StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

The sequential terror attacks in the UK have alot of the world on edge.  The car bomb attacks, even though unsuccessful, were likely suicide bomb attacks; the Glasgow flaming Cherokee was also likely a suicide mission (one dead, one arrested shouting "allah, allah"). UK has raised its alert to critical.  As of today (6/30), the U.S. is still on elevated.  It also appears pretty clear that the Glasgow Attack Is Seen Tied to London Bombs.

UPDATE 1:  At least according to a report in the Telegraph, Botched London plot leaves ‘gold mine’ of clues, my conclusion that both British attacks were suicide attacks was wrong.  For now, lets accept this alternative conclusion:

It is the first time that so-called vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices have been used in an attack in Britain since the IRA abandoned its terror campaign. The IRA, however, always tested its bombs before embarking on a mission. It appeared the London bombers had been unable to try theirs out, as both failed to explode.

The decision not to use suicide bombers is regarded as noteworthy because it makes the planning of operations far more complex. It may also suggest a shortage of volunteers prepared to die in al-Qaeda’s pursuit of global holy war.

I earlier wrote that the car bomb attacks (gasoline, gas canisters and nails) were possibly a "greeting" to new Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  Today’s Glasgow Airport attack, may also have been as a message to Brown since he is a Scot, although as I mentioned earlier today, Queen Elizabeth is also in Scotland for today’s inauguration of the Scottish Parliament.  But clearly, the Glasgow attack was perpetrated by persons of interest from usually suspect countries (Pakistani population in the UK is 1.3% of the total - there are a total of 1.8 million Muslims in the UK):

Police subdued the driver and a passenger, both described by witnesses as South Asian _ a term used to refer to people from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries in the region. The previous round of terrorist activity in Britain, in July 2005, was largely carried out by local Muslims, raising ethnic tensions in Britain.

Elsewhere in England, they are braced for a weekend of high-profile  events, including a concert to honor the memory of Princess Diana (450 police were supposed to be patroling  the concert), a Gay Pride March; and the Wimbledon tennis tournament.

In the New York area, officials at the airports went on a heightened state of alert and manned vehicle checkpoints. No threats had been made against
the airports.

What’s ahead for the Fourth of July?  Well, as of yesterday, and according to a source there is no credible evidence to suggest that terrorists are planning to target July 4th celebrations.  Also, check out Chertoff’s statement following the Glasgow attack.  So what do we face?

OPINIONS
We now face what I see as a serious shift in tactics of the Global Terrorists.  We may also be seeing a dumbing down of terrorists themselves, some may be "wannabees."

• there are similarities in tactics with Iraq (car bombs with nails and accelerants)…and maybe even the same as in Israel…keep it simple, blow it up…hit civilians for maximum effect

• these two events have failed largely because of incompetence (they may not have been directly connected to al Qaeda - thus less or little training)

• It is an unavoidable reality that "terrorists are among us"

• Overall, I expect that terrorist tactics have shifted…this is a severely important change

UPDATE 2 regarding "wannabees":  In an article published today, 4 Held in Scottish Attack as British See Broader Plot -

In London, counterterrorism experts suggested that whoever abandoned
the two explosives-laden Mercedes might have been what a senior Western
official called “less directed from Al Qaeda and more a matter of a
homegrown group,” although their plan seemed to be modeled on terrorist
attacks in Iraq.

Whatever anyone else may claim (and I read one "igno-idiot" earlier today claiming that the "libs want to help train the terrorists who haven’t been well trained in setting up explosives to blow us up"), the War in Iraq has changed the tactics of terrorism.  It has also brought back to their countries, insurgents who have been field trained.

When our Government says to be aware of your surroundings, damn well do it!  I believe, regrettably, that things have changed just this weekend for the worse, and may never again be the same.

At least this post offers opinions and some out and out assessment of the situation as it emerges, rahter than repeating and rehashing the "pundits" talking points. 

If you agree or are intrigued by this, please say yes by "voting" at RCP. 

And read more at Right Truth, British terror, dhimmitude, multiculturalism.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Policy, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Connected or not to the interrupted London car bomb attacks, this morning Britain experienced another terror attack as two men in a blazing Jeep Cherokee crashed through the glass doors of Scotland’s second largest airport.  While there are no one reports of injuries, the two suspects have been arrested.

The suspects are described as Asian (that could mean anything at this point, but given the nature of the British Muslim population, its more likely to be Pakistani).

"One has to conclude … these are linked," Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of Britain’s joint intelligence committee, told Sky News. "This is a very young government, and we may yet see further attacks."

Welcome Gordon Brown!  It is such a clearly directed message to Mr. Brown and his incoming government.  Update: This may also be in coordination with the Queen’s presence for the Inauguration of Scotland’s Parliament.

As eye witnesses said (from TIME Magazine):

• "The car came speeding past at about 30 mph. It was approaching the
  building quickly," said Scott Leeson, who was nearby at the time. "Then
  the driver swerved the car around so he could ram straight in to the
  door. He must have been trying to smash straight through."   

• Leeson said bollards — security posts outside the entrance — stopped
  the driver from barreling into the bustling terminal at Glasgow’s
  airport.  "He’s trying to get through the main door frame
  but the bollards have stopped him from going through. If he’d got
  through, he’d have killed hundreds, obviously," he said.

Yes, it has taken some time to get to this point, but what we may now be seeing is a adoption of more traditional terrorist tactics by the Islamic groups (essentially any means necessary).  Car bombs, and rolling flaming Cherokees.  It is a wave of the future and an echoing of events past.  The terrorist threats are real.  If the terrorists "dumb down" the size of their plans, the threat becomes broader reaching.  As was said regarding the car bombing attempts…there was nothing in these that couldn’t be purchased at a hardware store.

See RCP crosspost.

