Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?

What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals? (Page 5)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2006, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by black bear theory
besson3c! seriously, wtf are you doing!?

It's cool... I'm taking one for the team. Once Abe/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2 lets down his killer Clark Kent-style disguise and reveals his true identity, we'll all have some closure on this issue.
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2006, 10:12 PM
 
The article mentioned how some involved with the program felt it was abusing a loop hole or taking advantage of grey area in the law (As far as I recall)... so are there any arguments from NYT or equivalent that mention which laws are being "stretched/abused/violated/jimmy rigged/taken advantage of"? Has anyone from NYT made any sort of legal argument?
     
greenG4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cardboard Box
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2006, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
Dear Abe/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2,

I think you need to poop and go have a lemonade. This is not a football game. Wasn't it you that said that the art of being a good poster is to write like you are having sex with your thread?

Show me your love making skills.
Hillarious. You made me smile Besson. Not everyone can make compelling logical arguements, though. It's difficult to do.
<Witty comment here>
www.healthwebit.com
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2006, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenG4
Hillarious. You made me smile Besson. Not everyone can make compelling logical arguements, though. It's difficult to do.

It is, but I believe it's important to try. If you can't, you should at least be able to kick ass like Batman or Superman or something.


One thing I never understood is why people couldn't recognize that Clark Kent is really Superman. His entire disguise is a set of glasses! Do you mean to tell me that a pair of glasses is all that it takes to fool people into thinking that Clark Kent isn't Superman?

I think a fake mustache would be more effective. Clark Kent should wear a fake mustache.
     
greenG4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cardboard Box
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2006, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
One thing I never understood is why people couldn't recognize that Clark Kent is really Superman. His entire disguise is a set of glasses! Do you mean to tell me that a pair of glasses is all that it takes to fool people into thinking that Clark Kent isn't Superman?
Only to Liberals. Conservatives know he's Superman. We're just that observant. I jest! Don't hurt me....

Edit: I agree with the mustache.
<Witty comment here>
www.healthwebit.com
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2006, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenG4
Only to Liberals. Conservatives know he's Superman. We're just that observant. I jest! Don't hurt me....

Edit: I agree with the mustache.

George Bush needs to wear a fake mustache. I bet it will help the polls...
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 02:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
One thing I never understood is why people couldn't recognize that Clark Kent is really Superman. His entire disguise is a set of glasses! Do you mean to tell me that a pair of glasses is all that it takes to fool people into thinking that Clark Kent isn't Superman?
I remember there was an episode of SNL with Teri Hatcher (Lois from Lois & Clark) as the guest host. For the opening skit, she kept having the cast come out to talk to her, then they'd put on reading glasses and she would freak out that some new person had suddenly appeared on the stage.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Because you don't follow current affairs?

(Edit: you really are admitting to getting your news from the Macnn lounge? Aren't you embarrassed to say that?)
Giving attention to useless details, again, Simey?

How about the sources from which the article stemmed from? Or do you prefer shooting at messengers, because you feel you have some power there?
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Thank you.

Presumably you now agree that the NYT should not have blown this legally-authorized and effective anti-terrorism investigation?
I have close to the same view I had earlier: That the report itself was run-of-the-mill, discussing how the government is focusing on terrorist financing, which everyone has publicly stated for many years. But, as I said before, I think they should have refrained from mentioning SWIFT, both because it harms SWIFT as well as because it could tip off terrorist financiers. (Although, given how legal this appears to be, I have no doubt that other methods of tracing financial transfers are being used in addition to this SWIFT, so it wouldn't help them to use other types of electronic transfer anyway.)

Where I've changed my view is that it now seems clear to me that these stories trumped up this idea that it was "warrantless" in order to try to regain the glory from the other eavesdropping stories. If they hadn't brought that up at all, and had in fact stated that this wasn't questionable legally, this wouldn't have gotten any attention at all.

