New York Times Aids Terror Networks

[kickabuck]

Okay Chris, stating funding is integral to their existence may be an overstatement. Just because some operations can be done cheaply($150,00 isn't chump change, but anyway) does not mean you do not monitor financial transactions.

You can stop repeating the line 'I haven't found any evidence this invasive program saved a single life' for God's sake, I am not in the intelligence business and this information was just disclosed. I can't name specific information two days after the fact and that discredits the program?

It is apparent that you are predisposed to believe all efforts in counter-terrorism by this administration have alterior motives. I am quite sure I cannot shake you of your, and the Times', convictions. Of course if you and the Times are wrong(it is possible), then damage has been done to efforts to track those who mean to harm us. Personally I do not assign alterior motives to all this government does, the negative with this program as I see it is a few people getting their bank records looked at a little too closely. Their is a much greater upside despite your confidence we would impede nothing anyway.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No it isn't. Terrorists need very little money. A couple of years ago the NY Times estimated that the average Palestinian suicide bomber spent about $250 in hardware store items. The 9/11 hijackers were armed with plane tickets and less than $500 in pepper spray and box cutters. Throw in another $150,000 in flying lessons and you have all the money you need to perform the most spectacular act of non-state terror in history. (Cost to the U.S. > $350 billion, according to Rumsfeld; indirect costs will total more than a trillion). Ammonium nitrate costs about $200 per metric ton; McVeigh used two tons. For the price of a gallon of deisel and a bag of fertilizer, anyone can become a world class terrorist. And terrorists can also easily move what little money they need through black markets and other underground networks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

Any literate American with a triple digit IQ over the age of 15 could very easily figure out how to contruct a bomb out of simple ingredients, acquire them at a hardware store, and cause pandemonium at the local Starbucks.

Killing people isn't even that complicated. I mean, how hard would it be to just gash someone's jugular while they're not expecting it?

I'm physically capable of executing terrorism, yet somehow, no one's really worried about it. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo? So there are means of killing that are inexpensive, so what? Certainly there are scenarios in which great efficacy can be achieved with access to sizeable funds. You don't suspend surveillance activities because, oh well, they can just buy a gun at Kmart. What kind of logic is that?

[Machinehead]

[ QUOTE ]
I only half-heard it this morning, but a New York Congressman (my guess is Peter King since he's Chairman of the HS committee?) is pushing for prosecution of the NYT under the Espionage Act and another law I didnt catch the name of. Hang em high.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you wonder why the ACLU is constantly complaining about you guys.

[Oderec]

I just don't get the assumption that this helps the terrorist. What, like they didn't already know we were watching their financial records? We've already frozen alot of their accounts. We froze one guy's account by the name of Wazir, who handled $67 million for them over 2 years, so they are very aware that we are watching their financial records. What does this report tell them that they don't already know?

[Ray Zee]

the administration has done a great job of combating terrorism since 911. that isnt a debate really. its how they do that job that counts. the end result never justifies the means as the wrong people suffer eventually from it. the newsmedia is of paramount importance to us to disclose any thing that govt. uses that is against the law or unethical. without complete knowledge our freedoms are lost. lost freedoms never seem to be returned to the people. so the line that news media cannot cross that gives away too much info should be drawn out in the sand so no mistakes are made. and the administration that wants credibility needs not challenge only so called leaks that make them look bad.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't get the assumption that this helps the terrorist. What, like they didn't already know we were watching their financial records? We've already frozen alot of their accounts. We froze one guy's account by the name of Wazir, who handled $67 million for them over 2 years, so they are very aware that we are watching their financial records. What does this report tell them that they don't already know?

[/ QUOTE ]

The subpoena of SWIFT and our access to that database wasnt known. (Note subpoena , ie court oversight.)

[adios]

Yeah I agree. Hard to know where the line is at the current time. I'm no fan of the NY Times editorial views but I think we ought to be careful when the government seeks to put more restrictions on our freedoms. I find the leaks themselves more troubling. I've heard and read stuff implicating the Democrats in Congress as the source of the leak more or less due to the fact that Congress was briefed on this activity. Haven't a clue if there's any validity to that view.

[Oderec]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't get the assumption that this helps the terrorist. What, like they didn't already know we were watching their financial records? We've already frozen alot of their accounts. We froze one guy's account by the name of Wazir, who handled $67 million for them over 2 years, so they are very aware that we are watching their financial records. What does this report tell them that they don't already know?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The subpoena of SWIFT and our access to that database wasnt known. (Note subpoena , ie court oversight.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what database we have access too. The terrorists know in a broad sense that we are watching their financial records. Does it matter exactly how we're doing it? They know they leave a paper trial, and that we're going to pick up on that trial, no matter the means. I just don't see the connection that this helps the terrorists. Im open to explanations on this, but I just don't see it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't get the assumption that this helps the terrorist. What, like they didn't already know we were watching their financial records? We've already frozen alot of their accounts. We froze one guy's account by the name of Wazir, who handled $67 million for them over 2 years, so they are very aware that we are watching their financial records. What does this report tell them that they don't already know?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The subpoena of SWIFT and our access to that database wasnt known. (Note subpoena , ie court oversight.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what database we have access too. The terrorists know in a broad sense that we are watching their financial records. Does it matter exactly how we're doing it? They know they leave a paper trial, and that we're going to pick up on that trial, no matter the means. I just don't see the connection that this helps the terrorists. Im open to explanations on this, but I just don't see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they know thats the intent but dont know the how and where, telling them gives them the opportuity to either avoid SWIFT or to more efficiently focus on evading some of SWIFTs more obivous capabilities.

Despite Chris Algers inablity to understand analogy, my prior one about chemical weapons censors is appropriate.

Terrorists know we want to monitor financial transactions
Terrorists inow we want to prevent chemical attacks by detecting their presence

We find an effetive way to monitor financial transactios
We find an effective way to detect chemical weapons

Our methods involve scanning transactions of innocent citizens to screen them out.
The chemical detector scans the briefcases of innocent citizens.

The govt could care less about your routinge international transactions
The govt could care less if you have condoms in your briefcase

Revealing that we are specifically using SWIFT helps the terrorist focus on finding specific countermeasures within SWIFT
Revealing the weakness in the detection method helps the terrorist focus on specific contermeasures including avoidoig the NY subway system and putting condoms in the briefcase.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The New York Times yesterday outed the monitoring of the financial transactions of the international banking institution called Swift. The administration and two members of the 9/11 commission pleaded with the Times to spike the story, they refused. There have apparently been some successes, including the capture of al Queda operative Riduan Isamussin the mastermind of the Bali bombing. The Times hatred of this administration has gone too far, this is a huge blow to the tracking of terrorist financing. The only people who should be pleased are Al Queda, the only beneficiaries of the information.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I too was saddened to see that there are Americans who think that the New York Times is helping terrorists by publishing this story. Pathetic.