UPDATE: See more information at Right Truth (written a bit after mine and with more detail.

Current Affairs, International Issues, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

UPDATE: This now appears to be a welcoming message to new Prime Minister Gordon Brown from “the terrorists.”  It is also now (Friday morning, 6/29, around 10am) being reported that an open-top bus, and a second car (supposedly the “get-away”) in London has been involved in this apparently expanding situation.  An alert for Americans abroad is now being sounded to be aware of their surrounding.  Also note that I hear that London, a city of 7 million people, has one surveillance camera for every 14 people.  Think of that the next time you become worried about “personal rights” versus safety against terrorism.  More to come…[the location was outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub in the Haymarket area near Piccadilly Circus].If you don’t think that its possible, think again!  Its surprising how long it has taken to export the “insurgents’ friend,” the improvised explosive device, from Iraq to the West.  A “massive” terror attacked was foiled in London today.  MI5 going to investigate possible connections between the incident and at least two similar foiled plots - including a planned attack on a West End nightclub in 2004 and a thwarted attempt to use limousines packed with gas canisters to attack targets in London and New York.

A British security official told The Associated Press that the car was packed with explosives, gas canisters, nuts and bolts and would have caused “significant damage.” He said there were similarities between the device and vehicle bombs used by insurgents in Iraq.

So the use of IEDs in Britain and the United States…its not really a new threat, but IMO, the likelihood of increased attempts is well, increasing.  The London attack seems to have been stopped when a witness saw someone drive a car into garbage cans and then flee the scene.  A propane tank was seen in the back seat of the car, and nails seen strewn throughout the car.

According to a statement by new Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the incident was a reminder that Britain faces “a serious and continuous threat” and the “need to be alert.”

The apparent use of gas cylinders recalled a terror plot allegedly thwarted in 2004 when Dhiren Barot, a British Muslim, was said to have been planning to use limousines packed with gas cylinders to blow up buildings.

More on Dhiren Barot.

All there is right now is the AP report and derivatives.  Maybe more later as the story unfolds.  A few things are clear, though:

• “where there is a will there is a way.”

• terror strategies from Iraq have been exported

• the terrorist threat is not abating

We stand beyond the dawn on a new era.  Terror, Islamic terror and its tactics, has already come to the West.

Check out and please vote at RCP.

Right Truth has a later report on this evolving story.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, International Issues, Iraq, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

Arguments rage about the merits (or lack thereof) of the variety of immigration reform bills being debated in DC and everywhere on the Internet.  Ignored is the absolute imperative of solving the drug wars along our border.  Recent rumors of a détente between the Gulf and Sinaloa Cartel notwithstanding, neutralizing the drug cartels, not looking toward peace between them, is the only real solution. 

Without eliminating the drug cartels, there will be a constant flow of people across the border.  By natural result, the flow of illegal narcotics will be accompanied by the flow of illegal aliens.  The continued flow of narcotics through Mexico from South America to the United States will keep open the illegal routes for human smuggling.  The Gulf and Sinaloa Cartels fight for control of the drug routes, including Interstate 35, which begins across the border from Nuevo Laredo.

Mexico’s warring Sinaloa and Gulf drug cartels have quietly declared a cease-fire in at least two states as they negotiate a peace agreement that could divide the nation’s lucrative drug routes, U.S. and Mexican intelligence authorities said.

The surprising move could dramatically reduce violence…authorities caution that any agreement could easily be derailed like similar past efforts.

Peace?  Or is it a period of rest?  Are they negotiating or simply waiting for another opportunity?  What history tells us is that peace between the cartels is not at hand.

• "The agreement is not solidified yet, but moves are under way."

• Reforma newspaper listed 44 deaths between June 16 and 22, compared with an average week’s toll of 60

• "You cannot overlook the fact that executions have leveled off dramatically in recent days."

• The apparent
  cease-fire is partly a response to the Calderón government’s current
  military campaign…and the
  prospect of greater U.S. involvement – both in increased funding and
  telecommunications assistance for Mexico’s anti-drug fight.

• "The cartels are losing too many lives and too much money…"

• Colombian
  cocaine producers are increasingly reluctant about doing business with
  Mexican cartel leaders…Because cocaine purchases are
  usually paid for after the merchandise is sold, the increased drug
  seizures and interceptions have meant less revenue for the Colombian
  suppliers…The Colombians want their money up front."

• "Not even the Colombians feel safe, which tells
  you a lot about how bad things have become."

• Leading the
  negotiations…is Juan Jose
  Esparragoza Moreno, alias El Azul, a powerful drug trafficker
  originally from Badiraguato, Sinaloa, and reputed leader of the
  Federation, a cartel organization run much like the Mafia – through
  extortion and family ties.  The Federation reportedly includes the Sinaloa, Juarez and Sonora cartels.

Still, police throughout Mexico and especially in their border states are given the choice of taking bribes from the Cartels or dying.

To add some more texture to this, today the Council on Foreign Relations issued a report, Mexico’s Drug War, that provides an overview of some of the issues and policy questions that remain.  It is short, so its worth spending the time to read on your own, but one point to highlight:

What are the details of Calderon’s counterdrug initiative?

Calderon has deployed roughly thirty thousand troops to work with the federal police in nine states, including Michoacan, Guerrero, and the so-called Golden Triangle of Sinaloa, Durango, and Chihuahua. These troops eradicate crops, gather intelligence, conduct raids, interrogate suspects, and seize contraband.

The military has been used to combat drug cartels before, but the scope of Calderon’s plan is larger than previous efforts. Former President Vicente Fox sent hundreds of troops into the northern border city of Nuevo Laredo in 2005, but these troops had a more limited role and violence grew under their watch…

AND

What have been the results of Calderon’s campaign so far?

