Airline Terror Plot Foiled …
By Denise Best | Related entries in Breaking News, In The NewsLate breaking news on the latest terror plot foiled …
A plot to blow up planes in flight from the UK to the US and commit “mass murder on an unimaginable scale” has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.
It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on to as many as 10 aircraft.
There had been a high degree of speculation, over the past few weeks especially, as to an imminent attack sometime during the month of August — appears as if the intel on this was right on.
Police had spoken to a “good number of community leaders to make them aware that a major operation was under way,” he added.
Head of the Met’s anti-terrorist branch Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said the investigation had had “global dimensions” and had seen an “unprecedented level” of surveillance.
Wonder if the “unprecedented level” of surveillance included any wire-tapping activity?
So, for those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping, has this episode changed your opinion in any way?
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 10th, 2006 and is filed under Breaking News, In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:03 am
So, for those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping, has this episode changed your opinion in any way?
If by wire-tapping you mean warrantless wire-tapping then my answer is no.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:05 am
I’m not sure I know anyone who is opposed to “surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.” And I assume that you wouldn’t knowingly conflate opposition to illegal wiretapping into opposition to “surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.” Because that would be, you know, kind of dishonest and demagogic.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Denise – Your point is well taken. If “illegal” wiretaps were used to save these people lives, we have definitely gone out the cozy realm of abstraction. I wish we knew…or maybe not. I’m not saying that those people’s lives were worth more than what I preceive my 4th Amendment rights to be – but I’m willing to pose the question directly.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:43 am
There are dumb comments and then there is your last statement. That set a new record on the Sean Hannity meter.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Europe has been doing warrentless wire-taps on suspected criminals for decades. Whats the controversy here? Its only in America where there is concern because we have a constitution that addresses the issue.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Terror Level Red
Late last night, I saw the first wire reports of the arrests in Great Britain. I assumed that like the arrests earlier this summer, these were preemptive in nature and wouldn’t really affect our daily life. Now I wake up and see just how close the te…
August 10th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Denise, I think you’re throwing a red herring out there.
Nobody who I’ve talked to is opposed to wiretapping. In fact, nothing in the left blogosphere that I’ve read has suggested there should be absolutely no wiretapping. There may be a few, but on the whole people are very concerned with warrantless wiretapping, especially since FISA allows the government a very easy way to wiretap first and get a warrant later.
Sorry Denise…but I think that’s a pretty hollow argument for allowing our government officials carte blanche to do whatever they please whenever they please.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:06 am
New Article: Terrorists “1 for 2″ in Airline Murder Plots, Tie Breaker set for 2011
August 10th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
red herring
n.
1). A smoked herring having a reddish color.
2). Something that draws attention away from the central issue.
I’m assuming you’re referring to definition #2 :), so …
What do you feel is/are the real central issues(s) in this discovery?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
The issue is “warrentless” wire tapping. Your general statement uses that premise that Democrats are against any wire tapping, which has never been the case.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Where in my post did I make this labeling that you are suggesting?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
“So, for those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping, has this episode changed your opinion in any way?” I will grant you, you didn’t use “Democrat”, but how is your statement any different than the Republican talking points about how the Democrats are weak on security.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
You ask two questions here. The first about the red herring…
Because you talk about “surveillance” as opposed to “warrantless wiretapping”, it feels like you’re throwing a lot of people who are opposed to the latter into a the group who want absolutely zero surveillance. That’s simply not the case and it distracts from the real issue here, which is that Britain possibly foiled a terrorist plot. In essence, why ask a question that confuses the two things?
As to this second question, I know you’re not asking me, but…
Again, because you say “for those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping”, it suggests that you’re referring to the group who opposes “warrantless wire-tapping.” In the future, you may want to make this clearer.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
“So, for those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping, has this episode changed your opinion in any way?”
So was this statement directed at the 14 hippies living in Wyoming who oppose any wiretapping what so ever, or the Left and many moderates who oppose warrant less wiretapping? Maybe you meant the hippies but it sure read like you were talking to the second group.
