If you are skeptical about NSA operations and activities reported over the recent weeks, that's certainly understandable, particularly since most Americans do not work within the intelligence community or understand the rigorous training, oversight (from the courts and Congress), and professionalism the men and women of the intelligence community bring to their work every day.
I'll ask that you keep in mind a few things as you read news reporting from journalists that may have only incomplete or partial facts drawn from briefings or other documents outside of their proper context, and/or an incomplete understanding of the law, rules, and oversight in place. Every civilian employee and military member in the U.S. Intelligence Community (I.C.), including those at NSA, are U.S. Citizens, just like you are. They are highly trained professionals that take an oath to defend our nation and uphold the Constitution; not to any executive branch organization or institution. In fact, many have spent their entire professional lives quietly and unobtrusively working without fanfare or acknowledgement outside of the close knit intelligence community to defend our nation, provide our policymakers with the information needed to make informed decisions, and protect our troops in battle when needs be. To be allowed to serve, they have allowed themselves to be subjected to repeated background investigations, financial reviews, and polygraph examinations every few years to prove that they are responsible men and women of good character, worthy of being trusted with their nation's most highly valued secrets. These investigations, when done properly and thoroughly (as most are), are an invasive process that many of their fellow citizens might find unacceptable or intolerable with regards to their personal privacy. These men and women are given their nation's (actually every American citizen's) trust, and are no more interested in violating the privacy or other constitutional rights of U.S. citizens than you are. Remember, these men and women are citizens of this nation, just like YOU are.
Undoubtedly, more news reports about the size, scope, and capabilities of NSA's activities will be appearing in print and electronic news sources, given Mr. Snowden's admitted removal and provision of classified material to an activist/journalist like Mr. Greenwald, and Mr. Greenwald's recent statements that 'new revelations' are coming. As you read these future stories, bear in mind that NSA's activities are governed by Executive Order 12333, and constrained by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as well as regular oversight by Congress. Moreover, publishing of more 'sources and methods' information by Mr. Greenwald and his contemporaries will serve primarily to give away any advantage we may have over our adversaries and result in exceptionally grave damage to U.S. national security.
We citizens are reliant upon our members of Congress to provide proper
and regular oversight of the I.C. elements. To date, Congress has held
three hearings (House Intel Senate Judiciary House Judiciary ) addressing the legitimate concerns voiced by the public
and some members of Congress about the programs and activities Mr.
Snowden and his enabler Mr. Greenwald have shared. The law often fails to keep up with the rapid pace technology changes, and some members of Congress are not likely giving the activities of the intelligence community regular scrutiny due to time constraints, current committee assignments, or just simply because their activities aren't the 'hot button' issue of the day. I do believe that the majority of members on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have it right. The programs exposed thus far are legal, in that they are operating under the FISA law as enacted, and they are Constitutional, given the strict oversight and compliance requirements outlined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and the process and procedures NSA put in place to adhere to those requirements, as outlined in the public testimony and statements (Mr. Litt from ODNI). Having said that, given that Congress is paying more attention now, certain senior members like Senators Chambliss and Feinstein, and Congressmen Rogers and Ruppersberger have offered not only endorsement but in some cases reasonable improvements to the programs and oversight regime (note that they do not advocate stopping it, nor does the administration). Should Congress change the law or oversight requirements, I am certain that the Attorney General, FBI, and the NSA will abide by those changes.
Encourage your member of Congress and Senators to pay closer attention if you have concerns, and choose to take their word or not when they tell you an agency is doing what is supposed to under the law and Constitution. Fortunately, it's YOUR choice, because we live in America; not Russia or China; but get all the facts, not just the ones a particular journalist may offer as you evaluate what you've been told.
As to whether Mr. Snowden is a 'whistle blower' / leaker, or a traitor, I'll say this. In my view, a whistle blower sees illegality or unconstitutional acts and reports them to competent legal (the FBI or Attorney General) or agency authorities (a supervisor, a senior manager, an inspector general, an internal counsel) first, then to Congress and the media if the existing process fails. Along the way that person may suffer the loss of a job, the travails of our legal process including: possible pre-trial confinement, and a trial for his or her belief in the truth or 'rightness' of their actions, consistent with our Constitution and laws. In the end, they will either be vindicated, not only in court, but in the court of public opinion, or convicted under the law. Moreover, if this whistle blower is working in a classified information environment, that person uses the processes established to 'blow the whistle' in a way that does not expose the sources and methods of intelligence operations to our nation's adversaries, endangering the lives of our men and women in uniform, our diplomats overseas, and our citizens (and those of our allies and friends) at home and abroad.
A traitor takes whatever classified information he can, boards a plane to a foreign country beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement, and barters that information for notoriety, monetary gain, or presumed safety in the hands of one or more foreign governments. Mr. Snowden is not a whistle blower. People like Bunnatine 'Bunny' Greenhouse are whistle blowers.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Monday, October 17, 2011
Cyberweapon Usage in Libya & Elsewhere
The New York Times reported today that the Obama administration, as part of the military options presented for the initial U.S. action in Libya, considered conducting a cyber attack against the air defense systems in order to protect U.S. and allied war planes. The administration and the Pentagon chose not to exercise that option.
According to the article, "....administration officials and even some military officers balked, citing the precedent it might set for other nations, in particular Russia or China, to carry out cyber raids of their own, and questioning whether the attack could be mounted on such short notice. They were also unable to resolve whether the president had the power to proceed with such an attack without informing Congress."
It's gratifying to see well intended people at senior levels in government debating these kinds of issues; the military readiness and ability to conduct such an attack, the legal issues involved, the potential actions of other nations, and the need to coordinate with and keep Congress properly informed.
I only hope nations like Russia and China would actually debate and discuss these issues as thoroughly. I strongly suspect they won't. Russia and China very likely have cyber attack capabilities that are comparable to whatever the U.S. may have developed, and I strongly suspect we would not see a lively debate within the Russian or Chinese command structures about using such capabilities. They will use them as needed to protect their soldiers and their nation's interests, and so should we to protect our military forces and our interests.
Cyber warfare is one of the new weapon sets of the 21st Century. We are hardly the only nation on the planet that possesses them, and we should not be hesitant in using them. Our adversaries will not hesitate, and we need not suffer an electronic Pearl Harbor or 9/11 before electing to use the force multiplying advantage that they can afford us when we send our servicemen and women into battle anywhere on the globe, for any reason.
According to the article, "....administration officials and even some military officers balked, citing the precedent it might set for other nations, in particular Russia or China, to carry out cyber raids of their own, and questioning whether the attack could be mounted on such short notice. They were also unable to resolve whether the president had the power to proceed with such an attack without informing Congress."
It's gratifying to see well intended people at senior levels in government debating these kinds of issues; the military readiness and ability to conduct such an attack, the legal issues involved, the potential actions of other nations, and the need to coordinate with and keep Congress properly informed.
I only hope nations like Russia and China would actually debate and discuss these issues as thoroughly. I strongly suspect they won't. Russia and China very likely have cyber attack capabilities that are comparable to whatever the U.S. may have developed, and I strongly suspect we would not see a lively debate within the Russian or Chinese command structures about using such capabilities. They will use them as needed to protect their soldiers and their nation's interests, and so should we to protect our military forces and our interests.
Cyber warfare is one of the new weapon sets of the 21st Century. We are hardly the only nation on the planet that possesses them, and we should not be hesitant in using them. Our adversaries will not hesitate, and we need not suffer an electronic Pearl Harbor or 9/11 before electing to use the force multiplying advantage that they can afford us when we send our servicemen and women into battle anywhere on the globe, for any reason.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
We've Been Lucky, and the Iranians Have Been Caught Red-Handed.
The Department of Justice announced today the charging of two men in an alleged Iranian backed plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the UnitedStates, and in the process potentially kill a hundred or more civilians and potentially congressional members with an explosive device.
First off, let me be very clear in saying that the men and women of the FBI, the attorneys in the justice department, and apparently the DEA as well, have done an outstanding job in foiling this plot. Their professionalism and competence in working to investigate, and begin the process of prosecuting the precursor crimes to this attempted assassination has been in the best traditions of law enforcement.
Based on the complaint and the Department of Justice’s press release, we’ve been incredibly lucky to find out about this plot and disrupt it. Why were we lucky? Because the first break in this case apparently came when Manssor Arbabsiar chose to meet with someone he thought was a member of a ‘…violent international drug trafficking cartel’ to get this cartel to carry out the bombing. Fortunately for us, the person Arbabsiar met was what the compliant describes as a DEA Confidential Source (CS).
Without attempting to denigrate the hard work of the FBI and the risks taken by the DEA’s CS, it does help when the assassins or terrorists literally come right to law enforcement undercover operatives for help in carrying out the assassination or terrorist act.
Fortunately, the DEA and the FBI moved swiftly to insinuate themselves into this plot, and learn enough about the conspirators to make an arrest and break up the plot, while also using Arbabsiar to verify the Iranian military connection.
While this case is certainly of great concern to the United States, strongly verifies the Iranian military and government’s desire, intent, and capacity to conduct these kind of attacks within the U.S., it also proves that terrorists and assassins need to be lucky just once, and we need to be right all the time.
Imagine what would have happened if Arbabsiar had approached a real member of a violent Mexican drug cartel. We could very well be viewing scenes of carnage at a D.C. restaurant and reports of the deaths of the Saudi Ambassador and many innocent civilians, rather than today’s press conference at the Justice Department.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Killing or Capturing a Terrorist?
Today, the CIA and U.S. military managed to kill Anwar al-Awlaki with a missile strike from an unmanned drone. His death, and those of the terrorists/bodyguards with him in his convoy is another victory in the war against those who use a peaceful faith as an excuse to foment violence in pursuit of a political cause.
I noticed an article in the New York Times today that discussed the debate continuing in political, legal, and public forums about what the 'proper' course of action is in dealing with people like al-Awlaki.
The options for dealing with terrorists like al-Awlaki are pretty straightforward. Kill or capture them. The instance of al-Awlaki presents a different issue in the minds of some - he was an American citizen.
