Echelon Used to Capture Terrorist 663
An anonymous reader writes "Echelon was used to track and capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Ahh, bitter sweet victories. The article kind of explains what Echelon is, and pretty much says that those disposable phones really don't have much security at all.
So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still undecided about good vs. evil on Echelon.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tools not have moral, only the ones that use them. But give a tool like that to someone paranoic and it will be bad, very bad.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:5, Interesting)
While this instance proves that Echelon can be used for good, who insures that?
In the words of Ani DiFranco... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:3, Insightful)
While this instance proves that Echelon can be used for good, who insures that?
Kind of a baseless arguement- you can state that for anything. A car: driving to work = good, smashing it into a person or loading it with explosives and driving it into an embasy = bad
Guns: defending your self from kidnappers breaking into your home = good, killing someone during an armed robbery = bad.
GameCube: Metroid = good, staying up til 3am playing on a worknight = bad
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Echelon, maybe, but not nukes. Nuclear weapons have been used for good for the last 58 years. Or do you think such a potentially unstable situation as the cold war would have lasted long without mutual assured destruction?
If nukes didnt exist, we would continue to have a major war in Europe every few decades, as we had in the last couple of millennia. Nuclear weapons held the balance long enough for the European Union to be created and the Soviet Union to disappear. Considering the amount of destruction and suffering they avoided, few tools can be considered as "moral" as nuclear weapons.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Nukes ensured that we could fight our wars in the third world instead.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Interesting)
By the same token, we should simply forget about using surveillance satellites. It's when the government really starts to intrude on areas that have always been considered private, or tries to prevent us from using technology that aid privacy, that we should be really worried.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Insightful)
The counterargument to your counterargument is that if you don't want people to break into your house, you should build it out of reinforced concrete, use bank vault doors, and multiple layers of bulletproof glass for your windows. That's silly. Instead, you prevail upon people that breaking into people's homes is bad, and punish people who do it. Must less costly, and quite effective.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:3, Insightful)
But why so limited? Wouldn't it make more sense to put flat screen plasma TVs with built-in cameras in every room of every home? That way, when someone does something ungood, our thoughtful and wonderful government can give them a warning to stop it. Perhaps with weekly stripsearches of every American and a full search of all their personal belongings, we can eliminate all crime. If we make being angry a crime, we can stop violence before it begins! Oh joy, what a wonderous world we can make, free from the burdens of thought, choice, or will; free from the struggles for freedom and privacy.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I'm not paranoid, but I just don't think our government is nearly as concerned about our daily lives as most people seem to think.
neither a foreign spy not a foreign soldier... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:4, Insightful)
It complies with the US constitution, but only to the letter of the law. It is completely against it in spirit.
Basically, the US agents spy on the UK citizens (it's also illegal here). In return, the UK agents spy on the US citizens. The data is exchanged, everything's all nice and legal.
Re:So, is Echelon good now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Allowed by whom exactly? Governments do whatever they want unless some other government coerces them to do otherwise, and no other government is in that position.
Big brother (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody caught me! (Score:5, Funny)
An advise, make sure not to call your children semi-terrorist names
Khalid!
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, there is that whole paint scheme thing again.
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:5, Funny)
Yours sincerely,
Khalid
P.S. Does anyone actually believe that anyone actually meaning to kill the president would use this phrase over the phone? I'd rather use "dispose of the big kahuna" or something similar.
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:5, Funny)
"If you know the name of the government official you'd like assassinated, please enter the first three letters of thier name now."
*beep boop beep*
*You have chosen President Bush... please stay on the line while the secret service breaks your door down. Thank you for using moviefone."
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:5, Funny)
Khalid: Tonight, we will finally strike a blow for our people by having sex.
Khalid's Associate: It will be very difficult, the sex is always surrounded by large well trained men.
Khalid: We have long trained to have sex, the hour is upon us.
Khalid's Associate: We will have sex during the speech at the Little Tyke Day Care Center.