Mexican officials say more than one thousand traffickers and armed individuals have been arrested, but Mexico’s Reforma newspaper says this averages nineteen arrests per day, which is lower than the daily arrest rate in 2006. Violence is still on the rise; every week brings more news of shootouts, beheadings, and the assassination of top police officials. “We’re seeing a transition from the gangsterism of traditional hitmen to paramilitary terrorism with guerrilla tactics,” Luis Astorga, a drug trafficking expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told the Houston Chronicle in May. Astorga claims drug cartels have increased their recruitment of army deserters who employ paramilitary killing tactics (from 2000 to 2006, more than one hundred thousand soldiers deserted). Calderon has tried to keep expectations low, repeatedly announcing the fight against organized crime will be a long one…

Will a peace deal between the Gulf and Sinaloa Cartels lead to a real reduction in violence along our border with Mexico?  I suppose that "time will tell."  But personally, I don’t expect much.  In fact, if you want me to project a bit, perhaps what will or could occur is an increase in the influence of the Columbian drug cartels.  If that happens, the violence in Mexico would increase, not decrease.  I hope I’m wrong.

In case you "missed" a related post: "Dos Zetas Arrestado" - Drug Wars on the Border Continue

Please see RCP (and vote).

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Policy, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

I believe ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Republicans and my fellow
Americans, all hateful words like those of Anne Coulter should be
rejected.  I believe that the language of hate that pervades America
today, including the generalized hate as shown by Coulter’s making fun of Hillary Clinton’s thighs or Barak Obama’s
middle name (Hussein) is beyond the pale, and has no place in any
sophisticated political discussion.

I’ve never liked the bitch.  Anne Coulter has truly crossed the line this time.  She doesn’t represent me as a Republican, and I doubt that she actually represents the sentiments of most clear headed Americans, after commenting that she wished that John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.

On ABC’s "Good Morning America" on Monday, Coulter was asked about a March speech in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards.

"If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO’s Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn’t be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.

This "Twiggy" of political commentary is beyond reasonableness.  The rhetoric of American politics today has devolved into one personal attack after another.  Issues are less important than attacking.  And this "woman," as an independent, uncontrolled attack dog does nothing to advance the state of debate or dialog when all she does is attack.

One of the real problems created by Coulter are the "Coulter clones" many who populate the blogsphere who have no original thought, but parrot the Coulter crap (some of the more visible "Coulterettes" even mimic her look - just scan around to some of the more vocal blogs that tout their femininity and look at the supposed pictures of the authors).

Dialog of Elizabeth Edwards vs Anne Coulter

"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it," Edwards said by phone on MSNBC’s "Hardball" program, where Coulter was a guest.

Elizabeth Edwards said she did not consult her husband before confronting Coulter on the air, adding that she felt the pundit’s remarks were "a dialogue on hatefulness and ugliness."

"It debases political dialogue," Edwards said. "It drives people away from the process. We can’t have a debate about issues if you’re using this kind of language."

Coulter responded with a laugh and charged that Edwards was calling on her to stop speaking altogether. She questioned why Elizabeth Edwards was making a phone call on behalf of her husband, and she criticized John Edwards for "stealing doctors’ money" during his successful career as a trial lawyer.

Coulter has no class.  Itf there is such a thing as the mainstream Republic party these days, they should disavow any connection with Coulter.  I’m independent minded enough to vote for the _______ candidate if that stringy trash mouth bitch speaks for the Republican Party.  As for the "Coulterettes," well they all know who they are.  I doubt if any of them actually even read this space on the Internet.  Funny thing is that for the most part, they haven’t got a clue about the issues.  They just parrot what they hear, regurgitate it, and somehow claim knowhow.  That’s laughable.

My friend Moon got it spot on when he wrote:

People love picking on Bush and crediting him with destroying the Republican control in Washington.  In one particular way I think he has.  He didn’t tell the Ann Coulters of his party to shut up and show the Christian values they claim they’re fighting for.

This also plays into the point I’ve been making about the Neo-cons hijacking the party. 

Ann Coulter is not the least bit symbolic to me of the core values of the Republican Party.  She is the poster child at this time of what the Neo-Cons have done to it.  To cite my source one more time, “the slovenly renters have trashed the house”.

Indeed!  The problem is that there are too many people who think that she actually does speak for them.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is scary.

I believe that if you want to contribute to a reasonable discussion of politics, an intriguing and amusing post, What’s your redneck advice for yankee politicians? should be read…and you can take that to the bank from a transplanted Yankee now living the great Republic of Texas (noting that this is Texas, and not the South - as I am told).

So let me repeat for emphasis.  I believe ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Republicans and my fellow Americans, all hateful words like those of Anne Coulter should be rejected.  I believe that the language of hate that pervades America today, including the generalized hate as shown by Coulter’s making fun of Hillary Clinton’s thighs or Barak Obama’s middle name (Hussein) is beyond the pale, and has no place in any sophisticated political discussion.  Then again there is no accounting for the unsophisticated political discussions.

Current Affairs, Opinions, Religion Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

The violent drug war just south of the U.S. border is all the reason we need to ensure border security.  Officials announced the arrest of Luis Reyes Enriquez - his job was to oversee the transport of Columbian cocaine to the U.S. - along with ten of his "soldiers."  Earlier in the week, another senior Zeta, Raul Hernandez-Baron known as Flander, was deported to Mexico.

The Rio Grande Valley is not only a preferred route for drug trafficking, it’s been also a place where high profile Mexican fugitives hide…

…Hernandez-Baron, one of the most wanted by the Mexican attorney general’s office, was handed over to Mexican authorities at the Reynosa International bridge this Thursday around three o’clock in the afternoon, then flown over to Mexico’s city to face weapons charges.

