British Intel Shuts Down al-Qaeda Sites

DarkWolf0 writes "I guess it should not be too surprising -- the British Times Online discusses the recent shutdown of multiple websites associated with al-Qaeda. I wonder how easy it would be to associate any particular activity with 'terrorism.'"

Comments

Who and How?

[gbulmash]

TFA doesn't discuss how the sites were shut down: whether this was a DDOS, the government got the hosts to yank them, or if the sites themselves were hacked somehow.

If the government got the hosts to yank them, then the government's hand would be tipped because they'd have to get legal orders which would eventually be released by some leak. But if it's through hacking or DDOS'ing, it raises the question of whether the government really did it (or if public-spirited hackers went vigilante), and if the government did it, where do we draw the line on the illegality of such tactics?

Can a judge issue an order allowing the takedown of foreign sites via hack or DDOS if they are deemed harmful to national security? Can such an order be sealed and kept from the public?

Perhaps the point is moot as no one has surfaced a smoking gun, pointing to British intel. TFA just quotes Israeli sources saying the hand of British intel was detected, but not stating that any direct evidence has been presented to prove this.

I'll be interested in seeing how the story develops. There's a certain visceral satisfaction in seeing advocates of hate and violence silenced, but at the same time it's frightening to think of any government covertly silencing voices of dissent, as that starts a society down a slippery slope of oppression.

I'd be much more willing to believe that the Israelis have a covert and capable corps of hackers than the British. And if these corps, regardless of national origin, were capable of initiating DDOS attacks, I'd be curious as to where/how they got their zombies. It would be sad to think that a source of worms and viruses were government-paid hackers, building bot nets for black ops.

- Greg

Re:Who and How?

[USSJoin]

Frankly, it's much more likely that it was done by MI-5 or MI-6, the domestic or foreign intelligence services, respectively. TFA *does* point out that evidence points to the British government, even though it doesn't disclose methods. The advantage of the MI groups, just like our NSA and CIA (respectively the equivalents) is that they really don't need pesky little things like the "law" on their side. That's why the government set them up; to have a nice little veil of "reasonable deniability."

Re:Who and How?

[DarkWolf0]

More then likely, it was done by MI-5 in my opinion. A good corelation is MI-5 being the FBI, and MI-6 being the CIA. The CIA is not "supposed" to be allowed to operate in the US, thus, they do not have to be burdened with some of the legalities that we do. And of course there is the reasonable deniability, because lots of stuff happen in the background that no public typically wants to see their government doing. Its not surprising that they shut down the sites either, because people are frightened, and at all levels of government and the military they are demanding a response *now* They have to be decisive if the government desires to show the people it can protect them. I wouldnt be surprised to see more things like this in the future. Heck, even France is supposed to be trying to(Or already has) expel 12 militant clerics from their country, so websites going down should hardly raise an eyebrow from a country that was actually hit.

Re:Who and How?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

What they are doing is shutting down a conduit for the organization of groups whose purpose it is to kill civilians, disrupt society, and bring down the current government.

Well, without the "killing civilians" bit, I can think of any number of groups who would love to disrupt our society and bring down our current government. Matter of fact, I'm not sure that a few of them don't have the right idea.

Of course, the government would disagree; natural, really, having an interest in self-preservation. What is the threshold for shutdown, and how do we maintain transparency to ensure that the government isn't abusing the power to shut down non-violent (but strongly critical) sites?

Re:Who and How?

[Zak3056]

It doesn't bother you at all that sites are being shut down with basically ZERO accountability and no meaningful description as to what's getting them shut down?

Quite honestly, no, I don't. While I am opposed, in general, to the general sillieness that has resulted from "The War on Terra" (i.e. PATRIOT act, billions spent on absurd airport security measures, the Iraq war, etc) I do accept that the fight against al-Qaeda is a war, albiet one with rather nebulously defined fronts, and very limited objectives for our side other than "keep them from blowing our shit up."

The websites in question were, from the descriptions in the article, communications systems being used by the bad guys. This makes them legitimate military targets. If, in fact, this story is all smoke and mirrors, the website owners can certainly come forward and attempt to press their freedom of speech and/or the press cases (I'm not a Britton, so I don't know how this sort of thing works over there. Presumably, though, citizens--sorry, subjects--have some sort of recourse when their speech is shat upon by the powers that be.)

Re:Who and How?

[Zak3056]

So if the feds show up at your door tomorrow and haul you away with ZERO accountability (no charge, no attorney, no trial), you're ok with that too? Or are you just totally certain that bad things only ever happen to bad people as long as you wave your flag hard enough?

The post you responded to noted that I'm against the vast majority of what has been done in the wake of 9/11. Anyone in the US swept up as part of an anti-terror operation should most certainly have their right to a fair and speedy trial respected (or to a cout martial, depending on their status and alledged crimes.)

