Ahmadinejad Cannot be Denied Ground Zero Visit

Americans are up in arms over the much-publicized proposed visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ground Zero memorial site during his stay in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly next week. Presidential candidates from both parties tripped over each other in the scramble to get out in front of this controversy and issue the most forceful condemnations possible, indicting everyone from Ahmadinejad himself to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for their roles in facilitating the visit. While the visit of a radical leader who actively sponsors global terrorism to a site held by Americans to be a sacred shrine to the fallen heroes and innocents of 9/11 is obviously in poor taste and insulting to our sensibilities, the bluster by politicians, and calls by talk show hosts like Sean Hannity urging Mayor Bloomberg to prevent the visit are either craftily contrived or incredibly naive.

The New York Sun broke this story today, surprising New Yorkers with the headline, "U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero." Presidential candidates immediately seized on the "controversy" as an opportunity to flex their foreign policy issue muscles, but like the proverbial bully at the beach, reality will soon kick its sand in their outraged faces and limit the campaign mileage they hope to gain through their outspoken opposition to a visit that has not been finalized. Even if it were an established part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary during his stay in New York, there is nothing that any of the current presidential candidates or sitting politicians can do to prevent it, if in fact Ahmadinejad insists on visiting Ground Zero.

Here is how some 2008 presidential candidates reacted to news of Ahmadinejad's proposed sightseeing tour of the 9/11 site:

"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."

A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."

"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

Struggling to reignite the flickering flame of his once roaring campaign, Romney's comments conveyed a significant lack of awareness of diplomatic and security protocol for visits of foreign heads of state to the United States and specifically for visits that incorporate attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Quite simply, whether Americans like it or not, Ahmadinejad is the internationally recognized elected head of state of Iran, and part of America's role as the host country for United Nations headquarters is an international agreement that America will provide protective services to any represented nation that requests such protection. For certain countries whose leaders are considered high value threat targets, their leaders are provided mandatory protection by the Secret Service. Simply stated, America will not allow high threat level foreign heads of state to visit the United States unless they accept the protective services of our government. America takes full responsibility for their safety while on our soil.

Ahmadinejad certainly would fall into that category and thus if he chooses to attend the United Nations meetings next week, he will receive Secret Service protection, with logistical assistance from NYPD and other entities. There is ample historical precedent to justify the diplomatic and security reasons for providing this mandatory protection. World War I was triggered in large part because of the assassination of a visiting foreign leader, and in today's era of increased vigilance against terrorism or retribution, nothing would be more embarrassing for Americans than to have a foreign head of state harmed while on American soil.

A successful attack on a controversial figure visiting the United States would diminish international perceptions of American strength and forever fuel accusations of an American conspiracy to effect regime change through assassination in our own backyard. Presidential candidates did not seem to give much, if any, consideration to the repercussions of not providing Ahmadinejad with the mandatory protection afforded to visiting heads of state. Thirty percent of our own citizens claim to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy concocted by the "Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil." It stands to reason that international conspiracy buffs would number in the millions if something happened to Ahmadinejad in America after our government has spoken so openly about its desire for regime change in Iran.

Which brings us to the second fact conveniently ignored by the radio talk show hosts and politicians. There is likewise no provision in our agreement with the United Nations that allows the host country, America, to dictate to a foreign head of state where he can go and where he cannot go while visiting America, with the exception of sensitive national security or military sites. Even that exception has its exceptions, depending on the nature of the site and the stated purpose of the visit. Ground Zero rightly may be considered a shrine, and the idea of Ahmadinejad strutting around it and mocking it with his notoriously smug grin naturally outrages us. Presidential candidates are justified in their sense of anger over the contempt Ahmadinejad would show to all Americans by visiting Ground Zero. However, they have directed their outrage at the convenient targets, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the Secret Service, and the U.S. government for not preventing Ahmadinejad from making the proposed stop.

It is the job of these officials and law enforcement agencies to provide safe transit throughout Ahmadinejad's stay in America, not to dictate to him what his itinerary should or should not include. Protective agencies can warn heads of state of potential negative consequences their decisions might bring, but they cannot stop Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero any more than they could stop Bill Clinton from "entertaining" Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Ultimately the head of state must decide whether he wants to go ahead with his proposed action, and the protective accommodate the request in by providing a secure environment.