I’m looking forward to the conspiracy theorist / tinfoil hat crowd’s take on these arrests. Should be fun reading.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
number2, what will be your response be if the detection of a plot to commit mass murder of Americans was, in fact, only the result of warrantless wiretaps? Justin, anybody — it is not a red herring to post a hypothetical that illustrates a fundamental tension between security and freedom. Good God, a little defensive aren’t we….
August 10th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
DP, I wont speak for everyone else, but my beef with warrant less wiretapping is that it is so easy and such a non hinderance to get a warrant in for these situations. The fact that they are unwilling to so much as nod at the constitution is a problem to me. It wasn’t even a case of “we’re having problems with the existing process and so we felt we had to subvert the system”. They never even tried.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I absolutely don’t buy into the over-hyped hype about our evil government wanting to turn us all into slaves and using the GWOT as an excuse to do it. I invite the government to listen to all of my calls and read all of my e-mails. They can put a camera in my bedroom too. It won’t take them long to get real bored. I’ve nothing to hide and I’m willing to prove it.
Our government goes to all kinds of lengths to “protect people”. Many of them are much more annoying and intrusive than the incredibly remote chance they will wiretap my phone without a stupid warrant. Like for example, I’d love to be able to drive my car without a seat belt on. Can’t do that anymore without bells and alarms going off. Here our government is trying to protect me from my risk taking self. That’s annoying. However, protecting me from getting blown up in a plane by some Islamic nutjob is different. That won’t annoy me at all. I welcome and appreciate that.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
So to answer your hypothetical, DP. If they used warrant less wire tapping to stop an attach I’d say fine, thanks for saving our butts. Now please explain to me why it was necessary to subvert existing laws and if it really was necessary, lets change the damn laws.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Is this really the extent to which you feel are the central issues and implications?
Do you not see this as validation that there are real security needs and concerns which have to be addressed here and abroad?
You mention possibly which I find interesting …
What doubts do you have that the British did indeed foil a terrorist plot?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Hey, it’s a free country :)
Hmmm … sounds like a logic puzzle, let’s see …
Are all Democrats opposed to surveillance activities such as wiretapping?
or …
Are all those who are opposed to surveillance activities such as wiretapping, Democrats?
That’s awfully black and white type of reasoning, you’re actually sounding a bit … Conservative *muhaha*
If I wanted to make it a Left versus Right discussion, I would have stated it as such — I was more interested in trying to stick to the concern which was views on security issues.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
No warrantless wire-tapping. Period. It’s not necessary because you can get retroactive warrants. I know this conversation has been had before.
Lewis, I think you can confidently declare that you would gladly allow the government to surveil you 24/7, using any mechanism necessary, precisely because you live in a country where you know that will never happen. I also find it interesting that you are annoyed that the gov’t wants you to wear a seatbelt but would not be annoyed if they took away your constitutional rights to prevent your death by terrorism, since statistically speaking you are much, much, much, much more likely to be injured or killed in a car accident, especially if you’re not wearing a seatbelt, than you are to be injured or killed as a result of a terrorist plot. Depending on where you live, the odds of you being injured as a result of a terrorist plot might drop to zero.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
You don’t see any implications in the area of security measures?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Denise,
The distinction is about who is opposed to wiretapping versus who is opposed to warrantless wiretapping. Most of us, who are “violently opposed” to wiretapping are only opposed to the warrantless brand.
“What doubts do you have that the British did indeed foil a terrorist plot?”
Well, I can answer that. 21 people were arrested because they were suspected to be involved in a terrorist plot. Suspected. Maybe they did foil and actual terrorist plot, but you cannot yet assume that the terrorist plot is a fact. Maybe the “maybe” is a strong possibility bordering on probably yes there was, but that’s still not a fact. Heard of the criminal justice system, trials, convictions, etc.?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Would you agree that there’s (definitely) a new risk that’s been uncovered and should be addressed?
Are you willing to wait until the official trial before heightened security measures are employed?
