an inability to comprehend and adapt in a timely and effective fashion to new circumstances due to prior experience that is no longer valid or relevant or only partially so. It has been applied to the U.S. domestic auto companies when faced by Japanese competition.
143. alistairConnor - 4/4/2004 7:57:15 PM
OK, I apologise for posting the Sibel (si belle) Edmonds article here, too topical.
BUT I can't resist rubbing Pelle's nose in his poor judgement in Message # 120. He obviously missed the fact that it was billed as an "Independent exclusive", meaning that it's not surprising if they are the only people with the story initially.
But yes, she really does exist, and yes, there will be fireworks when Rice testifies on Thursday.
Toronto Star :
Ex-FBI worker challenges 9/11 `lie' -- Claims U.S. had warnings of airplane attacks -- White House adviser's statements `not accurate'
144. alistairConnor - 4/4/2004 8:07:47 PM
more background about Edmonds - sounds like a straight shooter to me.
And from Washington Post's Whitehouse Briefing :
Three Stories You Won't Read Here
British and Canadian papers are trumpeting stories that the mainstream American press isn't touching -- at least not yet.
Tim Harper writes in the Toronto Sun that Sibel Edmonds, "who was hired as a translator by the FBI nine days after the attacks, told the investigative panel she has seen and handled intelligence documents and cables that show Rice, the national security adviser, is wrong when she says there was no advance warning of air attacks on U.S. soil." (Also reported Friday by Andrew Buncombe of the Independent.)
David Rose of the Observer writes: "President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001."
Julian Coman of the Telegraph writes: "John Dean, Richard Nixon's legal counsel who was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal, has accused the Bush administration of trumping even the Nixon regime in secrecy, deception and political cynicism."
145. alistairConnor - 4/5/2004 12:16:16 AM
More on Edmonds :
Salon, a week ago
Background from the Washington Times, who supposed that her three-and-a-half-hour classified briefing to the Sept 11 commission indicated that they were interested in her previous revelations, about mismanagement of translation services at the FBI... bad enough in itself... but we now know that they had other stuff to consider too...
146. alistairConnor - 4/5/2004 2:26:06 PM
Specifics about the "planes as missiles" tip
... is this story going to make the mainstream press in the US, eventually?
147. Marc-Albert - 4/5/2004 4:39:54 PM
However, he says he spoke with other linguists at the Washington field office about the informant's tip, which in hindsight had been very hot.
In hindsight, we're all so smart.
148. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2004 8:01:56 PM
I will not post here until the thread is back on track.
149. alistairConnor - 4/5/2004 8:20:11 PM
oh well, humph. Hold your breath until you turn blue...
150. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2004 11:34:35 PM
Or if Macnas changes the ground rules.
151. vonKreedon - 4/5/2004 11:48:46 PM
Pelle - I am unclear what you are objecting to, the Thread Header stipulates Cause and effect, but gives no other guidance.
152. jayackroyd - 4/5/2004 11:57:23 PM
Two thirds the way through the Clarke book, you begin to develop sympathy for the people he advises. He shouts about every threat, wants money for everything, puts Cabinet members through exercises ["Anthrax is delivered into New Mexico. Do you quarantine the state?" he asks the HHS director. He turns to Janet Reno: "If people try to leave, do you shoot them?" Those are paraphrases. But, sheesh, anthrax is not contagious. That's one of the reasons its a sucky vehicle for attack.] designed to scare them into raising counter terrorism budgets. He goes on about cyberterrorism, which is a complete canard. More damage is done by spam than ever will be done by a cyberattack. And there never has been one.
The most appalling of these is his shouting out about chemical biological attacks. These are very hard to pull off. They're rare. They're, with the exception of the sarin attack in Tokyo, completely unsuccessful when attempted. And even that one didn't do so much.
They are especially hard to pull off with the resources of private organizations. If the terror threat is not states, which a view he claims to have held to from about 1998 (after Clinton hit the Sudan), then the chem/bio threat is trivial.
In general, in the US, even counting the WTC attack, the loss of life from terrorism is a trivial number. That attack was spectacular. It was arresting. It was unforgettable. But the damage, in human and economic terms, was small relative to stuff like the flu, which, preventably, takes tens of thousands every year.
The attack was also spectacularly successful in what stateless terrorists try to do--use minimal resources to induce fear and advertise their cause. The administration's pumping up of that fear, using it as a central campaign element is simply appalling.
153. wonkers2 - 4/6/2004 1:56:58 AM
Well, Pelle, I guess we'll just have to struggle along as best we can without you! (There is something to be said for letting the discussion meander a bit, IMHO.) Moreover, I don't recall that the ground rules were crystal clear.
154. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 3:57:03 AM
Hey, cmon wonk. I brought right back on topic. No thanks from Macnas, however. But also, I'm happy to say, no fisticuffs.
It's funny when you pick stuff up from people. Macnas may not remember--it was a discussion with Alistair about a fractious Green meeting--but "were there fisticuffs?" and "I'm a man of peace" have become part of my current lexicon.
155. alistairConnor - 4/6/2004 12:53:30 PM
The processes of how terrorism is tracked and anticipated, or not, are interesting, and relevant to this thread.
The use of aeroplanes as missiles holds an evil fascination which is a major part of the effectiveness of the Sept 11 attacks. The fact that it would have been eminently preventable, if available information had been analysed and synthesised, is an interesting and relevant one. The idea that there may be other such subtly obvious means of attack available, and that our governments may or may not be anticipating them, is disturbing to me.
[And if Pelle thinks I'm talking about US politics, he can go on turning blue.]
156. alistairConnor - 4/6/2004 1:01:59 PM
I don't entirely understand why chemical and biological attacks are so difficult to pull off (for example, what about water supply?) but I guess they must be, or we would have seen some by now.
But what other possibilities are we missing?
157. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 1:16:53 PM
The use of aeroplanes as missiles holds an evil fascination which is a major part of the effectiveness of the Sept 11 attacks.
The 9/11 attacks were an exploitation of the US hijack protocol that the pilot's job is to get the plane down safely, and then negotiate. That protocol ended, unofficially, that day in PN. Still unofficially, passengers and crew have implemented a new protocol. No tolerance to hijacking.
Other than securing the cockpit, I don't think the other countermeasures (especially guns on planes, which strikes me as singularly stupid. It changes the nature of the exploit. But the "don't open the door, land the plane at the nearest airport" response is effective.) have made any difference. The hijackers had ids. They'd tested the path they followed. That's also why profiling is stupid. If the attackers choose to use airplanes (they won't), they'll choose people who have been proven to pass the profile test.
158. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 1:24:19 PM
I don't entirely understand why chemical and biological attacks are so difficult to pull off (for example, what about water supply?)
Because the quantities involved are daunting. You dump your entire supply of whatever toxin you choose into the upstate resevoir that is my water source, and it's gonna be too diluted to have an effect. You can release anthrax, which you can, given a great deal of effort and technology, make infectious by the air. But it's going to be limited to those directly exposed to your exploit. It's not contagious.
The "infect a couple dozen suicidal guys with smallpox and put them on airplanes" is a more dangerous scenario, and it's appalling that the US and the Russians didn't just kill off the virus. But folks I know in the pharma industry tell me that it actually is really hard to get to that.
OTOH, macnas and wombat know more about this than I do. I await their welcome corrections and amplifications.
159. wonkers2 - 4/6/2004 4:13:12 PM
Seems to me we need more focus on identifying the cells, shutting off their money, infiltrating them if possible, and by whatever means eliminating them. That will require a lot of international cooperation and a a bit of an imposition on everyone's privacy and freedom. Greater ecumenism and tolerance on the part of religious leaders would be helpful on a more basic level.
160. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 5:00:25 PM
That's actually been going pretty well, from what one can tell in the press. Both here and in Europe people are being found, arrested, questioned. If anything, the effort has been too wide sweeping. But it has been disruptive.
It's also disruptive because you don't know who has been turned or broken. They take Joe in. Joe knows Phil and Harry and Bobby and Steve. Can you trust any of those guys with anything, in the wake of Joe's interrogation?
161. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 6:13:04 PM
Salon's Right Hook quoting blogger Stephen Den Beste:
"The key point to remember is this: the strategic goal of terrorism is to provoke reprisals.
"Most of the activity by insurgents in Iraq during the last year was technically guerrilla warfare. Like terrorism, guerrilla warfare developed as a way for weak forces to fight against strong ones. But guerrilla war aims to harm the enemy by direct action; that's the main distinction between the two...
"The goal of this attack [in Fallujah] is to inspire American fury. What they hope is that the Americans will be blinded by hatred and will do something extremely stupid: to punish the Sunnis collectively for the actions of the terrorist group.
"Remember, that's the basic theory behind terrorism; that's the core of the doctrine of terrorism as a form of violent warfare. It is not the terrorist act itself which helps advance the political goals of the terrorist group; it is rather the reprisal. Terrorism is a form of jiu-jitsu, a way of using an enemy's strength against himself. (In jiu-jitsu, you don't throw an opponent. You aid him in throwing himself.)"
162. PelleNilsson - 4/6/2004 6:26:20 PM
A headline in the IHT yesterday said "Terrorists shift focus to Europe, experts say". The other day an article in Swedish newspaper (sourced Reuters) about recent bombings in Uzbekistan said that the suspected group is thought to have connections to Al Qaida because their former leader is known to have met Bin Laden once.
I'm getting deeply suspicious about these things. I think the so called terrorist experts sit around drawing boxes and connecting arrows based on some very flimsy evidence. Also, terrorism analysis is a growth industry and all these people must show some output, preferrably in the form of some original thought.
The university course on terrorism I mentioned is an example of that trend. This thread too, perhaps. It is trendy and chic to theorize on the subject. I couldn't get hold of the professors by the way. They are at a terrorist conference in London. But the administrator told me that the text books have not been decided.
163. Wombat - 4/6/2004 6:49:09 PM
It depends on which terrorist "experts" one talks to. People who have been studying it for decades (Bruce Hoffman, for example) are generally sound and have a sense of perspective. Since "terrorism" is hard to pin down definitionally, it is equally hard to posit results.
There are many people out there whose "expertise" on terrorism is limited to a particular "bee in their bonnet": state sponsorship; WMD; Islamic terrorism; Neofascist terrorism; etc. They lack sufficient perspective to provide useful analysis.
What puzzles me is that Israel is held up as an authority on how to deal with terrorism. They have a 30+ year record of almost complete failure to deal with it.
164. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 6:55:18 PM
[chuckle] They've dealt with a lot of it, though.
Clarke (I'm in the home stretch) is one of those "experts" that you get to feel dubious about. There's no threat assessment. The threats are all described at the same pitch, the same volume. He's not unwilling to entertain other theories, as in Atlanta. But it's like Pelle describes--a business in need of a product, a service in need of output, a bureaucrat looking for budget.
As you, 'bat,said a little while ago, the WTC attacks may have been an isolated event, not to be repeated anytime soon. Madrid does come close, though. But Madrid also reinforces the idea that these guys just don't have much.
165. Wombat - 4/6/2004 7:03:40 PM
I read the Clarke book over the weekend. If there was a major terrorist incident in the US, I would definitely want him to run the incident room. I was also interested to note that he linked Khobar towers directly to Iran (I had thought that it was an early Al Qaeda attack).
The point he makes, which I agree with, is that only the Clinton adminstration addressed terrorism as a threat in itself. One can give a pass to the Reagan and Bush I administrations, because they had to deal with much larger issues, but not Bush II.
Clarke is a Cassandra, who happened to be right and have the experience and documentation to prove it.
166. vonKreedon - 4/6/2004 7:13:32 PM
Other than securing the cockpit...
This in itself would have prevented 9/11. The use of planes as missiles requires being able to take control of the controls. If the hijackers cannot get into the cockpit the only recourse they have is to either take down the plane, horrific certainly but relatively limited, or a traditional hijacking scenario with demands and negotiations.
Guns in the cockpit is a stupid idea, far better to simply make the cockpit inaccessible for the duration of the flight.
167. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 7:17:23 PM
I agree with everything in 165. You need guys like Clarke. But it must be irritating dealing with them. And the fact remains that the decision maker still has to do the ultimate threat assessment. Clinton comes off very well in that regard.
But there are also admirable things in the book. When the president demands a reassessment of Iraq's relations with al qaeda, Clarke tasks the underling who he believes least prejudiced on the issue, and says that the president always has the right to demand a review. Mistakes get made.
168. Wombat - 4/6/2004 7:21:46 PM
Clarke was definitely not a CTPA (Cover The President's Ass)bureaucrat. The part that I found most telling was the exodus of other people like him from the Bush II administration.
169. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 7:22:14 PM
Guns in the cockpit is a stupid idea, far better to simply make the cockpit inaccessible for the duration of the flight.
It changes the nature of the exploit to getting the guns. But with teams of six or more cooperating operatives, that exploit is attainable. Seal up the cockpit. Let passengers be killed. Rely on cabin crew and passengers to stop such attempts. Land the plane as soon as possible.
That should be the current protocol. And, in point of fact, it is, although not officially.
(It's worth noting that it is easy to think of deadly devices that would go through security easily. Two toothbrushes and two feet of dental floss is a garrote. It's not about dangerous devices. It's about a response to threats against passengers.)
170. jayackroyd - 4/6/2004 7:23:19 PM
168
Yes, that is the most compelling corroboration of his views. And that the administration would see that as a line of attack on his character is stunning.
171. Macnas - 4/7/2004 3:49:04 AM
I leave for the inspiring wilds of County Clare for a weekend, and meanwhile back at the thread things get too tense to make sense.
Pelle more or less hit upon my preferred modus operandi for this thread, a step-back-a-bit look at the phenomenon of terrorism.
Having said that, it would be foolish of me to discourage current topical matters that are terrorism related, but not to the degree where the big picture that these events are but a part of, over take the thread subject matter.
There are already a few ideas brought to light here that I want to discuss further, such a comparison of idealistic red-front type groups and the current islamic jihadi style groups, the practicalities of bio-chem weapons and the threat they represent, the success and failures of responses, counter-measures if you like, to terrorism past and present across the world.
But that’s just me, a narrow minded blinkered kind of guy. When I get back to normal next week I will resume the post of thread dictator, 'till then keep as much politics as is possible out of here and play nice.
172. wonkers2 - 4/7/2004 4:54:22 AM
Nobody has yet mentioned terrorism South American style. It's been going on in Colombia since the assassination of the Liberal Party presidential candidate Jorge Eliecer Gaitan in 1948. There it's known as "la violencia." It started as political terrorism and evolved into narco-political terrorism. It has been primarily a rural, small town phenomenon with occasional forays into Bogota for kidnappings and bombings. Oil pipelines have been sabotaged many times and foreign oil workers kidnapped. Highway travel is unsafe in much of the country because roads are blockaded and cars and buses stopped and the passengers robbed and killed. Last I recalled the guerillas (FARC-Colombian Armed Revolutionary Force) controlled around a third of the land in the country. A couple of years ago a couple of IRA bomb experts were arrested in Colombia where they had apparently come as consultants on bomb making.
Terrorism has also been a problem in Peru, Uruguay and Argentina and to a small extent in Venezuela.
173. jayackroyd - 4/7/2004 7:39:57 AM
All I know is that I can rely on someone who chooses a monicker that looks like this:
174. Wombat - 4/7/2004 3:56:59 PM
Aww Jay.... Although I am not as fat or as furry as I used to be.
South America is an interesting case, in that it provides examples of the application of Carlos Marighella's theory of urban-based revolutionary guerilla warfare (terrorism) as a means of overthrowing an existing government. Marighella (an ultimately unsuccessful Brazilian revolutionary) advocated violence directed at the existing government and society, which he felt would lead to a breakdown of civil society and calls for the military to intervene. Marighella opined that when this happened, it would lead to a revolution, with the "people" triumphing over the reactionary forces of the rich and the military.
Only hindsight can show us how insane such thinking was. In Uruguay, the Tupamaros applied Marighella successfully, causing the collapse of the long-standing (and somewhat decrepit) democratic state. A wave of robberies, kidnappings, and armed attacks on police and other state targets swept Uruguay. The Uruguayan military stepped in and crushed the Tupamaros (applying methods that are all too familiar), and stayed in power for over a decade. There was no revolution, as most Uruguayans approved of the steps taken to restore order, or were intimidated by them.
175. jayackroyd - 4/7/2004 8:06:08 PM
A few comments.
First, Rice is very good. She addresses the real issues very well. She also burns the clock well. Putting time limits on this testimony seems like bad policy making to me, and is really affecting the amount of material that can be covered. But she's repeated herself enough, and the record is complete enough that it really may not matter.
Second, the differences between Clarke's and her observations are not substantive. There is a disagreement about the value of high level involvement, the value of "shaking the trees." But there is no disagreement about the policy the administration followed. She also observes, I believe correctly, that the millenium plot was not foiled by shaken trees, but by an observant and alert customs agent,combined, of course, with everyone being aware of the deadline.
Third, the FBI sucks. She correctly points out that a central (what she calls structural) problem with the FBI in dealing with terrorism was clear after the first WTC bombing in 1993. They had information that could have stopped it, but they wanted to make an arrest, not stop it. They work in a very compartmentalized basis, and Washington is in a different place than the field offices. And nobody tried to fix it. Clarke makes the same points.
Fourth, the differences between her and Clarke are, in fact, tenor and tone. When pressed by Kerrey (who was so pissed off that he was calling her "Dr. Clarke" in the heat of the moment) on a response to the Cole and why that fly wasn't swatted, she responds, very lamely, with (paraphrasing "we didn't want to pursue tactical responses. We needed to change our strategic direction."
176. jayackroyd - 4/7/2004 8:06:17 PM
Finally, the declassification of a lot documents is in the offing. Gorelick referred to a document that was declassified this morning. Kerrey was reading from classified documents. This record is going to come out. And since the administration doesn't want it to, I suspect it doesn't cast them in a good light.
177. Wombat - 4/7/2004 8:16:30 PM
"Pursuing strategic responses" while doing on a "tactical" level is lame. It attempts to justify inaction. Rice's rationale for not retaliating for the Cole attack is even lamer. What would be better for Bin Laden's morale, a "swat" or nothing?
178. Wombat - 4/7/2004 8:18:35 PM
Rice was "good" in that she didn't lose her cool, and gave 100 word answers when 10 would have done, which served to limit the questions put to her.
179. vonKreedon - 4/7/2004 8:26:24 PM
Didn't the Cole bombing happen under Clinton? I'm not listening to the testimony, so I don't have the context, but why is Rice taking responsibility for responding to the Cole bombing?
180. Wombat - 4/7/2004 8:30:38 PM
Cole was attacked in October 2000. Obviously Clinton wasn't going to do anything because the great patriots in the other party would have accused him of trying to help Gore.
181. wonkers2 - 4/7/2004 8:30:51 PM
I only was able to listen to part of Rice's testimony. In her exchange with Kerrey on our lack of response to the Cole or somewhere in her testimony Rice said something along the lines that she or the administration felt that "a strategic policy or response for the entire middle east" was needed. Seems to me at point somebody should have pursued that and asked her to explain what she meant and whether it was true that the strategic middle east policy really meant attacking Iraq rather than swatting flies. Did anyone hear whether she was ever pinned down on that? And on how that ties in to 9-11.
182. jayackroyd - 4/7/2004 10:23:39 PM
What would be better for Bin Laden's morale, a "swat" or nothing?
There were widespread reports that this inaction supported his Somali analysis, and his miscalculation of the US response to the WTC attacks.
Rice was "good" in that she didn't lose her cool, and gave 100 word answers when 10 would have done, which served to limit the questions put to her.
Yes. But she also raised legitimate counterpoints to some things that people have been saying. Not Clarke, particularly, except for her claiming to have been more engaged than he says they were. But those responses were unpersuasive, and the commission clearly has plenty of material supporting Clarke's position on the degree of the administration's engagement. This notion that we can't anything until we've done a thorough study is not engagement. And it's a particularly lame argument when set aside an administration pressing to deploy an unproven and useless anti-missile system.
183. jayackroyd - 4/7/2004 10:32:32 PM
In her exchange with Kerrey on our lack of response to the Cole or somewhere in her testimony Rice said something along the lines that she or the administration felt that "a strategic policy or response for the entire middle east" was needed. Seems to me at point somebody should have pursued that and asked her to explain what she meant and whether it was true that the strategic middle east policy really meant attacking Iraq rather than swatting flies. Did anyone hear whether she was ever pinned down on that?
Kerrey tried to. She bobbed and weaved, and stuck to the strategic direction story. It was among her weaker moments. There was some quavering voice action going on then, whether from anger or nervousness I couldn't say.
Kerrey was plainly angry.
We won't know until they report, but it does look this commission, under guys as serious as Keane and Hamilton, is not going to be the usual commission whitewash. But the biggest problem, the FBI, has proven very resistant to reform in the past. The FAA, another prime target of Rice (we warned them, over and over. What more could we do?) has been shaken up.
Unfortunately, that is security theatre. Other than hardening the cockpits, nothing has been done that particularly reduces the terrorist threat. But there's a lot of stuff that's been done that's very visible.
184. jayackroyd - 4/7/2004 10:32:40 PM
The FBI is harder, because none of the changes are visible and they involve a deep change in culture. Rice made a lot of, correctly in my mind, of the importance of an alert agent in stopping the millenium attack. Well, there WERE alert FBI agents whose warnings were ignored.
Is Clarke right when he says that if the President had been calling in the FBI director daily, and asking for detailed information from the field, action could have been taken on this information? It's hard to know. I don't have any doubt that interrogating the guys training to fly 747s who had no flight experience, and publicizing those interrogations would have had some impact.
185. wonkers2 - 4/8/2004 12:13:20 AM
BenVeniste got out of Rice the title of the classified August 6 PDB report. I don't recall the exact words, but it was something like "Al Qaida is planning an attack inside the U.S." Rice didn't like Benveniste any better than she did Kerry. He kept asking her prosecutor "yes" or "no" questions, and she kept responding with trips around the world. I didn't think she looked very good on those exchanges. Several of Benveniste's questions drew applause from the 9-11 families.
186. concerned - 4/8/2004 12:47:43 AM
Rice described in a segment I caught the Bush Administration's pre-9/11 plans for coordinating anti-terrorist policy with nations including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia more effectively than the Xlowntoon Administration had envisaged.
She also thoroughly debunked the whole LW contention that the Bush Administration had spent any significant amount of time or effort, either pre-9/11 or until the situation in Afghanistan had been stabilized post-9/11 in consideration of plans to depose Saddam.
I thought it was highly unsuitable for an investigative commission, as well as unnecessarily rude and hostile that Ben Veniste and other LW interrogators continually interrupted Rice and attempted to talk over her. Such tactics are employed by those who are more interested in grandstanding than in eliciting any real new information, and, indeed, little that would be expectd to significantly change an informed judgment of the priorities and actions of the Bush Administrations actions in its first months in office has actually emerged due to the 9/11 investigative commission.
187. wonkers2 - 4/8/2004 12:50:50 AM
Hey, Riceroni wasn't answering the questions!
188. concerned - 4/8/2004 12:52:11 AM
Certain leading questions don't deserve answers.
189. vonKreedon - 4/8/2004 1:02:05 AM
Here is the link to the transcript of Rice's testimony
190. concerned - 4/8/2004 1:03:38 AM
I think Rice's description of the structural shortcomings within the resources available to the US to react to terrorist threats, particularly domestic ones, prior to 9/11, are relevant. The FBI and CIA appeared not to have shared much critical information for years before then.
Also, who does not recall the widespread popular opposition to what was popularly described as 'racial profiling' in all things under Federal purview prior to 9/11? Heavy pressure was brought to bear not to investigate the backgrounds of or tighten security for individuals of, for instance, Saudi Arabian descent who just happened to be taking flight training courses.
191. wonkers2 - 4/8/2004 1:11:15 AM
The title of the secret Aug 6 intelligence memo to Bush:
Osama Bin Laden--Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
Riceroni wasn't sure whether she even mentioned Al Qaida to Bush prior to August 6.
192. concerned - 4/8/2004 1:25:46 AM
I actually heard two isolated segments of Rice's testimony. In the second, she sounded somewhat more assured than she did during the first one.
193. concerned - 4/8/2004 1:30:06 AM
Re. 152 -
Clarke channels the spirit of the Power Rangers in his book, and probably in real life.
194. concerned - 4/8/2004 1:32:04 AM
Clarke impresses me as always crying 'Wolf!', also. I have doubts that he can effectively modulate his messages.
195. robertjayb - 4/8/2004 2:04:43 AM
World of difference in media response to Sibel Edmonds' revelations...
WashPostThe sensational story of Sibel Edmonds illuminates the world of difference between the international online media and the U.S. press.
Edmonds is a 33-year-old former FBI translator whose February allegations to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks directly challenge the credibility of the commission's star witness, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. In an April 2 interview with the Independent of London, Edmonds said she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers.
196. concerned - 4/8/2004 2:26:50 AM
Fired for 'unspecified' reasons from the FBI and now Sibel (Sibyl too old fashioned now?) claims she possessed shocking information pre-9/11 that suggests incompetence or worse in the Bush Administration.
Sounds strangely familiar.
197. concerned - 4/8/2004 2:27:49 AM
I work with a guy whose first name is Jon. Short for Jonathan?, I asked him. Nope. Just 'Jon'.
198. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 3:40:54 AM
thought it was highly unsuitable for an investigative commission, as well as unnecessarily rude and hostile that Ben Veniste and other LW interrogators continually interrupted Rice and attempted to talk over her.
Those interruptions were clearly tied to the limited time restrictions required by the administration for these hearings. Her stalling and repetitious testimony was just as unsuitable and hostile as were the demands that she answer the freakin' question, given the time constraints imposed on the hearings. It's just one more bit of evidence of the opposition of the administration to providing the truth.
199. robertjayb - 4/8/2004 3:48:38 AM
On the Lehrer Newshour just now Governor Keane, 9-11 Committee chairman, just toasted The Big Dog for his candor and forthrightness in his testimony. And his willingness to spend all the time needed. Of course, WJC doesn't have any brush to chop.
200. wonkers2 - 4/8/2004 4:12:57 AM
Just watched parts of Chris Matthews "Hardball" and John Sigenthaler and Gloria Borger on the other CNBC station. What a couple of superficial airheads Siegenthaler and Borger are. They were reviewing Rice's performance as if she were a contestant in a high school debate or public speaking contest, commenting on everything but her hairdo. Their guests, Trent Lott and Evan Bayh were also vacuous.
Matthews and his guests, Michael Isikoff, Gail Sheehy and Hendrik Herzberg, were much more sharply focused on the content and inconsistencies in Rice's testimony and between her testimony and Clarke's testimony. All four were very hard on her--for not getting the president to focus on terrorism even after the 8/6 PDB warning about Al Qaida attacks on the continental U.S. and instead allowing him to remain focused on Iraq and other much less urgent issues. The result was that information in the hands of the FBI and CIA never surfaced in the White House. It was Rice's job to make sure that it did and if it didn't to get Bush to shake the tree or knock heads together. Isikoff made the point that the testimony next week from the former and acting director of the FBI should be interesting and help connect some more of the dots.
201. concerned - 4/8/2004 8:34:40 AM
Re. 198 -
I think that many of the questions they posed to Rice were poorly phrased and/or leading in the first place, necessitating those disclaimers and qualifications. Bad show by the LW grandstanders.
202. vonKreedon - 4/8/2004 8:58:26 AM
Con - Specific examples? Look here.
203. concerned - 4/8/2004 9:16:28 AM
I found this right away that highlights much of what I was complaining about. Ben Veniste asks two questions. When Rice attempts to answer both, he starts interrupting and verbally jousting with her, apparently forgetting what he inquired about in the first place!
A sorry performance on his part.
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
Now, the ...
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.
RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
Sheesh.
204. concerned - 4/8/2004 9:19:08 AM
I should have included this, also:
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
205. concerned - 4/8/2004 9:21:37 AM
Then there's this egregious example of grandstanding by Ben Veniste immediately after:
RICE: What the August 6th PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...
BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.
(APPLAUSE)
RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...
BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.
RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB _ exceptional access. But let me address your question.
BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.
RICE: May I address the question, sir?
Pathetic.
206. concerned - 4/8/2004 9:22:57 AM
Plus he cuts her off cold twice in the previous sequence for no reason.
Bad, bad, bad.
207. concerned - 4/8/2004 9:23:39 AM
Ben Veniste is a supercilious criminally rude shithead.
208. concerned - 4/8/2004 9:37:24 AM
And Bob Kerrey is a pinhead, as the following exchange shows:
RICE: We talked _ Philip and I over a period of _ you know, we had worked closely together as academics...
KERREY: During the transition, did you instruct him to do anything on terrorism?
RICE: Oh, to do anything on terrorism?
KERREY: Yes.
RICE: To help us think about the structure of the terrorism _ Dick Clarke's operations, yes.
KERREY: You've used the phrase a number of times, and I'm hoping with my question to disabuse you of using it in the future.
You said the president was tired of swatting flies.
KERREY: Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to Al Qaida prior to 9/11?
RICE: I think what the president was speaking to was...
KERREY: No, no. What fly had he swatted?
RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on...
KERREY: No, no...
RICE: ... when the CIA would go after Abu Zubaydah...
KERREY: He hadn't swatted...
RICE: ... or go after this guy...
KERREY: Dr. Rice, we didn't...
RICE: That was what was meant.
KERREY: We only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August 1998. We didn't swat any flies afterwards. How the hell could he be tired?
RICE: We swatted at _ I think he felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there, and that's what he meant by swatting flies. It was simply a figure of speech.
209. concerned - 4/8/2004 9:47:41 AM
I see the sequence where Kerrey calls Rice 'Dr. Clarke' was repeated by the transcriber. Must of thought it was extra funny.
210. alistairConnor - 4/8/2004 1:35:16 PM
Con:
Fired for 'unspecified' reasons from the FBI and now Sibel (Sibyl too old fashioned now?)
If you go back and read some of the links I posted about her a few days ago, starting Message # 143 you will learn that she was born in Turkey, and that she was manifestly hounded out of the FBI because she persisted in pointing out woeful inadequacies in security and vetting within the FBI's translation services.
As Robert points out, this story still seems to be taboo in the US press... the FBI is a sacred cow perhaps?
211. alistairConnor - 4/8/2004 1:46:54 PM
BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?
[...verbal sparring...]
RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al-Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.
Right. Somebody didn't do their job. Who, precisely, should have made the decisions and issued instructions to the national security adviser and the president?
[...]
Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.
[...]
BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.
Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.
One of these two people is not telling the truth.
212. Wombat - 4/8/2004 5:42:35 PM
If--as all sides acknowledged--the FBI and CIA had a dysfunctional relationship, a truly involved National Security Council head would have made damn sure that the respective directors were at the table, and that the President was asking very pointed questions and demanding results--and holding them personally accountable. Instead Rice came out with some incredibly lame remarks about how summoning them for daily meetings with the President would have detracted from their antiterrorism work, which in the case of the FBI, apparently consisted of doing nothing.
213. judithathome - 4/8/2004 5:52:33 PM
Evidently a few people agree with you, Wombat:
Rice's Testimony May Have Hurt Bush
Republicans who'd been hoping that Condi Rice would calm the political waters with her testimony to the 9/11 commission have to be disappointed. Stylistically and tactically, she was serviceable. Her voice seemed to quaver at times, but overall she was a confident master of detail, choosing, for the most part, to praise rather than confront the accusatory Richard Clarke. But the larger picture she painted of herself, her president and the administration certainly won't help George W. Bush's re-election chances.
A self-proclaimed expert at understanding "structural" change in large institutions, Rice wasn't aware — may still not be aware — that the nature of her job had changed by the time she took over as national security adviser in January 2001. Reared in the Cold War era, she saw herself following in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger. "National security" was largely a matter of global state-to-state diplomacy.
214. jroth - 4/8/2004 6:37:28 PM
The FBI has traditionally been a junior partner in nat'l security deliberations. The CIA jealously guards its turf at those tables. That said, it seems quite evident that the greatest sins of omission and commission can be ascribed to the FBI. The internal bureaucracy is terrible, the internal priorites have rarely been in synch with national needs, the culture very insular and arrogant, the information systems archaic. With that bunch you need to do more than shake a few trees.
215. judithathome - 4/8/2004 6:39:44 PM
Sorry for the missed tag...
216. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 6:55:46 PM
I see the sequence where Kerrey calls Rice 'Dr. Clarke' was repeated by the transcriber. Must of thought it was extra funny.
That wasn't a transcription error. He did call her "Dr Clarke" three times in a row after having done it a oouple of times earlier. That is, "Dr. Clarke, Dr. Clarke, Dr Clarke," which led to the funny riposte "I don't think I look like Mr. Clarke, commissioner."
It remains clear that their frustration with the time limits, and their desire to get her on the record explain their demands for succinct answers. It doesn't really matter, of course. It was clear that the paper trail does not support the case the administration has made. And it's clear that the classification of these documents is not about national security. If patterns hold, they'll balk and stall, but end up being forced to release the stuff. And when they do, it'll receive higher and more negative scrutiny than would have happened had they just behaved transparently.
And the real problem is that we have lost two years or more in addressing the problems that led to this--a broken FBI. Better coordination and communication between departments.
But we have secured the cockpits. I guess that's something.
217. concerned - 4/8/2004 7:10:57 PM
The administration has already decided to declassify the memo that Ben Veniste was after Rice about. Can't ask for a much quicker response than that.
218. judithathome - 4/8/2004 7:12:31 PM
Concerned, Rice is the National Security Advisor...she was appearing before the commission to give answers on national security. She was stalling magnificently. But eventually, she had to at least appear to be giving answers because she holds such a serious position in this administration. She isn't The Woman Who Reads Difficult Things and Explains Them To Bush or The Woman Who Brings Milk And Cookies To The President. She is in charge of NATIONAL SECURITY.
Don't you think it is obvious that they dropped at least one or two of the balls on this?
219. judithathome - 4/8/2004 7:13:38 PM
The administration has already decided to declassify the memo that Ben Veniste was after Rice about. Can't ask for a much quicker response than that.
Too bad they weren't that quick when they were first given that document.
220. concerned - 4/8/2004 7:19:50 PM
So which documents do you think should be classified in the first place, if any?
221. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:22:14 PM
You know Judith, the record is actually mixed. The implicit accusation that 9/11 could have been prevented is hard to support unequivocally.
What's interesting about this is how little disagreement there is. Clarke said the administration should have done more, at a higher level, and says the FBI was a disaster. But he doesn't say that if his recommendations had been followed 9/11 wouldn't have happened. And, beyond that, something like it eventually, imo, would have.
Rice says that they were trying to do more, but were blocked by institutional and bureacratic obstacles, that they were trying to address in a systematic fashion, and that the FBI was a disaster.
The difference in these two accounts is diddling about details, and some unhelpful fingerpointing.
I happen to think that Clarke's interpretation of the administration's inaction is right. I think that administraton ignored what had happened in the previous 8 years and proceeded as if it were 1993, pre the first WTC bombing. I happen to think that was mistaken policy.
But what gets my knickers in a twist is their complete refusal to 1) acknowledge the mistake and 2) to fix it. They've spun and stalled and stonewalled rather than face a major policy error. You don't fix major policy errors by spinning and stonewalling.
They spackle over it, say everything's okay now, just like it was before, in fact, without actually doing anything to address the issue, other than cosmetically.
Lemme go in the other room and untwist my knickers. It disturbs the dog to see that.
222. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:24:30 PM
So which documents do you think should be classified in the first place, if any?
Pretty much none. Those that contain actionable intelligence. Those that reveal sources and methods. The PDB is famously full of information from public sources.
Classification is about covering asses. It's not about protecting national security.
One good thing that may come out of this is a discussion of the purposes and effectiveness of classification procedures.
223. judithathome - 4/8/2004 7:30:28 PM
The implicit accusation that 9/11 could have been prevented is hard to support unequivocally
I'm not saying it could have been prevented. But my god, they could have alerted the public that something MIGHT happen and like the widow of a 9/11 victim said, had there been any public suggestions to be on guard, maybe the people in the second tower would have started exiting as soon as they saw a plane hit the first one.
I watched it live and before the second plane even hit, I was saying on this very forum that we were at war with someone...I knew it was a terrorist attack; why didn't people whose jobs were to know this get a hint?
I don't think Bush did all that well in the immediate aftermath, either...telling us to go out and shop? THIS is the advice of a leader?
224. concerned - 4/8/2004 7:31:06 PM
Classification is about covering asses. It's not about protecting national security.
That's news to me, especially if there are assets in the field whose cooperation we will not be able to obtain or that might be compromised by dissemination of certain information.
225. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:31:57 PM
Read Moynihan's Secrecy.
226. concerned - 4/8/2004 7:34:47 PM
Conversely, if we make sure that our enemies are privy to every detail of our game plans, as jayackroyd thinks ought to be done, in effect, that would amount to criminal negligence.
227. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:41:24 PM
Yeah. Read Secrecy It's actually a government commission report on classification, headed by Moynihan. You can misquote me all you want, afterwards.
228. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:44:26 PM
217
Actually, that's fairly big news. I don't see it in any of my usual sources. Do you have a link?
229. concerned - 4/8/2004 7:46:17 PM
I hardly think Moynihan would be so naive as to believe or even seriously put forth that no governmental documents or information related to our foreign affairs need to be classified.
You're badly confused, Jay.
230. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:47:46 PM
Rice's central point this morning, especially in her opening statement, was that nobody could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. The problem, she argued, was cultural (a democratic aversion to domestic intelligence gathering) and structural (the bureaucratic schisms between the FBI and the CIA, among others). But this is the analysis of a political scientist, not a policymaker. Culture and bureaucracies form the backdrop against which officials perceive threats, devise options, and make choices. It is good that Rice, a political scientist by training, recognized that this backdrop can place blinders and constraints on decision-makers. But her job as a high-ranking decision-maker is to strip away the blinders and maneuver around the constraints. This is especially so given that she is the one decision-maker who is supposed to coordinate the views of the various agencies and present them as a coherent picture to the president of the United States. Her testimony today provides disturbing evidence that she failed at this task—failed even to understand that it was part of her job description.
Fred Kaplan at Slate.
231. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:53:27 PM
Does anybody have a link to a site that views Rice's testimony favorably? Everything I'm seeing is nastily negative.
232. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 7:55:01 PM
hardly think Moynihan would be so naive as to believe or even seriously put forth that no governmental documents or information related to our foreign affairs need to be classified.
Problem solved, I guess. No need to read the book. You already know what Moynihan says.
Do you notice a pattern, here, concerned?
233. concerned - 4/8/2004 7:56:02 PM
jay -
Telling me to 'read a book' is lazy and nonresponsive on your part.
234. concerned - 4/8/2004 7:57:03 PM
Re. 231 -
Nastily negative how?
235. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 8:00:08 PM
Her testimony today provides disturbing evidence that she failed at this task—failed even to understand that it was part of her job description.
From the post above. I can't imagine more withering criticism of a national security adviser.
236. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 8:01:20 PM
Telling me to 'read a book' is lazy and nonresponsive on your part.
refusing to actually look into the issue is the lazy route, I'm afraid.
237. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 8:04:34 PM
Or also on slate LexiCondi
238. concerned - 4/8/2004 8:04:39 PM
You haven't even justified your appeal to authority here, Jay.
239. concerned - 4/8/2004 8:09:09 PM
I think about the only thing that Saletan wouldn't have castigated Rice for saying to the 9/11 Commission is:
'Mea Culpa. Mea maxima culpa.'
240. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 8:10:29 PM
Concerned,
We've just seen a spate of classified documents get declassified because the political reasons that caused them to be classified--not national security reasons--have changed causing them to be declassified. You had commissioners yesterday sardonically referring to classification, and the limits that it put on the public's ability to understand what was going on.
You didn't Rice rising in furious protest that the commissioners were revealing stuff that would endanger ongoing activities or agents. (You can insert the Plame paragraph here for yourself.)
But, since you won't read a book, read this analysis of why the PDB isn't especially sensitive.
241. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 8:12:00 PM
239
Sure. Point to someone who says that she did a fine job, deflected the criticism and showed that the administration was on the ball. That was my question. I feared that I was seeing a limited spectrum of opinion.
242. concerned - 4/8/2004 8:13:34 PM
You want your 'headline news' direct from the CIA? Is that it?
LOL
243. concerned - 4/8/2004 8:14:48 PM
Re. 240 -
So you agree that some information ought to be classified, at least for a limited period of time.
244. concerned - 4/8/2004 8:16:32 PM
If so, I can see that as being reasonable.
245. jayackroyd - 4/8/2004 8:23:44 PM
243
Of course.
But the current ratio is about 90/10. And we're seeing that now, as the administration finds it valuable to declassify documents with no national security information, for political reasons.
And, of course, it's still worse. They could have provided declassification of material that didn't contain truly sensitive information to the commission months ago if they were actually interested in improving the process of combatting terrorism.
Instead they've stonewalled. Gorelick was pissed yesterday, because something Condi wanted to refer to in her testimony was declassified that morning.
Oh, and just bye the bye, blew a CIA agent's cover.
246. robertjayb - 4/9/2004 8:28:44 AM
Bush was warned! (NYTimes)
WASHINGTON, April 9 — President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.
The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.
The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was "historical" in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.
247. jayackroyd - 4/9/2004 12:32:07 PM
Concerned and I have had a series of exchanges on the role of and the benefits of classification of material by the US government
I think that discussion should be pursued; in some ways it is central to the evaluation of the administration's performance on foreign policy issues, and to how foreign policy is handled in the future. That is, the administration has, in the view of some people, used secrecy to prevent open discourse on critical policy issues. Others have argued that the president needs to be able to make decisions without having his elbow joggled by partisans and by parties with stake in the result. Such a discussion doesn't belong here, in my view.
There may be a separate discussion about the role of transparency of policy and practice in preventing terrorism. That's a non-trivial issue; there are longstanding beliefs in the security world that you should publish and test your algorithms. There are also longstanding beliefs by some people, many of them in government, but also many in private industry in, as the detractors put it, security by obscurity.
My question, which I'll repeat more succinctly in the thread thread is whether that discussion falls under the control of the very lightly host slow thread, or deserves its own thread. If the latter, it would interesting if concerned would host it.
One could also argue that it overlaps the content of the terrorism thread, and another solution is to post the content here, with macnas's blessing.
But this is an interesting and timely topic, and I'd like to have a focused place for discussion.
248. jexster - 4/9/2004 10:58:42 PM
Remember all those strange predictions about OBL capture and weird announcements of the BIG OFFENSIVE a few months back...
I couldn't figure why any military force would announce its plans in advance..real smart that.
The Big Offensive was apparently Busharraff's Shuck and Jive Operation in the Territories.. the one that William Lind correctly called as monumental failure:
KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military pulled back Saturday from an earlier prediction that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) would be captured this year, even while preparing its largest force to date for operations along the Pakistani border where the al-Qaida chief is suspected to be hiding.
What's the WAR PRESIDENT gonna try next?
Culture War President???
Oh yeah...already lost that one.
249. jayackroyd - 4/10/2004 1:15:43 PM
I hate to admit it, but Maureen Dowd has a point in Sunday's NYTimes op ed:
On Iraq, they ran roughshod over the system. On Al Qaeda, Condi blamed the system, saying she couldn't act on Richard Clarke's plan until there was a strategy, a policy, "tasking," meetings, etc.
There was no stovepiping on terror. There were no independent groups set up to circumvent the systems and structures Condi talks about. Rumsfeld was not traveling over to Tenet with independent reports about the threat of al qaeda.
This criticism carries less weight pre 9/11, but is in fact relevant. There was no response to the the Cole. They did the opposite of stovepiping intelligence--they pushed it down.
But, even so, post 9/11, they still haven't done it. When they wanted to circumvent the bureaucracy to justify a war in Iraq that was irrelevant to terrorism, they did. In fact, they've done it in other places, like the EPA. The claim that the bureaucracy has prevented effective policies directed against terrorism is ludicrous.
250. jexster - 4/10/2004 9:28:54 PM
Juan Cole poses an interesting if semi-rhetorical question:
We by now know how completely hollow the talk of Rumsfeld and crew about "democratization" is.
How many people have been elected to office on a one-person, one-vote basis in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any place else as a result of Rumsfeld's policies?
Everyone is appointed or jiggered into office by a manipulated Loya Jirga. Chalabi seems set to be jiggered into office. And, his militia appears not to be considered a threat to democracy, since the Pentagon even flew it into Iraq.
251. justears - 4/11/2004 2:50:18 PM
I happened to catch an interview on television with Chalmers Johnson about his new book titled "The Sorrows of Empire". I am going to buy and read it. I thought his views were sobering and really need to be heard. It seems like so few voices can be heard discussing the real issues. The conjunction of interests between military, defense industry, congress and the media overwhelms all other views. He likened Senator Byrd to Cicero....a lonely voice crying in the wilderness.
252. wonkers2 - 4/11/2004 3:29:35 PM
The symptoms of the crisis of the U.S. media are well known: a decline in hard news, the explosion of celebrity coverage, staff cuts, increasing conformity of viewpoint and suppression of debate.
"The Problem of the Media" by Robert W. McChesney
The Nation, April 16
Much of the media is becoming more and more like People Magazine.
253. Wombat - 4/11/2004 7:13:05 PM
Having now read the PDB that Condi Rice said was "historical" (I guess she forgot to read the second page), Dr. Rice can now join Don Rumsfeld on my "why do they still have a job in the Bush administration?" list.
What was she waiting for? Intelligence giving the exact day, names and flight numbers?
254. concerned - 4/11/2004 7:23:39 PM
...that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives...
Clearly faulty intelligence...
255. Wombat - 4/11/2004 7:33:09 PM
Concerned:
Lame-o (but typical Bush-ite response). Osama-bin Laden + Attack + within the United States = do nothing?
256. concerned - 4/11/2004 7:48:14 PM
Nooo, nothing is what a Democrat president would have done, amply demonstrated by 8 years of Xlownfoolery.
That 'warning' included no specifics as to time or specific flights or locations, in case you hadn't noticed. Shutting down the entire air travel industry was not an option, Wombat.
257. concerned - 4/11/2004 7:49:30 PM
Actually, what Xlowntoon did was worse than nothing since he hollowed out the CIA and his administration was largely responsible for the lack of communications betwteen the CIA and the FBI in the first place.
258. arkymalarky - 4/11/2004 8:21:11 PM
Shutting down the entire air travel industry was not an option
Increasing security was damn sure an option, Con'd. Warning people and encouraging airlines to report and act on anything suspicious was an option. Heightening airline security awareness and promoting increased searches and other security actions was an option.
But at least Ashcroft was kept from possible harm. That makes me sicker than any of it. He used information that was enough to make HIM feel insecure about flying, and the administration didn't think the rest of America was worth even a warning.
When Rice said something to the effect of had she been supposed to do something she would have been told, that was when the full reality of this administration's function hit me.
259. arkymalarky - 4/11/2004 8:22:34 PM
Con'd, what you're saying is patently false. The Clinton administration was the one that held daily meetings. It was the one who targeted bin Laden. It was the one that prevented the Millennial attack plans.
260. vonKreedon - 4/11/2004 8:28:01 PM
I fear that the focus on pre-9/11 actions is going to detract from the more important issues of post-9/11 actions.
While we can argue whether the Bush admin pursued al Qaeda with the dilligence it seems due to our post-9/11 eyes, there is really little evidence that we would have prevented 9/11 under the Clinton administration, or any administration. So the attempt to fix blame is a useless game and detracts from the usefulness of fully investigating how we can do better.
Politically it is also being mishandled by the Dems because they are not focusing on the truly salient argument that the Bush administration substituted Iraq for al Qaeda and in doing so severely damaged our ability to pursue al Qaeda. The two arguments do touch, but the focus needs to be on post-9/11 actions, not pre-9/11.
261. arkymalarky - 4/11/2004 8:34:24 PM
So the attempt to fix blame is a useless game and detracts from the usefulness of fully investigating how we can do better.
I don't blame them for 9/11, but I'm disgusted with what has come out about their function pre-9/11 in these hearings, and that's important too, not a detraction.
262. Wombat - 4/11/2004 8:34:50 PM
The warning should have at least brought about a series of principals' meetings with the President asking questions, demanding answers, holding agency directors accountable...you know, what an administration on "battle stations" and with their "hair on fire" would do.
Do you think that more active measures to secure major airports, following up on existing leads, that sort of stuff, may have disrupted some of the 9/11 attacks? We'll never know, thanks to the inaction of the Bush administration.
The only thing more pathetic than the administration's response is Concerned's. If that is the best he can do....
263. Wombat - 4/11/2004 8:38:10 PM
The claim that a lack of actionable intelligence is particularly ludicrous, given that a similar lack did not prevent the administration from launching a war on Iraq.
264. Wombat - 4/11/2004 8:43:36 PM
Concerned's claims re the FBI and CIA noncommunication and generally disfunctional relationship are typical of his blind and willful ignorance. The CIA and the FBI have seen themselves as competitors since the former's beginnings (actually since before the CIA was created). Any organization that J. Edgar Hoover saw as a potentional competitor was going to have a poor relationship with the FBI (unless it could be absorbed).
265. marjoribanks - 4/11/2004 8:45:02 PM
Yes, I used to think - like Kreedon - that the 9/11 hearings shouldn't be mined for political gain by the Dems because it is a bit like flirting with a third rail. You grasp it firmly, and you're dead.
But now, after seeing some of what has come out, I'm just plain pissed. If heads don't roll over this, what the fuck is the meaning of accountability in government?
266. Wombat - 4/11/2004 8:47:51 PM
VK:
I respectfully disagree. How the administration handled the run-up to 9/11 is sympomatic of how they operate. Do think there would be the current fuss if the administration had been open and up front about what went wrong, and had taken responsibility for it? There may well have been a fuss, but it would have been several years ago, and would have died down by now.
267. Wombat - 4/11/2004 8:49:52 PM
Condi Rice might have had to resign earlier, but if what she did as NSC head is anything to go by, she could have been easily replaced.
268. vonKreedon - 4/11/2004 9:00:38 PM
Wombat - Critizing the administration's secretiveness, lack of flexibility and unwillingness to take responsibility for mistakes is certainly a strong political theme for the Dems to take. And the admin's behavior toward the 9/11 investigation is strong evidence of this weakness in the administration. I absolutely agree with you on this.
But, I do believe that the Dems need to be careful that they don't get spun into the argument becoming could the admin have prevented 9/11.
I also, unlike Marj, still think that using the actual work of the Commission for partisan gain will work against both the Commission and the Dems. I wish that the Commission chairs had insisted that no Commission members other than the chairs speak to the press prior to the release of their report. It undermines the legitimacy of the Commission to have Thompson, Gorton, Kerrey and Ben-Veniste all appearing on the pundit shows like party hacks.
269. marjoribanks - 4/11/2004 9:07:04 PM
It undermines the legitimacy of the Commission to have Thompson, Gorton, Kerrey and Ben-Veniste all appearing on the pundit shows like party hacks.
True. I was very disappointed to see this happen.
270. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 10:55:21 PM
Intelligence giving the exact day, names and flight numbers?
That pretty much is what she seems to be saying.
There's been a running theme in puditocracy on the extraordinary passiveness of her tenure as NSA.
There's also a weird contradiction going on wrt the brief. They wouldn't release it to the committee, because it was filled with critical secrets. Then, politically pressured to release it to the public, it turns out all the information was publicly available, they say.
On preventing 9/11, I'm closer to vK's position than Wombat's. You could warn the airlines all you wanted; they weren't gonna do anything. Perhaps a warning directly to the pilot's union might have helped. Securing the airports wouldn't have helped; they didn't use anything illegal and had IDs.
The only thing I can say that they should have done that they could have done is have the FBI pursue more aggressively the leads they had, and to publicize their pursuit of those leads.
271. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 10:58:16 PM
I continue to believe that the commission, just in order to get agreement, will focus on post 9/11 issues. And I continue to believe that the stuff Condi was complaining about--structural problems in the FBI and CIA, and lack of communication between them--are going to be key issues.
Because they are still not fixed.
The administration has also burned themselves by doing the same stupid thing they always do--inflate their performance, and then get caught--with this "70 current investigations" thing. It's gonna turn out that there were actually about a dozen, and nothing came of any of them.
272. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:21:57 PM
The current focus on the pre-9/11 period is also unsurprising. There's been pretty much no information released by the administration up to the point of Rice's testimony. There's been a popular book discussing it. There's been the release of the memo. And there is the absolutely mind blowing fact that there was no response at all to the threat. Not a "best we could do, with the current climate" response. Not a "met every day to deal with the issue" response. Only a "let the bureaucracy function as normal" response.
TNR's &c notes that
The reporters listening in on a background briefing given by "senior adminsitration officials" after the release of the memo raised similiar questions, particularly about viewing the memo in the context of the spike in chatter during the summer of 2001.
273. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:23:07 PM
I mean, another defense is that we were busy with other, important stuff. According to Clarke, that would be, um, vacations.
274. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:26:50 PM
Another possible defense is that the president and Rice had been desensitized by the constant warnings about attacks, followed by no attacks. To prove that, though, they're gonna have to release more memos. And, of course, that argument is a double-edged sword.
275. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:38:10 PM
Gary Hart on the pre-9/11 response:
"I think this is disingenuous. It's a bit like saying at the local level that a group of citizens warning the mayor and the police department that there is going to be a wave of burglaries. And when the burglaries occur, the defense says, you didn't say which house, what night, and what method. There are steps that could have been taken to make this more difficult. When I was a national candidate, Secret Service said if somebody wants to kill you, they'll probably kill you. Our job is to make it as difficult as possible. We didn't do that."
276. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:39:02 PM
Now, that is not to say that the measures that were politically possible then were those that were politically possible afterwards. But nothing is not a very compelling response.
277. thoughtful - 4/11/2004 11:41:17 PM
One family member of a 9/11 victim made this point. She said that her mother(?) stayed in the other tower after the first plane hit. After the first tower was hit, people were told that it was safe to go back to work. Had they had any warnings or even some message in the press of possible heightened terrorist activity, then some may have realized that the first plane was not an accident, or the people managing the buildings may have refused people re-entrance to the buildings and her mother and so many others may have evacuated after the first plane hit and still be alive today. Do we know for sure? No. Will we ever know for sure? No. So maybe the feds couldn't have stopped the attack, but a simple warning may have been enough to save several hundred lives.
Condi said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." justifying pre-emptive attack on another nation. Why didn't they apply the same logic to keeping american's in their own land safe by simply telling us of a heightened possibility of terrorist activity on american soil. Would that have been so hard? so expensive?
278. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:43:50 PM
In TomPaine.com, Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA and counterterrorism official and a registered Republican who has written 40 President's Daily Briefs in his career, says the White House insistence that the PDB of Aug. 6, 2001 was not "actionable" and merely "historical" is "absolute nonsense."
"This particular PDB article was written in response to a presidential request. I am told that Bush's request was a reaction to the intelligence warnings he was hearing during the daily CIA morning briefings. Something caught his attention and awakened his curiosity. He reportedly asked the CIA to come back with its assessment of Bin Laden's intentions. The CIA answered the question -- Bin Laden was targeting the United States."
"The PBD article released Saturday is a classic CIA response to such a request. It lays out the historical and evidentiary antecedents that undergird the analyst's belief about the nature of the threat and provides current intelligence indicators that reinforce the basic conclusion of the piece -- i.e., Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States. It is true that the piece did not contain specific details about the plot that was launched subsequently on 9/11. However, the details that are included in the piece are so alarming that anyone familiar with the nature of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should have asked, 'What are they planning and what can we do to stop it?'"
A CIA guy.
You know, they released this on a holiday Saturday--a typical way to bury something. But I don't think that's good strategy with something that is big news. If you want to mow down a random rainforest or something, it makes sense. the idea is that something else will come up between friday and monday and kill the story.
But there is no story that was gonna kill this one. The extra time gave the story time to ripen, imo.
279. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:47:13 PM
After the first tower was hit, people were told that it was safe to go back to work.
One fortunate side effect of the 1993 attacks is that many people ignored that announcement.
Why didn't they apply the same logic to keeping american's in their own land safe by simply telling us of a heightened possibility of terrorist activity on american soil.
Yes. That is something they certainly could have done. Made the attackers and the public aware that something was afoot.
I still think the attack was too clever to have been stopped simply through publicity--the publicity would not have changed the hijack protocol. But it might have gotten them to abort the mission. And, in fact, the chatter might have been a probe--to see whether we could hear them, and what our response would be.
280. thoughtful - 4/11/2004 11:51:43 PM
"One fortunate side effect of the 1993 attacks is that many people ignored that announcement. "
Clearly not enough of them.
281. vonKreedon - 4/11/2004 11:52:32 PM
I responded to the electioneering aspects in Elections: Message # 4201 in thread 158
282. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:54:09 PM
From what I've heard (and I have a customer down there), people said "whaddya crazy? I don't know what's going on, but the worst that could happen is that I miss a couple hours work if I go. The worst thing that could happen if I stayed is that I don't ever work again. I'm going."
283. marjoribanks - 4/11/2004 11:54:54 PM
One family member of a 9/11 victim made this point. She said that her mother(?) stayed in the other tower after the first plane hit. After the first tower was hit, people were told that it was safe to go back to work. Had they had any warnings or even some message in the press of possible heightened terrorist activity, then some may have realized that the first plane was not an accident, or the people managing the buildings may have refused people re-entrance to the buildings and her mother and so many others may have evacuated after the first plane hit and still be alive today.
Excellent point.
I hope to see this put as a question to Rice and Bush in press interviews, and also as part the Presidential debate process. In my opinion, the public should have been alerted that there was a strong indication that terrorists were targeting the USA.
Instead, we had Ashcroft flown around on private planes, and everyone from pilots and passengers to airline security people blithely going about their business with no concept of what could happen.
If this threat had been made known to pilots alone, there is a solid chance that you would not have had the planes used (effectively) as guided missiles. Remember what happened when the news hit the passengers in that plane that crashed in PA, the info had been out for like half-an-hour, and a much worse disaster was averted.
284. jayackroyd - 4/11/2004 11:58:12 PM
If this threat had been made known to pilots alone, there is a solid chance that you would not have had the planes used (effectively) as guided missiles.
There is a solid chance. Pilots really do rule their aircraft. But they would have been violating their training in not cooperating with the hijackers. Still, it was crazy not to be sure that pilots knew that there was heightened risk.
285. thoughtful - 4/12/2004 12:07:58 AM
And in terms of post-9/11, we have this silly color-coded alternative which is becoming almost useless as the threat level rarely changes...a sign that the scale is too coarse to yield the appropriate signal.
Worse we have little specifics as what we're to do about a change in the threat level other than "to go about our business".
286. vonKreedon - 4/12/2004 12:12:40 AM
Aside from the potential for an early evacuation of the second tower, obviously a huge potential, there is little postive I can think of that would have come from tipping our intel hand by announcing a high, but vague in the extreme potential for terrorist actions. We were not in the position to prevent any hijackings without some idea of what types of flights if not flight numbers. We could have provided higher level of security for the underground parking for the WTC and other similar targets, but that would have been irrelevant.
So the bottom line sort of question is, would the WTC have been evacuated after the first impact?
287. thoughtful - 4/12/2004 12:19:07 AM
further, i can't forget the strength and confidence and leadership shown during the 9/11 crisis by guiliani and the ineptness of the pres flitting around the country in contrast. Guiliani told people what to do, informed people of what the govt was doing, gave frequent press updates and controlled what was truly a chaotic situation.
Instead, even days, weeks after the event, the administration gave us nothing to go on. The faa, the other agencies, nothing. Instead it was the well-circulated e-mail by one single pilot who empowered passengers that they could and should take action, and even take control if they see someone acting suspicious and doing something odd. I have no proof, but firmly believe that the shoe bomber incident would have ended very differently if it weren't for that e-mail.
288. judithathome - 4/12/2004 12:22:21 AM
Well, Bush DID tell us all to go out and shop.
289. jayackroyd - 4/12/2004 12:26:52 AM
Aside from the potential for an early evacuation of the second tower, obviously a huge potential, there is little postive I can think of that would have come from tipping our intel hand by announcing a high, but vague in the extreme potential for terrorist actions
Tipping our hand, how? By saying we knew that they were planning something? That makes perfect sense if we were working secretly and diligently at stopping it. We do it now, with the FBI, CIA and the White House in cya mode. (And in that respect, I think the last bump in chatter that caused plane cancellations and such was a probe. What can we hear? What can't we hear?)
As it is, there was no secret. The FAA is hardly a secure agency, and they (supposedly) were warned repeatedly.
290. jayackroyd - 4/12/2004 12:32:50 AM
Hey!! He's figured something out
Bush, who originally opposed creation of the 10-member, bipartisan panel and only allowed Rice to testify under oath and in public after coming under pressure, pointed to her comment that "now may be a time to revamp and reform our intelligence services."
"And we look forward to hearing recommendations. We're thinking about that ourselves and we look forward to working with the commission," he said.
This is also seems to be an implicit admission that they haven't done anything since 9/11, either.
But I still find extraordinary is the passivity in all this. 'Gosh, darn, if that commission can give us some good advice, well then we'll follow it.' Hello!?!
291. vonKreedon - 4/12/2004 12:38:22 AM
The color coded alert system we currently have is, IMO, a crock. Specific alerts delivered on a usable basis can be useful; e.g., possible attack on trains being forwarded to Amtrak security, or possible attack via cargo container being forwarded to CG and port security, with less potential for tipping off the terrorist on our knowledge (assuming that it remains secret, oh well, never mind). But at any rate this is useful. Simply saying, "Watch out even more!" is not very useful except as a means of mass manipulation.
292. thoughtful - 4/12/2004 12:43:25 AM
vonK, I disagree. One of the questions seems to be whether the concerns at the lower levels of the government agencies were raised sufficiently to reach the upper levels of the administration...one person on tv said they studied the issue and found it to be 40 levels of communication! (I can't quite recall but I believe that was at the fbi and the cia was worse.) No one even asked whether the reverse communication took place...confirming or blessing actions to be taken by those, say, in the FBI field offices. Had there been a general alert level issued to the public, it certainly would have gotten through to the agents who would have then been more empowered and willing to take action with the blessing from the top. That message also would have gotten through to security people, police, etc. who could have also been more vigilent. One of the big problems in large organizations and even more so in political ones is inaction out of fear...you can't get blamed for doing something wrong if you didn't do it, so it's always safer to under-act. Take initiative and you'll be trounced. It's only with some level of empowerment from the top that that inertia can be overcome. That message, despite high levels of chatter, was never delivered. That message, had it been delivered, may have helped put the pieces together to thwart the attack, or discourage the attack, or in some other way save lives. But we won't ever know now, because that message was never delivered.
293. jayackroyd - 4/12/2004 12:44:28 AM
Monitoring our knowledge of the threat level is a piece of cake. Get one of their guys into one of the newsstands as a vendor in the grand central area. Have him wander over twice a day, and look to see how the security is set up.
Yes, the color coded system is a crock. It think it is intended to keep the fear level up. One can see here in NYC actual responses, which don't correlate that closely with the national color.
Closer scrutiny of trucks at the river crossing. Inspections of downtown bound vans at 96th Street. Number of cops and National Guard people in grand central. Number and armament of cops outside grand central. Whether or not some big electrical truck is parked in front of the concrete barricades at the entrance to Grand Central.
294. thoughtful - 4/12/2004 12:44:53 AM
the last post was in ref to #286 by vonk
295. vonKreedon - 4/12/2004 1:37:35 AM
Thought - But none of that would have done anything to prevent the planes from crashing into the WTC/Pentagon. That would have required a radical change in hijack response, a change that did not make sense until the three planes hit, a change that was effected immediately by the passengers on flight UA93.
The only possible effect that a warning might have had is the early evacuation of the second tower. This could have been huge, but I can't find any evidence that such a warning at that time would have led to the assumption of terrorism rather than accident when the first plane hit.
Interesting articles:
International Labor Organization on the success of the WTC evacuation plan.
USAToday article on the evacuation.
CNN article on changes in first responders due to 9/11.
296. jayackroyd - 4/12/2004 5:26:28 AM
That would have required a radical change in hijack response, a change that did not make sense until the three planes hit, a change that was effected immediately by the passengers on flight UA93.
Yeah, that's been my longstanding point. This could have been aborted by publicity and arrests, but the attack itself, once initiated, would have been nearly impossible to stop. Anti aircraft batteries at the Pentagon, maybe. But that's all that could have been done.
297. Macnas - 4/12/2004 1:23:30 PM
So much for keeping politics out of this thread.
That's not directed particularly at anyone, just y'all in general!
If I were to glean anything from the previous posts concerning the US governments handling of 9/11, in particular the way it handles intelligence, it would be that there is a stark contrast between it and the European model.
With the Brits being the best example, the systems in place for gathering, examining, and acting on intelligence are more efficient. In part because they are simpler, smaller in scale but more effective in comparison to the US model.
However, if the US government and its various security and intelligence organisations are guilty of anything, it is sluggishness, procrastination if you like. There would seem to have been enough intelligence gathered to point to a likely event (I know, likelihood is a matter of analysis), but nothing seemed to have been shaken out, no response was formulated, no counter measures thought of or implemented.
You have to ask why, and I would say that the "why" lies in the interference of government policy in what should be a straight forward security issue.
298. PelleNilsson - 4/12/2004 2:22:15 PM
Yes, Macnas, I couldn't believe my eyes. But I did nothing because I'm already seen by some as an intolerable topicality-obsessed busybody.
299. Macnas - 4/12/2004 3:51:00 PM
Hmm, these things only become clear when you actually go so far as to host a thread.
Yet, amidst the tidal flotsam of American politics that has been the main meat of the posts on this thread, there are some rich pickings for those who want to narrow their focus on terrorism. My post 297 might goad some comparison between European anti-terrorism systems and their American counterparts, now that would be interesting.
300. Wombat - 4/12/2004 3:58:26 PM
When comparing the two "systems," one must remember that terrorism in the United States has never approached the levels of terroism in Europe, and that the FBI usually handled it well, in a solely criminal justice context.
The lack of "history" in the United States has also worked against ideological revolutionary terrorist movements, in that there is neither a Fascist nor a Communist tradition to fight against or be nostalgic about.
301. jayackroyd - 4/12/2004 5:00:16 PM
Well, I'm as guilty as any, Macnas, and for that I apologize.
In my defense, I would note that the rarity of terrorism in the US did affect the ability of the US government to take action against terrorism--and that there is a definite political component to the ability of a government to take strong measures.
302. concerned - 4/12/2004 6:16:25 PM
Re. 301 -
Apologies are not worth much if they aren't followed up with reform, Jay.
303. concerned - 4/12/2004 6:18:37 PM
With the Brits being the best example, the systems in place for gathering, examining, and acting on intelligence are more efficient. In part because they are simpler, smaller in scale but more effective in comparison to the US model.
And, perhaps, at a greater cost to civil liberties. Do you agree or disagree with that, and why?
304. concerned - 4/12/2004 6:22:34 PM
258. arkymalarky - 4/12/2004 5:21:11 PM
Shutting down the entire air travel industry was not an option
Increasing security was damn sure an option, Con'd. Warning people and encouraging airlines to report and act on anything suspicious was an option. Heightening airline security awareness and promoting increased searches and other security actions was an option.
Back then, your comrades were whining about racial profiling. What you're saying now was necessary you would have called a coordinated program of racial discrimination then.
You can't have it both ways, Arky.
305. Wombat - 4/12/2004 6:26:23 PM
The Brits take the view that some liberties must be sacrificed temporarily to allow for a more effective effort against terrorism. It helps that civil liberties are not codified the way they are in the US. Of course, this "temporary" sacrifice has now lasted over 20 years.
The United States is new to this concept, but has adopted it to a certain extent with the Patriot act; as Mr. Padilla will no doubt tell us, now that he can see a lawyer.
306. Wombat - 4/12/2004 6:27:59 PM
Concerned doesn't have a clue when "racial profiling" is appropriate (and legal) and when it is not.
