The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Beirut Bank Seen as a Hub of Hezbollah’s Financing,” provides a window into one of the most notorious organizations in the Middle East, finishing a close second behind Al Qaeda.

Hezbollah was originally founded in reaction to Israel’s occupation of Southern Lebanon, but it has morphed into a full-fledged quasi-governmental unit. Its militia is stronger than the Lebanese army, and its social services offer better support than the government as well.

This article, though, provides increased transparency into its operations in criminal enterprises for funding, including participation in drug trafficking in South America. It makes it harder to justify dealing with a group that calls itself the “Party of God,” but is portrayed in this article as “the Gambino family on steroids.”

Hezbollah is also on the verge of being indicted by a United Nations tribunal for the assassination of the Lebanese prime minister in 2005.

The bank involved in the money laundering, a Lebanese Christian organization, was exposed after it failed, and its books were investigated by auditors. The focus on Hezbollah’s financial transactions represents a revived effort by the United States to cut off the sources of funding for terrorist organizations.

With Hezbollah’s support from Iran and Syria diminishing (they have their own problems), this seems like a great tactic to keep up the pressure.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Cash Flow to Terrorists Evades U.S. Efforts,” reveals our attempts to halt financing to terrorists, through pressures on banks and allied Arab governments, to be close to an utter failure. The revelation comes thanks to a review of the trove of documents provided by WikiLeaks through a source in the U.S. government.

Terrorists, the article explains, rely on a wide variety of measures to finance their operations, including the drug trade in Afghanistan, kidnappings for ransom, wealthy individuals in Arab governments — often solicited during pilgrimmages to Mecca or through ostensible charities — and even bank robberies. The cables provided by WikiLeaks describe pushback from Arab governments, even our staunch ally, Saudi Arabia, who characterized American efforts as heavy-handed and sometimes unfounded.

Though some progress has recently occurred in Saudi Arabia, the article describes the government there as almost completely dependent on tips from the C.I.A. And all these revelations come despite a more optimistic picture painted in the press by U.S. government officials. The situation, instead, seems to be largely intractable.

Sometimes, I admit, it seems like our efforts against the terrorist threat amount to builiding walls of sand against the incoming tide. Though we have been fortunate so far in countering a number of planned attacks, one day, unless the dynamic changes in some way, we will be overwhelmed in a terrible and horrific way.

The lead article in today’s New York times, “U.S. Jury Aquits Former Detainee of Most Charges,” represents a poor test case for trying terrorists in civilian court due to its unique circumstances. The jury acquitted Adhmed Ghailani of 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

The case is unique because the operative was held for five years in a C.I.A. “black site,” a secret prison in Europe. Because of this factor, the confessed name of a witness during that time led to a dismissal of his testimony by the judge, a key element in the case.

It is also significant to note that the one charge endorsed by the jury can, in itself, lead to a sentence of 20 years to life in prison. However, because this was one of the first Guantanamo based cases tried in federal court, critics of the process are using it to fan up dissension about the policy.

Even so, and perhaps because of the final verdicts, many, including the judge, are using the decision to show the impartiality of the American justice system. Perhaps nowhere else in the world could a perpetrator come to the “shadow” of the former World Trade Center and receive a similar ruling.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Explosives Found in Parcels Meant for U.S. Delivery,” shows that the U.S. is still vulnerable to the plans of Al Qaeda.

The latest plot, hiding PETN explosive in printer toner cartridges, then sending them by parcel post to synagogues in Chicago, was fortunately foiled, but only after a hint from Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services. The explosives were sent by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a branch of Al Qaeda based in Yemen.

Yemen has been an active source of terror plots lately; the country also served as a base for the Christmas Day bombing plot, and serves as the home base for an influential American-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who has emerged as a charismatic leader, perhaps second in influence only to Osama bin-Laden.

Fortunately, the two packages with the explosive toner were intercepted in Great Britain and Dubai before they could do any harm, but there were also a series of scary possibilities that turned out to be false alarms.

All this terrorist activity comes as the U.S. elections head towards the home stretch, and it is impossible to determine what effect, if any, they might have. I suspect the only real problem will rebound against the Democrats because this time is crucial for them to turn the Republican tide, and all the air time has suddenly been sucked away for an unrelated matter.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Judge Prohibits Key U.S. Witness in Terror Trial,” shows that the United States really is a place where the rule of law reigns supreme. Ahmed Ghailani, accused of blowing up a U.S. embassy in East Africa in 1998, won a ruling from the judge regarding the inadmissibility of testimony from a witnes whose existence was revealed during torture.

Mr. Ghailani spent five years at a dark site, a prison overseas run by the C.I.A., when he provided the name of the person who sold him the TNT for his action. But the judge yesterday ruled that the Fifth Amendment mandated that any evidence derived while he was there was tainted due to violation of his rights.

The ruling immediately called into question President Obama’s policy of trying current Guantanamo detainees in federal court instead of a military tribunal where the rules of evidence are less strict. But Eric Holder retorted that hundreds of terrorism subjects have been convicted in civilian court, and that this was just one ruling by one judge.

The point may be moot in any case. The judge noted that the accused would not go free even if he were acquitted due to his status as an enemy combatant.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Justices Uphold a Ban on Aiding Terror Groups,” describes a new ruling by the Supreme Court banning “material support” to foreign terror organizations designated by the U.S. government. It notes that expert support, even for peaceful purposes, can result in the ability to transfer other resources for more violent actions.

