Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Why Terror Financing is So Tough to Track Down

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:53 AM
from the follow-the-money dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After a recent Slashdot story detailing the errant investigation into a credit card holder's dept payment, comes this article from the Christian Science Monitor discussing the commoditization of terrorism, its relationship to crime, and the difficulties encountered when trying to track "bad" money."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Financial Responsibility == Terrorism? 1086 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Capital Hill Blue is reporting that recently a retired Texas schoolteacher and his wife had a little run in with the Department of Homeland Security. The crime? Paying down some debt. From the article: 'The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522. And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable. [...] They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • The source (Score:5, Informative)

    by afaik_ianal (918433) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:03AM (#14880898)
    For people who shuddered when they saw that the paper reporting this had "Christian Science" in the name like I did, it appears that the paper is not linked in any way with the Creation Science movement.

    According to their site, the paper is largely secular (except for a single religious article each day). The paper just happens to be published by a church. [csmonitor.com]
      • by drgonzo59 (747139) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:33AM (#14881016)
        The "Christian Science" doesn't seem to have much in common with either Christianity or Science. I am not trying to flame them, I am just saying that the name is confusing. This Church was started by Mary Baker Eddys. Her view of God was nothing what the traditional, Christian God is. She presented an impersonal God or more exactly a "divine Principle of all being". As far as Christ goes, they don't believe in his deity. So they are not quite Christian.

        They are also not very scientific in their approach, as they often would refuse to be treated by doctors, and refuse to acknowledge the existense of bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms and how these can cause disease.

        I think they should just pick a new name. There was such a group on my campus and I approached their table thinking it is a group of scientists who are just Christian that have meetings, Bible study and what not, I had no idea it was a religion all by itself...

  • by rob1980 (941751) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:06AM (#14880912)
    Just keep an eye out for the people who pay down the entire balance of their store credit card. Those people are obviously the terrorists!
  • by freedom_india (780002) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:11AM (#14880940) Homepage Journal
    It is primarily difficult to follow, because our laws (like PATRIOT) are like HUGE trucks trying to drive through an increasingly smaller 2 lane highway.

    Laws and law-enforcement officers are always lagging behind and will continue to do so. The degree to which they lag behind is what matters. If a dog starts running after you, and gets nearer to your heels you tend to speed up and ultimately lose focus and fall into the open manhole.

    This is what law-enforcement should focus on, instead of trying to leapfrog over the terrorists.

    PATRIOT act can't help much because it ends up harassing the normal people more than it can catch the bad guys.

    Singapore's example is a good one. The whole system is completely integrated. My library card becomes invalid the moment my employment pass is canceled. Similarly, the credit card company automatically sends me a closure statement and the IRAS gets the remaining funds from my bank account.

    However this does not hassle the common man in any way from buying beer in THailand or cigars in malaysia using his card.

    Prepaying the card with a huge amount also does not trigger a warning flag because the whole system hinges on a high degree of cooperative automation.

    However with disparate state laws, etc., it is difficult to enforce it in US.

    Strangely i felt more under microscope in US than i did in singapore. Every time i visited BankAm in US to deposit my paycheck ($4000-$6000) i needed to provide TWO photo IDs to deposit and withdraw. Additionally i needed to fill in a few nasty forms for an amount beyond $5,000/-
    In singapore since the system already has my photo and EP number and details, they don;t even bother asking. They took one good look at my face, compared it with record (seeing it was not canceled) and that's it.

    Moral: Laws cannot prevent or catch criminals. Only vigilance can. Law can be used to charge criminals.