307. concerned - 4/12/2004 6:32:28 PM
Re. 264 -
Your self referential hatefest is pathetic, and bereft of facts or honesty, Wombat. J. Edgar Hoover has been dead since 1972, which you apparently haven't noticed, and cooperation between the FBI and CIA had improved markedly since then until the Xlowntoon era when the CIA was gutted and the FBI was directed to expend most of its energy pursuing 'right wing' militias instead of foreign based domestic terrorism. But not a word of criticism from you about any of that, you shameless political hack.
308. concerned - 4/12/2004 6:33:58 PM
306 is false and a waste of bandwidth.
309. alistairConnor - 4/12/2004 6:58:59 PM
Apologies are not worth much if they aren't followed up with reform, Jay.
(you're suggesting, Con, that the Bush administration is right not to apologise for 9/11, since they haven't reformed anything?)
OK ENOUGH US POLITICS ALREADY.
(he said hypocritically)
310. concerned - 4/12/2004 6:59:44 PM
The Clinton administration was the one that held daily meetings. It was the one who targeted bin Laden.
Meaningless. Xlowntoon turned down two opportunities on a silver platter to take Osama bin Laden into custody. Sadly, you appear to be impressed with the handful of cruise missiles Xlowntoon launched at Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and a couple of nearly deserted Afghani terrorist training camps.
There's a movie you ought to watch, Arky, a parody called 'Wag the Dog' which might give you some perspective regarding Cruise Missile Xlowntoon's actions here.
311. Wombat - 4/12/2004 7:01:52 PM
If 306 is false, Concerned, perhaps you can explain why it is--assuming you know why--of course.
As to 307, the Hoover tradition lasted for a long time after Hoover's demise, as you would know if you had the faintest idea what you are talking about. I also notice that you are imputing qualities to me that are more correctly found in you, a sure sympton of the weakness of your claims.
312. concerned - 4/12/2004 7:01:55 PM
Re. 309 -
This begs the question of what reforms you think are needed, AC.
Be specific and concise.
313. concerned - 4/12/2004 7:03:00 PM
What I can determine from 311 is that you're PMSing again, Wombats.
314. concerned - 4/12/2004 7:05:12 PM
I already outlined the inconsistencies in Arky's attitude toward 'racial profiling'. I take it you agree with me, Wombat.
315. Wombat - 4/12/2004 7:13:59 PM
Since Concerned is only familiar with racial profiling as a straw man to beat his imaginary LWer with, here goes:
1) Stopping people who fit a general profile after a specific crime, or to stretch the point a little, if there is a suspected specific crime= OK
2) Stopping people who fit a general profile based solely on a stereotypical preconception (blacks are drug dealers, etc.)= Not OK.
316. concerned - 4/12/2004 7:15:35 PM
...the Hoover tradition lasted for a long time after Hoover's demise,...
Not long enough to substantiate your point, unfortunately for you. Webster, Sessions and Freeh were anything but subservient to the 'Hoover tradition'.
317. concerned - 4/12/2004 7:18:06 PM
Re. 315 -
Wombats -
I know all that and much more about 'racial profiling'. Howeever, you'd do well to get off your lazy ass and educate your pig ignorant fellow LWers here about these things.
OK?
318. concerned - 4/12/2004 7:22:41 PM
Re. 315 -
Item 2) has typically not been the case in reality, but was more of a rallying point for the ideological LW prior to 9/11 and received wide play in the media.
319. Macnas - 4/12/2004 7:25:43 PM
re 303
Yes you are right Con, civil liberties, rights in fact, are casualties.
As Wombat alluded to in 305, once they are gone, they are gone. They may remain on the books, but in practise once a right has been suspended then it can be suspended indefinetly and arbitrarily, so it really does not exist as a right anymore.
I cannot say I can define how I feel about it in a black or white, yes or no fashion.
I accept that effective anti-terrorism measures, including intelligence gathering, cannot be done without trampling on some of my rights. I accept that as being preferrable to my family or myself becoming a victim of terrorism.
I do worry about the abuse of civil right suspension, and know that it can and will happen.
Thats about as plain as I can make it.
320. Macnas - 4/12/2004 7:33:08 PM
Con
This thread is about terrorism, not about imagined LW vs RW nonsense. Every adminstration the US has had tailors its own response to terrorism, and judging in hindsight can be applied to both republican and democrat administrations.
Therefore it is useless and does not add a damn thing to discussions here.
321. concerned - 4/12/2004 7:48:18 PM
Hi Macnas -
Some of the other posters in this thread, Wombat in particular, are trying to make life difficult for me here, and since their attacks are usually partisan, such dialogue colors the whole thread.
322. Macnas - 4/12/2004 7:51:20 PM
Just ignore those other bad boys con, if they jumped over a cliff would you do the same?
323. alistairConnor - 4/12/2004 8:08:08 PM
312 - as I noted in the slow thread, there is an analogy with Nasa. Huge bureacracies which have lost the ability to analyse and synthesise vast quantities of information/noise, to the degree that they can become effectively disconnected from reality and delusional.
I know nothing about structural reforms of intelligence organisations, but the obvious things are vigorous tree-shaking and interdisciplinary methods.
324. marjoribanks - 4/12/2004 8:42:22 PM
The Failure.
I think this article is best discussed in this thread, given very recent discussions here about intelligence gathering.
Excerpt-
In past decades presidents have used the CIA to carry out acts of war against foreign nations, to attempt to assassinate foreign leaders, to raise funds in order to conduct secret wars, and even, in the notorious instance called Watergate, to attempt to quash the FBI's investigation of a White House–directed burglary team. The current crisis is the result of a White House–directed campaign to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by citing intelligence reports of Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and accelerating programs to build more. But following the fall of Baghdad a CIA team more than a thousand-strong failed to find any WMD stockpiles, and the team's director, David Kay, concluded after six months of fieldwork that Iraq's research- and-development programs had been suspended or shut down years earlier.
This apparent failure of American intelligence is the subject of several ongoing investigations and is bound to be a matter of controversy for years to come. The failure is compounded by what Kay's team actually found— empty warehouses, idle factories and laboratories, as well as clear evidence that the regime in its last years had been corrupt, demoralized, and disintegrating. The CIA, it appears, was not only ignorant of the true state of affairs in Baghdad, where imaginary WMD "programs" were used to extract large sums from an increasingly erratic Saddam Hussein, but the agency's estimating arm in October 2002 had also expressed "high confidence" in a frightening list of allegedly real and present dangers that simply did not exist.
325. jayackroyd - 4/12/2004 9:19:11 PM
Profiling, wrt terrorism (as opposed to NJ Turnpike drug dealer stops) in the US is a reference to a system called CAPS (first decided upon in the late 90s, in the process of implementation on 9/11), given a kickstart by 9/11.
CAPS is a computerized profiling tool that analyzes a combination of personal information (age, gender, country of origin etc) and information about the trip (one way, paid, origination, destination, paid cash etc) to determine whether or not to subject passengers to greater scrutiny. This is believed to be more effective than random checks.
In fact, it is not. The way to circumvent this is to send potential attackers into line and see if they get pulled. When you want to hijack the plane, send those that CAPS has not identified as worth checking.
People defending CAPS say that they are just doing what El Al's very effective security system does. They are wrong. El Al interviews everybody. That is, a thoughtful, alert person (like the custom agent who stopped the millenium attack) talks to each passenger, and speaks to them more closely and more intently when the interviewer doesn't like the answer. And if they don't like the answers, the person doesn't get on the plane.
The US cannot implement such procedures. There are too many people, too many flights, too few alternatives. If you aren't allowed to fly El AL, there are other airlines. This means that the bane of all these systems--the extraordinarily high number of false positives--is minimized. They've turned away hundreds of innocent people in order to stop one terrorist. That's okay for them. Those innocent people flew another airline and suffered serious inconvenience. But if you are going to implement a national system across all airlines, false positives are a big problem. (They're a big problem anyway. Terrorists are so rare that it's always going to hard to catch them.)
326. Wombat - 4/12/2004 9:33:59 PM
Macnas:
Apologies for getting into it with Concerned on this page. However, the idea of him accusing others of excessive partisanship is the pot calling the kettle black, and he should be called on it.
He gets a hard time--from me anyway--because he appears unable to look at any problem or issue in the world without placing it into a somewhat bizarre ideological contruct of his own invention.
327. jayackroyd - 4/12/2004 9:42:52 PM
From an interim report by the 9/11 commission:
Throughout the 1990s, the FBI's counterterrorism efforts against international terrorist organizations included both intelligence and criminal investigations. The FBI's approach to investigations was case-specific, decentralized and geared toward prosecution. Significant FBI resources were devoted to after-the-fact investigations of major terrorist attacks, resulting in several successful prosecutions. The FBI attempted several reform efforts aimed at strengthening its ability to prevent such attacks, but these reform efforts failed to effect change organization-wide. On September 11, 2001, the FBI was limited in several areas critical to an effective counterterrorism strategy that could prevent attacks. Those working counterterrorism matters did so despite limited intelligence collection and strategic analysis capabilities, despite a limited capacity to share information, both internally and externally, despite insufficient training, an overly complex legal regime, and despite inadequate resources.
The question is whether 9/11 was enough to 1) motivate the administration to make changes and 2)permit the administration to effect the changes that were apparent following the 1993 WTC bombing.
From Condi's testimony, I would guess that this administration also has failed, so far, in reforming the FBI.
It isn't counter-terrorism if you wait for it to happen, and then catch the guys you knew were gonna do it.
328. jexster - 4/12/2004 11:26:42 PM
9/11
Ashcroft Exposed
Today, Attorney General John Ashcroft undertakes the formidable task of defending his lackluster counterterrorism record before the 9/11 Commission. According to draft reports prepared by the commission, Ashcroft was "largely uninterested in counterterrorism issues before Sept. 11, despite intelligence warnings that summer that al Qaeda was planning a large, perhaps catastrophic, terrorist attack." In a desperate attempt to preserve his reputation, Ashcroft repeatedly lied about his record to a joint Congressional committee in February 2002. For example, Ashcroft said that, immediately after 9/11, the FBI "came to me with a $670 million request, and we counseled them to take that to $ 1.1 billion." But an internal Justice Department document obtained by American Progress reveals that "the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts" which Ashcroft cut to $531 million. Ashcroft spokesman Mark Corallo attempted to dismiss the documents because they were circulated by a "think tank run by top former Clinton aide John Podesta" – but he did not dispute their authenticity or validity. See the internal documents obtained by American Progress.
ASHCROFT SLASHED COUNTERTERRORISM IN HIS FIRST MONTH:
ASHCROFT'S MISPLACED PRIORITIES: In May 2001, Ashcroft wrote a "budget goals memo" outlining his top seven priorities. Counterterrorism was not mentioned.
WHY DID ASHCROFT STOP FLYING COMMERCIAL AIRLINES PRIOR TO 9/11?:
WHY DID ASHCROFT ALLOW BIN LADENS TO LEAVE THE U.S. WITHOUT QUESTIONING?:
IF YOU ARE UNSUCESSFUL, CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF SUCESS:At least 20 of the most dangerous Al Qaeda terrorists are still at large.
329. jexster - 4/12/2004 11:27:34 PM
The Failed War Presidency of GWB
330. PelleNilsson - 4/12/2004 11:41:35 PM
Here we go again.
331. Absensia - 4/13/2004 12:35:31 AM
Ashcroft is testifying right now. He says 9/11 and failure to try to avoid it was everyone's fault but his and the administrations. He denies everything Picard and Black said.
It is not a good thing to watch this right after eating.
332. judithathome - 4/13/2004 12:41:46 AM
Well, he DID say that it was Bill Clinton's fault, too.
333. Absensia - 4/13/2004 12:52:24 AM
Yes, he did include Clinton and the budget that was too low. And, gee, no way could he ask for more money,before the new budget came into effect, right? Hah!
334. concerned - 4/13/2004 12:57:17 AM
Kerrey: US Was 'Just as Vulnerable' During Clinton Years
Actually, the US was more vulnerable during the reign of Xruise Missile Xlowntoon.
335. jexster - 4/13/2004 1:03:24 AM
HEADS UP: Obe Juan Cole on NewsHour tonight
336. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:03:38 AM
So, because the Bush Administration didn't finish fixing before 9/11 what the Xlowntoon Administration actually worsened over eight years, it's supposed to be 'all the fault' of the Bush Administration?
337. jexster - 4/13/2004 1:05:15 AM
US may have been as vulnerable but at least we had a president who did not ignore the problem and then make it worse...
How many Jihadist attacks during Clinton years?
How many Jihadist attacks post 9-11?
How many Americans died in Iraq before March 2003?
How many after?
Case closed
338. vonKreedon - 4/13/2004 1:16:55 AM
Guys - Discussion of political blame and name calling should go to American Politics. The title and description of this thread are:
Terrorism in 2004: causes and countermeasures
Cause and effect
339. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:19:48 AM
vK -
That 8 year gap when little was done about terrorism except to wag the dog has to be explained somehow.
340. vonKreedon - 4/13/2004 1:20:49 AM
But not here, go to American Politics.
341. jexster - 4/13/2004 1:21:21 AM
Then explain it in AP...
I'll be waiting
342. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:22:11 AM
Puhleeze.
By the same token, you can't discuss anything that happened in the eight months after 2001, either.
343. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:22:40 AM
....after 2001 began that is.
344. thoughtful - 4/13/2004 1:24:27 AM
I have a genuine question which perhaps someone here can answer. Condi kept mentioning structural impediments to communications which have since changed.
What is the deal with the CIA and the FBI. I know that at one point it was verboten for the CIA to get involved in domestic affairs. Was this by presidential choice/directive? Congressional act? Law? Was it actually illegal for the CIA and FBI to share info or just discouraged?
345. jexster - 4/13/2004 1:27:30 AM
Yes and no....Congressional statute amended in Patriot act but
Why does Bush NOW say its time to reform intelligence?
Could it be that he wants to distract our attention from his pre-911 and post 9-11 failures?
From his lies?
From the fact that Bush's "war presidency" since 911 has made the US less safe, more hated, and weakened our ability to fight jihadist terror?
346. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:27:52 AM
How many Jihadist attacks during Clinton years?
WTC 1
Khobar Towers
African Embassies
USS Kohl
Off the top of my head. I know there's more.
That's four major attacks over eight years that the Xlowntoon Administration did virtually nothing about.
347. jexster - 4/13/2004 1:28:15 AM
Why do we have to reform our intelligence services NOW TD, nearly 3 years after 9/11?
348. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:29:38 AM
Maybe that's just lip service to the 9/11 Commission.
349. vonKreedon - 4/13/2004 1:31:36 AM
Maybe it would be nice and useful to have a discussion of why people choose to use terrorism and what can be done about it, but I guess we'll never know.
350. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:32:35 AM
Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare waged by people with few ethical principles.
351. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:33:42 AM
The best thing for such people is to infuse them with a proper regard for their fellow humans.
352. concerned - 4/13/2004 1:39:47 AM
Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare waged by people with few ethical principles.
I should add, usually to promote an ideology or religion not fit for human society.
353. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:07:30 AM
Pseudoconservatism's worship of force in human affairs is a particularly troubling and dangerous trait at this time, given that international terrorism has evolved into a self-organizing network that feeds off violence to gain more recruits. (6) For all his neurotic love of hierarchy and authoritarianism, the pseudoconservative has the potential to unleash the very chaos and anarchy he fears. We can only hope pseudoconservatism dies of its own contradictions before it consumes our peace of mind, our wallets, and our sons.
They did less than nothing before 9/11 and because they were so ideologically blinded, they did worse than nothing post 9/11
The Bush administration, blind to reality, fundamentally misconstrued the threat.
They quite simply couldn't find their way to the front with a roadmap.
Now they are reduced to guess what....blaming Clinton.
354. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:08:22 AM
Give some Abrams and some f-16's make it symmetrical.
355. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:11:47 AM
Foreign policy messianism a/k/a revolutionary conservatism
In the post-Enlightenment era, the number of persons who have sought comprehensively to reorder the global political structure is a restricted one: Napoleon, Wilson, Lenin, Hitler, perhaps a few other less renowned lunatics. One would hesitate a long time before pronouncing any of them a Burkean conservative. Yet the modern pseudoconservative seeks national redemption in good works delivered through the barrel of a gun.
This contradiction of the small government principle of conservatism is so glaring that one would imagine it would be evident to a child. Yet it is a cornerstone of the pseudoconservative delusion.
Several panjandrums of the neoconservative wing of pseudoconservatism have openly called for an American empire. Quite apart from their glaring betrayal of the principles of a constitutional republic, these Borscht Belt Bismarcks appeal to a strain in the populace that is at once inclined to seek empire and disinclined to run it rationally.
Those most ardently receptive to the idea of American empire are boorish, militaristic (as long as it is someone else being shot at; refer back to point 3), and provincial. Hardly the cosmopolitan outlook that, say, the British Colonial Office would have cultivated, and hardly the worldly wisdom required to administer the Punjab.
Likewise, empire could only succeed if the United States were to maintain tolerably good relations with third countries. But the pseudoconservative cannot forgo his compulsion to bait foreigners so as to enhance his credentials as a "man of the people" among the electorate. This technique is a favorite in political stump speeches and on talk radio
Cartoon characters trying to play cowboy in a very real world..very dangerous
356. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:16:42 AM
TD is none too reluctant to spew his bigotry and parade his ignorance. That would be fine, our bigots confined to their quarters in Mayberry, but ya see the little boy has a problem....
Iraq is Muslim and our colony.
Why They Throw Rocks - William Lind, a REAL not a Cartoon conservative
357. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:24:27 AM
While the neo-cons’ thesis says nothing about reality, it says a great deal about the neo-cons themselves. First, it tells us that they are ideologues. All ideologies posit that certain things must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That evidence is to be suppressed, along with the people who insist on pointing to it. Sadly, the neo-cons have been able to do exactly that within the Bush Administration, and the mess in Iraq is the price.
Second, it reveals the nature of the neo-con ideology, which has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism (as Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology). The neo-cons in fact are Jacobins, les ultras of the French Revolution who also tried to export “human rights” (which are very different from the concrete, specific rights of Englishmen) on bayonets. Then, the effort eventually united all of Europe against France. Today, it is uniting the rest of the world against America.
Finally it reveals the neo-cons as fools, lightweights who can dismiss history and culture because they know nothing of history or culture. The first generation of neo-cons were serious intellectuals, Trotskyites but serious Trotskyites. The generation now in power in Washington is made up of poseurs who happen to have the infighting skills of the Sopranos. If you don’t believe me, look at Mr. Wolfowitz’s book. Or, more precisely, look for Mr. Wolfowitz’s book (hint: he never wrote one).
Reality 1 Neo-cons 0 Wiiliam Lind of Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation
358. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:35:14 AM
VK ...Let me explain the relevance of the foregoing 9/11 discussion to the topic.
The facts establish that the Bush Administration misconstrued the nature of the terrorist threat this after ignoring it altogether.
They viewed terrorism as fundamentally a problem of nation states when such an outmoded construct had really very little to do with states.
Jihadist terror is an international phenomenon. This Clinton seemed to partially understand (significant fact - the 9/11 Commission was unanimously effusive in its praise of Clinton and Gore's appearances)
And while Clinton lacked the political capital and the will to do something about terror (a deficit largely chargeable to the GOP cumstained dress crowd BTW), Bush ignored it altogether as Rice and Ashcroft have demonstrated beyond dispute.
So there's the relevance. Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy.
The psuedoconservatives aching for an Evil Empire to do battle with now look like just so many Don Quixotes and TD Sancho Panza.
359. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:37:11 AM
They won't take responsibility BECUAUSE THEY CANNOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
(Occam's Razor....)
Because if they did take responsibility, they would only admit the bankruptcy of their ideas, the fraud that is their motive, and the lies that are their stock in trade.
360. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:38:47 AM
Now TD...take your complaint to Bush's god...
361. jexster - 4/13/2004 3:49:05 AM
From Madrid to Berlin to Baghdad to London to Bumfuck USA the whole world is waking up to the fact that the biggest menace to the Western World does not reside in a cave in Pakistan but in the palace of the New Imperium....
Liberals know it, real conservatives know it....the CIA knows it...and that's why all are uniting to remove the greatest menace ...
This essay first appeared in the March 2004 edition of Prospect magazine.
America's "Jacksonian" nationalism is responsible for turning the US from a conservative power to a revolutionary one
American nationalism today imperils America's global leadership and its success in the war against terrorism. More than any other factor, it is this nationalism which divides the US from a post-nationalist Europe. And insofar as it has become mixed up with a chauvinist strain of Israeli nationalism, it also plays a disastrous role in US relations with the Muslim world.
Demon in the cellar - Anatol Lieven
Its a Perfect Firestorm ...and it has arrived just in the nick of time....
362. Wombat - 4/13/2004 5:57:47 AM
Instead of pullling simplistic definitions out of one's posterior, as some are wont to do, let's try one that attempts to make a bias-free definition that covers many accepted attributes of terrorism:
"Terrorism is a method of combat in which random or symbolic victims serve as instrumental 'targets of violence.' These instrumental victims share group or class characteristics that form the basis for their selection for victimization. Through previous use of violence, or the credible threat of violence, other members of that group or class are put in a 'state of chronic fear (terror).' This group or class, whose members' sense of security is purposively undermined, is the 'target of terror.' The victimization of the target of violence is considered extranormal by most observers from the witnessing audience on the basis of its atrocity; the time (e.g. peacetime) or place (not a battlefield) of victimization or the disregard for rules accepted in conventional warfare. The norm violation creates an attentive audience beyond the target of terror; sectors of this audience might in turn form the main object of manipulation. The purpose of this indirect method of combat is eiother to immobilize the target of terror in order to produce disorientation and/or compliance, or to mobilize secondary 'targets of demands (e.g. a government) or 'targets of attention (e.g. public opinion) to changes of attitude or behavior favoring the short or long-term interests of this metod of combat."
Alex P. Schmid, Political Terrorism (1983).
363. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 6:02:19 AM
This definition includes state terror as well, as with the Blitz or Hiroshima, which I think has to part of the discussion.
364. jexster - 4/13/2004 7:24:18 AM
Good catch Wombat...terrorism is a tactic, a tactic of states and of the stateless...of some causes we might like, and some we don't.
It is no more an "enemy" than any killing is an "enemy". No more an enemy than blitzkreig was an enemy.
It takes more than tactics to make an enemy
365. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 7:27:47 AM
So jex, echoing Pelle, can we explore the tactic here? It's true that I may have, in Pelle's view, drifted off topic in bringing up the difficulty of focusing an ossified criminal justice apparatus on terrorism, and if macnas agrees, I apologize.
But the tactic, and the response, is itself worth exploring.
366. concerned - 4/13/2004 8:13:44 AM
Wombats -
After letting 358 pass without comment, you cannot have any credibility in this matter, so have the goodness to put a cork in your comments regarding me.
367. jexster - 4/13/2004 8:17:09 AM
Oh shut up Tommie....
and Jay how can we consider terrorism without considering failures in counter-terrorism?
Shut your pie hole TD.
368. concerned - 4/13/2004 8:17:36 AM
Re. 364 -
Do you support the 'war on drugs', Ayatollah Jexstani?
369. jexster - 4/13/2004 8:17:54 AM
George the Talking Bass in AP
370. jexster - 4/13/2004 8:19:30 AM
What part of "shut your pie hole" do you not understand?
Did your parents have any children that lived?
371. concerned - 4/13/2004 8:20:27 AM
Your mother sure thought so.
372. Macnas - 4/13/2004 12:43:18 PM
Cool your jets, you pair of langers.
373. alistairConnor - 4/13/2004 12:56:17 PM
This is unfortunately topical, but I like to work with concrete examples.
Questions for the panel :
a) Did the killing and mutilations of the Blackwater security people constitute terrorism?
b) Does the US response to it constitute terrorism?
Americans drop demand for handover of killers in Falluja atrocity
So, what were the objectives in the aborted siege of Falluja?
Were they achieved?
How did occupying the main hospital help to achieve them?
374. Macnas - 4/13/2004 1:30:16 PM
Before I have a think about alistais post..
Lets put a few things to bed, so to speak.
I think we can all agree, the most of us at any rate, that terrorism can be best defined as a tactic. You may add more by way of explanation, but in plain terms, that's what it is.
I think we can also agree that the level of preparedness and indeed the response to the biggest act of terrorism so far (in terms of scale, death toll etc), the destruction of the twin towers, was directly influenced by the policy of the US government, for good or for bad.
Any further debate on this, other than where it lends itself to the discussion in terms of clarification or useful example, is pointless.
375. Wombat - 4/13/2004 3:12:14 PM
Alistair:
1) No
2) No
376. Wombat - 4/13/2004 3:50:47 PM
Jay:
The definition above definitely excludes the Blitz or Hiroshima, as they took place during wartime.
377. Macnas - 4/13/2004 4:07:40 PM
re 373
A. Initially I thought the attack itself could have been classed as an act of terrorism, as the target was a non-military convoy. However, looking at it again I find it hard to think why such convoys exist without military protection, and indeed, the fact that mercenaries are being used for security makes me think of it as military by proxy. The actions of the mob afterwards, where the corpses of the dead were mutilated, can be classed as barbarism in its truest sense, not terrorism. It might have had the effect of an act of terrorism, but I'm sure that was not going through the minds of those cutting up the corpses.
B. No it was not. While the population of Falluja may have been terrorised by the fighting, the US was engaging in very aggressive police action, not military action. Trying to find those responsible is as pointless as it is impossible. It would seem to be an extension of the Afghanistan policy, or the “hunt them down, smoke them out” policy.
As for the occupation of the hospital, I suppose I could come up with a few theories, but it would only be uninformed speculation on my part.
378. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 4:23:08 PM
The victimization of the target of violence is considered extranormal by most observers from the witnessing audience on the basis of its atrocity; the time (e.g. peacetime) or place (not a battlefield) of victimization or the disregard for rules accepted in conventional warfare.
The closest I can see, 'Bat, that limits this definition to exclude state actions that take place during wartime is this. But Nagasaki was not a battlefield. The targets were not military. The goal (at Dresden or the Blitz, say) was to induce fear, not to advance any military objective.
The use of this word is actually becoming a real issue; the president is labelling "terrorist" actions that would normally be seen as military actions in opposition to a colonial war of occupation.
379. PelleNilsson - 4/13/2004 5:06:01 PM
I looked around the net for a definition of terrorism. Wombat quoted Schmid (1983). He came up with a shorter version in 1988:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought".
Quote available at Unted Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
380. Wombat - 4/13/2004 5:23:03 PM
Jay:
If it is in wartime, for better or for worse, almost anything goes. Most of the cities targeted for mass casualty bombing raids were legitimate targets. One exception was Rotterdam, which had already surrendered, but was bombed anyway, due to an alleged miscommunication. Nagasaki was an operating seaport. The only city which had no strategic value at all in Japan was Kyoto, which was deliberately spared. Destroying Kyoto would have been an atrocity.
381. Macnas - 4/13/2004 5:23:59 PM
The short version makes more sense to me.
382. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 5:30:38 PM
Early on in this discussion I raised the issue of terrorism as acts of states. Macnas (harking to authority) agreed that state acts can be terrorist acts--acts directed against civilians for the purpose of invoking fear and opposition to a particular political path. The Blitz was a terror campaign. The US nukes in Japan were terror attacks. Much of the US bombing campaign in Vietnam consisted of terror attacks. (You should hear my uncle the b52 pilot in that war talk about his targets.)
On the other side, what about oppressed, nearly powerless uprisings? If it's legitimate to nuke Hiroshima to advance a political goal and shorten a war, how is not legitimate to blow up a pizza parlor to advance a political goal?
383. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 5:32:30 PM
Destroying Kyoto would have been an atrocity.
Can't argue with that.
But what is wartime? Are the Palestinians at war? The other guys are using tanks and gunships. Is it anything goes there?
384. Macnas - 4/13/2004 5:58:23 PM
re 380
Bombing entire, or the most part of, cities is I think a very particular form of terrorism as carried out by the armed forces of a state.
The industrial centres of most cities are centred around the port area, or main rail arteries, thereby making bombing the strategic part of said city straightforward insofar as bombing can be. There will be peripheral destruction of civilian areas, but not as a deliberate target.
Bombing an entire city area is done to cow the population in general, to send a message, to demoralise the enemy people. It is not strategic in the strict military sense of the word, and as a tactic, considering the target and the desired effect, is better defined as an act of terrorism.
385. PelleNilsson - 4/13/2004 6:08:20 PM
So now that we have defined the WWII allies as terrorists the next step is to claim moral equivalence between Al Qaida and them. We are sliding down the slippery slope of relativism.
386. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 6:16:39 PM
Pelle--
You can't shriek about the horrific deaths of dozens of innocent women and children one day, and kill them by the thousands the next. In my view.
You can define terrorism as retail slaughter of innocents by people with a political goal but no resources to speak of, if you like. If that's our working definition, fine. But let's make it explicit--wholesale slaughter of innocents by states with lots of resources is, uh, what, "collateral damage."
But what's really interesting here is that you're implicitly saying that the deaths of civilians with the objective of defeating the Nazis was okay. But the deaths of civilians with objective of advancing Islamism is not okay. The objective underlying the purposeful killing of civilians matters.
That's an argument worth making. But the word "terrorism" is a bit of propaganda that gets in the way of that discussion, don't you think?
387. alistairConnor - 4/13/2004 6:43:16 PM
But the word "terrorism" is a bit of propaganda that gets in the way of that discussion, don't you think?
It certainly seems to be a meaningless buzz-word to most people in the arab/muslim world -- the term having been, to a large degree, demonetised by indiscriminate use by all parties.
388. PelleNilsson - 4/13/2004 6:51:55 PM
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that defining the allies as terrorists and Al Qaida as terrorists implies moral equivalence between the two. One might argue that the one act was to defend democracy and the other was to advance fundamentalist Islam but the idea that one of these goals is "better" than the other is just a value judgement with no intrinsic weight.
But, yes, I did intend to demonstrate that we may lose ourselves in a semantic quagmire (good that CalGal is not here) and I see no easy solution to that, except perhaps if we limit the discussion to groups that use terrorism to acheive utopian goals. Al Qaida would fit that definition and so would Hamas.
389. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 7:01:22 PM
Wombat--
I guess I'm feeling a bit fuzzy today, so it took me a while to get to this, but are you claiming that US nuke attacks against Japan were strategic, and not directed at the civilian population?
390. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 7:07:25 PM
One might argue that the one act was to defend democracy
perhaps if we limit the discussion to groups that use terrorism to acheive utopian goals.
I think you need to reexamine your logic.
I have some idea what you are driving at here, but I don't think it's been fully articulated, and, I suspect, that it will be hard to articulate. Much activity that is labeled terrorist is that of ethnic groups striving for a state--the IRA, the Basques, the Palestinians, maybe the Tamils.
In some sense, the people that Bush labels "terrist" are those trying to upset estabilished states by attacks on civilians. But if it's terrorism to target civilians to foment fear and change political views, then it seems to me something of a cheat to say it only counts if you are otherwise powerless. If anything, there is something much more shameful about Nagasaki than a suicide bombing of a pizza place by a hopeless, impoverished Palestinian.
391. alistairConnor - 4/13/2004 7:20:22 PM
I think it's interesting to examine the semantic quagmire, because Bush has been allowed to confiscate the definition of the word "terrorism" (it means exactly what I damn well say it means).
392. Macnas - 4/13/2004 7:23:22 PM
re 385/388
If there is a problem, it might be the word "terrorist", as opposed to "terrorism".
Anyone, or any country, can use terrorism as a tactic. That does not define them as a terrorist. I do not judge the ww2 allies as terrorists, but I do know that they used terrorism from time to time to achieve their ends. And I'm being factual, not judgmental.
393. Macnas - 4/13/2004 7:29:40 PM
re 390
Jay, I disagree to an extent. While terrorism might be an economical necessity in some instances, more often than not it is a deliberate choice which brings about a desired effect, the wherewithal of the instigator notwithstanding.
As to the validity of the suicide bomb in the pizza shop, does it really matter if the blower-upper is hopeless and impoverished, or confident and well-to-do?
394. Macnas - 4/13/2004 7:44:39 PM
Before I head off, here is a good article on the mercenary situation in Iraq.
395. PelleNilsson - 4/13/2004 7:58:33 PM
Is there a more neutral word? Insurgents?
396. jayackroyd - 4/13/2004 8:27:13 PM
As to the validity of the suicide bomb in the pizza shop, does it really matter if the blower-upper is hopeless and impoverished, or confident and well-to-do?
No. That's my point. I agree with your earlier comment that it is more fruitful to look at the tactic, and not the entity employing the tactic.
397. PelleNilsson - 4/13/2004 9:22:07 PM
Bush has been allowed to confiscate the definition of the word "terrorism"
That is an interesting point. Real-life politics is not, as some persons believe, about finding solutions to problems, but about finding problems that fit your solutions. In Bush's case the pre-existing solution was taking out Saddam and therefore the 911 problem had to be defined to fit into that.
398. concerned - 4/14/2004 12:00:24 AM
Bush has been allowed to confiscate the definition of the word "terrorism"
That is hyperbole.
399. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 12:12:45 AM
The point is, the word is seriously compromised with respect to iraqis.
Firstly, Bush said, and continues to say, that the intervention in Iraq is part of a global war on terrorism (that this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy is beside the point, it wasn't true at the time). Now he is saying that the current troubles are caused by a few thugs and terrorists.
Now, there have certainly been some terrorist actions in Iraq -- the huge bomb at the mosque comes to mind -- but I have seen nothing to indicate that Sadr's Mehdi bunch engage in it.
So when Americans talk of terrorism in Iraq, I can see three possible responses from Iraqis (in decreasing order of pro-americanness) :
- They are only against terrorism when it suits them
- They are as bad as the terrorists, they are terrorists too
- If they are against terrorism, then we are for it.
400. concerned - 4/14/2004 1:13:47 AM
Re. 399 -
My understanding has been that al-Sadr is attempting to terrorize Iraqis (who else?), and he is doing so against the express wishes of al-Sistani (not my favorite individual, but he does seem susceptible to reason), an aide of whose has said about al-Sadr's terrorism: "We asked Moqtada (al-Sadr) to stop resorting to violence, occupying public buildings and other actions that make him an outlaw. He insists on staying on the same course that could destroy the nation."
