|
Note: The material about domestic surveillance is now on a page of its own. There is no Taliban. The business of politicians is getting re-elected, and business is bad for President Obama and his cronies in congress. Failing domestic policies and two endless wars have White House and Pentagon spin doctors working overtime, especially on Afghanistan and recent "victories" over the Taliban. But the inconvenient truth is that there is no Taliban, and the victories belong to Pakistan. You can't win hearts, minds of radical Islam. We're mired in Afghanistan because successive administrations in Washington have conflated the hayseed Taliban with al Qaeda's cosmopolitans. These organizations have different ethnic compositions and profoundly different goals: The first isa regional actor with local aspirations, and the latter an international force with global ambitions. Instead of exploiting the differences between them, our policies encourage them to cooperate. Sending a Woman for a Man's Work. Our grandparents would have treated as a bad joke the idea that mothers of small children could be soldiers and sailors. The idea that some of them would go to war "in a family way" would have been beyond understanding. But one Navy ship became famous as "the Love Boat" when one in 10 members of the crew reported to sick call pregnant. The Tragic Truth of War. Victory has usually been defined throughout the ages as forcing the enemy to accept certain political objectives. "Forcing" usually meant killing, capturing, or wounding men at arms. In today's polite and politically correct society we seem to have forgotten that nasty but eternal truth in the confusing struggle to defeat radical Islamic terrorism. What Do Muslim Nations Think about Terrorists? Both before and after the terrorist attacks on our country in 2001, we have been assured that Islam is a religion of peace, that most Muslims don't identify with the terrorists, and indeed that most do not wish us ill. This conviction has driven our war on terrorism — we have continued to shower money on Egypt and Jordan... Is It Possible for a Practicing Muslim Soldier to Swear Allegiance to the U.S. Constitution? [Scroll down] It is indisputably clear from these two Shariah passages that it is incumbent on every practicing Muslim, which indicates Shariah-compliance, to pledge his or her total allegiance to Islam. Furthermore, it is mandatory for anyone claiming to be Muslim to actively oppose by force of arms U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Privacy. Remember all the caterwauling by the Democrats and then Senator Obama about the Bush Administration's deliberate attempt to pry into the lives of Americans using the war on terror as an excuse. The protection of privacy was the battle cry against the dastardly Republicans in the White House. In a matter of less than 13 months the Obama administration has taken steps that show its true colors and allegiance to the "big brother' philosophy exposed in George Orwell's "1984". U.S. Judge Comes to Rescue of Terrorist, Throws Out Confession. Get ready folks because this is the world of terrorist coddling that Barack Obama is setting up for us from now on. A left-wing, multicultural-loving, half-wit federal judge has sided with those who would kill us all by throwing out most of the evidence as well as the confession of a terrorist ensconced in Guantanamo Bay. "Notional" Security. This administration pays lip service to national security and gives out with a lot of rhetorical notions that makes it notional security instead of national security. The Muslim major who was arrested for the murders of American soldiers at Fort Hood had left so many clues to his hatred of this country that all you had to do was count the dots, without even connecting them, to see where he was coming from. Governing class: Elites or idiots? Anti-anti-Islamic radical-ism is growing among Western elites. In the aftermath of the Fort Hood Islamist terror attack on our troops by United States Army Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan and the Christmas Day airline Islamist terror attack attempt, it is becoming ever more obvious that there is a widening gap between public common sense and governing class idiocy when it comes to spotting Islamist danger in our midst — and doing something about it. Who was behind the September 2001 anthrax attacks? It seemed to me [in October 2001] that the anthrax attacks were overwhelmingly likely to be the product of al Qaeda or another terrorist organization, quite likely aided by a state actor, and that the FBI by concentrating its investigation on domestic scientists had been barking up the wrong tree. Terror in the Skies Requires Real Action on the Ground. Shortly after the incident on Northwest Flight 253, Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano first insisted that "the system worked" regarding the Christmas Day attempt. This particularly blatant act of defensive self-protection was such an obvious falsehood that Counterterrorism Czar John Brennan has had to go from news show to news show offering a retraction. White House: Justice Dept. made decision to hold Detroit bomber in civilian justice system. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Brennan was asked why the Obama administration did not choose to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant. "He was arrested on U.S. soil," Brennan answered. "The Department of Justice makes that determination about what is the best tool to use." The Constitutional Crisis and the Security Crisis. [Scroll down] First, there is the matter of the ongoing constitutional crisis that, as al-Qaeda's attempted Christmas Day attack amply demonstrates, is now endangering our nation. The Constitution gives the political branches plenary responsibility for the conduct of war. The conduct of war includes the detention, trial, or release of enemy combatants. The federal courts have no role except the one they have usurped. This brazen power grab flouts the bedrock constitutional separation of powers, and the political branches do not have to abide it. Indeed, as national defense is their chief responsibility, it is their duty not to abide it. DHS Decided It's OK to Allow Some Terrorists to Board Planes. Even if Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab had never boarded that Christmas flight from Amsterdam to Detroit wearing explosive underpants, a passage on page 17 of a report published in July by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security would still be eye-popping. "Not all known or reasonably suspected terrorists are prohibited from boarding an aircraft, or are subject to additional security screening prior to boarding an aircraft," says the passage. Why shouldn't we waterboard Abdulmutallab? Now we have a real, live Al Qaeda operative — fresh from a foiled terrorist plot hatched in a country fast becoming the center point in the war on terror — in our hands. Surely we ought to be using the tools at our disposal to find out the who, what, where, when and how of the next potential mass casualty attack. Obama's Second Major Terror Failure in Two Months. After a known Islamic radical psychiatrist shot more than forty unarmed American military personnel at Forth Hood last month, this is the second easily preventable failure of the Obama administration to protect the country against domestic terrorism. Obama has let down our guard, and al-Qaida's got his number. See also Obama is weakening America's defenses. Ditch the 'smoking gun' standard, Mr. President. Does Mr. Obama need another 9/11 to wake up from his Hawaiian dream world? ... The administration has been taking an extremely lackadaisical approach to securing our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Flying Lessons. Several hundred men, women, and children will live to see the New Year thanks to good luck: The terrorist on Delta/Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit was inadequately trained, and one passenger turned out to be remarkably quick-thinking and courageous. But a multi-billion dollar government security system failed. The question now: Is the Obama administration smart enough to go to school on this attack? Another Reason To Keep Gitmo Open. Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the attempted destruction of Flight 253 were released from Guantanamo two years ago. The case for indefinite detention has been made once again, and not in Illinois. How Right Was Cheney? Very. Liberals have sneered that Cheney was exaggerating or misreading the Obami's approach to terrorism. But at each turn — the plan to close Guantanamo and send detainees to places like Yemen, the release of the enhanced interrogation memos (but only selectively), and the decisions to cease enhanced interrogation techniques and give KSM a civilian trial — the Obama team has in effect proved Cheney's point. Hoekstra doubles down on criticism of Obama on airline attack. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said Sunday that it is fair to blame the Obama administration for the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit on Christmas Day. Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Select Intelligence Committee said that the administration has not taken the threat of terrorist threats on the U.S. seriously. Surrender on a Timetable. Not long after taking power he announced that he was determined to see an end to the Afghan War. The number of troops serving in Afghanistan was increased to 108,000 and given a 1 year deadline. The allied regime in Afghanistan received a simple and direct message, that after a year they could no longer count on military support. It was time for the Afghan government to figure out how to make it on its own. It was bluntly suggested that they forget social reforms and seek to cut a deal with the Mujahadeen. The year though was 1985, not 2009. You don't know what you got 'til it's gone. When folks tell me we need to leave the war behind so we can focus on domestic needs, I want to shout to them that unless and until we finish this war and so thoroughly rout the enemy that they no longer dare to cross us, we cannot confine our concentration to fixing healthcare, social security, or other myriad social problems. For once we as civilians become so vulnerable that fear becomes a daily part of our lives and our children's lives, we will find it is far too late. Yep, It's Terrorism. Now What? When Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year-old airport shuttle driver from Denver, was arrested by the FBI in September, counterterrorism officials told reporters that Zazi seemed to be the real thing — a would-be terrorist who had trained with Al Qaeda, who was planning attacks on Americans, and who had recruited a cadre of sympathizers. ... It was a few days before [President] Obama even addressed the topic... Murder by Lawfare — How Liberal Lawsuits are Taking American Lives. Not being able to stop a terrorist before he strikes. Not being able to remove Muslims who are engaging in threatening behavior on a plane. Not able to take action against a terrorist plot for fear that the terrorists will be allowed to walk free. That is what the domestic version of the War on Terror looks like today. Those are the wages of Lawfare, the legal campaign on behalf of terrorists waged by well known liberal legal advocacy groups... THEY are at war with US, but... Are We At War or Aren't We? By banning any talk of a "War on Terror" and bringing through a civilian criminal trial for the mastermind of 9/11, Obama and his fellow liberals are doing their best to whitewash Al Queda as nothing more than common criminals. This refusal to accept that Al Queda has made war on America, rather than carried out a few lone attacks which we should all get over with, has been at the heart of the Clinton Administration's misguided approach to terrorism, as well as the ongoing liberal furor over Bush treating Al Queda as an enemy, rather than a bunch of hoodlums who need to be put on the usual legal treadmill to nowhere. Barbecue The Taliban. It all boils down to this simple question: Do you want to win the war or not? Barry O, Sen. Kerry and others are frittering the days away while the man that knows — General McChrystal — has stated he needs 40,000 more troops to win the war in Afghanistan. And he's also said that if we don't do this smart, hard and fast we will — within a year — be unable to defeat the Taliban. Lessons of Fort Hood. When a military officer participates in a war against his own country, that is high treason, and that is the charge that ought to be brought against Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. But it's not going to happen. Hasan should have been weeded out of the military long ago. There was abundant evidence that his allegiance was not to the United States... Betraying Our Dead. Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died. We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot. We've learned nothing. Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it. Instead of killing terrorists, we free them. Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them. Obama Sets Punt Formation. Under Taliban rule, strict Sharia law was enforced by thuggish "morality police". The Taliban cut off hands and heads, flogged people for dancing, kite flying or listening to music. They oppress and beat their women and kill Jews for sport and Christians just for the [heck] of it. They have vowed to kill other NATO forces in retaliation, the moment we turn our backs and they would surely lop the heads off of any Afghans who had connections to US or NATO forces. 'He will destroy the Democratic party'. [Scroll down] There's this anonymous quote from one observer: "He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war." Who's Responsible for 75 Dead and 310 Injured? Barack Hussein Obama. Determined to keep some form of his arbitrary Iraq troop withdrawal plan intact, just to keep his Code Pinko constituents back home appeased while he fumbles every political football on earth, Barack Obama left the Iraqi people at the mercy of Islamic terrorists still anxious to kill and this morning's [8/19/2009] headlines read — 75 killed, 310 injured in Baghdad attacks. Abolish the DHS. In a forthcoming book, [Tom] Ridge complains that the weekend before Election Day, Bush administration officials leaned on him to raise the color-coded threat level. Dismayed, Ridge refused the demand, and concluded he needed to resign. "I wondered," Ridge writes, "Is this about security or politics?" That's a question we ought to ask about DHS as a whole. Since its creation in 2003, the department has done little to provide genuine security and much to encourage a pernicious politics of fear. We'd be better off without it. The Real CIA News. Whoever advised people to be skeptical of what they read in the papers must have had in mind this week's coverage of the documents about CIA interrogations. ... The news is that the program was thoughtfully developed, carefully circumscribed, briefed to Congress, and yielded information crucial to disrupting al Qaeda. In other words, it worked — at least until politics got in the way. Do Terrorists Captured on the Battlefield Have Constitutional Rights? At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, some members of the Armed Services Committee took offense at the Obama administration's view that the detainees should have the same legal protections under the Constitution as U.S. citizens. Government may scrap color-coded terror alert. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano Wednesday [7/29/2009] told the Council on Foreign Relations that she is considering scrapping the widely ridiculed, color-coded terror alert system. The Tom Ridge-era relic is being reviewed by a task force — generally the first step in the long, governmental process of killing something. How Hard Do We Want to Fight Terrorism? The criminal justice system is built full of holes on the principle that it is better to weigh the odds toward freeing the guilty, than imprisoning the innocent. But applying that same system to enemy combatants is a blatant misapplication of the purpose for which it was intended. The legal system is intended to clarify the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and then apply a punishment or release the defendant. This entire process has no relevance to terrorists, where our goal should be to extract information from captured terrorists. Instant Justice. We made one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield. The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed. Stop Mirandizing terrorists. Osama bin Laden, you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided. Do you understand these rights? Well, we don't. Not Right: The Obama administration grants Miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan. When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet. Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal — read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote in his memoirs. Miranda Warnings for Terrorists Thank Sen. McCain. I hate to say I told you so, but back when we were having this debate, thanks to Senator McCain's grandstanding on "torture," I warned that his amendment would lead to the legal claim that American agents — including the military — were now required to give Miranda warnings to captured terrorists outside the U.S. Flashback: Obama Said Terrorists Shouldn't Get Miranda Rights. In September 2008, when McCain-Palin pulled ahead of Obama-Biden, Candidate Obama publicly mocked Sarah Palin's suggestion that Obama favored giving captured terrorists Miranda warnings. It happened in Farmington Hills, Michigan. ... And two months after his Inauguration, President Obama reiterated, "Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not." Politicizing 'Torture' Will Backfire on the Left. If liberals truly detest torture, why do so many of them sing the praises of Castro's Cuba, which today incarcerates and tortures hundreds of its citizens for the "crime" of promoting basic human rights? Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture. [#1] Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded. On the other hand... Five Things You Should Know About the 'Torture' Memos. [#5] The memos place Attorney General Holder, who argued for their release, in an untenable situation. He has stated under oath, at his confirmation hearings, that waterboarding is torture and torture is prohibited by numerous federal laws. He has also taken an oath to uphold all federal laws, not just those that are politically expedient from time to time. Security vs. liberty. Putting furry caterpillars in terrorists' cells doesn't rank very high on the list of history's greatest war crimes. The idea that use of waterboarding increases the vulnerability of our troops who might be captured is even sillier. The kind of people who ram airliners into skyscrapers to kill thousands of innocent civilians and who behead hostages on video don't need additional excuses to torture infidels. They do it for fun. Miranda rule may hamper detainee trials. Accused in a 2002 grenade blast that wounded two U.S. soldiers near an Afghan market, Mohammed Jawad was sent as a youth to Guantanamo Bay. Now, under orders by President Obama, he could one day be among detainees whose fate is finally decided by a U.S. court. But in a potential problem, Pentagon officials note that most of the evidence against Jawad comes from his own admissions. Yes, we need censorship. During wartime, there is a natural tension between civil liberties and national security. Security must take precedence. Who Made the World Safer — Bush or Clinton? While no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, we know that Saddam had used them in his long war against Iran and against his own Kurdish subjects. What ever happened to the other WMDs? No one knows for sure, I happen to subscribe to the theory that the fuel for the Syrian bomb factory laid waste by the Israeli Airforce almost two years ago came from Iraq. Shoe-Fly Liberty. President Bush's thanks for ousting Saddam Hussein is to have a pair of shoes thrown at him. If Arabs are so ungrateful for our sacrifices in ridding them of tyranny, should we even bother? Asia's Islamism engine. Following the terror massacres in Mumbai, Pakistan may now be the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism, beyond even Iran. Yet it has never been listed by the US State Department as a state sponsor ofterrorism. In 1998, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the State Department's counter-terrorism co-ordinator recommended listing Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. Then [Clinton's] secretary of state Madeleine Albright decided against it, saying it would destroy US influence in Islamabad. And that has been the dilemma of Western policy towards Pakistan ever since. History Will Judge. For the past 150 years, most American war presidents — most notably Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt — have entered (or reentered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George W. Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue. So Much for Lists. One thing we now know for certain: the American list of state sponsors of terrorism has no moral authority. It is merely a tool with which to pressure countries into accepting deals with the U.S. Case in point: North Korea is no less "sponsor of terrorism" today than it was two days ago. Still, the US has decided it will be removed from the list. No More Jihadists. The Associated Press is reporting that the U.S. government is moving to kill off jihadists, Islamo-fascists, and mujahedeen. Not the people: the words. Reports from the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center recommend discontinuing the use of such terms, because, as the AP report says, "Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates." … If we eschew these words, what how are we supposed to refer to our enemies? Flying Blind in the War on Terror: Imagine that following the bombing of Peal Harbor in December 1941, that FDR had prohibiting the use of the terms "Nazi" or "Japanese Imperialism" due to pressure brought to bear by German and Japanese-American lobbying groups. Or at the height of the Cold War that the US government had determined to ban the use of "Soviet" or "communism" for fear of offending the sensibilities of Russian-Americans or European socialists. Yet that is precisely what has happened following the revelation last week by the Associated Press that the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security has issued guidelines banning the use of "jihad", "mujahedeen" and other Islamic terminology with reference to Islamic terrorism. This move lays bare the ideological prison house of political correctness in which our top policymaker's reside. SOFA Leaves US Handicapped. Under SOFA, the Iraqis are now boss, not good for us. We put up the lives and the money, and they get the control. This is unprecedented. We have freed the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, and have just about stabilized and secured the fabric of Iraqi society. We then capitulated to Iraqi political and operating leadership. Contrasting Liberty and Tyranny. Can America bring liberty to lands that have never before known it? Free people will always be the mortal enemy of dictators, each endangering the other's existence. Tyranny and terror are blood brothers, born of the same womb and equally evil. We are fools to make nice with evil as some have suggested we do. A Quick Way Forward After Boumediene: The war on terror is not like other wars. No war has a determinate end, but this one does not have a foreseeable ending scenario. With radical Islam, there will be no treaty, no terms of surrender, no conquering enemy territory. Instead, there is only vigilance until the enemy's capacity to project power is quelled. Because of that, strict application of the laws of war — which permit indefinite detention until war's end — strikes our influential legal elites as unduly onerous. Can Congress Give Military Orders To The Commander-in-Chief? For the third time since becoming the majority in Congress in January 2007, the Democrats have attempted to order the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed forces, George W. Bush, to bring the U.S. military forces home from Iraq. For months, Congress has been debating whether or not that it a good idea or a bad idea. However, whether it is a good idea or a bad idea is beside the point. Freed to kill again. Yes, you could argue, were you so inclined, that Benazir Bhutto might well be alive today if only Washington had not leaned on her to return to Pakistan for the sake of a U.S.