As an American citizen, some people offer the opinion that al-Awlaki should have been treated differently. He should perhaps have been captured by local law enforcement, the civil rights we all enjoy as citizens preserved and protected.
The Obama Administration obviously thought differently, and as it has done since the beginning of President Obama's Presidency, it has continued (and argued for in court) most of the Bush Administration's policies in what is now called the War on Al-Qaeda.
Let's consider the premise of capturing al-Awlaki or another U.S. citizen operating overseas to further the aims of a terrorist organization carrying on a war against America. If this terrorist is living and conducting his operations in the United Kingdom, then capturing him becomes a relatively simple thing, conducted within the rule of law. The UK has an excellent police force, not to mention MI-5 (the domestic security service, a well established court system, and a system of government from the local to the national level that is largely uncorrupted and supported by the people. All of this presents a permissive environment within the UK that would enable the arrest, interrogation, and trial of such a person, under the rule of law. Nice and comparatively neat, isn't it?
Now we need to consider the more realistic scenario. Most of these terrorists, be they Americans, Yemenis, Afghanistanis, or Iraqis, usually work in countries like Somalia, Yemen, the uncontrolled border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc. In many of these cases, there is no rule of law as we understand and experience it here in the West. No strong system of courts. No well trained and professional modern police or internal security force with well trained forensic scientists to back them up. Even worse, no supportive population of citizens to set the conditions to allow those kinds of institutions to flourish, and thus create a more supportive population of citizens.
Terrorists operate in these areas precisely because the conditions in these nations make it easier for them to operate and in some cases enable or aid them (like the Pakistani ISI). It cannot be reasonably argued that the U.S. could approach the government or internal security services (assuming they exist at all) for assistance and permission to arrest, and then deport a terrorist. It is likely the target of such an arrest would be tipped off by members of the government or internal security services (either for money or because of some ideological sympathy). Further, attempting to make a case in a U.S. court room against such people, where the rules of evidence are very strict, would be impossible for a couple of reasons. It would require the compromise of U.S. intelligence sources and methods, which would endanger American security; and collecting evidence on a battlefield or in a non-permissive environment in any country would never be able to meet the standards of evidence required in a U.S. courtroom.
This issue will undoubtedly continue to be debated, but we are left with the only practical option, one the Bush Administration started, and the Obama Administration has expanded upon - send in the drones or the Special Forces and kill them.
I noticed an article in the New York Times today that discussed the debate continuing in political, legal, and public forums about what the 'proper' course of action is in dealing with people like al-Awlaki.
The options for dealing with terrorists like al-Awlaki are pretty straightforward. Kill or capture them. The instance of al-Awlaki presents a different issue in the minds of some - he was an American citizen.
As an American citizen, some people offer the opinion that al-Awlaki should have been treated differently. He should perhaps have been captured by local law enforcement, the civil rights we all enjoy as citizens preserved and protected.
The Obama Administration obviously thought differently, and as it has done since the beginning of President Obama's Presidency, it has continued (and argued for in court) most of the Bush Administration's policies in what is now called the War on Al-Qaeda.
Let's consider the premise of capturing al-Awlaki or another U.S. citizen operating overseas to further the aims of a terrorist organization carrying on a war against America. If this terrorist is living and conducting his operations in the United Kingdom, then capturing him becomes a relatively simple thing, conducted within the rule of law. The UK has an excellent police force, not to mention MI-5 (the domestic security service, a well established court system, and a system of government from the local to the national level that is largely uncorrupted and supported by the people. All of this presents a permissive environment within the UK that would enable the arrest, interrogation, and trial of such a person, under the rule of law. Nice and comparatively neat, isn't it?
Now we need to consider the more realistic scenario. Most of these terrorists, be they Americans, Yemenis, Afghanistanis, or Iraqis, usually work in countries like Somalia, Yemen, the uncontrolled border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc. In many of these cases, there is no rule of law as we understand and experience it here in the West. No strong system of courts. No well trained and professional modern police or internal security force with well trained forensic scientists to back them up. Even worse, no supportive population of citizens to set the conditions to allow those kinds of institutions to flourish, and thus create a more supportive population of citizens.
Terrorists operate in these areas precisely because the conditions in these nations make it easier for them to operate and in some cases enable or aid them (like the Pakistani ISI). It cannot be reasonably argued that the U.S. could approach the government or internal security services (assuming they exist at all) for assistance and permission to arrest, and then deport a terrorist. It is likely the target of such an arrest would be tipped off by members of the government or internal security services (either for money or because of some ideological sympathy). Further, attempting to make a case in a U.S. court room against such people, where the rules of evidence are very strict, would be impossible for a couple of reasons. It would require the compromise of U.S. intelligence sources and methods, which would endanger American security; and collecting evidence on a battlefield or in a non-permissive environment in any country would never be able to meet the standards of evidence required in a U.S. courtroom.
This issue will undoubtedly continue to be debated, but we are left with the only practical option, one the Bush Administration started, and the Obama Administration has expanded upon - send in the drones or the Special Forces and kill them.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Friend and Ally, or an Enemy We Choose to Tolerate?
For the past few days, the major media outlets have been reporting something (again) that should not come as a shock to our nation, and I'm sure is no surprise to the U.S. military or intelligence community. Pakistan is not really a good ally, or perhaps even a trusted partner in the U.S. effort to create a stable Afghanistan and eliminate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda presence or influence there or within its own borders in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
The Pakistani government routinely chastises the U.S. for conducting drone attacks on Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or militant leaders within the Tribal Areas. Leaders who cross the border regularly from Pakistan into Afghanistan to coordinate attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces. Admiral Mullen, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was the first senior U.S. government official to actually call out the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) organization as being a supporter of the attack on the U.S. Embassy last week during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It gets worse. Remember where we found Usama Bin Laden? That's right. In Pakistan. A little town called Abbottabad that just happens to be where a large number of Pakistani military senior officers retire to, and home of the Pakistani Military Academy. You may also remember that we did not tell the Pakistani government that we were sending an armed assault force into their sovereign territory to capture or kill Bin Laden. That in itself proves the point. Pakistan is not really our full ally or trusted friend, despite the political rhetoric from U.S. and Pakistani governments since 9/11.
If they were, we would have briefed the Pakistani government on Bin Laden's location, asked for permission to send in a team to capture him, and they would have agreed, or at the very least assaulted the house themselves and turned him over to us. That's what we do when we deal with an ally or friendly nation, because we know they would be happy to accommodate the request of a friend.
Instead, we sent our Special Operations Forces to sneak into Pakistan with stealth helicopters, staged a daring raid in the middle of the night, killed Bin Laden, took everything we could of intelligence value, and snuck out again, leaving the Pakistanis a destroyed stealth helicopter. The remains of which they probably allowed nations like China and Russia to examine and sample, for a small fee of course, before they let us come pick up the parts.
Pakistan has obviously decided that it isn't interested in being a full partner in dealing with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the remaining insurgents in Afghanistan. In fact, the Haqqani network, probably the biggest threat to the U.S military and U.S. goals in Afghanistan at the present time, in spite of being strongly supported by the U.S. during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, is allegedly now supported by the Pakistani ISI.
It's past time the U.S. began to cut back massively on our aid to Pakistan, and hold the Pakistani government directly responsible for the ISI's actions by revealing what it knows about the ISI's activities that work to undermine U.S. and Afghan efforts to keep Afghanistan on a path to self determination and governance.
The Pakistani government routinely chastises the U.S. for conducting drone attacks on Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or militant leaders within the Tribal Areas. Leaders who cross the border regularly from Pakistan into Afghanistan to coordinate attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces. Admiral Mullen, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was the first senior U.S. government official to actually call out the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) organization as being a supporter of the attack on the U.S. Embassy last week during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It gets worse. Remember where we found Usama Bin Laden? That's right. In Pakistan. A little town called Abbottabad that just happens to be where a large number of Pakistani military senior officers retire to, and home of the Pakistani Military Academy. You may also remember that we did not tell the Pakistani government that we were sending an armed assault force into their sovereign territory to capture or kill Bin Laden. That in itself proves the point. Pakistan is not really our full ally or trusted friend, despite the political rhetoric from U.S. and Pakistani governments since 9/11.
If they were, we would have briefed the Pakistani government on Bin Laden's location, asked for permission to send in a team to capture him, and they would have agreed, or at the very least assaulted the house themselves and turned him over to us. That's what we do when we deal with an ally or friendly nation, because we know they would be happy to accommodate the request of a friend.
Instead, we sent our Special Operations Forces to sneak into Pakistan with stealth helicopters, staged a daring raid in the middle of the night, killed Bin Laden, took everything we could of intelligence value, and snuck out again, leaving the Pakistanis a destroyed stealth helicopter. The remains of which they probably allowed nations like China and Russia to examine and sample, for a small fee of course, before they let us come pick up the parts.
Pakistan has obviously decided that it isn't interested in being a full partner in dealing with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the remaining insurgents in Afghanistan. In fact, the Haqqani network, probably the biggest threat to the U.S military and U.S. goals in Afghanistan at the present time, in spite of being strongly supported by the U.S. during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, is allegedly now supported by the Pakistani ISI.
It's past time the U.S. began to cut back massively on our aid to Pakistan, and hold the Pakistani government directly responsible for the ISI's actions by revealing what it knows about the ISI's activities that work to undermine U.S. and Afghan efforts to keep Afghanistan on a path to self determination and governance.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Stingray & the 4th Amendment
There is a very interesting article today in the WSJ on the Stingray and the implications of its use against U.S. citizens.
The Stingray is basically a small suite of equipment and antennas that are used to create a vehicle borne mobile cell phone tower. FBI agents or other law enforcement personnel can utilize the Stingray to track a cell phone that is powered on, whether the phone is in use (making a call or sending a text) or not.