I know of no instance where a foreign head of state has expressed a desire to visit a famous site in America and was denied the opportunity regardless of his political, religious, or terror-sympathizing views. It is the job of the Secret Service, with the help of the NYPD and Port Authority Police to facilitate the secure visit of a head of state to whatever site, tourist or otherwise, he chooses. The old Secret Service motto, "You elect 'em we protect 'em" is a promise that extends to the citizens of other nations when their presidents or prime ministers visit America.

This is not Ahmadinejad's first visit to speak at the United Nations, and he has thus far not offered any explanation as to his reasons for wanting to visit Ground Zero. He may wish to gloat internally over the terrible damage wreaked on 9/11. It may even encourage him to offer increasing support to terrorist groups in hopes they will pull off similar spectacular attacks on America or our allies. Yet at the same time, it may just as likely give him a firsthand view of our resiliency, our ability to rebuild, to move forward, to rise from the ashes of horrible carnage like a phoenix burning with new and brighter flames of resolve and patriotism. He will likely witness that crumbling our buildings will not crumble our spirit or our economy.

Part of the price we pay as the host of UN headquarters is an annual pilgrimage to New York of hundreds of foreign heads of state. Some are our allies, and some are avowed enemies who speak openly of annihilating Israel with nuclear weapons or refer to America as the "Great Satan." Hugo Chavez may have complained about the "stench" left behind by President Bush after our president spoke to the UN, but even the America-hating socialist Chavez received full diplomatic and security resources throughout his visit to New York and will again every time he returns. That is what we as a nation represent; equal treatment under the law, even for those we dislike or who openly despise us. Unless the 2008 presidential candidates specifically propose that UN headquarters be relocated to another country, the Secret Service, NYPD, and Port Authority Police will continue to perform the duties they are mandated by law to perform.

Despite being the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran's elected president will receive the full diplomatic and security resources mandated by law and expected by protocol. That is, after all, what we agreed to when we invited the UN to build its headquarters in New York. Unless we are willing to seriously consider sending the UN packing, it behooves our politicians to play the role of good hosts. Politicians and talk show hosts should remember, "someone elected them, so we'll protect them."

Technorati Tags: Ahmadinejad United Nations Visit to Ground Zero Secret Service Mitt Romney Fred Thompson NYPD Michael Bloomberg 9/11 Iran

Former Congressman Fuels "Big Brother" Fears

Americans are being scared into compromising their own safety, and Bob Barr is doing the scaring. As Barr has discovered, nothing is more effective at whipping alleged privacy fears into anti-government frenzy than inflammatory warnings that “Big Brother is watching.” Barr, a former Georgia Republican congressman and U.S. Attorney contributed an OpEd piece to today’s Washington Times that contained a torrent of fear-inducing comparisons between Tony Blair’s and Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to install thousands of surveillance cameras throughout London and New York with George Orwell’s “1984 ” and philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon society. According to Barr, Americans have much to fear from governments at all levels that place great emphasis on the need for surveillance cameras as a solution for ensuring safety.

According to Barr’s dire warnings, we must not allow America to become a land where, as in Bentham’s Panopticon, “control was exercised not by being surveilled continuously but by each person knowing they might be under surveillance at any time, or all the time.” Barr was a U.S. Attorney, and as such one would assume that at some point he attended law school. Apparently Barr missed the course where privacy in public places was discussed, because his OpEd piece, “Big Brother in the Big Apple,” was long on exaggeration and incongruous conspiratorial comparisons to Orwell but short on facts or for that matter, the truth about London’s and New York’s surveillance systems.

No surveillance system is perfect, and despite conspiracy-fueling television or movie depictions they are not installed in every hallway or room in any city. It is important to separate the fear mongering from fact: in London and New York there are no cameras in private areas, such as restrooms or dressing rooms where by law one is granted a reasonable expectation of privacy. Private establishments such as a business or doctor’s waiting room are mandated to post signs indicating the presence of closed circuit TV cameras. Those who do not wish to be on camera in such areas are not required to stay. The cameras that Barr and privacy rights activists condemn are located in public places, such as malls, city streets, tourist attractions, and other areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Ironically, Barr, a former congressman, is more afraid of government cameras monitoring public areas than he is of terrorist cells in the planning phase monitoring those same public areas for vulnerabilities.