August 10th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
The point has been — from the start — that the NSA can already tap any overseas call, any time it wants to, and does. It can tap any US origin international call and apply for, and in almost every case get, a warrant days later, after it has reaped intel. There is nothing standing in the way of tapping relevant calls.
There is no security risk in insisting that the NSA follow the law. If the NSA feels hampered it can ask congress to change the law. The administration refuses to ask for changes in the law.
The implication that those of us who believe that laws should be obeyed are helping terrorists is false. Simply false. Furthermore, those who put this suggestion out there know they are spreading falsehoods.
Denise, you are trying to parse and sidestep your way back from your very clear implication that we who hold that America’s laws should actually be obeyed are hindering national security. It’s scurrilous, it is baseless, and unless you have a case to make, you should apologize.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Geez — must have hit quite a nerve there Michael!
Is it my implication or your interpretation and subsequent (over) sensitivity?
Why should I apologize for raising the question of whether anyone’s opinion had changed on the issue of surveillance needs and activities based upon this latest news?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Why should I apologize for raising the question of whether anyone’s opinion had changed on the issue of surveillance needs and activities based upon this latest news?
If you can list the people who are “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping” you shouldn’t apologize for anything. I await your list.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
So, you’re making me accountable for listing people who are “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping?â€Â?
Interesting angle, but the post was an invitation for healthy discussion and debate on a breaking news item and (possible) implication(s) — again, why should I apologize for that?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
So, you’re making me accountable for listing people who are “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping?�
Yes, many people here are confused as to whom you were referring when you wrote, “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.� As a result, I think it behooves you, as the author, to give examples of the people you had in mind when you wrote that comment.
Interesting angle, but the post was an invitation for healthy discussion and debate on a breaking news item and (possible) implication(s) � again, why should I apologize for that?
It is difficult if not impossible to have a healty discussion when the subject of the discussion is not understood by all those involved in said discussion. So it would be much appreciated if you were to clarify your comments and give some expamples of people who are, “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.� Thank you.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Denise… nice dance steps, but you’re out of sync with the music.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Oh how nuanced we have become when confronted with BIG BROTHER. Please, a month or so ago, I was reading fantastic sci-fi Orwellian scenerios of jack-boots and the like — remember THOSE days. The hysterical days, the end-times were nigh. Meredith, certainly you remember the litany, the book burning, the Night of the Long Knives, come on people!!! We were all having so much fun fantasizing about the loss of the freedom IN VERY ABSTRACT TERMS. Remember, “we can’t let fear” eat our liberties.
Well, Denise, no more, don’t you DARE catagorize me with those “vehemently opposed to surveillance activities such as wire-tapping.” I love wire-tapping (particular days after a true threat is verified), as long as it comes with a warrant, or at least a retro-active warrant — so it can be without a warrant, but they really do need to go back and find out if it is okay.
Denise, the sound the squeals means you’ve hit upon a nerve.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Blue Neponset,
With all due respect, why has the issue become “Whom, specifically, I meant?”
Honestly, I believe people have ranged in their degree of opposition regarding the surveillance issue, as well as from what “groupings” you are trying to tidily assign them.
Rather than being inflammatory and making it an issue of a specific group of people, I was attempting to make it an open and blanket question to whomever had the inclination (and courage) to state their opinions and if they had changed any with this latest news.
Why, instead of concentrating on the central issue(s), which include changing security and surveillance needs relative to world events as they occur, is the key issue being made to be — “Whom do you mean?”
The post was meant for all readers to reflect upon their views past and present and to gauge whether events, such as this, would change those opinions.
Honest, that was the intention.
I could understand this type of reaction if I had name-called or made derogatory statements, but let’s keep to the issue at hand rather than blanket statements and assumptions about the “types” of people who hold them.
Actually, I could justifiably say in return that you owe me an apology for calling into question “whom” I meant and clouding the discussion points.
Pretty ironic – eh!
August 10th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Dos Peros,
*chuckle* Ok, ok, if you insist, then I won’t :)
Now that’s what I was looking for — opinions on whether views had changed or stayed the same given the dynamics of world events.