So, al-Sadr represents what amounts to a small minority of Shiites, let alone Iraqis as a whole, yet he appears to represent a threat to the formation of a stable Iraqi state, according to al-Sistani.
So, I cannot accept a hypothetical as realistic that assumes that al-Sadr somehow represents Iraqis as a whole.
401. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 1:25:06 AM
Off subject, Con. Unless you can cite specific examples of terrorism by Sadr or his henchpersons.
(I'm not saying there are none. But I don't think it's accurate to characterise the events of the past week or so as terrorism.)
402. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 1:41:31 AM
Ambience in Falluja
Azzam is driving, Ahmed in the middle directing him and me by the window, the visible foreigner, the passport. Something scatters across my hand, simultaneous with the crashing of a bullet through the ambulance, some plastic part dislodged, flying through the window.
We stop, turn off the siren, keep the blue light flashing, wait, eyes on the silhouettes of men in US marine uniforms on the corners of the buildings. Several shots come. We duck, get as low as possible and I can see tiny red lights whipping past the window, past my head. Some, it’s hard to tell, are hitting the ambulance. I start singing. What else do you do when someone’s shooting at you? A tyre bursts with an enormous noise and a jerk of the vehicle.
Terrorism?
Dunno, but the Geneva Convention it ain't.
403. concerned - 4/14/2004 1:42:03 AM
To the contrary. Al-Sadr's actions meet most, if not all the definitions of terrorism, since other Iraqis are the main victims overall. It's the progress toward a stable Iraq that is being threatened here by al-Sadr's terrorism.
404. concerned - 4/14/2004 2:22:50 AM
Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her Conflict of Interest
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement:
"Yesterday, a 1995 memo written by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie Gorelick, in her former role as the second in command at the Justice Department, revealed her actions in establishing the heightened 'wall' prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information. Scrutiny of this policy lies at the heart of the Commission's work. Ms. Gorelick has an inherent conflict of interest as the author of this memo and as a government official at the center of the events in questions. Thus, I believe the Commission's work and independence will be fatally damaged by the continued participation of Ms. Gorelick as a Commissioner. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Gorelick should resign from this Commission.
"The Commission's Guidelines on Recusals state, 'Commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service.' Commissioner Gorelick's memo directing a policy that 'go[es] beyond what is legally required' indicates that her judgment and actions as the Deputy Attorney General in the Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the Commission. Indeed Attorney General Ashcroft called this DOJ policy, 'the single greatest structural cause for September 11 ... [and] embraced flawed legal reasoning.' Commissioner Gorelick is in the unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the Commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue. The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives.
405. concerned - 4/14/2004 2:25:26 AM
"While it is regrettable that this conflict had not come to light sooner, this Commission's work and forthcoming recommendations are too important to be questioned in this way, and may be devalued by Ms. Gorelick's continued participation as a Commissioner. Given Ms. Gorelick's work as the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno, Ms. Gorelick can be quite valuable to the Commission's work preparing 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.' However, that contribution should come as a witness before the Commission - not as a member.
"Key figures like former FBI Director Freeh, Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke, and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice have all testified before the Commission and would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the Commission. Testifying before the Commission is Ms. Gorelick's proper role, not sitting as a member of this independent commission."
Is the 'wag the dog' crowd serious enough about improving the US anti-terrorism capability to call for Gorelick's recusal and subsequent testimony to the 9/11 Commission?
I seriously doubt this.
Note well when Gorelick made this official JD policy. 1995, some six years before 9/11.
406. concerned - 4/14/2004 2:28:05 AM
Indeed Attorney General Ashcroft called this (Gorelick's) DOJ policy, 'the single greatest structural cause for September 11 ... [and] embraced flawed legal reasoning.'
407. concerned - 4/14/2004 2:31:41 AM
In a way, it's touching to see the implicit faith that LWers place in the relative competence of the Bush Administration in cleaning up the mess made by eight years of Xlowntoon, Stooge Reno and their minions, in less than a mere eight months.
408. jexster - 4/14/2004 2:36:16 AM
Bush's foreign policy is made in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem just changed 40 years of US policy in the Middle East.
GWB poster boy for Al Qaeda recruitment.
409. jexster - 4/14/2004 2:37:32 AM
That's right, Ashcroft blames everyone but himself.
The Commission blamed Ashcroft.
The Bush regime and responsiblity have never met.
410. jexster - 4/14/2004 2:41:23 AM
The most laughably, transparently gutless group of liars and crooks I have ever seen.
You'd think they weren't running the country on 9/11, and if you thought that you'd be right
Follow the bouncing buck as they blame everyone else for their legacy...
Let's see what the People of NYC have to say when they come trying to claim credit for fighting terror.
411. jexster - 4/14/2004 2:44:05 AM
Bush, No Plan, No Apologies
Ashcroft Passes the Buck
Thanks for pointing that out TD
412. concerned - 4/14/2004 2:49:24 AM
How is Ashcroft responsible for Stooge Reno's Injustice Department, al-Jexstani?
413. concerned - 4/14/2004 2:50:20 AM
Having problems with causality, al-Jexstani?
414. concerned - 4/14/2004 2:55:41 AM
A clearer case for recusal I have seldom seen. If Gorelick does not recuse herself, she'll seriously compromise, if not totally discredit, the whole 9/11 Commission.
415. concerned - 4/14/2004 3:08:37 AM
How has this been missed? If there isn't massive pressure to boot Gorelick from the 9/11 Commission, they might just as well declare that they're really just on a witch hunt.
416. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:17:53 AM
About a week ago, I predicted that the GOP having failed in their character assassination campaign against Richard Clarke and facing an adverse report from the 9-11 Commission in July would launch an attack on the Commission it tried all along to kill.
I expected the attack would be launched in June.
It was launched today.
Last week the author of Message # 404 sniffed "Why? The Commmission will support Bush."
Well, now we see why.
The author of that message has less integrity, less respect for the truth than a liar because he is a BULLSHITTER.
Worse than a liar who at least acknowledges the truth in his lie.
Too bad asshole, the commission unanimously supports Gorelick and will paste Bush for his failures.
417. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:21:20 AM
Archvist take note:
If there isn't massive pressure to boot Gorelick from the 9/11 Commission, they might just as well declare that they're really just on a witch hunt.
Shouldn't be hard to find this little charlatan's prior comments in Elections...it was only a week ago.
For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
418. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:24:09 AM
Entry Word: impostor
Function: noun
Text: one who passes himself off as something or someone he is not
Synonyms fake, faker, fraud, humbug, phony, pretender; compare CHARLATAN
Related Word imitator, mimic; beguiler, deceiver, misleader; cheat, pettifogger, shyster, trickster; hypocrite; charlatan, mountebank, quack; bluffer, dissembler, four-flusher, shammer
419. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:29:42 AM
Less than a week...how pathetic.
And you wonder why Bush has lost his credibility?
Vacationing Bush Clueless About 9/11
Appearing on CNN, Gorelick said: "All of the commission members have some government experience. Everyone is subject to the same recusal policies. You could have had a commission with nobody who knew anything about government. And I don't think it would have been a very helpful commission."
Kean, asked about the issue at a news conference, dismissed the request and said Gorelick was one of the hardest-working and nonpartisan members of the commission. He also said she had recused herself from involvement in issues on which she worked while serving in government.
Get ready...the 9/11 Commission Report is coming
420. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:31:13 AM
Less than a week.
You wanna know why this country is losing the WOT...look no further than Message # 406
421. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:41:13 AM
IF they're trying to hide something, they have something to hide
9-11 Commission - Something to Hide
STRIPPING AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INDEPENDENCE: When the President reversed himself on 9/27/02 and signed the law creating the 9/11 Commission, the Administration specifically touted the commission's independence. But according to USA Today, the White House has now demanded to review the commission's report before it is made public, raising the possibility that it will be tainted by White House political operatives, and delayed until after the election. 9/11 Commission Chairman Gov. Tom Kean said he was "surprised" at the demand, while Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton said "we're not going to let them distort our report." The move is reminiscent of the President's effort to strip the WMD commission of its independence, and also raises fresh concerns about the White House's efforts to prevent the facts about 9/11 from coming out: last year, President Bush hid information about his long-time friends in the Saudi royal family by classifying sections of the bipartisan 9/11 congressional report that detailed the Saudi government's potential complicity in the 9/11 attacks
Excerpts from "Against All Enemies"
422. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:43:15 AM
Ancient of Days here...people it ain't rocket science
423. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 4:43:16 AM
But according to USA Today, the White House has now demanded to review the commission's report before it is made public, raising the possibility that it will be tainted by White House political operatives, and delayed until after the election. 9/11 Commission Chairman Gov. Tom Kean said he was "surprised" at the demand, while Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton said "we're not going to let them distort our report."
This has been expected. The 9/11 families have been anticipating this for some time.
424. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:46:14 AM
Commission Tim Roemer, the Brother In Law, is too sharp for them.
He knows what they're up to. He had to fight Cheney on behalf of 9/11 families to prevent Bush from killing the authrorizing legislation and then had to fight tooth against fingernail to keep Bush from killing it.
On Lou Dobbs he WELCOMED Bush's statement last night that he, three years after, would welcome working with the commission.
425. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:47:00 AM
But that's the way they operate. Bush flim flams, Sennsenbrenner hatchets.
We've seen it a hundred times.
426. OhioSTOPAS - 4/14/2004 4:49:06 AM
The right wing's current soundbite is that the Clinton administration was wrong to "treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter" instead of as "war". (Thus the Clinton administration's response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing - catching, prosecuting, and imprisoning the perpetrators - can be declared faulty. Yeah, they caught the bad guys, but catching the bad guys is what you do when you're "treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter." Therefore bad.)
But it seems to me that preventing non-state-supported terrorist acts it IS primarily a law enforcement matter (albeit international in scope). It's law enforcement agencies, not the military, that prevent terrorist attacks, and terrorist acts succeed when these agencies fail. The 9/11 and Millennium plots are evidence of this.
The right's "law enforcement matter" soundbite sounds like it makes sense until you think about it for five seconds and realize it has no substance.
427. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:49:22 AM
four-flusher
humbug
mountebank
428. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:52:08 AM
Why is there so much bullshit? [. . . ] Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more extensive than his knowledge of the / facts that are relevant to that topic
429. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:58:01 AM
"The Rise of the Baby al-Qaidas"
From: CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Husain Haqqani
In a new article for Salon, the author makes the case that Bush's failed strategy in the war on terrorism has spawned more al-Qaidas -- and they're funded by the booming heroin traffic in Afghanistan.
430. jexster - 4/14/2004 4:59:59 AM
Instead of governing, they slime
Instead of fighting terror, they flail.
431. jexster - 4/14/2004 5:02:42 AM
; beguiler,
deceiver,
cheat,
shammer
Instead of taking responsibility, they pass the buck.
432. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 6:43:05 AM
426
Aha--an on topic comment. To that degree is preventing terrorism a law enforcement matter, and to what degree is it foreign engagement by military forces. The lesson that should have been learned from the 1993 WTC bombing is that prevention is more important than building a case; that stopping attacks by foreign nationals (and then deporting them) is more important than letting them make the attack, and sew up the case.
But this raises numerous side issues. Jose Padilla is in jail, incommunicado, because he, apparently, thought about a dirty bomb. Is that enough to justify preventitive detention--that he thought about doing something? If you raise the bar to his actually doing something to further that aim, then don't you run the risk that you'll miss his further plans, when you could've stopped him in the early planning stages?
To what extent is preventitive detention justified? (The obvious polar case is that you lock up everybody. No attacks happen, but the economy tanks.)
433. concerned - 4/14/2004 8:34:32 AM
I just thought about a dirty bomb, jay. How come I'm not going to jail?
434. concerned - 4/14/2004 8:37:38 AM
Demand that Gorelick testify to the 9/11 Commission!
435. concerned - 4/14/2004 8:40:37 AM
In fact, jay. I did more than think about a dirty bomb. I just communicated to the world that I had this thought.
So, I put it to you, why am I not going go jail?
436. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 8:48:43 AM
I'm forwarding your message to the Justice Department. We'll see what happens.
437. concerned - 4/14/2004 8:49:00 AM
You going to rat me out for thinking about a dirty bomb, jay?
Gonna sic the Feds on me? Huh? Huh?
438. concerned - 4/14/2004 8:53:34 AM
They'll nail you first, Jay, because you've obviously been thinking about dirty bombs, too.
439. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 8:56:15 AM
I shouldn't be able to, should I? I'll forward the posting on to their terrorism tracking folks and we'll see what happens. No reason for you to fear, of course. All you were doing was thinking about it. Oh, and writing about it.
I can't "rat you out" for doing something that's legal and harmless, can I? I mean, I can also send them a message of you calling Clinton names. That wouldn't bother you, either, would it?
440. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 8:58:35 AM
Fine concerned.
I'm actually curious. There was an amusing, and scary piece, not long ago by a guy who tried to call the homeland security office and couldn't even leave a message. So, hell, let's see if they add you to their watchlist. Or me, for that matter.
441. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 9:10:36 AM
Every time we manage to get this thread back on topic concerned and jexster do their best to derail it again. I'm getting bloody upset by their absolute lack of respect for the thread host and their fellow posters.
442. concerned - 4/14/2004 9:37:29 AM
Pelle -
My posts on Gorelick are exactly what this thread is supposed to be about. Go bitch at jexster and jay.
443. concerned - 4/14/2004 9:39:16 AM
Not to mention my posts on al-Sadr.
444. jexster - 4/14/2004 9:49:36 AM
Your posts on Gorelick only prove that you are a charlatan
445. jexster - 4/14/2004 9:50:27 AM
lower rent than a liar....condemned by your own words...
In point of fact, neither you nor Bush have a clue about terror....you don't even care.
446. concerned - 4/14/2004 9:54:51 AM
Better watch it, jexster. You're pissin' off Pelle bigtime and he might go medieval on your ass.
447. jexster - 4/14/2004 10:03:09 AM
Osama has just released a tape.
Osama has just released a tape because GWB hasn't a clue about what terrorism is, where it is or how to fight it.
448. jexster - 4/14/2004 10:03:59 AM
I've pissed off Pelle before.
Been there.
Done that.
449. concerned - 4/14/2004 10:07:10 AM
Probably some other towelhead mimicking Osamamamaboy's voice again.
*yawn*
450. jexster - 4/14/2004 10:13:06 AM
OBL offered a truce to Europe and war against Israel and the US...
Now obviously he is trying to exploit real and obvious divisions that exist and that GWB's flailing failure as an Anti-Terror Warrior have brought about.
And Sennsenbrenner's guning for Gorelick?!
Why??
Because, as I said last week, they fear the truth...they feared Clarke and Clarke came out on top...the 9/11 Commission is going to call their failures to public attention at or about the time of the Democratic Convention....
That's why you are hearing shit about Gorelick...that's why Frist charged Clarke with perjury, a charge we've heard NOTHING about since Clarke called their bluffs.
In fact, the "distraction", the off topic dialogue that bothers Pelle so is part of the problem..indeeed a good arguemnt can be made that it IS the problem...
The last thing that the psuedoconservative lunatics want is a discussion of measuresm, responsibility and outcomes....
451. concerned - 4/14/2004 10:17:18 AM
What the hell is measuresm? Are we talking pseudosuede conservatives here?
452. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 11:23:02 AM
US OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST thread.
US OUT OF THE TERRORIST thread.
US GO HOME to elections thread.
453. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 11:28:37 AM
That Osama Full Trashcan tape.
Good timing. Clever fellow.
One is sceptical as to his actual influence on events, but by christ he is a "great communicator". He fulfills a symbolic role, no doubt pure posturing, but to huge dramatic effect. It really sucks, but we have to live with it.
How about some analysis of his message? Who are the intended audience? What is the intended effect?
What are the likely effects?
454. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 11:40:16 AM
Where is the message?
455. Macnas - 4/14/2004 11:43:56 AM
re too many posts by far....
I feel like a head master having to come in every morning and berate the rowdy class element.
Lads, if you want a jexter vs concerned thread, I'm sure it can be created, I'll even host it!
Now both of you can contribute when you want too, I've seen you do it, but this recent post war is not even mildly entertaining. It is repetitive and for the most part belongs in the US politics or current events thread, where it will also be repetitive but somebody else’s problem (I'm just being honest! maybe I should testify to the 9/11 commission).
Now, both of you spend an hour after school and write an essay in less than 2000 words on "That bastard Macnas, or how I learned to stop spamming the terrorism thread and do it somewhere else".
456. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 12:54:02 PM
Bin Laden message :
BBC version
457. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 12:57:49 PM
An Arab television network has aired an audiotape said to be from Osama Bin Laden in which he offers Europe a truce if it "stops attacking Muslims".
However in the tape, aired by the al-Arabiya satellite channel on Thursday, the voice said the truce would not be extended to the US, Reuters reported.
Guardian version, fuller
458. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 2:45:47 PM
hmmm...
good question?
stupid question?
459. Macnas - 4/14/2004 4:04:24 PM
What is meant, do you think, by "global war on terrorism"??
Does it mean to combat terrorism wherever it manifests itself in the world? Or wherever it threatens American interests?
Before the last 3 years or so, the only nation who did anything approaching this was the Israelis. They reached out into Europe to assassinate those who were responsible for the deaths of many Israeli people. They were pretty successful too, but only from an attrition/revenge point of view, in my opinion.
The fact that Israel is still fighting their war on terrorism, would tend to suggest that there is more to combating terrorism than the "fire with fire" approach.
460. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 4:17:49 PM
That's the thing : this approach has been proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, not to work.
"Let them hate us, as long as they fear us" worked for the Romans, sure.
For one thing, they were completely ruthless about it : Julius C. had no qualms about putting an entire Gaulish city of forty thousand men, women and children to the sword, to give the other tribes something to think about. The US, whatever their rhetoric, are too squeamish for that, these days. They have only killed 600 or so in Falluja.
For another thing, the Romans were not vulnerable to asymmetrical warfare. What is the deterrent effect of the siege of Falluja? It may well deter young men for taking pot shots at marines with a kalashnikov, because the odds are not good. On the other hand, roadside bombs have proven most effective.
461. Macnas - 4/14/2004 4:34:36 PM
I think Falluja (Fallujah?) is just one of those events, not to belittle any tragedy that arises from the current situation, that shows the lack of any structure in dealing with paramilitary activity within Iraq, and I feel it is a core failure of the US army at the moment.
By paramilitary I mean any faction that arms itself with a view to using those arms against the perceived enemy, for reasons based on political/religious belief etc. They see themselves as soldiers, and they see the US/UK forces and their allies as targets. People can chose to call it terrorism, but it is not.
It might be terrible, it might be wrong or pointless, it might cause huge disruption and pain to non-combatants, but it is not terrorism and it is defiantly not what the US came to Iraq to do.
Whatever about the current situation, it does not bode well at all for Iraq as a nation trying to get on it's feet without the worlds biggest grouping of armed forces camping there.
462. jexster - 4/14/2004 6:41:32 PM
"People generally don't like armed missionaries" Robespierre
470. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 6:58:18 PM
Mac:
WRT posts 463 through to 468 and (who's) counting :
If you want to defend your patch, you should start shooting on sight (from the rooftops). Shift 'em to the Elections thread.
474. Macnas - 4/14/2004 7:10:12 PM
Well con, as interesting and all as your enthusiasm for this subject is, it has nothing to do with this thread either.
You might make a connection because of 9/11, but you are discussing a commission panel members worthiness to be there at all. Not enough to be of interest here.
By the way, were you waiting for jex to post?
477. jexster - 4/14/2004 7:12:39 PM
dead man walkin
479. Macnas - 4/14/2004 7:17:10 PM
No it is not con, your posts are too biased in tone to suggest such simplicity, as biased in fact, as jex's.
You two, go ying and yang with each other over this matter somewhere else.
482. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 7:19:41 PM
concerned and jexster are not open to reason. Posts 463-7 were deleted. This is how it's going to be with off-topic posts. They will not be moved but d-e-l-e-t-e-d. No notification, no explanation, no justification. Just permanent erasure.
Comments can be posted in Suggestions, not here.
487. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 7:27:00 PM
Several more posts were deleted.
490. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 7:28:36 PM
Goody. The Marines have arrived.
492. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 7:30:39 PM
Toys
494. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 7:32:26 PM
Keep on going, concerned, if you want. I'll do a batch delete in a while. And keep your cmments in Suggestions.
500. alistairConnor - 4/14/2004 7:57:52 PM
(interesting object lesson... Sonny and Shite united in revolt...)
502. Macnas - 4/14/2004 8:00:44 PM
Lor, but I wasn't prepared for that.
You know, when I saw that Pelle had deleted those posts, and stated that he would do so as required, I was momentarily miffed.
But after a while, say 20 seconds, I had to admit to myself that if I had the admin. rights to delete, I would have done it myself.
503. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 8:03:02 PM
You have the right to delete, Macnas.
504. Macnas - 4/14/2004 8:05:17 PM
If that is the case Pelle, how do I access that tool set?
506. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 8:07:21 PM
You have the URL to the Mote Maintenance page?
508. Macnas - 4/14/2004 8:09:47 PM
Nope.
509. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 8:16:38 PM
There has been an oversight then. If you trust me with your e-mail address here, I will send it to you with an explanation.
510. Macnas - 4/14/2004 8:18:23 PM
Very good, I'll contact you on the 'morrow.
512. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 8:22:10 PM
What is meant, do you think, by "global war on terrorism"??
It's pretty much a campaign slogan, lacking any clear meaning.
513. Macnas - 4/14/2004 8:23:45 PM
You know con, if you translated that post (511 and counting) into reasonable english without the jingo-lingo ( I just made that one up), then there are points there worth discussing, as they do relate to countermeasures/prevention.
514. concerned - 4/14/2004 8:32:21 PM
Then discuss them. That post exists in other threads.
515. jexster - 4/14/2004 8:41:00 PM
Speaking of circus idiots
Bin Laden offers Europe separate truce in war against America and Freedom!
Europe says no!
Watching CNN's website headlines, this seems to be the breaking news of the day.
Why are we giving this al Qaida PR stunt so much credence?
Why does CNN report the news like the public is made up of a bunch of circus idiots?
And will Emmanuel Goldstein also be in on the negotiations?
-- Josh Marshall
516. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 8:43:15 PM
Media logic.
517. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 8:47:46 PM
The trouble with the hearings--and there is actually some substance buried in concerned's rant, as you say--is that the US has known that the stance of the FBI as criminal investigators rather than a counterterrorism force has been well known since the failure to stop the 1993 WTC attack. They had enough information, in advance, to stop it. But they wanted to catch the guys committing a crime.
There was much rending of garments and tearing of hair in the aftermath, but nothing much really changed. The other difficulty is in the structure of the FBI with 26 field offices that are run like fiefdoms with minimal communication with Washington. This was also well-known, and lamented, but not changed.
This "wall" thing that Ashcroft is pushing is something of a crock. Gorelick actually did a very clear presentation of where the restrictions were, and they would not have prevented, say, the information the agent in MN tried to send up the channel from reaching the CIA.
But, to go off briefly on the political realm, nothing prevented the administration from recasting the nature of the wall. They've done the equivalent plenty of other times. And this strategy--find someone to smear--has been used a little too often. It's losing its effectiveness in general, and this one is especially weak if you've watched the commission at work.
The degree of despair that the commissioners have in reforming the FBI has reached a point that a separate internal counterterrorism agency--an MI5 equivalent is being discussed.
518. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 8:56:26 PM
jay. Please.
519. jayackroyd - 4/14/2004 9:09:56 PM
What?
520. jexster - 4/14/2004 10:55:22 PM
Yesterday's Bush/Sensennbrenner stunt just about eliminated any chance that the 9/11 commission will be divided and in fact, guarantees that come July, the Commission will unanimously find Bush regime misfeasance WRT 9/11 specifically and the WOT generally.
It was one of the dumbest in a series of exceptionally stupid moves these clowns have made over the past year.
521. concerned - 4/14/2004 11:30:23 PM
I've detailed Gorelick's conflicts of interests. Rather than resorting to cowardly banning, how about addressing that topic, if people dare?
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
522. concerned - 4/14/2004 11:33:18 PM
But, to go off briefly on the political realm, nothing prevented the administration from recasting the nature of the wall.
If you're talking about the Bush Administration, they had a scant few months to make that change.
523. PelleNilsson - 4/14/2004 11:37:58 PM
See what you have done, jay? You invited those maniacs back in.
I can't be bothered now, but tomorrow morning (my time) I will dump this stuff and whatever ensues from it into your thread.
524. vonKreedon - 4/14/2004 11:46:15 PM
Yes, I've spoken to Con's issue with Gorelick in the one thread Con has not visited with his obsession, American Politics. Con might be surprised at what I have to say.
525. concerned - 4/15/2004 12:00:23 AM
I don't see that post, vK. Just something about 'divine intervention' from you.
526. vonKreedon - 4/15/2004 12:07:40 AM
Con - Message # 3840 in thread 155
527. concerned - 4/15/2004 12:09:15 AM
Well, thanks for a little objectivity. But, Pelle is beyond reason.
528. jexster - 4/15/2004 12:13:47 AM
Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission. Sid Blumethal
And you wonder why TD is belching bowls of bile...
It ain't rocket science folks...Bush is a dead man walkin
529. vonKreedon - 4/15/2004 12:15:55 AM
Jex - Take it to the fucking appropriate thread. It's not like we have a lack of threads for partisan sniping.
530. wonkers2 - 4/15/2004 12:26:18 AM
Lighten up!
531. alistairConnor - 4/15/2004 12:30:01 AM
Yeah, take it to the Childhood Memories thread...
532. alistairConnor - 4/15/2004 12:38:30 AM
This morning in Message # 453 I asked myself some questions about Uncle Osama's latest fireside chat.
Who are the intended audience?
What is the intended effect?
What are the likely effects?
I found it worthwhile to read the full trascript (BBC Monitoring's translation).
Ostensibly, his primary audience is the citizens of Europe. (in fact, nobody there is listening to him.)
But in reality, I think he's addressing two other audiences : the arab/moslem world, and Iraq in particular; and the USA.
533. concerned - 4/15/2004 1:24:16 AM
Did Gorelick participate in the decision to nix special operations?
What advice did the DoD ask for and receive from her and the Justice Department on that subject?
The Commission needs to find out. Under oath.
534. vonKreedon - 4/15/2004 1:53:22 AM
Dude - Why do you insist in discussing this here instead of simply taking it to Politics? What is it with the pig headed stubborness? Is the topic unsuitable for Politics? If so, how? These are excellent questions, but they have squat to do with:
Terrorism in 2004: causes and countermeasures
Cause and effect
535. jayackroyd - 4/15/2004 2:21:59 AM
523
I take your point, Pelle.
536. wonkers2 - 4/15/2004 3:27:44 AM
Where should we discuss movies about terrorism, in the Terrorism thread or in the TV and Movie thread!
537. jexster - 4/15/2004 3:35:59 AM
What about these god-awful 9/11 war president TV tales ...I am thinking of JAG and NCIS...RNC garbage
538. concerned - 4/15/2004 8:09:29 AM
CIA Warned of Attacks As Early As '95
The 1997 assessment, which remains classified, "identified bin Laden and his followers and threats they were making and said it might portend attacks inside the United States," the official said.
Philip Zelikow, executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, confirmed the 1997 warning about bin Laden but said it was only two sentences long and lacked any strategic analysis on how to address the threat. "We were well aware of the information and the staff stands by exactly what it says," he said.
The intelligence official also said that while the 1995 intelligence assessment did not mention bin Laden or al-Qaida by name, it clearly warned that Islamic terrorists were intent on striking specific targets inside the United States like those hit on Sept. 11, 2001.
The report specifically warned that civil aviation, Washington landmarks such as the White House and Capitol and buildings on Wall Street were at the greatest risk of a domestic terror attack by Muslim extremists, the official said.
Any fuckwit going to say this post is all about politics?
539. alistairConnor - 4/15/2004 12:28:30 PM
So, Con, (and others), what do you think about OBL's latest pronouncements?
(I set aside as largely irrelevant the question of whether they are authentic or not : in any case they are plausible, and will be accepted as authentic in the Arab world.)
There is the question as to whether the tape should be given prominence, and whether European governments should have reacted to it, as they did.
(NYT analysis
In my view :
* OBL appears to be addressing Europeans, enjoining them to appease his (largely imaginary) army of terrorists. Neither European governments nor the European public will be influenced by this.
* The subtext : OBL is actually addressing public opinion in the Arab world and in the US, to have them believe that he is influencing Europeans. Both may have a propensity to believe that European actions are indeed influenced by a desire to appease terrorists.
As the NYT says, I believe it's in large part intended to drive a wedge between the US and Europe; and to fan the flames in the middle east by encouraging people to believe that terrorism can bring about favourable outcomes.
540. Macnas - 4/15/2004 12:52:58 PM
re 538
It does not amount to that much con, look at the statement and see what’s what:
"civil aviation" airplane hijack and destruction are/were staples, any study into islamic militant groups would have thrown this up.
"Washington landmarks such as the White House and Capitol and buildings on Wall Street" symbols of what the US stands for, with public access (to some degree) without the overt military security one would find in an armed forces installation. Back in the 50's I think, Puerto Ricans shot up a few similar places in Washington, perhaps the only example of "attacks inside the United States"
Nobody was expecting 9/11, not seriously.
The only important thing among the whole lot is the fact that somebody theorised that the US itself could possibly become part of the terrorism arena. How much proof there was, the validity of the intelligence, and government policy (across both administrations as far as I can see) defined the response.
541. Macnas - 4/15/2004 12:56:08 PM
re 539
It just goes to show doesn't it? A few words on a crappy cassette which may or not be from that mad arab, and we are looking at serious implications.
How the fuck did it come to this?
542. alistairConnor - 4/15/2004 1:13:51 PM
Devil's advocate speaking :
There have been numerous examples in the past of the terrorist turned statesman, typically in national liberation struggles.
OBL is a Saudi, born into the ruling class. He undoubtedly wants to overthrow the house of Saud, and probably sees himself in their place, and more, as caliph of the Arab world.
This is something that is unimagineable for us, because of Sept 11. But in historical terms, would it be so unusual? And why should we expect it to be unimagineable to the Arab world?
I'm a believer in understanding your enemy.
543. Macnas - 4/15/2004 1:46:17 PM
re 542
I think it is unimaginable to the Arab world. I think we are guilty sometimes of thinking of all Arabs being essentially the same, when the only commonality among them is a religion that has as many variations as Christianity.
You might as well say that what would suit an Englishman would automatically suit an Irishman. Both white, both from the same neck of the world, neighbours, same basic religion, more similarities then differences.
But you know instinctively it is not so.
546. jexster - 4/15/2004 10:11:01 PM
Point of Order:
The two posts moved to the Conflict ME Thread properly belong here.
Not that I pesonally care all that much but the subject of the posts was the current US "strategy", if you can call it that, againt Al Qaeda.
As such the posts are properly within the advertised ambit ot this discussion
Terrorism
Terrorism in 2004: causes and countermeasures
A serious policy debate has been going on for virtually the entirety of the Bush tenure in national security circles (Army War College, Brookings, CSIS, Carnegie, Naval Institute, etc).
Varied strands are coming together and now beginning to emerge in the press as a full blown debate amd critque of the fundamental approach of the Bush administration's conduct of the Global WOT TODAY...NOW...2004
Put Pakistan in the "Middle East" ...take Al Qaida out of the discussion on terror, I don't much care that you won't have much to dicuss here.
547. jexster - 4/15/2004 10:28:28 PM
Perhaps this will give aid your appreciation of the contextual framework I am talking about:
COMMENT
Fourth Generation Warfare:
How Tactics of the Weak Confound the Strong
Two years ago tomorrow, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon plunged America into a different kind of war. Across the world, the attacks had triggered an unprecedented outpouring of sympathy and empathy for the cause of the United States.
Almost everyone was with us, so America's going in position was strong from a grand strategic perspective.
That outpouring of support is now a distant memory. In fact, the U.S. strategy for resolving the terrorist question is now rejected overwhelmingly by a huge majority of people around the world — by the citizens of allied nations and the citizens of uncommitted nations, as well as those of adversary nations. Today, only one country has a population and government that whole-heartedly support our strategy — Israel, a nation that is also pursuing a military strategy that is self-isolating at the moral level of conflict.
What has gone wrong? How could we squander such an outpouring of goodwill in such a short time?
US military strategy at the beginning of the 21st Century is not matched to the threat it is fighting: Our strategy — i.e., the pre-emptive application of hi-tech "precision" firepower on a "central front" against an adversary who making a "last stand" — in fighting an amalgam of fourth generation threats sounds and acts as if it were engaging the more traditional military threats in a 2GW or 3GW nation-versus-nation conflict.
....
548. jexster - 4/15/2004 10:31:23 PM
4GW: Tactics of the Weak Confound the Strong
By G.I. Wilson, John P. Sullivan, and Hal Kempfer
Military.Com
September 8, 2003
We live in a world of "Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW)" where the tactics of the weak confound the tactics of the strong. Today's global environment is defined by this 4GW reality. Nation-states confront criminal enterprises, fanatical opportunists, terrorists whose gang-like networks transcend national boundaries. This smorgasbord of bad actors often slips through the cracks of our own security, military, and legal bureaucracies.
We are seeing sub-national "bad actors" use guerrilla tactics, insurrection, sabotage and terrorism to subvert nation-states and challenge the established international system. Governments, politicians, and state military-security apparatus of the West; desperately want to engage our 4GW foes in the tried and true conventional ways of the past.
America, the world's strongest nation, prefers combat where only the strongest wins. Our fourth-generation foes prefer 4GW judo, avoiding a decisive fight, leveraging our addiction to technology and "throwing us" using our own bureaucratic weight to do so. We must recall that the enemy's "weapons technology advantage" in the 9-11 attacks consisted of box cutters and ceramic knives, combined with a steely determination to die for a cause. Also, we must remember that it worked, and our vast military-security-enforcement bureaucracy was virtually helpless to stop it.
We are witnessing the early stages of a major geo-political transition. This shift is characterized by a global landscape of conflict where the division between combatant, criminal opportunist and civilian is blurred. .