Here's the short version of how without all the geek-speak. First of all, you need to remember that your cell phone is a radio (actually as many as six different radios, but that gets too geeky to explain). In order for the cell phone you have in your pocket, purse, or hanging on your belt to work properly, it needs to know which cell tower is closest to it. Knowing that, the phone can communicate, via the built in radio, with the tower giving it the strongest signal. As you walk or drive, the phone switches from the tower you were using that is now getting farther away, to the next closest tower as the signal from it gets stronger. When the phone talks to the tower, it uses its unique (in the whole world) electronic identity to identify itself to the tower (actually, to the telephone network the tower connects your phone to). The tower (and the telephone network behind it) knows how many phones it can reach, and 'talk' to, to allow you to make calls, send text messages, surf the web, etc.
This is where the Stingray comes in. If a law enforcement agency can determine the electronic identifier your phone has assigned to it, they can go to a judge, apply for a search warrant, and then use the Stingray to find, and if needs be, track you.
They (law enforcement) load your phone's unique electronic identifier into the Stingray, then drive around in the vicinity of where they suspect you are, waiting for your phone to 'talk' to the Stingray. Why would your phone talk to the Stingray instead of the cell tower nearby? Because the Stingray broadcasts the same beacon a cell tower does, but because it's closer to your phone than the tower is, the signal appears stronger to the phone, and the phone is designed and programmed to lock on to the strongest signal. After your phone is 'hooked' by the Stingray, then it's just a matter of old fashioned direction finding to track you and your phone.
(For those of you more technically inclined, yes I omitted a large amount of technical and procedural detail on purpose.)
I think the technology is very impressive and presents a number of advantages for law enforcement and other applications. Having said that, it does create a 4th Amendment search and seizure issue for the courts, which will undoubtedly take time to resolve and yet again proves that the creation and interpretation of technology law lags behind the speed of technology.
It's illegal to wiretap someone's conversations without a court order. Is it illegal to use what could be argued as the 'publicly available functions' of your phone to track you, particularly once you are outside your home, walking around in public? Do you have a right to privacy if your phone is powered on, no matter where it (and you) are?
This technology, much like the similar controversy over law enforcement attaching GPS devices to suspect's vehicles to track their movements, will be a debate within the legal system worth watching.
The Stingray is basically a small suite of equipment and antennas that are used to create a vehicle borne mobile cell phone tower. FBI agents or other law enforcement personnel can utilize the Stingray to track a cell phone that is powered on, whether the phone is in use (making a call or sending a text) or not.
Here's the short version of how without all the geek-speak. First of all, you need to remember that your cell phone is a radio (actually as many as six different radios, but that gets too geeky to explain). In order for the cell phone you have in your pocket, purse, or hanging on your belt to work properly, it needs to know which cell tower is closest to it. Knowing that, the phone can communicate, via the built in radio, with the tower giving it the strongest signal. As you walk or drive, the phone switches from the tower you were using that is now getting farther away, to the next closest tower as the signal from it gets stronger. When the phone talks to the tower, it uses its unique (in the whole world) electronic identity to identify itself to the tower (actually, to the telephone network the tower connects your phone to). The tower (and the telephone network behind it) knows how many phones it can reach, and 'talk' to, to allow you to make calls, send text messages, surf the web, etc.
This is where the Stingray comes in. If a law enforcement agency can determine the electronic identifier your phone has assigned to it, they can go to a judge, apply for a search warrant, and then use the Stingray to find, and if needs be, track you.
They (law enforcement) load your phone's unique electronic identifier into the Stingray, then drive around in the vicinity of where they suspect you are, waiting for your phone to 'talk' to the Stingray. Why would your phone talk to the Stingray instead of the cell tower nearby? Because the Stingray broadcasts the same beacon a cell tower does, but because it's closer to your phone than the tower is, the signal appears stronger to the phone, and the phone is designed and programmed to lock on to the strongest signal. After your phone is 'hooked' by the Stingray, then it's just a matter of old fashioned direction finding to track you and your phone.
(For those of you more technically inclined, yes I omitted a large amount of technical and procedural detail on purpose.)
I think the technology is very impressive and presents a number of advantages for law enforcement and other applications. Having said that, it does create a 4th Amendment search and seizure issue for the courts, which will undoubtedly take time to resolve and yet again proves that the creation and interpretation of technology law lags behind the speed of technology.
It's illegal to wiretap someone's conversations without a court order. Is it illegal to use what could be argued as the 'publicly available functions' of your phone to track you, particularly once you are outside your home, walking around in public? Do you have a right to privacy if your phone is powered on, no matter where it (and you) are?
This technology, much like the similar controversy over law enforcement attaching GPS devices to suspect's vehicles to track their movements, will be a debate within the legal system worth watching.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Why Classified Information Needs to Stay Secret
It seems that every couple of months or so, some professional news outlet, or the on-line site WikiLeaks, releases or reports what is described as classified material. Once an organization or entity reports it, other professional journalists tend to jump on the story quickly, hitting up their sources and reporting on the story in whatever unique way or angle they believe they can.
Today’s case in point is the Washington Post’s initial reporting (based initially on a WikiLeaks release of classified State Department cables between the U.S. and the host governments), on the locations of the bases used to purportedly launch and recover unmanned drones like the MQ-9 REAPER. These drones are used, in part, to carry the U.S. war against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates directly to the leaders in those organizations. REAPER drones have launched missiles and bombs directly at identified Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda affiliate leaders to kill them with pinpoint strikes, giving the U.S. an unmatched capability to strike and limit collateral damage, while reducing risk to U.S. forces.
The Post reporting picked up and expanded upon by Fox News today, is obviously something that would be judged a ‘newsworthy’ item by an editor. There is just one problem. The revelation of even the general location of these bases has placed the lives of American military personnel in extreme danger.
Did the Washington Post or Fox News provide specific geographic coordinates for these bases? No. Did the classified cables posted on the WikiLeaks site? I’m not going to look and find out (I have no interest in making WikiLeaks think they are providing a useful service.) It doesn’t matter if they did or not. Anyone with any reasonable amount of deductive reasoning and an Internet connection can look at the publicly available information on the MQ-9’s performance characteristics, check Google Earth for the overhead imagery of the airfields capable of allowing a REAPER to land in country X, and then send people to stay in nearby towns for a day or two and wait to see a REAPER takes off from, or lands at the airfield nearby to confirm the presence of the drones. And Al-Qaeda has more than proven itself to have people capable of deductive reasoning and Internet access and usage.
What comes next is obvious. Al-Qaeda conducts a little more reconnaissance of the security at the airfield, some planning, obtains some weapons and explosives, and conducts a little more planning. Suddenly there is an attack on the airfield, killing the American military members who act as the REAPER’s ground crew and maintenance team, and damaging or destroying one or more of the drones at the base. Al-Qaeda gains a propaganda windfall within the Arab world and the Jihadist community, while a few more American soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines are shipped home in coffins to grieving family members.
So where is the problem? The problem is the person or persons who leaked the State Department cables to WikiLeaks that kicked off the journalistic process of 'they reported the news worthy item, why don’t we?' inside the editorial offices and journalist’s minds.
The U.S. news outlets can't be faulted for anything other than what I view as being in 'rush to publish' mode and what I view as less than ideal judgement. The Constitution of the United States explicitly allows the freedom of the press, but I will argue that in my personal opinion, the editors at the Post and Fox News should have recognized the potential danger and elected not do a story on the leaked cables. However, they are journalists first, and I’m sure they did not see (or likely consider) the potential repercussions beyond the immediate gratification of trumpeting this previously unknown facet of U.S. drone operations before more of their colleagues did, and the perceived 'luster' of the story faded.
What can be done is that the people who leaked the cables need to be identified by the appropriate law enforcement agencies, investigated, and prosecuted within the fullest extent of all applicable laws. They have compromised the security of the United States and its allies in a time of war, imperiled U.S. confidential diplomatic discourse with other nations, and potentially endangered the lives of U.S. and Allied military personnel. If any U.S. or Allied service member or person is harmed or killed by the leak of this information, the individuals who leaked the cables should also be charged as accomplices to assault or murder.
Today’s case in point is the Washington Post’s initial reporting (based initially on a WikiLeaks release of classified State Department cables between the U.S. and the host governments), on the locations of the bases used to purportedly launch and recover unmanned drones like the MQ-9 REAPER. These drones are used, in part, to carry the U.S. war against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates directly to the leaders in those organizations. REAPER drones have launched missiles and bombs directly at identified Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda affiliate leaders to kill them with pinpoint strikes, giving the U.S. an unmatched capability to strike and limit collateral damage, while reducing risk to U.S. forces.
The Post reporting picked up and expanded upon by Fox News today, is obviously something that would be judged a ‘newsworthy’ item by an editor. There is just one problem. The revelation of even the general location of these bases has placed the lives of American military personnel in extreme danger.
Did the Washington Post or Fox News provide specific geographic coordinates for these bases? No. Did the classified cables posted on the WikiLeaks site? I’m not going to look and find out (I have no interest in making WikiLeaks think they are providing a useful service.) It doesn’t matter if they did or not. Anyone with any reasonable amount of deductive reasoning and an Internet connection can look at the publicly available information on the MQ-9’s performance characteristics, check Google Earth for the overhead imagery of the airfields capable of allowing a REAPER to land in country X, and then send people to stay in nearby towns for a day or two and wait to see a REAPER takes off from, or lands at the airfield nearby to confirm the presence of the drones. And Al-Qaeda has more than proven itself to have people capable of deductive reasoning and Internet access and usage.
What comes next is obvious. Al-Qaeda conducts a little more reconnaissance of the security at the airfield, some planning, obtains some weapons and explosives, and conducts a little more planning. Suddenly there is an attack on the airfield, killing the American military members who act as the REAPER’s ground crew and maintenance team, and damaging or destroying one or more of the drones at the base. Al-Qaeda gains a propaganda windfall within the Arab world and the Jihadist community, while a few more American soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines are shipped home in coffins to grieving family members.
So where is the problem? The problem is the person or persons who leaked the State Department cables to WikiLeaks that kicked off the journalistic process of 'they reported the news worthy item, why don’t we?' inside the editorial offices and journalist’s minds.
