Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Evidence Suggests Brit Liquid Bomb Plot was Directed by UK/Paki/US Intel

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:51 AM
Original message
Evidence Suggests Brit Liquid Bomb Plot was Directed by UK/Paki/US Intel
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 11:57 AM by leveymg
How can one speak of a "thwarted" plot when intelligence agents were an inherent part in leading the conspiracy from the very beginning?

When you put the pieces together the following picture emerges about the liquid explosives conspiracy:

* It was first penetrated by Pakistani intelligence in May 2005.
* British intelligence have been actively involved for more than a year.
* U.S. intel having been first made aware of the surveillance operation for at least several months.
* The Bush Administration decided the timing of the arrests a few weeks ago.

That makes this terrorist conspiracy as much a conspiracy of state as it is a real terrorist plot.

Furthermore, the timing of the arrests, as the article immediately makes clear, was chosen for political reasons. That is simply an abuse of the intelligence process, one that should result in the cancellation of the security clearances of those US officials who interfered with what had been a UK and Pakistani counter-terrorism operation.

****
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452
Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests

British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says U.S. and British authorities disagreed on when to break up an alleged plot to blow up airliners bound for the United States, officials say. NBC's Lisa Myers reports.

Nightly News
By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 10:43 a.m. ET Aug 14, 2006

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

British officials knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.


SNIP

******

The evidence that the UK liquid plane bomber plot was, from the early stages, executed under the active involvement of several intelligence agencies is suggestive, but it's there.

Read the following, and please tell me if another conclusion is suggested. This plot was penetrated and closely surveilled for more than a year. I find it inconceivable that there wasn't at least some element of agent provocateur in the management of this counter-terrorism operation. There always is, and that's the way it has been going back to the Czar's Okhrana and the Russian Social Revolutionaries. It's a subject I've been studying since long before 9/11.

Anyway, here you go:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html
Agent infiltrated terror cell, U.S. says
Air travel in chaos after plot to bomb airliners exposed

Friday, August 11, 2006; Posted: 3:33 p.m. EDT (19:33 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Terrorists were in the "final stages" of a plot to simultaneously blow up as many as 10 jets leaving Britain for the U.S., sending the planes and thousands of passengers into the Atlantic Ocean, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.

British and Pakistani authorities teamed up to thwart the attacks, and 24 men were arrested in overnight raids in Britain, authorities said.

An undercover British agent infiltrated the group, giving the authorities intelligence on the alleged plan, several U.S. government officials said. (Watch as neighbors describe the dramatic arrests -- 2:18)

The men had not bought plane tickets, the officials said, but they were in the process of perusing the Internet to find flights to various cities that had similar departure times.

Two of the suspects recently traveled to Pakistan and later received money wired from there, senior U.S. government sources said. (Watch why the plot is 'suggestive' of al Qaeda -- 2:21)



*****

The UK informed US intelligence of this operation several months ago, and the FBI has been heavily involved since.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14278216 /
Details emerge on alleged plot to bomb airliners

SNIP

U.S. officials say British investigators had the terror cell under close surveillance for several months, keeping the U.S. informed, then adding more specifics just within the past several days.

For the past several days, the FBI has feverishly looked for any potential ties to terrorists in the U.S., but has not found any.

We literally in the last couple of weeks have had hundreds of FBI agents around the country tracking down every lead, and we have not found to date any plotters here in the United States, FBI Director Robert Mueller told NBC.


SNIP

******

I would expect that after the capture of one of the original planners in May 2005, Pakistani ISI was working inside the cell, and later one or more MI5/6 supervisory control agents brought in double-agents on the British side.


http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/pakistan-connection-pak...
Friday, August 11, 2006

The Pakistan Connection

Pakistani police on Thursday arrested a number of UK Muslims within Pakistan who were also suspected of involvement in the "Liquid Bomb Threat."

British authorities say that they have been investigating the group behind the airplane bombing plot for "about a year." The Scotsman says that the investigation began in 2005.