549. jexster - 4/15/2004 10:33:26 PM
That's why we're Flailing not fighting. That's why Iraq is relevant here at least insofar as the Iraq/Israeli gambit makes it all but impossible to fight the real war on the real front against the real enemy.
550. jexster - 4/15/2004 10:39:55 PM
It is the same point that Dr. Jeffrey Record made in his article Bounding the Global War on Terrorism (Parameters - JOUrnal of the US Army War College, December 2003)
551. concerned - 4/15/2004 10:56:44 PM
539. alistairConnor - 4/16/2004 9:28:30 AM
So, Con, (and others), what do you think about OBL's latest pronouncements?
(I set aside as largely irrelevant the question of whether they are authentic or not : in any case they are plausible, and will be accepted as authentic in the Arab world.)
This was directed toward me, so I trust that my response will not be deleted.
1) Do we know it's OBL beyond a doubt?
2) Who does OBL speak for, if he's alive?
3) How do we know that any such 'truce' will be honored indefinitely by the Islamists?
4) Is driving a wedge between Europe and the US wrt counterterrorism in the interests of either party?
5) How will any such agreement be monitored?
I could go on and on with such questions that cast doubts on all aspects of such a 'truce'.
552. alistairConnor - 4/16/2004 12:31:22 AM
There's a misunderstanding here, Con (I wonder whether you have read or understood anything I have written in this thread?)
I have explicitly stated that the notion of such a 'truce' is not taken seriously by anyone at all in Europe.
Clearly, driving a wedge between Europe and the US is not in the interests of either party... in fact, the only people who are in favour of it are the Rumsfeld/Cheney clique and their objective ally (and former business partner) Osama.
553. concerned - 4/16/2004 1:11:40 AM
Re. 552 -
AC-
Then the misunderstanding is clearly yours. And you owe me an apology for your swipe.
You asked me what I thought by posting:
So, Con, (and others), what do you think about OBL's latest pronouncements?
.
And I replied by mentioning some of the questions that came to my mind regarding it.
Where is there any 'misunderstanding' on my part of any of this?
554. alistairConnor - 4/16/2004 2:46:55 AM
I thought you might be interested in a discussion of the issues. I tried in 552. The five points you list in 551 appear to demonstrate several misunderstandings on your part about my positions, because in 539 :
1) I stated that I don't think it matters whether it is in fact OBL or not
2) I stated that his army of jihadists is largely imaginary
3) I expressed the opinion that nobody in Europe is interested in a 'truce'
4) it's so obvious that driving a wedge between Europe and the US is not in the interests of either party, that I didn't feel the need to state it...
5) there will never be any 'agreement' to be 'monitored', so any such suggestion is, to put it politely, rather obtuse.
Nevertheless, despite these little misunderstandings, I remain genuinely interested in any genuine opinions you may have on these matters.
555. concerned - 4/16/2004 2:49:16 AM
Re. 554 -
Your misunderstanding becomes clear. My questions had nothing whatsoever to do with your positions. Don't pretend that they did.
556. concerned - 4/16/2004 2:50:06 AM
Or, feel free to continue picking at me.
557. concerned - 4/16/2004 3:03:25 AM
The questions I cited were those that would need (among others) to be formally addressed in evaluating this 'message'.
Apologies to AC if I didn't allow his viewpoint to influence the questions.
558. concerned - 4/16/2004 8:25:35 AM
Something else has occurred to me as a result of reading the text of the purported bin Laden 'truce' message. It refers more than once to 'lies' of the Bush Administration, exactly the meme that Jayackroyd and jexster are attempting to promote.
Good going, dupes. In WWII, you would have been Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw.
559. jayackroyd - 4/16/2004 12:36:41 PM
That Bush's lies have given fodder to the enemy does not make it inappropriate to point out their falsity. Quite the contrary.
560. alistairConnor - 4/16/2004 2:02:54 PM
557 - The questions I cited were those that would need (among others) to be formally addressed in evaluating this 'message'. Formally addressed by who, Con? By OBL? Why don't you send him an email then?
561. jexster - 4/17/2004 6:57:04 PM
People who don't think there's a link between terrorism and Iraq should read today's Washington Post...
Before the War on Iraq there were no terrorists there..
When the fighting is over in Fallujah, I will sell everything I have, even my home," said a resistance fighter who gave his name as Abu Taif Mashhadani. He wept as he recalled his 8-year-old daughter, who he said was killed by a U.S. sniper in Fallujah a week ago. "I will send my brothers north to kill the Kurds, and I will go to America and target the civilians. Only the civilians. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. And the one who started it will be the one to be blamed."
This man is Evil??
562. jexster - 4/17/2004 7:00:23 PM
An eight year old girl for Christ's sake.
This is a horror of US murder and violence. It is inexcusable and it is bound to increase violence against the US the world over. It is bound to isolate the US even further and thereby make it more difficult, nay impossible, to root out terrorist cells that have under the Bush "strategy" metasticized. Furthermore, it will tie down increasing numbers of US troops on a front where there were no terrorists leaving Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzebekistan etc. free breeding and training grounds.
563. jexster - 4/17/2004 7:01:15 PM
And it goes RIGHT back to Clarke's complaint against Bush. It is what his book is about and Clarke has been proved correct.
564. jexster - 4/18/2004 10:59:18 AM
Al-Qaeda’s Doomsday Document and Psychological Manipulation
Presented at "Genocide and Terrorism: Probing the Mind of the Perpetrator," Yale Center for Genocide Studies, New Haven, April 9, 2003.
565. Macnas - 4/18/2004 11:34:54 AM
re 564
Yikes! Topical and interesting!
Whatever the methods used by the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack to prepare themselves, somebody somewhere came up with the idea first.
What I mean to say is, these men did not spend 3 days and nights chanting scripture, then all turn to each other and say "I know, lets fly passenger jets into the world trade centre!"
The mysticism and martyr rituals and all that goes with it, all came after somebody deliberately chose the target and proposed a methodology.
567. Macnas - 4/18/2004 10:49:13 PM
Now, wonkers has a post here somewhere, and I can't see it..
568. wonkers2 - 4/18/2004 10:50:57 PM
Sorry! I hit the post button by mistake.
569. Macnas - 4/18/2004 10:55:10 PM
No worries.
570. Macnas - 4/18/2004 10:57:29 PM
Meanwhile, the Brits continue to do what they do best.
571. Macnas - 4/19/2004 1:33:02 PM
It pleases me that the Brit security apparatus is working so well. It would seem that they have infiltrated the islamic extremist to some extent, otherwise I cannot think how they would be able to mount such operations.
The success the FBI had with Al Queda cells after 9/11 was the direct result of a letter posted to them outlining several young guys who had been in Afghanistan, got trained up, came back to Lackawanna (somewhere in New York state?)and were sleepers. They eventually arrested them after exhaustive surveillance and good old detective work.
It would not have happened though, if it were not for a concerned muslim informing on them.
In my opinion, the role of the informer is hugely important in the fight against those who use terrorism.
All the technology and spooks in the world do not add up in terms of effectiveness to a person with correct information who is willing to pass it on. That is why informers are given such short shrift when found out. The traitor/turncoat rhetoric aside, the leak has to be stopped immediately and all the better if it serves as a deterrent to others.
Just for anecdote, there was a member of our government many years ago, a man called Dan Breen. Wombat may have heard of him. He was a famous gunman during the war of independence, and very much a larger than life sort of fellow.
During 1920 or so, he happened to be in Dublin (his home ground was Tipperary), walking down O’Connell street when he saw a crowd gathered on the pavement ahead of him. When he got there and shouldered his way through the throng, he saw a well known tout, or informer if you like, lying, bleeding, staring up at the sky. An old woman turned to Dan and asked him “Oh mister, is he dead? Is he?” whereupon Dan took a revolver from under his coat and shot the prostrate man through the forehead. He turned to the horrified woman and said “he is now ma’am”.
572. alistairConnor - 4/19/2004 5:31:19 PM
Rivalry between Aussie cops and spooks
Australia's domestic intelligence agency was so jealous of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) it refused to share critical intelligence and ignored information that may have prevented the Bali bombings, it was claimed today.
Seems to go with the territory.
573. Macnas - 4/19/2004 6:12:30 PM
re 572
Different dept. heads, different set of bureaucrats, different responsible gov. ministers, sometimes make for a poor result.
The solution does raise the question of keeping policing separate from intelligence services, in how desirable/undesirable that may be.
574. jayackroyd - 4/19/2004 6:56:26 PM
Different objectives as well. The trouble is that there are no good institutional answers. It's more a matter of leadership, and the quality of the people running the agencies. You can always find a reason not to help the other agencies. Moynihan in Secrecy talks a lot about how information is currency for these guys. Breaking that mentality--that information you've obtained at great effort is something to be hoarded and traded rather than shared--is not going to be a question of having a joint weekly meeting. You're gonna need to have people running the agencies willing to knock heads to force cooperation.
At first blush, a dedicated counter-terrorism force makes sense, because at least then you'll have an agency with a clear objective. But they are still going to needinformation gathered by other agencies. Jealousy, fingerpointing, ass-covering will then ensue.
575. Macnas - 4/19/2004 7:18:32 PM
I agree, and if one cares to look, there are many instances of this interdepartmental rivalry/snobbery problem across worlds security/intelligence agencies.
It was very prevalent in France during the years spent trying to capture Carlos, and it had serious implication in northern Ireland, where at times military intelligence was actually working against the police service.
576. jayackroyd - 4/19/2004 7:23:06 PM
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that this solely a US problem.
577. Macnas - 4/19/2004 7:35:01 PM
Didn't even think of that implication jay, no worries.
578. Macnas - 4/20/2004 12:58:46 PM
Basra rocked by carbombs, maybe 55 dead.
Carbombings of this nature, and on such a co-ordinated scale, point to an amount of expertise that I would think did not exist in Iraq before the invasion. While it might be possible that, say, for the newly made insurgent, enough time has elapsed and enough bombings have been carried out to become sufficiently skilled enough to pull this off, to me it points to a time served expert.
Many groups have a master explosives expert, to make the actual devices and to train others, indeed, when a counter-terrorism or peacekeeping group is involved in an area for a length of time, bombers show traits and patterns that act more or less like a signature.
The more or less simultaneous explosions in Basra caused near maximum casualties, and the timing ensured that emergency services were overloaded and any police/army response severely diluted. As Basra has been a "quiet" city in comparison, due in large part to the British army, it would seem that someone was brought in from outside to carry out this piece of textbook terrorism.
579. Macnas - 4/21/2004 5:21:16 PM
The Saudi carbombings, were they co-ordinated with the Iraqi bombings? Maybe they were.
In any case, I think the Saudi attack is a strategic error on Al Qaeda’s part. The senior mufti, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh (there’s a candidate for a rubber stamp) has utterly condemned the bombings and those responsible, and the feeling among the population, from what I can gather reading the various news reports, seems decidedly anti-ALQ.
It might have been Giap or Minh who came up with the fish and water example for describing the relationship between a population and the insurgents/subversives within it. Frank Kitson once used the metaphor (maybe the wrong word to use) of polluting the water in which the fish swim, and it would seem to me that ALQ are doing that to themselves in Saudi.
580. jayackroyd - 4/21/2004 5:32:23 PM
Carbombings of this nature, and on such a co-ordinated scale, point to an amount of expertise that I would think did not exist in Iraq before the invasion.
It's hard to imagine how such expertise could have been developed in that Saddam's Iraq.
It's hard to see the al Qaeda benefit of Saudi bombings; however, there are reports that a deal was done sometime ago--that the Saudi government would look the other way on funding and support in return for promises not to attack inside Saudi Arabia. I don't know what a people's revolution would look like in Saudi Arabia, and I don't know how carbombings would facilitate it. But that is the only objective I can think of.
581. PelleNilsson - 4/21/2004 6:57:12 PM
Perhaps the Saudi bombings point to the uselessness of the al Qaeda meme?
582. alistairConnor - 4/21/2004 7:05:12 PM
Perhaps Saudi is actually close to a tipping point, and the Qaeda sympathisers among the ruling class will be able to seize power if the chaos is bad enough?
583. Macnas - 4/21/2004 7:08:52 PM
Is it? What is the state of play in Saudi at the moment?
Maybe I'm behind the times but it does not appear to me to be on, at, or near the point where a coup or revolution might happen.
584. Macnas - 4/21/2004 7:09:44 PM
re 581
What do you mean Pelle?
585. jayackroyd - 4/21/2004 7:44:59 PM
It's pretty much inherently unstable when the titular ruler is essentially on life support. There are, I've read, but can't cite, so don't quote me, wahabbist elements among Fahd's sons and nephews. It's not inconceivable that these attacks are meant to shift the balance of power within the ruling family.
586. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/21/2004 9:23:55 PM
587. Macnas - 4/21/2004 10:34:20 PM
re 582 & 585
If that is so, I wonder if the US has some kind of plan to intervene. Now I'm not theorising or painting the US in any imperialist colours, but from a purely analytical point of view, Saudi and to a lesser degree Jordan, ('though not so much anymore) are part of the mid-east jigsaw they want to be able to use.
588. alistairConnor - 4/21/2004 11:10:59 PM
Well, the US has evacuated its troops from Saudi (if one wanted to be unkind, one would say that they appeased the terrorists, since it was UBL's number one issue. Just goes to show, perception is everything) and I can't see the percentage in putting them back.
Unless it seemed, retrospectively, a much better regional base than Iraq, after all......
589. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/22/2004 7:47:50 AM
590. jexster - 4/22/2004 8:03:18 PM
Flailing & Failing - Not Fighting & Winning
MADRID, Spain - Spain's new prime minister told President Bush (news - web sites) last month that the U.S. war on terrorism "isn't hitting the mark," according to an interview published Friday.
591. rdbrewer - 4/27/2004 12:56:48 AM
Jordanian Al Qaeda Chem-Bomb Plotter Confesses to Being Trained in Iraq Before the War
592. alistairConnor - 4/27/2004 1:23:32 AM
... hey, that's even better than Fox as a news source!
Trained in Iraq! by Zarqawi! by golly.
(You probably won't have realised or remembered this, RDB, but Zarqawi's outfit operated out of Kurdistan, protected by a US no-fly zone.)
593. alistairConnor - 4/27/2004 1:27:20 AM
Homo Pan Troglodytes has gone soft in his old age :
Let us mention the necessary caveats: The pro-war right has prematurely claimed vindication on stories that didn't pan out. Remember those "secret Iraqi documents" claiming a direct meeting between Saddam and bin Ladin?
Naaaaw, we don't remember that, Homo. Nor do we remember any of your innumerable Fox-sourced claims of chem weapons finds all through last Spring.
The chimp has lost his balls.
594. vonKreedon - 4/27/2004 1:29:30 AM
rdb is citing Ace!?! And Ace is citing NewsMax which is citing ABC!! None the less this certainly is the smoking gun that the right needs to legitimize the clusterfuck they have foisted on us.
To quote Bullwinkle:
This time fur sure!
595. marjoribanks - 4/27/2004 1:58:45 AM
Brewer,
1) In the future please use reputable sources.
2) Zarqawi has nothing to do with Hussein, and his connection to nasty terrorist activity has nothing to do with the stated Bushite administration's claims about the old Iraqi regime.
3) Zarqawi did (as post above) enjoy US-created safe haven in Northern Iraq for a very long time.
4) Worse than that, the Bushites had repeated chances to hit Zarqawi but chose not to - underlining that this US leadership does not actually care about terrorism (or WMD, read the NYBooks link from yesterday) but only about its ideologically fuelled vaingloriousness.
So, go tell that pathetic caricature, the Ape of Hades, to read this article.
... long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger....
...People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists....
596. alistairConnor - 4/27/2004 1:59:30 AM
explosions in the embassy district in damascus
From the bbc, includes eyewitness accounts.
Possibly Kurds?
597. rdbrewer - 4/27/2004 2:29:06 AM
I knew you guys would get a kick out of that.
MB, one example of Al-queda activity in Iraq is sufficient to refute the claim that Al-queda had nothing to do with Iraq.
The fact that he was in a no-fly zone is irrelevant.
Zarqawi did not become an overriding concern until recently. Perhaps he wasn't worth a special mission at the time his location was identified. Maybe Bush wanted UN approval before lobbing missles or dropping special ops types into the desert. (You do still prefer UN approval, right?)
The writer equivocates the meaning of "plans". We always draft contingency plans. We have plans to attack everybody. We probably have plans to attack China. That doesn't mean we have PLANS to attack China.
The article is nakedly slanted against Bush. The author appears to have been fed the hook by the Brookings Institution.
598. sakonige - 4/27/2004 3:59:27 AM
The fact that he was in a no-fly zone is irrelevant.
Of course it is relevant. The war was supposed to be against Saddam's regime, not against Iraq. The no-fly zones were not under Saddam's control.
599. wonkers2 - 4/27/2004 4:12:21 AM
About the only true thing Bush has said about terrorism is that it isn't going away soon. But he's clueless on what to do about it.
600. Macnas - 4/27/2004 12:57:37 PM
I don't think Iraq could be classed as part of the Bush "war on terrorism", even though a vague accusation of sponsoring terrorism was touted as one of the justifications for the invasion.
Afghanistan was the only scenario we know of so far where the actual organisation behind the 9/11 attack was targeted.
It succeeded in removing the main sponsor of Al-Q., the Taliban government, and destroyed the training centres used by Al-Q.
The connection between Al-Q and Saddam's Iraq is at best very weak, as pointed out above. If we were to go by that rule, then Pakistan, or parts of it, are just as much, if not more guilty of sponsoring terrorism.
601. wonkers2 - 4/27/2004 1:26:56 PM
Absolutely. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a counter-productive diversion from dealing with terrorism. It caused an increase in terrorists and terrorism. The invasion played right into bin Laden's hands.
602. alistairConnor - 4/27/2004 1:27:23 PM
MB, one example of Al-queda activity in Iraq is sufficient to refute the claim that Al-queda had nothing to do with Iraq.
This is such narrow and naked sophistry that I'm (almost) surprised that (even) you, RDB, should claim some sort of vindication...
Strawman : I suppose the "claim" you refer to is the fact that Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda. Recent events have no bearing on this (we were already aware that Zarqawi is a terrorist).
In fact, the only new element is that Zarqawi, who has had the run of all Iraq for the past year thanks to the "War on Terror", has now managed to extend his operational range to his native country, Jordan.
603. Macnas - 4/29/2004 3:49:58 AM
Now, really, nobody believes that AL.Q had anything to do with Iraq, bar perhaps Ace, but he knows his own mind I'm sure.
Even though I'm the worse for wear from too much whiskey, let me pose a difficult question: How do you prevent terrorism? How do you combat it?
Targets and methodology aside, effective terrorism requires operatives, money, and material. Any "war" on terrorism would have to nullify 2 of these components.
That is my breakdown of it, but I would like to hear from interested people as to what they think, and what could be done to lessen the risk of such attacks as seen in Madrid recently.
604. alistairConnor - 4/29/2004 12:38:32 PM
Come to think of it, I have a friend who is a former terrorist.
He is old and in poor health, and will quite probably die soon. I was elated the other day when his daughter, who is an intimate friend, told me that his book has finally been sent to the publisher -- he wrote it in the 70s about events in the 50s. (I'm taking her to the railway station this afternoon so she can go and visit him.)
I'll try to write something about him this weekend (this is just a teaser)
605. wonkers2 - 4/29/2004 2:24:20 PM
Since Al Qaida's attack this week on Baathist Syria, it's even more obvious that Baathist Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida's 9-11 attack on the U.S.
606. Magoseph - 4/29/2004 3:10:02 PM
Good point, Won.
France Struggles to Curb Extremist Muslim Clerics
France has long maintained one of the strictest antiterrorism programs in Europe, in part because the country was hit early by Islamist terror and because it has the largest Muslim population on the Continent. Many other countries in Europe have been far more tolerant in allowing radical discourse to flourish in their mosques.
But making such a hard-line stance stick is difficult, even here in a country that has been more willing than most of its European neighbors to limit free speech in the interest of a calm and cohesive society.
607. jexster - 4/29/2004 6:45:14 PM
What the US papers don't say
Michael Hann examines the air of secrecy and silence surrounding the US media's treatment of George Bush's 'war on terror'
608. jayackroyd - 5/3/2004 9:07:26 PM
American insistence on treating terror as a military rather than a legal issue is undermining cooperation in prosecution of Spanish accomplices of the September 11 attacks.
This salon article quotes the WSJ:
A breakdown in international cooperation on fighting terrorism threatens to further undermine years of investigation into radical Islamist cells in Europe, with Spanish investigators saying they may be forced to release more than a dozen men charged with aiding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
"In the months after the attacks in the U.S., Spanish police rounded up more than a dozen suspected terrorists in Madrid with ties to al Qaeda operatives around the world. Last autumn they were indicted, along with al Qaeda terrorist group leader Osama bin Laden, on thousands of counts of murder for allegedly helping provide logistics to carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. The investigating magistrate handling the case, Baltasar Garzon, previously prosecuted former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet and terrorism by Basque separatists in Spain."
"Now people close to the prosecution say that after nearly 10 years of investigation into these cells, starting well before the Sept. 11 attacks, the case is in danger of falling apart. The reason: a lack of international cooperation, especially with U.S. authorities engaged in their own fight against terrorism."
609. alistairConnor - 5/4/2004 3:00:23 PM
Anarchist bombings in Greece
One hopes they are not intent on carnage during the Olympics. Such nice cuddly people, anarchists.
23 deaths since 1975, all the same.
610. Macnas - 5/4/2004 3:35:06 PM
It does raise the question though, of how far does a country go to ensure security?
The answer is it cannot of course. Greece is spending up to a billion on security for the Olympics, and yet it cannot secure every office, hotel, business, or home.
Nothing succeeds like being proactive with regard to terrorism.
Again, to use the British model, anarchist groups in the early 1900's were so infiltrated with spies that they constituted the majority of members, as was the case with the early British communist party! (Not to in any way equate the communist party with terrorism or anarchy.)
We all know you that you cannot win while in defence. Security in the form of detection devices and provision of protection is nothing more than defence.
611. wonkers2 - 5/4/2004 5:33:18 PM
How far does a country go to ensure security?
In last Sunday's NYT Magazine, Michael? Ignatieff? argued that one more attack on the U.S. similar to 9-11 lead to popular demands that will destroy personal freedom/democracy as we know it.
612. Macnas - 5/4/2004 6:14:35 PM
Personal freedom, and civil rights, everywhere, is being eroded all the time, usually in the name of security and/or crime prevention.
While I do think that a certain amount of infiltration and surveillance is an important part of combating those who use terrorism, and I spoke about this with Concerned a while back on this thread, where it might stop and how pervasive it might be is a worry.
The mindset of "if I cannot control my citizens, I cannot protect them from others" is dangerously close to a police state along the lines of some Sov-Blok countries, and plenty others in today’s world.
To paraphrase a bit, when we do not suppose the majority of the citizens good and the protectors corruptible, there is something going seriously wrong.
It is a very difficult question, in how far do we go before civil rights and freedoms fall by the wayside in favour of increased security. And I'm fucked if I have an answer.
613. jayackroyd - 5/4/2004 6:15:58 PM
611
I thought that piece was terrible--a series of unsupported declarations.
614. jayackroyd - 5/4/2004 6:18:04 PM
It is a very difficult question, in how far do we go before civil rights and freedoms fall by the wayside in favour of increased security. And I'm fucked if I have an answer.
The answer is one that governments will resist--greater transparency. Less secrecy. The WSJ article about the unwillingness of American intelligence people to provide material that would help convict Spanish citizens accused of aiding the 9/11 attackers is a case in point.
615. Macnas - 5/4/2004 6:29:07 PM
You are right, telling a secret service not to be so secretive is never going to happen.
616. jexster - 5/6/2004 8:47:39 AM
ALOHA, Ore. - FBI (news - web sites) agents arrested a Portland lawyer Thursday as part of the investigation into the deadly train bombings in Spain, federal officials said.
Brandon Mayfield???
That's not an Ay-rab name.
617. alistairConnor - 5/9/2004 12:58:12 PM
Terrorism and torture, evil twins.
Terrorism has often been used to justify torture. A couple of years ago, a French general of the Algerian war published a book describing and justifying his systematic use of torture.
I heard him on the radio, he posed the following situation : his services bring in a fellagh (FLN freedom fighter) who has just posed a bomb somewhere in town... are you going to ask him politely where it is, while it's ticking?
Hard to answer eh?
But of course, once you start doing that stuff, you can't put the demon back in the box.
And torture will always serve to justify terrorism... as evidence of the evil nature of the regime one is combating, it will bring many people to the conclusion that all means of struggle are legitimate, even the morally repugnant one of terrorism.
Symmetrical reasoning.
618. Macnas - 5/9/2004 1:57:56 PM
When the statement is made "all means of struggle are legitimate", it’s simply referring to terrorism first and foremost. There is no more agonising over moral repugnance.
Not to sound too cynical, but using torture to gather intelligence is par for the course for any armed forces. Yep, that’s right, any armed forces. If it can be controlled, as in used as an interrogation technique, by appropriate personnel, then there is every chance that it will never be made public in such a manner as to harm the armed forces involved.
Where torture differs from cruel and unusual punishment, well I'm not too sure. Being hooded and made to stand for hours at a time, being made to stare at pegboard for hours at a time (ever tried it? pegboard was very common as a wall finish in schools, so you probably already have!), being subjected to white noise, sleep deprivation and all the rest, it's not puncturing peoples eardrums with sharpened pencils or pulling toenails out with pliers, but it is a mild form of torture.
What the pictures from Iraq have shown us is kind of two things I think. One is an appalling breakdown in discipline on the part of some US army units, which allowed the barbarity that is always just under the surface of everyone involved in a war/conflict to come to the fore.
The other is a look at some of the practises used to gather intelligence that the armed forces would prefer you didn’t know about, or at least acknowledge. If you are a prisoner of war, or in the custody of any armed forces, human rights and all the Geneva convention stuff is out the window, simple as that.
619. Macnas - 5/9/2004 2:08:44 PM
But does anyone have any insight into Chechnya? I'm as ignorant as the day is long about this place.
620. alistairConnor - 5/9/2004 4:07:55 PM
One's first instinct might be to applaud the assassination of Putin's stooge... and the clever innovation of setting the bomb in concrete underneath the presidential stand... but things are more complicated than that, the results will undoubtedly be disastrous for everyone, and will illustrate once more why terrorism is almost always a really bad idea, as well as being morally repugnant.
The guy had a certain degree of legitimacy, as a religious figure and (especially) as a clan leader, also a much-feared private militia at his disposal... peace was slowly breaking out...
As I understand it, there is no successor acceptable to both the Chechens and the Russians, Putin's people will be forced to take direct control, which almost certainly means a return to war.
621. jayackroyd - 5/13/2004 11:54:34 PM
An article in Slate that points out that the use of torture, or coercion, in the obtaining of evidence makes that evidence inadmissible, in both military and federal courts. The practice of coercion will make it very difficult to prosecute alleged terrorists, like Mousaui or Padilla.
It does not go on to point out that secrecy is equally harmful. I noted earlier an article that said that Spain might have to drop charges against defendants accused of supporting the 9/11 attacks, because the US government refuses to release classified material.
There has been much sneering in this administration directed at the focus of past counter-terrorism policies on the criminal justice system rather than the use of military force.
The trouble is that once you catch them alive, you have to do something with them. Jail would seem to be appropriate sometimes.
622. jayackroyd - 5/13/2004 11:54:50 PM
test
623. alistairConnor - 5/25/2004 2:17:34 PM
Remember that Oregon lawyer whose fingerprints turned up in the Madrid bombings ?
FBI frame-up falls apart
You're worried about civil liberties? Why, are you Muslim?
624. Macnas - 5/25/2004 2:18:32 PM
I really must subscribe one of these days.
625. alistairConnor - 5/25/2004 2:21:46 PM
Another interesting case : Garzon, the head honcho of Spanish anti-terrorism, has had a warrant of arrest outstanding for two years against two young French Basques, members of an organisation which is banned in Spain, but not in France.
France doesn't extradite its nationals.
BUT now we have the brand-new European Arrest Warrant, which short-circuits extradition, but is applicable only for drug, gangster or terrorism cases. So the guys have been arrested, and a French court now has to decide whether this warrant applies to them...
If so, Garzon gets them.
626. Macnas - 5/25/2004 2:27:01 PM
I wonder then, how all the old INLA boys living in France and Holland might feel at the moment.
627. alistairConnor - 5/25/2004 3:24:06 PM
indeed. Did Ireland sign up for the international warrant? I think there are 11 signatories.
628. Macnas - 5/25/2004 3:51:40 PM
I thought it was 8 so far, but yes Ireland is taking it up.
It is not so much Ireland, as the UK that would consider pursuing those up-to-now safely exiled gunmen.
629. jexster - 5/25/2004 10:44:34 PM
LONDON (AFP) - The United States has proved "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle" in its fight against terrorism and invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), Amnesty International charged.
In its 2004 report on the state of human rights around the globe, the London-based group cited grave violations in dozens of other nations.
But it targeted in particular the "war on terror" initiated by US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001 for sanctioning human rights abuses in the name of freedom.
The unilateral nature of the conflict to unseat Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq had additionally "virtually paralyzed" the United Nations (news - web sites)' role in guaranteeing human rights on a global level, the Amnesty report said.
"The global security agenda promulgated by the US administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," wrote Amnesty's secretary general Irene Khan in the report's introduction.
630. jexster - 5/28/2004 3:45:38 AM
'US to pay big price for Iraq prison abuse. Cannot stem tide of new Al Qaeda recruits' Gen Zinni
My corps
Your corps...
631. Macnas - 5/30/2004 11:30:49 AM
Hostage taking and shootings in Saudi.
632. Macnas - 5/30/2004 11:41:34 AM
I cannot understand how any of the killers were able to escape, and I can find no plausible explanation so far.
The Saudi security forces have been hard at work since last year, and have had many successes in arresting militants and finding arms dumps. I think we could have seen many more attacks such as yesterdays if it were not for the Saudis vigilance.
This may signal the end to the practise of heading to Saudi for a few years and racking up big tax-free numbers, many in the engineering line have done it and 'though I was never tempted, from what I know the money was the only draw.
I suspect that might not be enough anymore for many.
633. Magoseph - 5/30/2004 2:15:44 PM
Apparently, three of the assailants used hostages and stole a car to escape. One was wounded and the fourth one, the leader of the group, was arrested, if Le Monde is correct.
634. neato - 5/30/2004 2:36:16 PM
I heard (BBC news) that the killers probably escaped before the forces moved in.
635. Macnas - 5/30/2004 4:05:40 PM
From what I can read from the various news reports so far, nobody is sure as to what exactly happened, but most say a number of the gunmen escaped.
Whatever about the assault on the building, (and I always fear the worst when I hear of any middle-eastern special forces doing anything remotely complex), the ordinary policing of the area seems to have been in-effective.
636. Magoseph - 5/31/2004 12:41:42 PM
OnStar Bugging Your Car
Would it surprise you to find out that the FBI might be able to monitor private conversations in your car? A recent court case revealed that the FBI used the popular OnStar system to do just that.
GM cars equipped with OnStar are supposed to be the leading edge of safety and technology. OnStar has run a recent blitz of commercials citing helpless motorists calling in with every type of emergency, from a heart attack to locking the keys inside the car. In the advertising world, OnStar reacts quickly by sending help or even unlocking the car.
I think it is an excellent way to monitor suspected terrorists and other criminals. Of course, the FBI should be required to obtain the permission of a federal judge, just as they are required to do in the case of a wire-tap.
637. alistairConnor - 5/31/2004 4:19:58 PM
Wait a minute, this is not analogous to a phone tap. Everyone knows that a phone can be bugged; whether or not one agrees with the legitimacy of bugging by law enforcement people, one knows that the possibility exists when one makes a phone call.
But here, people are apparently unaware that the passive-listening facility exists. If they have not signed a waiver authorising the security company to listen in on them at any time, then there is surely a serious breach of contract.
Similarly with the toll-chip issue mentioned in the article. Breach of faith. Sinister secret snooping.
If it's out in the open, and acknowledged that the law gets access to everything, then people can opt in, or not.
638. arkymalarky - 5/31/2004 6:41:40 PM
I agree, and I wouldn't have that system in my car. I don't understand what the advantage of it is when you have a cell phone. I thought OnStar was pretty much a GPS. Is it like that and a cell phone combined? If so, you can get a GPS separately.
I'm a technological idiot, though, so I'm probably off base for all of it, but Ashcroft's obsession with surveillance creeps me out no end.
639. Absensia - 5/31/2004 7:17:18 PM
I think the "bugging of cars would be an outrage and not only a breach of contract but a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Ashcroft has never seemed to be concerned about ignoring the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and its Amendments and his definition of criminals and terrorists appears to be anyone who "might be" in anyone's dark and murky mind.
A warrant would only be needed if law enforcement officials wanted to use the conversations as testimony or had to prove how they happened to learn of the wrong doing. (Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.) But most would be clever enough to lie about the circumstances, imo. But even if they did get a warrant, they could always fall back on the old and meaningless "reliable informant" scam to obtain it.
I would hope people in the U.S. would not accept this, as many have accepted many of Ashcrofts other Constitutional violations, with the "if you've got nothing to hide, what does it matter," inane theory.
640. jayackroyd - 6/1/2004 3:25:42 AM
638
The radio ads make clear that it is both a GPS and specialized cell phone service.
637
You would have to be incredibly naive to trust the government when they say that they won't use toll transactions or location capabilities of cars or phones.
641. Macnas - 6/1/2004 12:00:01 PM
I think you should take it as given that if you own a modern mobile phone, and/or utilise a GPS system in your car (or boat) then it is possible to track your whereabouts when you use them.
There does not appear to be anything preventing the US (and other) authorities from actually doing this, which differs from using your movements as evidence against you.
Seeing where you pop up on the grid is information the 'phone company has anyway, every time you pass from cell node to cell node you broadcast "I am here".
GPS users might even be using a military/government satellite, and so are giving the authorities a record of movement, (I am here at these exact co-ordinates!) whether they want to or not.
It would be interesting to know, with regard to the signature you leave when using electronic devices such as phones and GPS systems, what information is considered statistical and in the public domain and therefore could be easily gathered without going to the bother of court orders and the like.