Khalid: Yes, the sex is scheduled to make an appearance there in 2 days.
Secret Service Agent: I have NO idea what they're planning, but these fuckers are going down.
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:3, Funny)
And then she says, "I'm busy tonight, just kill him youself, ok?" Sigh.
If the scanners are being run by lonely IT workers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:4, Interesting)
20 years ago, this would be so as the system simply looked for keywords and phrases. Now, the capability is such that the entire context of what you're saying is taken into account when determining whether or not a human needs to hear what you're saying. When you say "they", you're most likely talking about a computer that listens to your boring conversations (and emails, faxes, internet traffic, etc) anyway.
Re:Nobody caught me! (Score:4, Funny)
New Verizon Spot... (Score:5, Funny)
Can THEY here me now?
Can THEY here me now?
Re:New Verizon Spot... (Score:5, Funny)
(You see a bunch of guys dressed as Al-Qaeda, wandering through the wilderness...)
Can THEY hear me now?
Can THEY hear me now?
Can THEY hear--*BOOM* (Al-Qaeda guys are struck by missile.)
(Commercial fades to George Bush) Verizon. If you don't use it, the terrorists win.
Quick googling bought this up (Score:5, Informative)
It is not what they monitor that worries me, it is what they record
Re:Quick googling bought this up (Score:3, Interesting)
Can find you even if your mobile is turned off (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you know that they can track the location of a mobile phone even if it is turned off, as long as there is some charge left in the battery?
I just read "Killing Pablo", about the hunt for Pablo Escobar, which says that Pablo stopped using his mobile phone because he knew it could be tracked. The book mentions how it was possible to turn it on at night when Pablo was asleep, so it's location could be tracked.
So if you find your mobile suddenly turning itself on in the middle of the night, it's time to get paranoid...
Re:Can find you even if your mobile is turned off (Score:5, Funny)
First I was fine just removing the battery... but then I remembered that capacitors carry a residual charge, and if I remembered that, then the Man knows it. So, now I take apart each individual component, except for the LCD...
You don't think they can track me by the LCD do you?
Re:Can find you even if your mobile is turned off (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can find you even if your mobile is turned off (Score:3, Funny)
That'll keep them from finding you. After all, they'd never think to look in your bed.
Re:Can find you even if your mobile is turned off (Score:5, Informative)
What we can do is start and maintain a dialog with any phone that is turned on. This in turn enables the triangulation. The phone does not indicate this to the user in any way unless you put it next to your speaker/tv/etc that picks up the transmission.
In fact this is done every two to eight hours (operator specific) in order to determine roughly where the phone is so the network can route incomming calls to the phone.
TCAP-Abort
Re:Can find you even if your mobile is turned off (Score:3, Interesting)
The authorities then would only have to know which phones to load the firmware on at one point in time, then the phones will turn on, find it's closest cell point, log on once, then log off and turn itself off.
-Adam
Re:Can find you even if your mobile is turned off (Score:3, Funny)
Or you could just take the battery out... *looks at crushed and dead phone* *lip quivers* Damnit.
Umm.. Why pay? (Score:5, Interesting)
To me, if they were tracking him, that tells that they knew where he was. So, why didn't they just use the tracking from Echelon to capture Mohammed, instead of paying out 27 million to someone else also?
To quote Bill Maher:
Khalid Sheikh Sheikh Sheikh, Sheikh Sheikh Sheikh, Sheikh Mohammed!
Don't believe everything you read (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a government spokesman says it doesn't make it so.
If your mother tells you that the stork brought you, it doesn't make it so.
Always remain skeptical and ask yourself why they want everyone to have this information.
Re:Don't believe everything you read (Score:5, Insightful)
My intention was just to point out that authorities may oversell what they have for a whole variety of reasons... they may want more funding from congress...they may want the enemy to feel insecure and stop using all electronic communications. They may just be boasting.