US authorities were only told about some details two weeks ago, apparently. It may be that the British counter-terrorism community learned its lesson from the loose lips of the Bushies in summer of 2004. I argued then that from what we could tell from open sources, it seemed likely that the Bush administration played politics with information about a double agent in Pakistan who was helping monitor a London al-Qaeda cell. It seems likely that the election-year leak allowed budding terrorists like Mohammad Sadique Khan to escape closer scrutiny, and so permitted the 7/7/05 London subway bombings to go forward.

This time, the MI5 and MI6 and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) may not have told Washington everything.

The Financial Times has an interesting observation I haven't seen elsewhere:


' British security officials suspected the innovative use of liquid explosives smuggled on board could have evaded airport detection devices. They said the method of attack, if used to blow up an aircraft over the ocean on a flight from the US to the UK, could potentially have been used repeatedly because its detection would have been all but impossible after the event.

One official said: We were very lucky to have acquired the intelligence about the modus operandi of the attacks. If we hadnt got the intelligence, they probably would have succeeded and there would have been little or no forensic evidence showing how they had done it. The modus operandi could have made waves of attacks feasible.

British police had liaised closely with US law enforcement agencies for some time, although US officials said they learnt the intelligence pointed to threats against specific US airlines only in the past two weeks. '


So how did we find out about this plot, and the deadly mode of operation, which might otherwise have been so hard to detect? The investigation was kicked off by an arrest in Pakistan "last year." (AP says the arrest in Waziristan was "a few weeks ago", but I think AP is confusing the contribution of some recent arrests to the case with the initial capture of the key informant a year ago).

Most of the investigation was carried out in the UK, but the Pakistanis are said to have provided "an important clue."

AP says:


' A Pakistani intelligence official said an Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border . . . provided a lead that played a role in ``unearthing the plot.''


So this capture takes place roughly June, 2005.


- END -

__________________________________________
2006. Mark G. Levey
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent point.
Do you think we'll ever get the TRUTH out of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. "The Infiltrators" are the one common thread that links all the alleged
terror attacks these days.

I'd like to learn who the infiltrators are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. The infiltrators are as much "terrorists" by definition
as the terrorist suspects are.

It seems like their job is not to thwart terrorism and potential terrorist groups, but to focus and enhance the terror to get the maximum public reaction. That's "terrorism" in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
64. Its like the military-industrial-energy complex is holding terrorism...
over our heads as punishment. Whenever something happens like Lamont beating Lieberman, which could start an anti-war trend, then they punish us with a terrorist act, the consequent security tightening, and Fox and CNN shifting their focus toward stirring up fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Sons of the guys doing the infiltrating of groups in the 60s
Sons of the body, sons of the heart or sons-of-bitches, it is all the SSDD. Same far right wing 'law and order' types who will not respect the law in their pursuit of power and control.

Deja vue all over again for those of us old enough to recall the Pigs v the Radicals in the US in the 60s. Infiltrating is how is how it is done when they want to disrupt/discredit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nabia2004 Donating Member (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
48. It seems like a case could be made for entrapment...
...in most of these cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. Read Le Carre "Absolute Friends"
for the how and why of this sort of false flag operation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. An absolutely superb book by the way...
....EVERYONE should read it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jara sang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Those guys were set up to be a prop for Republican reelection efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Rupert Murdoch is in there somewhere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Don't post stuff like that! You'll end up in a column in USA Today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
59. Yay, you're famous!
And I knew you when you wasn't nothin'. :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. Were the arrests timed to drown out news coverage of Lamont victory?
Sure looks like it. Wonder how many more of these canned conspiracies there are on the shelf, waiting to be opened at the right time between now and November?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
57. Follow the link
in LynneSin's post #20. The timing of quite a few "breaking news" terra terra threats has gotten even more obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Thank you (EOM)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is getting to be a rather common thread in terror "plots"
A group of dupes & a gaggle of agents provocateur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Orwell ain't got nuthin'
on THIS shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
61. my guess is that the infighting over when to
expose this carefully nurtured and well orchestrated plot...is whether uk needed it at a later date was important enough to over ride sooner when bushler needed it for his own political ends at this particular time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. "Terror Storm"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemInDistress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I watched that the other day and was overwhelmed with fear.
fear that these current scumbags will no doubt attack us once more then declaring Martial Law, suspend the 06' elections and continue on with their agenda, "Global Conquest and Rule" scary shit..