-brokered political deal that was perhaps not in her personal best interest. More to the point, you could argue that Benazir Bhutto might well be alive today if only Abdullah Mehsud had not been let loose from Guantanamo, where he plainly belonged, regardless of what the bleaters and hand-wringers thought about that. Every War Is a Choice. Claims that the Iraq War was a reckless "war of choice" — rather than a prudent war of "necessity" — are a standard element of the anti-Bush narrative. The latest critic to make this claim is former White House spokesman Scott McClellan. But a close look at American history shows that this distinction makes little sense. All wars are wars of choice, because it is almost always possible not to fight. The real question is whether the price of peace outweighs the costs of war. None Dare Call It 'Appeasement'. When Obama compared Hillary Clinton's threats against Iran to President Bush's threatening "bluster" and "cowboy diplomacy," no one batted an eye. But when Mr. Bush, in addressing Israel's Knesset, compared those who want to negotiate with today's terrorists and tyrants to an American senator in 1939 who lamented that Hitler's march into Poland might have been avoided "if only I could have talked to Hitler," Obama, other Democrats and the mainstream media went ballistic. Questions for the Pentagon: In the sorry tradition of shooting the messenger, the Pentagon is cashiering its top expert on Islamist doctrine, Stephen Coughlin. Some members of Congress are now contemplating hearings to ask why. Along with drawing attention to Coughlin's research, now circulating on the Internet, the growing controversy has thrown a spotlight on Coughlin's alleged nemesis at the Pentagon, a top aide named Hesham Islam — whose tale deserves closer attention. Islamofascism. [Scroll down] That's the tie-salesman approach to war-naming. ("You like this one? How about this one? Or this?") This was not typical, ringing, forthright Bush oratory; rather, it was as if the president had taken the contribution of the speechwriters Gerson and David Frum years ago and fused Saddam's Iraq, the mullahs' Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea into an "axis of whatever." Profiles in Cowardice. On Tuesday [2/12/2008], we got a double-winner. First, the senate voted to approve an overhaul of intelligence law which, though flawed, provides authority for American intelligence agencies to continue monitoring the savages trying to kill us. Second, we got inescapable confirmation that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two contenders to be the Democrats' nominee, are not fit to be president of the United States. Fired for the Truth. Bill Gertz, Washington Times national security columnist, reports (1/4/08) that the Pentagon has fired Stephen Coughlin, its most knowledgeable specialist on Islamic Law, and jihad terrorism. As Gertz observed aptly, the Pentagon thus ended the career of its most effective analyst attempting to prepare the military to wage ideological war against jihadism. Iraq Is a Mess. But Germany Was, Too. Rebuilding a nation is possible. But even in the best of circumstances, it takes effort, time, patience and pragmatism. As 1945 confirms, liberation from a dictator in itself offers no easy path to peace or democracy. Battlefield victory is the easy bit. Building peace is a constant struggle — and it's a matter of years, not weeks. Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.. The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea's legal authority. … Democrats say [Michael] Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the [National Applications Office], whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators could review the office's operating procedures and safeguards. Opposing viewpoint... Suspicious Eyes: It's impossible to know whether the [National Applications Office] will ever assist in foiling a terrorist plot. But it would be a shame — and a needless danger — if this ready resource weren't marshaled. Close Enough to Shoot. [A game of "chicken"] of international proportion occurred on January 6 involving three US Navy ships and Iranian "hoodlums" aboard five fast inshore attack craft belonging to the Islamic Republican Guard Corps (IRGC). Fortunately for the Iranians, there were no fatalities, but their aggressive and confrontational conduct could well have triggered a swift and devastating attack by the US ships making a split-second decision whether a perceived imminent threat exists to their safety. Iran 1, USA 0 — Naval Error in the Gulf. Early Sunday morning [1/6/2008], the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future. Speedboat Bluff in the Persian Gulf. Under the mullah-led thieves' regime, Iran has become an explosive political mix of ethnic, economic and ideological fragments, a mosaic powder keg. … The Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 Islamic Revolution failed, then fossilized, leaving a corrupt junta of robed kleptocrats who use the dictator's classic tools of murder, terror and economic favoritism to control an impoverished, splintered and increasingly restless populace. The Quixotic Quest of President Bush. Where is the coherence in this "peace process? How does it advance our strategy in what is properly called World War Four? Harming democratic Israel and an ostensibly stable and relatively pro-western Jordan is not policy. It harms those nations irreparably, paving the way for Arab massacres and weakens bulwarks of defense against growing militant Islam. It makes all the tough talk about "the war on terror" more like tilting swords at windmills than real policy. Broken Windows. President Bush calls Iran a "threat to peace" and promises there "will be serious consequences if they attack our ships." If they attack? Whatever happened to the military doctrine of pre-emption? ... After 9/11, President Bush solemnly vowed not to wait until we were attacked again. The doctrine of pre-emption was launched and Operation Iraqi Freedom was the first fruit of that doctrine. It was the wise and prudent thing to do. So why with Iran are we waiting to be attacked again? We should be well past the warning and advice stage. Neither should we sit and wait for Iran to develop a nuke. But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron? Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq. Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq? CYA Security: Since 9/11, we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars defending ourselves from terrorist attacks. Stories about the ineffectiveness of many of these security measures are common, but less so are discussions of why they are so ineffective. In short: much of our country's counterterrorism security spending is not designed to protect us from the terrorists, but instead to protect our public officials from criticism when another attack occurs. Lawyers Versus the Troops. We are in but the early stages of the war against Islamist terror; it is not too late to get moving. If the authority for such an operation is indeed lacking, Congress or the president could move to rectify the situation by legislation or executive order — and they owe it to our GIs to do it, like, yesterday. Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq: According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don't think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. … When we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. In the Name of Patriotism: It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous, undeclared, no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security — and for that matter may even damage our security — is hardly a way to "patriotically" support the troops. No more GWOT, House committee decrees. The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee's Democratic leadership doesn't like the phrase. Is the War on Terror Over? An influential book making the rounds — "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them" — argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly exaggerated. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror — not the jihadists themselves. Why Iraq Is Crumbling: In retrospect, I think we made several serious mistakes — not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 — that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture. … The problem is not, as we endlessly argue about, the number of American troops. Or of Iraqi troops. The problem is the allegiance of the Iraqi troops. Some serve the abstraction called Iraq. But many swear fealty to political parties, religious sects or militia leaders. To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran. As early as next week, President Bush is expected to give a major speech announcing a new strategy in Iraq. This is an excellent opportunity for the administration to announce a big strategic change that could dramatically improve America's prospects in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, no one has been discussing the one option that would actually have this effect. Why America Can't Win the War Against Jihad: College-educated, pseudo-humanists of the media have eroded American resolve. A poll just days after 9/11 showed that 76 percent of Americans said they would support military action against Al-Qaeda even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. Today, a majority no longer identifies the war in Iraq as part of the wider War on Terror. Moreover, less than 10 percent supports military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Using Every Tool in the War Against Radical Islam. As those in our government who are obsessed with troop reductions and redeployment continue to argue that Iraq was an illegitimate battlefield from the start (hint: the enemy doesn't think so), radical Islamists headed by al Qaeda are expanding the conflict to battlefields in Somalia, Sudan and Indonesia. Our enemy has not wavered in its dedication to total victory, something we cannot say for ourselves. How the West could be lost: If you want to understand why many people feel the West has a death wish these days, you had only to look at yesterday's international reaction to the execution of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. While paying various degrees of lip service to the fact Saddam was a mass murderer, what really bugged the politicians and bureaucrats? They were incensed that Saddam had been executed instead of sentenced to life in prison. Bush adrift: [President Bush] has left the question of troop levels in Iraq to the generals on the ground. Gen. George W. Casey Jr. told Bush a few months ago that they would wait and see how Iraq looked after Ramadan, which ended in late October. Well, Iraq looked worse. Now the administration seems to want to wait to see the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group or one of its internal reviews of Iraq policy before making any new departures. In the meantime, Iraq looks still worse. As the administration waits, Iraq burns. To the President: Lead! Wasn't it plain enough going in? You don't need a blue-ribbon commission stuffed and dressed with Beltway eminences to tell you how to win a war. That isn't what blue-ribbon commissions are for. … Politics: That's what we are about with the study group. Plain old politics. Vietnam-Like Defeat in Iraq Will Have Far Worse Consequences. I think history shows that the United States and South Vietnam might have prevailed against the North but for the flagging will of the American people and opposition from the media and Congress. For sure, as recent commentary has reminded us, the 1968 Tet offensive was a colossal military defeat for the communists — 58,000 killed in two months — even though it convinced Walter Cronkite and American elites that the war was unwinnable. Insanity. Cash-strapped North Korea's only exports are counterfeit U.S. currency, illicit drugs and rocket/missile technology. Pyongyang's No. 1 customer for these "products" is Tehran. … It requires the willful suspension of disbelief to trust that Iran — awash in petro-dollars — won't try to buy North Korean nukes. Put differently, if you think that the jihad being waged against us is a tough fight now — just wait until Islamic radicals have North Korean nukes. Warriors and The Myth of Peace. The historic reality is that there has never been a long era of "peace," of the absence of conflict, anywhere on earth, in any historic time, that lasted more than a few decades, before large masses of humanity threw another tantrum, or succumbed to another grand mal seizure of violence on a national or multi-national scale. We ignore and forget this immutable truth at our peril. How to win the winnable war? Oil. As creatures of political correctness, we have tied our own hands. And almost literally. The PC rules of engagement imposed on American soldiers have as much to do with the chaotic limbo our troops find themselves in as failed political policies. Closely held, these rules — burdensome constraints, really — have become obvious to everyone, including our foes. Radical Islam, not Bush, is the enemy. Before I mention the possible consequences of leaving Iraq, I'd like to mention an often overlooked result of our pulling out of Vietnam in 1973. Within two years of our leaving Southeast Asia, much of that region had fallen to brutal communist regimes, and several million innocent civilians were slaughtered by the communist Khmer Rouge in the killing fields of Cambodia, as well as hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese killed by their new communist government. The United States, the United Nations and the rest of the world did nothing. However, as bad as this was, it will be small compared to what will likely happen when we withdraw from Iraq with our tails tucked between our legs yet again. It's been five years, so who's our enemy? Five years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, World War II was over, Japan and Germany vanquished. Five years after Sept. 11, we still speculate as to who, or what, our enemy is. We have had a brief fling with "Islamic fascism," a phrase that, in its 20th-century-European political connotations, is misleading about jihad's 1,300-year-old religious roots. But now, in the president's just-released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," we're back to plain vanilla "extremist ideology." We seem to find a generic comfort in being vague. Are Bush's critics right? We are all aware of the dangerous Middle East conditions the United States faces today after five and half years of President Bush's leadership. So let's consider what the world might well look like if, in his remaining two and a half years, he were to follow the recommendations of his critics. Why Americans Oppose the Iraq War. The American people strongly supported the original war on terror, when it was aimed at destroying terrorists and punishing the regimes that harbored and supported them. The American people do not support the current incarnation of the war, which is focused primarily on democratic nation-building in Iraq. These are the people we're fighting for? Iraqis Loot Base After British Leave. Looters ravaged a former British base Friday [8/25/2006], a day after the camp was turned over to Iraqi troops, taking everything from doors and window frames to corrugated roofing and metal pipes, authorities said. The war we are fighting needs a more accurate name. We are no more fighting a "War on Terror" than we fought a "War on Kamikazes" in World War II. Of course we had to stop Kamikaze attacks, the suicide crashing by Japanese pilots of airplanes into American war ships. But we were fighting Japanese fascism and imperialism. The same holds true today. We are fighting Islamic fascism and imperialism (though surely not all Muslims). Head, arm, hand or finger? [The death of Zarqawi] was a welcome victory in a war that is too often fought on one side with bombs, guns and no rules, and on the other with too much diplomacy and too many constraints. Evil understands only defeat and humiliation. The way to win this war is by defeating and humiliating the enemy in such a way it will be a thousand years before they try something like this again. It Didn't Work. Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. Should we remain in Iraq? Let Iraqis decide. President Bush has said that if a democratically elected government of Iraq asked us to leave, we would. I think Bush is sincere, but the truth is that no Iraqi government is going to ask U.S. troops to withdraw anytime soon, because American troops are the only thing holding the country together. The Constitution Limits the President Even as "Commander in Chief". Constitutionally speaking, "war" is a very specific set of legal relations between two or more independent nations. For the most obvious example, in an actual "war" soldiers of one nation may, within certain limits, intentionally kill soldiers of another nation without thereby being guilty of murder. Thus, according to strict constitutional logic, a "war on terror" is an existential impossibility — if only because "terror" is a tactic, not a country; and "terrorists" do not constitute one or more independent nations, but at most are mere bands of private criminals. Henry Hyde is right — again. House International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde, the 81-year-old Illinois Republican, embodies the institutional memory of modern American foreign policy, which is why it mattered a great deal