But think of Enigma during WWII. US & GB really could read all the intercepts from Germany & Japan. But they didn't tell anybody; in fact they went out of their way to make sure the Axis powers didn't suspect (check out Cryptonomicon by Stephenson for a fictional account). Now all of the sudden they're telling everybody that not only they know what the enemy is saying, but where they're located? But then they pay informants anyway?
Seems hard to believe on the surface.
Re:Umm.. Why pay? (Score:3, Interesting)
To Quote Janine Melnitz: (Score:4, Funny)
As it was intended (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy is a fair and legitimate target for electronic surveilance. He's a know leader of a network of individuals who are dedicated to causing harm to untold millions of people whose biggest crime is living in a country whose ideals he disagrees with. If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.
-Shadow
Re:As it was intended (Score:4, Insightful)
If Echelon is used fairly and honestly in these types of situations, then I will not complain one bit about the extraordinary secrecy of its network.
In order for Echelon to find Mohammed they had to scan the voices of him and thousands if not millions of others. By design using Echelon on the bad guys requiers using Echelon on the good guys as well.
Re:As it was intended (Score:3, Insightful)
Take the case of Laci Peterson (sp?) for example. She was the lady in California who dissappeared when she was 8 months pregnant. The police have been looking for her since November or December I think. They've interviewed dozens, if not hundreds of people and probably conducted at least that many background checks on people too. Do they believe that every single person they interviewed was responsible for her dissappearance? Not likely, but how else will they be sure their information is correct unless they look everywhere?
Can Echelon be used on more people more easily? Probably. Is there a potential for abuse? Of course. Is the principle of what it can do new to the world? No, it is just more electronic now than its manpower intensive perdecessors.
-Shadow
Re:As it was intended (Score:3, Insightful)
-United States Constitution, Amendment IV.
reasonable search? I suppose that could be argued. But I don't think that any decent person would agree. What you do is you get people to say "I'm scared, protect me daddy.", and then you ignore the constitution. Judges are human too, so they are just as succeptible to arguments against fear, and for power and greed and anyone else. And that's why we're in this mess.
Re:As it was intended (Score:5, Informative)
>
> In order for Echelon to find Mohammed they had to scan the voices of him and thousands if not millions of others. By design using Echelon on the bad guys requiers using Echelon on the good guys as well.
Really? You know it was a voiceprint, compared against the voiceprints of everyone on the planet? What's your clearance? And since when was I, along with 250,000 geeks reading this today, cleared for this? :)
You don't know how it works. I don't know it works. (And anyone who does know how it works, ain't talking!)
It's just as likely that the network was "looking" for KSM by using cell numbers, or other data that had nothing to do with voiceprints. It's also likely that once the network found something "interesting", humans probably put a few pieces together, looked more closely, and eventually concluded that yes, they'd found their target.
But supposing you were right - did you know that cops look at everyone when they drive down the block? It's true! They have to scan the driving habits and car colors and license plates of thousands of people before they find the guy who stole your Buick last weekend, or the other guy weaving down the road half-drunk.
And as anyone who watches FOX TV (purveyors of fine car-crunching cop video mayhem since 1986!) knows, there are even video cameras in patrol cars that run all the time! The cops are video taping everyone! Oh, the horror!
Of course, nobody objects to this - it's called routine police work. Your car, my car, everybody on the street remains on the video tape after the shift, but the cops have forgotten about us by the time they're half a block away. And there's no guy whose job it is to watch every second of every patrol car's video tape as the cops come back from each shift, in case someone missed something - there can't be any such guy, because cops have budgets, and it'd be an utter waste of manpower.
By the same logic, it's highly probable - virtually certain, I'd wager - that Echelon works the same way. This Slashdot post may end up in a database. (I mean a database other than Google :-) So may our phone calls. But unless the network is already looking for you, it's No Big Deal. Echelon may be vastly more powerful than the one that brings you "World's Funni^H^H^H^H^HWildeest Police Videos", but it isn't interested in you - and while it's vastly better funded than your local cops, it's still limited by the number of humans it can hire, train, and pay.
