Do Terrorists Get Frequent Flyer Miles?

The news is currently dominated by the "Christmas Day Bomber". Missed signs, missed cues, and missed opportunities on behalf of the U.S. Government. It is all very interesting, and frankly sad that we couldn't prevent this man from boarding an airplane after his own father warned the CIA of radical behavior. Outside of the obvious story highlighting our vulnerability, I found the continued fixation on airline terrorism very interesting. Why, in attacks on American civilians, are foreign terrorists so focused on airplanes?
After watching all the intense coverage of this latest terrorist act, I have to admit the underwear bomb is pretty clever, but I can’t help but wonder why a terrorist would put in the extra effort, risking failure, to attack a relatively difficult target. Having a bomb shaped and positioned in an anatomically sensitive area is a pretty sure way to get through airport security, even with a pat down body search. A passenger would be required to strip completely naked to even have a chance of finding this bomb. I have never seen such enthusiasm for a search in airport security (although it may exist for someone who should have been on a terrorist watch list) so I am not surprised it was successful. Anyone can admit (except for John Stewart) this was a creative method, one which fortunately has not been perfected. I am thankful for the concentration on a single target, but why do foreign terrorists employ these extraordinary efforts to attack an airplane? Living in New York City I may have a unique perspective but I see crowds of more than 200 (roughly the number of people on the flight) everyday. There are probably many more than 200 people in the subway I am currently riding in, which required far less than a metal detector to enter, all you need is $2.25. With so many soft targets there must be some x-factor gained by attacking an airplane, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
In other countries the car bomb seems to be the weapon of choice for a terrorist plot, but in America I suppose planes have been iconic foreign terrorist targets for years[1]. My first real image of terrorism comes from watching footage of the hijacking of TWA flight 847 in Lebanon. There was also the more recent rehashing of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, which was brought back to the world stage this year with the release of the "Lockerbie Bomber". Americans are no strangers to airline terror, I was too young to really comprehend what was happening at the time but my very concept of terrorism starts with these images which I viewed years after they happened on the History Channel. These events stayed with me with the unrealistic comfort that they occurred in "another time" in the past. This all, of course, abruptly changed by the real time horrific images on September 11, 2001. A plane to me, and maybe many Americans, are a symbol of terrorism, and that might be why they are an ideal target.
I suppose it is possible that the symbol of terrorism is much stronger than the actual act of terrorism, hence the concentrated focus on airlines. This is an attack on our psyche. If the self proclaimed strongest military in the world can't keep its citizens safe from even a repeat target what hope do any of us have from being safe in our daily lives, when we ride the subway, go to school, to work.
Oddly enough, in the face of all the hysteria I have a strange feeling of indifference. I feel like the odds of stopping a determined terrorist are so low that I would be overwhelmed if I was constantly concerned with it, so I choose not to be. Instead I am personally vigilant and hope others are as well. I will take a page out of the book of the guy who apprehended the latest terrorist suspect as he attempted to set off his bomb. I vow that if someone tries to set off a bomb on the next plane I take I am going to throw down! But I am still going to fly without thinking twice. Is that arrogance or the American way?

Sent from my iPod

---

[1] The U.S. has also had experience with car bombs but it does not seem strongly connected with foreign terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was unfortunately the largest successful car bomb by size and impact, but this was a domestic act of terrorism. I would also be remiss not to also mention the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, which was an act of foreign terrorism, but it does not seem to carry the same scale of impact relative to other more recent terrorist acts.

Add Credit Suisse to the Axis of Evil

I hope everyone has read the articles this week in the Times and WSJ reporting on the half-billion dollar settlement with Credit Suisse for laundering money for Iran. I am truly overwhelmed by this story, and was even more shocked when I read the terms of the settlement. I cannot understand why the U.S. Government has not treated this issue with more severity.

The basic story is that Credit Suisse has settled a case accusing the Bank of purposefully facilitating illegal wire transfers to the U.S. from Iran and other sanctioned countries by disguising the country code in the routing numbers. The case was brought by New York City District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, after a decade-long investigation. The plea levies a hefty fine on the second-largest bank in Switzerland in exchange for admitting fault and promising not to do it again. The only thing more disturbing than the idea of a bank actively circumventing a strict US sanction are the specific clients they had been doing it for: the Times reports that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and the Aerospace Industries Organization were two of the Bank's direct clients. Should it even be considered conjecture to assume this money was for materials related to nuclear weapons?

The biggest shocker about this story is the reaction of the U.S. Government. First, without making any assumptions, the Bank clearly violated economic sanctions that have been in effect for the better part of two decades. These sanctions are our only current resource to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. They are recognized, and may soon be matched by the international community, through the United Nations. How can this Bank even begin to justify ignoring this policy?

Secondly, to add insult to injury, it seems likely the Bank facilitated Iran's ability to purchase nuclear related goods and/or services. Does this Suisse have a shred of moral fiber? I understand this is a private, profit-driven institution, but at what cost? Keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran may actually be the only thing the majority of this world agrees on!

This plea deal is nothing short of lunacy. The U.S. is involved in a simmering conflict with Iran, a country with nuclear ambitions that funds and supports terrorism throughout the world. With sanctions, we are waging a war of economics and Suisse is aiding the enemy. At the very least I think the Treasury should be freezing the Bank's U.S. assets and bar the Bank from any U.S. operation. Credit Suisse clearly has total disregard for U.S. law and interests, and should see real ramifications for its actions. If a bank will do all this for money, I think it sends a pretty clear message when your company is now barred from doing business in the largest economy in the world.

President Obama, Hilary Clinton, you want more effective sanctions? I can't think of a better gift, use it.

As a final point for this story. Where are the FBI, the Treasury, and Homeland Security in all this? How on earth did the little old NYC District Attorney Robert Morgenthau (literally old: he is in his 90s) nail this case down? Is anyone watching these things? Is it really as simple as disguising a routing number? No wonder this has been completely ineffective foreign policy. Someone better be stepping it up soon because Morgenthau is set to retire January first. Who will watch out for money laundering from the "evil doers" once he is gone?

Sent from my iPod