The U.S. news outlets can't be faulted for anything other than what I view as being in 'rush to publish' mode and what I view as less than ideal judgement. The Constitution of the United States explicitly allows the freedom of the press, but I will argue that in my personal opinion, the editors at the Post and Fox News should have recognized the potential danger and elected not do a story on the leaked cables. However, they are journalists first, and I’m sure they did not see (or likely consider) the potential repercussions beyond the immediate gratification of trumpeting this previously unknown facet of U.S. drone operations before more of their colleagues did, and the perceived 'luster' of the story faded.
What can be done is that the people who leaked the cables need to be identified by the appropriate law enforcement agencies, investigated, and prosecuted within the fullest extent of all applicable laws. They have compromised the security of the United States and its allies in a time of war, imperiled U.S. confidential diplomatic discourse with other nations, and potentially endangered the lives of U.S. and Allied military personnel. If any U.S. or Allied service member or person is harmed or killed by the leak of this information, the individuals who leaked the cables should also be charged as accomplices to assault or murder.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Ten Years Since 9/11, & the Years to Come
Sunday marks the passing of a decade since 19 hijackers took control of four commercial airliners and used them as guided missiles aimed at our nation’s government, military, and economy. Those 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers killed nearly 3,000 people, destroyed a building at the heart of our nation’s economic center, and severely damaged our nation’s military headquarters. Were it not for the bravery and courage of ordinary American’s on Flight 93, the hijackers may have struck the Capitol or the White House, injuring and killing hundreds more.
We all remember where we were when we first saw, or heard about the attacks. For a brief time afterwards, we ceased being people of multiple outlooks on life, diverse political views, differing races or religious faiths. We simply became Americans. We all flew our nation’s flag in our communities and in our hearts in the immediate aftermath, and in the weeks that followed.
The brave men and women in the ranks of our first responders fought back in the first hours after the Towers fell, and while the Pentagon and a crater in a Pennsylvania field burned. Then we sent our intelligence services and armed forces into battle in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and the Philippines to hunt down the members of Al-Qaeda responsible for the 9/11 attacks and attempt to halt the spread of a terrorist organization that uses a corrupted interpretation of Islam as its rallying cry. Our service members and intelligence officers went where they were ordered to go, and pursued our nation’s enemies, even if the justification for the war seemed less than completely understood or fully justified in the minds of our nation’s leaders or people. In spite of the terrible hardships of life on foreign battlefields, loss of limbs and of friends and comrades to death, broken marriages and failed relationships, they have kept faith with our nation and held to their oaths. They have continued the fight over these past ten years, and we have stood behind them, and we will continue to do so, so long as they are called to serve.
Ten years later - We have debated and will continue to debate the conduct of what the Bush Administration called ‘The War on Terror’, and what the Obama Administration now calls ‘The War on Al-Qaeda’. As a nation, we learned and will continue to learn from this debate. Challenges to the conduct of intelligence operations like the ‘warrantless wiretapping’ program and the detainment of terrorists and insurgents at Camp Delta were brought to the courts and litigated. The speeches made in Congress, the testimony before various committees, the resounding sound of public opinion, and the resultant new legislation. Legislation like the USA Patriot Act, passed and re-authorized the twice to improve and expand law enforcement and intelligence community capabilities under the law.
Ten years later - Executive Order 12333 has been amended, clarifying authorities and strengthening our nation’s intelligence services, the ‘warrantless wiretapping’ program continues under more rigorous oversight and under the rule of law affirmed in an August 2008 ruling by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Closer and more collaborative relationships were forged within the intelligence community and between the intelligence community, law enforcement, and the military, and the National Counter Terrorism Center has been created to fuse and widely disseminate within the government all terrorism related intelligence and operational data.
Ten years later - Camp Delta remains open, and while President Obama has attempted to bring some of the detainees to the U.S. for trial within the criminal court system, the U.S. Congress has prohibited any appropriated funding from being used for such purposes. President Obama has since given permission for military trials to resume for the terror suspects, and signed an executive order to formalize the existing system of indefinite detention.
Ten years later - After being wrested from Taliban and Al-Qaeda control, Afghanistan has taken the first uncertain and hesitant steps towards a democratic form of government, but internal tribal loyalties hampering nationalism, dogged Taliban insurgents in the mountains dreaming of a strict Islamist State reborn, and an America strained, but unbeaten from ten years of fighting call into question Afghanistan’s future.
Ten years later - Osama bin Laden is dead. Buried at sea, the best unmarked grave we could find, he was laid to rest after the prayers of the faith he had defiled were said over his body by an American Muslim. He will not be a martyr to the evil cause he cherished, to those who choose hate and intolerance over peace and respect for others in spite of a different opinion or belief. He has paid for the pain and suffering he brought to our nation and others, and surely Allah has explained to him the depth of his mistakes in no uncertain terms.
In the years to come, the healthy debate in our nation will continue. We will continue to refine our approach to the problem of religious extremism used as an excuse to condone violence, while doing all we can to remain true to America’s ideals and beliefs of freedom and tolerance for other races, genders, faiths, and political viewpoints.
In the years to come, Al-Qaeda, its offshoots, and organizations like it will continue to exist in one form or another. Others will join the organization Bin Laden started, or create some splinter group fighting against America’s actions overseas or policies. They will commit acts of terror to further their cause and attempt to change America’s foreign policy, perceived or real, no matter which party holds the majority in Congress or occupies the White House. American citizens will be hurt and killed at home and abroad from time-to-time, and our intelligence, military and law enforcement organizations will do all they can to learn about these plots and then arrest, capture, or kill the plotters.
In the years to come, America will continue its fight against those who chose warfare and terror to attempt to gain political power or intimidate others. That fight will require more than just finding, fixing, tracking, and killing the leaders of these organizations. It will take continued efforts to inhibit radicalization in wherever and however it might occur, in order to break the generational cycle that breeds new radicals of any stripe. It will take several more decades, and it will cost both sides many young lives and billions in unrealized economic productivity; military, diplomatic, and humanitarian efforts. Fortunately we fought a long Cold War once, and while the reasons were different, the lives lost and billions spent were not. We won that long Cold War with the help of our friends and allies.
We and our allies will win this long war too.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Memorial Day
The price of our Freedom -
Dead or Wounded in service to our nation: 50,000 in the Revolutionary War; approx 31,700 in the Quasi & Barbary Wars & other actions against pirates; ~25,000 in the War of 1812; ~900,000 in the Civil War; 4,068 in the Spanish-American War; 7,126 in the Philippine-American War; 320,518 in WWI; 1,076,245 in WWII; 128,650 in the Korean War; 211,454 in the Vietnam War; 1,231 in the Gulf War; 36,231 in the Iraq War; and 7,125 in the War in Afghanistan.
There are also more than 2 Million active duty, reserve and civilian members of the U.S. Military; whose families also serve, often preforming a much tougher mission than their loved ones - they worry and wait for them to send word, and to come home again when the mission is done.
For those who paid the ultimate price, who were wounded on a battlefield and returned to a grateful nation, and those that still serve - Thank you and God Bless.
Dead or Wounded in service to our nation: 50,000 in the Revolutionary War; approx 31,700 in the Quasi & Barbary Wars & other actions against pirates; ~25,000 in the War of 1812; ~900,000 in the Civil War; 4,068 in the Spanish-American War; 7,126 in the Philippine-American War; 320,518 in WWI; 1,076,245 in WWII; 128,650 in the Korean War; 211,454 in the Vietnam War; 1,231 in the Gulf War; 36,231 in the Iraq War; and 7,125 in the War in Afghanistan.
There are also more than 2 Million active duty, reserve and civilian members of the U.S. Military; whose families also serve, often preforming a much tougher mission than their loved ones - they worry and wait for them to send word, and to come home again when the mission is done.
For those who paid the ultimate price, who were wounded on a battlefield and returned to a grateful nation, and those that still serve - Thank you and God Bless.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Some Reasons the Attempted Bombing of Northwest Flight 253 Succeeded
Here are a few facts culled from recent news reports from the New York Times and Fox News websites about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to destroy Northwest Flight 253.
- In August 2009, NSA intercepted conversations among Yemeni based Al Qaeda leaders discussing a plot to use a Nigerian man, who we now know was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for an upcoming terrorist attack – the intercepts were translated and the resultant intelligence disseminated within the U.S. Government and its Counter Terrorism community (comprised of specific elements of the various intelligence agencies).
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, visited the U.S. embassy in Abuja, Nigeria in November and expressed concerns about his son’s increasing radicalization to State Department officials and a CIA representative or representatives. Mr. Mutallab apparently went so far as to show the U.S. embassy and CIA personnel his son’s text messages.
- Shortly after the meeting in Abuja, embassy officials sent a “Visas Viper” cable to the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) on 20 November 2009.
- Also In November, the CIA compiled some biographical data on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, but waited to disseminate that data until photographs of Umar could be obtained.
So why did Abdulmutallab nearly succeed?
He succeeded do to a nasty combination of poor IT infrastructure within the intelligence community, inattentive and negligent intelligence analysis, a visa revocation process that is not appropriate to a nation in a war with violent extremists, and the end of the calendar year.
Part of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s challenge in the 21st Century, particularly in the global information age, is to establish and integrate the various agencies stove-piped information systems. While the agencies have made great strides in modernizing their individual internal infrastructures, they have been less successful in designing and building information systems that can cross-connect and share information efficiently, in a common understandable format. Progress is being made in this area, but it will be many years before it can happen. One of the major problems is the institutional mindset that will not, for example, permit CIA to use the same integrated IT system that NSA uses. Neither agency wants the other able to potentially see everything the other agency is doing, in spite of the fact that it is technologically possible now to have both agencies share a common system, but keep vital sources and methods data separate from the usable intelligence. If this antiquated mindset could be set aside by political mandate, it would likely take five years before the USIC had one integrated system that would provide all analysts with all available intelligence information. Had this common analytic knowledge system been available, Abdulmutallab would likely have been identified as a serious threat much sooner.