Finally, there's a huge signal-to-noise problem, which makes it highly likely that Echelon works hard to keep people off the humans' radar than putting themon it. With crime, you don't call the SWAT team for every break-and-enter or domestic dispute. Likewise, you don't want waste your intel analysts' time with wisecracking Slashdotters (unless they need a humor break :)
I agree with the first poster - it's very hard to describe this as "bittersweet". This is precisely what Echelon is for.
Re:As it was intended (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the main problem people have with Echelon is that the European Commision investigation into it concluded the US was using it for corporate/economic sabotage, for instance shortly after an executive of some big aerospace company talked about a bid they were making on a phone, a large american firm who was also making a bid changed their numbers to be slightly less than what the european one was bidding.
So, the worry is that when there aren't any terrorists to catch, it will be and has been used for other things.
Re:As it was intended (Score:3, Insightful)
heh (Score:5, Funny)
We can quibble, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We can quibble, (Score:5, Insightful)
So long as the Geneva convention and international treaties are followed, you'll not hear a word from the ACLU. I doubt you'd hear much anyway, so long as he's not an American citizen.
The ACLU is an organization dedicated to the defense of the United States Constitution. In effect, they do nothing more than live by the oath that every President swears to. If you have a problem with the defense of the US Constitution, then perhaps another nation (such as China) would be more to your liking.
Now, I've heard plenty of junk blasting the ACLU as a bunch of liberal hippies, but when they're willing to stand up and defend the rights of those such as the KKK, I think it pretty much blows that argument out of the water.
What you say and what you believe may go against every principle and belief that the members of the ACLU stand for, but we will stand up next to you and fight to ensure that you have the right to express those beliefs. I think it's great that we have an organization in this country willing to stand up for the people no one else will, because I believe, as our forefathers did, that when the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are endangered.
But is it him? (Score:5, Informative)
I find the entire thing suspect personally.
Re:But is it him? (Score:5, Funny)
Job searchers take note... (Score:5, Interesting)
$25M and a legal visa... terrorism seems to pay well.
Problem with Surveillance... (Score:3, Insightful)
later,
Not Echelon. COLD, HARD CASH. (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems it was a tip-off, not Echelon, that ultimately led to Mohammed's capture. Read the article, and you'll see that some lucky Al-Quayda grunt turned coat and pocketed a cool $25 million dollars.
It's in the US's interests to hype Echelon ("Woooo! We can seeeeeee you!") rather than admit they really got their man through good old fashioned bribery and traitors. Sure, Exchelon helped once they KNEW THE GUY'S STREET ADDRESS. But it was pretty much useless until they were told where to look.
Still, good catch. Here's hoping there's another footsoldier of god out there who'll take $25mil in small bills in exchange for Osama's current location.
Re:Not Echelon. COLD, HARD CASH. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not Echelon. COLD, HARD CASH. (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony? Terrorists turning in each other to fund more terrorism with the reward money... Talk about a viscious circle.
Khalid: "We're running low on funds for new operations because of those imperialist infidels. We neet to raise cash, Osama!"
Osama: "The devil dogs [topsecretrecipes.com] have indeed reduced our sources of funding, but we do have one option remaining..."
Khalid: "Yes, Osama? How can we raise money to fight the imperialist crusad... Urk!"
Osama: "Heh..."
GF.
Re:Not Echelon. COLD, HARD CASH. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't excuse what they do, but it doesn't help the problem by the media lying about their motives.
Our media presents a very disgraceful bias on these affairs. May I recommend that you take a look at this article [gla.ac.uk], which is an analysis of the fairness of the media reporting.
UK Royal family... (Score:5, Interesting)
Something I've always wondered...
Quite a few years ago, there was a spate of embarrassing phone calls by members of the Royal family that found there way into the press. The phone calls were "acidentally" overhead and taped by amateur radio enthusiasts. There was reported evidence that the phone calls had actually been played repeatedly near the homes of these amateur radio enthusiasts - presumably as a way of leaking the calls without it being traceable back to the leakers.
