It's working...

[The Duke]

The breaking up of the attempted terror attack on aircraft over the Atlantic, or as I refer to it, "Bojinka II", proves one thing: Our efforts to defend the country are working.

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which have decapitated the leadership of Al Qaeda and ground down the manpower of the Jihadist movement, the Patriot Act, the signals monitoring and wiretap programs, and the other domestic security measures, all of it.  It's working.  The enemy just played its best card, and that card wasn't good enough.  It has to be a tough day for the flat-Earthers currently in hiding on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border who started this war.

After months of bad news from Iraq to Lebanon, it is nice to be reminded that we in the west are doing something right.

[Alcon]

With all respect, I have two questions:

1. If this attack wasn't organised, would you be trumpeting that Al-Qaeda has been so decapitated that it is incapable of attacking, and thus our efforts must continue in this area?

2. If the attack had gone through, would you be demanding expansion of these programmes?

[Joe Republic]

What role did our government play in the foiling of the attacks, exactly?  It just seems like it was solely the British and Pakistani governments working together.

[Joe Biden 2020]

What role did our government play in the foiling of the attacks, exactly?  It just seems like it was solely the British and Pakistani governments working together.

Maybe I heard wrong, but I heard on Fox News Channel just after 8:00 am CT August 11, that the United States picked up chatter between the attackers and their commanders, saying "DO YOUR ATTACKS NOW".  Like I said, I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard that the US picked it up and relayed it to the British government, thus saving America from an attack that would have exceeded 9/11/2001 standards.

[MODU]

I think it is tied in with BushOklahoma's comment, but on the radio this morning they said that the US picked up two phone calls from London to the US from the suspected attackers.  I've been trying to find a link to that news piece, but I haven't found it yet.  I'll post it when I do.

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

Ok, here we go.  This article at least references the connection I stated above, and addresses the question by Joe.

"Vague tip launched probe on 3 continents"

In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, transit bombings in London, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

From that vague but vital piece of information, according to a senior European intelligence official, British authorities opened the investigation into what they said turned out to be a well-coordinated and long-planned plot to bomb multiple trans-Atlantic flights heading toward the United States--an assault designed to rival the scope and lethality of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings.

By late 2005, the probe had expanded to involve several hundred investigators on three continents who kept dozens of suspects under close surveillance for months, even as some of the plotters traveled between Britain and Pakistan to raise money, find recruits and refine their scheme, according to interviews with U.S. and European counterterrorism officials.

Precise details of the plot--how many planes, their destinations and the date--remain unknown. The shape of the operation changed regularly as the would-be bombers considered which trans-Atlantic flights to target and prepared for a practice run, which was expected to take place in the next few days, U.S. officials said.

Investigators eventually pieced together enough information from a blizzard of stakeouts, tips and wiretaps to make clear that something big was in the works and that the preparations were nearing an end.

"It's not like three weeks ago all of a sudden MI5 knew about this plot and went to work," a U.S. law-enforcement official said, speaking of the British security service. "They'd had a concern about these guys for some time, for months."

One U.S. intelligence source said some of the British suspects arrested had made calls to the United States.

(Cont...)

[J. J.]

With all respect, I have two questions:

1. If this attack wasn't organised, would you be trumpeting that Al-Qaeda has been so decapitated that it is incapable of attacking, and thus our efforts must continue in this area?

2. If the attack had gone through, would you be demanding expansion of these programmes?

On the second point, I'd be looking at ways to improve the program.

On the first point, I tend to think that Al Qaeda was (and is) still out there, trying to think up ways to get around the second point.

[The Duke]

With all respect, I have two questions:

1. If this attack wasn't organised, would you be trumpeting that Al-Qaeda has been so decapitated that it is incapable of attacking, and thus our efforts must continue in this area?

If this attack had not been organized, I most certainly would not be dismissing the threat of Al Qaeda as "so decapitated that it is incapable of attacking".  Quite the opposite!  Before I (or anyone else) even knew of this plot, I assumed that terrorist attacks were in the works and that the threat remained quite real.  And in spite of having broken up this attack, I still believe that other attacks are being planned right now and they have to be stopped.  I was right that Al Qaeda was planning such attacks, and I am right that they continue to do so.

