A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew - By RICHARD A. CLARKE

[kpete]

A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew
By RICHARD A. CLARKE and ROGER W. CRESSEY
Published: June 30, 2006

COUNTERTERRORISM has become a source of continuing domestic and international political controversy. Much of it, like the role of the Iraq war in inspiring new terrorists, deserves analysis and debate. Increasingly, however, many of the political issues surrounding counterterrorism are formulaic, knee-jerk, disingenuous and purely partisan. The current debate about United States monitoring of transfers over the Swift international financial system strikes us as a case of over-reaction by both the Bush administration and its critics.

Going after terrorists' money is a necessary element of any counterterrorism program, as President Bill Clinton pointed out in presidential directives in 1995 and 1998. Individual terrorist attacks do not typically cost very much, but running terrorist cells, networks and organizations can be extremely expensive.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups have had significant fund-raising operations involving solicitation of wealthy Muslims, distribution of narcotics and even sales of black market cigarettes in New York. As part of a "follow the money" strategy, monitoring international bank transfers is worthwhile (even if, given the immense number of transactions and the relatively few made by terrorists, it is not highly productive) because it makes operations more difficult for our enemies. It forces them to use more cumbersome means of moving money.

.....................

The administration and its Congressional backers want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against those who would wittingly or unknowingly help the terrorists. And with four months left before Election Day, we can expect to hear many more outrageous claims about terrorism — from partisans on both sides. By now, sadly, Americans have come to expect it.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/opinion/30clarke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Lugnut]

1. K&R n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

2. cmon....what does Richard Clarke know?

[Penndems]

3. Gabi, I hope you're being facetious here . . . ;-)

As someone who worked with Dick Clarke over fifteen years ago, I can tell you the man knows of what he speaks.

Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey and Randy Beers are three of this country's preeminent counterterrorism experts. Dick, in particular, was working in CT when Bill O'Reilly was a hack reporter, Ann Coulter was hitting puberty and Sean Hannity was in utero. He's had the ear of every Administration since Nixon - that is, until the current Administration was dumb enough to dismiss his expertise. Both Dick and Roger are right on the money (no pun intended) with their assessment here.

Just a few comments:

"They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?"

Dick, Roger and Randy: Check out the posts on right-wing websites. Therein lies the gullibility.

"There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year. Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive. The attacks on the press are part of a political effort by administration officials to use terrorism to divide America, and to scare their supporters to the polls again this year.

The administration and its Congressional backers want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against those who would wittingly or unknowingly help the terrorists. And with four months left before Election Day, we can expect to hear many more outrageous claims about terrorism — from partisans on both sides. By now, sadly, Americans have come to expect it."

Exactamundo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[tn-guy]

4. I take a small exception to the premise

Certainly most terrorists believe that the US government will make attempts to monitor their activities, including financial dealings. No one but a fool would dispute that. However; it is one thing to assume that an attempt to monitor will be made and quite another to be told in explicit detail how such an attempt is to be carried out.

To use an analogy, when you drive on the interstate you assume the Highway Patrol will make attempts to enforce the speed limit. However, they might well object were you to erect a portable billboard saying, "Officer with radar, one mile ahead."

To use another analogy, drug dealers expect the police to use undercover agents. Everyone knows this. However; were the NY Times to run an article saying "Officer Smith, picture below, is attempting to infiltrate the drug gang currently operating out of the abandoned warehouse next to the old fish market," it would be reasonable to assume that that particular operation had been harmed.

Trying to excuse the NY Times by saying everyone already knew what was happening is fallacious. If "everyone already knew it" the article had no news value at all. The article didn't just say the US was trying to follow the money, it told exactly how that was being done. As a result an entity, SWIFT, that was cooperating may well cease to do so. If that proves to be the case, the NY Times article harmed our security interests.

[Penndems]

5. Respectfully disagree here tn-guy, but your points are well taken

First, both the SWIFT and FATF Task Force websites are in the public domain. It's no secret that they exist (http://www.swift.com/; http://www.fatf-gafi.org/pages/0,2987,en_32250379_32235720_1_1_1_1_1,00.html). Dan Froomkin's column this past Wednesday also noted this (“A SWIFT Kick in the Head”, by Dan Froomkin, The Washington Post, Wednesday, June 28, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/28/BL2006062801268.html). If this operation is so secret, why are SWIFT and FATF permitted to have websites?