What has never been explained (or at least I've never come across any explanation in the mainstream press) is who did or might have done this, and why.
In a similar vein, it was never explained how Colin Powell had a transcript of Bin Laden's last taped message, before the al-Jazeera station even had the tape. To me that means either:
1) It was a fabrication or
2) They know where Bin Laden is.
Re:UK Royal family... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a more plausible explanation is that the hams in question knew what they were looking for and went out to find it.
Equally communications interception (possibly between intermediaries) is a more plausible explanation as to how the US got the Bin Ladin tape.
Re:UK Royal family... (Score:3, Funny)
There are reports in th epress about people being abducted be Elvis in his flying saucer.
Re:UK Royal family... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a similar vein, it was never explained how Colin Powell had a transcript of Bin Laden's last taped message, before the al-Jazeera station even had the tape.
Correction: before al-Jazeera admitted they had the tape publicly. Or do you believe their denial of ever having heard of the tape and then airing it as Powell had predicted?
If al-Jazeera isn't thoroughly compromised internally via both human and electronic assets, than the CIA/NSA aren't doing their job. They're clearly a very likely avenue for tracking OBL. No doubt we knew before half of al-Jazeera did that the tape had shown up in the shipping room.
Re:UK Royal family... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that the establishment in the USA has now portrayed Al-Jazeera as "baddies", but they they are actually one of the few Arabic languages stations that have a dedication to fair reporting. Not only that, but Qatar (the country where Al-Jazeera is located) is a democracy and what we would call "advanced". Just because they are Arabs does not mean that I am automatically assume what they say is a lie, just as I don't automatically assume that everything the establishment say in the USA is the truth.
The chief editor at Al-Jazeera told the BBC that he didn't have the tape when Powell read the transcript, and said the tape was handed to the station it later in the day. I have no reason to believe he is lying.
Unfortunately it seems that in the USA these days the general population has been brainwashed into thinking "USA - good, moral, truthful... Arabs, Chinese, French, foreigners generally - bad, immoral, liars).
If you do a bit of research into Colin Powell, you will find that he is not quite as squeaky clean as he is currently portrayed.
It is a new world we live in (Score:5, Insightful)
People, we live in a new world. The same technology that allows us to expose the dirty laundry inside of corrupt organizations can also be used to expose and dirty laundry in your hamper.
The rules of the game have changed. You can no longer sit back and wonder if someone can see what you are doing, good or bad. They either can observe your actions directly, or they can retrieve the records to reconstruct the event. Political parties now have databases of everything someone has said in public, and can quickly cross reference even the most obscure quote. Sportscaster have massive databases of player statistics and can call up on a whim every dropped ball or missed catch.
What begs the question in my mind, is what are the rules of courtesy? When do you draw the line between what can be retrieved and what should be retreived. Too many people assume that just because you can do something you are compelled to do it. That is a fallicy that was first recognized by the greeks.
Re:It is a new world we live in (Score:5, Insightful)
But we're not. The people making these decisions want THEIR privacy, they just find MINE inconvenient.
Great, more Anonymous Sources (Score:5, Interesting)
Thought exercise: how to avoid Echelon (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you value more your privacy than your life? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some weeks ago, the store that my parents own was robbed. They put a gun to my father and mother. They even put a gun to my 4 year old sister. Luckily no one was hurt. They also stole my father's cell phone, and even answered when we called. Do you think that I would be happy to be "tracked" by my phone's location, just so those assholes could have been caught? I sure will.
Re:Do you value more your privacy than your life? (Score:3, Interesting)
*Argh* Give it up (Score:3, Insightful)
This can't be the way to go forward, and I am not especially impressed by the modus operandi of letting terrorist go free AND pay them, just because they rat on the next in line. By the account all but Usama and Saddam could get out of this both rich and clean...
ALLEGED Terrorist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ALLEGED Terrorist (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, you're right. Once we begin down the road of assuming all terrorism-related arrests are righteous, we get to a point where we take the benefit of the doubt away from the accused in all situations. It's at that point that the entire criminal justice system becomes a sham, no better than that of Iraq or China.