2. If the attack had gone through, would you be demanding expansion of these programmes?

I would demand that, but I demand an expansion of these programs even though the attack was stopped, so whether the attack had succeeded or not doesn't really affect my position on that.

This victory does, however, validate those measures we have taken to protect our people, even if we could (and should) be doing more.  It also strongly suggests we should keep doing those things that are working for us.

So whether the attack had gone through or not, my position on whether we need to expand domestic security programs remains unchanged.

[Nym90]

If your position is unchanged based on whether or not the programs have been successful, then I believe the point was that you can't really take credit for their success as justification for them. You are basically saying you support them on philosophical grounds, not because of any evidence for their success. I think that was Alcon's point, that you can't have it both ways; if you are going to take credit for success in stopping terrorist attacks, you also have to be willing to take the blame if the policy were to fail to stop one.

In any event, I am very glad that the attack was thwarted, and kudos should go to those who helped make this possible, although I'm certainly not convinced that it was US policy specifically that was responsible. If hard evidence shows up that proves that it was, I'm certainly open to changing my position. I personally think that what we've lost in Iraq has far outweighed any gains, though I'm sure others would disagree.

[The Duke]

If your position is unchanged based on whether or not the programs have been successful, then I believe the point was that you can't really take credit for their success as justification for them. You are basically saying you support them on philosophical grounds, not because of any evidence for their success. I think that was Alcon's point, that you can't have it both ways; if you are going to take credit for success in stopping terrorist attacks, you also have to be willing to take the blame if the policy were to fail to stop one.

In any event, I am very glad that the attack was thwarted, and kudos should go to those who helped make this possible, although I'm certainly not convinced that it was US policy specifically that was responsible. If hard evidence shows up that proves that it was, I'm certainly open to changing my position. I personally think that what we've lost in Iraq has far outweighed any gains, though I'm sure others would disagree.

You have badly misunderstood my post.

[Nym90]

If your position is unchanged based on whether or not the programs have been successful, then I believe the point was that you can't really take credit for their success as justification for them. You are basically saying you support them on philosophical grounds, not because of any evidence for their success. I think that was Alcon's point, that you can't have it both ways; if you are going to take credit for success in stopping terrorist attacks, you also have to be willing to take the blame if the policy were to fail to stop one.

In any event, I am very glad that the attack was thwarted, and kudos should go to those who helped make this possible, although I'm certainly not convinced that it was US policy specifically that was responsible. If hard evidence shows up that proves that it was, I'm certainly open to changing my position. I personally think that what we've lost in Iraq has far outweighed any gains, though I'm sure others would disagree.

You have badly misunderstood my post.

All right, what was your point then?

[The Duke]

My position is that the current set of domestic security policies have played a direct role in preventing this attack, and that without them, this attack would probably have succeeded.

That said, we can and should do more.  Our current policies were sufficient to prevent this attack, and their success validates their existence.  But they are not necessarily sufficient to prevent many of the attacks we will face in the future.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I don't see what Iraq has to do with British police doing their jobs.

[MODU]

I don't see what Iraq has to do with British police doing their jobs.

I don't see what Iraq has to do with you making stupid comments.

[angus]

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which have decapitated the leadership of Al Qaeda and ground down the manpower of the Jihadist movement, the Patriot Act, the signals monitoring and wiretap programs, and the other domestic security measures, all of it.  It's working.  The enemy just played its best card, and that card wasn't good enough.

Does all that spinning make you dizzy?

[??????????]

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which have decapitated the leadership of Al Qaeda and ground down the manpower of the Jihadist movement, the Patriot Act, the signals monitoring and wiretap programs, and the other domestic security measures, all of it.  It's working.  The enemy just played its best card, and that card wasn't good enough.

Does all that spinning make you dizzy?

You can't "spin" the facts.