Hope the Mexicans join us and Canadians in out effort to take back North America.. A cabal that makes all of
James Bond villians pale in comparison. Chaos, SPECTER, Goldfinger etc..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. Well done...!!!
K and R

You manage to pull out the salient aspects of this little yarn and have provided more than enough 'smoke' to investigate this fire.

You should drop the 'C' word though --

There is NO conspiracy involved in asking questions gleaned from the public record!!

Have you seen the comments of these Muslim activists when NPR interviewed them:
Democracy Now
Britain Names Suspects in Alleged Airline Bomb Plot; British Muslims Skeptical, Fear Backlash

It's interesting background to the Blair 'terror' campaign...
:yourock:







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. the west has a curious way of growing terrorists where
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 12:19 PM by xchrom
there were none before.

osama, and now this.

sadaam -- death squads in south america --

but you can never ever count on the status quo getting to the bottom of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
14. Yes
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 12:33 PM by CJCRANE
I realised a few months ago that that's how they did the big attacks.

The thing that swung it for me was an interview I heard on BBC Radio 4 with a former British agent who had infiltrated the IRA in Northern Ireland as a bomb-maker. He claimed that to prove his cover he came to America and received bomb-making materials/expertise from the FBI! (Which he then took back to Northern Ireland).

He stated the he knew he had made bombs and warned of bombs which had killed civilians, but for whatever reason they were allowed to go ahead so as not to break his 'cover'.

My feeling is that the US/UK intelligence prefer to control the terrorists as much as possible because that means they know exactly what's happening and can control the aftermath too. But now with the neocon's idea of "creating reality" they're doing it on a much bigger scale.

on edit: also it was disclosed a few months ago that one of the main leaders of Sinn Fein (political wing of the IRA) was a British agent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
35.  one main leader of Sinn Fein was a British agent?
didn't know that... very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. BBC: Sinn Fein British Agent Shot Dead (4 Apr 2006)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. I flew from Britain a few weeks ago...
and there was almost NO security. It was no different from how it was a decade ago. No one opened my bag -- just stuck everything in the usual xray machine.

But suddenly NOW they decide you can't even have shampoo? Though the investigation has been going on for a year or more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrfrapp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Crazy
"But suddenly NOW they decide you can't even have shampoo? Though the investigation has been going on for a year or more?"

Crazy isn't it. They capture the people they claim were plotting the attack and only then increase the "terror alert". Surely any terror threat has been lessened, simply by definition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Gauger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. That's a really good point -
If they knew about the plot for over a year, why have they only now banned liquids? What the fuck kind of bullshit are they trying to pull on us? Every day I trust these fuckers less. From the first I heard of this, I havce suspected that it is just bullshit. The more I learn about it, the more it seems they are making this up. At the very least they care more about its propaganda value than about keeping us safe. Although that's hardly a surprise. I was speaking with two 'mainstream' friends of mine last week and they, much to my surprise, both said that they beleived it was just hype. I said, 'Of course it is; everything the government tells us is a lie." My one friend replied, "Well, I wouldn't say that, but just looking at this case independantly, it just smacks of bullshit." I was intrigued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Hi John Gauger!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. It is much worse than that: technique know since 1994.
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 02:45 PM by endarkenment
Google the al qaeda attack on a airplane bound from Manila to Tokyo in 1994. A nitro bomb concealed in a contact lens solution bottle blew up under a seat on the flight and killed the passenger sitting in the seat. Didn't do much other damage, which is why al qaeda most likely discarded the technique from its bag of tricks. Our Guardians have known about this threat for 12 years.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/11...

12 damn years. Then we get the Bullshit in Britain and suddenly it's Panic Time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
43. I called American Airlines in 2002 and asked why you can
have a glass bottle of 151 rum on a plane. It could easily be a bomb for those who don't know how to make one, and I thought it was crazy to have them in the cabin. Plus, a broken bottle works as well as bottle cutters.

No one seemed to care much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
55. What is a bottle cutter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #16
56. Yes. Proves the point: it's not PROTECTION they want, it's FEAR. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
17. This is...
...business as usual for the perma-war/terror/fear state. It has been going on for decades. Invent a bogeymen, fund him, then kill him. All accompanied with rhetorical flourishes and fawning media attention.