Secondly, The New York Times correspondents who authored the piece wouldn't have to look far to find out just exactly how we're tracking terrorists' funding. It's all over "the Internets":

1. “The Financial War Against Terrorism”, by Renko Huang, CDI Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information, March 5, 2002: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/financial-pr.cfm
(Note from Penndems: This is an outstanding, non-partisan and very concise piece)

2. “Tracking Down Terrorist Financing”, Eben Kaplan, Council on Foreign Relations, April 4, 2006: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10356/tracking_down_terrorist_financing.html

3. “Tracking terrorists; Unit funds high-tech ideas”, William Glanz, The Washington Times, August 1, 2002, http://www.highbeam.com/doc.aspx?DOCID=1G1:120294924&num=2&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AMode20d%3ASR%3AResult&ao=&FreePremium=BOTH&tab=lib (archived; preview only)

4. “Update on Tracking the Financial Assets of Terrorists: One Year Later”, briefing by the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement at the Foreign Policy Press Center, September 9, 2002: http://fpc.state.gov/13337.htm

5. “Following Terrorists’ Money”, by Victor Comras, The Washington Post, Saturday, June 4, 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301452.html

6. “New Patriot Rule Coordinates Fight Against Terrorist Financing”, Op-Ed, U.S. Banker Magazine , July 2003:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:00baBbCBZ1QJ:www.goodwinprocter.com/GetFile.aspx%3Faliaspath%3D%252FFiles%252FPublications%252Fthiessen_j_07_03_pdf+funds,+tracking,+terrorists&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=26&ie=UTF-8

Third, I would submit that since the Bush Administration has operated under a cloak of secrecy, and Congress hasn't policed itself nor been forthcoming with the American public, that leaves both the print and electronic journalists to pick up the slack to inform the electorate as to what's going on in our name/with our tax money.

Does the article have value? Maybe, in the sense that not everyone has access to a PC. However, as Dick and Roger correctly point out, the Administration and its minions have gone out of their way to draw attention to it. In response to your last statement, the SWIFT and FATF Groups will continue with their work, irregardless of what The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times prints.
*************************************************************************************
Your post is excellent, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. you're WAY too kind in your own, most excellent response

that second to last paragraph typifies the completely false logic applied to this situation by the typical B* junta apologists. that poster insults everybody's (except the koolaid drinkers, and those with IQs in the medium double digits) intelligence with BS like that.

there is absolutely NO specific 'sources and methods' information contained in that story; MUCH more is available in the links you provide, all of which have been in the public domain for a LONG time

[tn-guy]

7. an answer to one point

SWIFT is "allowed" to have a website because it is a public, in-the-open operation. I don't think anyone is seriously contending that the existence of SWIFT is a secret. SWIFT was not well known outside the banking industry but then I doubt that detailed knowledge of how the Fed does interbank interchange is all that well known either. Not that it's a secret, just that those who don't have to deal with it don't have much interest.

However; the details of how and to what degree SWIFT was cooperating with the US government to uncover international bank transfers is something that I think was pretty secret. At least the NY Times tried to make that claim - otherwise what is the scoop?

[Disturbed]

8. "what is the scoop?"

Uh... what is it?

[ovidsen]

10. No "secrets". Lots of information. A marketing coup.

Not that it's a secret, just that those who don't have to deal with it don't have much interest.

As Penndems points out, the information about SWIFT might have been obscure, but it was no secret. International bankers would certainly have an interest. So would terror financiers, who have no doubt for years read with great fascination about how the US and others can and do track global money transfers. That's why none of these terror kingpins have been caught in the SWIFT web. The NYT "bombshsell" (and the LAT, WSJ articles) wasn't news to them.

However; the details of how and to what degree SWIFT was cooperating with the US government to uncover international bank transfers is something that I think was pretty secret. At least the NY Times tried to make that claim - otherwise what is the scoop?

Once again, Penndem's links show just how much SWIFT was eager to co-operate with anti-terror spooks, and to pat themselves on the back in public for it. Not out of patriotism or altruism, but because SWIFT knew that blatant misuse of it's system could bring it down. SWIFT didn't want this to be a secret. It wanted traffickers in blood money to know they could be tracked.

And what's the scoop?? Here's the NYT's dirty little secret. They did it not so much because the public has a "right to know" (although we do) or because they have this "bias" against Bush. They did it to get lots of free publicity and to sell their newspapers and their brand.

It's a business. Right now NYT execs are gleeful over all this free publicity. They fantasize about being formally charged with "treason" (charges that will never stand) because it will mean more income and more branding. They are not fools.

[tn-guy]

12. picking a small nit

Ovidsin says, "none of these terror kingpins have been caught in the SWIFT web." However; the NY Times itself refutes that. Look here for an article detailing how a "terror kingpin" was caught partly due to the cooperation of SWIFT.

[KittyWampus]

9. Richard Clarke... the guy who ran the country on 9/11

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

11. Way to go Richard! There was a caller to Sam Seder yesterday on the

Randi Rhodes show where he was filling in.

The call was from Finland, and the guy said that everyone in Europe knows about Swift, and even on their bank statements it gives their Swift numbers. And they get asked for them all the time when doing transactions.

Check out http://www.swift.com/

Someone mentioned this site on some show I heard recently, and it isn't a new site.