Yup! I can see (and hear) that :)
August 10th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Denise,
“Would you agree that there’s (definitely) a new risk that’s been uncovered and should be addressed?
Are you willing to wait until the official trial before heightened security measures are employed?”
1. I don’t know if it’s really new, aside from the fact that someone might use a shampoo bomb to hijack a plane instead of a shoe bomb or a box cutter . . . . There will always be a dozen more ways to get around the things that are banned. But, insofar as shampoo bombs, yeah I guess that’s new.
2. I, personally, am willing to wait forever before more security measures are employed. But, that has nothing to do with my comment. I was just responding to your comment to Justin.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
I could understand this type of reaction if I had name-called or made derogatory statements, but let’s keep to the issue at hand rather than blanket statements and assumptions about the “types� of people who hold them.
I would have actually prefered it if you had name-called or made direct derogatory statements about specific groups or specific people. I find that preferable to implying that those you disagree with hold idiodically radical views.
Actually, I could justifiably say in return that you owe me an apology for calling into question “whom� I meant and clouding the discussion points.
You are the author of this post and I, and a number of others, did not understand who you were refering to when you said, “those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping” and I asked you twice to clarify yet you still refuse to do that. I am not going to apologize for asking you to clarify your poor writing.
Pretty ironic – eh!
No, it isn’t.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Denise,
As mentioned by others, very few people have objections to wiretapping, as long as a warrant comes along for the ride. This is really a non-issue, especially since the country in question wasn’t even the United States. England does not share our Bill of Rights — they’re bound by their own set of laws which I am completely unfamiliar with, and for all intents and purposes, they could outlaw wearing socks on your left foot on Tuesdays and it wouldn’t matter to me (so long as I don’t happen to be travelling in Britain on Tuesdays). I’d sympathize with the Brits affected by that kind of legal lunacy, but patriotism doesn’t require me to be outraged by other countries doing stupid things with their legal system. It only requires that I be outraged when my own country does it. That hasn’t happened in this particular case, so I’m not feeling any particular need to for outrage. Especially since today, the forces of terror really have been dealt a blow, tiny though it may be.
So I find myself agreeing with Justin and Michael. This post was really uncalled for, though I don’t particularly feel the need to be apologized to. You’re entitled to your opinion, as badly thought out as it may be.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Bob, are you sure that our intellegence services were not involved? Would it change your mind if they were? The US and the Brits work pretty closely and share nearly everything.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
My main concern about warrantless wiretapping with no oversight is that I believe Bush would have (and probably has) used it indiscriminately for several purposes besides fighting terrorism. Such as spying on his political enemies, finding out juicy information from his favorite corporate owners’ competitors, etc. I think the programs we have heard about to date are merely the tip of the iceberg of the illegal activities he has likely authorized.
I also note that Denise follows the traditional Republican methodology about phrasing a question in such a way that it cannot be answered positively (have you stopped beating your wife yet?), then instead of responding to those who question her rhetoric she merely attacks those who disagree with her.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Blue Neposnet,
… and my response back was, again …
How does this not answer your question?
Hmm … why do I get the feeling that if my views more closely mirrored yours, the caliber of my writing would be deemed more worthy?
August 10th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
sleipner,
I’m attacking?! I’d say I’ve been in defensive mode here friend :)
Sincerely, for my own personal betterment, could you give me an example of where I attacked anyone in this post or subsequent comments?
August 10th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Denise:
This is absurd. What you meant is quite clear. Tapdance all you like, no one is in any doubt as to what you meant.
Why don’t you leave that kind of McCarthyism to the real experts like Limbaugh, Coulter and the commentors at DailyKos?
If you have something to say, stand up and say it. Defend your scurrilous insinuations or apologize for them, but don’t waste everyone’s time with this clumsy dance of denial.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Michael,
It’s certainly your choice in how you internalize what’s posted … Unfortunate though that you’ve taken it in a negative manner and not in the spirit of discussion and debate as was intended.
Why are you so threatened by the question of whether shifts in viewpoint had occurred? You asked for clarification/identification of the audience intended and I provided an honest response — why is this tap dancing?