Despite the initial show of force and a crackdown on corrupt police, President Calderón’s efforts have "…done little to curb the rampant corruption that can only be
solved, if at all, with a comprehensive reorganization of local police
departments across Mexico, a process that is now being attempted with
the nationwide replacement of police chiefs…"

Read Mexican Drug Policy: Internal Corruption in an Externalized War

The war on drugs has been a tempestuous factor within Mexico since the latter days of the Vicente Fox presidency. At the beginning of his term last December, President Felipe Calderón announced, as did his predecessor before him, that he would crack down on drug trafficking, drug lords and drug-related violence…at least for a while. Just as Fox’s anti-drug policy turned out to be brittle and ultimately not effective, there are few who believe that Calderón has the necessary strength of character or will power to sustain the anti-drug struggle that has relatively few allies in Mexico.

While so many others focus on the debates raging over which one of the Immigration Reform bills is bad or worse (since it seems that nothing being debated really addresses the issues of illegal immmigration, let alone the terrorist danger - remembering that human smuggling into this country follows the narcotics routes).

• Mexico has become the single largest exporter of illegal drugs in the
  Americas. It supplies clients all over the world with narcotics
  including Colombian cocaine, which is trans-shipped to Mexico before
  being smuggled into the U.S. The majority of Mexico’s marijuana crop is
  also exported to the U.S.

• Mexico’s dubious distinctions include being the world’s second largest
  supplier of heroin, the largest foreign source of marijuana to the U.S.
  and the principal international supplier of methamphetamines. Four
  major Mexican drug organizations have seized local control over
  operations from the Colombian cartels and are responsible for the final
  stage of transporting and distributing illegal drugs to the U.S. These
  include: the Gulf Cartel (Osiel Cardenas), the Sinaloa Cartel (Joaquin
  “El Chapo” Guzman), the Tijuana Cartel (Arellano Felix), and the Juarez
  Cartel (Vicente Carrillo).

Yesterday however, it was reported that the big cartels (Gulf and Sinaloa) are trying to reach a peace accord.  But this doesn’t necessarily bode well:

A U.S. and Mexican official, both of whom were not authorized to give their names, told The Associated Press that the talks are aimed at stopping bloody battles between to control lucrative trafficking routes to the U.S. market.

The gangs decided that the turf battles were costing them too much money, too much weaponry and too many deaths in their own ranks, leading them to seek a sort of nonaggression pact, according to a top official in the administration of President Felipe Calderon.

"They realized they couldn’t fight the government and each other at the same time," the official said.

In related news, Mexico has demoted senior police officials in a graft crackdown.

The heads of federal police agencies in all 32 Mexican states and 250 other high-ranking officers were demoted Monday…

The demotions are the latest step in President Felipe Calderón’s campaign to fight drug cartels…blamed for more than 1,000 execution-style killings this year…

But wait!  This is really crap!  Why?

• The demoted police chiefs and officers will undergo ethics training in
  hopes of bringing them up to "international standards" for
  professionalism…

• …They will remain on the payroll — under Mexican law, it is extremely difficult to fire police officers…

Frankly, I don’t hold much hope for the end to the drug related violence on the border.  I suppose that the passage of a few months will tell the truth.  But I still don’t expect to be taking a pleasure trip down to Los Dos Laredos.  The problem remains low pay for the Mexican police (reportedly as low as $200 per month) and therefore the ability for them to be corrupted for bribes as low as $120.

Please see RCP.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Aghast is the word to describe the inability of "the man (or woman) on the street" to understand how our government works, their lack of knowledge of the Constitution, or about historic facts.  However, indescribable is the only word to describe the Constitutional crisis our Nation faces.

Two very recent events show how far from reality this country is when two of the Nation’s leaders haven’t got a clue as to their Constitutional roles or the limitations of those roles.  These two cases in point are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney.

First, lets deal with the easier one, Ms. Pelosi.  It seems that last week, June 21, when Representative Stephen King from Iowa moved to limit the foreign travel of the House Speaker to meet with leaders of state sponsored terrorism, Ms. Pelosi’s spokesman, Nadeam Elshami said:

The amendment, likely up for debate on the House floor Thursday night, is a "cheap political stunt that just won’t fly,"

But here is the clincher:

"How can anyone take this amendment seriously, especially when it comes on the same day that Bush administration officials are in North Korea?" Elshami said. "And why would anyone think it is responsible to restrict the ability of the speaker of the House to bring the concerns of the American people to foreign leaders? It is part of the speaker’s job."

"Mais, au contraire mes amis."  As ably discussed by my friend Moonage (Nancy’s not stupid, she just gets bad advice from Nadeam Elshami) the Constitutional role of the House Speaker is to preside over the House of Representatives.  According to Wikipedia:

The Speaker of the House does not normally personally preside over debates, instead delegating the duty to other members of Congress. Aside from duties relating to heading the House and the majority political party, the Speaker also performs administrative and procedural functions, and remains the Representative of his or her congressional district.

The fact that she is in the line of succession for the Presidency does not give her any Presidential privileges.  Somehow, Nancy Pelosi, or at least her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, needs a brush-up on Constitutional roles and separation of powers.

So, now onto the more complicated issue of Vice President Cheney who appears to have his roles as Vice President (Executive Branch) and President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Legislative Branch) totally confused…I maintain that this is not an innocent bit of confusion, but a self-serving and blatant abuse of power.  And yet, it is likely, at least from the outset, to be veiled under the cloak of Executive Privilege.

Recently in response to questions raised by Congress about interrogation techniques, VP Cheney took the position that his office is exempt from executive branch classified-data protocol.

Is Vice President Dick Cheney’s office an executive branch agency? Or is it a Washington hybrid that works for both the executive and legislative branches of the US government? That’s the underlying issue in a new controversy over Mr. Cheney’s lack of cooperation with a government office charged with safeguarding national security information.