But to even suggest such things, even though the record is clear, is to be group-scorned as a conspiracy nut. Who is nuts here, those who follow evidence, such as the Gary Webb's of the world, or those who refuse to see the nose on their face because it is so comforting to believe the oft-told bedtime story, the soothing narrative that paints the world in good guy/bad guy clarity.

Thanks for the post. It will go down the memory hole like most others of value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
18. K&R...
Very well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. Very interesting stuff... thanks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. K&R(nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
27. Good work, Mr. Levey. Thanks for posting it. n/t k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
28. And Cheney, having prior knowledge of the plot, came
out slamming the "soft on terrorism" democrats, aka Lamont, a few days before the plot was exposed.

These SOB's make me sick and they should fry for what they've done.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
29. So this was Scotland Yards 'Miami 7'?
A 'test' to see how far you can push people? If so, then once again it should really worry some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
30. Well done, thanks for this! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
31. Well I'll be damned! Who'd o' ever thunk it? sort o' like a hoax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
32. Great connecting the dots, especially with the Juan Cole link.
He had a great article last year on the political motivations of the neo-cons in regard to the London bombing. It should be in these links from my archives:

London Bombers Tied to Al Qaeda Plot in Pakistan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Holy CRAP! ABC News is reporting bombers linked to last years arrests!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
33. So Rove did have a say in the timing of this!
Where are all the naysayers now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
34. I wonder how many other "terrorists cells" there are out there being
Readied for the picking this election season in order to "prove" that there really are terrorists out there. Patsies and their scout leaders: lets learn how to start a fire today ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
36. Nah. Surveillance and tracking is not collusion or conspiracy.
It's the intelligence agency's job. You may be misreading the msnbc and cnn reports. :shrug:

I don't see any suggestion of a conspiracy at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Read the discussion at the thread following the DKOS crosspost.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/15/131718/996

That issue was thoroughly chewed over. Be glad to hear your thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
37. Bush's Bitch indeed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
39. Keep on playing those mind gorillas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
40. Sometimes it's the little details that count.
Like the fact that the UK and Commonwealth papers are all mentioning that one of the "terrorists" is the son of a Tory lobbyist. Dick Cheney makes vague accusations; Tony Blair is naming names.

I hope all researchers interested in this event keep working this angle--you're not the only ones out there who have your suspicions, but that's all I wish to say about it right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
41. I believe you have to be
pretty much on the plane to blow it up..... OVER THE ATLANTIC

I believe you pretty much need a ticket and a passport to get on the plane.

Otherwise you better consult Criss Angel.

Fear factory indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
44. Sounds about right to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
45. Obviously...
it is a completely disingenuous for those responsible for airline security to have ignored the threat of liquid explosives for nearly 5 years after 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. Unless liquid explosives are no threat whatsoever.
The one time it was tried, it didn't blow up the plane, and only one person was killed. Not a very effective tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
46. COINTELPRO International
J Edgar Hoover's FBI was expert at infiltrating the political opposition -- from the commies to the Liberal ranks. Odd how often the record shows these groups were manipulated by the FBI plants to move toward one glorious revolutionary act or another. Today we see much the same thing at home and abroad:

SF Bay Guardian: The new COINTELPRO

They never infiltrated the NAZIs as they must've been on the same page, so to speak.

Great job, Mark! Thank you very much for an outstanding post and much-needed information and analysis. K&R&B for Truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. "Going after immigrants is just the first step towards going after U.S.
citizens."

As we've learned since about NSA warrantless spying on all of us, that statement by Marc Van der Hout really hit the spot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
47. The timing was all Bush / Rove...
Just in time for fall election..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
49. Blair timed this to his benefit as well as Bush's ....
...Blair was facing a credible move to "unseat" him (similar to that undertaken by John Major in getting rid of Margaret Thatcher)and the timing of the announced terror plot broken up benefited him probably more than Bush, but it worked to the benefit of both.

