Update from the Heartland
No.315
17.12.07 – 23.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.315
17.12.07 – 23.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
or, as the Italians say,
Buon'Natale e Buon'Anno.
May God bless all freedom-loving and peace-seeking people everywhere regardless of their gender, race, nationality, language, sexual orientation, or chosen religion.
The follow-up news items:
-- British Army Major General Graham Binns and Basra Governor Mohammed al-Waili signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday, 16.December.2007, transferring security control of the Basra region to the Iraqi government; thus, effectively ending British combat participation in the Battle for Iraq, as part of the War on Islamic Fascism.
-- Now, we learn that there is a third el-Aouar sister involved in the sham marriage scheme [309, 314] -- Dr. Rula Nadim el-Aouar, 36, of Dearborn Heights, Michigan. How many more of these el-Aouar sisters and their cohorts must be go through? This whole Prouty affair may be just a marriage scam, but I find it quite odd that one of the four women involved so far held line jobs in the FBI & CIA (Prouty) and another became a Marine captain interpreter (Spinelli). I remain quite suspicious of this bunch, and I am sorely disappointed in our vetting process for sensitive Federal jobs.
-- The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) failed in the first attempt to convict the homegrown jihadi terrorist cell known as the Liberty City Seven [237]. These are the guys who conspired to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago. I hope the prosecutors regroup, tighten up, and go back to nail these yayhoos.
-- For those who still seek to learn more about embryonic stem cell research and the relationship to the recent skin cell conversion advancement [311], I offer this link:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=c0babf33f9863f4b403fa495fb9b6bc18696ea11&8ty&emc=ty
The security of this Grand Republic is vastly more important than the political shenanigans so often played by the parochial party hacks in Congress. I lauded the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes [313]. I am afraid I must amend my original statement. Destruction of materials collected by the government should not be destroyed. Rather, sensitive material like those interrogation tapes should be so highly classified and compartmentalized that only a very discreet, chosen few should even know of their existence or have access to their content. Proper congressional oversight can be and should be conducted in highly classified, closed-door, secret sessions . . . as was apparently done in this case. The reaction in this latest variant of the torture kerfuffle comes from at least one traitor within the CIA, who has chosen himself to be the conscience of the Nation and a bevy of political hacks bent upon personal political gains rather than the general welfare of the People. Interrogation techniques are as much and as vital a means & methods process as signal interception, satellite imagery, atmospheric and subsurface acoustic recognition, and indigenous, imbedded agents. Some things should remain beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act [PL 89-487] until the substantive value period has expired – 5, 10, 20, perhaps even 50 years in the future. The Press along with the speed and near universality of communications vastly enhance our ability to know more about the World in which we live. Yet, the rapidity and reach of information sources are indiscriminate – access for free people can be ammunition for those who seek to deny our freedom. Because we can know does not mean we should know . . . at least not in near real-time. Vital secrets from World War II were not opened for decades after those facts no longer held any relevancy. Why must we insist upon knowing today’s secrets, especially when they are of greatest value to our enemies? The destruction of those tapes was wrong, but in that context alone, I am glad the CIA destroyed them, because to me the traitor that disclosed them is monumentally more destructive to this Grand Republic than anything contained on those tapes.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
P.S.: a few more thoughts on this topic can be found in the Comment section below.
“Abstinence Programs Face Rejection – More States Opt to Turn Down the Federal Money Attached to That Kind of Sex Ed”
by Rob Stein
Washington Post
Published: Sunday, December 16, 2007; Page A03
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/WBRH016E4F24C059C0E3937BFEBB90
The article highlights a growing trend by states turning their backs on Federal abstinence-only sex education program money. I have consistently voiced my objection to the ideologically-based, abstinence-only effort [190, 308] for a host of Libertarian reasons. Nonetheless, the trend reflects efforts by states to reassert their independence and reject Federal funds that have strings attached, and especially strings that are not productive, efficient, or may be counter to the state’s welfare objectives. The State of California has taken steps to extend that independence; the latest issue is automobile emission standards. The Federal government has failed to perform some of its most fundamental responsibilities like border security and immigration control, fiscal prudence, and energy leadership, among so many others. Why do we tolerate government meddling in the private affairs of citizens in areas like sex education of our children? If society is unhappy with the conduct of some of our children, let us focus on the education and accountability of the parents rather than passing well-intentioned, nonsensical laws bent upon regulating or criminalizing private behavior. We must rescind our abdication of familial responsibility to the government. In the distant past, communities ensured proper public conduct via peer pressure in numerous forms from ostracism or corporal punishment. Some of those ancient practices would not be acceptable today, but modern versions would surely work better any governmental leviathan busting down our front doors to impose its will.