There's also no doubt in my mind that the administration is playing this for all it's worth politically. For example, not just the NY Times, but also the Wall Street Journal broke this on the same day (as well as the LA Times and the Wa Post). But the administration and its supporters have focused on the NY Times. Why is that?

And speaking of the NY Times, when you try to associate liberals with the Times, maybe you're just not aware of this, but liberals despise the Times because of what we perceive as their unskeptical parroting of the Bush administration in his first term, especially in the lead-up to the Iraq war. So don't assume that just because it's the Times, liberals must like what they do. Quite the opposite.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
IThere's also no doubt in my mind that the administration is playing this for all it's worth politically. For example, not just the NY Times, but also the Wall Street Journal broke this on the same day (as well as the LA Times and the Wa Post). But the administration and its supporters have focused on the NY Times. Why is that?
This is bad for liberals politically. That much is definitely true. The other papers, by the way, have each said that they only decided to publish after the Times decided to do so. See, for example, todays editorial on opinionjournal.com.

I'm glad we agree, however, that the NYT tried to mislead its readers with what, in fact, was a non-story. And now Democrats will have to deal with the political fall out. If I was a liberal, I'd be mad at the Times. Their hatred of Bush is hurting you.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Besides which, I think you are using hindsight. The details about how banks transfer money was not common knowledge until a couple of weeks ago when this blew up. I only learned about SWIFT about a year ago, and I'm a lawyer. This is quite obscure stuff.
Narh. I've known about SWIFT for years.

Anyone who has a offshore account (i.e. Swiss) will probably have known about it for ages (and let's face it, terrorists move capital around via offshore accounts).

The only reason most Americans don't know about it is because your citizenship-based tax regime discourages the regular use of offshore accounts by normal cizitens.

Oh, and by the way. In the last year a lot of offshore business has been closed to US IP addresses. Last year it was pretty free and easy - nowadays some places won't let you access your account if you're on US soil.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
Narh. I've known about SWIFT for years.
OK, so you knew about it. But as reported in the original NYT article, several terrorists, including the mastermind of the Bali bombings, which killed 200 people, did not know about it. The Times told us that they were caught through this program. So the thesis that terrorists knew all about it obviously is not correct.

In any case, if the unilateral decision by a newspaper to blow the classified program can be seen as a balancing test, then the balance could not have fairly tipped in favor of publication. On one side you have a program that was legal, and according to the Times itself, effective. On the other you have no honest argument that there was illegality. Safety of the public on one hand, no reason for the public to be concerned on the other.

Under those circumstances, any question of "public interest" (the justification claimed by the Times) weighs in favor of respecting the classified nature of the program. Unless, of course, "public interest" is always a synonym for whatever the newspaper feels like doing, whether for its own commercial or political purposes. That doesn't sound like a good justification for what amounted to sending terrorists a memo telling them what not to do.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 10:37 PM
 
I haven't read the NYT story, but...

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
OK, so you knew about it. But as reported in the original NYT article, several terrorists, including the mastermind of the Bali bombings, which killed 200 people, did not know about it. The Times told us that they were caught through this program. So the thesis that terrorists knew all about it obviously is not correct.
The terrorists must have known about it - if they didn't know about it, they wouldn't have been using it and wouldn't have got caught.

Are we actually talking about the same thing here? SWIFT is a bank transfer protocol, not a spy program. The fact that the terrorists have been caught through SWIFT transactions suggests that they didn't know that the US is monitoring SWIFT protocols (presumably through mechanisms such as ECHELON).

Thus, I believe, when the NYT (or whoever) says "SWIFT program" they mean "un-named spy program related to SWIFT", not "spy program called SWIFT".

Like "Iraq war". It's not called "Iraq war", it's called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and in this instance the mention of Iraq means "war related to Iraq".

Unless I'm completely wrong, of course.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
In any case, if the unilateral decision by a newspaper to blow the classified program
I don't think it's a big deal. I mean, those are some dumb terrorists to assume that all electronic transfer mechanisms aren't being monitored. The clever ones (if they exist) would be staying off the radar and not using mechanisms like SWIFT anyways, so no big loss that the spy program was outed.