last week when he politely made plain he is not marching in President Bush's global crusade for democracy. How to create conflict: High up on my list of annoyances are references to the United States as a democracy and the suggestion that Iraq should become a democracy. The word "democracy" appears in neither of our founding documents — the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution. Comparing the Threat of North Korea with the Threat of Iraq. Is the Bush administration using a double standard by aggressively reacting to Iraq but seeming to downplay the North Korean threat? The Left criticizes Bush, claiming that his concentration on Saddam Hussein is causing him to ignore the real threat, Kim Jong-il, who is rumored to already have missiles with the capability of striking the United States. Five Fixes for DHS: There are five steps that should have been taken within a year of 9/11 that are still not complete. These steps are fundamental to building the security infrastructure that the nation needs for the long term. The Truth about Torture: Torture is not always impermissible. However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information). Five Minutes Well Spent. Less than five minutes. That's the total amount of time the United States has waterboarded terrorist detainees. How many detainees? Three. Who were these detainees? One was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks" according to the 9/11 Report, and the head of al-Qaeda's "military committee." Tortured Democrats: So now we will have an inquiry into whether the CIA has violated the law by destroying tapes it was under no obligation to make in the first place; concerning an interrogation technique that at the very worst (say most reliable reports) involved making three notorious terrorists think, for a few seconds, that they were drowning. I have severe doubts as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture. But I am certain the unceasing attention it receives and the eagerness of many Democrats to indict the Bush administration damaged America's image more than anything the CIA has done. Pullout rejected 403-3. The House last night [11/18/2005] overwhelmingly voted down a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as Republicans tried to draw a line in the sand after a week's worth of back-and-forth charges over the war. Is Jack Murtha a Coward and a Traitor? Jack Murtha's call for immediate disengagement took him far outside the boundaries of legitimate disagreement. He has never been able to articulate any plausible basis for his position on Iraq. There is a simple reason for that. There isn't one. The Sky Is Not Falling. Senator Clinton and her party of appeasers have no idea how to prosecute a war against Islamic terrorists or properly respond to madmen seeking nuclear weapons. There are, in fact, easy answers to fighting terrorists. You start by killing all the terrorists. You don't arrest them, prosecute them and pay for their lifetime imprisonment in American jails. You kill them. That's the only language the terrorists understand. The cut and run party. True to their heritage in foreign policy, 40 out of 45 Democratic senators voted last week to demand a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. As in every conflict since Vietnam, Democrats are hoping not to succeed but to skedaddle. White House Nonchalance: Expect the Bush administration to continue to make the Middle East the center of American foreign policy. Also expect its strategies to remain basically unchanged. National security 2.0: Three weeks ago, I wrote about George W. Bush's September 2002 National Security Strategy and examined how it has stood up over time. Last week, the White House released an updated version of the National Security Strategy — almost twice as long, and with much more specific material on many issues. How about a roadmap out? A successful end game may be the most important part of war-making. Because of the finality of V-E Day and V-J Day, FDR and Truman were viewed as successful wartime leaders. Because of the sloppy, dishonorable end to Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson is viewed as a failure. Will the current administration heed that lesson? Women in combat (again). Critics of placing women in combat units say the Army is manipulating language in rules governing such placement to achieve a social objective that would substantially and significantly change the way America fights wars and possibly put all soldiers – men and women – at greater risk. Facing Our Madrid. The real target of the increased insurgent attacks — their strategic grand prize — is American public opinion. The real reason for the surge in violence this fall? The U.S. presidential election. Blood for Oil: Someone, finally, has stated the truth to the administration and to the world: Saudi Arabia is our enemy. Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists: It's harder to victimize armed citizens. House of God, House of War. The only way to protect Americans — and, coincidentally, good Iraqis — is to bomb the Najaf mosque into a parking lot, and to announce that any building used for such purposes gets the same treatment. Security Guru Says Profiling Works if Done Right: An aviation security expert says airport profiling of Arabs and Muslims must be done immediately in order to deter future terrorist attacks. Charles Slepian is CEO of the Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center, a group that analyzes safety and security event data in an effort to identify how future incidents can be avoided. PLO Not On List Of U.S. Terrorist Organizations: Despite the recent violence in the Middle East and the rift between the United States government and Yasser Arafat, neither the Palestine Liberation Organization nor the Palestinian Authority, which Arafat has led, are on the list of U.S. terrorist organizations. Patterns of Untruthfulness: U.S. State Department "Patterns of Global Terrorism". It's always been a highly politicized document, reflecting the Washington debate and diplomatic imperatives, but this year it has veered into unreliability and even f alsehood. It's a dangerous document likely to harm the war on terrorism. Should Terrorists Be Tried in Civilian Courts? Terrorists who infiltrate the American homeland are combatants, not criminals, and they are combatants out of uniform who disregard the rules of war, forfeiting the protection of those rules. Fading Shock and Fading Resolve: With the destruction of the Taliban and the dispersing of al-Qaeda's terrorists — and after four months with no major terror attacks — many people are beginning to adjust back to their normal intellectual and political routines. They are relapsing into the complacency and conventional politics that prevailed before September 11. Homeland Security? You're Kidding, Right? Are we more secure? I don't think so. I don't think any nation with the kind of 2,000 mile-long open northern and southern borders, countless flights from overseas, and an indigenous population of three million Muslims can ever expect to be secure. DHS acknowledges its own computer break-ins. The Homeland Security Department, the lead U.S. agency for fighting cyber threats, suffered more than 800 hacker break-ins, virus outbreaks and other computer security problems over two years, senior officials acknowledged to Congress. In one instance, hacker tools for stealing passwords and other files were found on two internal Homeland Security computer systems. House Panel Criticizes Homeland Security. A House panel gave a tongue-lashing to the Department of Homeland Security Wednesday [5/17/2006] before approving a $32.1 billion spending plan for the troubled agency. The Geneva Convention and the Guantanamo Detainees: Breaking with other Cabinet officials this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell urged President Bush to ensure that, in the event of a surprise attack by North Korea, the Office of Homeland Security have full resources and authority to respond to any anti-Korean hate crimes. Mr. Powell was expressing the concerns of our allies and human-rights advocates. Actually his real beef concerns the technical procedure by which the United States concludes that the terrorists held at Guantanamo are not "prisoners of war." Tracking down the enemy within: If we are serious about this war on terrorism, Congress ought not only to declare war, but warn that any terrorist caught in the U.S. on