Christ, look at how many mistakes, lies, and abuses have been sent our way in the WoT, and you still happily take their word for it when they say, "It was a bad website run by bad men. Move along, nothing to see here."

Hold on there, sparky--I take anything said by the US (or in this case, british) government with a large grain of salt. However, "they" sure as hell aren't the ones I'm believing here. I'm taking the press report at face value, yes, until information to the contrary appears. Let's look at this rationally:

1. There are websites run by and for al-Qaeda for the purposes of communications and the spread of propaganda. I don't believe we need to debate this point, but feel free to offer opinion otherwise.
2. When identified, we can either use these websites as intelligence gathering tools, or shut them down. In this case, it appears the latter course of action was chosen.

Look, I consider myself to be a rabid supporter of civil liberties, but there's a point when you need to accept that something isn't a civil liberties issue, even though it technically meets the definition of "free speech." To use an analogy, it would be like suggesting that a communications tower set up during ww2 for the purpose of vectoring bombers counted as part of a "free press" or that armed foreign soldiers on US soil had a 2nd amendment right to bear those arms. The idea of either of the above being protected rights is absurd on its face--and as I noted elsewhere in this thread, if a mistake has in fact been made, the site owner can step forward and press his/her free speech/press case to the appropriate court--and I, for one, would strongly support their right to do just that.

Re:Who and How?

[stephanruby]

How about having the offending sites removed from the Wayback Machine?

If you ask nicely, the way back machine and google will remove anything personal of yours that is on their server.

For something like that especially, since it involves the government and their national security, I'll bet that it wouldn't require more than an email from a government official to have both of those organizations take down those materials.

Re:Who and How?

[uprock_x]

There are websites run by and for al-Qaeda for the purposes of communications and the spread of propaganda. I don't believe we need to debate this point, but feel free to offer opinion otherwise.

There is no 'al-Qaeda' as I understand it, it's like closing down warez sites; there is no 'Organization of Warez' run by one mastermind. But there are too sides to the propaganda. I would call 90% of coverage on the WoT in the mainstream media as fairly worthless propaganda, I don't see anyone saying let's close down Fox and the BBC. Of course I'm not saying these alleged aq sites are great sources of unbiased information with good intent, I'm sure they are not, but if propaganda were a crime Slashdot would be locked up with the key thrown away some time ago.

When identified, we can either use these websites as intelligence gathering tools, or shut them down. In this case, it appears the latter course of action was chosen.

Yeah but there is no 'we', you are not participating in the decision. Remember Bliar sees other issues as a slippery slope; notably criticism of the US and Israel. So who will be next ?

I consider myself to be a rabid supporter of civil liberties, but there's a point when you need to accept that something isn't a civil liberties issue

In this case shutting web sites down is an easy gesture to present to a Murdoch zombified population that their government is 'doing something'. But censorship typically creates more problems than it solves and has backfired before with regards terrorism.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Strange

[sploxx]

You will find only the casual websurfer like you and me - and brand them as terrorists. Brilliant.

Is it now illegal to look at such websites? I don't know. But I surely googled 'jihad' etc once.
What did I found? Unreadable arabic websites and some english ones which only enforced my view that these people are really such assholes as you can also see by looking at their actions.

But the fact that you nowadays could 'get flagged' or even get a very nasty visit by looking at such content is silly. More, it makes me both afraid and angry. Terrorists attacking our freedom. Oh yes, it seems that they are very effective now.

Re:Brilliant

[zxnos]

We criticize terrorists for choosing violence over speech to make their point. Then we take away their ability to speak.

their speech is intended not as a civil discussion but as a way to communicated the means and methods for murder of innocents. in the u.s. groups are allowed to say what they want... ...until they start calling for the murder of other people.

i agree with a post above, better to try and trace the communcations and run raids.

Censorship?

[elucido]

Werent we being critical of China for doing the same thing to their internet?

Re:Brilliant

[DarkWolf0]

I believe the problem they had with the websites taken down wasnt because they were afraid of them spreading a hateful message, but more of them becoming virtual control centers, where they could spread out messages to operatives throughout the world with ease, chat boards to discuss upcoming operations, plans freely available for them to use, etc. Of course, it may not have made a huge dent, but you have to start somewhere. The part about recruitment is moot, because I dont know many people that speak Arabic out of the Middle East, and the ones that do live there cant typically afford the Internet ;)

Re:Brilliant

[mpthompson]

With one phone call they could have the world's media at their doorstep.

Very true. As this ABC Nightline story interviewing the mastermind behind last year's Beslan school massacre, even the most shameful butchers of 300 innocent children can spout their hatred and bile in our western media.