It's of more importance when framed against civil rights and that kind of stuff. However, anyone who doesn't assume that all of their electronic communications are monitored is pretty dumb anyways. That's what PGP is for. And that's why I have automatic 2048-bit encryption on my email server.
( Last edited by Doofy; Jun 30, 2006 at 10:44 PM. )
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
I haven't read the NYT story, but...



The terrorists must have known about it - if they didn't know about it, they wouldn't have been using it and wouldn't have got caught.

Are we actually talking about the same thing here? SWIFT is a bank transfer protocol, not a spy program. The fact that the terrorists have been caught through SWIFT transactions suggests that they didn't know that the US is monitoring SWIFT protocols (presumably through mechanisms such as ECHELON).

Thus, I believe, when the NYT (or whoever) says "SWIFT program" they mean "un-named spy program related to SWIFT", not "spy program called SWIFT".

Like "Iraq war". It's not called "Iraq war", it's called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and in this instance the mention of Iraq means "war related to Iraq".

Unless I'm completely wrong, of course.



I don't think it's a big deal. I mean, those are some dumb terrorists to assume that all electronic transfer mechanisms aren't being monitored. The clever ones (if they exist) would be staying off the radar and not using mechanisms like SWIFT anyways, so no big loss that the spy program was outed.

It's of more importance when framed against civil rights and that kind of stuff. However, anyone who doesn't assume that all of their electronic communications are monitored is pretty dumb anyways. That's what PGP is for. And that's why I have automatic 2048-bit encryption on my email server.
I think we have explained this at various points in the thread. SWIFT is a clearinghouse between banks for transferring (actually it is done by washing accounts against one another) money internationally. It's basically a private secure e-mail system.

As such, SWIFT accumulated a database of the transactions. It was this private database that was subpoenad by the US government under the laws we have discussed. The private database was then subjected to data mining techniques to look for suspicious transactions.

This being so, there is no spying involved in any of this and certainly no opportunity to encrypt the information. All the actual transfers would have been made by the banks who own SWIFT.

The information released is that using those banks to make transfers would put information about that transfer into a permanent database, and thus into the hands of the US Department of the Treasury who would then analyze it for suspicious patterns. It's not the existence of SWIFT that is the issue. It is what the consequences are of using the private SWIFT network. Terrorists (and for that matter, also other criminals) now know to avoid using those means to transfer money. Priviously, it appears that they did think it was safe for them to use it. If not, they wouldn't have used it.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
The terrorists must have known about it - if they didn't know about it, they wouldn't have been using it and wouldn't have got caught.

I must be missing something here. The problem isn’t that terrorists didn’t know about the banking method they were using. (That seems kind of self-explanatory). They didn’t know that they were being tracked by using it until the Times opened their yap.

Kind of akin to a Mafioso using the phone system- what he shouldn’t know is which phone is safe to pick up and openly talk shop on and which is bugged by the agency that will nab him.

The Times in essence broadcast to terrorists: "Hey, don't use the phones at such and such locations, this is how your comrades have been getting nabbed."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 11:20 PM
 
Right. We're slightly askew here.

Simey: I didn't know about SWIFT (the transfer protocol) until last year. It's obscure.
Me: I've known about it (the transfer protocol) for ages. It's not obscure.
Simey: OK, so you knew about it. The terrorists didn't.

I was assuming at this point that the conversation was still about the existence of the transfer protocol and folks' awareness of it. It would appear that Simey had at this point slid into talking about the spy program/data mining program.

Hence confusion.

Originally Posted by Simey
I think we have explained this at various points in the thread. SWIFT is a clearinghouse between banks for transferring (actually it is done by washing accounts against one another) money internationally. It's basically a private secure e-mail system.
I'm aware of that.