642. arkymalarky - 6/1/2004 7:48:13 PM
A big issue was made about that in Florida, I believe, some years ago when someone overheard a cell phone conversation and reported the contents and got in some kind of trouble for having been listening in the first place. I don't remember the details and don't have time to hunt them right now, but someone else may remember.
It's not the location tracking possibilities that particularly bother me, btw, it's listening to private conversations inside a car. That's similar to inside your house. I know people can hear my voice if I'm talking on my cell phone. I know they can locate me if I have a GPS. Listening to private conversations in homes and cars without major restrictions and protection from abuse and violations goes well over a line.
643. alistairConnor - 6/1/2004 7:52:18 PM
How many foreigners do they have to drive out of Saudi before oil production becomes unsustainable?
Just wondering.
644. jexster - 6/1/2004 8:44:34 PM
Good question!
I dunno...I suppose production can continue for some time without any foreign support but not for long
645. Macnas - 6/2/2004 11:21:06 AM
RE 643/644
A very good BBC write-up on the non-nationals in the Saudi workforce.
646. Macnas - 6/2/2004 11:44:28 AM
There was a time when Saudi was the place to go to make lots of money, tax-free.
You would go out there, get in with Aramco if possible, be given a staff of 10 Philippine draughtsmen and keep trying to extend your contract until you got too homesick or began to loose to many braincells to sadiki (home made alcohol spirit).
The above is taken direct from a mate of mine who has spent 15 years or so in the middle east working in the petrochem industry.
647. alistairConnor - 6/2/2004 1:05:29 PM
Along with about 40 000 Americans and 25 000 British, there are also about 5000 French citizens in Saudi. I heard a woman on the radio yesterday, who described the hostility all Westerners feel from the locals. She claimed it dates from the Iraq war, people were friendly before. She also claims that people change their attitude if she has a chance to tell them that she is French.
648. jayackroyd - 6/2/2004 11:50:14 PM
A while ago, I noted that some Spaniards accused of being involved in the 9/11 attacks were going to be released because the US would not provide evidence, for "security reasons." The US has just released and deported a terrorist suspect:
Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra said Wednesday the government has concerns about many people with suspected terror ties, including al-Marabh, but cannot effectively try them in court without giving away intelligence sources and methods.
AP
649. jexster - 6/6/2004 3:13:20 AM
RIP
"Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right." J.C.
650. PelleNilsson - 6/8/2004 9:01:27 PM
A minor nitpick. GPS receivers are receive-only devices. They cannot give away your location.
651. jayackroyd - 6/8/2004 9:32:50 PM
So the Onstar system broadcasts GPS coordinates to the support centers?
And, Pelle, could you drop me an email at your convenience. I'm seeking a little advice. jay@ackroyd.org
652. jayackroyd - 6/8/2004 9:38:40 PM
Q. Does OnStar know where I am all the time?
A. OnStar takes your privacy very seriously. Only when the driver presses the OnStar button located in the vehicle does OnStar know your location. OnStar also knows the vehicle location if your air bags deploy or if you report your car stolen and file a police report.
Q. Can the OnStar system be used to monitor vehicle occupant’s conversations without their knowledge?
A. The OnStar system does not allow in-vehicle monitoring without notification to vehicle occupants. When a voice connection is made into the vehicle, the occupants will be notified in several ways, including a light flash on the indicator next to the OnStar buttons, a phone ring will be heard, the radio will mute and, depending on equipment, the occupant(s) may see the word "phone" or other indicator on the Driver Information Center or radio display. In addition, OnStar advisors are required to announce their presence immediately once they have established voice communication into a vehicle.
653. jexster - 6/10/2004 8:53:21 AM
The US State Department has said an initial report claiming a decline in international "terrorist" attacks was based on erroneous data.
The figures have actually risen sharply, the revised report says.
654. Magoseph - 6/11/2004 12:11:51 AM
State Department retracts terrorism assertion
The U.S. government acknowledged Thursday that a recent report declaring a decline in terrorism in 2003 was wrong.
The report, released in April and touted by top administration officials as a sign of the success of the war on terrorism, was based on faulty data, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.
In fact, he told reporters, the corrected report will show "a sharp increase over the previous year." The corrected version is not yet completed, he said.
Secretary of State Colin Powell denied the errors were the result of an effort to make the administration look good.
655. arkymalarky - 6/11/2004 2:17:49 AM
If it was purposeful it was a stupid move, since the result of a required correction was to make them look incompetent with their own figures and less effective on terrorism. Does this mean Level Orange should really have been Red? I wonder if their warnings correlated with levels of terrorism at all. While they're correcting data they should take a look at that.
656. jexster - 6/21/2004 3:01:41 AM
The Professional' revolt continues in Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. The author "Anonymous" was interviewed by Spencer Akerman of TNR's "Iraq'd" who is guest blogging for Marshall.
Anonymous is as US Intelligence agent....he is not kind to the Bushies but reserves special ire for the leadership of Bush's Intel agencies....
In a word, Bush's war is feckless, flailing, failing...but his solution?
Total War Against Islam...aah Democratic Revolutions..out of control
Enjoy..as the Coup unfolds..
Imperial Hubris - Ackerman I
Imperial Hubris - Ackerman II
Imperial Hubris - Ackerman III
Imperial Hubris - Political Animal
657. jayackroyd - 6/21/2004 8:56:06 PM
al Jazeria is reporting that the Korean hostage has been killed.
658. jayackroyd - 6/26/2004 10:14:56 PM
The Economist had an editorial--a leader as they call it--entitled "What were they thinking?" wrt the official condoning of torture by the US government.
This article (above the fold, top right) from the NYTimes provides an explanation.
Apparently the CIA used these techniques before the memo justifying was written in an attempt get contemporary threat information out of high ranking al qaeda captives. Then Bybee wrote the memo to cover them.
This, of course, compounds the crime, and not only because it's a coverup for illegal activity. It also sanctioned this behavior in general, so when the pressure was on for more information, torture was acceptable.
The article is worth reading in its entirety, because it also illustrates some of the things people say makes torture ineffective. These interrogrations were the source for the charge that Padilla was going to set off a dirty bomb. The DoJ has, this week, admitted that the charge was not true. I guess one of the victims of torture told the interrogators what they wanted to hear.
It's also worth noting that this is being leaked in part to diminish the stain on recently appointed (for life) federal judge Bybee.
659. jexster - 7/1/2004 4:14:17 AM
MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Nicaraguan officials said Thursday they had no evidence a suspected al-Qaida figure passed through their country to Honduras, but said it was possible
660. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2004 4:31:02 AM
Anything is possible in Nicaragua.
661. Ulgine Barrows - 7/9/2004 11:50:00 AM
Is there a lotto?
662. Magoseph - 7/15/2004 1:01:06 PM
Terror in the Skies, Again?
This link was posted in Ace's blog, Mac. Have you read it?
663. Macnas - 7/15/2004 1:26:49 PM
I just have, and find it hard to decide whether it is a recollection tainted by paranoia or an actual example of the threat that may yet repeat itself in American airspace.
I do find it hard to understand how, if what the writer remembers is true, anything at all was allowed onto the 'plane without being scanned. The last time I flew every bit of hand luggage was scanned and or searched, no matter what it was, and that includes the fold-up stroller we brought with us, which are not even allowed into the passenger area (they are taken at the door and put in cargo).
I also tend to treat anything that references Ann Coulter with some degree of suspicion, not that I have anything against her, but you can never get accurate information from extremists.
For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with any security measure a nation deems fit to take at its entry points. Long before the events of 9/11, I was being searched at gunpoint in Heathrow. To this day, I cannot go through British airports without being singled out in some way by security. But other than a few incidences where a certain amount of racism was involved, it's always purely professional and over with quickly.
664. PelleNilsson - 7/15/2004 1:47:37 PM
I read it too. There is I think something fishy about it, something that doesn't add up. Maybe it is the dreamlike quality of it. Extraordinarily strange things go on all the time but only the writer and her husband seem to worry about it.
665. Macnas - 7/15/2004 2:32:53 PM
Well, if strange things are going to happen, like as not the setting will be an airport.
The behaviour of anyone who you deem, for whatever reason, as suspicious, can be misinterpreted all too easily. What's in the bag? what's that long object? might be a gun, now they are talking with each other, now he's reading a red book!
If these Arabs on her 'plane were so much of a threat that there were "federal air marshals sitting all around us", why were they allowed board in the first place?
If there were, indeed, "federal air marshals sitting all around us", and the suspicious activity of the Arabs had come to the stewards attention, why was her husband asked to secretly write a description of one of them? It does not make too much sense to me.
Still, it seems to have been very upsetting for her, and it’s easy for me to second guess her.
666. SnowOwl - 7/15/2004 2:36:49 PM
The whole thing doesn't add up to me. If, as she says, there were a large number of air marshalls on the plane it appears that there were suspicions that something was wrong. If there were suspicions that something was wrong why on earth weren't normal security measures in place?
Why would the stewardess ask the husband to write a description of one of the Syrians when all of these presumably highly trained air marshalls are on board?
How did the author know that the law enforcement officer was holding 14 passports and that they were Syrian passports? I'm sure he didn't hold them all up individually in front of her.
She says The Washington Post was in contact with her. It seems extraordinary to me that a newspaper wouldn't run with the story which, if true, shows a terrible breakdown in airline security.
667. SnowOwl - 7/15/2004 2:37:46 PM
cross post with Macnas who obviously has been thinking along the same lines as me.
668. jayackroyd - 7/15/2004 7:37:40 PM
It's pretty clearly nonsense. It has all the attributes of urban legend--details that are meant to lend verisimilitude that are hard to believe (do you know what a Syrian passport looks like?) The very personal voice. The attendant absolutely wrong stuff--if there were an air marshal on that flight, it woulda been the guy in the sunglasses in the front row. And they don't put multiple marshals on flights; there aren't enough of them. It's barely plausible that there would be a marshal on a Detroit-LAX flight. A strategy for beating security profiling would to be to originate in a place with a substantial arab (Lebanese, mostly from what I've read) population which Detroit has, so that might be a place that a marshal or two would be assigned. OTOH, if you were a bad guy doing that, you wouldb't carry a Syrian passport.
OTOH, it was bylined. Amusingly encough, the first hit on a Yahoo search for the author brings up someone who teaches creative writing.
I've written a note about whether the story was fact checked to the editors of the site. We'll see if they reply.
669. Absensia - 7/15/2004 10:01:15 PM
I'm pretty sure terrorists would wear track suits with Arabic writing on the back of them. That's an excellent way to blend into the crowd. I agree, why did they hold up their passports on a domestic flight? Probably to but the passangers and the flight crew on guard. And all those suspicious objects they had. I guess no one checked them before they boarded.
From what I have always read, Federal air marshalls don't wear badges or announce their presence. I think the dead give away was the guy in the McDonald's tee shirt with a McDonald's bag that ended up mostly empty. Yeah, that must have been it. And then there is the guy who gave this woman the cold, flat look after initially being pleasant to her. That couldn't possibly be because she had been staring at him, whispering to the flight attendant, and exhibiting all sorts of xenophobic behavior. Naw, no way.
670. Macnas - 7/18/2004 12:47:44 PM
Hmmm, well spotted Mago, for bringing that article to our attention in the first place. It turns out that our discussion of the article is but part of an internet shitstorm which has arisen over Ms.Jacobsen's article.
A few people have gone into this in detail, and found the incident to be true, insofar as a group of Arab musicians were questioned after said flight. But that is about the size of it wrt confirmed details.
If you think the story is a bit dramatically enhanced, well you might be right, and so far we have no idea beyond what Ms.Jacobsen has written as to what might have actually happened on that flight. It is interesting to note, that all the fracas over this story is mostly confined to blogs and the like.
671. Magoseph - 7/18/2004 12:55:19 PM
Mac, funny take on the " Terror in the Skies, Again?" story here:
Terror in Skies: Muslim Man Recounts 4 Hours of Fear
(2004-07-17) -- A harrowing story of one man's experience with "terror in the skies" reached a global audience this week, as web surfers and bloggers circulated it, commented on it and challenged its authenticity.
The first-person account starts before the unnamed man and 13 of his friends boarded Northwest Airlines flight #327, bound from Detroit the Los Angeles, on June 29.
"We were just going about our business during the flight," said the man who was born in an unnamed, predominantly Muslim country. "You know, we were just reading the Koran aloud, carrying objects about the cabin and gathering near the restrooms to chat in our native tongues about the ultimate peace we'll find in Allah. Suddenly, I noticed this white woman staring at me. It really freaked me out. It made me and my friends so nervous that we had to use the restroom more, and of course take our digital cameras and other objects in there with us."
The anonymous victim said he began to receive unwanted attention from the flight crew, and saw people passing notes to each other and exchanging glances.
"My legs were like rubber," he said. "I don't know how we endured four hours of this kind of fear. Me and my whole cell group--you know, my friends--finally understood how the great martyr Mohammed Atta must have felt during his final hours."
The unnamed man said his only comfort came from knowing that he had "official permission from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to be aboard that plane. I knew that they respect our religion and were protecting us."
672. SnowOwl - 7/18/2004 2:34:55 PM
Annie Jacobson's brief autobiography on her web site is rather amusing. It begins:
Images of fairies and elves dancing wildly around a fire in a dark forest often woke me in the middle of the night as a child and I felt a powerful necessity to jump out of bed and write, to make these visions into poems. I had no idea then that I was being visited by the imagination and that it would shape the rest of my life.
She certainly seems to have a very vivid imagination.
673. Macnas - 7/18/2004 2:40:56 PM
Well, I included the link as it does explain the dramatic bent to the article. However, it would not be fair or right to say she made the whole thing up.
But I do think she over-egged the pudding in her recall of the events.
674. alistairConnor - 7/18/2004 2:44:47 PM
Her story reminds me of an internet rumour from a couple of years ago.
A few days after 9/11, there was a terrible explosion in Toulouse, several dozen dead -- a dangerous chemicals factory, poor handling procedures.
A vividly-written eye-witness account described how it had been triggered by an Arab jihadist firing a bazooka from an apartment balcony. He had actually aimed for the munitions plant next door, but missed, hitting the agricultural chemicals plant, so there were only dozens dead, and not thousands.
Or so the story went. Easy to believe that stuff if you're all psyched up.
Tempting to make it up when you've got an agenda.
675. wabbit - 7/18/2004 5:44:22 PM
It looks like most bloggers referencing the "Terror in the Skies, Again" story are leaving it up to Michelle Malkin to do the heavy lifting of verification.
676. jayackroyd - 7/18/2004 6:13:26 PM
Wabbit's link indicates that there will be a story on NBC tonight. I don't know that I'll be watching, but if someone does, I'd be interested to hear what, if anything, runs.
It's odd that a search for her name only yields one story on the WomensWallstreet site, given that she's been writing for them for two years.
I did find that creative writing site in my search a couple of days ago. I apologize for not linking it, but I didn't know (and still don't) whether it's the same person.
IAC, even if the basic facts are correct, isn't this an illustration of bigotry and baseless fear, rather than an illustration of a lack of vigilance? If you believe her story, the plane was stuffed with marshals. The flight attendants were alert and on the problem. The flight crew was on it.
Nothing happened.
The scary McDonalds bag didn't have anthrax in it.
677. alistairConnor - 7/18/2004 6:37:31 PM
If these guys really had a kitset explosive device between them, I have trouble believing they swallowed the bits, or flushed them down the toilet. So, did they arrest a dozen Syrian terrorists, or did they search, interrogate and release a dozen Syrian musicians?
Or can a dozen Syrians simply disappear without trace, in the USA?
678. Macnas - 7/18/2004 7:29:48 PM
All this interest stems from that one story. No newsroom anywhere that I can see reported on it, with the exception of a brief mention of arab musicians being detained for a short while after the flight had landed.
It might even be that Ms.Jacobsen could have been the cause of all of this by reporting her suspicions (and that is all they turned out to be) to the flight attendants. She might have been in such a state of distress that the attendant may have lied to her about the air marshals all around in an effort to put her at some ease.
That being said, she was right to be vigilant. But I think she was being very paranoid with it.
679. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2004 7:31:10 PM
I think Macnas's explanation in Message # 665 is very reasonable. Once you start thinking along those lines it is easy to get carried away.
680. alistairConnor - 7/18/2004 7:32:14 PM
If they were indeed detained and then released, then they were not terrorists! end of story, for godsake.
Unless there is a Vast Conspiracy involved, of course.
681. Macnas - 7/18/2004 7:39:13 PM
That is what I'm getting at, the story is of Ms.Jacobsen's manufacture, indeed the main part of it is all of her own personal unverifiable recollection.
It is the internet blogs that are giving this thing legs, indeed as we are...
682. Magoseph - 7/18/2004 8:13:08 PM
I think Jacobsen wanted to write about the incident herself. Something she couldn't have done, had she given the story to a reporter or a publication.
683. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2004 8:17:42 PM
I also came up with Jacobsen's site when the story first broke. But like jay I thought no that cannot be the same person.
684. Macnas - 8/3/2004 12:16:22 PM
Irish contract engineer shot dead in Saudi.
685. Macnas - 8/3/2004 1:03:34 PM
UK police detain 13 after raids across the country.
686. jexster - 8/13/2004 10:42:28 PM
Turns out this guy was national security LA to Sen Taft when I worked in the USS...long ago..
Seeing Through The Other Side’s Eyes William Lind
In any war, one of the most useful opportunities is a chance to see the conflict through the other side’s eyes. A Marine captain recently sent me a fascinating look at the misnamed “war on terror” through the eyes of al Qaeda, in the form of an interview by an al Qaeda journal, Sawt Al-Jihad, of Fawwaz bin Muhammad Al-Nashami, who is identified as the leader of the attack at Khobar, Saudi Arabia, on May 29 of this year in which 22 “infidels” were killed.
I have no way of determining whether the account is genuine, though internal evidence suggests it probably is. There is also no doubt that much of what Al-Nashami says is propagandistic. It is intended to rouse other young Islamic militants to emulate his “great” deeds and kill more infidels. But al Qaeda is a sophisticated operation, sufficiently so to understand that good propaganda contains as much truth as possible.
Arab time keeping is usually like Scandinavian cuisine: there isn’t much of it and most of what there is is bad
William S. Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation
687. Macnas - 8/15/2004 1:32:04 PM
"Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism"
Not just anyone can come up with titles like that.
688. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 5:02:45 PM
Basis for entrapping 2 arabs undermined
I'm surprised there isn't more fuss over this case. The suspects were not involved with any acquistition of any missile. They were simply serving as a money laundering conduit. I suspect that if you asked a dozen or so pizza shop owners if they would trade accept $40 K in cash in return for $25 K in checks, you get some takers, regardless of the use the money was to be put to or their ethnicity. Singling out mosque goers to dangle money in front of them does not seem to me to advance the "war" on terror.
689. Macnas - 8/17/2004 6:06:35 PM
I really must subscribe one of these days.
690. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 6:14:53 PM
To the times? It's free online with registration.
Or to the FBI Sting Operations newsletter?
691. Macnas - 8/17/2004 6:27:53 PM
I know that jay, and indeed I have subscribed to it in the past, but forever forget my password.
692. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 6:42:16 PM
Yeah, I've had to replace the hard drive on my main machine, lost all my cookies in the process, and so have been challenging my memory for passwords. (The critical data was backed up)
693. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 7:09:46 PM
686
That crack regarding scandinavian food is just flat wrong. One of the best restaurants in New York, Aqavit, is Scandinavian.
694. Macnas - 8/17/2004 7:17:14 PM
I dunno, a diet of moose, sour milk and herring just doesn't do it for me.
695. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 7:27:47 PM
For an appetizer, we both ordered the classic gravlax, salmon marinated in salt and sugar, paired with an untraditional espresso mustard sauce with a pleasing bite. While gravlax is often accompanied by marinated cucumber slices and rye crispbread, this tasty dish was enhanced by piquant pickled fennel, and fennel-seed crispbread.
The next course was an impressive but hardly Scandinavian fish dish: seared tuna and scallops on a bed on crispy taro chips topped with shiitake mushrooms stuffed with crab and served with a beurre blanc sauce spiced with chile oil.
For a main course, I had Swedish sjösmansbiff, sailor?s beef, prepared from a beef loin marinated in Danish Carlsberg beer for 12 hours, then cooked until medium rare. The meat was served in a bowl with a beef and beer stock, accompanied by fingerling potatoes , beets, asparagus, white beans, and roasted garlic. The result was a hearty dish not nearly as heavy as the traditional beef, potatoes and onions version. I sopped up the broth with the blueberry rye rolls and the fabulous foccacia bread studded with golden raisins and fennel seeds.
For dessert, we first tasted the warm, coconut financier (butter cake) topped with plum sorbet, accompanied by sliced, macerated plums and plum fruit leather, the whole surrounded by a curved chocolate cookie "wall".
But for me, the piece de resistance was the Artica Circle, an ode to my all-time favorite fruit: the tangy, amber-colored, raspberry-shaped cloudberry. Served on a gorgeous glass plate as blue as a Swedish summer sky, this towering dessert had a base of cloudberry juice cooked with dessert wine, lime, and kaffir leaves, with a layer of whole cloudberries mixed with lemon juice and sugar. On top of this was a disc of orange anise ice cream and a perpendicular disc of cloudberry sorbet, with an orange anise cookie, an almond cookie curl, and, at the peak, an lightning bolt of honey.
696. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 7:28:18 PM
The above is from a review I found on the web.
697. Macnas - 8/17/2004 7:50:49 PM
That,s all a sham, sour milk and herring are what they love.
698. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 7:56:09 PM
Chuckle.
No, I've been there. There's a 3 story waterfall in the main dining room.
In Mark Kurlansky's Cod: The Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, he includes the various ways people have prepared salt cod. Lutefisk--treating it with lye to soften it up--is the most appalling, although the images of little Icelandic moppets heading off to school with a piece of salt cod in their mouths comes close.
Also the appeal of buried cod head is not an appealing one.
699. marjoribanks - 8/17/2004 7:59:56 PM
No.
Scandi food can be extremely good, clear, pure and based (generally) on high-quality local ingredients.
Marcus Samuelsson (the chef at Aquavit) is one exemplar in the Scandi food tradition.
But, I'm quite drawn to this guy, one of the more informed and winning cooks in the current TV/media generation.
700. marjoribanks - 8/17/2004 8:02:02 PM
By the way, I endore (mightily) Jay's recommendation of the Kurlansky book about Cod.
It's something of a minor tour-de-force, economic history more than anything, and one of a very slim list of the best food history books.
701. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 8:20:12 PM
Yes. His follow up, Salt, was not nearly as good. But Cod is a great book.
I, for one, would otherwise never have known that when Cartier discovered (sic) Canada, he had to wend his way through a collection of Basque fishing boats.
702. marjoribanks - 8/17/2004 8:22:22 PM
That was one of the amazing revelations in Kurlansky's book.
But another was the sheer importance of fishing (cod and other catch) in the history of this part of the US and the country's self-generation.
Great book, highly recommended.
703. jayackroyd - 8/17/2004 8:32:54 PM
Yeah, the intertwining of the slave trade, sugar, rum, salt and the cod is laid out in a masterful way, and there's no small amount of humor either--especially in the recipe titles.
704. PelleNilsson - 8/17/2004 9:53:42 PM
I'm glad you said that about Salt, jay. I didn't buy it because I strongly suspected Kurlansky wouldn't be able to repeat his tour de force.
705. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 9:56:54 PM
Wait, wait, yes, it's coming clearer, clearer...
YES! I see it now!
Clear link between lutefisk and terrorism!
706. PelleNilsson - 8/17/2004 9:59:59 PM
Yes, the shifting, jelly-like character. I hate lutefish.
707. SnowOwl - 8/18/2004 1:10:45 AM
Cod is one of my favourite books.
708. concerned - 8/22/2004 7:02:01 AM
Why hasn't Pelle deleted 692-707 for being far more off topic than anything I have attempted to post to this thread?
709. arkymalarky - 8/22/2004 7:05:36 AM
Con'd! We've missed you!
I was just about to log off and go to bed. C'mon and stick around. We have an election to argue about and we need you here. Poor George Bush is getting beaten to a pulp.
Hope to see you posting!
G'nite!
710. wonkers2 - 8/22/2004 7:37:49 AM
Welcome back! [Good question! He seems to have mellowed out a bit lately.]
711. Macnas - 8/22/2004 12:51:09 PM
Concerned
It is very good to see you posting.
I must admit, the "Cod" posts are out of context, and if I was a totalitarian I'd have deleted them. However I'm not, and as it only lasted a few posts and did not get anyone's goat, I did not. That and I was partly involved myself.
I hope you will post some more, as I regard you as an intergal part of the Mote, as much as the other constant participants here.
712. judithathome - 8/22/2004 5:04:56 PM
Hey, Concerned! We were all worried about you...hope you stick around.
713. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2004 7:35:16 PM
Hello, concerned! Keep'em coming.
714. PelleNilsson - 8/24/2004 4:16:28 PM
I mentioned in another thread that I'm re-reading Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower and some parallels between the public debates in the US regarding the invasions of the Phillipines and Iraq.
Here is another instance where the past reverberates in the present (or vice versa). Tuchman describes the mood in Paris towards the end of 1892 (slightly abridged).
The bomb in the police station threw Paris into a panic. The city, wrote an English visitor, was absolutely paralyzed with fear. The upper classes dared not go to the theatres, to restaurants, to the fashionable shops or to ride in the Bois where Anarchists were suspected behind every tree. People exchanged terrible rumours: the Anarchists had mined the churches and poured prussic acid in the City's reservoirs. Tourists took flight, the hotels were empty, buses ran without passengers, theatres and museums were barricaded
715. alistairconnor - 8/29/2004 4:08:10 PM
The French government has gone into a huddle and is making dramatic statements about the two French journalists kidnapped in Iraq.
I question the wisdom of making a big deal about such events. At best, it's playing into the kidnappers' hands and upping the stakes. And if, as is likely, the poor guys get killed, it makes the government look ineffectual.
Anyway. Lots of people get kidnapped in Iraq these days, mostly for ransom (domestic clients), but also for political and ideological motives (mostly foreigers). What is different about this event, is that it has not the slightest bearing on the national liberation struggle : it's an overtly jihadist act.
What are they demanding? The abrogation of the new law forbidding the islamic veil in French schools. Just slightly surrealist.
716. alistairconnor - 8/29/2004 4:15:12 PM
I mean, who are these people?
I see two possibilities : they set out to catch some foreigners; ended up with these two, realised oh hell, they're French! What are we going to demand?
Or they deliberately set out to get French nationals, because they really think they can get the law repealed? That's even dumber.
The domestic repercussions are interesting. I happen to think that the law in question, while not fundamentally illegitimate, is boneheadedly confrontational in the current domestic context. But now we see the islamic organisations in France, not exactly defending the law, but telling the Iraqis to sod off... This is possibly a watershed in the emergence of an authentically French current of islam, which is sorely needed. Wahabi go home.
717. iiibbb - 8/29/2004 4:43:22 PM
xpost
I recommend this article. While you may not agree with why we're at war, what we should have done about 9-11, or where to go from here... this article does a great analyzing how we got to 9-11 to begin with, and how this 'war' has been going on a lot longer than 4 years. I'd at least recommend the first 2 parts...
Although conservative in perspective, it's pretty non-partisan. I wish more debate were framed this way.
718. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 5:01:35 PM
I'll try to get through it, but I get cognitive dissonance when reading the neo-con stuff.
719. iiibbb - 8/29/2004 5:07:39 PM
The first 2 sections are a good analysis... I don't think it pulls many punches... in fact it takes some of its hardest shots against Reagan.
I can't speak for the rest yet.
720. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 5:28:29 PM
But as I will attempt to show, we are only in the
very early stages of what promises to be a very long
war, and Iraq is only the second front to have been
opened in that war: the second scene, so to speak, of
the first act of a five-act play. In World War II and
then in World War III, we persisted in spite of impatience,
discouragement, and opposition for as long as
it took to win, and this is exactly what we have been
called upon to do today in World War IV.
For today, no less than in those titanic conflicts,
we are up against a truly malignant force in radical
Islamism and in the states breeding, sheltering, or financing its terrorist armory. This new enemy has al-
ready attacked us on our own soil—a feat neither
Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia ever managed to
pull off—and openly announces his intention to hit
us again, only this time with weapons of infinitely
greater and deadlier power than those used on 9/11.
His objective is not merely to murder as many of us
as possible and to conquer our land. Like the Nazis
and Communists before him, he is dedicated to the
destruction of everything good for which America
stands. It is this, then, that (to paraphrase George W.
Bush and a long string of his predecessors, Republican
and Democratic alike) we in our turn, no less
than the “greatest generation” of the 1940’s and its
spiritual progeny of the 1950’s and after, have a responsibility to uphold and are privileged to defend.
721. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 5:28:36 PM
I just find this to be unbearably overheated. The enemy in this "war" is a scattering of individuals, numbering in the thousands, without the resources of a state to bring to bear. There was no WWIII. This is not WWIV. Up above this passage he talks about Iraq as the second front in a war that will last a very long time. Well, it certainly will last a long time if you are going to attack countries that pose no threat, that aren't part of the group seeking "infinitely greater and deadly power than those used on 9/11." I mean, c'mon. They're so underequipped that they have to hijack planes and use them in kamikazi attacks. What weapons they do have, they got from the US and from Saudi Arabia. (See Steve Coll's very good Ghost Wars).
As I said, I'll try to read it all. But, sheesh.
722. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 5:41:57 PM
To the New York Times, however, the failure
was not at all inevitable. In a front-page
editorial disguised as a “report,” the Times credited the commission’s final report with finding that “an attack described as unimaginable had in fact been imagined, repeatedly.” But not a shred of the documentary evidence cited by the Times for this categorical statement actually predicted that al Qaeda would hijack commercial airliners and crash them into buildings in New York and Washington. Moreover, all of the evidence, such as it was, came from the 1990’s. Nevertheless, the Times “report” contrived to convey the impression that in the fall of 2000 the Bush administration— then not yet in office—had received fair warning of an imminent attack. To bolster this impression, the Times went on to quote from a briefing given to Bush a month before 9/11.
This is not analysis. This is partisan hackery. It also leaves the false impression that the Bush administration pursued terrorism with the same vigor as Clinton, which is simply not true. Clinton did not get serious until 1997, but they were serious at that point. Covert operations were planned, but it is hard to get one guy without collateral damage. I haven't reached the Bush administration's effort in Coll's book, which is the best I've seen on the subject of the Afghan war. Clarke and others have said that the Bush administration deemphasized actual terrorism issues, instead focusing on states that might sponsor terrorists. But this book is weaving together a number of covert operations that I hadn't heard of. Bush may have engaged in similar activity.
The administration made a fundamental error--not recognizing, despite being told repeatedly, that the threat was from non-state actors. Bin Laden had hijacked the Taliban; the Taliban were not using bin Laden. His funding is from individuals, not states. The Bushies didn't get it, and still don't seem to.
723. Macnas - 8/29/2004 5:44:45 PM
I've read some of it, will read the rest later this evening. But so far it is nothing more than a "hail Bush" exercise.
He does have an interesting take on contemporary history though, kind of unique actually, or so I'd hope.
724. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 6:01:11 PM
After 444 days, and just hours after Reagan’s
inauguration in January 1981, the hostages were
finally released by the Iranians, evidently because
they feared that the hawkish new President might
actually launch a military strike against them.
The Times is expected to provide evidence. Norm need not. His intution is good enough for him.
725. alistairconnor - 8/29/2004 6:02:39 PM
iii : Yeah, I skimmed but...
When Bush claims (as quoted in the article) that Al Qaida are following in the 20th century totalitarian traditions of Nazism and Fascism, he's just plain ill-informed. The whole notion of a World War IV is gibberish. Terrorism has existed for hundreds of years, in the Middle East and elsewhere. The novelty of recent years has been its globalisation, because goods, services and people circulate much more easily now than ever before.
The idea that "terrorism" constitutes an entity to be combatted as such is an aberration. The idea that it constitutes such a threat that it should be the sole focus, or even the primary focus, of the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation, is just plain ludicrous.
If the idea of a war on terror is catchy, it's because it provides a simple way of looking at the world. The article's author mocks Europeans and others, for seeing the world as a complex place where negotiation and compromise are important... but that's just how the world is.
Unless you think that the brute-force methods that he advocates have indeed proved successful, in Iraq for example?
726. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 6:11:51 PM
And as I hit page 22, he is conflating every terrorist attack into one big group--Iraq's attempt to assassinate Bush is put on a level with the activities of Hizbollah which is at the same level as the Libyan bombing and the kidnappings in Iran under Reagan's watch, which is just like the trade center bombing in 1993.
These are actions taken by states, by state sponsored terror agencies, by stateless groups, by individuals with a variety of motives. None of these, just by the way, seems to have involved radical islam, with the possible exception of the WTC bombing, where Youssef did have contacts with Abdul Rahman, whose group in turn was in touch with al qaeda elements in Peshawar.
727. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 6:13:46 PM
725:
Bush agrees:
When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”
NY Daily News.
728. Wombat - 8/29/2004 6:49:58 PM
That's the first sensible thing that Bush has said about terrorism since he was elected. Hopefully he will repeat it during his acceptance speech.
729. jayackroyd - 8/29/2004 7:42:35 PM
We eventually have to accept what Alistair just posted--that this is a condition, not a state of war. We will always have disaffected groups without access to state resources, or front organizations set up by states to take action without the sponsor's fingerprints directly on the job. The US has been successful, through both overt and covert means, of stopping state sponsored terror. Stateless groups pose a more difficult problem, but such groups have limited resources and operational capability.
730. wonkers2 - 8/30/2004 6:51:08 AM
As I just posted in the politics? thread,I agree with jay and wombat and Alistair. "War" is not a good description of what has been happening. It's just the politicians' attempt to over-dramatize the situation. We started the only war when we invaded Iraq. A victory against terrorism or an identifiable end to it is more unlikely than an end to malaria or AIDS.
