Terrorists' Talk: Why All That Chatter Doesn't Tell Us Much

New York Times ^ | 2/16/2003 | Bruce Berkowitz

[ArcLight]

The nation was on high alert last week because of what officials and security experts said was a surge in intercepted communications — "chatter" — among suspected Qaeda operatives.

Although officials said the intercepts indicated that terrorists might have moved closer to an attack, there was still not enough detail on who, when and where.

This is frustrating as well as terrifying. But once you understand the technology, it is clear why they call it "chatter" and why it is so hard to make sense of.

[ArcLight]

Fascinating stuff...

[Grampa Dave]

I can remember an article from the NY Slimes in the summer of 2001 that claimed the age of terrorism was over thanks to Bill Clinton.

That article had as much reliability as this one.

[boomop1]

The only thing fascinating about the NY Times is that people buy it and believe anything in it.

[aruanan]

Now that they know we respond to "chatter", what's to prevent them from initiating periods of chatter just to make the chatter monitors freak out and go into heightened vigilance mode?

[The Electrician]

The article in question was written by a person who is "a former analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a senior analyst at the RAND Corporation", etc. So, I believe that cavalierly dismissing the article based on the fact that it was published in the New York Times is an unhelpful oversimplification.

Having said that, though, there are other reasons to criticize the article. For example, it focuses on "chatter" as the prime reason for the upgraded Orange alert level of last week, notwithstanding the fact that, as reported in other places such as here, there were significant sources beyond the level of "chatter" that led to that step being taken:

"American officials also said today that the intelligence pointing to an imminent threat went beyond the communications intercepts, although they declined to provide details about what other specific information they had obtained."

[ArcLight]

aruanan, I'd be surprised if they weren't already doing exactly that. I've long assumed that much of the chatter is pumped out there precisely in order to keep us spooked. Then again, I wonder if that's a good idea. It just makes us tighten security. Still, for all their tactical cunning, I've seen no sign that al Qaeda is run by strategic geniuses...