Originally Posted by Simey
As such, SWIFT accumulated a database of the transactions. It was this private database that was subpoenad by the US government under the laws we have discussed. The private database was then subjected to data mining techniques to look for suspicious transactions.
OK, data mining rather than message interception. Same thing in the big scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Simey
This being so, there is no spying involved in any of this and certainly no opportunity to encrypt the information.
You misunderstand my comment about encryption. It was to illustrate that people who're serious about their privacy are usually a bit paranoid and take suitable measures. Obviously, expecting a bank transfer to match up to your required measures is a little lax.

Originally Posted by Simey
The information released is that using those banks to make transfers would put information about that transfer into a permanent database, and thus into the hands of the US Department of the Treasury who would then analyze it for suspicious patterns. It's not the existence of SWIFT that is the issue. It is what the consequences are of using the private SWIFT network. Terrorists (and for that matter, also other criminals) now know to avoid using those means to transfer money. Priviously, it appears that they did think it was safe for them to use it. If not, they wouldn't have used it.
No big deal. I know you guys haven't got bank secrecy laws over there. I expect all of my data entering the US (and the UK, for that matter) to be picked off by the government at some point. Why wouldn't the terrorists?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
The Times in essence broadcast to terrorists: "Hey, don't use the phones at such and such locations, this is how your comrades have been getting nabbed."
I get what you're saying... ...I just don't think it's that big of a deal. They're supremely dumb terrorists to assume that any electronic data which travels out of their possession isn't being spied on or data mined. Really.
Or maybe they're clever. Maybe they're running interference for the smart terrorists. Who knows?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2006, 11:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
I get what you're saying... ...I just don't think it's that big of a deal. They're supremely dumb terrorists to assume that any electronic data which travels out of their possession isn't being spied on or data mined. Really.
Or maybe they're clever. Maybe they're running interference for the smart terrorists. Who knows?
I don't care how dumb or clever they are. The fact is they are dangerous and we were catching them this way and now we won't. And all because some arrogant newspaper thought its scoop is more important than people's lives.
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 08:52 PM
 
Isn't the NYT the lapdog of the government, as per Chomsky?

I am just saying: while you paint a whole newspaper as "liberal", liberals are criticisiing it as a tool.

Isn't that funny?
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I don't care how dumb or clever they are. The fact is they are dangerous and we were catching them this way and now we won't. And all because some arrogant newspaper thought its scoop is more important than people's lives.
And yet, scoops may be what could save people's lives: by making public what is apparently a failing strategy, the NYT may force the seucrity intiutions to improve their ways. Admittedly, this may have been an accident, but if it helps making security forces stronger, then so be it.

I don't understand your obesession with something, in the end, trivial, with yet such a promising amd more efficient offshoot.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast
And yet, scoops may be what could save people's lives: by making public what is apparently a failing strategy, the NYT may force the seucrity intiutions to improve their ways. Admittedly, this may have been an accident, but if it helps making security forces stronger, then so be it.

I don't understand your obesession with something, in the end, trivial, with yet such a promising amd more efficient offshoot.
Failing? How? The Times says this was a successful program that was working. The Times destroyed that, and made it easier for terrorists to operate. That puts lives in danger.

What I don't understand is the obsession with excusing them now that even they have stopped arguing that there was any illegality. They were caught with their partisan pants down, pure and simple. But by all means, keep defending them. It can only make it easier for conservatives this November.
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:07 PM
 
Simey, what I read is you defending incompetence.

Well, that suits your political objectives, so live with it and stop whining by transposing its failings to the media.
     
greenG4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cardboard Box
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Simey, what I read is you defending incompetence.

Well, that suits your political objectives, so live with it and stop whining by transposing its failings to the media.
That is ludicrous. The program was working. Period. A working secret ant-terrorism measure is not political.
<Witty comment here>
www.healthwebit.com
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenG4
That is ludicrous. The program was working. Period. A working secret ant-terrorism measure is not political.
Knock your head as long as you can: If it was secret, how come the NYT got whiff of it? If the NYT was able to get the info, how do you think the terrorist could not have known about it?