And there’s that word again … scurrilous …
Since I was put to task apparently it would seem for word choice, let’s check out the definition so I can be clear what you are intending to convey …
scur·ri·lous
Pronunciation: ‘sk&r-&-l&s, ‘sk&-r&-
Function: adjective
1 a : using or given to coarse language b : vulgar and evil
2 : containing obscenities, abuse, or slander
Now exactly how was this post vulgar, evil, obscene, abusive, or rife with slander?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Denise
Can we please stop the “I hit a nerve” BS? This is a common trope, as if the more people who disgree with you, the closer you must be to the truth. The reason so many people, including myself, are responding so negatively is that there were very clear insinuations in your post, and now you’re trying to walk back with this “I’m just asking, is all” approach. Let’s review: You addressed your post to “those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.” Since I don’t recall ever seeing anyone voice that opinion on this board, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask who you were addressing. Since you refer to these people as “you”, the implication is clear that you think people with that opinion are reading this board. So again, who the hell are you talking to? Your post would seem much less offensive if you had the decency to stick to your guns.
August 11th, 2006 at 6:41 am
Meanwhile, as the Ottoman Empire made ready their attack, the Senators of Constantinople engaged in acrimonious debate on the gender of angels…
August 11th, 2006 at 11:05 am
I have a feeling that agencies like the TSA are being REACTIVE instead of being PROACTIVE. A few years ago someone tried to sneak in explosives using his shoes so now we must all smell everyone’s feet because of this. Yesterday they tried using liquid explosives…so now we can’t even take water on the flights… Do you really think they will use the same tactics and the same formats? No! Today’s terrorists are extremely creative.
I think AMERICA should really be SWITCHING to proactive and preventive action. The security agencies should be increasing their HUMINT and SIGINT coordination like was suggested before…
And the REGULAR CITIZENS should be encouraged to take proactive steps to protect themselves in the event of an emergency. There are excellent tips and tools for doing this on http://www.technonllc.com
August 11th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Michael Reynolds — I don’t know whether your last post on this thread was meant to be funny or not, sarcastic or not – but it made me laugh. So let me add to it in the vain of Saturday Night Live’s Dan Akroid:
Denise, you ignorant slut! Bagged-out, dried-up, slunken meat like you and Michelle Malken know the rules. If you want a contract, sign on the dotted line. Oh, but let’s all shed a tear for poor Denise. There was only testimony that she had sexual intercourse over forty times with another man while living with actor Lee Marvin. But I suppose that sort of fashionable promiscuting means nothing to you, Denise, who hops from bed to bed with the frequency of a cheap ham radio. But hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorn, and Michelle Malken, like a screeching, squealing, reptatious swamp sow is after actor Lee Marvin’s last three million dollars. I guess what you and Michelle are saying is that when you’re on your backs, the meter is running. Well, please spare us, gals, and tell us the rate’s at the top. Then we can choose which two bit tarts and bargain basement sluts to shack up with.
If that doesn’t get me banned, I don’t what will.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
ChrisO,
What percentage of Americans polled on the wiretapping question voiced opposition to its use?
Now we could debate the validity of poll results, but I think we can agree that it’s safely half, if not more. Since I felt that Donklephant’s readership was representative of the general population, it was safe to say that at least half would have opposed wiretapping.
Now as to the question if any views had changed …
At the time of the wiretapping discussion, 9/11 was a dim memory to a degree and there were questions as to whether the security threat was real … that is why, given this fresh incident, I wondered if any opinions had changed.
It wasn’t a judgment, just a question.
August 11th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Denise
I did a quick Google search for wiretap polls, and the only ones I could find that showed 50 percent opposition were asking about illegal wiretaps. As a matter of fact, I recall a Rasmussen poll that the Republicans were crowing about because it showed overwhelming support for wiretaps, and the Democrats were complaining because it didn’t ask about illegal wiretaps. Are there polls you’ve seen that show 50 percent of the country was opposed to any wiretapping of terrorist suspects?