[angus]

sure you can.  you can diatribe without mentioning it was some other government besides our own foiled a plot.  which means you can also omit that congressional hawks will benefit from the press coverage (even though the hapless Blair, whose approvals make Bush's look not so bad, doesn't seem to be experiencing a bounce).  you can suggest that you know what is in the dealt hands of the terrorists (to continue the metaphor John started).  I'm not necessarily saying he's wrong in toto, just admiring his optimism.

[Alcon]

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which have decapitated the leadership of Al Qaeda and ground down the manpower of the Jihadist movement, the Patriot Act, the signals monitoring and wiretap programs, and the other domestic security measures, all of it.  It's working.  The enemy just played its best card, and that card wasn't good enough.

Does all that spinning make you dizzy?

You can't "spin" the facts.

There is a difference between facts and subjective extrapolations from those facts.

[Nym90]

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which have decapitated the leadership of Al Qaeda and ground down the manpower of the Jihadist movement, the Patriot Act, the signals monitoring and wiretap programs, and the other domestic security measures, all of it.  It's working.  The enemy just played its best card, and that card wasn't good enough.

Does all that spinning make you dizzy?

You can't "spin" the facts.

There is a differene between facts and subjective extrapolations from those facts.

Exactly.

And my point was that if Bush's policies are to be given credit for preventing attacks, and if a lack of attacks is seen as positive evidence that he policies are working then if they fail to prevent attacks one would then have to be willing to admit they have failed and that this would have to be taken as evidence that they aren't working.

It seems to be taken as a given by most Republicans that Bush's policies will reduce terrorism, and thus if there are attacks that aren't stopped by them the assumption would be that we simply need to expand the current policies. It's the same thing Democrats are criticized for with regards to issues like education or poverty ("throwing more money at the problem").

[MODU]

sure you can.  you can diatribe without mentioning it was some other government besides our own foiled a plot.  which means you can also omit that congressional hawks will benefit from the press coverage (even though the hapless Blair, whose approvals make Bush's look not so bad, doesn't seem to be experiencing a bounce).  you can suggest that you know what is in the dealt hands of the terrorists (to continue the metaphor John started).  I'm not necessarily saying he's wrong in toto, just admiring his optimism.

Actually, it was at least three governments involved with this year long investigation.  And, the tools used one the UK side mirror some of the tools bemoaned by the critics and ran on the front page of the NY Times.  You omitted that fact. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

I don't see what Iraq has to do with British police doing their jobs.

I don't see what Iraq has to do with you making stupid comments.

Ford is claiming this thwarted attack was due to invading Iraq.

[angus]

Well, in all fairness he doesn't say the Iraq war thwarted an attack, but rather the combined efforts of Afghan and Iraq invasions, the patriot act, monitoring signals, wiretapping, and other security measures.  But it's still a huge extrapolation.  Even senior law enforcement officials in the US say they aren't sure what form al Qaeda takes, or what its relationship is with a network of jihadist groups.  al qaeda's leaders are mysterious and there are many conclusions even within the Bush admistration now about the meaning of the links between pakistani groups and al quaeda.  Moreover, british officials have distanced themselves from the assertions of conspiracy centering about the paki-brit who'd been in pakistan.  presumably American officials would like to demonstrate al qaeda links, since it bolsters Bush administration's prior claims, but they seem more concerned with shampoo and corkscrews at the moment.  Also, it isn't clear that what we're doing the US would have foiled the attack.  Just because the public in both countries seem willing to get to airports earlier and earlier, and put up with greater and greater intrusions, doesn't imply that security is improved.  Still, something in the investigation went right.  clearly.  But from what I read both US and British officials are shifting the policy to understanding (and undermining) recruitment.   It makes sense to me that the shift of focus implies an understanding that current measures aren't sufficient (and they may not even be a good idea).  I'm just cautioning against making this cause-and-effect conclusion, particularly since whether it's wrong or right, the price paid in personal and economic liberty is heavy.

[gumbiegirl007]

from what i've gathered the brits saved our collective tooshies on this.  give credit where credit is due...and since i sincerely doubt that Dubble-Ya was overseas digging through bags i'd say he's not the hero here.

[ATFFL]

I believe the initial intel came from the US operations and was passed to the Brits who did the rest.