If It Leads, A Soldier Bleeds

The media leaked it 23 years ago that we were cracking terrorist communications with Iran.

And then the terrorists stopped their chattering. And then 241 Marines died in the barracks bombing.

Goldstein writes: “surely the terrorists must have known we were listening in on them. That’s what our spy agencies do, after all.�

Bill Keller's and the left's collective defense -- of course the terrorists know we're watching their money transfers, etc. -- is absurd and dishonest.

All terrorists -- and all criminals, frankly -- know the CIA (or FBI, or local cops) are always trying to bug their offices, capture their cell-phone transmissions, watch their hideouts, photograph them, trail them, etc. The "of course they know" defense would suggest that all terrorists, and all criminals, should and do stay indoors 24 hours per day, seven days a week, and do nothing criminal at all, because of course they know we're trying to catch them, and a rational response to this state of affairs would be to give up all criminal activity whatsoever.

But they don't.

So what gives?

Well, the key word is obviously trying. Terrorists and criminals of course know we're trying a hundred different methods of monitoring, tracking, shadowing, and apprehending them, but they don't know, until someone tells them, which methods are actually working.

A criminal or terrorist faces a hundred risks per day. But some of these are low risks, some are moderate risks, some are high risks, and some are very high, possibly deadly, risks.

Of course they know that virtually anything they do exposes them to some risk. But how much? Which activities and methods of movement or plotting or bomb-building are relatively safe, and which are relatively dangerous? This they don't know.

One of the main functions of counterintelligence is to determine what the enemy knows about our spying, and which of our spies are in jeopardy, and which of ou spies can operate more freely. Which drop points are compromised, and which are still safe. What safe houses are indeed still safe, and which are being watched by the intelligence aparatus of the countries they're located in.

Does the New York Times, aka Al Qaeda Intelligence Service, suggest that of course we know the precise intelligence capabilities of our enemies?

Of course we don't.

And, until the AQIS broke the banking suveillance story, neither did Al Qaeda know the precise capabilities of the United States in regard to international electronic money transfers.

Now they do.

Now they know, among the many risks they face, this is a high-risk endeavor and must be avoided at all costs.

This is all so obvious it shouldn't need to be said. But when an arrogant, treasonous organization offers up such transparently dishonest defenses for its reckless partisanship and treasonous communications to the enemy, the obvious needs to be stated.

A Question For The AQIS: Doesn't the "of course they know" defense mean we should stop all sex education in schools?

Consider: Of course they know that all sexual behavior is dangerous. Ergo, there's hardly any reason to explain which sexual behaviors are less dangerous and which are more dangerous. Of course they know all sex behavior is dangerous, therefore there's no good reason to tell kids precisely which behaviors rank where on the danger-spectrum.

Right?

Right. That's what I thought.

The AQIS is now, it seems, urging the strange proposition that Knowlege is not power.

If that's so, why publish any "news" at all? Of course we know everything, right?

posted by Ace at 02:21 PM

| Access Comments