This ruling just makes common sense. There have always been acknowledged limits on free speech rights, the yelling “fire” in a crowded theater the most dramatic example. However, when Congress has ruled that a group engages in terrorism, the bane of the modern age, it makes sense to impose limitations on their support. Groups such as Hamas, for example, operate a broad-based charity organization to gain support, and money, for their more nefarious goals.

Sometimes civil libertarians, theoreticians and philosophers would like to deal with the world the way it should be rather than the world that exists. It would be nice if we could draw all these legal distinctions, but people can die as a result. A common tactic of evil is to masquerade as good, and exposing these organizations for what they truly are, and then cutting them off, is more than common sense. It may be crucial for our survival.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, titled “U.S. Said to Order an Expanded Use of Secret Action,” describes an order issued by General Petraeus in September to expand the use of special operations forces from the Pentagon for operations beyond combat zones into a number of countries in the Middle East region including Iran.

The order seemingly bypasses the C.I.A., traditionally in charge of clandestine activities, despite the attempts by sources in the article to vow cooperation and stating that “there’s enough work to go around.” More significantly, this expansion of Pentagon activities is largely shielded from oversight by the Congress and impacts relations among traditionally friendly countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia.

The directive still seems largely mysterious, and it largely seems to give the Pentagon a free hand to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants. Military sources seem to be cloaking it in the context of 9/11 and the need to combat militants around the globe, but the article reflects on a possible boomerang effect on the safety of U.S. soldiers.

The idea seems to be that spies are not shielded by the Geneva Convention, and if American military forces are blended with spies, their protection will evaporate also. It certainly does not do wonders in combating the image of an American empire promulgated by our adversaries.

This story has legs, and I expect to see follow up articles in the future.

The lead article in this morning’s New York Times, titled “Evidence Mounts for Taliban Role in Car Bomb Plot,” describes increasing links between the terrorist apprehended after he boarded an Emirates flight destined for Dubai and the Pakistani Taliban who claimed responsibility for the attack.

One factor that seems to clinch the connection regards the financiing of the attack. Investigators are currently looking at how the attacker, a naturalized American citizen, was able to purchase the Nissan Pathfinder he used as a car bomb, as well as purchase a ticket to Dubai with $800 in cash. As usual, “follow the money” will prove to be an effective investigatory technique.

Authorities are also scrambling to fix holes in the U.S. security apparatus. The requirement to update the no-fly list every 24 hours nearly let Faisal Shahzad escape, as he was only placed on the list two hours before the flight’ s departure. Other suggested changes would involve increased security checks for those who purchase airline tickets in cash. And Mayor Bloomberg suggested a prohibiton on the sale of fireworks and explosives to those on the terrorist watch list.

The article finally describes the major break in the case, one I didn’t previously understand — how did the police trace a pre-paid cell phone back to the suspect? The response is buried towards the end of the article. A phone number that the terrorist provided when he last entered the United States matched a number he called on the cell phone.

The lead article in this morning’s New York Times, titled “Terrorism Suspect, Charged, Admits to Role in Bomb Plot,” describes the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a 30-year old naturalized U.S. citizen hailing from Pakistan. He admitted his role in leaving a Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square filled with firecrackers, propane tanks and fertilizer as well as prior explosives training by the Pakistani Taliban. He also said he acted alone.

The arrest came quickly just 53 hours after the incident, thanks to some crackerjack work by the F.B.I. This included finding a hidden vehicle identification number, tracing the woman who sold the Pathfinder to the suspect, with no paperwork, and catching the terrorist as he sat on a plane bound for Dubai at JFK airport.

Yes, there were some minor snafus — the suspect should not have been allowed on the plane in the first place, especially since he was put on the no-fly list on Monday afternoon, and the fact that he paid for a $800 ticket with cash should have raised some eyebrows, but one can’t quibble with success. His arrest and admission of complicity were followed by about eight arrests in Pakistan, supposedly of his trainers.

The right wing is making a big deal about reading him his Miranda rights, but reportedly Glenn Beck said he deserved the same as a U.S. citizen. Apparently, Mr. Beck is not a total hypocrite. Of course, John McCain and the usual cast of characters tried to protest, but apparently Mr. Shahzad is still talking, and the F.B.I. knows what it’s doing.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, titled “U.S. Seeks Arrest of Owner of S.U.V. in Bombing Case,” describes continuing developments in the investigation and an increasing likelihood of international terrorism as a contributing factor.

The authorities have continued to try to downplay the seriousness of the event, perhaps out of a wish to avoid public panic, but new facts continue to emerge. The article in today’s Times lists several of them: 1) the vehicle was a 1993 Nissan Pathfinder; 2) the owner was a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan; 3) he just returned from a trip there; 4) the vehicle was bought with cash with no accompanying paperwork.

As a result of these factors, the investigation was turned over to Joint Terrorism Task Force, a federal unit specially formed to react to these cases.

One has to wonder why, with international experience, the man did such a poor job in constructing the bomb. This is similar to the Christmas Day bomber who also seemed to lack any basic knowledge of chemistry. I mean even someone like Timothy McVeigh was able to destroy an entire building.

Perhaps, this is a vulnerability of Al Qaeda we can exploit in some way. They are relying more and more on “lone wolves” who do not have any background in explosives. Perhaps, we can plant some false information on how to make them at key points on the Internet, if we haven’t done so already.