a mission of massacre will go before a military tribunal and be put to death quickly and in secret [as was done in World War II]. Libertarians: Repeal all gun laws: Party calls firearms 'practical solution' to problem of terrorism. No more jury trials for terrorists. War, Nuclear Weapons and "Innocents": America is at war. To win, we must destroy not just individual terrorists like Osama bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan but the power of brutal, authoritarian governments to send out their armies of terrorists against us. Central among these is Iran, but the enemy includes Iraq, Syria, Sudan, the PLO and others. In Crisis, Do Americans Prefer a Republican in White House?: While there is a well-established pattern of the public rallying behind its president in times of crisis, some say Americans breathe a little easier knowing there's a Republican in the White House when the country is under attack. Castro, Bioterrorist in Our Backyard: With all the coverage lately in the U.S. media about bacteriological warfare, why have Americans been kept ignorant about Castro's factories of bacteriological and chemical weapons in Cuba? Undoubtedly, there is a deliberate effort by the U.S. media not to report negative information about Cuba. Why and How to Conquer the Savages: A murderous leader of a foreign government forfeits his right to life, and a murderous government forfeits its right to exist. Declare War: The people who planned and carried out these attacks don't see themselves as "criminals." They see themselves as warriors against the United States, and it would be irresponsible for us not to treat them as such. An American Peace: How to Win the War Against Terrorism: After over twenty years of unpunished terrorist violence against American servicemen and civilians that culminated in a September 11th attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center more destructive than Pearl Harbor, the Bush administration has declared a world war against terrorism. How can America and her allies possibly win such a war? U.S. sent Afghanistan $125 million: The United States has sent nearly $125 million in aid to Afghanistan this year, making Washington the country's largest benefactor for the second straight year. The section about domestic surveillance, normally seen at this point, has been moved to a page of its own. The ACLU Goes Shopping for a Friendly Judge Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional. Back in January of 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the NSA wire tapping program. The ACLU's lawsuit was on behalf of journalists, lawyers, and others who said that the NSA program made it hard to do their jobs. I can't see as how that would be correct; unless they were in contact with terrorists. A judge's ruling as evidence of collapse. Somewhere in Detroit a dimwitted federal judge appointed by the late, lamentable and toothy Jimmy Carter, who made militant Islam what it is today by his feckless and toothless response to the capture of our hostages in Tehran back in 1979, ruled that the highly successful NSA program is unconstitutional. And by doing so she ruled against years of precedent and all too obvious common sense, and is trying to put the kibosh on a program which was most recently used in stopping the 24 folks in custody in Britain. When Bad Decisions Go Good. When is a bad decision good? When it yields unexpectedly good returns. … The plaintiffs in this case … apparently hand-picked a court and a judge that would deliver the desired result. The ACLU and forum shopping in NSA case. Of course the ACLU looked for the forum, and probably even the judge, that gave them the best chance to be gifted with at least a lower court win. Wiretap-case judge has ties to ACLU. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled President Bush's wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a trustee and officer for a Detroit nonprofit group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a plaintiff in the case. Wiretapping Judge May Have Had Conflict of Interest. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government's warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case. The Living Constitution's Double Standard: You do see the irony here, don't you? A coalition of pressure groups — Greenpeace, the ACLU, and a bunch of left-wing professors — are arguing that the Constitution must be immutably inflexible, adamantine in the face of changing times. The fact that al Qaeda is using new technologies the Founders could never have imagined is irrelevant, say the absolutists. … Isn't this just a bit hard to take with a straight face from the ACLU…? Shaky surveillance ruling. If last week's decision in ACLU v. NSA is left standing, America may have to decide to shut down its commercial passenger airline industry or leave passengers totally at the mercy of terrorists armed with guns, knives, and liquid explosives. Judicial impropriety: Judge Anna Diggs Taylor illustrates why Democrats cannot be trusted with political power in time of war. Judge Taylor, who is the chief judge of the federal district court in Detroit, ruled Aug. 17 that it is unconstitutional for the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on telephone conversations between terror suspects abroad and people in the United States. Her ruling was praised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent Democrats. More derogatory information about the ACLU can be found here. Internet data retention is far worse than sifting through phone numbers. Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping. A Democratic Congresswoman is proposing to fast-track a bill or amendment to require essentially permanent retention of users' Internet activity data (until at least one year after the user closes their account). For long-term users, this means effectively permanent retention. Mandated Data Retention: Noble Goals With Evil Outcomes. I believe that in the majority of these cases we're dealing with legislators and others who genuinely believe in their causes, and either don't have the will or background to recognize or understand the horrible collateral damage that their proposals would do. U.S. asks Internet firms to save data. Top law enforcement officials have asked leading Internet companies to keep histories of the activities of Web users for up to two years to assist in criminal investigations of child pornography and terrorism, the Justice Department said Wednesday [5/31/2006]. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller outlined their request to executives from Google, Microsoft, AOL, Comcast, Verizon and others Friday in a private meeting at the Justice Department. Feds Continue Push For Mandated Internet Data Retention. This is a critical topic. The impracticality and cost issues associated with the new DOJ Internet data retention proposals are relatively obvious. It's difficult to even understand who would be required to comply with such demands. Much more information about the government sifting through internet data is on this page. Privacy issues related to the Global War on Terrorism ... or whatever they call it now. Editor's Note: This next section started out as a collection of editorials about America's short-range plans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks. It was a volatile time in American politics, and if you ask me, a number of politicians took advantage of the moment to pass laws like the Patriot Act. You may also be interested in the page about domestic surveillance. Trashing privacy: Thanks to the U.S. Senate's remarkable but well-known lack of backbone, nations such as Albania, Croatia, Uganda and many others now will be able to call up the U.S. Justice Department and find out as much as they would like about anything you do with your computer. At this point, you probably wonder why you haven't read about this. Frankly, there's not much reason you would have, unless you read some relatively obscure publications that focus mostly on technology issues. Another reason you wouldn't likely have heard of it is, of course, that most major media outlets ignored the issue entirely…. Pentagon creating student database. The Defense Department yesterday [6/22/2005] began working with a private marketing firm to create a database of all U.S. college students as well as high-school students between ages 16 and 18, to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment. Are you 16 to 25? The