Major tourist attractions such as Disney World have utilized closed circuit TV surveillance for many years, with great success. Signs are posted at the entrances to such theme parks advising that visitors will be surveilled. Bags are checked, certain items are banned, all in the name of security. Would Barr prefer to visit Disney World in today’s age of terrorism without these security measures in place? Reasonable people are glad that steps are taken to protect them while they visit attractive terrorist targets, and like it or not, the streets of our major cities are lined by such targets, whether they are historical sites, government buildings, or financial nerve centers of the global economy.

The key to such security measures is simple: if you are not a criminal or a terrorist, you should not be bothered by the fact that when in public you may be on camera. If you wanted to do something that you wouldn’t want anyone else to see, wouldn’t you find somewhere private to do it off camera?

Barr avoids this entire issue by focusing his OpEd on a baseless argument that “government at all levels convinces a fearful populace that a surveilled society is a safe society.” Having worked in the private sector and the federal government I can assure Barr that no promises are given by government that any security measures are guaranteed to produce “a safe society.” There are thousands of government attorneys at all levels whose duty is to make certain that government never guarantees anything, because it if fails to deliver on its promises, it would be ripe for lawsuits. Government certainly extols the virtues of camera surveillance systems, particularly for their role in identifying pre-operational surveillance conducted by criminals and terrorist groups or providing investigative leads after attacks that lead to identifying and arresting the suspects, like the London Tube bombers in 2005. Yet at no time has government stated that installing cameras will make us completely safe.

Terrorists never strike at random, and cell operatives must physically visit and evaluate potential targets, usually taking many photos and lingering in the area engaged in seemingly innocent behaviors. It is only through careful monitoring by law enforcement and intelligence specialists and reviews of surveillance footage that pre-operational planning and descriptions of the suspects are gleaned and plots thwarted or pieced together after the fact.

The point of video surveillance in public areas is not to guarantee safety but to deter criminals and more specifically terrorists from choosing those areas for attack. Like criminals, terrorists often seek out targets that offer the least resistance. A home with an ADT or Brinks security sign posted in the yard is far less likely to be burglarized than a home where no such system is visible. That same principle applies to counterterrorism and anti-crime security measures in the public areas of our major cities.

Barr would like to live in a world where only specific political buildings, such as government symbols in Washington, DC were targets. The reality of our age, however, is that every American city is home to scores of potentially attractive terrorist targets ranging from financial centers, defense industry companies, and natural resource facilities, to local malls, swanky restaurants, and as the thwarted London bomb plot in July should have made clear, even unsuspecting nightclubs. All of these targets share one important commonality: all are surrounded by public areas, streets, parking lots, and parks where there is no expectation of privacy. Installing cameras in those areas would make terrorist pre-operational planning and target surveillance much more difficult and increase the risk of detection. The only “right” violated by such cameras is the terrorist’s “right” to conduct his pre-attack target surveillance without the fear of being caught.

Barr exposed his own Orwellian conspiracy fears throughout his OpEd piece, but nowhere more clearly than in these lines:

Of course, the notion that surveillance is key to control was not new with Bentham; centuries before, the Greek philosopher Plato had mused about the power of the government to control through surveillance, when he raised the still-relevant question, "Who watches the watchers?"

More recently, of course, George Orwell gave voice to the innate fear that resides deep in many of our psyches against government surveillance, in his nightmare, "Big Brother is Watching You" world of the novel "1984."

…Mayor Bloomberg and former Prime Minister Blair epitomize the almost mindless, unquestioning embrace of surveillance as the solution to problems — real, manufactured or exaggerated — that pervades government post-September 11, 2001. Fear of terrorism as much as fear of crime is the currency by which government at all levels convinces a fearful populace that a surveilled society is a safe society.

Barr’s reference to “the innate fear that resides deep in many of our psyches against government surveillance,” was telling. He raised a fear all too commonly cited by opponents of government video surveillance systems, Plato’s “who is watching the watchers?” This question is a conundrum because if taken to its logical conclusion, no one anywhere at any level could be trusted. For if there are watchers watching the watchers, who watches the watchers’ watchers? Where does it end? With Barr, fear of so-called privacy violation is the currency by which privacy rights activists convince a fearful minority of the populace that government at all levels, rather than terrorists, is our enemy.

