when i first saw this story last night, i said that there must be some seriously pissed-off brits to let loose with this kind of information.

the question is, will the american media bother to run with this story, or will it be a one-day wonder on one network?

my money is with one-day wonder of course….

&y

With the added benefit that you force the Brits into the same ethical quagmire we’re in in Gitmo.

Huh, I guess you’ve got a point. Though there’s also the theory that they just wanted to torture him.

Huh, I guess you’ve got a point.

I’ll put a hat on. Nobody’ll notice.

Is it my imagination or does BushCo thwart success stories on terrorism every time. Here they force the plot broken up prematurely so Brits, diminishing Brits’ chances of successful prosection. As you go through the litany of screw ups what stands out is the choices made not to give the law the broadest chance at prosecution; not to develop a foreign policy that strives to define the root problems and meet them headon with proactive cultural options; not to use military actions to their best outcome in ToraBora, Afghanistan …no, what I’m getting at here is that the choices are made by BushCo to actually, maybe not nuture, but surely to enable the terrorist movement to grow and broaden, thus giving Bush the excuse to expedentially broaden his executive powers.

â€The choices are made by BushCo to actually, maybe not nurture, but surely to enable the terrorist movement to grow and broaden, thus giving Bush the excuse to (exponentially?) broaden his executive powers…â€

EXACTLY! I’ve been saying this since the run-up to Iraq. Bush needs and wants terrorism as much as any â€Islamofascists.†It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the financing/masterminding of 9/11 was pulled off by the same â€interests†(Saudi royals, American oil companies?) that put BushCo in power. Just ask yourself — over the past five years, who’s benefited the most from the War on Terror? And 9/11 didn’t have to be an elaborate plot to secretly blow up the towers, with conspirators all over the administration. All it took was money and ideas, put in the right place (Al Qaeda) by one or two wealthy sociopaths like say, Richard Mellon Scaife, who bankrolled the Clinton impeachment, which was the beginning of the same plan to ensure permanent power for the extreme right wing. Call me a looney conspiracy theorist with a tin-foil hat (the right wing would) but it sure sounds more plausible to me than Al Qaeda being a completely independent organization with no ties to any other political interests

Mimikatz: now that is is a tantalizing question…dalloway, sorry I’m a fool for spelling. Beyond the duh factor, this thought travels from stupidity to intent to calculating…as Cheney calculates how far up he can prop Bush. The most frightening thought of course is how, when one is as power hungry and defiant as Cheney/Bush/Addington are, can they walk away at the end of this catastrophe from the power they’ve held? So, what powers have they tucked away in their magic suit to use after they’ve LEFT (and I use the word loosely) office?

Do you people even have a clue as to how intelligence is gathered and investigations conducted?

You’ve shown your ignorance by misidentifying the ingredients to be used and the chooses that had to be made. The Brits made the arrests–in fcat, they got ringleader today–and the courts will convict.

Explain to me how the US acting as they did hurt any part of this. We stopped the deaths of thousands and got the guy who was al-Qaeda’s leader in Britain.

For once, can’t you see that something Bush did was good for the country? Can’t you put aside your BDS and see that this saved the lives of Americans–both liberals and conservatives, black and white and man and woman?

You people sicken those of us who want to win this war. Conservatives and Republicans never took the cheap shots you do when Bill Clinton did what was right with regard to national security. We were glad because the security of this nation overrides all.

Is the person signed in as Scott supposed to be taken seriously, or is it normally a troll?

Do you people even have a clue as to how intelligence is gathered and investigations conducted?

Do you? Posting from Langley, are you?

Somehow I doubt that they’d have showed up at Heathrow sans passport. But to get a passport at short notice, they’d have had to apply in person at a passport office. And the moment that happened, the authorities would know. Heck, if they were being watched, the ones with passports wouldn’t get through security.

In fact some terrorist might want to wait to purchase his tickets until the last moment to avoid detection.

Yes, because people who buy last-minute tickets aren’t ever considered worthy of additional screening. You obviously don’t fly that regularly.

Actually I have to purchase last minute tickets occasionally and never once went through additional security at the airport in that circumstance.

they may very well have screened me in advance (I certainly hope so)and determined I was no threat.

There is no guarantee that additional screening at the airport would catch anyone. If you have been to an airport since 9/11 you know it’s not really all that much more difficult than it was before.