    And GWB is making it worse for US agencies to get cooperation from other countries by kicking at their guts and laughing.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:34AM (#14881021)
      Remember in the 70's and early 80's when West Germany was fighting the Red Army Fraction and collaborating palestinian terrorists? Maybe not, since nobody called it global war on terrorism. Anyway, the federal government tried the same techniques (Rasterfahndung, dragnet investigation). They checked every bank account, every lease, harassed innocent people at every second intersection. The bottom line is these measures were unsuccessful and people did mistrust their government more than they did before. The worst case scenario! Free people should be able to trust their government. What did make the difference was a totally different tactic. Teams of few well trained police officers and agents tried to understand how the terrorists operated. One team would pursue one target. These teams were damn successful, and I am very glad. They big question is, why repeat mistakes?
  • by patternjuggler (738978) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:38AM (#14881033) Homepage
    Remember that government funded superbowl ad about how buying marijuana was helping put box-cutters into the hands of hijackers? Of course at the time it probably made you angry enough to want to fly an airplane into the DEA headquarters, but there probably was some grain of truth, where if you follow n-many levels of redirection then yes some percentage of that money ended up in the hands of people so designated as terrorists. But then, you think about it more, and any money you give to anyone for anything could end up in the hands of terrorists after it has changed hands a few times. It's like 7 steps to Kevin Bacon, but with money instead of movies, and Osama or whoever instead of Kevin Bacon.
      • As is the case with many things; Quality pot usually doesn't come from the U.S. and even if it does, it's not as cost effective as the dirt cheap equivilent that comes in from Mexico. It's just easier to grow the crop where law enforcement doesn't really look that hard for it, then sneak it across the border. It's economics at work. A large growing operations that produces enough pot to be super cheap has a harder time doing "business" in the U.S. due to "regulation" (re: DEA agents busting down the doors.) In Mexico, the government doesn't care, so you can make a lot of a cheap product for export.

        There are a lot of different Marijuana traffic patterns. A lot from Mexico, a surprising amount from Canada. Most of the US grown pot comes from old moonshine territory such as the Kentucky hills.

        The big Terrorist drug is Opium. Afghanistan exports two things: Opium and more opium. The drug money in that country faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar surpasses any GDP they've ever had. Ever. Hell, add a bunch of their yearly GDP's up and compare it to a years worth of estimated Opium exports. Adjust for inflation, have Enron do the book keeping, do what you want. Afghanistan is to Opium as Kuwait is to oil. That's the biggest terrorism financing tool. Good old fashioned Smack.

        So remember kids, be a Patriot! Smoke homegrown pot! and When you're doing Herion, you're shooting up with Osama!

  • by ChePibe (882378) on Thursday March 09 2006, @03:04AM (#14881249)
    While tracking money that goes through conventional means is difficult, tracking money distributed by Hawala [wikipedia.org] is much more so. Trying to really outlaw it has had only mixed success. The U.S. has had a lot of success in drying up tens of millions of dollars in known terrorist funding, but the frightening fact remains that 9/11 cost about $500,000 to plan and carry out. While the funding for 9/11 largely didn't depend on Hawala, it still remains an effective and difficult to trace method of doing business. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole likely cost much less than 9/11, not to mention low-cost, low-level domestic eco-terrorism operations (ALF, et. al.). Drying up the funding is great and important, but it's like playing whack-a-mole at best.
    • Some people fight for freedom. Some people use terror as a political tactic. Some freedom fighters use terrorism. Not all freedom fighters are terrorists. Not all terrorists are freedom fighters. Claiming that the two terms simply carry different connotations for the same meaning is not insightful.
      • Power Of Nightmares (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drgonzo59 (747139) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:19AM (#14880969)
        A couple of days I watched the "Power of Nightmares" -- a British documentary. It talks about how both Islamic extremism and neo-conservatism both have a lot in common, especially in the fact that both have this absolutist, idealized view of the world. For ones like Osama, Islam is the answer to all, and the justification of all means, and for Bush, Cheney, Wolfowits and "gang" it is the "American Way" that has to be imposed over all countries. US is seen as the incarnation of pure good and its destiny is to fight and conquer evil. Anyway, another point of the movie is that al Qaeda doesn't really exist in the way we think it exists, there are no organized sleeper cells, Osama didn't even use the name until after 9/11 the Americans gave it to his organisation. The al Qaeda global super organization myth is actually serving the neo-conservatives in this country. Anyway, if you have time, watch the film: free on archive.org [archive.org]. It is about 3 hours long. It is very well done, not as heavy propaganda laden as the Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which I thought was as good of a documentary as "Mars Attacks".

        Check out the Wiki page on it too...

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:57AM (#14881087)
          I'd just point out that the documentary says that the name "Al Qaeda" was termed during the investigation of the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, not after 9/11. However, it does say that the term was first coined in America and was later adopted by Bin Laden to describe his group.