I understand suspicion of government. Clearly government has grown to exert influence in aspects of our businesses and lives into which it was never meant to encroach. That is our fault as citizens, as government excesses are the result of voter apathy and could be reigned in by a more informed and involved populace. However, this alleged concern over who is watching the watchers when it comes to government video surveillance in public areas is misguided. The watchers observe only public behavior that they could witness if they were seated on a park bench watching crowds pass by them. The fact that they sit in a control room instead of a park bench should make no difference. They are not watching citizens engaged in any private behaviors or in intimate settings, thus it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what Barr fears he will be observed doing by these “Big Brother” public surveillance systems. Like most privacy advocates, Barr cannot offer one example of how his privacy would be violated by a surveillance system in a public area or explain what liberties or freedoms he would lose while on camera.

Americans have been filmed burning the flag, making obscene finger gestures at the president, and similar behaviors and these have been protected as “free speech.” Cameras do not curb political protest or freedom of expression. Barr should speak with any political action group and ask whether they prefer to demonstrate in front of cameras or in useless anonymity off camera. Obviously they seek out cameras and attention, and have no fear of voicing their opinions in public. What freedoms would Barr lose with the presence of public surveillance cameras? He left the answer to that question out of his OpEd piece because the answer would have rendered his fear mongering unnecessary.

Barr may have couched his argument in anti-government rhetoric about privacy, but it seemed that his real concern may have been that New York will one day follow London’s example and use cameras to identify traffic violators and issue fines or tickets. I reiterate my previous point that government excesses are the fault of voter apathy. Americans have expressed overwhelming support for London and New York-style surveillance camera systems in public areas to help protect us from terrorists, and if we do not want those systems to be used for other purposes like traffic fines then we must exercise control over government and restrict its reach.

In the meantime, I will continue to visit historic sites, tourist attractions, government buildings, and financial centers knowing that I am on camera and not bothered at all by that fact. After all, in public it is always a wise personal safety tactic to assume you are being watched. I am glad that our cities are making terrorists more conscious of that fact. If I am being watched in public, so are the planners of a potential attack. I am confident that “the watchers” will differentiate between us. Unless Barr plans to engage in criminal or terrorist pre-operational surveillance in a public area, the only thing he needs to fear with cameras is his fear itself.

Technorati Tags:
Bob Barr, Big Brother, Michael Bloomberg, Surveillance Cameras, CCTV, Privacy Rights, Terrorist Surveillance, New York, London

Clinton Policy: Hard Work No Solution to Poverty

Would you like to earn $25 for attending your child’s parent teacher conference? Could you use $25 per month for each of your children who achieve 95% school attendance? For your trouble, would $400 for each child who graduates from high school come in handy? How about $100 for each child who visits a dentist every six months as recommended? Would you be interested in $150 per month just for holding a full time job? If you live in New York City under Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s care, you could earn cash rewards for each of these behaviors and many others if you are poor enough to qualify. Experimental cash reward programs are the new cause celebre of wealthy philanthropists like Bloomberg, and giving more money and benefits to the poor regardless of behavior has long been the desired panacea for societal ills advocated by socialist leaning liberals such as Hillary Clinton. Where do the groups diverge? They differ over the issue of hard work. Bloomberg's plan rewards work and better behavioral decisions, while the Clinton socialist vision considers hard work anathema to maintaining a poverty-stricken class of voters perpetually in need of government to "solve" their poverty problems. The difference between how the two groups would "solve" poverty is striking: Bloomberg raised $43 million in private donations to fund the experimental programs in order to avoid using government funds; Hillary and her fellow socialists intend to place the burden for all efforts to offer more benefits and free health care on American taxpayers through government funding.

Fox News reported Bloomberg’s participation in the cash reward program, and the contrast between the philanthropic approach (private donations) and Clintonesque socialist government spending is striking:

The theory behind cash rewards is that poor people are trapped in a cycle of repeated setbacks that keep them from climbing out of poverty. A person who doesn't keep up with his vaccinations and doctor's visits, for example, may get sick more often and struggle to stay employed.