Now that the plot to "unseat" Blair is out in the open, watch for the fireworks to begin after the traditional August recess of Parliment ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
52. Pakistan uses torture to get evidence, doesn't it?
So the reliability factor would be ...what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
53. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
54. Whoa! Wait a bloody minute! "Impossible to detect AFTERWARDS?"
"' British security officials suspected the innovative use of liquid explosives smuggled on board could have evaded airport detection devices. They said the method of attack, if used to blow up an aircraft over the ocean on a flight from the US to the UK, could potentially have been used repeatedly because its detection would have been all but impossible after the event.

One official said: We were very lucky to have acquired the intelligence about the modus operandi of the attacks. If we hadnt got the intelligence, they probably would have succeeded and there would have been little or no forensic evidence showing how they had done it. The modus operandi could have made waves of attacks feasible.

EXCUSE ME???? Has the point of terrorism altered? Is no one going to claim responsibility anymore? Weren't these planes supposed to be detonated over the Atlantic where we wouldn't be able to resurrect the wreckage anyway?

And I STill want a demonstration, with effective amounts of simulated liquid ingredients, showing me exactly HOW a bomb could be mixed and assembled on a plane. Because, if it's so damned effective, how come it hasn't happened before, except for that idiotically ineffective gesture that exploded a Japanese tourist?

This is such a pile of pasture pastry, we could open a bakery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
60. You have presented ZERO evidence that the plot was "directed by"
UK/Paki/US Intel.

You have, however, managed to prove an ongoing and detailed investigation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Indeed, Sir, That Is The Gist Of It
These reports do not justify the conclusion drawn from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. Please see the line of discussion about that at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/15/131718/996

Then, if you like, please feel free to come back and comment further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
63. COUNTER-TERRORISM: Some Things Are Too Important to Let Bush Decide
* Do you trust George W. Bush to make important decisions about capturing terrorists?
* Should Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney be told operational details about counter-terrorism programs, and then freely use that information for political gain?
* Should the Director and head staff of Homeland Security be political posts, jobs given out as spoils to GOP loyalists, who then go on to make the operational decisions that may determine life or death for thousands of Americans?

If your answer to any of those questions was no, or not sure, you might want to read this post.

**

We don't trust the President to control the money supply, so we have the Chairman and Board of the Federal Reserve, a semi-autonomous agency run by bankers, do it since passage of the Federal Reserve Act. 12 USC; ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 (December 23, 1913. The President does not necessarily get to appoint a Fed Chairman, as that post is for a fixed four-year term that does not coincide with the presidential election cycle. The seven Members serve fourteen-year terms, and new Members of the Board are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The professional staff are selected by merit, and have civil service protection. It's not a perfect arrangement, but most informed observers agree, it's proven to work better than the previous system of political patronage and partisan agendas that made prior federal management of the banking system, money supply and economy captive to the electoral cycle.

Similarly, the President has limited powers of hiring and firing over the uniformed military. (FTN. 1) The President nominates an incoming Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the end of a normal four-year term, which again does not coincide with presidential elections, and appoints the commanders of the various combatant commands. (FTN. 2) But, the list of candidates is put together by the uniformed services on the basis of merit selection. The staff that serves the JCS are selected by the Services on the basis of merit by the Services for fixed, extendable terms.

Thus, is Bush entitled by law to select who he wants to run the federal government? No. The most important permanent institutions in Government are not run as political fiefdoms by all the President's men. Those agencies which critical functions, such the Armed Services and Banking, have independent, merit-based mechanisms for executive and staff appointments, promotions and retention.

That's a separate question from the changes the Bushites have, in fact, attempted to actually impose. There has indeed been an effort to impose more or less absolute control over the militarty, intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies. During the Bush Administration, the independence and integrity of the Armed Services and agencies have come under severe attack. Witness what happened to those who questioned the Administration's assessments regarding Iran and Iraq -- Valerie Plame at CIA, and Lt. Col. Karen Kwaitowski who was forced out as Near East Desk Officer at DIA by Sec. Rumsfeld and the neocons -- but, these institutions have fought back, and are reasserting their independence. The Scooter Libby and OSP-AIPAC prosecutions are the most visible sign of that push-back by the U.S. military and intel.

So it has been with counter-terrorism. This is an area of power within the bureaucracy that has undergone enormous growth and fundamental change under Bush with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and appointment of Michael Chertoff, and the post of National Intelligence Director, filled by John Negroponte, both political and ideological appointments of the highest order.