Comments and contributions from Update no.314:
[First, thank you all for the generous wishes for Taylor’s service and blessings for his safety; they are greatly appreciated.]
“Before I read the remaining update you blog (and I appreciate), let me congratulate you on your son Taylor. That must be an honor. I almost went into police work when younger, and was invited to do so after chasing a purse snatcher and recovering the purse for a visiting 70 year old woman from Scotland, here to visit her daughter. There is a higher calling for most L.E. officers who do their work to help others and take some nasty people out of position to keep them from hurting others.
“The other good thing is most cops, like pilots, love their jobs, and there is no greater pleasure than saying you love your work...besides love for God, family, county.
“May you, your son (and entire family) have blessings and protection.”
My reply:
I think [Taylor’s] ultimate objective is to join the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). I hope he continues to enjoy this job and stay here; we kinda like havin’ him around.
Another contribution:
“In our discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of certain interrogation techniques, this article (see below), which ran in the Post yesterday, should be instructive. According to a subsequent report, one of the FBI agents came close to arresting the CIA agent interrogating Abu Zubaida.”
“FBI, CIA Debate Significance of Terror Suspect – Agencies Also Disagree On Interrogation Methods”
by Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007; page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html?nav=hcmodule
My response:
I acknowledge this issue is quite sensitive. I try to treat the questions regarding the rule of law and our society structure with the respect they deserve. That said . . .
The Eggen/Pincus article and the controversy surrounding the Abu Zubaida interrogation (among others) highlight the essence of the question before us. The confrontation between the FBI (law enforcement) and the CIA (intelligence) brings the highlight to LASER coherence. When we add in the treatment of this issue by the Press, the talking heads, and a spectrum of politicos, we have an odiferous froth that in my humble opinion threatens the security of this Grand Republic and our future ability to defend our citizens.
There are two fundamental principles at play. First, intelligence, especially national security intelligence, and law enforcement are and should be nearly mutually exclusive – the Vinh diagram has a minimal intersection. Rules of evidence, necessary and required for law enforcement and prosecution while protecting our freedoms and rights, demand such things are a chain of custody, 4th and 5th Amendment protections, and such. Intelligence focuses on information collection along with the concomitant accuracy and reliability determination. Second, the two areas of Federal responsibility involve dramatically and vastly different public interaction. One depends upon public observation, scrutiny, debate and response; the other, by its very nature, must be secret and as far from public awareness as humanly possible. The public versus secret factors extends to the means and methods elements. Justice requires public scrutiny of police means & methods, while the effectiveness of intelligence means & methods must be protected and far beyond public scrutiny or their effectiveness diminishes rapidly.
The nature of cyber-warfare and especially our current Islamo-fascist enemy has forced us to increase the intersection between the two domains. Our laws and certainly public thinking have not adjusted to that greater intersection, thus Director Mueller’s withdrawal of the FBI participation in the intelligence interrogation process. I have offered my suggestions regarding reconciliation of the ambiguity [139, 245]; however, if such adjustments were ever considered, I will strongly recommend that the requisite deliberations must be closed-door and secret. Thus, as we seek to expand the intersection, we must find a way to increase intelligence interaction without sacrificing our essentials freedoms and rights; we have NOT yet attained that point of stability and balance.
