False Terrorist Organizations

July 16, 2005 3:13 PM

False Terrorist Organizations. Berkeley law prof. John Yoo has championed the War on Terrorism before in the now famous Yoo/Delahunty/Philbin Memos to the White House on the Geneva Convention. But the recent attacks in London, and the ever growing death toll in Iraq, are driving Yoo to push the envelope even further in search for a solution. He is now proposing that the US create a false terrorist organization. "It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes..."-- But is it wise to compete with terrorists? What if they are more competitive than we are?
posted by derangedlarid (31 comments total)

Next step: FBI announces that anyone who can prove they have real connections to al-Qaeda will be given a free boat upon presenting proper documentation of said connections. Those who manage to do so will also win a free trip to Cuba*!

*Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be precise
posted by clevershark at 3:27 PM on July 16, 2005

Renewing the Patriot Act and staying the course at Guantanamo Bay remain important tools for gaining the intelligence that can prevent another Sept. 11
What little credibility I had given this guy (and it wasn't much) just evaporated.
So, just to check : set up phony terrorist network (I guess he's thinking deception on such a massive scale must agree with the Bush administration) and hope nobody notices ... 'cos the moment it does, that network - which would have cost millions if not billions - just goes down the pan, and America's gonna look pretty stupid. Oh, and for an added bonus setting the network up may have constitutional implications. To say nothing of entrapment.... but hey, that's a legal nicety that terrorists aren't entitled to use as a defence anyway...

Oh, and we desperately need to keep the Patriot act or the terrorists have already won...
posted by kaemaril at 3:30 PM on July 16, 2005

It's hard to accept the premise that young Muslims just grow up in Pakistan, the Middle East and other locations, and would say something like "I want to be a terrorist when I grow up"... then, upon reaching the age of majority (or graduating from high school?) go looking around for a terrorist network to join.

Perhaps it actually works that way, but I'd be very, very surprised. How does one decide to join one network or another? Surely it can't be the retirement benefits!?!
posted by clevershark at 3:40 PM on July 16, 2005

Wait, didn't we already do that by creating that "al Qaida" thing out of old cia assets from the Afghan war?
posted by stenseng at 3:49 PM on July 16, 2005

clevershark : we need to root out extremist career guidance advisors, I guess :)

stenseng: Ssssh, you. Nobody's supposed to have noticed that.
posted by kaemaril at 3:57 PM on July 16, 2005

Renewing the Patriot Act and staying the course

Will help us update our definition of spectral evidence.
posted by 517 at 4:07 PM on July 16, 2005

Wait, didn't we already do that by creating that "al Qaida" thing

Via Times Online:

THE British-born mastermind of the London attacks had direct links with al-Qaeda, police sources confirmed yesterday.

He is believed to be connected to a senior figure who took part in an al-Qaeda terror summit in Pakistan 16 months ago where a list of future targets was reportedly finalised.

The West is so good at 'inventing al-Qaida' they've somehow arranged for Pakistani militants to hold summits. Now that's serious sleight-of-hand.


It's hard to accept the premise that young Muslims just grow up in Pakistan, the Middle East and other locations, and would say something like "I want to be a terrorist when I grow up"... then, upon reaching the age of majority (or graduating from high school?) go looking around for a terrorist network to join.

They don't have to say it when they're growing up. What's disgusting is that they say it all. The difficult truth is that thousands and thousands, at some point in their damaged lives, do link up with others of the same agenda, and with explosives in one hand and visions of Muslim martyrdom on their minds, blow themselves up, harming as many innocent bystanders as possible.

It's not Neocon fantasy. Pick up a paper. It's right in front of your eyes.

A government-prepared dossier says that al-Qaida is targeting middle-class Britons to join its ranks, a newspaper reported Sunday.

According to the Sunday Times, the dossier by the British Home Office and Foreign Office detailed how extremist recruiters were looking to Britain. It was drawn up in the aftermath of the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid, Spain.

Citing a copy of the secret briefing document, the paper reported that Britain could be harbouring thousands of extremists who may be linked to Thursday's bombings that killed 49 people and injured 700 more.

"Extremists are known to target schools and colleges where young people may be very inquisitive but less challenging and more susceptible to extremist reason/arguments," the memo says, according to the newspaper.

posted by dhoyt at 4:32 PM on July 16, 2005

"...Britain could be harboring thousands of extremists ..."

After years of investigation, the FBI has yet to find one living AlQaida operative in the US. Not one.

"Extremists are known to target schools and colleges where young people may be very inquisitive but less challenging and more susceptible to extremist reason/arguments..."