731. Absensia - 8/30/2004 6:57:54 AM
But, as I just said, it gives Bush the opportunity to declare himself a "war president," and also use "terrorism" as a bludgeon against countries to make them cooperate with whatever he wants them to do, including giving the US access, arrest terrorists, ala Pakistan and Afghanistan. The carrot, money, and the stick.
732. Wombat - 8/30/2004 7:46:01 PM
Oops!
Now Bush has flip-flopped again! It now appears that the US will win the war on terrorism after all.
733. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/30/2004 7:50:42 PM
From Harper's Weekly review:
Two government reports, one civilian and one military, were
issued on the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. The Army reported
that military intelligence officers and civilian contractors
were deeply involved in the abuse; the civilian report went
to great lengths to avoid the logical conclusion that the
Bush White House had created the conditions (legal,
operational, and military) that directly led to the Abu
Ghraib horrors. Both reports found that many of the
techniques employed at Abu Ghraib originated in CIA torture
chambers in Afghanistan. Army investigators discovered that
military police dogs were used to terrify teenage Iraqi
prisoners as part of a game. The object of the game was to
make the youths urinate on themselves. "It had nothing to do
with interrogation," said an unnamed Army officer.
734. wonkers2 - 8/30/2004 7:56:14 PM
Sounds to me like American government sponsored terrorism!
735. jayackroyd - 8/30/2004 8:24:11 PM
Schleschinger in the press conference made a big fuss over the fact that the prisoners in the photos were not being interrogated. They were being punished for misbehavior. That seems to me to be still worse--that these techniques were so widespread and so accepted that to use them for punishment seemed appropriate.
736. wonkers2 - 8/31/2004 1:48:23 AM
Schlesinger is a jerk. Covering up for Rumsfeld, et al.
737. Bill Russell - 8/31/2004 3:50:31 AM
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/3687989/detail.html
Time For Rumsfeld To Resign
Reports Place Blame At Top Levels
738. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 5:24:38 AM
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Riceroni all should resign.
739. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 5:27:32 AM
Bush should be impeached and removed...
Fat chance
740. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 5:30:31 AM
A couple of years ago I contributed money to impeach Bush efforts. It was an unrealistic, romantic thought then. Now it's ridiculous. I'm giving what little money I have available to contribute to Kerry and Dem candidates who have a chance to be elected but who need the money.
741. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 5:31:51 AM
Kerry needs NO MONEY.
742. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 5:32:48 AM
"unrealistic, romantic thought"
Yep!
743. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 5:33:02 AM
Well, I think Bush has raised more?? Is this not correct?
744. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 5:37:34 AM
Together, they have already spent more than a BILLION.
745. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 6:01:41 AM
Well, it looks like Kerry will have to spend a lot more to beat Bush.
746. concerned - 9/4/2004 6:16:42 AM
From Review Blames Top Officials In Prisoner Abuse Scandal :
Former Defense Secretary: There Was 'Chaos At Abu Ghraib'
There was "chaos at Abu Ghraib" and there was "sadism" by guards on the prison's night shift, said former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger on Tuesday as he presented the findings of a special commission report on the prisoner abuse scandal.
Schlesinger said there's "indirect responsibility at higher levels" for what happened there, since the weaknesses at the prison were well known. He said "corrective action could have been taken and should have been taken."
Despite faulting top Pentagon officials for failures of guidance and leadership, the report does not call for formal sanctions. Schlesinger said there was "no policy of abuse" at Abu Ghraib. He said that, in fact, officials made it clear that the Geneva Conventions would apply in Iraq.
The commission leveled particularly harsh criticism at Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was the top U.S. commander in Iraq at the time. The report concluded that Sanchez "failed to ensure proper staff oversight" of detention and interrogation operations.
Schlesinger said the military police at the prison were "undertrained for detention operations." And he said there was a low ratio of military police to the number of inmates.
He also said the abuses that were shown in photos from the Iraqi prison "did not come from authorized interrogation" or from intelligence-seeking efforts. He described them as "freelance activities on the part of the night shift" at the prison, where he said the atmosphere was one of an "animal house."
Schlesinger's report seems even-handed to me.
747. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 9:14:48 AM
A white wash. Higher officials will not be blamed. In the USA the higher you go, the less accountability.
748. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 5:31:55 PM
I agree. A whitewash.
749. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 3:06:19 AM
Nothing left to say then....
750. Macnas - 9/7/2004 1:01:01 PM
Just to get the thread back on track...
Last weeks appalling events in Beslan has gone some way to redefining terrorism in terms of what we can expect to see in the future.
This was an extreme example, targeting children and exploiting the huge emotional reaction that went with it. It also gives us a worrying glimpse of what can happen when the already established suicide tactics that we see so often in the middle east are combined with the more traditional large scale hostage/hijack situation.
I do think, especially after seeing the recently released video recovered from inside the school, taken by the hostage takers themselves, that a bloody end was what they wanted.
I saw at least 3 explosive devices, all wired for detonation, not for show. An improvised pressure pad, which I think was a fake, was used to cow the captives, with a man threatening to take his foot off it and so cause the bombs to explode.
There was little or no attempt to get involved in negotiations from beginning to end, the people who were released earlier on were done so, in my opinion, purely for practical numbers management. No food allowed, no water allowed, extreme demands that could never be met.
continued...
751. Macnas - 9/7/2004 1:01:16 PM
Before the whole thing went pear-shaped, two of the women hostage takers committed suicide, detonating the explosives they had strapped to themselves, for no apparent reason. There was no going back or getting out for these people, they wanted to end it by killing themselves and as many of the school children, teachers and others as possible.
The event trail is being established, such as the infiltration into Beslan, the suspected bribery of border guards, the poor security and containment of the school area, the evidence that locals, possibly parents, had opened fire on the school in an attempt to provoke the security forces into storming the buildings, and the inability to secure the area afterwards for emergency services to operate to any level of efficiency.
This will, I think, happen again. What do think?
752. neato - 9/7/2004 3:48:12 PM
I think it will happen again unless Putin tries to get a political solution. I heard tonight that he said that this would be like inviting Osama Bin Laden to the White house. Well, I think : Why not? That would be better than what might happen next.
Amnesty international has pointed out that there is a build up of a sense of injustice. This is what leads to terrorism. Talk to the bastards, that's what I think.
753. alistairconnor - 9/7/2004 4:12:57 PM
Well, Putin has spent years framing the Chechen problem as a battle against terrorism. We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the toilets, etc.
That's what Thatcher used to say. You don't negotiate with terrorists, you kill them. Note that she did not resolve the Irish question. That was eventually resolved (if it really has been...) by negotiating with the terrorists.
I'm not suggesting that those particular loathesome terrorists were people that could be negotiated with -- I think you are right about that, Micmac.
It's always a matter of finding proxies, moderate go-betweens, drawing red lines and rubbing them out etc. Long and painful.
It doesn't look like Putin's the man for that, so they are in for more of the same, no doubt.
754. marjoribanks - 9/7/2004 4:15:47 PM
Not that i'm any fan of Putin or the ridiculously heavy Russian hand in Ingushetia or Chechnya - but this was a lose-lose situation from the moment the multi-ethnic band went into the school.
In some ways, it's quite amazing that so many kids and adults emerged alive.
--
And yes, the operation was most probably a "success" so I'd imagine that we'll see more horrors like it in the region.
755. alistairconnor - 9/7/2004 4:15:48 PM
Putin also has to deal with the murderous backlash. Apparently the locals are heading for the border with pitchforks etc, to kill them some Ingush.
Why Ingush? A couple of the terrorists were Ingush; but mostly, they had a war with them a decade or so ago, so they are the designated targets.
756. marjoribanks - 9/7/2004 4:19:15 PM
It's a bit more complicated than the fact that several of the terrorists were Ingush, AC.
The Ossetians (Christians) and the Chechens and Ingush (Muslims) have been at each others throats for many centuries, the communities are nakedly hostile to each other.
757. alistairconnor - 9/7/2004 4:27:48 PM
I don't think it's transposable to anywhere else in the world, though.
Putin and Bush would like us to see this as a "global problem", not something that you can deal with rationally, just something you have to stand up to and destroy. If others adopt their attitude, then yes, they can reproduce the model : get locked into a lose-lose scenario, because there's nobody you can negotiate with.
758. marjoribanks - 9/7/2004 4:34:28 PM
AC,
1) The Russians had elite forces including translators on the ground in Beslan. The intermediary found that the terrorists were not interested in dialogue and said "only God can stop us."
2) As Mac pointed out, it was headed badly from the first - the terrorists allowed no food and no water, no toilet access for two days, and shot small children in the back if they attempted to flee.
3) The objective always was to blow up the whole lot of them, the only reason some survived was that one bomb went off early and then a firefight began which allowed some meager cover for escapees.
4) No one knows - despite some claims from surviving terrorists that "Basayev sent us" - who the people are who did this. You can't negotiate unless you have someone to negotiate with.
5) I do think this kind of incident is transposeable, I expect to see more of these zero-sum lose-lose hostage-suicide scenarios playing out in the coming years.
759. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 4:50:43 PM
I heard one report that half of the hostage talkers were "arab." Has anyone else heard that? If so, do you think the report was reliable? (I have my doubts about Russian spokespeople.)
760. alistairconnor - 9/7/2004 4:51:27 PM
You seem to suppose an unlimited supply of dead-enders, Marj.
My point is that, with decent handling, you don't get into that sort of situation where you manufacture martyrs. Putin isn't particularly responsible for the Chechnya situation, which is largely a product of the implosion of the Soviet Union; and I'll bet that, whatever the rhetoric, he is doing what he can to avoid such situations in other regions.
The real risk is a second term for Bush. More criminally stupid stuff like the Iraq intervention, more martyr factories.
761. alistairconnor - 9/7/2004 4:54:12 PM
I heard that about ten of them were (variously) "foreigners" (i.e. not of any of the Russian ethnic groups) and "Arabs".
So, is it a Qaida operation? Perhaps.
A transposeable one? No.
762. Macnas - 9/7/2004 5:07:59 PM
The main problem in Chechnya, is the factional nature of the "rebels". Who exactly do you negotiate with?
A look at the timeline of events in Chechnya show a defacto civil war that was waged in between the major Russian offensives, and is still being waged at low level right now.
Maybe in time, Putin could negotiate if a clear victor emerges from that dirty war, but not anytime soon.
I don't know that Bush has much to do with this, but if he is elected again, and another atrocity like this is carried out against Russia, he will have to sit back and watch tight-lipped as Putin puts Chechnya to the sword.
763. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 5:17:21 PM
Yeah, ten was the number I heard. Are the sources for this the Russians? Can't be anyone else, can it? It's in their interest, internationally speaking, to make this a terrorist conflict rather than a civil uprising, just as it's in the administration's interest to continually label any iraqi insurgent as a terrorist. It does matter whether or not there were arab jihadists involved. It's clear from, for example, Afghanistan, that the wahabbists don't have widespread support in the countries they are active in.
So is this a dreadful terrorist act carried out by an extreme wing of a civil uprising, or is it an act of terror carried out by the jihadists to strike fear and uncertainity into the hearts of everyone?
764. Macnas - 9/7/2004 5:26:39 PM
Jay
I don't believe in Bakunin obsessed nihilists running about trying to create chaos to achieve the true beauty that will come from it. There always is some more earthy agenda.
If I were to guess, I would say that somebody has it in mind to kickstart things in Chechnya again, to provoke an all-out Russian response that will either provide a certain context or will aid in unifying the various factions against a common enemy.
765. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 5:36:23 PM
Let me rephrase. Is the agenda of those hoping to see the all-out Russian response freedom for Chechnya, or propaganda in support of the worldwide war against Islam? Are the arabists hijacking a local uprising as in Afghanistan, or is this an indigenous group, like the Basques, seeking independence? (I know that neither can be purely true; there were taliban patriots, I'm sure. And I'm sure there are anarchists among the Basques. But there is a clear distinction between what happened in Afghanistan and what happened in, say, Ireland.)
766. Macnas - 9/7/2004 6:15:51 PM
Jay
I don't know. I think that in this case it might be, maybe, a combination of nationalistic militancy, wrt Chechnya, and the "us against the world" camaraderie that the current middle eastern situation has engendered amongst some Muslim fundamentalists.
But mainly, the agenda is an independent Chechnya. Until, and if, the so called Arabs involved are identified, we will not get any real clue as to their motivations for participating in this event.
767. Wombat - 9/7/2004 6:42:59 PM
Chechnya was originally mishandled by the Yeltsin government (siege of Grozny, anyone?), which took an active, but not radical nationalist movement, smashed it, drove it underground (and inflicted a lot of collateral damage, which created a reserve of sympathy and support among the Chechens). As with many of these movements, particularly near religious-ethnic border regions, the fighting attracted cadres of fighters from elsewhere.
The Chechen fighters consistently overplay their hand and damage themselves with actions such as the school takeover. The Russians combine a level of tactical incompetence, brutality, corruption, and mendacity that makes their own citizens skeptical of their government's claims.
768. Wombat - 9/7/2004 6:46:07 PM
I note that the Bush administration has been quietly urging the Russians to look for ways to defuse the overall situation there.
I doubt that the Russians have the institutional or financial capacity to conduct a counterinsurgency campaign that has a remote chance of success.
769. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 7:29:12 PM
Nor, looking at Iraq and remembering Afghanistan are they likely to try.
But another bit of fallout from Bush's mendacity is that Putin is calling the conflict with Checnya as part of the worldwide war on terror.
770. Macnas - 9/7/2004 7:34:01 PM
There will be a reaction, but what I cannot guess.
Good EOV's, see yez tomorrow.
771. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 9:55:54 PM
Sauce for the Bush:
AFP:
Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying.
"With regard to preventive strikes on terrorist bases, we will take any action to eliminate terrorist bases in any region of the world. But this does not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes," General Yuri Baluyevsky said Wednesday.
Baluyevsky added that Russia's choice of action "will be determined by the concrete situation where ever it may be in the world.
"Military action is the last resort in the fight agaisnt terrorism."
772. judithathome - 9/7/2004 10:46:28 PM
Hope there aren't any terrorist cells in America.
773. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 10:48:48 PM
LOL
Watch out Lackawana. OTOH, don't give Cheney any ideas. A covert Russian operation to take out terror cells wouldn't require any judicial review, and would eminently deniable.
774. Wombat - 9/7/2004 10:52:17 PM
We've already had to free one terrorist cell. Seems the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.
775. PelleNilsson - 9/7/2004 11:09:57 PM
"this does not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes"
That means that such strikes are a possibility.
776. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 11:15:46 PM
But my jaw dropped yesterday when they said the reason they didn't have a case is because they locked them up before the "terrorists" did anything. And then used the Tiger Repellent argument ("But there ARE no tigers in New York." "Yeah, see how well it works.")
Then there's the poor pizza shop owner who got scammed into trading checks totalling $25,000 for $40,000 in cash. They're flailing around, locking up very peripheral people.
777. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 11:17:08 PM
That means that such strikes are a possibility.
I was kinda surprised that he included that line.
778. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 11:20:28 PM
So, why has nothing happened here? The "cells" they've found, as Wombat said, are awfully lame. Padilla's a nut who hadn't done anything. It would be easy to set off a series of coordinated mall attacks. It would be easy to set off a bomb in Grand Central. It would easy to crash a Cessna, loaded with explosives into a midwestern bank building or federal building. The FBI offices in Providence are on the fifth floor of a public building. There are literally thousands of targets. What's going on?
779. alistairConnor - 9/8/2004 3:50:04 AM
It's the question of the presumed unlimited supply of suicide bombers.
The 9/11 people were evidently a special case, highly-educated sophisticated fanatics who were able to stay focused for a long-term project, then off themselves. I contend that such people do not grow on trees.
Sure, there are plenty of suicide bombers in Iraq, in Palestine, in Chechnya. Take away the proximate injustices, the support networks, the easy logistical facilities, and try to project such a capacity into a distant place. Emigrate to another country, with all the difficulty, disruption and expense that entails, with the sole aim of killing yourself and others, at some date at least several months away?
780. concerned - 9/8/2004 8:35:44 AM
The main problem in Chechnya, is the factional nature of the "rebels". Who exactly do you negotiate with?
Also, the fact that the those responsible for Beslan et al appear to include Chechnyan Separatists and international Islamic terrorists would dilute any potential value of negotiation even if a 'spokesperson' could be found.
781. neato - 9/8/2004 1:28:40 PM
The attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta today is an example of Alistair's post 779, there have been 2 major attacks on Australians abroad now, none here.
In the latest attack, Australians suffered only broken windows. Plenty of Indonesians suffered - dead and wounded.
I wonder how this will affect the imminent Australian election. Not at all probably. Both major parties spout the American administratrion's line.
782. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 5:51:20 PM
Also, the fact that the those responsible for Beslan et al appear to include Chechnyan Separatists and international Islamic terrorists would dilute any potential value of negotiation even if a 'spokesperson' could be found.
My original point, perhaps not said explicitly enough, is that I have my doubts about the Russian claim that there were Islamic terrorists in the group.
That claim reminded me of the American claims of islamic terrorists being behind the Iraqi insurgency, which turned out to be false. The continued references to the insurgents as terrorists is a dishonest distraction from what is going on there. It would not be surprising for Putin to adopt the same strategy; the announcement that the Russians will attack terrorism worldwide in response to this attack is along the same line.
783. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 6:21:51 PM
neato--
I also agree with Alistair. I have no doubt that they want to do things here, but it's not easy.
784. alistairconnor - 9/8/2004 6:53:04 PM
Beyond any doubt, there is crossover between the Chechen resistance and the jihadist international. There have been Chechens in Afghanistan, Iraq etc and there are undoubtedly Arabs in Chechnya. It would be almost surprising if there weren't some Arabs involved in the hostage business. It doesn't prove anything much about who was behind it.
And Putin blustering about international terrorism doesn't necessarily bear any relation to what he's really going to do. It's a public relations exercise -- unlike Bush, who undoubtedly believes it. Surely he would wipe Chechnya off the face of the earth; but he will negotiate if he has to. And he has to.
785. pseudoerasmus - 9/8/2004 10:00:11 PM
"Putin also has to deal with the murderous backlash. Apparently the locals are heading for the border with pitchforks etc, to kill them some Ingush. Why Ingush? A couple of the terrorists were Ingush; but mostly, they had a war with them a decade or so ago, so they are the designated targets." (Connor)
You should be complimented just for noticing this. Everyone else is fixated on Arabs or Chechnya when in fact the Osetin-Ingush issue may have been the focus of the Beslan terrorists. They might have seized any school, but why did they choose one in North Ossetia?
"The Ossetians (Christians) and the Chechens and Ingush (Muslims) have been at each others throats for many centuries, the communities are nakedly hostile to each other." (Hindoooo)
Osetins in North Ossetia include both Christians and Muslims. Muslim Ossetians are generally called "Digor Ossetes". The enmity between Osetins and Ingush does not have a religious basis.
Moreover, the Ingush and the Ossetes have NOT been "at each other's throats for many centuries". Their enmity results from the time of Stalin's deportation of the Chechens and the Ingush to Siberia and Kazakstan. Ossetians were allowed to take over Ingush property and settle in the Prigorodny district of Ingushetia. When Khrushchev allowed the Ingush to return to their ancestral land, they did not recover Prigorodny. In 1992, after the Soviet Union disintegrated, Ingush and Ossetes came to blows over the district.
By the way, the Chechens and the Ingush are basically the same people. "Ingush" is the branch of the race that have historically acquiesced to Russian rule, and "Chechen" is the branch that have resisted Russian rule.
786. pseudoerasmus - 9/8/2004 10:06:35 PM
It looks like the Beslan attack will have consequences for the tensions which have been brewing between Russia and Georgia during the entire summer. And I believe that was the purpose. The coincidences are too convenient for them to be accidents.
For the past month the Republic of Georgia has been waging war to reassert control over the (Russian-supported) separatist subrepublic of South Ossetia. South Ossetia has been de facto independent of Georgian rule since 1992, and its ambition is to reunite with the Republic of North Ossetia and therefore to rejoin the Russian Federation.
(There are two other separatist republics within Georgia: Abkhazia, still in contention, and the subrepublic of Ajaria, which has already been reclaimed.) Because of Georgia's ambitions to reunify its territory, Russia and Georgia have been exchanging rather hostile words for most of the summer. The Georgians have even accused "Cossacks" from North Ossetia of infiltrating South Ossetia in order to engage Georgian troops. Now, there is a row between the two countries over 2 Georgian journalists attempting to report on the Beslan attack, who were detained by Russian security forces and were being interrogated for some reason. (They've now been released.)
787. pseudoerasmus - 9/8/2004 10:06:44 PM
The Russian warning about preventive strikes may have been partly aimed at Georgia, which the Russians have for years accused of providing safe haven for Chechen separatists. It may all come to a head with a Russian military strike at Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, but who knows.
Nonetheless, it looks more and more as though the Beslan terrorists' purpose was to exploit this summer's events in the Republic of Georgia, in order to reignite the Ossetian-Ingush conflict. Their ultimate aim is possibly the destablisation of the entire Caucasus region through the reignition of the multitude of dormant ethnic conflicts in the region. Shamil Basayev's invasion of Daghestan in 1999, which was for Moscow the casus belli for the second Chechen war, also probably had as its aim the ethnic explosion of Daghestan.
788. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 10:20:58 PM
Thanks very much PE. Mac, could you post a link to this explanation in the topics of interest column? This is the clearest explanation of the situation that I've seen, and I think others would be interested.
789. pseudoerasmus - 9/8/2004 10:34:42 PM
A few more things being reported:
A large Ossetian mob has attempted to burn down Ingush houses in Prigorodny.
Ingush students at the North Ossetian State University in Vladikavkaz have been whisked out of the region, for fear of reprisals against them by Ossetian students.
There were at least 2 Ossetians amongst the terrorists in Beslan. It's being reported that one of the leaders of the Beslan terrorists was an Ossetian Muslim of Wahhabi inclinations by the name of Vladimir Khodov.
790. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 12:48:06 AM
Is there terror in isms? I think so.
791. pseudoerasmus - 9/9/2004 10:43:16 AM
Did anyone read the Guardian piece on the neocons and The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya?
ACPC's membership seems to run the ideological gamut, but it also just about includes every single luminary of American neoconservatism, other than Paul Wolfowitz:
Elliott Abrams
Kenneth Adelman
Richard V. Allen
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Eric Chenoweth
Eliot Cohen
Midge Decter
Larry Diamond
Frank Gaffney
Paul Goble
Marshall I. Goldman
Alexander M. Haig, Jr.
Paul B. Henze
Irving Louis Horowitz
Robert Kagan
Max M. Kampelman
William Kristol
Michael A. Ledeen
Seymour M. Lipset
Robert McFarlane
Joshua Muravchik
William Odom
P.J. O'Rourke
Richard Perle
Richard Pipes
Norman Podhoretz
Caspar Weinberger
R. James Woolsey
792. pseudoerasmus - 9/9/2004 10:43:34 AM
The sentiments in the Guardian article express the predictable views of the Chomskyite left, which, of course, takes whatever is the opposite of the dominant US position. That is why the Chomskyite left vocally defended Serbia during the Bosnian and Kosovo wars; in fact, during the Balkan wars, the Chomskyite left took up the propagandistic Serbian view that the Serbs were in a fight against Islamic fundamentalism. In the Chomskyite view, American neoconservatives -- the same ones who induced the USA to war against Iraq on Israel's behalf -- are simultaneously Turcophiles and Russophobes (like Benjamin Disraeli!) who hate Russia because they are still Cold Warriors at heart and because of Russia's antisemitic currents; and who love Turkey because of its alliance with Israel and its philsemitic history. Thus, it is argued, the neocons take up "Turkish" causes like Bosnia, Kosovo and now Chechnya. The conspiracy theories are now wild over Georgia. When Georgia's Eduard Shevardnadze was toppled in a "democratic coup" earlier this year, an American hand was suspected, because the new leader was very pro-American -- and hawkish about reasserting the central government's control over Russian-supported breakaway regions. Both Turkey and the USA have become very close to Georgia, as Georgia angles to join NATO and the EU.
793. alistairconnor - 9/9/2004 12:28:12 PM
On the face of it, the reason the Neocons support Chechnyan independence is the same reason Putin supports the South Ossetians. It's the Great Game.
This says nothing about the rights and wrongs of the suffering people who live in these benighted places. More manipulation and betrayals in view.
Putin's claim that Chechnya is an internal Russian matter is largely invalidated by Russian interference in Georgia.
794. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 1:17:31 PM
In case you don't know, William Odom is a former Director of NSA (DIRNSA).
795. jayackroyd - 9/11/2004 7:12:55 PM
Despite assertions that Arab fighters took part in the seizure of Middle School No. 1 in Beslan 10 days ago, officials have yet to establish that any of the fighters came from abroad or received training or supplies elsewhere. Of the dead identified so far, all came from Ingushetia or were ethnic Chechens, including some who raided police and other security garrisons in Ingushetia in June, killing nearly 100.
NYTimes, 9/12, front page.
796. Bill Russell - 9/11/2004 11:44:45 PM
"But my jaw dropped yesterday" = Dropping jaw disease
797. jayackroyd - 9/14/2004 9:19:39 PM
Fred Kaplan at Slate has the temerity to ask whether torture works.
He doesn't have any answers though.
The real question, I think, is whether it is possible to contain a regime that uses torture to the very rare times when it might be justified. The Israeli and the American experience indicate that this is a serious problem.
798. Wombat - 9/14/2004 10:23:27 PM
I have heard it suggested that, rather than attempt to codify the circumstances under which torture can be used, keep it illegal. There may be circumstances under which operational personnel may feel it necessary to use torture. If so, they can take their chances in court. If torture provides information that averts the proverbial nuke in downtown New York, fine. If torture is used in the way that it usually is...off to prison.
799. jayackroyd - 9/14/2004 11:52:01 PM
Dershowitz has proposed an approval process, with suitable sanctions if you pursue it, and are wrong, there are legal consequences.
But I prefer your idea. If the torture really saves the city, or the kidnapped little girl, you'd get jury nullification at the trial, if the DA even brought the case to trial.
But the "okay under special circumstances" route has now failed spectacularly twice.
800. jayackroyd - 9/21/2004 10:49:34 AM
Ridiculous ignorance and bigotry volume 29:
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- Midwest Airlines canceled a flight ready to take off for San Francisco after a passenger found Arabic-style handwriting in the company's in-flight magazine and alerted the crew.
The plane, carrying 118 passengers and five crew members, had already pulled away from the gate at Mitchell International Airport Sunday evening. It returned to the gate, the passengers got off, security authorities were notified, all luggage was checked and the aircraft was inspected. Nothing was found.
The passengers were put up in nearby hotels and booked on a Monday morning flight.
The writing was in Farsi, the language used in Iran, said airline spokeswoman Carol Skornicka. She said she didn't know exactly what the writing said but was similar to a prayer, "something of a contemplative nature.
801. judithathome - 9/21/2004 11:07:15 AM
Instead of worrying about what is written in in-flight magazines, the airlines need to worry more about their in-flight water. I read a piece today which said of the airlines tested, 87% had coliform bacteria in the water from gallies and toilet faucets. They advise people with compromised immune systems to avoid drinking the water on planes.
But evidently they believe the real threat is in what you can read.
802. robertjayb - 9/21/2004 9:56:18 PM
Isn't the idea to stop potential evil-doers before they board?
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- A jetliner bound for Washington, D.C., from London was diverted to Bangor Tuesday after a male passenger was matched to a federal watch list, authorities said.
United Airlines flight 919 had already taken off from London en route to Dulles International Airport when the match was made, according to Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration.
The plane was met by federal agents at Bangor International Airport around 3 p.m., Melendez said.
Further details were not immediately available.
803. clydefo - 9/21/2004 10:50:12 PM
Further details...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/21/plane.diverted.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A plane bound for Washington from London was diverted to Maine on Tuesday after passenger Yusuf Islam -- formerly known as pop singer Cat Stevens -- showed up on a U.S. watch list, federal officials said..."
No doubt Muhammed Ali will be bumped off a flight soon. What dumb asses!
804. Macnas - 9/22/2004 3:39:34 AM
What a bunch of wankers.
Is being an outspoken proponent of opposing views now tantamount to being a potential terrorist?
Up to a few years ago, members of Sinn Fein such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were not allowed entry to the U.S., on the grounds that they were involved with the IRA. Now this was a purely political contraption, as Gerry Adams was not going to haul a machine pistol out of his carry-on luggage and start shooting people.
So is preventing the one time Cat Stevens from coming to the U.S. political or practical?
805. jayackroyd - 9/22/2004 3:43:56 AM
It's just stupid.
806. Macnas - 9/22/2004 3:47:23 AM
Yes it is Jay, but that is just a byproduct.
I think what is the bigger issue here, is the entrenchment of the idea that if we don't like what you say, you can't come in.
807. jayackroyd - 9/22/2004 4:06:36 AM
And, while it is just stupid, you have to wonder how many people are being turned back who aren't ex-pop stars.
808. jayackroyd - 9/22/2004 4:09:05 AM
No, I don't think so. Ted Kennedy was unable to get on flights for a couple of weeks until he found the right idiot at the FAA to take him off the list. I don't think Cat Stevens was on a watchlist--or if he was, it was just somebody being an idiot.
There are plenty of free speech attacks going on. The weirdest is that at large political events we now have "free speech zones." I was under the distinct impression that the United States was itself a free speech zone.
809. PelleNilsson - 9/22/2004 4:18:02 AM
You may also wonder how many people who don't bother to go in the first place. From here there are much fewer students going to the US than there used to be. And you don't see advertisments for long weekends in NY, etc. anymore. That used to be quite popular.
810. Macnas - 9/22/2004 4:28:26 AM
That is true here too Pelle. Even here where I work, the one-time treat, or junket if you like, of going to New York for a conference or whatever has faded. Too much trouble, lets have the conference in Prague instead.
811. jayackroyd - 9/22/2004 9:14:39 AM
yes, a significant security cost for an insignificant security benefit.
812. Macnas - 9/22/2004 9:17:46 AM
Hell that's a good thing if'n you ask me! Stay in your own Goddamned country! And while yore at it, next time you kin fight yore own damn war!
813. robertjayb - 9/22/2004 10:07:27 AM
Sounds like a dangerous fellow to me. I believe he reissued this last year. That may be what got him blacklisted.
Peace Train
by Cat Stevens
Now I've been happy lately, thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be, something good has begun
Oh I've been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be, some day it's going to come
Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again
Now I've been smiling lately, thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be, something good has begun
Oh peace train sounding louder
Glide on the peace train
Come on now peace train
Yes, peace train holy roller
Everyone jump upon the peace train
Come on now peace train
Get your bags together, go bring your good friends too
Cause it's getting nearer, it soon will be with you
Now come and join the living, it's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer, soon it will all be true
Now I've been crying lately, thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating, why can't we live in bliss
Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again.
814. jexster - 9/22/2004 10:15:14 AM
You know William Odom from your past adventures Bill??? I love him..have a news alert set for him
And I sure feel safe now that Morning has broken like the first morning
Blackbird has spoken like the first bird
Praise for the singing, praise for the morning
Praise for them springing fresh from the word
815. jexster - 9/22/2004 10:17:25 AM
That terrorist has infiltrated the Episcopal Church..
I think it is Hymn number 8 in the 1982 Hymnal
816. judithathome - 9/22/2004 10:21:21 AM
Let's give Bush another term...I know I certainly feel safer today knowing Cat Stevens had been denied entry into this country!
What dolts!
817. Wombat - 9/22/2004 10:45:10 AM
Cat Stevens has long since left his Peace Train days behind. The most frightening thing about the episode is that if they didn't realize that a fairly prominent person on the watch list was on the flight until it was across the ocean, how many less prominent people are slipping through?
818. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 7:29:24 AM
Looks to me like he made the watch list because Israel once refused entry because they claimed he donated money to Hamas. Seems to me that's a pretty wide net.
Cat Stevens and his daughter sent home
819. arkymalarky - 9/23/2004 5:53:32 PM
I thought he supported the fatwah against Rushdie.
820. Wombat - 9/23/2004 6:13:17 PM
He did.
821. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 7:30:54 PM
And so what?
822. clydefo - 9/23/2004 9:18:34 PM
Cat Stevens is on the list. The most dangerous terrorists are deliberately not included on the list. Is it Orwellian soup yet?
823. SnowOwl - 9/24/2004 12:43:00 AM
Among charities he has supported are children affected by war in Bosnia and Iraq (news - web sites) as well as victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against America, which he condemned.
Maybe he should ask the US government for a refund.
824. neato - 9/24/2004 4:46:38 AM
Maybe he'd make a good President
825. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 2:50:17 PM
Military trial setback for Bush Administration
A judge in Washington said the military short-circuited the rights of Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, of Yemen.
...
"This is a major speed bump," said Scott L. Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor.
826. alistairconnor - 11/10/2004 9:02:07 AM
You think that's why Ashcroft resigned?
It's reason enough.
827. Macnas - 11/11/2004 6:03:41 AM
Dutch police raided an apartment block, engaging in a gun battle with some Muslims suspected of terrorist activities.
What is interesting, well it's all interesting but maybe more so is the statement from the immigration minister.
Perhaps this might be a taste of things to come.
The murder of the film maker Van Gogh sparked this off, and one of the consequences, along with racist hate crime being visited on the Muslim community in Holland, was the uncovering of a network of armed fundamentalists.
How long have they been there and what are they doing? Is it a staging point for activity within Europe? I wonder how long the Dutch have known about these groups? or did they just put it all together recently?
Many questions for Europe as a whole, perhaps a precursor to more police/security resources all across Europe switched to finding such groups.
I think you'll find them in every European country, perhaps not planning to bomb or shoot the place up, but simply a manifestation of Islamic extremism.
828. Magoseph - 11/11/2004 8:42:49 AM
A powerful lady with the written word, is she.
A Moveable Feast of Terrorism--By MAUREEN DOWD
Excerpt--"The administration lowered the terror threat in New York and Washington yesterday, and the Capitol Hill police were dismantling the elaborate security checkpoints they had put on streets around the Capitol to thwart would-be bombers.
In his handwritten resignation letter, John Ashcroft reassured Mr. Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.''
Mission accomplished. Tell those wolves to scat, and let that eagle soar, baby.