Naturally, identifying Abdulmutallab as a threat would have required an analyst or analysts to correlate the data from the CIA, NSA, and State Department reporting and then flag him on the no-fly list. If nothing else, when his father reported him to the State Department and CIA officials in Nigeria, the embassy personnel should have had the common sense to check to see if he was a holder of a current visa and the immediate authority to suspend it, pending further inquires. The U.S. is not obligated to allow non-U.S. citizens into this country. The temporary suspension of a travel visa should not require a committee decision in the D.C. area, nor should we operate under a “come one, come all” mind set, when common sense would dictate otherwise. Further, the CIA analyst who created the biographical information on Abdulmutallab should not have waited until he had photographs to share it. CIA, being a “people focused” business, undoubtedly breeds an analyst that is focused as much on a physical description as the relevant intelligence a human asset can provide. These analysts must better learn how to live in the information age, where a data file can be constantly updated as new information presents itself, and not waited to share. As is demonstrated in this case, even an incomplete picture of the facts could have been helpful.
The analysts in the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), who without doubt are working long hours and receiving very little public fanfare for all the attacks they have helped the military and U.S. law enforcement stop, also need to work on their procedures. Certainly no one can expect an analyst to work with no facts at all in hand, but the NSA reporting that a “Nigerian” was going to be used by Al Qaeda to conduct an attack, should have triggered an immediate scrub of all terror watch lists for Nigerian nationals, and subsequent alerts to the TSA and our foreign partners to give additional security screening to all Nigerians destined for the U.S. We don’t know everything that the people in NCTC did and didn’t do in response to the admittedly minimal data that current news reporting indicates was available, but I suspect NCTC’s internal procedures and analytic methodology will be getting a thorough review.
Lastly, the end of the calendar year didn’t help us much. As someone who spent long years in government service, I can tell you for a fact that many of the most experienced, and capable people in the civil service begin to burn through their accumulated leave at the end of the year. Much of this happens during Thanksgiving week, and in the week prior to Christmas through the New Year. Does that mean that the watch standers at the various agencies and centers are poorly trained, inexperienced dullards? No. But it does mean that there are less of our best paying attention, because they are looking after their families during the holiday season. Is it an excuse or even a major contributing factor, probably not. Did it contribute to Abdulmutallab’s ability to successfully board a plane and nearly destroy it on Christmas Eve but for luck and the courage of the passengers and cabin crew? It did to some degree.
The poor visa denial procedures, the less than ideal IT systems, and the potential analytic failures, and our own holiday schedule enabled Abdulmutallab’s attempted act of terrorism and mass murder on Al Qaeda’s behalf, proving again the truth of the statement, “We have to be perfect every time. They only have to get lucky once.”
- In August 2009, NSA intercepted conversations among Yemeni based Al Qaeda leaders discussing a plot to use a Nigerian man, who we now know was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for an upcoming terrorist attack – the intercepts were translated and the resultant intelligence disseminated within the U.S. Government and its Counter Terrorism community (comprised of specific elements of the various intelligence agencies).
- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, visited the U.S. embassy in Abuja, Nigeria in November and expressed concerns about his son’s increasing radicalization to State Department officials and a CIA representative or representatives. Mr. Mutallab apparently went so far as to show the U.S. embassy and CIA personnel his son’s text messages.
- Shortly after the meeting in Abuja, embassy officials sent a “Visas Viper” cable to the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) on 20 November 2009.
- Also In November, the CIA compiled some biographical data on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, but waited to disseminate that data until photographs of Umar could be obtained.
So why did Abdulmutallab nearly succeed?
He succeeded do to a nasty combination of poor IT infrastructure within the intelligence community, inattentive and negligent intelligence analysis, a visa revocation process that is not appropriate to a nation in a war with violent extremists, and the end of the calendar year.
Part of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s challenge in the 21st Century, particularly in the global information age, is to establish and integrate the various agencies stove-piped information systems. While the agencies have made great strides in modernizing their individual internal infrastructures, they have been less successful in designing and building information systems that can cross-connect and share information efficiently, in a common understandable format. Progress is being made in this area, but it will be many years before it can happen. One of the major problems is the institutional mindset that will not, for example, permit CIA to use the same integrated IT system that NSA uses. Neither agency wants the other able to potentially see everything the other agency is doing, in spite of the fact that it is technologically possible now to have both agencies share a common system, but keep vital sources and methods data separate from the usable intelligence. If this antiquated mindset could be set aside by political mandate, it would likely take five years before the USIC had one integrated system that would provide all analysts with all available intelligence information. Had this common analytic knowledge system been available, Abdulmutallab would likely have been identified as a serious threat much sooner.
Naturally, identifying Abdulmutallab as a threat would have required an analyst or analysts to correlate the data from the CIA, NSA, and State Department reporting and then flag him on the no-fly list. If nothing else, when his father reported him to the State Department and CIA officials in Nigeria, the embassy personnel should have had the common sense to check to see if he was a holder of a current visa and the immediate authority to suspend it, pending further inquires. The U.S. is not obligated to allow non-U.S. citizens into this country. The temporary suspension of a travel visa should not require a committee decision in the D.C. area, nor should we operate under a “come one, come all” mind set, when common sense would dictate otherwise. Further, the CIA analyst who created the biographical information on Abdulmutallab should not have waited until he had photographs to share it. CIA, being a “people focused” business, undoubtedly breeds an analyst that is focused as much on a physical description as the relevant intelligence a human asset can provide. These analysts must better learn how to live in the information age, where a data file can be constantly updated as new information presents itself, and not waited to share. As is demonstrated in this case, even an incomplete picture of the facts could have been helpful.
The analysts in the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), who without doubt are working long hours and receiving very little public fanfare for all the attacks they have helped the military and U.S. law enforcement stop, also need to work on their procedures. Certainly no one can expect an analyst to work with no facts at all in hand, but the NSA reporting that a “Nigerian” was going to be used by Al Qaeda to conduct an attack, should have triggered an immediate scrub of all terror watch lists for Nigerian nationals, and subsequent alerts to the TSA and our foreign partners to give additional security screening to all Nigerians destined for the U.S. We don’t know everything that the people in NCTC did and didn’t do in response to the admittedly minimal data that current news reporting indicates was available, but I suspect NCTC’s internal procedures and analytic methodology will be getting a thorough review.
Lastly, the end of the calendar year didn’t help us much. As someone who spent long years in government service, I can tell you for a fact that many of the most experienced, and capable people in the civil service begin to burn through their accumulated leave at the end of the year. Much of this happens during Thanksgiving week, and in the week prior to Christmas through the New Year. Does that mean that the watch standers at the various agencies and centers are poorly trained, inexperienced dullards? No. But it does mean that there are less of our best paying attention, because they are looking after their families during the holiday season. Is it an excuse or even a major contributing factor, probably not. Did it contribute to Abdulmutallab’s ability to successfully board a plane and nearly destroy it on Christmas Eve but for luck and the courage of the passengers and cabin crew? It did to some degree.
The poor visa denial procedures, the less than ideal IT systems, and the potential analytic failures, and our own holiday schedule enabled Abdulmutallab’s attempted act of terrorism and mass murder on Al Qaeda’s behalf, proving again the truth of the statement, “We have to be perfect every time. They only have to get lucky once.”
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
U.S. Withdraws From Iraqi Cities
Today, many Iraqis celebrated the withdrawal of most American forces from their major cities. This is a tremendous milestone on the road to Iraq's complete sovereignty and Iraq's citizens have every right to be thankful and happy that this day has finally come. Another strong step towards an Iraq governed by its people has been made, and there are more to come as Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people step forward to choose their own destiny.
The political justification offered to the American people for invading Iraq was, as we now know, based on poor or "cherry picked" intelligence and overly rosy views of the occupation to come.
Personally, I believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein, his corrupt and evil sons, and the Bath Party from power in Iraq provided an opportunity for a democratic process to take root; rather than continue to permit the perpetuation of a depraved dictator's rule and the brutalization and exploitation of 31.2 million people and their national resources. Women in Baghdad need no more fear Saddam's son's choosing one or more of them off the street for rape and perhaps death. Saddam, his family and his political party will no longer plunder his nation's resources for personal profit and aggrandizement.
The conquering of Iraq (the actual War) was won quickly and decisively. The occupation of Iraq was mismanaged in same haphazard manner our own government usually operates here at home. Decisions were made by senior leaders with apparently incomplete facts; or worse yet, with an American-ized view of the situation, not understanding the culture of the nation we just invaded. One such example was the complete disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Instead of removing only the senior army leadership loyal to Saddam, or excising specific divisions like the Republican Guard who were intensely loyal to him, leaving us a corps of Iraqis willing to protect their country in cooperation with their liberators; we created an instant pool of unemployed young men, disgraced by summary discharge, unable to feed their families. They became a perfect group of willing recruits for the insurgent leaders willing to pay them, or who told the more anti-western leaning among them that the western "crusaders" had returned and they must defend the Arab world against them.
We all know our poor effort at nation building suffered greatly in the initial years, as the insurgency gathered momentum and spiraled nearly out of control; then improved as coalition forces learned to respect Iraqi and Islamic cultural norms and adapt their occupation and counter-insurgency efforts to the objective realities on the ground. I laud our troops and their commanders for their courage, fortitude, and cunning in adapting and overcoming on the battlefield and the city with their Iraqi partners.
As is the case in every war, there have been casualties on all sides. Innocent Iraqis caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time, when a coalition missile or bomb obliterated a target; Iraqi military members who died in service to their nation, coalition troops who answered their nation's call, and people in all three categories who were killed during the insurgency. While a full accounting of the death and suffering may never be accurately determined, that suffering and those deaths will not be forgotten.
No democracy is every born bloodlessly. Our own freedom cost the lives of 25,000 Americans during the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ravaged our land and cost another 646,000 American lives, World War I and II cost more than 1.3 million American lives.