Bloomberg, a billionaire Republican, said he believes paying people in such circumstances to make good decisions could help break those patterns. The program "gives New Yorkers in poverty a financial incentive to look ahead and make decisions that will improve their prospects for the future," he said in a statement.

The idea of paying people, regardless of their income level, to make good common-sense decisions is the epitome of government run amok. It does not matter whether the funding of such a program comes from philanthropy or taxation; the theory behind the program is morally bankrupt and dangerous to the survival of American ideals such as individualism and personal responsibility. Paying someone in cash to make the same logical decisions everyone else makes with no expectation of government reward is socialism in its purest and most personally debilitating form. The Republican Bloomberg’s experiment with such a program demonstrates how far America has fallen from the nation that tamed a continent and outpaced the world in industry and science for generations. We have now gone from “You can feed a man with fish, but it is better to teach him how to fish” to “Let’s pay the man $100 per month for having a fishing pole.”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the cash rewards for good behavior programs was not that former Clinton administration officials oppose the program in New York, but the reason why they oppose it. While I dislike the cash reward idea on moral and out of control government reasons, Clintonesque socialists are outraged because the programs teach people that hard work is rewarding. Here is how one former Clinton administration official evaluated the cash program:

But some critics have raised questions about cash reward programs, saying they promote the misguided idea that poor people could be successful if they just made better choices.

"It just reinforces the impression that if everybody would just work hard enough and change their personal behavior we could solve poverty in this country, and that's not reflected in the facts," said Margy Waller, co-founder of Inclusion, a research and policy group in Washington.

Waller, who served as a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration, said it would be more effective to focus on labor issues, such as making sure wage laws are enforced and improving benefits for working people.

If you were looking for a single, crystallized statement of how Clinton socialists view poverty and the government's role in solving it, you need look no further than Waller’s remarks. According to the Clinton worldview, personal responsibility, hard work, and changes in behavioral choices are irrelevant to solving poverty in America. What is the solution under Clinton’s “compassionate” watchful eye? Not surprisingly, the answer, as it always is when Democrats promise services they cannot deliver, more benefits, whether they be forcibly extracted from employers or from the government through increased taxes on the “wealthy.”

What happens to a society when one of only two major political parties believes that better personal choices, responsibility, and hard work cannot solve problems? Hasn’t that always been the recipe for success in America, the land of opportunity? Opportunities are taken and capitalized upon through good and wise decisions, such as staying in school, earning a degree, gaining specialized training, developing a marketable skill in a field that can support a family, investing a modest amount in world markets, starting one’s own entrepreneurial enterprise, avoiding a criminal record, staying away from drugs, being a better parent, studying harder rather than playing more video games or watching TV. Opportunities begin at a young age, and the only sure way to break out of a cycle of poor decisions is to stop making poor decisions and correct the course one’s life is taking.

All Americans, but particularly those who are in poverty, should examine closely the question of why liberal socialists want to keep them in poverty by teaching them that their choices don’t matter and they are poor because they are victims of societal greed or uncontrollable misfortune. It is fascinating that on one hand there is an intense debate raging over illegal aliens flooding America allegedly because of the opportunity to find employment and share that income with their families in other nations, while on the other hand Clintonesque socialists insist that hard work and responsible common-sense behavioral choices are no solution to poverty. Many illegal aliens, through their long hard work find employment in respectable industries such as construction and manage, albeit illegally, to eke out a modest lifestyle for themselves and their families. Socialists like Wallen, however, refuse to encourage America’s poor to do likewise rather than subsist entirely on government welfare or charitable donations such as Bloomberg’s well meaning but completely misguided cash rewards for behavior program.

America is indeed in grave danger of losing its competitive place among the world’s elite nations if its populace is continually taught that personal behavior and hard work do not overcome problems, setbacks, or obstacles. America’s poor should be taught that there is no magic path to success that avoids hard work and decisions based on life priorities. Both Bloomberg and liberal welfare socialists do a disservice to those in poverty; Bloomberg by paying them to make good decisions they should make simply because they want to get out of poverty; and liberals welfare socialists by brainwashing the poor to believe that nothing they do for themselves will make a difference, thus sapping their natural human spirit of self-respect.

Technorati:
Michael Bloomberg Cash Rewards for Good Behavior Poverty New York Philanthropy,Margy Waller Hillary Clinton Socialism Personal Responsibility