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.

Do as I say

Most university students can tell you that academia has a problem with conservative researchers in social psychology. Despite countless studies showing how hiring diverse groups of thinkers leads to more quality research, hiring trends in academia still favor white liberal researchers. I always thought it would be funny to preface every major science paper from major universities with the adjectives "the mostly white liberal authors" somewhere in the abstract, the way news organizations describe tea party rallies. Mentioning the race and politically affiliation of citizens involved has a way of discrediting the whole effort in a backhanded sort of way. It is nice to see a New York Times Op-Ed contributor link recognizing the problem involved with long term academic papers coming out of groups that act and think alike. It is an honest assessment of why it needs to change if not how. The private sector could certainly be accused of this as well; how much diversity of ideas are there among day traders or cattle ranchers? The problem is most Americans are well aware of how 'un-equal' and 'un-diverse' our society is, it might be all we know. Almost every day brings a news story regarding another industry caught red-handed mistreating an economic, religious or ethnic minority. How do we know so much about American injustice? Academia told us so.

Libertarians and Drugs

I heard a conversation recently between two self-professed libertarians who were discussing drugs and society. Both believed that all drugs should be legal to undercut the brutal trade that allows gangs to run poor neighborhoods like an empire. Through ruthless gun battles over territory and commerce, these urban soldiers bring violence, death and mayhem to cities and suburban areas due to the illegality of drugs. The thinking among libertarians (not all of them) goes something like this: by treating drugs like any other product or service the trafficking becomes legal and puts gang members used to operating in the black market out of business. Questions remain though as to why they would be out of business rather than just making a cheaper illegal drug? I have strong objections to legalizing something that causes so much misery and destruction in lives and puts a strain on communities around the country through the cost of drug rehab programs, shelters for homeless addicts and wastes overall human potential. I used to think I was a libertarian; I would call myself that if you asked me but when the drug question is brought up I object. There is a real lack of concern for human lives at the core of some libertarian ideas, it pains me to say. Liberty is fundamental for citizens in free societies but many bad actors use 'liberty' as a licence to spread addiction and dependence. I haven't found a good argument for allowing a drug culture to take root where none currently exists. Over the next couple of weeks I'll post counterpoints (from my view) to some of the main theories that support legalizing drugs in America.

Dan Rather and 'truthiness'

‘Truth’ the new movie about the events that led to the firing of 3 CBS news producers was responsible for Dan Rather suing Leslie Moonves and co. The best line about the film is from CBS; “It’s astounding how little truth there is in ‘Truth”. To rehash just a bit, Dan Rather left CBS news shortly after the 60 Minutes report ran showing a supposed letter from President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard as less-than-stellar. The letter was revealed as a fake and the producer, Mary Mapes, was promptly fired.  Reading through the piece intently, I kept waiting for the sentence, or paragraph, or smoking gun statement from anyone connected to original report the Mapes’ crew from CBS ran in 2004 that would convince us they got screwed. In other words, tell us how the network mistreated you by ignoring a legitimate story based on sound research and reliable sources, that isn't too difficult is it? Here is a line from Dan Rather:

 "We reported a true story," he says. "There wasn't any doubt then, and there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind now, the story was true." link

But if the story can't be corroborated by a legitimate source it essentially didn't happen. The source he had, The Hollywood Reporter points this out, lied about where he got the documents. This is something most journalists, especially a seasoned reporter, should understand how to shore up before going to broadcast with. The pressure of getting the big scoop and exposing some covered lie turning around the election is huge for newscasters and their crews. Think of the high esteem Woodward and Bernstein are held in. Rather is bitter for two reasons. CBS didn't back him up sufficiently after the tsunami of criticism over the amateur nature of the report. For someone who reported from conflict zones since the early seventies and won a Peabody award, the on-air ego crushing apology was too much. Secondly, ending the way it did with Rather suing CBS over the matter ensured that his credibility would be forever tarnished. Ironically the lawsuit was an attempt, in my opinion, to salvage some of that shine that had dulled on the anchorman's stellar legacy. If he could show some culpability on the part of the network or show some hidden effort full of political motives for the spiking of his story, he could regain standing.  It is sad how seemingly little regard for the facts this new film has though. I haven't seen it yet so I'll hold back criticism until then. The comments by some of the actors suggest it will be sloppier than the actual story it's trying to tell. Robert Redford, who plays Dan, tells the Hollywood Reporter the story is worth "going after" because the Bush administration "...tried to discredit the journalist."1 Rather and Mapes forced the hand of the network by doing shoddy work and thereby discredited themselves.  

