Update no.468

Update from the Heartland

No.468

29.11.10 – 5.12.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The WikiLeaks disclosures [450 et al] continue as the reverberations within the world diplomatic community percolates. Interesting that Assange has called for the U.S. Secretary of State to resign and accused her of ordering American diplomats to carry out espionage activities. Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? Assange should read up on a variety of U.S. laws and Supreme Court cases. Interpol issued a general alert for Assange based on Swedish charges of sexual assault. He is reported to be in hiding somewhere. I suspect his troubles with the law are only just beginning.
[Please see further discussion in the Comments section below.]
-- The Defense Department published its anticipated “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” [312, 408] on 30.November.2010. The internal group led by General Carter F. Ham, USA, and Jeh Charles Johnson, General Counsel, Department of Defense, addressed all relevant issues associated with repeal, i.e., what would happen if, rather than whether. The study concluded what we all have recognized – the military can and will handle any obstacle to the transition.
[Please see further discussion in an extended eMail thread below.]
-- Senator Thomas Allen “Tom” Coburn, MD, of Oklahoma, proposed Amendment 4697 [S.AMDT.4697] to S.510 [FDA Food Safety Modernization Act], to establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. The amendment failed to pass [Senate: 39-56-0-5(0)]. This was a vote by a lame duck Congress, so largely symbolic. Perhaps the 112th Congress can gather up the cojones do what must be done -- abandon the corruptive influence of earmarks [257 et al] and return to the Constitution.
-- Representative Sue “Zoe” Lofgren of California, Chair of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, introduced H.RES.1737 to censure Representative Charles Bernard “Charlie” Rangel of New York [449]. As the full House considered ethics charges and potential punishment for the veteran congressman, Representative George Kenneth Butterfield, Jr., of North Carolina, offered up Amendment 784 to change the punishment from censure to a lesser reprimand. H.AMDT.784 failed [House: 146-267-0-20(2)]. The House then voted on the Committee’s recommendation; the vote was recorded at 17:53 EST [R], 2.December.2010 [House: 333-79-0-21(2)]. Speaker of the House Pelosi clearly did not relish having to execute her duties, calling Rangel to the well of the House for his public censure – the 23rd representative in history to be so dishonored.
-- Why is it that I smell a rat? While Rangel received his public dressing down, two staff lawyers working on the House Ethics Committee investigation of Representative Maxine Waters of California [450] were summarily dismissed. Deputy Chief Counsel Cindy Morgan Kim –the lead attorney on the Waters case – and Stacy Sovereign, who assisted Kim, were placed on administrative leave. Chief Counsel and Staff Director Blake Chisam sought to fire Kim and Sovereign but was unable to do so. I hear echoes of the infamous Nixon “Saturday Night Massacre” on 20.October.1973, in the midst of the Watergate Scandal.
-- The Obama administration announced the extension of the moratorium [445] on offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for at least the next five-years. The public information available from both BP and the government do not justify this type of moratorium.

Let there be no doubt whatsoever, I believe absolutely that these WikiLeaks disclosures of classified military and diplomatic communications are wrong and traitorous. Tom Friedman gave us a sobering glimpse that most of us can agree with. The communiqués are fascinating, while often boring and mundane; but, they are also a peek into the world beyond our awareness.
“The Big American Leak”
by Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
Published: December 4, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05friedman.html

The following eMail thread was not a direct comment to the Update; however, I believe the exchange could be useful to others in the continuing public debate regarding the service of non-heterosexual citizens in the military. With permission, I have endeavored to reproduce the thread in a logical, near-chronological order since the exchange involved a dozen other citizens and me. I was introduced to and joined the thread with a relevant subject line: Leaked Pervert Pentagon Study. The thread opened with:
Message no.1:
EDITORIAL: “Barack's Brokeback barracks -- Leaked “Don't Ask, Don't Tell' details pervert Pentagon study”
The Washington Times
Published: Thursday, November 18, 2010; 6:29 p.m.