The current public debate regarding torture, interrogation, prosecution, detainees, ad infinitum, is wrong; we are pushing too far into the intelligence arena.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
or, as the Italians say,
Buon'Natale e Buon'Anno.
May God bless all freedom-loving and peace-seeking people everywhere regardless of their gender, race, nationality, language, sexual orientation, or chosen religion.
The follow-up news items:
-- British Army Major General Graham Binns and Basra Governor Mohammed al-Waili signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday, 16.December.2007, transferring security control of the Basra region to the Iraqi government; thus, effectively ending British combat participation in the Battle for Iraq, as part of the War on Islamic Fascism.
-- Now, we learn that there is a third el-Aouar sister involved in the sham marriage scheme [309, 314] -- Dr. Rula Nadim el-Aouar, 36, of Dearborn Heights, Michigan. How many more of these el-Aouar sisters and their cohorts must be go through? This whole Prouty affair may be just a marriage scam, but I find it quite odd that one of the four women involved so far held line jobs in the FBI & CIA (Prouty) and another became a Marine captain interpreter (Spinelli). I remain quite suspicious of this bunch, and I am sorely disappointed in our vetting process for sensitive Federal jobs.
-- The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) failed in the first attempt to convict the homegrown jihadi terrorist cell known as the Liberty City Seven [237]. These are the guys who conspired to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago. I hope the prosecutors regroup, tighten up, and go back to nail these yayhoos.
-- For those who still seek to learn more about embryonic stem cell research and the relationship to the recent skin cell conversion advancement [311], I offer this link:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=c0babf33f9863f4b403fa495fb9b6bc18696ea11&8ty&emc=ty
The security of this Grand Republic is vastly more important than the political shenanigans so often played by the parochial party hacks in Congress. I lauded the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes [313]. I am afraid I must amend my original statement. Destruction of materials collected by the government should not be destroyed. Rather, sensitive material like those interrogation tapes should be so highly classified and compartmentalized that only a very discreet, chosen few should even know of their existence or have access to their content. Proper congressional oversight can be and should be conducted in highly classified, closed-door, secret sessions . . . as was apparently done in this case. The reaction in this latest variant of the torture kerfuffle comes from at least one traitor within the CIA, who has chosen himself to be the conscience of the Nation and a bevy of political hacks bent upon personal political gains rather than the general welfare of the People. Interrogation techniques are as much and as vital a means & methods process as signal interception, satellite imagery, atmospheric and subsurface acoustic recognition, and indigenous, imbedded agents. Some things should remain beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act [PL 89-487] until the substantive value period has expired – 5, 10, 20, perhaps even 50 years in the future. The Press along with the speed and near universality of communications vastly enhance our ability to know more about the World in which we live. Yet, the rapidity and reach of information sources are indiscriminate – access for free people can be ammunition for those who seek to deny our freedom. Because we can know does not mean we should know . . . at least not in near real-time. Vital secrets from World War II were not opened for decades after those facts no longer held any relevancy. Why must we insist upon knowing today’s secrets, especially when they are of greatest value to our enemies? The destruction of those tapes was wrong, but in that context alone, I am glad the CIA destroyed them, because to me the traitor that disclosed them is monumentally more destructive to this Grand Republic than anything contained on those tapes.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
P.S.: a few more thoughts on this topic can be found in the Comment section below.
“Abstinence Programs Face Rejection – More States Opt to Turn Down the Federal Money Attached to That Kind of Sex Ed”
by Rob Stein
Washington Post
Published: Sunday, December 16, 2007; Page A03
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/WBRH016E4F24C059C0E3937BFEBB90
The article highlights a growing trend by states turning their backs on Federal abstinence-only sex education program money. I have consistently voiced my objection to the ideologically-based, abstinence-only effort [190, 308] for a host of Libertarian reasons. Nonetheless, the trend reflects efforts by states to reassert their independence and reject Federal funds that have strings attached, and especially strings that are not productive, efficient, or may be counter to the state’s welfare objectives. The State of California has taken steps to extend that independence; the latest issue is automobile emission standards. The Federal government has failed to perform some of its most fundamental responsibilities like border security and immigration control, fiscal prudence, and energy leadership, among so many others. Why do we tolerate government meddling in the private affairs of citizens in areas like sex education of our children? If society is unhappy with the conduct of some of our children, let us focus on the education and accountability of the parents rather than passing well-intentioned, nonsensical laws bent upon regulating or criminalizing private behavior. We must rescind our abdication of familial responsibility to the government. In the distant past, communities ensured proper public conduct via peer pressure in numerous forms from ostracism or corporal punishment. Some of those ancient practices would not be acceptable today, but modern versions would surely work better any governmental leviathan busting down our front doors to impose its will.