It's truly a shame that people throughout the world are so afraid that they shed their ideals about justice and humanity as though they were a burden.
Moderators, don't punish this person for making a rarely-made and very unpopular point. You may totally disagree with him, but reply - don't moderate. He wasn't trying to be an ass, and he wasn't repeating what's been said 100 times in the war on terrorism. In fact, he's saying something that we almost never hear anymore - respect the rights of the accused.
Prepaid SIM not disposable phone (Score:3, Informative)
For those who don't know what SIMs are -- they are consumer-inserted subscriber ID cards found in all GSM phones (normal cell phones outside the US).
One should also note... (Score:3, Interesting)
Potential for abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
The potential for abuse of echelon is still great and that's what, IMO, makes echelon dangerous.
It's not too hard to imagine a world where unrestricted police authority would result in the capture of more criminals.
Do we want to live in this world? (Or, "Do we want to admit we are becoming this world?") Why not?
It's significant that the supporters of such totalitarian policies have now become this bold. The conversation goes something like this:
"Privacy breeds terrorism. You should give up privacy."
"If you advocate privacy, you're advocating terrorism."
"You're hiding something, therefore you must be guilty. Of terrorism."
"You are an enemy combatant."
"No, you may not speak to a lawyer; you could send messages to your terrorist friends."
"No, we will not tell your family where you are. Then your terrorist friends will know we have you, figure out how we caught you, and plug their security hole."
"Mommy, why didn't daddy come home?" "Shh, dear. He was "disappeared" by the secret police. We can't talk about him anymore or they will take us, too."
But that would never happen here. Hooray Echelon.
Those who would trade freedom for... (you know the rest).
Aha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Great.
I don't care if Echelon is useful, works, or can feed the ducks at a range of 2000 yards, if those running it are unwilling to be honest, but eager to cash in on free publicity. A tool can never be safer or more dangerous than the person it is in the hands of, and I am never more wary when those hands are very very good at media slight-of-hand.
The agencies involved may well be trustworthy, but they have a lousy way of showing it, IMHO. They may have good intents, they may well even be good at protecting those nations they are intended to protect. That's not the point, here. Stage magicians can show you an empty hat and then pull a rabbit out of it. I don't expect the same from a Government agency. This is not going to be good for anybody's confidence, and rightly so.
Please note that I'm not arguing for or against Echelon here, for or against national secrets, etc, or any of that stuff. All I am saying is that smoke and mirrors should NEVER be taken as a sign of sincerety, no matter WHAT the outcome, and that PR stunts are DEFINITELY NOT a sign of trustability. This is definitely a Code Red Skepticism Alert, whether Echelon exists or not.
Oh Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I think the result is a net positive, but of course I have to be anxious that the authorities in control of the Echelon technology do not use it for means that bring about general unhappiness. [ie., imagine any authoritariam regime given that power...]
In the long run, though, I'm saddened that the image of the U.S. (which is increasing battered on the international stage, sometimes correctly, sometimes not), is further tarnished because we are becoming known for invading the privacy of citizens of the world, while ostensibly respecting the 4th Amendment for our own citizens (though with the Patriot Act and the proposed DSEA, that will soon become history).
The United States bolsters the case of those who hate it. The minute "democracy" and a "Bill of Rights" is introduced into a postwar Iraq, the people will spit on their newly found rights, listen to local demogogues, mullahs or others, and vote into a power a new strongman.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Re:Hypocrite terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hypocrite terrorists (Score:3, Interesting)
> Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn't part of the Taliban, he
> was part of Al-Qaeda. They're 2 seperate entities, like
> Southern Baptists, and the Amish...
The Taliban are more like Islamic Puritans (and just as big on "fun is evil"). The Christian Puritans fled England to escape religious persecution. When the Catholics came to the same colony for the same reason, the Puritans turned around and subjected them to the same persecution the Puritans had come here to escape. The Taliban, like the Puritans, were most dangerous to their own people and possibly immediate neighbors. The Taliban were terrorists only in that they ruled their own people through terror while they were in power. The clubs were for punishing infractions against their strict interpretation of Islamic law and general bullying, not for terrorist attacks against other countries.