Not so secret I guess... Would that not be an issue in the WOT?

So blame it on the messenger; in the meantime, let's have a gaping hole in National Security, and pretend it's not there.

Instead, let's turn it into a democrat vs republican debate. Woaw: that will save lives big time!!!

Good work!!
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Failing? How? The Times says this was a successful program that was working. The Times destroyed that, and made it easier for terrorists to operate.
Debatable. Since the terrorists cannot now use SWIFT, they're going to have real hard time moving money around - which will seriously hamper their operations. It's swings and roundabouts.

Originally Posted by Pendergast
If it was secret, how come the NYT got whiff of it? If the NYT was able to get the info, how do you think the terrorist could not have known about it?
Concur.

I have a feeling that there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. Heck, we don't even know for sure that the government didn't intentionally leak the info to the NYT.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:36 PM
 
Pendergast, you're speaking in overly abstract terms, whereas Simey's argument is rather to the point.

Also I don't think anyone in the thread has directly confronted the question put forward in the OP.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
I have a feeling that there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. Heck, we don't even know for sure that the government didn't intentionally leak the info to the NYT.
I doubt that:

"Administration officials had engaged in a "vigorous dialogue" with reporters and editors at the newspaper trying to persuade them to refrain from revealing the program".

Some of the people who joined the administration to persuade the NYT against publishing:
Republican Gov. Thomas Kean
Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Indiana
The co-chairmen of the 9-11 commission
John Murtha D-Pa. (seriously)
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
I doubt that:
"I don't care what you do with me just so long as you don't fling me in that briar patch."
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Simey, what I read is you defending incompetence.

Well, that suits your political objectives, so live with it and stop whining by transposing its failings to the media.
What "incompetence"? Is this some parallel universe thing? Edit: see below. He thinks the New York Times somehow pieced this together, so al-Queda did too. Apparently, he doesn't know what a leak to a newspaper is.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Knock your head as long as you can: If it was secret, how come the NYT got whiff of it? If the NYT was able to get the info, how do you think the terrorist could not have known about it?

Not so secret I guess... Would that not be an issue in the WOT?

So blame it on the messenger; in the meantime, let's have a gaping hole in National Security, and pretend it's not there.

Instead, let's turn it into a democrat vs republican debate. Woaw: that will save lives big time!!!

Good work!!
Oh, heck. Sorry, this is an idiotic misunderstanding.

The Times reported that around 20 civil servants leaked to it. That means that American government officials talked to American journalists about a secret program. This in no way implies that the same people were telling al-Queda. At least, not directly. Nor does it imply that terrorists guessed anything until they read about it in the Times.

It's not incompetence. It's political agendas at work.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
Debatable. Since the terrorists cannot now use SWIFT, they're going to have real hard time moving money around - which will seriously hamper their operations. It's swings and roundabouts.



Concur.

I have a feeling that there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. Heck, we don't even know for sure that the government didn't intentionally leak the info to the NYT.
Doofy, my man, yet again you hit the nail on the head

Very good post.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
SimeyTheLimey  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
Debatable. Since the terrorists cannot now use SWIFT, they're going to have real hard time moving money around - which will seriously hamper their operations. It's swings and roundabouts.
Getting arrested would hinder their operations more.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 12:24 AM
 
SWIFT was mention often in the past ten years in the news. How can ppl not know what SWIFT is?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 01:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo
Doofy, my man, yet again you hit the nail on the head

Very good post.

V
Not that I subscribe to this train of thought yet, but another scrap would be the upcoming elections. Since the leak, the Whitehouse has been hammering the "liberal press" like mad with the intention of making the conservative position on terrorism seem stronger. I don't think a day's gone by that Beck and Rush haven't mentioned their outrage at the NYT for this story. It fits in with the Gay Marriage, Illegal Immigration and Flag legislation of late -- to prop up "the base".