The whole matter sounds arcane, and in many ways it is. After all, it involves paperwork, classified information, and the filing of reports. But Democratic lawmakers say it is a serious matter that reflects on the vice president’s penchant for secrecy – and that they might even hold up the funding for his office as a result.

Trivial matter you say?  Well, this controversy relates to the work of the office collects data on how much US material is classified and declassified. Per a signed presidential executive order, agencies of the executive branch are required to hand this information over.

The White House is contending that Cheney’s office is exempt from the
executive order, since it has both executive branch and legislative
functions. Per the US Constitution, the vice president serves as
president of the Senate, and may vote to break ties in that chamber.

On June 22, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said the executive order didn’t intend Cheney’s office to be treated as an administration agency.
      
      

"He’s
not exempt from following the laws of the United States," said Ms.
Perino. "He’s exempt just from this reporting requirement in this
particular executive order."

That is poppycock, according to Representative Henry Waxman:

"The vice president can’t unilaterally decide he is his own branch of government and exempt himself from important, commonsense safeguards for protecting classified information," said Waxman on June 22.

To a great degree, this all relates to the issue of interrogation of Islamic jihadist detainees, and the methods used (see Barton Gelman’s blog on the Washington Post, Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power.

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning.

This relates to the practice of "robust interrogation" in Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay…How much suffering could U.S. personnel inflict on an enemy to make him talk?

• The War Crimes Act of 1996 made any grave breach of those restrictions a U.S. felony [Read the act].
  The best defense against such a charge, Addington wrote, would combine
  a broad presidential directive for humane treatment, in general, with
  an assertion of unrestricted authority to make exceptions.

• "Torture is an extreme version of cruelty…"How extreme? Yoo was summoned again to the White House in the early
  spring of 2002. This time the question was urgent. The CIA had captured
  Abu Zubaida, then believed to be a top al-Qaeda operative, on March 28,
  2002. Case officers wanted to know "what the legal limits of
  interrogation are."

• secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public.
  According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as
  lawful a long list of interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA –
  including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S.
  government has prosecuted as a war crime since at least 1901. The
  opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a
  prisoner alive.

There is a lot more in the WaPo article, but for the moment I don’t have the time to expound [so read it yourself, please]…I might have the time later to revisit the question.

But that of course goes back to the matter of the general ignorance of the American Electorate about how this country works, the provisions of the Constitution, and some of the basic historic facts of this country.  Then again, if our Vice President and our Speaker of the House do not know the Constitutional limits of their offices, or in the case of the Vice President, that he does not work for the Legislative Branch, how can Mr. and Mrs. America (or little junior) know any better?  Its a sad state of affairs.

RCP

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

My good friend Moon has been recently waging a battle over the apparent ignorance of Nancy Pelosi’s advisor, Nadeam Elshami: Nancy’s not stupid, she just gets bad advice from Nadeam Elshami.  In this post and subsequent series of comments he and I have gone back a forth bemoaning the ignorance, not only of Elshami, but of the American public in general about the Constitution, its provisions, the history of the U.S. and other things that used to fall under the topic of Civics 101.  But today I came across another illustration of ignorance spurred by the Internet and then the misinformation spreads like wildfire.

The topic is the apparent lack of understanding of the concept of "Other Than Mexicans."  You know?  Those people from countries other than Mexico who enter the United States through Mexico…OTMs!  Someone got hold of some information about Senate Bill 1348 (second link to S.1348) titled Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and then pounced upon Section 131 of that bill and completely missed the imperative of stopping illegal immigration by people who are "Other than Mexican."  This is an extreme example of selective reading if nothing else (but it is indicative of much much more).

Here is the key assumption written by this guy writing on the Virtuous Republic:

Since most illegals are from Mexico, isn’t this section of the law, which is titled "Mandatory Detention", being waved for Mexican citizens?  Therefore, isn’t this section, while seeming to enforce the law, exempting about 95% of the problem population?  In other words, this bill is meaningless, meant to fool the masses into thinking our southern border is being secured.  Who is the Senate and the President beholden to, a "national of Mexico" or you and me, citizens of the United States? 

So unless this particle passage of the bill is amended, it will be massive illegal immigration as usual despite what the President promised the other day.

Examine closely this part of the post.  Look at the enormous assumption being made (and then watch as the misinformation is spread on the Internet…and may actually morph)…look at the sheer ignorance of one of the most basic issues facing this Nation today which is how to deal with illegal aliens who cross over the Mexican border, but who are not Mexicans.  Previously, Secretary Chertoff had dealt with the former situation of "catch and release" of these OTM’s.

In Richard Clark’s recent article, The Back Door for Terorrists, he discusses the problem of "Other than Mexicans."

Amid all of the xenophobia and nativism surrounding the immigration debate, there is a real security concern. In the language of the bureaucracy, the problem is referred to as the "OTMs," or Other Than Mexicans.

Thousands of non-Mexicans are caught crossing the United States border every year. They cannot be sent back to Mexico, but must be deported to their home country. Until recently, most were given a deportation hearing date and then simply released. Not surprisingly, few showed up for their scheduled appearances. Beginning last year, however, most who are caught are put into detention. They are then put through a procedure called expedited removal, under which many are flown back home within a few weeks.

Many of these non-Mexicans come from Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the Palestinian territories and other areas of concern to counterterrorism officials. What we don’t know is how many others are evading the Border Patrol every year and what happens to them when they leave the border area. It’s not too hard to imagine that these illegal immigrants, who have clearly spent a lot of money getting to Mexico and then into the United States, are able to buy themselves an identity and corroborating papers once in an American city.