I certainly see no difference in security returning to the states from the UK or other parts of the EU.

leaving the US yes it has tightened up a bit.

And again speaking only for the US; you do not have to go to the passport office to have a passport expedited. You just pay more money and request the service. A week later your passport comes in the mail.

You certainly don’t to have to go to any passport office to have one forged.

Ugly

Would it be a fair assumption to guess you’re white?

scott

Okay, from your site:

Of course this is proof to these idiots that Bush pushed the arrests up to get Lamont’s win off the front pages or somesuch garbage.

Where in this post do you see anything suggesting I think they moved up the arrests because of Lamont? I’m also struck that you didn’t address the fundamental issue with Rauf, that we wanted to render him. Given the shitty red herrings we got from Abu Zubaydah (Padilla) and al-Libi (false claims of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda training effort), are you advocating we render and torture Raif rather than using proven methods of interrogation?

My fundamental point here is that:

It was the British who deserve primary credit for making this bust (Bush, as I pointed out, has only ever netted â€aspirational†terrorists).

Yet we deign to tell the Brits how to do their job, when they have proven much more successful at this kind of thing (not least because of their experience in Northern Ireland)?

Whatever happens with this case (and you don’t know that these guys will be convicted, no matter how loudly you claim they will), my concern–as I pointed out in my post–is that we will alienate one of the few allies we have left in this war. That concerns me. There are allegations already that the Brits held off on info sharing on this because of this Administration’s big fat mouth (no doubt learning the lesson of Mohammed Khan). It would be very unfortunate if they hesitated even more in the future because of our pushiness with this.

You give them more credit than they’re worth, jb. My problem with Scott’s argument, as I said above, is that it prominently denies events that nearly all Americans can recall off the top of their heads. After that, it might as well all be Flat Earth theory.

As to the Brits — apparently they have two murder charges from Birmingham against Raif stemming from a few years back. He left GB for Pakistan as the murder investigations began to close in on him. Assuming for political reasons Pakistan does not want to prosecute on a lesser charge, I suspect the British will request and get quite legal extradition. The murder cases will in no way be impacted by the liquid bomb plots. What Bush might object to strongly is that British rules would make him unavaiable for intelligence exploitation until post trial. But I suspect two murders trump this conspiracy.

The British and Americans have divergent interests here that need to be fully recognized. The British need to identify all the networks among their Pakistani and other immigrant populations open to planning and executing terrorist acts, 7-7 and the subsequent derailed plot absolutely demand this as top priority. In particular, they need to know how these connect with networks in Pakistan that train, finance, and religiously encourage Pakistani-Brits. While interesting, this would not be a particularly high priority for US intelligence, unless, as in this case, US lives and property were targeted. But even the specific US interests do not change the divergence of interests between the Brits and the US — they want to track a huge network — we want to preempt a specific plot.

I rather dismiss the tickets and passport issue. Al-Qaeda has a pattern of using false identities and paper, and without knowing such had been thoroughly investigated, it is something of an undependable argument. If you imagine for a moment that this thing had been executed, you would have waves of planes that simply disappeared into the ocean with no evidence of how it was done, and no true identities that would allow easy investigation. And depending on where over the Atlantic it was executed, you might not even have a fix on location. I mention this because one of Rumsfeld’s cost savings plans of last year was to close down the military radar station on Iceland as a cold war vintage waste of money, even though the station also tracked N. Atlantic commercial flights. Ironic, isn’t that odd little fact. Rummy’s decision did not make the US press, but it was well covered in Denmark — a complex story, because the Iceland facility was acquired as a 100 year lease between the Danish Embassy in DC and the War Department in 1941 — Remember, DK was then occupied by the Germans. In 1946, as part of Iceland receiving its independence from Denmark, the 1941 agreement was part of the deal. Thus Rummy’s decision actually scotched a treaty between DK and the US. Iceland, Denmark and the Airlines were actually quite pissed.

It’s the end of an era, Kaygro X. There are more and more people like your father in law who have just friggin had it (I would note here, for those who don’t know, that your series of Impeachment posts contain impeccable, clear-eyed, what-can-only-be-called conservative reasoning. If our two stalwarts are still around, they might want to take a look at those). I’m in post-mort mode – convinced that the Reagan Era is staggering to a close. I suspect I’m not alone in beginning to get beyond expressing that much local outrage anymore and more interested instead in the differences between what apologists actually believe and what they feel they must say ’for the team’. That’s why I asked. It is really fascinating. Honest to god, with malice toward none (except the pols).