What amazes me is that ABC can track this SOB down for an interview, but Russian intelligence can't.

obSMAC

[Repton]

We criticize terrorists for choosing violence over speech to make their point. Then we take away their ability to speak.

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

Re:Strange

[steelfood]

But in the meantime....ignore it at your peril.

Nobody says to sit around and wait to get blown to bits, or get turned into another +1 for the next bodycount.

Vigilance is the best defense. If there's a bag on the floor and nobody seems to be claiming it, say something. If somebody's acting suspicious (like a good friend suddenly gone strange), confront the person. If somebody wants to ram the plan you're riding in into a building (and has a gun) stop that person. Terrorism is not a war against a nation, it's a war against a collective group of people (hence the name, i.e. it inspires terror in the common). Most people do not accept that they are in a battlefield. Most people don't want any part of a war, any part of a fight they do not perceive is theirs. Most people would rather stand by idly and wait for someone else to stop the terrorists than contribute something meaningful. I've seen this with my own two eyes, and when I see it in the people I know, it makes me ashamed. And then, there are those people in denial that they are even at war (i.e. the government's policies that brought about this, it should be the government fighting).

The recent terror-inspired draconian laws were put into place to remove the responsibility from the public. If the terrorists blow something up and kill a bunch of people, it becomes a failure of law enforcement. If those plans were foiled, law enforcement were able to do their job. Well, obviously, if these newfound powers of law enforcement still did nothing to prevent the next attack, then they didn't have enough power. If these powers allowed them to accomplish the task, by all means, keep giving them more power so that they can do an even better job. What needs to happen is the return of power to the hands of the common--the people, whom the government is supposed to serve. And for that to happen, the people must accept the responsibility of defending their life and more importantly, their way of life.

we draw the line on the illegality of such tactics

[sykjoke]

If the Police(Government) do it then it's not a crime, if the plebs do it then it is.

I don't know how you missed the fact that we've hardly been sliding down the slope in the UK since the end of the cival war that gave us the liberties in the first place.

Re:"judge's order...allowing the takedown"?!?!?!

[Skjellifetti]

In the US at least, most of the stuff like right to due process only applies to citizens

No. In the US, due process applies to anyone who is in the US. The Vth Amendment applies to all persons, not just citizens:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Same for the XIVth Amendment which was added in the aftermath of the Civil War:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re:Why I'm against Palestine statehood

[demachina]

That is a really one sided picture of the reality that is Israel and Palestine. You should try to learn about the other side of the story, because there are always two sides in these things and you will have a lot better understanding of reality if you understand both sides. Things are never as black and white as you try to paint them.

For example Haganah and Irgun were for all practical purposes Jewish terrorists organizations. One of Haganah's more active members would end up as Israel's Prime Minister, Menahem Begin. Haganah turned in to the IDF, Israel's Defense Force when they siezed control of Palestine. In one their more famous acts of terrorism they leveled a wing of the King David Hotel with a bomb just like the Palestinians you hate so much will do years later. It helped drive Britain out of Palestine, which in turn allowed Haganah and Irgun to seize control of Palestine and create the state of Israel. So why exactly is it OK that the state of Israel was created on the back of terrorism of Jewish origin but its not OK for the Palestinians to use it to try and get a homeland back.

Another incident you should probably learn about to level your view is the massacre at Deir Yassin. Irgun massacred 100+ residents, many women and children in a Palestinian town that had remained largely neutral in the fighting between Arabs and Jews. The Palestinian didn't just pack up and abandon their homes to the Zionists, and opt willing for life as stateless persons in refugee camps. Incidents like Deir Yassin caused many of them to flee for fear they would be massacred if they stayed in Palestine after Haganah and Irgun started gaining control of the place. Many suspect Deir Yassin was perpetrated precisely to start a Palestinian flight which allowed Jews to seize their homes, farms and business for free and with no further bloodshed. It is a classic ethnic cleansing tactic just like you saw in Yugoslavia in more recent times, or Sudan today.

Though to be fair and balanced (don't you hate that Fox tag line that everyone uses now) there were Palestinians massacring Jews and Jews massacring Palestinians through most of the 20th century as soon as it became obvious Zionists were in the process of trying to buy control of Palestine land followed by waves of Jewish immigration both legal and illegal from 1920 through the late 40's.

"Therefore to accept the legitimacy of a Palestinian state would also mean accepting the legitimacy of the means that they used to achieve it."

So again how come you and most of the rest of the world are willing to accept the legitimacy of Israel when they used the same techniques to create their state?

Re:"judge's order...allowing the takedown"?!?!?!

[NarrMaster]

Your post should be modded up. The prevailing rhetoric among the right wing hate mongers such as Limbaugh that due process only applies to citizens is sickening, and your post makes me slightly less irritated in knowing that some out there know better.