So is that clear enough?  My commented response to this example of "selective reading and lack of understanding" was:

Aside from anything else, this section of the Bill is intended
specifically to deal with the problem of OTMs entering this country
illegally. Add to that the fact that the Section 131 is a mere part of
a total bill.

Aside from anything else, you wrote: Since most illegals are
from Mexico, isn’t this section of the law, which is titled "Mandatory
Detention", being waved for Mexican citizens? Therefore, isn’t this
section, while seeming to enforce the law, exempting about 95% of the
problem population? In other words, this bill is meaningless, meant to
fool the masses into thinking our southern border is being secured. Who
is the Senate and the President beholden to, a "national of Mexico" or
you and me, citizens of the United States?

The resounding answer to your question is NO! It doesn’t mean anything
like what you wrote, or now, what other people are spreading. Total
misrepresentation of fact.

I have already seen a response to my comment.  The position is that since there is no mention of stopping illegal immigration by Mexican citizens in this particular bill, then of course, the intention of the federal government is to permit illegal immigration by Mexicans to go on unabated.

So what you ask?  Go back to the essential aspect of all knowledge.  Go to the source.  Understand the information and then, most of all, know who is analyzing the information.  The output is nothing but the result.

I’m sure that I’m wrong (at least in one person’s mind).

Previous posts from the Storm Blog discussing the problem of OTMs.

Link to crosspost on RCP.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Policy, Humor, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

This is a statement on preparedness, at the "request" of a "learned" reader…I’ve been challenged to expound and provide advice on how various types of businesses should engage in preparedness activities in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack of some kind (let that range from a cyberattack to a nuclear explosion of some variety).  I responded to the "request" with this, I will not offer free advice on this blog, when I get paid in real life for that same input.  So this is offered only somewhat "tongue-in-cheekly" for the benefit of my inquisitive reader.

Well, the broadest answer possible is "duck and cover."  But of course, that won’t do.  Perhaps the best answer to illustrate the global nature of preparedness then is to generalize for a cyber event, and then allow any reader to read this answer into their own application.

BACK-UP ALL SYSTEMS.  Create a redundant system of data access and retrieval.  If at all possible, create one of your back-ups in a safe place, like an off-site co-location center.  While I do not follow my own advice by having a full data back-up in a co-location center (as of yet), I do maintain triple data back-ups (re-writable CDs, external hard drive, separately located desktop computer hard drive).

ENSURE THAT YOUR KEY PEOPLE CAN WORK REMOTELY.  In the event of a significant event, it is possible that your key people will not be able to reach your primary place of business, assuming of course that your primary place of business still exists (if you have a catastrophic fire or if there is a flood).  It is possible that whatever significant event strikes your business or community directly will not effect your customers or your competitors.  Business, like the "show, must go on."

ESTABLISH HUMAN BACK-UP SYSTEMS.  As strange as that might sound, how many of your key people are cross-trained (trained to perform the tasks of others)?  In fact, how many of your key people have others who are skilled enough to pick up their tasks in the event that the key people are not available?

ESTABLISH EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.   If your only method of reaching your people is via Internet or telephone (cell or land line), then perhaps you need to re-think your company’s emergency communications capabilities.

UNDERSTAND YOUR CONNECTIONS.  Do you know what businesses or services your business depends on?  Do you know who depends on your business?  Not just the guy down the block who services the truck fleet that your shipping company runs, but who else?

Try reading a book

by Donna R. Childs & Stefan Dietrich, its a good start -
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RECOVERY:
A Small Business Guide…"The first step in preparing a disaster contingency plan is a rigorous assessment of your business…"

Most of all…and clearly only my opinion that is not shared even by some of my friends…do not read or believe anything written by R.J. Godlewski the "author" of Integrated Technical Warfare.  In that "book," Godlewski recommended that businesses create their own counter-terrorism units…IMO, a clearly poor idea, ill-advised and ill-conceived (there are professionals, and counterterrorism is not a field to be played in by amateurs).  My comments to that "book" were written on the Right Truth (of course, like the kid we all hated in high school, I was reading ahead).

To start with, creating a civilian counterterrorism unit within a
business is beyond my comprehension. That is not to say that many
businesses do not now have and maintain a security officer, and
sometimes even a support staff…because they do. Importantly,
Godlewski doesn’t define what type or size of business or commercial
entity should adopt his approach. But when you get to the list of skill
sets and people that should comprise "your" CTU is where my separation
from his "reality" began. Clearly, by reading this "novel" you can
conclude that his recommendation is that "all" businesses should
establish their own CTU.

Alot of what the author writes in this "novel" is, in my opinion,
highly self-promoting (he’s started alot of acronynm entities,
including INERT - International
Nuclear Emergency Response Team). 

I would much rather take advise from Richie Sheirer (and I have, and have attended a number of his talks) than this author.

Granted, much of the text follows a pattern of using facts to support the next phase flight of fantasy.

Without analyzing very page of this 103 page document, at the end,
Godlewski describes what he calls T-REX (Terrorism, Research,
Evaluation and Expectation)…a process of data gathering, analysis,
interpretation and alert. THIS is far from the reality of the basic
data fusion/harvesting and analysis model now being worked with in the
most state-of-the-thinking counterterrorism and homeland security
analyst systems:

1.  Anticipation, preparation, threat definition
2.  ID indicators, and warning
3.  Mitigation (avoidance and containment
4.  Response, roles, missions, support, transitions at various levels:

·  Pre-event
·  During event
·  Post event

5.  Recovery and return to "normal"

Finally, know where the nearest exits are…and maybe more important than that, don’t let a "Yankee" carry a concealed weapon.

"A computer provides you with the ability to make more mistakes faster
than any invention known to man…with the possible exception of
handguns and tequila." - Unknown

Please vote RCP.

 

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

Necessity is the mother of invention.  As we struggle with $3/gallon gasoline, a Florida man may have stumbled upon a machine that could solve the gasoline and energy crisis plaguing the U.S.  Proving the law of unintended consequences, Kanzius, 63, invented a machine that emits radio waves in an attempt to
kill cancerous cells while leaving normal cells intact.

While testing his machine, he noticed that his invention had other unexpected abilities.  Filling a test tube with salt water from a canal in his back yard, Kanzius placed the tube and a paper towel in the machine and turned it on. Suddenly, the paper towel ignited, lighting up the tube like it was a wax candle.

The video: Saltwater instead of gasoline or here or here.

Another story is here.

High Energy Liquid Fuel Created From Sugar
U.S. scientists have transformed sugar into a liquid transportation fuel they say has a 40 percent greater energy density than ethanol…[more]

To really understand the implications of this you also need to read about the Brazilian sugar cane for fuel industry, and the fact that no less than giant Archer Daniels Midland is considering buying Brazil sugar, ethanol firm

Archer Daniels Midland Co., the largest U.S. ethanol producer, is considering a purchase of Brazil’s Cosan S.A. as ADM prepares to enter Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol business, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Friday.

Entering the sugarcane-ethanol field is a key component of ADM’s short-term strategy, according to the report, which cites company executives including ADM’s senior vice-president of strategy, Steve Mills.

Fuel from saltwater is not that far fetched.  And all that the Arab countries have is sand.  Of course it is also not that far fetched to see that little Israel with its coastline on the Mediterranean might someday build huge saltwater conversion plants.

Also crossposted to RCP.

Previous Storm posts "somewhat missed":
The Enemy of My Enemy Is Still…My Enemy
Watching the "Watchers" Watching You

Current Affairs, International Issues, Opinions, Technology Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

I simply do not understand the Administration’s contradictory current policy toward peace in the Middle East.  At once, we are supporting Abbas and his Fatah, and simultaneously courting the Muslim Brotherhood, founders of Hamas.  How can this not be obvious?  Fatah and Hamas are both dedicated to destroying Israel and both anti-American at their core.

The Bush, post-September 11th, doctrine essentially demanded that regimes the world over have to choose between aligning with
civilization or with terrorists should officially be interred in
war-torn "€Palestine."€ (see Andrew McCarthy’s  Our Terrorists Are Better Than Your Terrorists, on National Review online)…

• Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is not for peace

• Fatah faction is not aligned with civilization

• the Palestinian people who elected Hamas are worth any sacrifice

The U.S. is in a global fight against Islamic terorrism…Fatah, a creation of the now thankfully dead Yasir Arafat is considered a more moderate terrorist organizaiton compared to Hamas, and yet, Fatah is still a group bent on jihad, is still corrupt, and still very much anti-Israel (see the Fatah Constitution - contained within the Movement’s Essential Principles are such things as:

• Article (4) The Palestinian struggle is part
  and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism,
  colonialism and international imperialism and

• Article (5) Liberating Palestine is a
  national obligation which necessities the materialistic and human
  support of the Arab Nation and 

• Article (7) The Zionist Movement is racial,
  colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organisation and
  method…

You can read the rest, but the message is pretty clear (anti-Israel).  And yet, in the emerging civil war between Fatah and Hamas, the Bush Administration has apparently chosen the lesser of two very real evils.  Fatah’s commitment to the "peace process" is no where as strong as their commitment to jihad and to lining their pockets with cash and "hudna hooey."  And with that, one cannot forget or ignore that…

Fatah maintains its own terrorist wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in addition to maintaining close ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization - both of which are Iran-friendly, Hezbollah-friendly, and formally designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the United States.

Who the hell is running this ship?  Frankly, I cannot come to any other conclusion than they are the same people who couldn’t understand why Putin was saber rattling a few months ago, and who deny that we are on the verge of a second Cold War (but that’s the subject of another set of posts, now isn’t it? - The Second Coming - Cold War II). 

So now lets move to the examination of the Bush Adminstration courting of the Muslim Brotherhood.  What the hell are they thinking?

As highlighted by Doug Farah on the Counterterrorism Blog (and elsewhere), Eli Lake of the NY Sun reported yesterday that Bush Weighs Reaching Out To ‘˜Brothers’.  Say that again?

The Bush administration is quietly weighing the prospect of reaching out to the party that founded modern political Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Still in its early stages and below the radar, the current American deliberations and diplomacy with the organization, known in Arabic as Ikhwan, take on new significance in light of Hamas’s successful coup in Gaza last week. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is widely reported to have helped create Hamas in 1982.

Farah writes further in The Bush Administration’s Outreach Program to Islamists:

The U.S. government has
formally named these groups as part of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have met recently with senior leaders of the Pentagon, DHS, DOD and have been in the White House across two administrations.

Only the Justice Department’s naming of the groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case kept these same groups from being the stars at an ill-conceived "outreach" event hosted by AG Alberto Gonzalez.

So outreach to the Brotherhood, especially in this country, is not a new policy at all. Everyone from the FBI to the NSC has been bullied, pushed, cajoled and duped into meeting with them, despite their well-documented ties to terrorism, terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders…

…But we are being told repeatedly and erroneously that these groups are our friends and possible allies. And that is simply not true. Check out Farah’s full blog.

I fear that one can only conclude that the Administration’s foreign policy, especially its Middle Eastern policy, is both inconsistent and perhaps a bit desperate…or maybe confused?  That can’t be!  There must be a rationale for duplicate efforts to court both sides of the apparently emerging civil war in the Palestinian terroritories.

One final piece of connectives…Al-Qaeda & the Muslim Brotherhood: United by Strategy, Divided by Tactics. 

For many years, Ayman al-Zawahiri has denounced Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood for what he claims is the misguided direction they have taken political Islam. In a recent statement, al-Zawahiri renewed his criticism of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun ("Muslim Brotherhood") for their participation in Egypt’s parliamentary elections.

Repeating the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood: "Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our model; the Quran is our constitution; jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our aspiration."

The crux of the debate between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is not over the ends, but rather the means by which to realize the greater goal of Islamic governance throughout the Muslim world. Al-Zawahiri’s criticism of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is evocative of a larger, ongoing debate in salafist circles over which strategy—militancy or elections—will achieve the larger goal of Islamic governance and independence from Western influence. The debate is not resolved, but the Ikhwan are aware and careful not to make their election strategy a cause of schism among salafist activists, despite occasional public disagreements.

And yet, the current Bush Administration policy seems to be attempting to play both sides.  Unless I am missing something, I believe that this is a(nother) losing strategy.

As written on SANE Works, We want to remind you: this is a Republican administration…and a purportedly conservative one at that.

"Strangely enough," this post also crossposted to RCP (for your voting pleasure).

The subject of Hamas was also discussed at the Right Truth, Thank you Hamas, and other Muslim news.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

An often overlooked aspect of security, especially security of critical infrastructure, your business and other so-called soft targets is knowing when you or your facility is being watched.  Video cameras and other electronic means are used by both the good guys and the bad guys.

A recent installment from Stratfor talks about Surveillance in the Information Age (the Google link or also found here).

Those who conduct surveillance…frequently have used available technology to aid them in their efforts. In earlier times, employing such technology might have meant simply using a telescope, but in more recent years, surveillants have used photographic and video gear, night vision aids and electronic equipment such as covert listening devices, beacons and programmable scanners. These efforts have been greatly enhanced by the advent of personal computers, which can be used to database and analyze information, and the Internet, which has revolutionized information gathering.

Doubtlessly, modern technology has radically altered the surveillance process. What it has not done, however, is render physical pre-operational surveillance obsolete. Despite innovative Internet tools, a person sitting in an Internet café in Quetta, Pakistan, cannot get everything he or she needs to plan and execute a terrorist attack in New York. There are still many things that can only be seen in person, making eyes-on surveillance vital to pre-operational planning. And, as long as actual physical surveillance is required, countersurveillance will remain a key tool for proactively preventing terrorist attacks.

It has been said that prior to September 11th, al Qaeda’s focus was on the targets of symbolic importance to the United States and the West.  But following the attacks of September 11th the burden has shifted to corporate America…both domestically and overseas.  Its the soft targets that can create economic impact, take a great number of lives and circumvent the obvious defenses.  In a way, that’s one of the reasons why the broken JFK Plot has such serious implications, because it is more than just the Islamic nature of the plotters, or where they came from, or how they came to this country.  Its that their target was the fuel depots feeding JFK Airport.  Had their plot been implemented, hundreds if not thousands of lives would have been lost and many more effected by the devastating impact of the explosions.  And even further, the economic and emotional impact would have been severe.

So the question is asked, "are you checking for others who might be surveilling your building or facility?"  Key elements of the Stratfor article:

The Internet

• The Internet is…an important asset for those preparing a surveillance operation. If the target is a person, open-source Internet searches can provide vital biographical information…it also can provide the same information on the target’s spouse and children…image searches can be used to find photos of the target and related people.

• Internet public records checks performed…can provide…personal information about a potential target, including property, vehicle and watercraft ownership, voter registration data, driver’s license information, criminal history, professional license information and property tax data.

• property tax data…tell the surveillant which property the target owns…in some jurisdictions can even include photographs of the front of the home and even copies of the floor plan…[this doesn't include what commercial services can provide].

• There also are a number of Internet sites that offer maps and aerial photographs of specific locations.

• not only can surveillants use the Internet to collect an abundance of information on a person or location, they can do so quickly — and
      anonymously.

• Before the Internet…hostile surveillants were forced to expose
      themselves at a far earlier stage in the attack cycle…Now, much of this information can be obtained without the need for surreptitious behavior or for providing false information…

The Limits of Technology

• erroneous information on the Internet

• public data sources tend to have a considerable lag time

• unconfirmed information can lead to mission failure

• even biographical data, maps and photos are static and do not provide the real-eye depth perception of a situation or scenario environment

• targeted people or buildings do not exist in a vacuum…without setting real-life context, a mission could be at risk

• peoples’ behavior can change or be affected by other issues

• on-site surveillance "sees" changes

So who is watching you or your business or your building or your local utility?

Although the Internet has become a valuable tool in the surveillance process, it has not come close to eliminating the need for eyes-on monitoring of a target. As such, countersurveillance remains a powerful and proactive tool in the counterterrorism toolbox.

What’s the point of all of this?  I’ve recently read all sorts of speculative and spurious articles on various websites and blogs purporting to offer advice about how to prepare for a terrorist attack.  One even offered the advice that a business should create its own inside counterterrorism team. 

On the otherhand, I’ve read real…very real advice about disaster recovery for businesses in a book

by Donna R. Childs & Stefan Dietrich -
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RECOVERY:
A Small Business Guide…"The first step in preparing a disaster contingency plan is a rigorous assessment of your business…"  Think that business security and surveillance has nothing to do with disaster response and recovery?  One of my readers recently wrote me that accuracy was not as important as interesting writing when selecting the blogs he reads.  Seems to me that’s the way to travel down the wrong path.  Some of the stuff I’ve read on the Internet has no basis in reality.  But some people read it anyway.

Sorry folks.  I call it the way I see it.  So watch your back, and your front.  Depending on what type of business you run or work at, the risks, and the ways to mitigate those risks are different.

Also to be found on RCP.

The Stratfor article is also mentioned in Elections matter and here’s why at Right Truth.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, National Security, Opinions, Technology, Web/Tech Sphere: Related Content

6 Comments »