It was a tad surprising that Mr. Ashcroft would want to leave just when he had a mandate to throw blue curtains over every naked statue in town and hold Bible study for government employees in a federal office. (He called his daily devotionals at the Justice Department "RAMP'': Read, Argue, Memorize and Pray.)"
And this last sentence: "The president should say to Rummy what the Democrats should say to Mr. Kerry: "Thanks, you've done quite enough."
829. jexster - 12/6/2004 2:28:14 PM
Al Qaeda Attacks US Consulate in Jeddah - At Least 12 Dead
830. alistairconnor - 12/10/2004 8:45:52 AM
An interesting test of habeas corpus has been playing out in New Zealand over the past two years.
Ahmed Zaoui was briefly a member of Parliament in Algeria, when the islamists gained a majority in the 80s. He fled the country when the military seized control, and in the context of the ensuing civil war, was convicted in France of associating with terrorists who were planning actions in Algeria (but cleared of a similar charge in Switzerland).
He arrived in NZ two years ago on a false passport, and asked for political asylum. He was jailed as a security risk, on the advice of the Algerian and French secret services, it seems. But he was granted refugee status by the local refugee authority, which prevented him being expelled.
The government has been stonewalling ever since : they have absolutely no charges to bring against him, but still claim he's a security risk, though they refuse to table the evidence. It's generally thought that he was jailed as a knee-jerk me-too participation in the "war on terror", and that they have simply been too embarrassed to back down for fear of exposing the vacuity of their case...
He's become something of a cause célèbre for human-rightists, and eventually the government announced that they were re-evaluating his security-risk status, but that it would take about a year...
The High Court has ruled that he can be bailed in the meantime, and has given him into the care of ... the Dominican Friars.
831. jexster - 12/16/2004 1:00:20 PM
ITS ALIVE!
Osama bin Forgotten to House of Saud:
"Surrender or Perish"
832. ronski - 12/16/2004 6:36:53 PM
He called for the ousting of the royal family as a precursor to any political change and derided efforts by the government to initiate reform -- a key demand by Washington.
"Some people say that yes it (reform) is possible because they started holding national dialogues and they started with municipal elections, but I say that this will not change anything..."
Well, when he's right, he's right.
833. alistairconnor - 12/17/2004 8:50:51 AM
Are you suggesting that the US should initiate regime change in Saudi?
Well why not. You guys are clearly on a roll...
834. Marc-Albert - 12/17/2004 10:05:09 AM
I was surprised to read somewhere that an increasing number of security advisors hired by the Saudi government are French.
835. wonkers2 - 12/17/2004 11:29:48 AM
Revival of the grand tradition of the French Foreign Legion?
836. iiibbb - 12/17/2004 11:32:59 AM
I was surprised to read somewhere that an increasing number of security advisors hired by the Saudi government are French.
Proof that the Saudi's favor the militants' cause.
837. Wombat - 12/17/2004 1:17:30 PM
The French are much tougher--and more effective--on combating terrorism in France than we are in the US. French antiterrorist officials have powers that would have made John Ashcroft tear his hair out in envy (assuming he could get a grip on his anointed locks).
838. alistairconnor - 12/20/2004 11:07:42 AM
If I remember correctly, it was French special forces who directed operations in clearing out the Grand Mosque in Mecca, when fundamentalists (these days we would say : Islamic terrorists) took it over, more than a decade ago.
The Middle East is crawling with French spooks. Always has been.
839. Wombat - 12/20/2004 11:41:09 AM
That was not one of their finer moments.
840. PelleNilsson - 12/20/2004 1:24:58 PM
From The Economist:
Indefinite detention of terrorist suspects is unlawful
In a blow to both the government's anti-terrorist policies and its moral standing, the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, ruled on December 16th that the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without trial is unlawful.
Under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks on the United States, the government gave itself the power to detain any foreigner who poses “a risk to national security, and has links with an international terrorist group”. This required it to opt out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrining the right to liberty. No other European nation has done so.
Claiming that the 2001 attacks constituted an “unprecedented form of terrorism”, the government argued that the measures it had introduced were a “necessary and proportionate response to the threat we continue to face”.
The law lords disagree. Sitting for only the second time since the second world war in a panel of nine justices, instead of the normal five, they ruled, by eight to one, that the “draconian” measures were incompatible with human-rights laws. Lord Nicholls said, “Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.
841. PelleNilsson - 12/21/2004 1:38:11 PM
Read this IHT new report from 1904 and contemplate on the progress made in 100 years.
ST. PETERSBURG: Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky is credited with the intention of doing away with many of the needless vexations which help to make life miserable in Russia. There is one particular report which not only every Russian would like to believe true, but which would be hailed with delight by every foreigner coming here. It is nothing less than the abolition of the passport system. Russia shares with Turkey alone the obnoxious custom, according to which every person coming into Russia becomes a prisoner at the will of the police. The dread of the passport and the necessary attendant visits to the police stations which it entails and the hatred of its inquisitorial nature, keep thousands of visitors away from the country every year. Should this out-of-date document indeed be abolished, Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky will have done away with one of Russia's most vexatious institutions.
842. alistairconnor - 12/22/2004 6:20:52 AM
Looks like it was the Provos did the Belfast bank job
This could be interpreted as a positive sign, that the political violence is substantially over... it underlines the problem faced by any country emerging from civil war : how to effectively demobilize the irregulars.
843. Wombat - 12/22/2004 11:26:19 AM
Another interpretation would be that it was a fundraising activity for a new round of violence. Both the IRA and Protestant groups use bank robberies to raise funds for their activities. The key will be how Sinn Fein responds, and how much assistance they provide to law enforcement.
844. wonkers2 - 1/1/2005 10:54:05 AM
In "The Power of Nightmares", Donald Rumsfeld, armed with an artist's diagram of a magnificent underground fortress supposedly soon to be found in the mountains of Tora Bora, is shown explaining the wonders of the place to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press:" the warren of bedrooms and offices, the ventilation, phone, and computer systems, the secret exits, the ground-floor entrances, big enough to drive fleets of tanks in and out of. Rumsfeld says, "And there are not just one of those, there are MANY of those."
[Rumsfeld has obviously watched too many James Bond movies!!]
But when Tora Bora is actually reached, its legendary caves turn out to be just caves; small, dark unimproved, empty except for a few stacks of ammunition.
The Truth About Terrorism by Jonathan Raban
845. Macnas - 1/11/2005 1:09:33 PM
re 842 & 843
It's after setting the whole shebang back a year. Unionists are jumping up and down, saying it's a breach of the ceasefire, both the UK and Irish gov.'s are pointing the finger at the IRA, and by default Sinn Fein. SF are swearing blind it wasn't the IRA, the IRA are saying nothing these days anyway.
At the end of the day, most of us don't give a rats arse about the bank raid. It looks very like a retirement fund for some of the more enterprising Provo's, but SF itself was hardly involved. I do not think it is seed money for more unrest.
As for SF providing information to the police, you might as well be asking them to get down an bended knee to the queen and sing rule britania. If there is anything going to happen at all, the IRA will take action against the transgressors (assuming the bank raid was not sanctioned by them) and it'll be bodies found in ditches in a few months time.
846. Wombat - 1/11/2005 1:14:48 PM
Break out the cordless electric drills, eh?
847. alistairconnor - 1/11/2005 1:17:15 PM
That's what I suspected : experience in Corsica has shown that doing political deals with the nationalists, or their parliamentary representatives, is only half the problem. You've got to pay off the paramilitaries one way or another, otherwise they quickly get nostalgic for the swashbuckling life and go freelance. The option which seems to have worked best, historically, is to give them undemanding jobs on the government payroll.
Corsica may be a special case, in that I suspect most of the paramilitaries had only a thin veneer of nationalistic pretext, and mostly it's just been an unbroken tradition of banditism that stretches back to antiquity.
848. Macnas - 1/11/2005 1:37:54 PM
The drill is reserved for touts apparently.
Others get the knee job version 1: shot through the front of the kneecap, so you will be able to walk again at some stage.
Knee job version 2: shot through the back of the kneecap(s), so you will never walk unaided again.
Headjob, there is only one version of that of course.
I really don't know what is going to happen wrt out of work gunmen. Crime will be the obvious avenue (already well trodden by many in the IRA) I suppose.
849. robertjayb - 1/13/2005 8:59:08 PM
Merrily we bungle on...(NYTimes)
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation is on the verge of scrapping major parts of a $170 million computer overhaul that is considered critical to the campaign against terrorism but has been riddled with problems, officials acknowledged today.
F.B.I. officials said the bureau has contracted with a research company at a cost of $2 million to evaluate the problems in the project, known as Virtual Case File system, and determine what if any parts can be salvaged. One idea under strong consideration is using off-the-shelf software instead of expensive customized features that have been developed in the last few years but already appear outdated.
The developments represent a major setback for the F.B.I. in a decadelong struggle to escape a paper-driven culture and replace antiquated computer systems that have hobbled counter-terrorism and criminal investigations. The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, along with members of the Sept. 11 commission and others have all said it was critical to the nation's domestic security for that effort to succeed.
850. jexster - 1/15/2005 1:27:49 AM
What's wrong with this picture?
National Intel Council Report: Iraq Now Top Training Ground for "Professionalized" Terror
Iraq (news - web sites) has replaced Afghanistan (news - web sites) as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA (news - web sites) director's think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.
851. alistairconnor - 1/19/2005 8:48:14 AM
Seymour Hersh's article What the Pentagon can now do in secret is fascinating with respect to the "war on terror" (particularly the last third of the article).
The CIA has been effectively gutted, and Rumsfeld controls a parallel intelligence and covert action organisation from the Pentagon. With his dominant position within the Bush administration, and the Bush doctrine that the US military can do anything it likes, anywhere in the world, with no accountability to anyone except (perhaps) the President, he has a free hand to go after the terrorists.
The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.”
Should be interesting. Probably also grotesque and somewhat comical.
852. Macnas - 1/19/2005 9:18:17 AM
Grotesque maybe, comical no.
Maybe I'm being a bit short-sighted here, but I recall an operation in Belfast where locals were recruited to act as surveillance operatives, working in conjunction with British military special operations professionals. Many of the locals involved wound up dead, the others had to flee the country, and the families all suffered so much that they too left.
I also recall the "fight fire with fire" tactics used when the special patrol group of the RUC carried out shoot-to-kill missions. Then there was the long-standing collusion between some British security depts. and Loyalist paramilitaries, where high profile nationalists were targeted and killed.
30 solid years of bombs, bullets and murder later, none of it had worked. By then, Sinn Fein reckoned it had more to gain from pure politics than violence, which had gained them nothing, and we eventually had peace.
Why do they think this is going to be successful, when the above, and so many other incidents show otherwise?
853. robertjayb - 1/22/2005 4:37:49 PM
This Hersh article, Coming Wars, which Alistair linked just above, rings frightfully true (I take Richard Pearle's denunciation of the piece on Charlie Rose as evidence of its authenticity). It should be read. Seymour is on to something. He usually is.
854. robertjayb - 1/26/2005 1:42:42 PM
Brits overhaul anti-terrorism policy...
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain announced sweeping powers Wednesday to impose house arrest on terrorism suspects regardless of nationality, replacing a policy of jailing foreigners without trial that had been thrown out by a court.
The announcement amounts to a major overhaul of security policy after the country's highest court ruled that earlier emergency powers violated basic rights.
But some civil liberties campaigners charged the new measures were even more draconian than the old ones.
"The threat is real and I believe the steps I am announcing today will make us better able to meet this threat," Home Secretary Charles Clarke told parliament.
855. Wombat - 1/28/2005 1:24:13 PM
Andrew Sullivan provided a link to the Little Green Footballs blog for derogatory comments about his stand on torture (they favor it, Sullivan is agin' it). My ghod! If the people who post on that blog were to disappear tomorrow, the US national IQ would go up ten points.
856. Macnas - 1/28/2005 1:32:52 PM
Some people forget, or ignore the fact that the law is for everyone. I wouldn't give them the counter hit by visiting that site.
857. jayackroyd - 1/28/2005 4:31:57 PM
It's very bizarre watching the republicans in this country ceding increasing, unchecked power to the government. Do they think they'll be in power forever?
858. alistairConnor - 1/28/2005 8:31:25 PM
House arrest eh? I suppose the British think that's a clever way of having their habeas corpus and eating it too.
859. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/28/2005 11:25:20 PM
Nuttin' to worry about - wur all gittin' free eeleckshuns . . .
860. jexster - 1/29/2005 12:07:38 AM
It's a fin de siecle thing..
On War #99
January 14, 2005
The Sorrows Of Old Werther
By William S. Lind
In the 18th Century, Goethe’s romantic novel The Sorrows Of Young Werther led than more than one “sensible” young gentleman to emulate the protagonist and kill himself. I hope a happier end awaits Old Werther, the northern Virginia defense analyst who writes under that nom de plume for Chuck Spinney’s DNI web site. Just as DNI is one of the best places to find thoughtful material on Fourth Generation war, so Werther is perhaps that site’s most insightful contributor.
Werther’s December 30, 2004 column, “4GW and the Riddles of Culture,” is one of his best. Among its services is debunking the French Resistance, the only object in human history of which it can be said that the farther you get away from it, the larger it appears. As Werther, citing John Keegan, writes,
for most of the war, the 30-50 German occupation divisions took no part in anti-resistance activities…the number of actual anti-resistance security forces in France (the Feldsicherheitsdienst) probably did not exceed 6,500 at any stage of the war. That in a country of over 40 million!
I would add that, other than during the Warsaw uprising of 1944, I do not know of any case where German occupation forces used bombers or artillery on cities they occupied, something U.S. forces now do routinely in Iraq.
Werther references World War II resistance movements to pose the question of why they did not amount to much while the Iraqi resistance now faces the U.S. with a very serious challenge indeed, in the form of Fourth Generation war. That, in turn, leads to another question: just what is Fourth Generation war? What lies behind its power to defeat state armed forces that vastly overmatch it in terms of resources, technology and technical skills? Werther concludes,
4GW is a “riddle of culture,” to paraphrase the anthropologist Marvin Harris. It is perhaps bound up with identity politics, absolutist religious claims, and the aspirations and resentments of the wretched of the earth. Why it should have arisen just when man conquered the moon, the atom, and achieved other triumphs of rationalism is one of those paradoxes by which history is always surprising us.
As one of the founders of the concept of Fourth Generation war, I would like to take a stab at solving this riddle. The key to it, I think, is precisely “the triumphs of rationalism.” Rationalism, or more broadly modernity, believes in nothing. Belief is the opposite of rationalism. Fourth Generation war is triumphing over the products of rationalism because people who believe in something will always defeat people who believe in nothing at all.
If we look at those who are fighting Fourth Generation war, America’s opponents in Iraq and elsewhere, one characteristic they share is that they believe very powerfully in something. The “something” varies; it may be a religion, a gang, a clan or tribe, a nation (outside the West, nationalism is still alive) or a culture. But it is something worth fighting for, worth killing for and worth dying for. The key element is not what they believe in, but belief itself.
As Martin van Creveld points out in his key book on Fourth Generation war, The Rise and Decline of the State, up until World War I the West believed in something too. Its god was the state. But that god died in the mud of Flanders. After World War I, decent Western elites could no longer believe in anything: “the best lack all conviction.” Fascism and Communism offered new faiths, but in the course of the Twentieth Century they too proved false gods (all ideologies are counterfeit religions). Now, all that the West’s elites and the “globalist” elites elsewhere who mimic them can offer is “civil society.” Unlike real belief, civil society is not worth fighting for, killing for or dying for. It is far too weak a tea to serve in the global biker bar which is the Fourth Generation’s world of cultures in conflict.
Old Werther gets at the central fact when he writes that “the modern age that dawned in the Renaissance is no longer alive – World War II was the last gasp of modernity, industrialism and linearity.” The death of the Modern Age actually comes with World War I; in 1914, the West, which created modernity, put a gun to its head and blew its brains out. The ninety years since have merely been the thrashing of a corpse. The rise of Fourth Generation war, and its triumph over state armed forces in Iraq and elsewhere, mark the real beginning of the new century, a century that will be defined and dominated not by the West’s ghost, nor by the Brave New World that is that ghost’s final, Hellish spawn, but by people who believe.
861. jexster - 1/29/2005 12:10:30 AM
The Second Coming -- W. B. Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions....
Werther Report - 4GW and the Riddles of Culture862. iiibbb - 2/9/2005 10:22:02 AM
Quranic Dueling
A new approach to fighting Islamist terror.
863. Macnas - 2/9/2005 10:40:43 AM
Good link iiibbb.
864. Wombat - 2/18/2005 6:57:50 PM
That bank robbery incident is getting ugly for the IRA.
865. Wombat - 2/18/2005 7:00:29 PM
After 30+ years of "success" in using the method, Israel is halting the destruction of terorist suspects' houses. After all it worked so well when the British used it against against Jewish "terrorists" in Palestine during the Mandate.
866. jexster - 2/20/2005 3:59:08 PM
Call it what you like - this is hell
February 20, books review: Mark Danner exposes the double speak that underpins Bush's 'war on terror' in Torture and Truth. Peter Conrad on how America's response to 9/11 unleashed an obscene nightmare.
867. Macnas - 2/21/2005 5:42:43 AM
re 864
It's verging on comical. I for one, do not believe that Sinn Fein had anything to do with the bank raid. Not the true political side at least.
Now there is cash turning up everywhere. People I know have been found with hundreds of thousands stashed in their homes, 2 million turned up at a fellow’s house the other day.
It looks like the bank robbers, having pulled of a spectacular and perfect heist, could not deal with the amount of cash it generated. It looks like the police here have been onto them from the beginning.
It's having serious ramifications for Sinn Fein, with matters made worse by our lunatic minister of justice, who cannot help himself it seems. He's named Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and a bunch of other Sinn Fein politicians as members of the IRA army council.
Sinn Fein are denying it of course, and have asked that if this is the case why haven't the named people been arrested as the IRA is a proscribed organisation?
It has put the peace process back considerably, it will take a year at least before it gets back on line I think.
868. jexster - 2/25/2005 1:17:48 PM
AP reports on a network smuggling Saudi youth into Iraq to fight jihad. Oh, great. The last time young Saudis went off to fight a superpower, with the encouragement of the Reagan administration in the 1980s, it turned into al-Qaeda and blew back on New York and Washington. No wonder the CIA is afraid that Iraq is a new breeding ground for future anti-US terrorism. Juan Cole
869. Magoseph - 3/7/2005 8:45:48 AM
This book review may interest you, Mac.
Pearl
by Mary Gordon
Caught in the blur of terrorism
A Review by Ron Charles
Some of the grand old political slogans don't ring so clear in the age of terror. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry cried at the end of his heroic speech in 1775. And since 1969 the people of New Hampshire have stamped "Live Free or Die" on their license plates. I used to think that was a glorious choice. But now, as the world seems daily torn by men unwilling to compromise or deliberate, that spirit of absolutism sounds fatalistic, even fatal. I wish I could hear more of the sentiment from the gracious opening of Henry's speech in which he admitted, "Different men often see the same subject in different lights."
A penetrating novel called "Pearl," by Mary Gordon, explores the allure of political extremism in starkly personal terms. How glorious, Gordon asks, is the choice between ideals or death when a loved one is choosing suicide?
The story opens on Christmas night, 1998, in New York when Maria gets a call from the State Department that her daughter, Pearl, has chained herself to a flagpole at the American Embassy in Dublin and may die from starvation. For Maria, who knows Pearl is a shy girl studying languages at Trinity College, this news is as baffling as it is terrifying. She calls Joseph, an old family friend in Rome who thinks of Pearl as a daughter, and the two of them set off immediately for Ireland from their separate locations.
It's a marvel that Gordon makes this so compelling because after those two phone calls, nobody moves or speaks for almost 200 pages. Maria and Joseph are strapped into their seats on different planes; Pearl lies on the cold ground in Dublin. And yet, by tracing how these three very different people have come to their desperate positions, Gordon tells a gripping story.
Impatient, dramatic, and self-righteous, Maria has been protesting since her own youth, when she pored over saints' lives, fantasizing about the glory of martyrdom. Later, when her father moved to protect her from radical friends during the Vietnam War, she cut him off, never spoke to him again, and never regretted showing him that her ideals matter more than anything else.
But now, she's speeding halfway around the world to convince a daughter making her own political protest that "Nothing is worth your life."
Joseph, meanwhile, is conflicted by his own reactions. Reserved where Maria is headstrong, he's torn between the terror of losing his beloved Pearl and the depressing prospect of living in a world in which nothing is worth dying for. How, he wonders, can he possibly save this girl while protecting her from everyone's condescension, from the assumption that she must be deluded to make such a deadly protest?
Of course, neither of them can imagine why Pearl would fast for six weeks and then handcuff herself to an embassy flagpole. "As long as I've known her," Maria thinks, "she's been only marginally aware of politics."
In a typed statement full of confused confessions and noble platitudes, Pearl announces that she's giving her life in witness to the death of a simple young man who was hit by a car several months earlier. He was the nephew of an IRA terrorist, but she had nothing to do with his death, which by all accounts was simply a tragic accident. "I am doing this in the name of justice," she writes, "in witness to the truth [because] I have learned that I am capable of harming."
Then suddenly, Gordon comes crashing in: "Of course we do not agree with her."
It's impossible not to be startled by these strangely ironic narrative intrusions: "Let us go back to September 1967," she says at the opening of one section. "You want to know about Pearl's birth," she writes at another. "Does it help you understand why she is where she is?" she asks. "I will use this time to tell you about her past."
No storyteller has spoken to me like this since Mom stopped cutting my meat at dinner. I understand that Gordon is toying with us, calling attention to the act of storytelling, deconstructing our faith in the ability of narrative to explain others' actions, to connect one baffling event to another. And I'm sure this technique will be enthusiastically debated around the English department water cooler (Gordon teaches at Barnard College in New York). But ordinary people are likely to find it more obtrusive than witty. And I'm not convinced that her narrative hand-holding adds much to a story that's already packed with the weight of a dozen religious and political themes.
Readers who don't like someone telling them when to turn the page may give up, and that's too bad because in search of an explanation for Pearl's behavior, Gordon takes us deep into the tragedy of Irish terrorism and the familial tensions of extremism.
Pearl, it turns out, has witnessed some particularly ghastly atrocities, and in despair she hopes her death will make the kind of pure protest she could never make with her life.
For her liberal mother, who's led a life of rebellion on somebody else's dime, Pearl's bodily sacrifice inspires a complicated crisis of faith. Gordon turns this problem in every direction, and there are moments when the novel sags under the burden of its cogitation, but the issues couldn't be more relevant to our time. The martyr, the hunger striker, the suicide bomber, the terrorist, they all share that pure faith in well-orchestrated death.
Joseph and Maria and their sacrificial child (religious references come on thick as the book draws to a close) must find some way to resist that deadly purity and affirm their lives. Gordon follows this crisis with deep respect for the difficulties involved and never arrives at anything like an answer, but the light she sheds along the way is very provocative.
870. Magoseph - 3/7/2005 8:56:58 AM
The Christian Monitor published the above review.
871. Magoseph - 3/7/2005 11:21:54 AM
New York Times
March 7, 2005
A Killing in Belfast Is Turning Backers Against a Defiant I.R.A.
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
LONDON, March 6 - In the Catholic neighborhoods of Belfast, the Irish Republican Army has long served as judge, jury and, in some cases, executioner, meting out its own brand of vigilante justice. Catholics who defy the I.R.A.'s dictates end up with broken kneecaps. Those who betray the I.R.A. wind up dead.
But now five sisters are turning that tradition upside down, spurred by the extraordinarily brutal killing on Jan. 30 of their brother, Robert McCartney, and what is widely seen as a subsequent I.R.A. cover-up.
Mr. McCartney was attacked in a crowded Belfast bar, then taken outside and beaten with iron pipes. His throat was slit and his torso was slashed open with a knife. The attackers left him to bleed while they went back to the bar, scrubbed it of evidence and warned customers that the fight had been an internal I.R.A. matter.
So far, the witnesses have heeded the warning from the I.R.A. men, and none have come forward.
The McCartney sisters, working on instinct and grief, are demanding that the I.R.A. stop protecting the attackers - as many as 15 men, whose identities are widely known - and allow witnesses to tell the police their stories so that justice can be done.
The sisters' boldness has galvanized the community. For perhaps the first time, the I.R.A. is facing broad and vocal dissent among its own supporters.
The killing and the sisters' response are creating a crisis for Sinn Fein, the I.R.A.'s political party, as well as for the I.R.A.'s rank and file and its leadership, coming as it does just weeks after the group was weakened by accusations that it was behind a Belfast bank robbery that netted $50 million.
The events have added to a disillusionment with the I.R.A. that has slowly built since the 1998 peace accords. Its members, once considered heroes in Catholic neighborhoods for their role in the struggle against British rule, are increasingly seen as turning to Mafia-like crime and common thuggery and preying on the very community that formed the group's core of support. The I.R.A., long nicknamed Ra, is now sometimes called the Rafia.
The firestorm over Mr. McCartney's killing has forced the I.R.A. and Sinn Fein into a corner, people in Belfast say. And pressure is building from long-time backers in Ireland and the United States. To some, the furor threatens to strip away the old veneer of "constructive ambiguity" that allowed the I.R.A and Sinn Fein to claim that their leaders had no true ties.
On Thursday, one day before the start of Sinn Fein's annual political conference, Gerry Adams, the party leader, announced that he had suspended seven party members over accusations that they were involved in the killing. A week earlier, the I.R.A. announced that it had expelled three men it believed were involved.
Startlingly, Mr. Adams also said he had given the names of the seven men to a police ombudsman. The I.R.A. and Sinn Fein had always refused relations with the police service, out of deep suspicion from the time of the Troubles, as the civil strife is known.
And on Saturday, at a party conference in Dublin, Mr. Adams, appearing with the McCartney sisters, ratcheted up the pressure and urged the men to come forward. "Those responsible for the brutal killing of Robert McCartney should admit to what they did in a court of law," Mr. Adams said. "I am not letting this issue go until those who have sullied the name of the republican cause are made to account for their actions."
The Irish government of Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, which had strongly supported Mr. Adams through the peace effort, has now publicly challenged Mr. Adams to admit that he is a member of the I.R.A. leadership and has said that the top leadership of Sinn Fein must have known about the Belfast robbery and probably approved it.
Sinn Fein has also lost whatever good will it had mustered with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, a sponsor of the peace effort, as well as some of its backing from Irish in the United States. Mr. Adams has canceled fund-raising efforts in the United States, and his deputy, Martin McGuinness, will not travel to the United States this month as expected.
872. Magoseph - 3/7/2005 11:22:14 AM
For its part, the White House canceled this year's St. Patrick's Day invitations to the leaders of Northern Ireland's political parties to avoid the embarrassment of having Sinn Fein represented. Instead, the McCartney sisters are planning a trip to the United States for St. Patrick's Day, possibly to New York and Washington.
The sisters have bluntly pressed for justice. "All of Ireland knows who the men are," Catherine McCartney, 36, a teacher, said of the attackers in an interview last week inside her sister Paula's home in Belfast. "But people know what the I.R.A. are capable of. They butchered a man and slit his throat. I would be afraid, too."
"Republicanism is not what happened to Robert," she said. "They can't call themselves republican if they did that. Certainly not murdering innocent people."
Many Catholics in the McCartneys' neighborhood, a battle-scarred area called the Short Strand, have responded with surprising solidarity.
On the day of the funeral for Mr. McCartney, a popular 33-year-old fork lift operator with two young sons, a thousand people turned up. Graffiti denouncing the I.R.A. popped up on walls, a first in a republican neighborhood; the markings were quickly erased, but quickly reappeared. Small photocopied posters with Mr. McCartney's photograph appeared on shop windows. "No More Lies," one said. "Shame on Them," said another.
Last Sunday, the women held a rally in the neighborhood. Hundreds showed up, including politicians, and several speakers expressed outrage. The sisters held placards that read, "Murdered - Who's Next?"
"If these men walk free from this, then everyone in Ireland should fear the consequences," Paula McCartney, 40, a Queen's University student, told the crowd, according to news reports. "Justice must be done."
The police said Friday that 10 people had been arrested so far but had refused to cooperate and were released. "We need witnesses, and those witnesses need to be able to return to their own communities," said the Northern Ireland police detective superintendent, George Hamilton.
The plea was indicative of the more troubled relationship that has developed between the I.R.A. and Catholics in Belfast's nationalist area since the Troubles wound down after the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement.
Many people interviewed here say they feel indebted to the I.R.A., a private army, for fighting for Catholic rights and protecting them from Protestant loyalists, like the Shankill Butchers, who tortured and killed Catholics with butchers' knives.
They acknowledge being increasingly disturbed by the I.R.A.'s criminal undertakings, acts of intimidation and extortion, and punishment beatings. Once mostly excused as necessary tools of war during the Troubles, such acts are now far harder to accept.
"There is a cynicism within the community," said Anthony McIntyre, who served 18 years in prison for I.R.A. activity and is now a dissident. "One reason the I.R.A. existed was to protect people from the Shankill Butchers. Now I.R.A. members are plowing their violence in their own community."
Everyone knows what happened on Jan. 30. Witnesses have talked on the street, and people have told these stories to the sisters.
Mr. McCartney stopped for a drink with a friend at Magennis's bar in the Markets section of Belfast on that Sunday night. An I.R.A. man thought he saw Mr. McCartney make a rude gesture toward a woman in his own group in the crowded bar. A brawl broke out, then spilled into the streets.
A short while later, Mr. McCartney lay dying. His friend's throat was sliced, as well, but he survived.
The attackers walked a couple of blocks back to the bar, locked it and warned the 70 people inside to keep quiet, the sisters added. "This is I.R.A. business," the sisters were told the men said. The men wiped down the bar, washing away fingerprints and blood.
The next day some of them were seen in the neighborhood, chatting with friends on street corners, as if Jan. 30 had been no different from Jan. 29, the sisters said.
The message was plain. "They can murder you, clean it up, cover it up and walk away," Catherine McCartney said.
Lizette Alvarez reported from London and Belfast for this article. Brian Lavery contributed reporting from Dublin.
873. Macnas - 3/8/2005 9:58:26 AM
The McCarthy sisters attended the recent Sinn Fein Ard Heis, or congress meeting if you like.
There, Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein came out with the strongest worded statement yet wrt criminality in Sinn Fein and the IRA. He has not gone so far yet as to outright encourage people to talk to the PSNI (Police Service Northern Ireland), but it was as near as dammit.
He has himself given details of 8 people who were turfed out of Sinn Fein on foot of the killing to the police omnbudsman, and in doing so has crossed a line insofar as many hard line republicans are concerned. This will probably cause a rift in Sinn Fein, and may even encourage further splintering of the provional IRA, we'll have to wait and see.
874. alistairconnor - 3/8/2005 10:21:15 AM
It looks as if the IRA have missed their historic opportunity to bow out with honour. In a pacified society, they have no relevance except as a nuisance and a reminder of past horrors.
Perhaps the backlash among Catholics is a good thing, but it does back the hard men into a corner. If the "decommissioning" falls through, they still have all these munitions on their hands, and no just cause to use them for.
875. alistairconnor - 3/8/2005 10:22:10 AM
And what about Adams? It looks like he's fighting for his own survival by cutting the IRA loose.
876. Macnas - 3/8/2005 10:30:07 AM
He should have done that a long time ago, indeed Danny Morrison, ex-SF & ex-IRA, commented yesterday that Adams would have done better to keep the distance between SF and the IRA at its traditional length.
SF are very lucky, in that they have a number of sharp people who could man the helm of SF if Adams had to stand down.
Whatever dignity the IRA might have hoped to save by an eventual withdrawl from armed conflict and all that goes with it has been more or less undone by the in-tandem disasters of the Northen Bank heist and the McCarthy murder.
The writing is on the wall, and it says the IRA must cease and desist and disband.
The hardliners do not want to read it, but the end is nigh, no matter how painful it may turn out to be.
877. Wombat - 3/9/2005 12:00:10 PM
The real question is how far apart SF and the IRA ever were.
If the report is true, it was mighty white of the IRA to offer to execute those who killed Macartney. That will make it right. (irony alert)
878. alistairconnor - 3/9/2005 12:28:32 PM
There was a certain degree of historic legitimacy in the IRA carrying out policing functions within the Catholic community, insofar as the arm of the law in Ulster was exclusively Protestant and vindictively anti-Catholic.
This no longer being the case (as far as I know), they have two choices : collective hara-kiri, or shut the fuck up.
879. Macnas - 3/9/2005 1:03:42 PM
"The real question is how far apart SF and the IRA ever were"
In my opinion at least, the IRA and Sinn Fein were and are far enough apart for it to matter. I'm certain there is some executive arrangement perhaps, but the heads of Sinn Fein do not fill the same space as the heads of the IRA army council.
Alistair, you've touched on a difficult issue. While it is true that the recent murder has rubbished the notion of the IRA being a protector of the nationalists, the fact remains the now renamed PSNI (ex-RUC) is still the force it was, that is, all but exclusivly protestant and more to the point, staunchly loyalist.
Many have no wish to contact the police about crime, they will talk to the IRA first.
880. jexster - 3/10/2005 10:40:01 PM
What are the Roots of Terrorism??? Defense and the National Interest
There appear to be at least three schools of thought about the sources of terrorism in the Islamic world. The first, and most primitive, posits that terrorism is simply a product of the Islamic religion and culture. To its credit, the Bush Administration has not adopted this line, although many of its most fervent supporters have, particularly those who believe in the coming Apocalypse and the consequent purification of culture and morals. The second posits that terrorism is a consequence of authoritarianism, stagnation, and repression, and therefore democratic reform of these authoritarian societies is the key to ending systemic terror. This is the line of argument now used rhetorically by the Bush Administration to justify its policies in the Middle East, its invasion of Iraq, and the conduct of its war on terror. The third school posits that terrorism is the historical result of foreign occupation and meddling, such as the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the West Bank; the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; and now, the US occupation of Iraq. This view is held by most Arabs, particularly the Arab elites in journalism and academia, as well as many scholars in the west. Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, is one of the most accomplished and erudite members of the third school. The attached essay lays out his arguments for this point of view.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top
Are we winning or losing the global war on terrorism? 