Part of me is sympathetic to the claim the CBS is too cozy with the president and that their access depends on it. Sheryl Atkinson certainly knows what it is like to work for months and a story and have it killed over objections from ‘higher authorities’. She also quit working for CBS stating similar complaints. Dan Rather was a professional and a highly respected anchor who did great work while he was with CBS and nothing should affect it. My favorite memory of Dan Rather /was the humanity he showed on the Late Show with David Letterman shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He broke down crying on multiple occasions when retelling how residents in the World Trade towers leaped to their death rather than burn alive. It was the first time for me that I realized journalists are often deeply moved by events and stories they expose. He showed me that for all the death and suffering he had reported on, 9/11 was personal because it happened on our soil. Dan Rather is mostly guilty of being asleep at the wheel while reporting on the Texas National Guard Story. Someone with so much experience should have known better.    

The Free Speech Burden

What is it about the draw Mohammed contests that makes me cheer just a little bit? I am the type of person who turns down his radio when pulling up to a red light so as not to offend someone across from me with my loud music from my car. I drive with the windows down so to be polite I silence the music. It’s become a habit. I’m also careful not to let my grass get too long thereby upsetting my neighbors and making them think they live next to a bum who drives down the value of everyone within view of his unkept property. I tend to think and act like a good citizen to hopefully get back a full measure of respect from others around me. At the risk of sounding a bit prudish and stiff (too late) I hate when my behavior or lack of concern affects others around me. In short, I hate giving offence. It is un-Christian to look for reasons to upset those around you.

 Earlier this year a magazine in Paris Charlie Hebdo was attacked by Islamic radicals offended by the publication’s artwork (example) that featured the prophet Mohammed. Similar in style and tone to Mad Magazine here in the U.S, it skewers popular comedians, politicians, televangelists, athletes, movie stars and religious figures both modern and historic. It isn’t my style. It’s very offensive and tasteless and has heaped scorn on many Christian figures with perverse drawings and sketches. When the artists were murdered I was outraged. I was more outraged in the weeks that followed when most popular newspapers and magazines refused to re-print the cartoons that so offended the murderous cowards who rampaged the offices of Charlie Hebdo. As Western nations dedicated to free press, free speech and free religious expression, newspaper rolls should have run out of ink from printing the offensive cartoons and selling copy after copy. Television newscasts should headlined with comic strips of Mohammed that the French satirical paper had drawn in the past. The response was pretty tame as I recall. CNN pixelated the images but still managed to put the cartoon on a graphic over the anchor’s left shoulder, other newscasts didn’t even show the worrisome cover, just explained the reaction of the terrorists to it.

This is old news now and I realize I’m covering territory that has been covered. I didn’t understand what this new reality of cowering in fear from Islamic radicals has meant for free expression in Europe and the United States until I watched a live speech by Mark Steyn (here) in Copenhagen. His point was that radical thugs get away with killing and scare mongering when only a handful of outfits reprint the cartoons and make themselves a target. Fewer targets equal fewer options for Muslim fanatics to direct their ire. When the Green Bay Packers come to Chicago to play the Bears they bring a lot of fans. When Chicago fans get upset by inevitable beating that the Pack will put on their team, it’s easy to punch the one cheering fan with the cheese wedge hat and the Aaron Rodgers jersey. It is less hard when the cheese hat guy has five or six of his friends along. The media should do likewise and show those fundamentalist clowns that when a Muslim terrorist kills one of their own a whole lot of sketch drawings of their precious Mohammed are about the hit the papers. The news media needs to share the burden and it won’t feel so much like a burden. Besides, this act of support isn’t just a heartwarming tribute to the memory of lost colleagues. It is the best statement of principles regarding the true nature of freedom in a democratic society. It says in very specific terms ‘you do not get to tell us what to print, what to say, what to do’. The result of not doing so throws the weight of holding up freedom of the press to individuals like Pamela Geller (http://pamelageller.com) who is a wonderful champion of free speech but also a pariah. This is the unfortunate point of playing the censorship game; the Pam Gellars of the world become pariahs and get threatened constantly given such a scare team. She is the opposing fan in the bleachers wearing Packers gear at Soldier field whose friends are half-way to Milwaukee after examining the mood of the crowd. It won’t be long before self-censorship becomes business as usual for the press. Writers and editors who call themselves the fourth estate and keep authority figures in check through scathing articles and illustrations, will decide it isn’t worth the trouble. When that happens, other freedoms will start to dry up as they become increasingly offensive and security concerns override freedom.

I support the ‘draw Mohammed’ contests as a statement of principles on liberty, not because I like to offend.