          It also goes on to say that, for example, Bin Laden had to hire stand-ins to represent his personal guard on camera, since there were so few people actually allying with him. The documentary goes on to compare our fear of terrorism to the fear of the USSR in the cold war - showing, for example, a completely nondescript sattelite photo of a Russian city and an American saying "there are weapons here so insidious that our cameras can't even detect them." It gives pretty good insight into the history of the players in this conflict, and how this war is similar to the things that have happened in the past. Definitely worth a watch.
    • by east coast (590680) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:38AM (#14881032)
      If news lately is to be believed then there are thousands of terrorists running around. Rarely are building blown up, or water supplies poisoned.

      Oh, so every terrorist is busy killing? No organizers? No fund raisers? No recruiters? No trainers? these people just pop up out of the ground strapped with semtex and go to work?

      The insergency in Iraq is nothing but well meaning Iraqis either I take it?

      This isn't a Hollywood film where a dozen guys get together and hatch a scheme. It's a bit more involved and it doesn't take much to see that for yourself, you've got the whole internet to understand how large this strcuture is, not much unlike a large corporation.

      You're thinking these guys are random kooks, far from it.
    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:41AM (#14881040) Journal
      The head terrorists aren't as stupid as people would like to think.

      A lot of what they do is a "reach out and touch somebody" kind of terrorism.

      They aren't blowing up shit willy nilly in 99% of countries, because it doesn't suite their purposes. Israel has been a relatively safer place since Hamas agreed to a cease fire about a year ago.

      If you hit up the Wikipedia page on terrorism [wikipedia.org] their first sentance is:
      The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence," and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall within the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as unconventional warfare.
      Emphasis mine, because terrorism has rarely been about killing people, in the same way that war has rarely been about killing people.

      War and terrorism have almost always been extensions of politics. Even Osama Bin Laden's original stated goals were (are?) that the US withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia and support from Israel.

      To directly answer your question: We don't know how hard is it to blow up a building, because either we haven't tried or because we don't know the failure:success ratio. (If you have tried to blow up a building, I hope you work in demolitions and that you succeeded.)
    • The latter... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by drgonzo59 (747139) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:42AM (#14881044)
      I already mentioned this in a post above, but I'll say it again. Watch the Power Of Nightmares movie. It is a 3 hour British documentary. Very well done. Get it at archive.org, just search for it, it is also probably in the "top 3 dowloaded" box.

      It turns out that "fear mongering" is what the neo-conservatives now in power in Washington DC need to do what they do. The most interesting conclusion of the film is that al Qaeda isn't this all global organization with thousands of sleeper cells ready to commit attrocities. That is what people like Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz want us to believe. To find out why, whatch the move...

    • by Detritus (11846) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:49AM (#14881066) Homepage
      Most of them are busy in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Chechnya and other hot spots.

      Blowing up a building is relatively easy. Getting ahold of the required explosives is much more difficult in the USA. In a place like Iraq, it is much easier to scrounge old munitions and to extract the explosives for reuse.

      The terrorists are not stupid. They select targets with a desired effect in mind, not to just blow shit up.

    • by killjoe (766577) on Thursday March 09 2006, @03:08AM (#14881265)
      I think they are just stupid. YOu don't even have to blow stuff up.

      How hard is it to call in a bomb threat to a skyscraper?
      How hard is it to claim that you injected 500 random cows with mad cows disease (or whatever).
      How hard is it to mail talcum powder to a hundred people.

      All those acts would cause panic and fear. If you scare the public enough not to eat beef you will collapse the economy of the west.

      What these dumb fucks don't realize is that you don't have to DO anything. You just have to talk a good game. This is a lesson our politicians know very well. They just need to pull a Rumsfeld once in a while that's all.
    • Sectarianism (Score:5, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday March 09 2006, @01:53AM (#14881075) Journal
      I'm not really sure you understand what "sectarianism" means.

      Basically... it is violence between two relegious factions. Sometimes it is used to describe violence between two warring political factions.

      If the Catholics and Protestants (ex: Ireland) go at it, that is sectarian violence.

      Sectarian violence isn't necessarily terrorism and terrorism isn't necessarily sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is always within a group.

      Which adjective you use to describe the violence depends on what the story is. Is the story about (1) people dying? Or is it about (2) why they are dying. If 1, it's terrorism, if 2, it's sectarian violence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism [wikipedia.org]

    • The other reason is that our leaders who might themselves be inept, think that the way America works is the way other societies work and think. In areas where terror is cultivated, folks are willing to do stuff for free...all in the hope that some divine power will reward them sometime in future.

      You just don't get it do you? Most of the time people don't do things for religion. Generally religion is used as a scapegoat, excuse, reason etc. The only people that can be controlled by religion are the same people that can be controlled by anyone with charisma.

      Most acts of violence (terrorism is defined by those in power) are driven by fear, anger power and greed. The people at the top are generally driven by power and greed whereas the people at the bottom are generally driven by fear and anger. They are people just like you and me that have been driven into situations where they feel that their acts are their only way out.

      I read an article from a Russian journalist that summed it really well:

      Just after Russia conquered Afghanistan this journalist visited a major military base that they'd taken over by bombing it. The major military based ended up being a civilian village. As the journalist entered the village he saw a father holding his daughter that had been killed in the bombing. As they drove past the father looked up with hate in his eyes at the truck. At this moment he said he knew they wouldn't be able to hold Afghanistan. He said he realised that they people had nothing. This father who may have previously been a supported of the Russians was now there number one enemy and would do anything to get revenge. He had nothing and the only thing he had (family) was now taken away. Every time Russia had a victory they'd create more soldiers with nothing to live for. In the end Russia pulled out because they weren't able to hold it.

      If Fiji (crazy example on purpose) bombed America and took it over in a couple of days and decimated America's defences so they'd never be able to regain control. How many people could honestly say they'd just sit around and be peaceful? How many people would rally around anyone and anything to try and get justice even if it involved violence?

      People always try to demonise terrorist and distance themselves as much as possible even though we'd often act in a similar way if the roles were reverse.

      It's always a choice and I hope that if I was put in that situation I'd act differently but to be honest I don't know what I'd do if family was killed infront of my eyes. I don't think I'd be as honourable as I like to imagine I would be.
      • by killjoe (766577) on Thursday March 09 2006, @03:01AM (#14881244)
        "(I see this line of reasoning all the time, exempli gratia, at the pharmacy at which I work, when people don't understand why the federal government won't somehow make their drug copayments go away.)"

        I think you misunderstand their complaint. Their complaint is basically "what the fuck happened to all those taxes I paid, how come people in Turkey and Greece get free drugs and I can't. Why doesn't a person in Australia or New Zealand have to worry about going bankrupt because they broke a hip and I do?".

        They are right of course. Other much poorer countries manage to provide basic health care for their citizens (even if it's not ideal) and we still don't.

        As for the hurricane NO was a special case. The levies broke (like they were predicted to). If Bush was awake during the meeting when he was told they could break better plans could have been made. Of course if he hadn't lied afterwards and told people "nobody could have predicted this" people wouldn't blame him so much.

      • by copponex (13876) on Thursday March 09 2006, @03:39AM (#14881333) Homepage
        Fantastic! I had no idea that New Orleans had the same population density, flood probability, and problem of a massive amount of people who didn't own a car. If you've ever lived on a coast, you know that half the time it never hits where they say it will, and some people even evacuate in the wrong direction, heading towards the storm (especially in Florida). The white elephant is, of course, that most of the deaths weren't people who drowned - they died of natural causes exacerbated by the fact that our Federal Government, with BILLIONS of dollars at their immediate and easily accessible disposal, completely failed them. There are still hundreds of empty beds at FEMA camps all across the region, due to poor management and poor planning. And there's no excuse for "confusion of responsibility:"

        "DISASTER. It strikes anytime, anywhere. It takes many forms -- a hurricane, an earthquake, a tornado, a flood, a fire or a hazardous spill, an act of nature or an act of terrorism. It builds over days or weeks, or hits suddenly, without warning. Every year, millions of Americans face disaster, and its terrifying consequences.

        On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration."


        Now the current (and previous) administration has missed the clues and failed to prepare for:
        Terrorism and 9/11
        The Iraq War
        Katrina

        As Senator Kucinich said, I think we see a pattern here. But the problem is not Republican or Democrat - it's that our government is fundamentally broken. I'm voting straight down the line this year - voting out every single incumbant, regardless of how much I hate the alternative.
      • by mpe (36238) on Thursday March 09 2006, @04:21AM (#14881431)
        European help was rejected with phony arguments, despite being urgently, and obviously so, needed.

        Not just European help, people from other parts of the US were prevented from helping. You even got the situation of doctors being prevented from treating people whilst their papers were checked.