Pentagon Has Your Number, and More. The Defense Department and a private contractor have been building an extensive database of 30 million 16-to-25-year-olds, combining names with Social Security numbers, grade-point averages, e-mail addresses and phone numbers. The department began building the database three years ago, but military officials filed a notice announcing plans for it only last month. That is apparently a violation of the federal Privacy Act, which requires that government agencies accept public comment before new records systems are created. Total Surveillance Equals Total Tyranny. In the name of fighting terrorism a new kind of government is being implemented in Washington, D.C. We are witnessing the birth of a powerful multi-billion dollar surveillance lobby consisting of an army of special interest groups, Washington lawyers, lobbyists, and high-tech firms with wares to sell. Complexities Of Federal Data Mining: Whether or not the powers of the federal government to mine data make us safer from terrorism is open to serious question. The government has yet to prove its efficacy in fighting terrorism. CIA expands its watchful eye to the US: It will gather intelligence at home to curb terrorism. Critics see era of Big Trenchcoat. Anonymity in America: Does National Security Preclude It? Anonymous speech has proud roots stretching to the origins of America. Gentlemen calling themselves "Publius" wrote the Federalist Papers. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was signed by "An Englishman." Today, computer programs that allow us to encrypt emails — to scramble them such that only the intended "key-holding" recipient can decipher the message — represent perhaps the newest incarnation of the old tradition of speaking both freely and anonymously. NJ Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts on Forums. Too much important opinion, including that leading to the founding of the country, was published anonymously to permit the government to ban anonymous opinion. Even unto this day, anonymous pamphleteering is an honorable activity at the core of the First Amendment. … I would expect that such a statute, were it to be enacted, would be quickly challenged and almost as quickly overturned. Is privacy the next casualty? Sen. Mike DeWine is crusading to hand the FBI new powers to eavesdrop on immigrants and other non-citizens living in America. Cyber-Surveillance in the Wake of 9/11: "Cyber-snooping" has been the subject of heated debate in recent years between the law enforcement community and many privacy advocates who seek to secure their right of free speech and to guard against "unreasonable searches" that new technologies can make easier. The fears of both sides are Who gave your rights away? Many conservatives, liberals and libertarians are protesting the numerous invasions of your liberty that Congress and the Bush administration have imposed during the past two months. The Price of Peace: It's privacy. Surveillance Switcheroo: How the anti-terrorism bill got passed. In the days following September 11, it was easy to feel kinda bad for Attorney General John Ashcroft. He really wanted to catch the terrorists, but he just didn't seem up to the job. Whiz-bang encryption and communication technologies had left the cops in the dust, he said, and unless the country acted fast, things would only get worse. That's compelling stuff, but it turns out to be an almost complete inversion of the truth. Does More Listening by Law Enforcement Make America Safer? "Our nation's time-tested freedoms can be eroded by the overzealous use of electronic surveillance by law enforcement. … Wiretaps can be an important and legitimate tool for law enforcement, but the importance of probable cause and respecting privacy should not be lost." (Not the exact title, but close enough): Report on Federal Court Applications for Orders Authorizing Wiretaps: One fact worth noting is that encryption was encountered in 16 wiretaps that were terminated in 2001. However, in none of the cases involving encryption were law enforcement officers unable to obtain the plain text of the communications that had been intercepted. [PDF file] FBI Seeking to Wiretap the Internet: The Federal Bureau of Investigation is seeking to broaden considerably its ability to tap into Internet traffic in its quest to root out terrorists, going beyond even the new measures afforded in anti-terror legislation recently signed by President Bush, according to lawyers familiar with the FBI's plans. Stewart Baker, an attorney at the Washington D.C.-based Steptoe & Johnson and a former general consul to National Security Agency, said the FBI has plans to change the architecture of the Internet and route traffic through central servers that it would be able to monitor e-mail more easily. Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws: The encryption wars have begun. For nearly a decade, privacy mavens have been worrying that a terrorist attack could prompt Congress to ban communications-scrambling products that frustrate both police wiretaps and U.S. intelligence agencies. Tuesday's catastrophe, which shed more blood on American soil than any event since the Civil War, appears to have started that process. Senate OKs FBI Net Spying: FBI agents soon may be able to spy on Internet users legally without a court order. On Thursday evening, two days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, the Senate approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001," which enhances police wiretap powers and permits monitoring in more situations. Show Me the War: Yes, I expected something different from our nation and its leaders, I expected a war on terrorism, not confiscating crochet hooks from grannies. Actually I expected that the liberal agenda of suspending our constitutional freedoms as Americans would be set aside, at least temporarily, while we fought the terrorists. Now we're calling out the national guard, state by state, where martial law could be imposed at any moment against any individual, citizen or alien. Just what kind of a war is this? Executive power grab on tap at White House?: Attorneys say Bush's post-attack directives could lead to liberty-curbing restrictions. Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How presidents have come to "run the country" by usurping legislative power. Constitutional Rights Should Trump Terrorism Regs: After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Left moved quickly to use it as an excuse to enact draconian federal gun control. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed by showing that no new gun control laws would have been the slightest deterrent to that tragedy. Contrasting Views on Preserving Civil Liberties in the Aftermath of an Attack Former FBI Director: Balance Intelligence Needs With Civil Liberties. Congress has a difficult but important task ahead as it weighs new legislation that would give the Justice Department and FBI new powers to surveil U.S. citizens and foreign visitors, says former FBI Director William S. Sessions. Threats to Privacy Seen in Wake of Attacks: Human and civil rights experts expressed worry Friday [9/14/2001] about the chilling effect Tuesday's terrorist attacks may have on individual liberties. Simon Davies, director of Privacy International and a professor at the London School of Economics, said that "a chill went up the spine of civil liberties groups across the world in the aftermath of this horrific attack." Other related information If you're really concerned about this issue, you should also visit these pages: Privacy Compromised by Big Government. Wiretaps: Mostly having to do with internet and cell phone eavesdropping (where you shouldn't expect much privacy anyway), but also dealing with keystroke logging and other more directly invasive wiretapping techniques. Carnivore: This is a computer program (and from what I've heard, not a very effective one) designed to sift through all the internet traffic at a given point, looking for unusual keywords, encrypted traffic, and generally suspicious stuff. Echelon: A world-wide system of listening posts that can and does listen to every international phone call, and has done so for years. I'm not sure why the domestic spying issue is suddenly so hot. International phone calls have never come with any guarantee of privacy. Other privacy issues, and there are many. Back to The War With No Name Over to Domestic Surveillance Back to the Home page 
|