So they have this information because they have arrested someone or is coming from the same place the chatter does?
posted by 517 at 4:56 PM on July 16, 2005

I'm not saying there is no AlQaida, I'm saying that AlQaida is much more on the order a handful of guys rather than the master network they are made out to be.

I'd also like to point out that the prediction/prevention rate of the intelligence organizations doesn't even fall about random guessing, but they know who are members of AlQaida and what they are doing in places that don't matter?

The truth is they have no clue what is going on.
posted by 517 at 5:10 PM on July 16, 2005

I would be somewhat surprised to learn that no one in the US shadow government has started a false terrorist operation already.
posted by eustatic at 5:44 PM on July 16, 2005

"Strauss argued that contemporary liberalism was the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, as practiced in the advanced nations of the Western world in the 20th century. He believed that contemporary liberalism contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to the nihilism that he saw as permeating contemporary American society. As Strauss saw it, "good politicians" need to reassert the absolute moral values that unite society and this would overcome the moral relativism that liberalism had created. To do so, they needed to propagate myths necessary to give ordinary people meaning and purpose as to ensure a stable society. Modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, and Strauss wanted government to take a more active role in promoting morality. Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical in Strauss's view because the populace needs to be led; they need strong rulers to tell them what is good for them."
posted by stenseng at 5:56 PM on July 16, 2005

Yes, dehoyt, you are right, but what do you think about Yoo's proposal? And since you seem willing to believe a statement like "...Britain could be harbouring thousands of extremists..." what kind of analysis is in order to ensure that the civil society of the US and Britain is not torn asunder by politicians who are incapable of doubting their own efficacy --like Bush and Blair -- and who are therefore unable to envision a solution to these problems that involves people "other" (read: different) than themselves.

If the goal is to undermine al Qaeda recruitment, why not start addressing the needs and fears of the moderate and even extreme muslims who are at risk of being persuaded to join al Qaeda?? Start with the geographic area with the highest concentration of attacks, Baghdad, clearly a recruiting hotspot.

Hospitals in Baghdad are still languishing without adequate supplies and equipment or staff.

Electicity, water, and oil are not flowing in Iraq as promised.

Clearly history has shown that the resolution of major global conflicts of this type require the involvement of many other people in a negotiation process. How is it then that Yoo's proposal for a False Terrorist Organization will result in a resolution?? How would it be effective at all?

You can dismiss Afganistan, but it is a well established fact that bin Laden and many many others learned their trade and armed themselves using US money and technology. We have tried to have "false" terrorist organizations, ask Negroponte. They work, but not to prevent war. They are covert killing machines. But based on Yoo's comment that the Presidential ban on assasination should be repealed if the War on Terrorism cannot be properly and legally justified as a war, it appears that he knows this and sees it as an advantageous if inevitable consequence of his proposal. One way or the other Yoo wants to enshrine the ability to kill in unimpeachable legalese.

Some of his proposed changes:

Amend law requiring President of US to ask Congress for permission to go to war.

Amend Constitution to allow Fed gov to create and support religious groups in the fight against terrorism.

Repeal Presidential ban on assasinations.

Is there any question that these changes would destroy our society as we know it -- not to mention the dire consequences for other people??

That Yoo acknowledges the diffuse nature of networks and yet believes that this is a singular problem that can be defeated and conquered militarily is utterly dumbfounding. His logic does not make any strategic sense.

Everyone from the CIA, Porter Goss on down, admits to knowing little about the language and culture of the people they claim to be fighting. Isn't that the number one problem?

Instead of ahistorically attributing terrorism to extremism, shouldn't we be looking at ways of understanding it's relatively short history. At the very least we owe it to ourselves to study up on the bin Laden family. And then maybe we will be able to catch Jessie James once and for all.
posted by derangedlarid at 6:01 PM on July 16, 2005

Don't be surprised to see Woo appointed to the Supreme Court next week. He's a dark, dark, horse to be sure, but Bush did say he might be considering other than judges, and that certainly does not include Larry Tribe.
posted by caddis at 6:01 PM on July 16, 2005

derangedlarid writes "Repeal Presidential ban on assasinations."

I'm not sure how anyone can still seriously claim that this ban is in effect... not after the Pentagon openly and repeatedly tried to assassinate Saddam in 2003 (calling it 'decapitation').
posted by clevershark at 6:08 PM on July 16, 2005

The false terrorist organization could be called: Asal Dalla.*

* Honey Pot

posted by Dunvegan at 6:40 PM on July 16, 2005

Agreed, clevershark, it seems almost moot, but I think Yoo wants a change in policy so that it would be easier and more importantly legal. When I read it I laughed thinking of the botched attempts we have made in the past. Here's a list of US assassination plots, incomplete no doubt. Our success rate is not good.
posted by derangedlarid at 6:42 PM on July 16, 2005

this is totally begging the question, but how do we know there isn't a false terrorist organization? dude, if we as the general public are speculating this, i'm sure the real intelligence operatives, people who actually thing these things for a living, have thought about this long ago. this is stupid.
posted by Tlahtolli at 6:51 PM on July 16, 2005

Legality, the law. The constitutional framework of the United States is what is at stake. No doubt it is secretly being tried, but Yoo is proposing that we change how our legal system operates to conform with this new idea of his. That is what is new and untried.
posted by derangedlarid at 7:14 PM on July 16, 2005

but how do we know there isn't a false terrorist organization?

Wasn't there an militia idiot in Oregon that got wrapped up in some kind of FBI terror sting thing a year or two ago?

Wasn't Hamas supported in its early days by the Israelis as a counterweight to the PLO?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:27 PM on July 16, 2005

Harry Morgan: the secret worldwide war the US has been actively pursuing for years now, with a secret army, SOCOM, the Special Operations Command, has taken what in Vietnam was called "The Phoenix Program" to a new level.

Phoenix grabbed Viet Cong infiltrators in SVN government and society, extracted what information it could from them quickly, then immediately acted on that information received. They tortured and killed hundreds of spies, saboteurs, traitors and killers, and smashed the VC operations in the urban South.

They were extraordinarily effective. But their methods unnerved those who just could not grasp the situation, who thought that by calling a war a police action they could make it so--that the VC should have been arrested and criminally tried, despite their horrific acts.

Well, today SOCOM, a collective of elite soldiers, CIA, and any other personnel who are needed, are and have been engaged in astounding acts against terror organizations around the world. Thwarting dozens or hundreds of terrorist acts, killing and yes, even arranging the arrest of many terrorists, they do what is necessary without the normal constraints visited on US soldiers.

At last count, over 200 of them have been killed in the course of their duties. 200 Rambos who did not go easily into that night. Only heaven knows how many thousands or tens of thousands they have taken with them.

Nancy Pelosi complained that Iraq and Afghanistan have become "magnets for terrorists". In her naivete, she thinks that this is a bad thing. SOCOM, on the other hand, has probably been instrumental in arranging the departure and arrival of vast numbers of would-be killers to these death trap countries. Guaranteed that they would walk into the valley of death, without a chance in hell to survive, lost in some unmarked grave in the middle of the desert.

In doing this, they take the small percentage of those individuals who are not only filled with hate, but willing to do something about it, from where they live, far beyond the reach of the US military, and send them to their destruction. In doing so, they purge dozens of countries of that murderous few who can cause so much death, destruction, chaos and hate. They cull the herd.

Dozens of countries where soldiers will not have to eventually go to kill these killers, given the gift of a generation of peace instead of sectarian civil war and descent into fanatical Taliban-like rule.

So to answer your question: every trick in the book is a tool for SOCOM. If they set up a fake terrorist organization, if they even set up a fake charity that supposedly funnels money to terrorists, web sites that proclaim jihad in forums, send agents provacateur to mosques--trolling for terrorist facilitators, all are legitimate means.

It is highly unlikely that their intended victims will ever stand trial, anywhere, except in hell.
posted by kablam at 8:50 PM on July 16, 2005

I was going to reply snarkily, but I think that this guy has an interesting idea.
Now, the precedent that I would seek to remember is domestic; in the '50s through '70s, there was an efficient network of terrorism that acted against minorities and their supporters in the South, and part of what brought it down was rampant infilitration and competing front groups. What I'm refering to is the KKK's defanging of the KKK and white supremacist groups.
The white, uptight FBI were the perfect infiltrators, and aside from aberations like the Oklahoma City Bombings (which had a tenuous connection to white supremacist militias), the ability of the KKK to act has been crippled in America.
Now, I think Yoo has an interesting idea, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the premises that he has to embrace to get there. Infiltration of the KKK didn't require acting like we were at war, and I think it's only a function of Al Qaida representing so thoroughly an "other" to the general public that encourages the view of this as a war, not a criminal action.

On Preview: Jesus, Kablam, life isn't a movie. Stop inventing one. Further, if defeating the VC required that we act like debased animals, perhaps that should have been a tip-off that we shouldn't have fucking been there?
posted by klangklangston at 8:59 PM on July 16, 2005

I'm with eustatic et al. ... I can't imagine that there aren't a number of fake terrorist recruiters in the world already, with various different agendas. It's not exactly an unusual tactic, to set up a sting or a front. It's used against everything from underage drinking and smoking to drug trafficking, prostitution, gambling, and so on ... and that's just domestically in the US.

And if one were to set something up, the last thing one would want to do is write a newspaper column about it. Yoo sounds like just another chickenhawk blatherer. If al-Qaeda is the über-leet organization we're told it is, then they already have tried-and-true protocols in place to be resistant to the kind of infiltration he proposes.
posted by hattifattener at 9:37 PM on July 16, 2005

Kablam, that's not S.O.C.O.M., that's Rainbow Six. Awesome game, man.
So he wants to start a fake terrorist organization, funded by the United States government? Why does this sound like something from the Illuminatus trilogy?
posted by 235w103 at 9:45 PM on July 16, 2005

From the Wikipedia entry on the Phoenix Program:

"I never knew in the course of all those operations any detainee to live through his interrogation. They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or things like thrown out of helicopters."..."It [Phoenix] became a sterile depersonalized murder program... Equal to Nazi atrocities, the horrors of "Phoenix" must be studied to be believed." -Former "Phoenix" officer Bart Osborne, testifying before Congress in 1971

If this program is the prototype for our current activites, we clearly aren't learning from history.
posted by mullingitover at 10:21 PM on July 16, 2005

So what happens when a US terrorist front "admit's responsibility" to a terror attack on an ally?
And, it's found out that they did more than just claim responsibility, but actively produced it in order to get closer to the "real bad guys"
It's the same arguement as when we use known rat-fink scoundrels to get closer to gang leaders and drug dealers.

Except, to join the club, they might want 'us' to bomb.... Britian, France, Russia...?

Is cohesion of the ruse enough of a justification to allow a few innocent collateral damage cases slide by?
posted by Balisong at 11:06 PM on July 16, 2005

Yoo on video. Mark Danner, Journalism prof at Berkeley, invited Yoo to participate in a debate forum, Human Rights, International Law, and the War on Terrorism.
posted by derangedlarid at 12:07 AM on July 17, 2005

So is choosing a terrorist org kind of like choosing a a-list school? "Hmmm... Harvard or Yale? al-Queda or Tamil Tigers? I wonder which gives the bigger scholarship..."
posted by five fresh fish at 9:11 AM on July 17, 2005

five fresh fish:

I'd imagine that terrorist groups operate like most sectarian groups: a person becomes interested in their propaganda, comes into contact with a member, and is drawn into the organization.

The government's efforts to trap would-be terrorists move it from punishing crime to punishing thoughts - listen to the entire account of Hemant Lakhani on last week's This American Life; the man was talked into selling illegal arms by an FBI asset, was provided the arms by foreign governments in cooperation with the FBI, and is now in jail because he would've provided a shoulder-mounted missile to a terrorist had this not been a massive government conspiracy to catch him.

If the US has a fake terrorist group, I'm sure there are more cases like this: people who do not actually engage in terrorism or related activities but are tricked into faking it by agents of the US government, and jailed for this. It reminds me of a favorite novel of mine.
posted by graymouser at 1:24 PM on July 17, 2005

Yoo is a middling legal thinker with powerful ambitions and scary views about the extent of executive authority. He came to my university for a debate this year -- struck me as slick and not too smart, and this ridiculous LA Times piece confirms that impression. At the debate, I was especially taken aback the way Yoo (an academic!) made appeals to anti-intellectualism at crucial points. Rather directly locking horns with his opponent, it was more like "Well, Jeremy, you egghead, you know a lot more about law than I do, but what I know is TERRORISTS BAD!!!"

As a side note, one common academic response to the Yoo/Bybee memos has been shock at how poorly reasoned they were -- content aside, they read like a piece of 1L legal writing.
posted by footnote at 12:07 PM on July 18, 2005

Perhaps he thinks that fighting fire with fire is the path to getting rid of the/some/all of "the terrorists". It seems to be so short-sighted that perhaps someone may want to drag up the Contras, and how everything went just wonderful right after that.
Perhaps also he has a point in the longer, more reasoned article that he must've written. Unless this is it. I'd follow the links in greater depth, but I'm at work. :/
posted by Zack_Replica at 2:50 PM on July 18, 2005

Jesus Kablam.. You need to stop sniffing at the Tom Clancy gluepot for a minute.
posted by stenseng at 10:55 AM on July 24, 2005