“President Obama and his friends in the media want the public to think Americans serving in uniform are just fine and dandy with homosexual conduct in the military. This view is being spread through a series of selective leaks from the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group, which is putting the finishing touches on a report regarding the future of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
“Mr. Obama has promised the fringe special-interest activists who helped him win the 2008 election that he will deliver what for them is the symbolic victory of opening barracks to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and the transgendered (LGBT). Last week, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to use the courts to bypass the legislative process to implement this radical change. After the big GOP win in the elections, ramming the LGBT priority through the lame-duck Congress appears to be the sole remaining option - and an unlikely one at that.
“To improve the odds, anonymous sources have been claiming to the administration's newsroom allies that 70 percent of troops wouldn't object to overturning the long-standing ban on homosexual conduct, citing draft versions of the Pentagon survey. The spin makes it sound as if the troops are fully behind Mr. Obama's campaign pledge.
“Those who know better say this reporting has created a false impression. "I looked very closely at the stories," working group co-chairman Jeh C. Johnson wrote in an Oct. 30 e-mail obtained by The Washington Times. "It seemed obvious to me that whoever spoke to the press was not very familiar with the actual results. The account of the survey presented was convoluted and confused, and it clearly did not come from someone who knew what they were talking about." Mr. Johnson was responding to questions posed by Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly.
“The Defense Department is enabling these false impressions to linger. "The full report will be made public for all to review early next month," military spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement. "Until then, no one at the Pentagon will comment on its contents."
“The unchecked leaks conceal the larger problem with the working-group effort, which has focused not on whether the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military - usually called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - should be repealed, but how a repeal should be implemented. As sources in the military "listening sessions" have stated in letters to The Washington Times, working-group members have promoted the Obama administration's social revolution from the top down. Military personnel whose religious beliefs conflict with the LGBT agenda will find themselves no longer welcome in the military. Even if the 70 percent number were accurate, that would imply nearly a third of the troops would be on the unwanted list. Forcing so many troops to either undergo special "diversity training" or leave the military would be devastating at a time when resources already are stretched thin. These alternatives further expose the ideological objective in play. This push has never been about making the military stronger and more effective. It is a costly political payoff from a liberal administration that's acting as if it loathes the armed forces. The new Congress should make clear early on that it intends to keep the current ban in place.”
Message no.2:
“We shall see what we shall see. On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". And we will reap what we have sown. I am not for it (totally open service of gays) and the many things which could easily arise from it like marriage, thus survivor's benefits, plus insurance beneficiaries who were a gay partner of a Service Person killed on active duty. And much more.
“It's a nightmare, and it is going to happen. Not maybe! It will happen. And it will cost the American Taxpayers uncalculated Billions, maybe Trillions of dollars over a long time, to fight, or maybe at times even to defend the new policies and their repercussions. To say nothing about the current Servicemen and Women who must live with decisions from above which they may have strong thoughts about. Maybe it will all work out. I certainly Hope so! Our Service men and women are not the troops of the 1900's. Yet they are just as if not more capable warriors.
“Lawyers must be frothing at the mouth at the prospects of the biggest Law Issue in a hundred or more years, maybe ever. Not all are chasers of such possible opportunities, but many are, and really cannot be faulted unless they are advocating something they themselves do not believe in.”
Message no.3:
“I'm really afraid that you are correct, but only if the Republicans cave in or prove their unworthiness by continuing the GOP's "Big Business Right or Wrong" and "Damn the Deficits" mentality.
“I happened to catch CNN's biased "coverage" of this subject in the form of interviews with a former naval commander and with Sen. McCain. It was absolutely pathetic to see how hard the commentator worked, by interrupting and talking over them and practically making fun of them, twisting their responses to totally discredit their attempts to point out what this article points out: the so-called Comprehensive study was not what the public was led to believe and still is being taught to believe. The bias was astoundingly obvious, and this article addresses the underlying problem quite well.
“The DOD has missed a good opportunity, but it was by direction and the explanation is exposed in the article. The Sec of Def and the Chm of the Jt Chiefs should be ashamed, but instead they are pushing Obama's agenda, with the active help of CNN and others. It is amazing to me how political those two positions have become, but maybe it has always been that way. The problem is that we have never before been faced with such a multifaceted attack from within.”
“I'll bet that a survey of just-retired flag officers using the right questions would produce a markedly different result, basically that the present policy does work and allows loyal homosexual service members to serve honorably and ably, with little adverse effect on military preparedness and only a relatively small number of unfortunate losses of good personnel resulting from violation of policy or stupid leadership mistakes.”
Message no.4 (my contribution):
Since you cc’d me in this thread, I can only assume the purpose was more than my awareness. Further, I do not know all the addressees on this thread, so I must assume the risk of offense; if anyone is so offended, I proffer my most humble apologies.
Upfront and straight to it, I shall respectfully disagree with you and your brother. Beyond that, are there risks associated with elimination of sexual orientation / identity as a basis for service in the military and especially the combat arms? Yes, absolutely! Just as there was risk for racial integration from FDR’s EO 8802 (1941) to Truman’s EO 9981 (1948) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352].
I question your perspective of the current policy in that I am absolutely certain senior officers with little skin pigmentation in the 1950’s & 1960’s believed that racial segregation in the military worked perfectly well. To say that non-heterosexual service members can serve honorably under the current policy misses the entire point of the issue. For the record, homosexuals have served in every military throughout recorded history, including the U.S. armed forces. This question is not about benefits and such; it is about equal treatment under the law. Non-heterosexuals are not asking for special treatment; they are only asking for the same respect and opportunity heterosexual service members enjoy. I can cite more than a few examples where non-heterosexual service members have borne the brunt of vindictive, intolerant treatment by innuendo, rumor and vengeful conduct of others – not by their violation of DADT. So, let us not kid ourselves about the treatment of non-heterosexuals in service today.
No one, and I do mean NO ONE, is asking any person, citizen or service member to accept the personal, private choices of others. Non-heterosexuals do not seek approval, only acceptance, just as Muslim service members do not seek approval of their religious choices, only tolerance.
Lastly, the military has never asked for or expected heterosexuals to hide their sexual orientation or sexual preferences. In fact, the military has tolerated rather bizarre, and some might even say aberrant, heterosexual behavior . . . after all, boys will be boys. Why on God’s little green earth should we ask homosexual soldiers to hide their private choices?
Let us move on. Let us recognize the freedom and rights for all citizens, not just the chosen majority. Then, let us deal with the bad behavior rather than our disapproval of another person’s pursuit of Happiness.
Message no.5:
“I have to give you credit, Cap, for a very well articulated argument-----one which I can almost totally agree with in theory. But it is not theory about which I worry, it is what will make it work. Reality in the field and barracks will, or will not allow it. How the other soldiers accept those different from them. I think they will accept and be accepted, but their bosses at the highest levels may Not for some time yet. There can lie a problem.
“I hope to God it does work, as other seemingly great obstacles to the service of certain peoples has shown to be false. They did and can serve as well as anyone. So why not the homosexuals (I include both males and females in that group)?”
Message no.6:
“What I see as transpiring here is a discussion bringing forth various points for and against open service of gays in the military. Without re-stating my own position and the reasons therefore, I see a constructive thing going on here. Not sure how widespread that same discussion really is. But I can hope it is.
“But it is Much unlike what is going on in our Government and in the hallowed halls of our highest Military officials.
“Republicans and their Tea Party friends better back off their locked in concrete mentality or they Will lose whatever gains they have made. America is mostly just one side or the other away from "midstream". And many ARE midstream! America Does believe in the precepts of our Constitution. Radicals in either direction away from the nominally Centrist will ultimately fail. My opinion.”
Message no.7 (another contribution of mine):
Everything in life involves risk. The integration of non-heterosexual citizens in the military is no different from the similar processes related to racial and gender integration. Will there be problems? Yes, absolutely, without question. There are bad homosexuals just as there are bad heterosexuals, or bad women or bad people with dark skin pigmentation. I remain profoundly confident that good leadership will prevail no matter the problems or the few bad apples encountered during this journey.
Unless we start making relationships and sexual relations a public spectacle, private familial choices should remain private and not a matter of public debate. The question before us has been, is, and always should be performance; how well does any individual do his/her job regardless of specialty from rifleman to pilot, from clerk to general.
As is so often the case in such questions, jumping in forces us to swim. Homophobia is an irrational fear born on ignorance. Homosexuals are not the bogeymen so many folks want them to be. They are normal, peaceful, accomplished and productive citizens, in fact some of the best minds on the planet. Estimates range from 10-20% of any human population are non-heterosexual-exclusive people. Non-heterosexuals have been part of humanity since man began walking upright. The best possible thing I could say is, get to know homosexuals; they are good, normal folk. Sure, there are bad homosexuals, just as there are bad heterosexuals. So, let us deal with the bad behavior, rather than react to our irrational fears.
The Constitution requires of us moderation and compromise, which by definition marginalizes the extremes to find workable solutions for the common good. I share your apprehension regarding the “locked in concrete mentality.” Such unwillingness to compromise will ultimately fail. The 112th Congress may become quite entertaining as the Center moderates the radicals at the extremes.
Message no.8:
“I think you are right. Though it will not be a totally smooth transition, particularly if those in high places opposed to it run their mouths too much. But those people will cry ‘wolf,’ trying to scare folks, including the Military into thinking that just maybe the opponents could be right, and our military as well as our ability to respond in a leadership role in the world, could be degraded. With entities such as China for instance on the horizon, it might not take too much to scare us into backing off what does need to be done.”
Message no.9 (another contribution of mine):
Oh yes indeedie. You are of course spot on and quite correct. It is a common tactic these days . . . scare the hell out of people with tales of the bogeyman in order to maintain the status quo. Regardless, once the trigger is pulled, I have faith the heavies will do their duty and ease the transition to the greatest extent possible.
Message no.10:
“I agree that the Service Chiefs, once given a clear directive, will implement it as if it were their own. No saying or implying that "Well I have to do this" crap. It is the way we do things in the Military. ‘Aye Aye, Sir.’ And our troops will follow their leadership. That is Also the way we do things.”
Message no.11:
"Well, as you say, we shall see what we shall see. A commentator on NPR this morning said "it's right on a knife edge". There's a good chance, though not quite certain, that all 58 Democrats will vote to end debate, so they'd need two Republicans, more if a Dem or two defect. The two women Senators from Maine and Scott Brown from MA are considered good possibilities. MA is such a liberal state (usually) that Brown doesn't want to antagonize the voters for his 2012 re-election run. So it could go either way.
"The only other comment I'd like to make is in regard to the message from [anonymous] in which he says that the policy is working and that homosexuals can serve, etc etc. That's true if you don't count the invidious effects of people having to hide their natures, avoid socializing with their friends, keep their mouths shut, etc. Don't you think that would be a pretty rotten way to live if you and your family and friends had to live that way? And there have been somewhere between 10 thousand and 15000 discharges under the policy (I forget the actual number), including many people with Middle-Eastern language skills which we definitely need. And there's no way to know how many service personnel we never got because of an unwillingness to volunteer to serve under those conditions. I know it will take some time for some people to get used to it, but just as with integration of blacks in the 40's or early 50's, and women more recently, they will indeed get used to it. And Secretary Gates made clear that it won't happen quickly, not until all proper preparations and education and training have been made. And I reiterate that nobody will have to give up their beliefs; they just will have to change their behavior.
"Times and attitudes are definitely changing. Somewhere around the '30's, Harvard expelled about 40-50 students just on SUSPICION they were gay. Now it has a very active gay community, including more than a few faculty. And recently the Captain of the Water Polo team, who was the toughest guy on the team. Now I know you can't extrapolate from Harvard to the Military, but it's just an indication of the depth and rate of change in the country. So even if DADT survives this Congress and probably the next one or more, sooner or later it's going to be struck down, either by Congress or the courts. And we'll get through it, and that'll be A Good Thing."
Message no.12
“I certainly agree that, as someone on the links commented, a survey of recently retired officers would differ considerably from the more recent Pentagon survey. As I said to [anonymous] a few days ago, young people today are MUCH more tolerant of gays than people of our generation, which I assume would include most of the retired officers.”
Message no.13 (another contribution from me):
A woman ceased to exist as a legal entity when she married a man. Women and children were the property of the husband/father until 1920 through 1964. Americans with dark skin pigmentation became free citizens in 1868, but did not begin to achieve equality as citizens until 1964. Yes, spot on; our children are far more accepting and tolerant than our generation. My parent’s generation and especially my grandparent’s generation openly displayed their social prejudice and bias. Now is the time to recognize equality for an eighth of our population. I am confident our military leaders will stand up to the mark when DADT is repealed.
Message no.14:
“I agree totally with you. To include the thought that our Military Services will get behind whatever laws come from this. They may or may not have doubts about the wisdom of it, but they WILL comply---and do better than our civilian population still does with the ‘problem.’”

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve disclosed details of more than 21,000 loan transactions to financial firms, companies and foreign central banks during the financial crisis from December 2007 to July 2010 – the largest release of financial data by the central bank ever.
-- The European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet indicated the ECB will continue to offer special longer-term liquidity measures in 2011. The extra liquidity measures were due to be phased out early next year. The ECB program should offer some relief to the euro-zone's troubled debt markets. The ECB left its main interest rate unchanged at 1.0%, which Trichet said was "appropriate" given "contained" inflationary pressures.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported U.S. securities regulators are in preliminary talks with several Wall Street banks aimed at reaching settlements to resolve a broad probe of their sales of mortgage-bond deals that helped unleash the financial crisis.
-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by 39,000 in November, far fewer than the 144,000 increase expected by Wall Street. October payrolls were revised up to 172,000 from the previous reported estimate of 151,000. The November unemployment rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, unexpectedly rose to 9.8% from 9.6%.
-- President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform by Executive Order 13531 on 18.February.2010, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act [PL 92-463]. On Friday, the Commission’s deficit-reduction plan failed to win official approval by a vote of 11 of 18 commission members with 14 necessary for approval and to trigger congressional action.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The court-appointed Madoff asset recovery trustee Irving H. Picard filed a civil suit against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. for more than US$6B on Thursday, claiming the bank enabled his massive fraud. The case is one of the largest brought so far in the Madoff disaster.

Comments and contributions from Update no.467:
Comment to the Blog:
“Here comes Mr. Grammar Checker again. Software grammar checkers do not know the difference between ‘roll’ and ‘role,’ but I do. ‘Role’ is a ‘function or part performed’; ‘roll’ concerns motion or shape. Both definitions paraphrased from Merriam-Webster Online.
“I share your gratification at Tom DeLay's conviction and your dread at the Citizens United ruling. This corruption will only be stopped at grassroots level if even the Supreme Court will not protect people.
"I share your view of North Korea as a bully and I would add that they are ruled by people who seriously lack sanity. I imagine that they are treated cautiously due to the horrendous possibilities inherent in nuclear weapons.
"I applaud and respect your willingness to stand against earmarks. One reason people fail to oppose that particular brand of corruption is local news reports such as the one you addressed. Thank you. (Mr. Grammar Checker again. While you correctly name the National Socialist German Workers Party, few of your newspaper readers will know that you referred to the Nazi Party.)
"I am cheered somewhat to learn of the FBI's investigation of insider trading. The news media may be unable to avoid such juicy stories, and that can have important indirect results in votes for or against the politicians who have supported Wall Street's runaway greed.”
My reply to the Blog:
Oh my, yes; good catch. My bad! Fortunately, I can edit the Blog and I have done so. Thank you.
I’m not sure how we shall / should proceed given Citizens United; however, I am fairly certain corporate influence and congressional corruption is going to get much worse before corrected.
Agreed, re: DPRK. Do you treat the schoolyard bully differently if he is armed with only his fists, or a bat, or a knife, or a gun? We must all draw the line sooner or later; it is only a matter of how much pain we choose to endure. There is a line from the movie “The Untouchables” . . . Jim Malone (Sean Connery) counsels Elliott Ness (Kevin Costner), “They put one of yours in the hospital; you put one of theirs in the morgue.” It seems apropos in this context.
I thought about using the German party title rather than English, and of course, you are correct; most folks will not recognize the proper title but would know the popular label.
The politicians will not bear the weight of what they enabled by over-correcting deregulation of the financial industry; most of the perpetrators have retired or been re-elected. Only a mere fraction of the industry perpetrators will suffer for their transgressions, but something is better than nothing.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“‘They put one of yours in the hospital; you put one of theirs in the morgue.’ Sounds great on TV, but applies very poorly to reality when "they" have nuclear weapons. We're not talking about a macho situation somewhere in the streets of the USA in the 1930s. This involves nations and nuclear weapons.
I do not understand the idea that politicians have "over-corrected" deregulation. Deregulation was not a corrective action; it was a gift to the greedy. The regulation resulting from the Great Depression was appropriate, guided decades of growth, and only needed updating for technological changes. I have yet to see any real correction of the causes of the current crash, much less over-correction. "Too big to fail" has not been changed, executive compensation knows no bounds, and neither transparency nor honesty have been given a place on Wall Street. You may be correct that only a handful of perpetrators will suffer for their misdeeds, but hope springs eternal. My specific hope for this is that some politicians will see the marketing value of pursuing the criminals.
. . . my follow-up reply:
“This involves nations and nuclear weapons.” Indeed, which is precisely why rogue states like the DPRK, IRI and others seek nuclear weapons; they want the power to cow freedom-loving nations . . . oh dear my, what are we to do? Frankly, I do not much care whether the street thug / bully carries a bat, a knife, a gun or a nuke; he’s still a thug and a threat to peace. Our choices are: 1.) neutralize him, or 2.) eliminate him. When we give in to him as we did in 1938, millions die instead of thousands. So, yes, perhaps the bravado machismo easy quote does not reflect the seriousness of the situation, but I still contend it is indicative. No weapon is a threat, only the man who uses such weapons against peaceful people is the real threat.
Again, my bad; I was too succinct in my rather flippant comment. Deregulation of the mortgage industry began in part in 1977 (although an argument could be made to peg the change in 1975). The “irrational exuberance” of the dot.com bubble along with sub-prime lending that began in 1993 and virtually all the remaining stops being pulled in 1999 set the stage for the inevitable crash of 2008. The financial reform signed into law in July simply does not go far enough for many reasons, some you have offered. “Too big to fail” should be an anathema in a modestly regulated, free market, capitalist society. Mismanagement and excessively risky conduct must suffer failure. Yet, what happened in 2006-2008 was actually decades in the making. What I meant by my “over-correction” comment was the politicians went too far in deregulating. As I have written before, part of the blame rests with us . . . those of us who signed mortgage papers for loans we could not afford on houses that were grossly over-valued. We are paying the price for our past sins.

Another contribution:
“The Wikileaks disclosure of a trove of U.S. diplomatic cables is a very serious matter, and should be troubling to all Americans. This will make the leadership of other nations wary of discussing sensitive issues with American diplomats.”
My response:
The Italian Foreign Minister called the latest WikiLeaks episode the “9/11 of world diplomacy,” and I certainly concur. You offered one of a myriad of reasons these disclosures are so bloody destructive.
I could imagine how an Army specialist intelligence analyst might be able to access and download 92,000 military documents on the Battle for Afghanistan. I cannot imagine or even fathom how that same specialist could gain access, let alone download, 250,000 diplomatic messages. Something far more sinister is at play here. If the USG can link any of the WikiLeaks media to direct access of classified government servers or storage media, we are talking about espionage, and I trust the USG will use its full resources and our Allies to shut down and silence them. Frankly, I doubt that is the scenario in play. The most likely is a small network of disgruntled employees, who have taken it upon themselves to be the conscience of the nation and the world.
The WikiLeaks talking heads including Assange claim the people have a right to know what their governments are doing, and of course, they are precisely correct. Where their argument fails is timing? It took 50 years for us common folk to learn about Enigma (ULTRA) and Purple (MAGIC) as well as the impact of that intelligence on the outcome of World War II. We have every right to know what those messages say . . . just not now, while we are fighting the War on Islamic Fascism, and while the classification decisions are still enforce. They cannot hide behind the 1st Amendment or FOIA on this one.
. . . round two:
“I am still trying to figure out how one intel spec did this...probably more were involved, but in the wake of 9/11, a lot of walls were 'torn down' to make intel more available. It is unclear what the DIA would have to do with so many dip cables- most don't deal with military issues. But DoD has built itself a shadow State Department, with country and regional desks, just like the real State Department- but without the background, history, and expertise. Often, foreign governments get confused when these people travel to their covered areas/countries. This all is another story, but perhaps part of the problem.”
. . . my response to round two:
Tearing down the walls in general was a good thing – a necessary step – but, that does not mean we should violate one of the axioms of the intelligence biz – need to know. Of the released messages I’ve read so far, I can see no reason whatsoever why a PFC/Specialist intelligence analyst, even at division or corps or army level, qualified under “need to know” what was in those documents. Isolating intelligence for parochial reasons set us up for 9/11.
Clearly, we need to reexamine our intelligence processes. While the diplomatic cables contain valuable intelligence, I saw nothing that could even be remotely useful to an entry-level intelligence analyst. Even the military messages from the prior batches of disclosures are beyond that entry-level need-to-know.
Very good topic of discussion . . . the same conflict existed when our national intelligence apparatus took shape, e.g., the historic conflict between JCS & OSS. Heck, NSA is still technically a DoD agency, although the evolution of DNI has altered that connection even if modestly. Another huge mistake of the Bush/Rummie regime . . . the ridiculous administration of Iraq in those early years after deposing Saddam. Diplomacy & statecraft are NOT the domain of DoD . . . never was, never should be.
. . . round three:
“It gets worse-- apparently at DoD-- or at least the DIA, it was possible for one person to transfer information from the classified system to the unclass (and vice versa) without authorization. At State, for years, it was impossible to do that, without going through the IT people and also (in the case of class to unclass) getting authorization. That is mind-boggling-- and apparently how the private in Baghdad got access to a treasure trove of dip cables.
“NSA is now getting 'more' DoD.”
. . . my response to round three:
OMG, say it ain’t so! You are much closer than me, but such actions violate so many principles of classified document control I cannot count them. In essence, the document classification system has no value or meaning. When I handled such material, an independent classified document control board made the declassification decisions; certainly not operators, even by some de facto process. Mind-boggling is a grotesque understatement.
NSA moving closer to DoD is NOT a good sign, either.
I’m not getting any good vibes from this exchange; in fact, quite the contrary. If these WikiLeaks disclosures are a direct consequence of very poor implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Commission or rather the Executive implementation may well prove to be far more destructive to our national intelligence apparatus than the Church Committee ever was. I know the 9/11 Commission strongly criticized the isolated pools of intelligence material and the paucity of cross-talk or sharing as a direct contributor to the events of 11.9.2001, but there is nothing I can recall that even remotely suggests we should trash our classified document control processes as a consequence. I find this extraordinarily hard to comprehend.
I am reminded of the old saw: I have met the enemy, and he is us.
Why do I feel sick?

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)