The Al Qaeda are a world-wide extreme fundamentalist cult on the fringe of Islam, with a paramilitary/terrorist arm that does actual attacks, and a network of local preacher types that raise money and get recruits.
Bin Laden started out recruiting Muslim guerrillas to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan (which is why he got such a warm welcome from the Taliban - he was a hero to them). When an Iraqi army supposedly showed up on Saudi borders after they invaded Kuwait (there is some debate that the US satellite photos in question might have been forged), Bin Laden went to his king and offered the service of his men to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq. The king told him that it wasn't necessary, the US were coming to protect them.
When the US "invaded" Saudi Arabia, and when they didn't leave, that is when Bin Laden's anger and hatred caused him to become a terrorist, and that is when his little band of freedom fighters became the Al Qaeda we know today.
That is why the "war on terror" is so ridiculous. Taking away the rights of Americans is not going to stop a single terrorist. Changing US foreign policy might not change Bin Laden's mind at this late date, but it would slow down his recruitment and keep other Al Qaedas from being formed. But nope, we are going back to Iraq to repeat the same mistakes all over again.
Material on the history of Bin Laden based on a World Book Encyclopedia article. Opinion is, as always, my own.
"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power..."
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Re:Echelon (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought those phones were military graded?
In Norway some encrypted phones have been developed [sectra.se], but civilians are not allowed to purchase them.
Press, Not Official, Called It 'Echelon' (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeroen
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:3, Interesting)
It happened because people were opressed and somebody offered a way out (although arguably not the right way). That is were you have to change things. Preventing somebody from blowing himself up is done by taking away the need for such an act.
Jeroen
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:3, Insightful)
of forum, when it's so obvious?
You say: So tell us: are you really suggesting that the attacks of September 11 were justified or acceptable? Really?
But the parent said:
somebody offered a way out (although arguably not the right way).
Which part of "not the right way" did you choose to ignore in order to advance your point?
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeroen
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:3, Insightful)
A couple of points here: war has never meant only conflicts between sovereign nations. In the first two decades of this nation's existence, we waged war twice, under presidents Jefferson and Madison, against the Barbary pirates, who were a shadowy network of North African pirates backed by states of the region, but not themselves part of any sovereign state.
Second, you should go look at the Geneva convention -- it is not a one-way street. The Geneva convention (actually a series of agreements) states that if a force meets certain basic rules of civilized conduct (fighting in uniform, so their forces are distinguishable from civilians, having a clear command structure, so that a negotiated peace means an end to fighting, not attacking civilians, and so forth), then they are entitled to certain protections. Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who met none of these conditions, are, under the Geneva convention, eligible for summary execution as pirates or partisans.
Since we don't do that, we are keeping them in conditions which are actually quite good (we average one doctor per two inmates at `Club Fed' (Camp X-Ray), which is considerably better than at most hospitals, for example), and will repatriate those of them who were not guilty of war crimes at the war's end (many of those who were Taliban but not al Qaeda have already been).
So no, the war on terrorism is a war, with real fighting, real casualties (don't try telling the families of the soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan to prevent a repeat of September 11 that their sons didn't die in a war), and real victories, such as the capture of KSM, and the elimination of the Taliban.
Re:Hate the tech, love the results (Score:3, Insightful)
and yet he posted as an AC? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the whole thing bown up? I suppose the Noise to Signal ratio is lot smaller in Afghanistan or Pakistan than in, say, New York
Maybe Mr Bin Laden should get a shave, buy a tie and a briefcase and move to NY. I'm fairly sure he could pass millions of unnoticed phone calls from there!
Re:If Echelon is that good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the anthrax killer is probably just one guy, working alone. He probably isn't making cell phone calls to his network of financiers and associates.