It should thus be not be a surprise that there's been a politicization of counter-terrorism. The frequent terrorism alerts were strategically timed to keep the American people in a state of anxiety during Bush's first term, but few or any of them seem to have much basis in an immediate threat to the public. Since the 2004 elections, there have been none, until a week ago. Now, the Bush Administration is trying to politically exploit the U.K. Liquid Bomb Plot as a club to beat Democrats as "terrorist supporters". This is an outrage, and the Democratic leadership is also -- finally -- calling foul.

We have begun to hear serious allegations of White House meddling in a major British counter-terrorism operation, and evidence that the plot has been cultivated and controlled by UK, US and Pakistani intelligence agencies for more than a year. The corporate media is backpeddling away from the story. This leads to an important question:

Is counter-terrorism too important to the survival and well-being of the United States to be trusted to George Bush and his political appointees?

The unncessary and preventable deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Bush Administration is utterly incompetent to prevent major terrorist attacks. Subsequent events, including the massive secret warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, and other outright violations of the law, along with the sidetracking of the "war on terrorism" in the rush to occupy Iraq, and the utter miscarriage of that unncessary and aggressive war, did not vindicate the Bush Administration. In fact, it proved they lack the necessary judgment, strategic understanding, and respect for basic American liberties to continue doing the most important job in the land, protecting American lives from attack on our own soil.

***

The deadly failures in national security by the Bush Administration shows the need for a fundamental change in how these security functions are performed. George Bush, Dick Cheney. Karl Rove and Michael Chertoff should be fired from the job of top counter-terrorism chiefs. The Department of Homeland Security should be dissolved, and its functions taken over by an independent, non-partisan institution led by experts who serve fixed terms, staffed by career professionals with full civil service protection, who are free from the threats of Presidential enforcers and corrupt lobbyists. Never again should a Dick Cheney be able to march into CIA headquarters and badger staff to produce intelligence to order. Never again should the enticements of corrupt lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff be granted a free pass to enter the White House and Executive Office Building to dictate the desired terms by which intelligence is gathered by private contractors.

Those changes should be a promise made to the American people by the Democratic Party, to be delivered if the GOP control over Congress is lifted. I believe that remaining Republicans in Congress can be persuaded to see the advantages of such a plan to professionalize counter-terrorism, as it will of course curtail the partisan powers weilded by the next President, who is likely to be a Democrat.

Given the extraordinary powers of federal counter-terrorism agencies since 9/11, and the manifest failures of ad hoc arrangements that have given President Bush near-dictatorial powers, a better solution is needed. One can only hope that once the shape of a solution is suggested, that the need for reform is obvious to nearly everyone.

The Bush Administration's counter-terrorism program has been an expensive failure. The Administrations's attempts to exploit the liquid bomb plot to smeer Democrats as terrorism supporters -- shows that counter-terrorism is a matter that is not best directed by political bodies, such as the Presidency. It is a function that should be institutionalized and performed by an independent agency run by professionals, like the Fed, who operate separate from any particular Administration and are captive to no political party.

- END -
_____________________________________
Mark G. Levey, 2006.


_____________________________________
FTN. 1), See, TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > 155. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec...
Furthermore, the various uniformed services create their own lists of candidates for the elite positions on the staff of the Committee of the Joint Chiefs. DoD Directive 5158.1, (May 1, 1985). As provided in Section 143 (reference (c)), the selection of the Director, Joint Staff, and of the members of the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/rtf/d51581x.r... .

FTN, 2), The heads of the combatant commands -- SoCom, CentCom, StratCom, etc. -- answer directly to the Secretary of Defense and are appointed by the President, but are selected by merit from a list provided by the Armed Services: "The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) envisioned that officers would be selected for recommendation to the President for appointment as the commander of a combatant command under chapter 6 of title 10, United States Code (as added by that Act), on the basis of being the best qualified officer for that position." House Report 107-333 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 CONFERENCE REPORT, SEC. 598. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE SELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER, UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp107&si...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. And that is the scariest part of this whole fucking thing!
Bushitler is the "decider."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC