Funny FBI Incompetence Story of the Week

[Mr Manifesto]

Gotta love this:

FBI 'offered money to Hamas' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3170972.stm)

The FBI secretly funnelled thousands of dollars to Palestinian militant group Hamas during the Clinton era in a bid to track terror funds, it has emerged.
But the sting failed when the Americans' key player, Arizona businessman and Muslim convert Harry Ellen, fell out with his handlers, the Associated Press news agency reported.


You see? The Hamas are on the side of the angels- Mr Ellen couldn't bring himself to betray them in the end.
:roll:
Who wants to guess how much this little operation cost?

[WildCat]

Your criticizing the FBI for attempting to infiltrate Hamas and see how they channel their money and whose hands it passes through? You'd be happier if they didn't investigate Hamas? I don't understand your point.

Edited to add that the money involved was small, so as not to allow Hamas to actually fund anything of consequence w/ it.

[Earthborn]

the money involved was small, so as not to allow Hamas to actually fund anything of consequence w/ it.Oh, really? How much does an explosive belt cost these days?Mr Ellen told the court that he had handed over between $3,000 and $5,000... more than that, I assume?

Luckily it seems no Israelis were killed because of this money:Mr Shanab distributed it to Palestinian orphanages and health care facilities.How awfully nice of Mr Shanab! And people wonder why Hamas is so popular...

Another striking quote:Mr Ellen testified that he had heard later of another FBI operative who offered Hamas larger amounts for "terrorist attacks".Let's hope that went to orphanages as well! It's a pity though that now we don't know how much money was given to Hamas.You'd be happier if they didn't investigate Hamas?I would be happier if people acknowlegded that 'infiltration' is a method of investigation that leads to bad results like this. If you sleep with dogs, you are going to get fleas.

I also wonder how the FBI thought they could 'track' the money? Do they assume it will go straight to the suicide bombers without ever getting exchanged?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Earthborn

I also wonder how the FBI thought they could 'track' the money? Do they assume it will go straight to the suicide bombers without ever getting exchanged?


the whole point wasn't to track it directly to the bombers, but to see where the money changed hands. this is pretty standard stuff. money kept in bank accounts is fairly easy to track, you know.

[peptoabysmal]

I'm sure that those humanitarian Hamas folks put the money to good use building homeless shelters or something along those lines. What's the big deal?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Oh, really? How much does an explosive belt cost these days?... more than that, I assume?

Luckily it seems no Israelis were killed because of this money:How awfully nice of Mr Shanab! And people wonder why Hamas is so popular...

Another striking quote:Let's hope that went to orphanages as well! It's a pity though that now we don't know how much money was given to Hamas.I would be happier if people acknowlegded that 'infiltration' is a method of investigation that leads to bad results like this. If you sleep with dogs, you are going to get fleas.

I also wonder how the FBI thought they could 'track' the money? Do they assume it will go straight to the suicide bombers without ever getting exchanged?
?? Yes, it's better not to investigate. Or infiltrate. Just wait until they walk into your office, surrender and confess. Much simpler that way...
Jeez, here I am defending Janet Reno!

[Garrette]

Posted by Earthborn:

How awfully nice of Mr Shanab! And people wonder why Hamas is so popular...

Yes, and druglords in Latin America and Afghanistan take care of their own, too. If giving money to orphanages or charities or whatever is the measure of a group, then surely you love Bill Gates, IBM, the United States government, Pat Robertson, and others like that?


I would be happier if people acknowlegded that 'infiltration' is a method of investigation that leads to bad results like this. If you sleep with dogs, you are going to get fleas.

Infiltration is a method that can lead to big results. It's an investment which has the potential, like any investment, of flopping, and the potential, like any investment, of paying off big.

It is a dirty business to work this kind of thing. The fact that the US pretty much closed down its HUMINT systems beginning in the late 70s has lead to some significant intelligence shortfalls.

Finding and tracking the Taliban and al Qaeda in Peshawar and Pakistan would be much more effective if we had been working on a network there.


I also wonder how the FBI thought they could 'track' the money? Do they assume it will go straight to the suicide bombers without ever getting exchanged?

Is this a legitimate question? Or is it, as it sounds, simply an implication that since you don't know how it can be done then obviously the FBI can't know either and are therefore fools?

My apologies if it is the first and not the second.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Garrette
Yes, and druglords in Latin America and Afghanistan take care of their own, too.And some of them are pretty popular too.If giving money to orphanages or charities or whatever is the measure of a group, then surely you love Bill Gates, IBM, the United States government, Pat Robertson, and others like that?I love that part of them, but I may strongly disagree with other things they do.

And it isn't relevant what I think about Hamas. (I think they are a bunch of very dangerous overzealous terrorists who probably should be locked up someplace where they can't do harm and where they are treated well enough not to make them into martyrs) What is relevant is what Palestinian people think of them. If Hamas is practically the only organization that gives them the means for survival, for being healthy, than one should not be surprized if they become very popular. And it will be very hard to get them on your side unless you give them benefits that are as good or better.It is a dirty business to work this kind of thing.Yes, it is a very dirty business. In order to become accepted among the bad guys, you'll have to become as bad as the bad guys. Can you give an example where this sort of tactics led to a resounding success? I can't.Is this a legitimate question? Or is it, as it sounds, simply an implication that since you don't know how it can be done then obviously the FBI can't know either and are therefore fools?

My apologies if it is the first and not the second.It was a bit of the second, but I would appreciate it if you could answer it as if it was the first. Because I really can't imagine how they could have done it and not run the risk of financing an actual terrorist attack.

[reprise]

If giving money to orphanages or charities or whatever is the measure of a group, then surely you love Bill Gates, IBM, the United States government, Pat Robertson, and others like that?

I might make this my sig. It's one of the best "cutting through the horsecrap" comments I've read around here lately.

[Garrette]

Earthborn

What is relevant is what Palestinian people think of them. If Hamas is practically the only organization that gives them the means for survival, for being healthy, than one should not be surprized if they become very popular. And it will be very hard to get them on your side unless you give them benefits that are as good or better.

Whose side the people are on was not my point; I was addressing your apparent support of them. I am glad you have retracted, mostly from that support.


Earthborn

Yes, it is a very dirty business. In order to become accepted among the bad guys, you'll have to become as bad as the bad guys. Can you give an example where this sort of tactics led to a resounding success? I can't.

Try reading Deep Cover about the drug wars (which, btw, I do not support). Great operational successes when afforded the opportunity to act, and without the need to become one of the bad guys.

I think, though, that you will admit that for the most part, successes will not be publicized, yes?

Off the track a bit, but how about Raoul Wallenberg during WWII?

The Enigma spy?

Kim Philby? (for the other side…)

Frequent new stories about FBI stings of people trying to hire out murders of their spouses.

Google on the cold war and spies.

And for the life of me I can’t remember his name which just embarrasses me to no end, but there was a US spy after WWI who infiltrated the higher ranks of the Soviet Union and ‘lived the life of Riley.’ Sometimes considered the greatest spy ever and I still can’t remember his name dammitall.


Earthborn

I also wonder how the FBI thought they could 'track' the money? Do they assume it will go straight to the suicide bombers without ever getting exchanged?

I imagine they hoped it would NOT go straight to the suicide bombers because that would stop only one bomber and not the source of them. SBs are generally recruited and supported. Finding the recruiter/supporter would be more beneficial and save more lives.

Once the money was put into an account (if it is put in an account at all) then there are laws and mechanisms to track it that way.

If exchanged as cash, then it is a matter of following it physically, or having someone in place who can discover where it has gone and then report it.

The concept is not difficult. The execution is tremendously so.

[Garrette]

Posted by reprise"

I might make this my sig. It's one of the best "cutting through the horsecrap" comments I've read around here lately.

Wow. I'm flattered. Even if you decide against it, eventually, boo hoo...

{Just to clarify because I've learned that my tone does not always come through well: I'm being serious about the flattered part}

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Garrette
I am glad you have retracted, mostly from that support.I never supported them, and never said I did. All I said or implied was that I am not surprised at all that they are popular.Try reading Deep Cover about the drug wars (which, btw, I do not support). Great operational successes when afforded the opportunity to act, and without the need to become one of the bad guys.I don't know much about the US drug wars, but I do know a few things of IRT scandal in the Netherlands. It caused quite a stir when it came to light and it resulted in a parlaimentary investigation. I understand that it is common practice in the War on Drugs though, and the US is even pressuring the Dutch government to allow it again.

In the affair, the police imported tons of Marihuana (yes, contrary to popular misconception, it is illegal!) in order to catch a few big bad guys. But even if it works (it backfired), it is a stupid idea. Such an approach ignores the reason why it is actually done. What is the reason the police fights drugs? It is to prevent drugs from entering the black market. If you start to put stuff on the market yourself to catch a few bad guys, the whole reason it is done in the first place is ruined. The purpose is not to lock up bad guys, but to protect people from their actions.I think, though, that you will admit that for the most part, successes will not be publicized, yes?I wonder how well the failures are reported.I imagine they hoped it would NOT go straight to the suicide bombers because that would stop only one bomber and not the source of them. SBs are generally recruited and supported. Finding the recruiter/supporter would be more beneficial and save more lives.Maybe. But it focuses too much on 'catching the bad guys' and too little on 'preventing the bad acts'. Seems to me like a dangerous game: the money may end up in an orphanage, while the suicide bombers are undisturbed.Once the money was put into an account (if it is put in an account at all) then there are laws and mechanisms to track it that way.Yes, and it is it used to pay for an easily transportable piece of stolen art on the black market, you lose the trail.

And if it ends up in an orphanageto invest in potiental future suicide bomber recruits, you get embarrased. Seems to me that there are some people seriously underestimating the intelligence of the terrorists.If exchanged as cash, then it is a matter of following it physically, or having someone in place who can discover where it has gone and then report it.You mean that it has GPS tracking devices in the bills? It can change a lot of hands before a banknote surfaces again. And the different notes may get spread out very quickly.The concept is not difficult. The execution is tremendously so.That's exactly it! Now imagine how much easier it is to track a piece of semtex: isn't spread among many people, can be sniffed by a trained dog and the person who happens to have it in his possesion is part (or knows someone who is) in the terrorist organization.

[Garrette]

Time is short, so this will be, too.

Earthborn, I will summarize as I see it. Please correct where I am wrong:

1. You don't support Hamas
2. You understand why Hamas is popular

{We are in agreement so far}

You are unhappy with the infiltration of Hamas......why? exactly?

3. You admit that infiltrations can work after all, at least to a point.

4. You don't think they can work in the long run because, well, because you simply can't figure out how the FBI would work their tracking.

{We disagree on #4. I have some experience but no real expertise in this area. I am, however, willing to admit that my ignorance does not imply ignorance on the part of others.}

5. You're real argument now against infiltration isn't so much that it's dirty business but that it's not the proper policy.

{You may be correct on this, but it's a complete change in argument. Law enforcement agencies don't set policy and don't work on reducing the demand for marijuana or whatever. They are not humanitarian agencies. If that's your beef, then I'm bowing out.}