FWIW Dept.: I don’t comment here very much anymore, but I certainly still come read everyday. This is such a brilliant blog. I’m going to invoke the ’End of Irony’ here (the true meaning of 9/11, remember? – HA!!) and just thank all the contributers at TNH for all the fucking great work day after day.

(Since every single thing you can imagine has to have a literal monetary value now, I would expect that some virtual ’TNH dollarz’ will be deposited into my virtual account for this. Incentives, don’cha know; modern saving stamps: rewards. Thanks in advance. ’TNH gives me rewards….I like that.’)

â€All the 9/11 hijackers got visas and entered the US under their own names. And even if that weren’t the case. I’d be very wary of treating ’Al Qaeda’ as a coherent entity akin to the IRA with a consistent M.O.â€

That may be so, but there are many other examples of use of false identities and papers. Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed apparently had over thirty identities, and Ramzi Yousef apparently is Abdul Basit.

When true Identities are used, and when not probably has much to do with specific operations and strategy — I suspect 911 was much about driving a wedge between the Saudi’s and the US — and selecting pilots from US friendly state — the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Bin Laden was frustrated his declaration of war was not being taken seriously. I’ve just finished much reading up on Lashkar-e-Taiba, the presumed Pakistani end of â€Liquid Bombsâ€, and it appears State and CIA paid little attention to LeT, assuming it only operated in Pakistan, Kashmir, India and Indonesia — not the USA. Appears they now have to return to square one, and apply resources to LeT. Caught Shortsighted again.

(OT—Must be my browser or something. For some reason I thought I had about 16 copies of my last post up.)

The Brits failed to stop the train bombings last year. While they have a great intel branch in MI5, they still need our assistance because we are the best at this type of intel gathering (at least until our intel gathering procedures are revealed by the NY Times).

The Americans failed to stop 9/11. Does that mean American authorities can’t be trusted? You are ducking the issue raised in this post. You all want to imply, without quite saying it, that the brits would’ve blown the investigation or allowed a major terrorist attack to happen. If you think that, say it. Tell us: why was it vital to arrest suspects early? If you have a reason, tell us.

Perhaps the Cheney administration needed a WELL TIMED event to change the narrative and keep the proles in line. Cable news has been telling us all weekend that we MAY have all died, at least that’s the theme from the American versions of Pravda. Faux spews has been foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs.
No passports? Ummmm the undeniable liberal doesn’t think that any of these native British islamofacist radicals were going to be travelling internationally soon.
The fact remains, the alleged attack wasn’t imminent, OUR government pressured the British(for political reasons) and now the Fox â€news†watching sheeple are convinced that without Bush and his rubber stamp congress WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE……unless we give them free reign to shred the constitution. The real message is….vote Democratic, and DIE!!!!!!! And our â€free press†falls in line again. Welcome to the Rovian/Cheney vision of Amerika.

Perhaps the Cheney administration needed a WELL TIMED event to change the narrative and keep the proles in line. Cable news has been telling us all weekend that we MAY have all died, at least that’s the theme from the American versions of Pravda. Faux spews has been foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs.
No passports? Ummmm the undeniable liberal doesn’t think that any of these native British islamofacist radicals were going to be travelling internationally soon.
The fact remains, the alleged attack wasn’t imminent, OUR government pressured the British(for political reasons) and now the Fox â€news†watching sheeple are convinced that without Bush and his rubber stamp congress WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE……unless we give them free reign to shred the constitution. The real message is….vote Democratic, and DIE!!!!!!! And our â€free press†falls in line again. Welcome to the Rovian/Cheney vision of Amerika.

one can’t tell if â€sc†is â€scott†or another fantasist. what right-thinking people oppose is violating the law in intelligence-gathering. the brits didn’t violate british laws in this effort. what exactly is it that â€sc†thinks we provided?

No. SC is not me.

As for the Clinton â€wag the dog†scenario, when he ignored Iraq for months then the day the impeachment hearing began, he began bombing them only to end it the day the impeachment hearings did was hard to explain away.

What do you mean he almost had bin-Laden? You mean when the Sudan offered him to us and Clinton said he didn’t want him. Is that what you’re referring to?