Shared Intelligence

I can think of one good reason for compartmentalizing intelligence, Edward Snowden. Just one security breach and another analyst or case officer could run off with intelligence from multiple countries. Former CIA chief James Woolsey put it like this, Snowden's leak "...turned loose, for example some substantial material about the Mexican intelligence service and law enforcement working together against human trafficking."here Woolsey made the comments in response to questions about Snowden's culpability on the Paris slaughter. The connection isn't really clear between Mexican intelligence and terrorists and Woolsey doesn't give the interviewer anything more concrete, probably to avoid opening the lid even further on how clandestine operations unfold. The larger point here is that when large data pools of intelligence are shared large data pools of intelligence are stolen. Be careful who has access.

Paris Massacre: Danger of Open Borders and Runaway Immigration

Paris was attacked by the usual Islamic monsters that cause so much of the terrorism in the Western world these days. I wish I could act surprised when discussing the event with others but the truth is I expected something like this to happen. The satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was shot up less than a year ago in Paris by some radicalized Muslims offended over the cartoon depictions of Muhammad the publication is known for drawing. Once again the city has taken another beating by monsters out to terrorize free democratic people with liberal notions about religion, citizenship, law and all the ingredients that make up Western civilization. I was about to leave work when a salesman at the store told me gunman were shooting up a soccer stadium in Paris. The truth was far worse. I believe six separate attacks occurred over a three hour span: a soccer stadium suicide bomber, a concert hall shooter, various restaurant shooters and suicide bombers all created a stressful and chaotic night across a beautiful city. I turned on the car radio and listened to the reports about the ‘hostage’ situation at the stadium which apparently turned into a shooting gallery for the terrorists when the police went after them. It sounded like they turned their guns on the hostages and killed as many as they could before being killed themselves. I haven’t read the official stuff yet but much of what comes out during these live events is incorrect and needs to be amended later.

image

 I had the same kind of sinking feeling about the loss of life I experienced during the 9/11 terror attacks. The sinking feeling quickly turned to anger now as it did then because of the sheer cowardly way in which soft targets get blown up and shot just because it’s easy to do. The next thought I had was how the refugee crisis in Europe has made it undoubtedly harder to police the same way and expect the same results. Most of the immigrants being let into Europe are refugees from Syria escaping a more than 4 year old civil war. A real humanitarian crisis has loomed large without clear signals from the European Union on what to do with starving and displaced people on their collective borders. Angela Merkel told some 800,000 they were welcome in Germany, much to the praise of the Western press and the dismay of German nationals. The Economist magazine called Merkel the “indispensable European” and lauded her with taking bold steps to ease the transition of migrants, if not solve the problem of re-settlement. I read the piece and thought to myself, they are going to regret giving her this much credit for creating a problem that leads to increased crime and terrorism. It isn’t fair to blame Merkel for the refugee problem nor is it fair to say she had something to do with the bloodshed in Paris. She did make a bad situation worse by increasing the number of people to police and cells that intelligence agencies have to monitor. This was predictable. I believe it will lead to her political end and possibly usher in a rise in far right wing populism that often follows mass immigration. No law enforcement organization in the world can keep tabs on that many new faces. 

image

The fear is that not all the refugees seeking asylum are actually ‘refugees’ and are instead migrants from all over the middle east and terrorists who have trained in ISIS camps. A fear that has gotten more real after the slaughter in Paris; not all the details have emerged yet about exactly who is responsible and how they coordinated separate attacks around the same time. Much of the investigation needs to be done on the who, what, and why of the massacre but the scale and severity suggest it involved a large organization possibly Islamic State. The immigrant groups are primarily Muslims which don’t assimilate as well into a historically Christian society as Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. Problems arise in democratic societies among all groups from time to time whether religious or territorial; New York City after the first wave of Irish immigrants was a cluster of such warring groups. There is something fundamentally resistant to liberal democracy about Islam though and despite so much evidence of this the West ignores it at their own peril. Muslims live and work in Europe, fewer in the US, and contribute taxes, vote in elections, buy and sell goods the same as any native citizen of a democratic country. Certainly most Muslims are interested in earning a living and raising families under the legal traditions Western countries believe in. Talk of Sharia law in modern cities like London and New York is disheartening and shows the limits of Western influence on many adherents of Islam. We in the West have come to think of immigration as something automatic and guaranteed to anyone seeking it. This is a mistake. Putting dramatic limitations on it for a time is a reasonable move for countries to make when faced with integrating current immigrants. Without severe restrictions the host countries lose the ability to employ and protect the citizens who depend on the services they pay for. Unfortunately for much of the EU, it will take a long time to integrate another 1 million people and will put a massive strain on law enforcement and welfare rolls. Hopefully Europe, and especially France and Germany, can figure this mess out before their way of life is gone.   

Judge fudge

A Canadian judge in hot water over comments in a sexual assault case is forced to give a wimpy apology. You know the kind, it's the I-promise-to-show-utmost-respect type groveling that seem to accompany any 'insensitive' snafu whether from athletes, movie stars or politicians. Judges can be unpleasant and rigid when applying the law but so too can scientists and surgeons be arrogant and dismissive when regarding their skills. We should regard them according to how they do their job. This judge is required to give a verdict by deciding whether or not a victim is telling the truth about being attacked. He used insensitive language that suggests he was skeptical of her claim.

In the 11-page complaint, Elaine Craig, Jocelyn Downie, Jennifer Koshan and Alice Woolley said that in the 2014 case, Camp asked the complainant, "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" and, "Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you?"

At first glance it sounds rude and dismissive but what is the judge doing ruling on the case if he isn’t allowed to ask these questions? In other words what is a judge’s role if not to question legitimacy of such a case? The letter of complaint fired off by an angry group of law professors at University of Calgary hinges on Judge Camp’s alleged “… ability to respect the equality and dignity of all persons appearing before him.”(11-page complain )It could be that this woman was raped but the judge ruled against her claim, hence the need to drag the man through sensitivity training.  A couple problems with the claim: first the defendant had a sexual history that the judge took into consideration. The letter doesn’t specify what history was presented but makes it clear they find it unfair to consider previous history in deciding the case. What sense does this make in adjudicating the law when other evidence isn’t present? Don’t these types of cases frequently hinge on individual character or is the Canadian legal system radically different from that of the U.S.?

Secondly she was drinking, not just drinking but drunk. The signers of the complaint even mention this in the draft but are worried about the Judge’s lack of seriousness over the prevalence of alcohol. Judge Camp jokes that the girl confuses Absinthe with abstinence. Finally, the girl in question (I am reluctant to call her a victim) asked the man who ‘raped’ her if he had a condom further making this case into a difficult ‘he said/ she said’ scenario. Asking the rapist if he had a condom throws considerable skepticism over the claim of rape itself. Especially when combined with the other factors.  Imagine the difficulty for future cases if judges ruled on what ‘victims’ said and not how they lived or what evidence or lack of evidence was involved. The significance of the letter is to smear a judge who holds a high federal court position. The attack is light on facts and thick on innuendo; it draws heavily on notions of modern thinking on sexual assault and rape, basically that women aren’t responsible for their behavior and anyone who screams “rape” is telling the truth, damn the evidence.

Judge Camp could have chosen his words more carefully but it is hard to believe what could have satisfied the overly sensitive parties. This case was overturned by an appeals court anyway raising the question why they would pursue the attack on a judge who lost out in the end? Nothing is worse than the sin of sexism and old fashioned ideas about legal provability, at least to some. If his legal briefs and opinions can't be taken apart with intellectual rigor call him a old school chauvinist and work to get him dismissed. Too bad it works as well as it does.