Plant story, deny funding, prop-up base... are they that clever?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 06:48 PM
 
So what methods did we come up with?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
So what methods did we come up with?
1) Blame Bush.
2) Whine at Republicans.
3) Go on a relay fast with Sean Penn.
4) Blame Bush.
5) Whine at Republicans some more.
6) No rule 6, obviously.
7) Blame the Neocons.
8) Whine some more.
9) Perform rendition of Lesbian Seagull.
10) Whine.
11) Thou shalt not suck.

That about covers it.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
1) Blame Bush.
2) Whine at Republicans.
3) Go on a relay fast with Sean Penn.
4) Blame Bush.
5) Whine at Republicans some more.
6) No rule 6, obviously.
7) Blame the Neocons.
8) Whine some more.
9) Perform rendition of Lesbian Seagull.
10) Whine.
11) Thou shalt not suck.

That about covers it.

Pretty funny charactecture... Of course, around here this particular breed of hippy hasn't been prevalent since the 60s or so
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 07:01 PM
 
Lesbian seagull... wasn't that from Beavis and Butthead
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Oh, heck. Sorry, this is an idiotic misunderstanding.

The Times reported that around 20 civil servants leaked to it. That means that American government officials talked to American journalists about a secret program. This in no way implies that the same people were telling al-Queda. At least, not directly. Nor does it imply that terrorists guessed anything until they read about it in the Times.

It's not incompetence. It's political agendas at work.
I apologise for the wrong usage of gaping hole.

More like "open-bar" and "all-you-can-eat".

Were there flyers distributed as well?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 08:17 PM
 
So no answers huh?

Sounds like this forum is full of Kerry clones.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 10:26 PM
 
Well, when you ask like that, I can't imagine why people don't want to talk to you, Kevin.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2006, 10:47 PM
 
Oh there was no answer well before that post.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Well, when you ask like that, I can't imagine why people don't want to talk to you, Kevin.

I held off on using the MacNN ignore list because I thought I could restrain myself from paying attention to him, but I failed. After discovering the actual MacNN/vBulletin ignore list, I found that the subtle "this user is on your ignore list" warnings have been gentle reminders that there is a reason why I'm ignoring him. You might want to join the club
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 01:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Oh there was no answer well before that post.
The question is not as simple as the thread title implies. Simey was not merely inquiring into liberals' ideas of morality. His entire question was framed with the apparent assumption that unless you say everything the Bush administration does is right and good, you're wrong. You're not allowed to say that careful oversight is needed, or maybe the current system needs to be toned down — you either agree with Bush or you're wrong.

It's a bit like if I asked you about Clinton's social policies, and anytime you disagreed, I replied, "No, no, Kevin. That's how it's done. Now tell me, do you agree with how it has to be done or don't you?" That's how this thread seems to me.

By the by, congrats on becoming clinically insane again.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 02:20 AM
 
No, the question was: "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?"

It still hasn't been answered.

I'm guessing we can now rule out law enforcement, since every law enforcement method not publically shouted from the rooftops -read: anything that would actually WORK- can be outed and then excused as "oh well, since we know about it now, let's pretend it wasn't effective!"
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 02:44 AM
 
Maybe it would be answered if you would stop changing the subject. Anytime somebody starts to discuss what liberals might find acceptable, suddenly you start talking about whether this-or-that is effective or a good idea. Once again, this thread seems to be more about conservative rhetoric than honest inquiry about liberals' moral ideology.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 02:57 AM
 
Nope. You still didn't answer the question.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 03:03 AM
 
o noes

What led you to believe I was attempting to speak for liberals?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 03:12 AM
 
I couldn't care less who you think you speak for; I was merely reiterating the actual question -past all the bullcrap and smoke screening- that still hasn't been answered.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 03:21 AM
 
Have you stopped beating your grandmother?

If there is any smokescreen here, it's you pretending this thread is seriously asking for liberals' opinions on morality.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 03:34 AM
 
No, the question was: "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?"

And boy are you trying to bullcrap your way around it!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,