While we now know that the threat to the U.S. from Iraq was effectively non-existent, 4,300 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have given their lives in what I hope has been the birth of Iraqi freedom after a long dictatorship. The Iraqis, by one estimate, have also lost more the 110,000 people to the war.
The next major step comes in January of 2010, the next major Iraqi election. The Iraqis must provide fully for their own internal security between now and then as the U.S. readies a major draw down in troops in 2010.
If the Iraqis do not seize this opportunity, step forward boldly, and continue the progress made since the U.S. troop surge through to the end of 2010 to secure their new liberty; then they will have rendered the deaths of those 114,300 people and the suffering of tens of thousands of American and Iraqi wounded meaningless.
The political justification offered to the American people for invading Iraq was, as we now know, based on poor or "cherry picked" intelligence and overly rosy views of the occupation to come.
Personally, I believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein, his corrupt and evil sons, and the Bath Party from power in Iraq provided an opportunity for a democratic process to take root; rather than continue to permit the perpetuation of a depraved dictator's rule and the brutalization and exploitation of 31.2 million people and their national resources. Women in Baghdad need no more fear Saddam's son's choosing one or more of them off the street for rape and perhaps death. Saddam, his family and his political party will no longer plunder his nation's resources for personal profit and aggrandizement.
The conquering of Iraq (the actual War) was won quickly and decisively. The occupation of Iraq was mismanaged in same haphazard manner our own government usually operates here at home. Decisions were made by senior leaders with apparently incomplete facts; or worse yet, with an American-ized view of the situation, not understanding the culture of the nation we just invaded. One such example was the complete disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Instead of removing only the senior army leadership loyal to Saddam, or excising specific divisions like the Republican Guard who were intensely loyal to him, leaving us a corps of Iraqis willing to protect their country in cooperation with their liberators; we created an instant pool of unemployed young men, disgraced by summary discharge, unable to feed their families. They became a perfect group of willing recruits for the insurgent leaders willing to pay them, or who told the more anti-western leaning among them that the western "crusaders" had returned and they must defend the Arab world against them.
We all know our poor effort at nation building suffered greatly in the initial years, as the insurgency gathered momentum and spiraled nearly out of control; then improved as coalition forces learned to respect Iraqi and Islamic cultural norms and adapt their occupation and counter-insurgency efforts to the objective realities on the ground. I laud our troops and their commanders for their courage, fortitude, and cunning in adapting and overcoming on the battlefield and the city with their Iraqi partners.
As is the case in every war, there have been casualties on all sides. Innocent Iraqis caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time, when a coalition missile or bomb obliterated a target; Iraqi military members who died in service to their nation, coalition troops who answered their nation's call, and people in all three categories who were killed during the insurgency. While a full accounting of the death and suffering may never be accurately determined, that suffering and those deaths will not be forgotten.
No democracy is every born bloodlessly. Our own freedom cost the lives of 25,000 Americans during the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ravaged our land and cost another 646,000 American lives, World War I and II cost more than 1.3 million American lives.
While we now know that the threat to the U.S. from Iraq was effectively non-existent, 4,300 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have given their lives in what I hope has been the birth of Iraqi freedom after a long dictatorship. The Iraqis, by one estimate, have also lost more the 110,000 people to the war.
The next major step comes in January of 2010, the next major Iraqi election. The Iraqis must provide fully for their own internal security between now and then as the U.S. readies a major draw down in troops in 2010.
If the Iraqis do not seize this opportunity, step forward boldly, and continue the progress made since the U.S. troop surge through to the end of 2010 to secure their new liberty; then they will have rendered the deaths of those 114,300 people and the suffering of tens of thousands of American and Iraqi wounded meaningless.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Is Disclosing Classified Information a Crime?
Fox News reported today that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - California), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), during a public committee hearing last week, apparently compromised the use of a Pakistani airbase by U.S. Predator drones. The SSCI was questioning the new Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair about the threat assessment he had just delivered to the committee. The Fox News article quoted her as follows:
" 'Mr. Holbrooke, in Pakistan, ran into considerable concern about the use of the Predator strikes in the FATA area of Pakistan," Feinstein said to Blair, referring to Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. "And yet, as I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.' "
The fact that Predators were flying from a Pakistani airbase had apparently been determined to be a classified fact by the Department of Defense and presumably by both President Bush's and President Obama's administrations. As a member of the SSCI, Senator Feinstein, along with members of her professional staff, would have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements formally acknowledging that she was obligated to protect classified national security information and ensure it was not improperly disclosed to unauthorized individuals.
Had a professional member of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), or Intelligence Community (IC) had publicized or provided to a member of the news media this fact, they would likely have been guilty of violating U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793, paragraph D of U.S. law.
Assuming the professional member of the DoD or U.S. IC had been identified and prosecuted, the penalty under the law, as identified in 18 USC, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793 is a fine and/or ten years imprisonment. The individual would also have had his or her security clearance rescinded immediately, and have likely had been placed on administrative leave.
If, in fact, the presence of the Predator airbase inside Pakistan was a classified fact, and that Senator Feinstein was informed that this information was classified; you would expect that she would be prosecuted for this violation of law.
I would I sincerely hope that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and the FBI Field Office, would conduct an investigation into this disclosure. However, I'm quite sure that as a sitting U.S. Senator, she will be given far more latitude for her verbal faux pas, the internal embarrassment an admittedly imperfect ally must now suffer, and her potential violation of U.S. law.
It's a shame that the more common U.S. citizen or career employee of the U.S. government would not likely receive the same treatment.
" 'Mr. Holbrooke, in Pakistan, ran into considerable concern about the use of the Predator strikes in the FATA area of Pakistan," Feinstein said to Blair, referring to Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. "And yet, as I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.' "
The fact that Predators were flying from a Pakistani airbase had apparently been determined to be a classified fact by the Department of Defense and presumably by both President Bush's and President Obama's administrations. As a member of the SSCI, Senator Feinstein, along with members of her professional staff, would have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements formally acknowledging that she was obligated to protect classified national security information and ensure it was not improperly disclosed to unauthorized individuals.
Had a professional member of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), or Intelligence Community (IC) had publicized or provided to a member of the news media this fact, they would likely have been guilty of violating U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793, paragraph D of U.S. law.
Assuming the professional member of the DoD or U.S. IC had been identified and prosecuted, the penalty under the law, as identified in 18 USC, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793 is a fine and/or ten years imprisonment. The individual would also have had his or her security clearance rescinded immediately, and have likely had been placed on administrative leave.
If, in fact, the presence of the Predator airbase inside Pakistan was a classified fact, and that Senator Feinstein was informed that this information was classified; you would expect that she would be prosecuted for this violation of law.
I would I sincerely hope that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and the FBI Field Office, would conduct an investigation into this disclosure. However, I'm quite sure that as a sitting U.S. Senator, she will be given far more latitude for her verbal faux pas, the internal embarrassment an admittedly imperfect ally must now suffer, and her potential violation of U.S. law.
It's a shame that the more common U.S. citizen or career employee of the U.S. government would not likely receive the same treatment.
Monday, February 16, 2009
America's CEO and His Travel Costs in a Down Economy
As the Chief Executive of the United States, and the Commander-in-Chief of our nation's military forces, the President of the United States has many responsibilities and has some unique security requirements and communications needs when he or she is away from the White House.
As many Americans know, the aircraft the President generally travels on is known by the military designation VC-25, a heavily modified Boeing 747, costing $325 million each (we bought two back in 1987). The VC-25 is often mistakenly referred to as Air Force One. The call sign 'Air Force One' is used only when the President is aboard the VC-25 or any aircraft.
What is lesser known, is that Presidential airlift missions, managed and operated by the U.S. Air Force, include the movement of Secret Service personnel, armored cars, and other support equipment and personnel. The Air Force usually moves these people with two or more C-17 or C-5 heavy lift aircraft.
According to an article in USA Today in June of 2004, operating the VC-25 costs roughly $56,800 per hour. In 2009, with fuel costs higher than in 2004, we can probably make a good guess that a flight hour for the VC-25 is in the $65,000 - $75,000 range, but I'll use the $56,800 per hour rate for this discussion.
According to a GAO report on Presidential travel costs issued during August 2000, operating a C-17 cost $6,664 per flight hour. The GAO report was requested by Rep. Henry Waxman (D), of the 30th District of California.
If we assume that a quick trip to Phoenix by the President requires two C-17's to move the support personnel and equipment, and the use of the VC-25 for four hours for the actual presidential movement, the total cost just on the air travel side alone would be $280,512 one way and $561,024 for the round trip. These costs are obviously conservative, given that they have likely increased over time. They also don't include: the cost of the helicopter flight to and from Andrews AFB, to board/de-plane from the VC-25, the salaries of the Secret Service advance and protection details, gas for the convoy of cars he'll use while he's there, or the helicopter they may fly him around in.
I sincerely hope, that in addition to:
The President takes a serious look at how he spends taxpayer dollars on his own travel.
Certainly the President has unique security and communications needs. But he can take smaller Air Force jets, costing less to operate, or better yet, he can use a Video Teleconferencing system like other corporate leaders, rather than traveling at all. Surely, the White House has one.
As many Americans know, the aircraft the President generally travels on is known by the military designation VC-25, a heavily modified Boeing 747, costing $325 million each (we bought two back in 1987). The VC-25 is often mistakenly referred to as Air Force One. The call sign 'Air Force One' is used only when the President is aboard the VC-25 or any aircraft.
What is lesser known, is that Presidential airlift missions, managed and operated by the U.S. Air Force, include the movement of Secret Service personnel, armored cars, and other support equipment and personnel. The Air Force usually moves these people with two or more C-17 or C-5 heavy lift aircraft.
According to an article in USA Today in June of 2004, operating the VC-25 costs roughly $56,800 per hour. In 2009, with fuel costs higher than in 2004, we can probably make a good guess that a flight hour for the VC-25 is in the $65,000 - $75,000 range, but I'll use the $56,800 per hour rate for this discussion.
According to a GAO report on Presidential travel costs issued during August 2000, operating a C-17 cost $6,664 per flight hour. The GAO report was requested by Rep. Henry Waxman (D), of the 30th District of California.
If we assume that a quick trip to Phoenix by the President requires two C-17's to move the support personnel and equipment, and the use of the VC-25 for four hours for the actual presidential movement, the total cost just on the air travel side alone would be $280,512 one way and $561,024 for the round trip. These costs are obviously conservative, given that they have likely increased over time. They also don't include: the cost of the helicopter flight to and from Andrews AFB, to board/de-plane from the VC-25, the salaries of the Secret Service advance and protection details, gas for the convoy of cars he'll use while he's there, or the helicopter they may fly him around in.
I sincerely hope, that in addition to:
- Trying to end inflated executive compensation packages for bankers and other businessmen who oversee failing institutions
- Mandating that members of his administration have their pay frozen
- Cheering on (properly) as his former congressional colleauges disparage Detroit automakers fly on private jets (at roughly $20,000 round trip)
The President takes a serious look at how he spends taxpayer dollars on his own travel.
Certainly the President has unique security and communications needs. But he can take smaller Air Force jets, costing less to operate, or better yet, he can use a Video Teleconferencing system like other corporate leaders, rather than traveling at all. Surely, the White House has one.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A New President
I've just finished watching the inauguration of President Obama, and have yet again marveled at, and been pleased to see, the peaceful transfer of executive power in the United States.
It is a goal that many nations may desire and strive for, but few have so far achieved. In witnessing it again, I am reassured that the ideals our nation was founded on prevail, in spite of war, bad economic times, or the people's disillusionment with government as is sometimes the case.
In this inaugural, we have been additionally privileged to witness the swearing in of our nation's first African American President. I believe his presidency will mark the beginning of an era where his successors will be not just African Americans, but Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and others who more fully represent the many races and beliefs of our citizens. We all share in the common dream that is America, the shared history of sacrifice and hard work that has built America, and the shared freedoms that make America one of the great nations of the world. Thanks to Mr. Obama, our future Presidents will no doubt more fully reflect that.
Today, America has renewed itself, as it does every four years when the President takes the oath of office. Today, all Americans find hope that in new leadership, our nation will again make its best effort to improve itself. Time will show us if Mr. Obama's leadership and stewardship of our nation is all we hope it will be, but for today, we wish him and his new administration well.
Good Luck Mr. President.
It is a goal that many nations may desire and strive for, but few have so far achieved. In witnessing it again, I am reassured that the ideals our nation was founded on prevail, in spite of war, bad economic times, or the people's disillusionment with government as is sometimes the case.
In this inaugural, we have been additionally privileged to witness the swearing in of our nation's first African American President. I believe his presidency will mark the beginning of an era where his successors will be not just African Americans, but Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and others who more fully represent the many races and beliefs of our citizens. We all share in the common dream that is America, the shared history of sacrifice and hard work that has built America, and the shared freedoms that make America one of the great nations of the world. Thanks to Mr. Obama, our future Presidents will no doubt more fully reflect that.
Today, America has renewed itself, as it does every four years when the President takes the oath of office. Today, all Americans find hope that in new leadership, our nation will again make its best effort to improve itself. Time will show us if Mr. Obama's leadership and stewardship of our nation is all we hope it will be, but for today, we wish him and his new administration well.
Good Luck Mr. President.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Holiday Season
Well, the Holiday Season is upon us again.
This time of year reminds us that we can be better people than we are, and asks that we re-commit ourselves to be more generous, more compassionate, and more kind to those we meet in life. It is a shame that we submerge the more generous versions of ourselves after the holiday season, and not rediscover them until the Thanksgiving Day parades and football games are over. Unfortunately, sometime around mid January, or early February, we return to being our more self-centered selves. Although you might think me being more cynical than the season should allow, we ALL do it, including this blogger. Admitting anything less is being dishonest.
The good thing about the season is that it always comes again the next year. Even the scheduling of a holiday in the darkest part of the Northern Hemisphere's Winter seems calculated (from the standpoint of the old world Europeans who established it) to not just give us something cheerful to think about, but to remind us to be better than we are in the darkest times of our lives. To help us strive again for a greater nobility and gentleness in our spirit that is the defining worth of our species. To drive us to become better people than we currently are at that point in our lives and to express that improvement in the generosity of giving. In addition to making our children's Christmas joyous, we can express this best by giving our time to charities, giving food or clothing to that homeless person on the street, or giving money to a church or non-profit organization to help others in need.
In doing so, we all strive to remember the season in our hearts long past January 1st.
May the season bring out the best in all of us.
This time of year reminds us that we can be better people than we are, and asks that we re-commit ourselves to be more generous, more compassionate, and more kind to those we meet in life. It is a shame that we submerge the more generous versions of ourselves after the holiday season, and not rediscover them until the Thanksgiving Day parades and football games are over. Unfortunately, sometime around mid January, or early February, we return to being our more self-centered selves. Although you might think me being more cynical than the season should allow, we ALL do it, including this blogger. Admitting anything less is being dishonest.
The good thing about the season is that it always comes again the next year. Even the scheduling of a holiday in the darkest part of the Northern Hemisphere's Winter seems calculated (from the standpoint of the old world Europeans who established it) to not just give us something cheerful to think about, but to remind us to be better than we are in the darkest times of our lives. To help us strive again for a greater nobility and gentleness in our spirit that is the defining worth of our species. To drive us to become better people than we currently are at that point in our lives and to express that improvement in the generosity of giving. In addition to making our children's Christmas joyous, we can express this best by giving our time to charities, giving food or clothing to that homeless person on the street, or giving money to a church or non-profit organization to help others in need.
In doing so, we all strive to remember the season in our hearts long past January 1st.
May the season bring out the best in all of us.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
1.2 Million Reasons to Vote
Well, I've been away from my keyboard for a while, watching rejections from literary agents pile up, and taking some time off to play tourist in the Baltimore and D.C. areas with a quick side trip to Las Vegas.
On the 4th of November, every U.S. Citizen will yet again have the opportunity to stand up and be counted in a way that most people in the world are not afforded. The U.S. system of democracy (actually a representative Republic) is not perfect, or even ideal. However, the freedoms we are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights become meaningless if they are not exercised.
Blogging is a means of free speech. Voting is the means to ensure that we choose those who will speak for us in the national, state, and local government assembly houses, senates, and executive offices.
On Election Day, don't think, "My vote won't make a difference." or "It doesn't really matter." A freedom not exercised is a freedom lost. Learn about the issues, and the candidates. Go to your polling place on the way to work, or on the way home and vote for the candidate of your choice.
While the aftermath of war in Iraq has not been managed well, and Afghanistan is experiencing a resurgence of Taliban activity; until recently, Iraqi and Afghan citizens did not have the ability to decide who will serve them in government. Now they exercise that freedom, and their elected representatives will ultimately decide the future path of these fledgling democracies. The people of China, North Korea, and many of the African nations still do not have that ability. The dictators running these countries, some who attempt to cloak themselves in a veneer of the democratic process, continue to believe that the people are supposed to serve the government, not that the government should serve the people.
Since the American Revolution, more than 43 million Americans have defended the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. More importantly, nearly 1.2 million of our brothers and sisters died during their service to ensure our freedoms. Don't dishonor their sacrifice on election day. Vote.
On the 4th of November, every U.S. Citizen will yet again have the opportunity to stand up and be counted in a way that most people in the world are not afforded. The U.S. system of democracy (actually a representative Republic) is not perfect, or even ideal. However, the freedoms we are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights become meaningless if they are not exercised.
Blogging is a means of free speech. Voting is the means to ensure that we choose those who will speak for us in the national, state, and local government assembly houses, senates, and executive offices.
On Election Day, don't think, "My vote won't make a difference." or "It doesn't really matter." A freedom not exercised is a freedom lost. Learn about the issues, and the candidates. Go to your polling place on the way to work, or on the way home and vote for the candidate of your choice.
While the aftermath of war in Iraq has not been managed well, and Afghanistan is experiencing a resurgence of Taliban activity; until recently, Iraqi and Afghan citizens did not have the ability to decide who will serve them in government. Now they exercise that freedom, and their elected representatives will ultimately decide the future path of these fledgling democracies. The people of China, North Korea, and many of the African nations still do not have that ability. The dictators running these countries, some who attempt to cloak themselves in a veneer of the democratic process, continue to believe that the people are supposed to serve the government, not that the government should serve the people.
Since the American Revolution, more than 43 million Americans have defended the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. More importantly, nearly 1.2 million of our brothers and sisters died during their service to ensure our freedoms. Don't dishonor their sacrifice on election day. Vote.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Bureaucracy vs. A Patriotic Act
A story in the Denver Post on the 18th of August was brought to my attention by the news team at WBAL, an AM Radio news and talk station in Baltimore yesterday. Entitled, "Marble for Unknowns Tomb Just Sits", it provides another example of the initially well intended regulations of government inhibiting common sense.
A retired car dealer named John Haines has, with his own money, purchased a large enough slab of marble that can be formed into a new monument that will replace the cracked and aging Tomb of the Unknown Soldier monument at Arlington National Cemetery. The marble block was hewn from the earth by veterans, at the exact same quarry the current marble monument was cut from. Mr. Haines has also arraigned for the marble block to be transported, FREE OF CHARGE, to the east coast for sculpting and eventual dedication.
There is just one problem, Mr. Haines' donation of this block to the cemetery cannot go forward because an "ordinary citizen", in the words of the deputy superintendent at Arlingon, Mr. Thurman Higginbotham, "....can't just give us any piece of marble and say, 'This is what we'll use to replace the tomb."
I sincerely hope that Mr. Higginbotham and the rest of the Arlington Cemetery management is suffering from only a temporary state of beaucratic stupidity, and does not sincerely wish to deny Mr. Haines' the opportunity to complete his generous donation. Assuming the block is properly sized for the sculpting process and of the quality needed to serve as a fitting memorial, the Arlington authorities should petition Congress or the appropriate government body for the waiver needed to accept Mr. Haines' gift.