Comments and contributions from Update no.314:
[First, thank you all for the generous wishes for Taylor’s service and blessings for his safety; they are greatly appreciated.]
“Before I read the remaining update you blog (and I appreciate), let me congratulate you on your son Taylor. That must be an honor. I almost went into police work when younger, and was invited to do so after chasing a purse snatcher and recovering the purse for a visiting 70 year old woman from Scotland, here to visit her daughter. There is a higher calling for most L.E. officers who do their work to help others and take some nasty people out of position to keep them from hurting others.
“The other good thing is most cops, like pilots, love their jobs, and there is no greater pleasure than saying you love your work...besides love for God, family, county.
“May you, your son (and entire family) have blessings and protection.”
My reply:
I think [Taylor’s] ultimate objective is to join the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). I hope he continues to enjoy this job and stay here; we kinda like havin’ him around.
Another contribution:
“In our discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of certain interrogation techniques, this article (see below), which ran in the Post yesterday, should be instructive. According to a subsequent report, one of the FBI agents came close to arresting the CIA agent interrogating Abu Zubaida.”
“FBI, CIA Debate Significance of Terror Suspect – Agencies Also Disagree On Interrogation Methods”
by Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007; page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html?nav=hcmodule
My response:
I acknowledge this issue is quite sensitive. I try to treat the questions regarding the rule of law and our society structure with the respect they deserve. That said . . .
The Eggen/Pincus article and the controversy surrounding the Abu Zubaida interrogation (among others) highlight the essence of the question before us. The confrontation between the FBI (law enforcement) and the CIA (intelligence) brings the highlight to LASER coherence. When we add in the treatment of this issue by the Press, the talking heads, and a spectrum of politicos, we have an odiferous froth that in my humble opinion threatens the security of this Grand Republic and our future ability to defend our citizens.
There are two fundamental principles at play. First, intelligence, especially national security intelligence, and law enforcement are and should be nearly mutually exclusive – the Vinh diagram has a minimal intersection. Rules of evidence, necessary and required for law enforcement and prosecution while protecting our freedoms and rights, demand such things are a chain of custody, 4th and 5th Amendment protections, and such. Intelligence focuses on information collection along with the concomitant accuracy and reliability determination. Second, the two areas of Federal responsibility involve dramatically and vastly different public interaction. One depends upon public observation, scrutiny, debate and response; the other, by its very nature, must be secret and as far from public awareness as humanly possible. The public versus secret factors extends to the means and methods elements. Justice requires public scrutiny of police means & methods, while the effectiveness of intelligence means & methods must be protected and far beyond public scrutiny or their effectiveness diminishes rapidly.
The nature of cyber-warfare and especially our current Islamo-fascist enemy has forced us to increase the intersection between the two domains. Our laws and certainly public thinking have not adjusted to that greater intersection, thus Director Mueller’s withdrawal of the FBI participation in the intelligence interrogation process. I have offered my suggestions regarding reconciliation of the ambiguity [139, 245]; however, if such adjustments were ever considered, I will strongly recommend that the requisite deliberations must be closed-door and secret. Thus, as we seek to expand the intersection, we must find a way to increase intelligence interaction without sacrificing our essentials freedoms and rights; we have NOT yet attained that point of stability and balance.
The current public debate regarding torture, interrogation, prosecution, detainees, ad infinitum, is wrong; we are pushing too far into the intelligence arena.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment