Monthly Archives: September 2006

A Modest Proposal

Posted by

A proposal has emerged that could strengthen Congressional oversight over the so-called wiretap program that has been much in the news recently, particularly over those calls coming from overseas into this country from known terrorists.

Each House Member would be able to specify his or her district as “closed” so that no incoming overseas calls from known terrorists to that district could be listened to without first submitting the details of the call to the FISA court. Each call would be recorded and held in a “lock box” until the FISA court decision was made.

If the FISA court approved, the recorded call would be processed, but otherwise the tape would be destroyed.

Each House Member could also declare his or her district as “open” thereby permitting “real time” processing of each call as needed.

If the Senate wished to participate, there could also be provision for them to declare their state “closed” but only if both Senators from the same state agreed.

The proposal, still in its early stages, was to have been called “Earmark” but that name has been used elsewhere. The proposal may have a new name, but none of the usual sources have leaked it as yet.

Saddam in Court

Posted by

There’s a story running around these days about Saddam. According to the story, there was some thought given to trying Saddam in a US court.

In the end, they didn’t do it. If they had, he’d be home right now, running for reelection.

But this is election season, and there’s no way to tell whether this story is true or not. But still, if you watch him during that Iraqi trial, doesn’t he look like he’s running for reelection?

Election times are so confusing.

To The Shores of Tripoli

Posted by

Early in our history, we sent the US Marines to deal with pirates on the Barbary Coast. Did we cause that piracy? Did sending our ships of commerce into the Mediterranean cause the piracy? Ask the nearest Marine. They all know the story of the Barbary Coast War.

There are still pirates today. They often live wherever the sea lanes come through a narrow strait and the passing ships are vulnerable as they near the land. The pirates of Aceh, that province of Indonesia that was devastated by the tsunami, have long preyed on passing ships, and the US Navy recently tangled with pirates near Somalia.

Did we do something to cause the piracy in those places? Of course not.

It’s the way they live. They prey on others. They have different names but all live off other people that happen to be handy. And they get their way by being dangerous to those who resist.

Whether it is pirates or hoodlums, neighborhood gangs or rustlers, fascists or terrorists, our fundamental problem is the same. We are their targets, and we didn’t cause their terrorism. We are not the problem, but we can be the solution.

Clinton and Bin Laden

Posted by

If you haven’t seen it, you haven’t had your TV on. Former President Bill Clinton spent some time with Chris Wallace of Fox New Sunday, and the subject quickly turned to his record with Bin Laden. The segment was taped last week and aired on Fox yesterday.

It was a premeditated attack ad. It was designed to get the highest number of viewers, and was the best free attack ad the Democratic Party has had for a long time, any way it is measured. It got plenty of build up last week and it is still running as this is written. And still free.

Clinton comes across as a strong man who was absolutely determined to kill Bin Laden, and who tried and failed, but gave it all he had. That was the word he used: kill.

Nuke Threat

Posted by

Iranian President Ahmadinejad says “we do not need a bomb.”

It’s true. You don’t need a bomb, just the threat of one. If you want to lean on some opponent, then convince them that you have one, whether you do or not.

On the other hand, if you are going to have a nuclear bomb, and plan to actually use it, then you ought to consider having another ready to launch when your adversaries retaliate. Having just one bomb might be a liability.

Maybe he is really saying “we do not need one bomb.”

Conspiracies

Posted by

They say that somewhere out on the web there is a site that caters to people who believe the 9/11 attack was instigated by the US government.

The principal feature of the site, it is said, is a survey about how you think the government managed to pull this off.

The site claims that, if you complete the survey truthfully, its program can analyze your answers and predict with great accuracy how many Hollywood movies you have watched over the last few years and, so they claim, pinpoint which movies were your favorites.

One final question on the survey asks whether you believe the program will be accurate in its predictions. Most participants answer “yes” to that question.

Finding Terrorists

Posted by

Finding terrorists is different from finding garden variety criminals.

If you find them and arrest them, you need to build a good, strong case against them that will lead to conviction. But you also need to stop them before they attack, and still build a good court case that will put them safely away in jail.

But how do we do that?

Our British cousins know how. It requires patience. Beginning with the first good lead, they set up surveillance and begin to watch and listen with whatever useful tools are at hand, and as their knowledge grows, so does their watching and listening. They learn as much as they can about the people and plans and contacts, while staying alert to any signs that some attack might be about to happen. They also try to infiltrate someone into the group, to develop first hand information, which is always a slow process.

If an attack is imminent, they must find a way to stop it, hopefully without having to close down the surveillance effort. It’s a process they learned over the years when defending against IRA attacks.

But it clearly wouldn’t work here as a regular strategy. As soon as the surveillance results start coming in, there will be a leak. Count on it.

The surveillance will be shut down and the group taken into custody, if possible, before they disappear. The evidence against them may be meager and incomplete, since the surveillance never ran its planned course.

A defense attorney would quickly get the case dismissed and return the “not guilty” to their rightful places in society, after which they will probably disappear.

In this country, leakers are heroes, and often become celebrities and sometimes pundits, and maybe even write a book.

Daily

Posted by

Question: Why don’t you publish every day?

Answer: Some days, there isn’t anything to say.