It would be a shameful event if the Arlington Cemetery management choses to spend $170,000 tax payer dollars to solict bids to sell the stone to the government and then transport it for sculpting. There is a marble block made much more worthy by the honorable intent and charity of our citizens standing ready in Colorado to honor and keep alive the memory of our Soldiers Known but to God.
A retired car dealer named John Haines has, with his own money, purchased a large enough slab of marble that can be formed into a new monument that will replace the cracked and aging Tomb of the Unknown Soldier monument at Arlington National Cemetery. The marble block was hewn from the earth by veterans, at the exact same quarry the current marble monument was cut from. Mr. Haines has also arraigned for the marble block to be transported, FREE OF CHARGE, to the east coast for sculpting and eventual dedication.
There is just one problem, Mr. Haines' donation of this block to the cemetery cannot go forward because an "ordinary citizen", in the words of the deputy superintendent at Arlingon, Mr. Thurman Higginbotham, "....can't just give us any piece of marble and say, 'This is what we'll use to replace the tomb."
I sincerely hope that Mr. Higginbotham and the rest of the Arlington Cemetery management is suffering from only a temporary state of beaucratic stupidity, and does not sincerely wish to deny Mr. Haines' the opportunity to complete his generous donation. Assuming the block is properly sized for the sculpting process and of the quality needed to serve as a fitting memorial, the Arlington authorities should petition Congress or the appropriate government body for the waiver needed to accept Mr. Haines' gift.
It would be a shameful event if the Arlington Cemetery management choses to spend $170,000 tax payer dollars to solict bids to sell the stone to the government and then transport it for sculpting. There is a marble block made much more worthy by the honorable intent and charity of our citizens standing ready in Colorado to honor and keep alive the memory of our Soldiers Known but to God.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Whom to Thank for a Morning Airshow Near Phoenix
I was forwarded what follows by a Chief Master Sergeant in the Air Force, currently on active duty, and I think it makes a point we all would do well to remember. The following is provided verbatim from his e-mail.
___________________________________________________
Background: Luke Air Force Base
Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were. A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed his/her day at the mall. When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung quite a bit.
The complaint:
'Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do we thank for the morning air show?
Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special? Any response would be appreciated.
The response:
Regarding 'A wake-up call from Luke's jets' (Letters, Thursday):
On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four-ship flyby of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques. Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day.
At 9 a.m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend. Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured.
A four-ship flyby is a display of respect the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects.
The letter writer asks, 'Whom do we thank for the morning air show?" The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives.
Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr.
___________________________________________________
Background: Luke Air Force Base
Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were. A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed his/her day at the mall. When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung quite a bit.
The complaint:
'Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do we thank for the morning air show?
Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special? Any response would be appreciated.
The response:
Regarding 'A wake-up call from Luke's jets' (Letters, Thursday):
On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four-ship flyby of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques. Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day.
At 9 a.m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend. Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured.
A four-ship flyby is a display of respect the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects.
The letter writer asks, 'Whom do we thank for the morning air show?" The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives.
Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Executive Order 12333 Amended
President Bush issued Executive Order 13470 yesterday. This order alters Executive Order 12333, UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.
EO 12333 is one of the documents used within the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) to set policy, along with U.S. Law, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights.
It sets out the President's guidance for the management of the community, affirms the roles and responsibilities of various IC elements, and prescribes some specific prohibitions the IC and its employees must respect.
So what was changed? (The changes listed below do not reflect typographical, grammatical, or consistency related changes within the EO.)
Part 1 - "Goals, Directions, Duties, & Responsibilities with Respect to U.S. Intelligence Efforts" was completely re-written. The major effect of the re-write of Part I is to insert the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) into a position of more direct control over the IC. This re-write helps to codify the DNI's authority and will hopefully cut down on any, "Yes you will." "No I won't." situations between the DNI and the heads of the IC elements.
Part 2 - "Conduct of Intelligence Activities" was altered to include:
EO 12333 is one of the documents used within the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) to set policy, along with U.S. Law, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights.
It sets out the President's guidance for the management of the community, affirms the roles and responsibilities of various IC elements, and prescribes some specific prohibitions the IC and its employees must respect.
So what was changed? (The changes listed below do not reflect typographical, grammatical, or consistency related changes within the EO.)
Part 1 - "Goals, Directions, Duties, & Responsibilities with Respect to U.S. Intelligence Efforts" was completely re-written. The major effect of the re-write of Part I is to insert the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) into a position of more direct control over the IC. This re-write helps to codify the DNI's authority and will hopefully cut down on any, "Yes you will." "No I won't." situations between the DNI and the heads of the IC elements.
Part 2 - "Conduct of Intelligence Activities" was altered to include:
- Changing Section 2.2 to include gathering foreign intelligence regarding "the spread of weapons of mass destruction."
- Changing Section 2.3 to ensure that signals intelligence (SIGINT) is only "disseminated or made available to Intelligence Community elements in accordance with procedures established by the Director in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and approved by the Attorney General."
- Changing Section 2.3.e to permit the collection, retention, and dissemination of information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities.
- Changing Section 2.5 to limit the delegation of the approval of the IC's monitoring of a U.S. Person to that outlined in the FISA of 1978, as amended.
- Adding a new section, 2.13, which states that, "No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media."
- Affirming the Attorney General's (AG) Role in Approving Procedures Established by IC Element Heads that Implement the Procedures in Section 2 - Any Dispute Between the AG and the IC Element Head will be Resolved by the National Security Council
- Providing current definitions of Counterintelligence, Covert Action, Electronic Surveillance, Employee, Foreign Intelligence, Intelligence, Intelligence Activities, the members of the IC, National Intelligence & Intelligence Related to National Security, and the National Intelligence Program
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Let's Talk Writing & Publishing
I completed my first novel manuscript this past Spring, and I'm currently in search of a literary agent to represent me. I'll say up front that the comments that follow are based on my research into the process, and my limited experiences accumulated to date. Take it for what it's worth, as one fledgling writer's initial slog through the rites of publication.
The novel manuscript is a thriller, 113,000+ words in length (390+ pages) and is grounded in my extensive professional experience in the Air Force coupled with my love of reading and desire to tell an engaging story.
I began writing the book in August of 2007, and once the manuscript was completed, reviewed and re-edited, began searching for an agent to represent me in late June 2008.
I sent my first query letter out on the 16th of June. To date, I've sent out 31 queries from the 16th of June through the 7th of July, and received 16 polite "thank you, no" responses. On the 14th of July, I received my first request for the complete manuscript for review from a reputable and from what my research has discovered, active agent located in New York.
I sent the complete manuscript, along with the package of information requested, back to the interested agent on the 16th of July. As of today, I'm still waiting for the response to my requested submission from the interested agent, and don't seriously expect to hear anything for at least another two to three weeks.
For anyone contemplating the pursuit of a writing career: Patience is required. Once you've completed and polished your manuscript (an exercise in dedication, planning, and hard work in itself), the search for an interested publisher or agent consumes a great deal of time. Time on your part to do your research, find an agent/publisher who works in/represents your chosen literary field, draft a quality proposal or query letter, and then get a positive response. More patience is needed while a busy agent or publisher finally finds the time to review your submission and choose to respond. Remember that you are not the only writer out there attempting to get published.
Bear a few things in mind. While you're in a hurry for their answer, they are busy people. Agents need to attend to their active clients first, before they can find the time to deal with a potential new client's material. Acquisitions editors are dealing with the 10 books they are already seriously considering, the 10 books in the editing process, and the 10 books nearly ready to head to the actual production process. I suggest you put the time to good use by working on your next writing project.
When an editor or agent can find the time, especially after they have asked for your manuscript, they should find time to get back to you. If you've waited a reasonable amount of time (4 - 6 weeks, or the agent or editor's normal response time you've found in your research) contact them via e-mail or letter (do not call) and politely request the status of your submitted material.
I'll post more as this process plays out, and good luck to my fellow writers out there working towards the day when you hold your first book or other published work in hand.
The novel manuscript is a thriller, 113,000+ words in length (390+ pages) and is grounded in my extensive professional experience in the Air Force coupled with my love of reading and desire to tell an engaging story.
I began writing the book in August of 2007, and once the manuscript was completed, reviewed and re-edited, began searching for an agent to represent me in late June 2008.
I sent my first query letter out on the 16th of June. To date, I've sent out 31 queries from the 16th of June through the 7th of July, and received 16 polite "thank you, no" responses. On the 14th of July, I received my first request for the complete manuscript for review from a reputable and from what my research has discovered, active agent located in New York.
I sent the complete manuscript, along with the package of information requested, back to the interested agent on the 16th of July. As of today, I'm still waiting for the response to my requested submission from the interested agent, and don't seriously expect to hear anything for at least another two to three weeks.
For anyone contemplating the pursuit of a writing career: Patience is required. Once you've completed and polished your manuscript (an exercise in dedication, planning, and hard work in itself), the search for an interested publisher or agent consumes a great deal of time. Time on your part to do your research, find an agent/publisher who works in/represents your chosen literary field, draft a quality proposal or query letter, and then get a positive response. More patience is needed while a busy agent or publisher finally finds the time to review your submission and choose to respond. Remember that you are not the only writer out there attempting to get published.
Bear a few things in mind. While you're in a hurry for their answer, they are busy people. Agents need to attend to their active clients first, before they can find the time to deal with a potential new client's material. Acquisitions editors are dealing with the 10 books they are already seriously considering, the 10 books in the editing process, and the 10 books nearly ready to head to the actual production process. I suggest you put the time to good use by working on your next writing project.
When an editor or agent can find the time, especially after they have asked for your manuscript, they should find time to get back to you. If you've waited a reasonable amount of time (4 - 6 weeks, or the agent or editor's normal response time you've found in your research) contact them via e-mail or letter (do not call) and politely request the status of your submitted material.
I'll post more as this process plays out, and good luck to my fellow writers out there working towards the day when you hold your first book or other published work in hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
