Henry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Obviously this can be spun in all sorts of directions, but that's not really important. What's important is these guys got caught and the FBI did a great job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.Lloyd Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 hang them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Believe it or not IMO this is the wake up call we need. I think we have started to let our guard down. Just curious, how do you think we have been "letting our guard down" Seems that the FBI/CIA/NSA/IC and the Muslim community all did its job here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Its amazing to me how everyone who said that Obama's policies were going to prevent us from catching terrorists are now using this as proof that previous policies were right and Obama is a wimp on terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 What are you talking about? What classified information? The best way to catch a terrorist is for them to not think we have the ability to catch them. This means that,in this case thank to the informant, we were able to obtain actionable intel and most likely snoop on phone calls and internet activity. When you publicize these cases, it doesn't take a genius to fuigure out where and how the terrorist goofed up. This gives them the opportunity to refine their techniques. The scariest terrorist is the one who never makes a phone call or sends an email, and isn't on anyone's radar screen. What makes these cases classified is not the actual information, but how we obtained the information. And human intel is the most vital aspect. The NY Times reporting that a "friend" snitched on them leads to any future terrorists closing the circle a little tighter. It would have been much better for the IC if the NY Times credited the NYPD for foiling this attack based on materials found during a routine traffic stop (basically dumb luck). Misinformation is critically important in any war. Transparency is great in theory, but if Joe Q Public can see what the govt is doing (in the intel/military world, don't read too much into this) so can those who wish to harm the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Its amazing to me how some people are trying to politicize this. I read the NY Post and CNN articles trying to figure out if the informant was someone who knew what these guys were planning and came forward, or if it was someone placed by the FBI. If the first, this was pure luck. If the second, good job FBI. It doesn't matter to me who is in the White House, I'm just glad there aren't any smoking craters this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 The best way to catch a terrorist is for them to not think we have the ability to catch them. This means that,in this case thank to the informant, we were able to obtain actionable intel and most likely snoop on phone calls and internet activity. When you publicize these cases, it doesn't take a genius to fuigure out where and how the terrorist goofed up. This gives them the opportunity to refine their techniques. The scariest terrorist is the one who never makes a phone call or sends an email, and isn't on anyone's radar screen.What makes these cases classified is not the actual information, but how we obtained the information. And human intel is the most vital aspect. The NY Times reporting that a "friend" snitched on them leads to any future terrorists closing the circle a little tighter. It would have been much better for the IC if the NY Times credited the NYPD for foiling this attack based on materials found during a routine traffic stop (basically dumb luck). Misinformation is critically important in any war. Transparency is great in theory, but if Joe Q Public can see what the govt is doing (in the intel/military world, don't read too much into this) so can those who wish to harm the US. This sounds great, Jack Bauer, but the fact is that law enforcement has to lay out their case in the charging documents that the defendants and their lawyers have access to. If they lie in those court documents, the case goes bye bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 The best way to catch a terrorist is for them to not think we have the ability to catch them. This means that,in this case thank to the informant, we were able to obtain actionable intel and most likely snoop on phone calls and internet activity. When you publicize these cases, it doesn't take a genius to fuigure out where and how the terrorist goofed up. This gives them the opportunity to refine their techniques. The scariest terrorist is the one who never makes a phone call or sends an email, and isn't on anyone's radar screen.What makes these cases classified is not the actual information, but how we obtained the information. And human intel is the most vital aspect. The NY Times reporting that a "friend" snitched on them leads to any future terrorists closing the circle a little tighter. It would have been much better for the IC if the NY Times credited the NYPD for foiling this attack based on materials found during a routine traffic stop (basically dumb luck). Misinformation is critically important in any war. Transparency is great in theory, but if Joe Q Public can see what the govt is doing (in the intel/military world, don't read too much into this) so can those who wish to harm the US. Wow. So now Obama is getting criticized because the the alleged terrorists are, ya know, getting prosecuted in court? When cops swoop in, 3 guys go missing, and later appear before a judge, someone is going to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 The best way to catch a terrorist is for them to not think we have the ability to catch them. This means that,in this case thank to the informant, we were able to obtain actionable intel and most likely snoop on phone calls and internet activity. When you publicize these cases, it doesn't take a genius to fuigure out where and how the terrorist goofed up. On the other hand, this may be inspiring to a number of citizens. This lets us ordinaries know that we can make a difference and that our efforts matter. Thus, maybe a few who ordinarily stand to the side waiting for others to act thinking their efforts would be wasted will now realize that they can make a big impact and save lives. How many people choose not to be witnesses or make a report when they see a crime or hear suspiscious stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Well, I think this could put to rest any arguments that the extremists will like us now, because we elected Obama. I'm not saying anybody in this particular thread has made such a statement, so spare me. Good news all around. The government did what it was supposed to do. Congrats to those involved in the investigation. Thanks to the "friend" for coming forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Avalanche of partisan bickering in 3... 2... 1.... You're about nine posts too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Obviously this can be spun in all sorts of directions, . . . You're about 25 posts too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Good news and kudos to the FBI. But, it does seem like these guys were prodded and controlled by the FBI throughout the whole process. Don't get me wrong, they were scumbags to be sure. But it took the FBI's help to turn them into potential terrorists. These guys were dummies who got played by the FBI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Excellent effort by all concerned, whatever their political or religous affiliation. Lousy effort by some posters in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Good news and kudos to the FBI.But, it does seem like these guys were prodded and controlled by the FBI throughout the whole process. Don't get me wrong, they were scumbags to be sure. But it took the FBI's help to turn them into potential terrorists. These guys were dummies who got played by the FBI. I think it is way too early to make that accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 The best way to catch a terrorist is for them to not think we have the ability to catch them. This means that,in this case thank to the informant, we were able to obtain actionable intel and most likely snoop on phone calls and internet activity. When you publicize these cases, it doesn't take a genius to fuigure out where and how the terrorist goofed up. This gives them the opportunity to refine their techniques. The scariest terrorist is the one who never makes a phone call or sends an email, and isn't on anyone's radar screen.What makes these cases classified is not the actual information, but how we obtained the information. And human intel is the most vital aspect. The NY Times reporting that a "friend" snitched on them leads to any future terrorists closing the circle a little tighter. It would have been much better for the IC if the NY Times credited the NYPD for foiling this attack based on materials found during a routine traffic stop (basically dumb luck). Misinformation is critically important in any war. Transparency is great in theory, but if Joe Q Public can see what the govt is doing (in the intel/military world, don't read too much into this) so can those who wish to harm the US. Thank you. I have a hard time explaining this to people, but I think you explained it perfectly. I have to also clarify that I don't mind that the fact that the operation was thwarted was passed on to the press, I am pissed that HOW they were caught was passed to the press. There was no need and now it will have negative consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Wow. So now Obama is getting criticized because the the alleged terrorists are, ya know, getting prosecuted in court? When cops swoop in, 3 guys go missing, and later appear before a judge, someone is going to notice.I never criticized Obama. In fact, I never even mentioned him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 This sounds great, Jack Bauer, but the fact is that law enforcement has to lay out their case in the charging documents that the defendants and their lawyers have access to. If they lie in those court documents, the case goes bye bye. Yes, but court documents ca be sealed. And then if the contents of the court document are revealed, another crime has been committed. And I never recommended that they lie to the court. I suggested that the NY Times had no need to know all the facts. They could have "learned" that the plot was foiled by NYPD doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Thank you. I have a hard time explaining this to people, but I think you explained it perfectly. I have to also clarify that I don't mind that the fact that the operation was thwarted was passed on to the press, I am pissed that HOW they were caught was passed to the press. There was no need and now it will have negative consequences. How is this different that the press explaining how the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh or the DC Snipers were caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 How is this different that the press explaining how the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh or the DC Snipers were caught? I know, I know. Those guys weren't Muslim. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 How is this different that the press explaining how the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh or the DC Snipers were caught?Umm, there aren't hundreds of thousands, if not millions, Unabomber/McVeigh/DC snipers out there wishing and hoping (and some even training) for the destruction of the "Great Satan". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I think it is way too early to make that accusation. I know that these guys were extremely stupid. Reminds me of the Liberty City 7, who had two mistrials because it was so hard to distinguish between the defendant's actions and the actions of the FBI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Umm, there aren't hundreds of thousands, if not millions, Unabomber/McVeigh/DC snipers out there wishing and hoping (and some even training) for the destruction of the "Great Satan". What world have you been living in? There aren't hundreds or thousands of insane maniacs looking to become infamous by blowing **** up? Look at how many school shootings there have been this year alone. The number of loonies out there are immeasurable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I know, I know. Those guys weren't Muslim. :whoknows: Umm, there aren't hundreds of thousands, if not millions, Unabomber/McVeigh/DC snipers out there wishing and hoping (and some even training) for the destruction of the "Great Satan". Predicto gets a cookie. Though I should point out that the DC Snipers WERE Muslim. So no cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARLORD1863 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I know, I know. Those guys weren't Muslim. :whoknows: I thought the DC snipers WERE muslim? In fact, I believe Malvo wrote a bunch of stuff about jihad against America. And the testimony given for the overall goal was to begin extorting money by kidnapping later on, then use that money to train jihadists in America to terrorize U.S. cities. I don't know if they really believed that, or if it was a ploy to be seen as insane, but I thought I'd just point that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.