US Al Qaeda Reality Hits Dems on NSA Bill

Is there anyone in the American intelligence community who does not think there are al Qaeda and other terrorist cells organizing and operating in the United States? Since 9/11, hasn't this been the single greatest suspicion among Americans? The fear of such cells lurking in America's shadows was sufficient to prompt a Time magazine cover dedicated to it in August 2004. In my career, especially since 9/11, my employer has wisely worked under the assumption that there are active terror cells in America, and we have worked closely with other government agencies to develop counterterrorism programs and security planning reflecting that belief. Perhaps because of this long held position in my workplace, it amazes me that news headlines like “Al Qaeda Cell May Be Loose in U.S.” are met with shock, fear, or even surprise by readers. That headline, from today’s New York Sun, frankly tells Americans nothing that should cause surprise, particularly to anyone who even remotely follows trends and developments in the War on Terror.

I do not mean to single out the New York Sun or the author of the above-mentioned article, Eli Lake, for criticism. The Sun and Lake in particular, have been referred to and frequently praised by Capital Cloak for fine coverage of the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lake in this article was merely reporting what one of his reliable Washington sources told him about new evidence that al Qaeda had been in contact electronically with sympathizers or potential operatives inside the United States. Lake reported, in part, as follows:

E-mail addresses for American individuals were found on the same password-protected e-mail chains used by the United Kingdom plotters to communicate with Qaeda handlers in Europe, a counterterrorism official told The New York Sun yesterday. The American and German intelligence community now believe the secure e-mail chains used in the United Kingdom plot have provided a window into an operational Qaeda network in several countries.

"Because of the London and Glasgow plot, we now know communications have been made from Al Qaeda to operatives in the United States," the counterterrorism official said on condition of anonymity. "This plot helps to connect a lot of stuff. We have seen money moving a lot through hawala networks and other illicit finance as well." But this source was careful to say that at this point no specific information, such as names, targets or a timeline, was known about any particular plot on American soil. The e-mail addresses that are linked to Americans were pseudonyms.

Lake’s report is important not for the fact that it appears to confirm the presence of al Qaeda cells in America, something that virtually everyone in the intelligence community has assumed for years. What makes Lake’s information important is its timing. Over the weekend, as the most significant final pre-recess action taken by Congress, the House and Senate approved a bill strengthening and expanding government authorization to monitor international telephone and electronic communications without a warrant between Americans and foreign suspects.

These are the same Democrat-controlled House and Senate bodies that have relentlessly and obviously disingenuously accused the White House of abusing the NSA’s warrantless domestic surveillance program. There have been hearings, misrepresentations of the Bush administration’s motives, and cries of violations of civil liberties from the left since the program was leaked to and eagerly exposed by the New York Times. Now it appears that the intelligence gleaned from the thwarted London and Glasgow plots in July was sufficient to convince the virulent leaders of the anti-Bush Congress, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, that all those warnings about potential terrorist cells in America were not merely presidential bluster.

Neither House nor Senate Democrats were personally pleased to pass this expanded surveillance powers legislation, and they continue to grumble about it in the media. After all, it was Pelosi who stated in January 2006 that, “I would not want any president — Democrat or Republican — to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case.” Yet now, when faced with the reality of actual email evidence of al Qaeda cells receiving communications from the bomb plotters in London, even the liberal left wing in Congress realized the surveillance was distasteful to them but ultimately necessary for survival.

As a safety net for the Democrats, the powers authorized in the bill were extended only for a six month period, in which we can expect rancorous debate over domestic surveillance, further accusations that the president is abusing civil liberties, and likely revisions of certain aspects of the bill. That six month period also indicates, however, that Congress felt the threat to the homeland was sufficiently grave in the next six months to merit special preventive measures. That fact, in and of itself, is telling.

The following is an excerpt from the New York Times’ description of the new legislation approved Saturday night by Congress and signed into law yesterday by President Bush:

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

This change was necessary because much of the infrastructure of the world’s largest telecommunications companies is housed in the United States, particularly the switch and server backbone that powers the Internet globally. The vast majority of the world’s email, even point to point between foreign countries, passes through servers located in America. In all respects, the bill was a necessary and prudent expansion of government surveillance powers to monitor international communications, and regardless of their motives or their half-hearted passage of the measures, Congressional Democrats should be applauded for doing the right thing to protect Americans by coming to terms with President Bush on this issue, even if it is only a temporary fix.

While no one in the intelligence community was surprised at the report of email communications between European al Qaeda and American operatives, it provided a wake up call to Congress that the War on Terror and the threat of attacks in the United States, are not merely “bumper sticker” slogans of the Bush administration. There were active al Qaeda cells in America more than one year prior to 9/11, and it is logical to conclude that there were others at that time and now who merely await activation and instructions from leadership. The activation and instructions will likely come in some form of long distance communication; email, telephone, instant messenger, or similar. Thanks to the president’s vigilant insistence on the power to monitor such communication and Congress’s reluctant cooperation, our chances of intercepting key messages have increased, and that makes America safer than it was just last week prior to this legislation.

It should be remembered that these expanded surveillance powers will not necessarily prevent any plans that have already reached the execution phase with a predetermined date or time, but they will prove crucial to detecting developing plots and in identifying suspected cell members.

It was not surprising to read of communications between al Qaeda and its operatives in America. The real surprise was that Congressional Democrats took so long to realize the importance of the government surveillance program in protecting America from attack. When the president’s critics do the right thing, even grudgingly, for national security, we all benefit.

Technorati Tags:
Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in America, FISA, NSA, Wiretap, Electronic Surveillance, Terrorist Cells, Bush Administration, Email monitoring

Obama, Nukes, and "American Hiroshima"

When Barack Obama is wrong, he is really wrong. When he is right, it is often unintentional. Obama’s risky and impulsive recent foray into tough-sounding foreign policy declarations illustrated that sometimes a candidate can be spectacularly wrong from a policy perspective but correct tactically even if it was likely unintentional. Such may have been the case with his comments about never using nuclear weapons against terrorists.

To frame the issue in context, the previous criticism heaped upon Obama for proclaiming that if elected president he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like Iran was justified. Keeping oppressive regimes isolated politically and economically from the United States is an effective way to create unrest and citizen dissatisfaction in such countries that might lead to internal reform or overthrow of the undesirable regime. Meeting with such leaders would merely remove a useful diplomatic tool and increase reliance on potential military conflict to achieve the same end. Hillary Clinton was right to call Obama’s position naïve and irresponsible.

Not content to look the fool on only one major foreign policy issue, Obama decided to announce that if elected president he would send troops into a sovereign Muslim nation armed with nuclear weapons, Pakistan, to eliminate al Qaeda regardless of whether Pakistan’s government authorized the invasion. I have argued strenuously against the U.S. taking any such action in previous posts, and will not restate those arguments here, but I found Obama’s hypocrisy in talking tough to Pakistan remarkable. In essence, Obama would remove troops from Iraq, where they are engaging al Qaeda daily, and redeploy them into a nuclear-armed Muslim nation without that nation’s permission so they can, drum roll please, engage al Qaeda daily. Removing our troops from Iraq will not result in al Qaeda leaving Iraq and redeploying along with us. Al Qaeda will remain in Iraq, destroy the fragile Iraqi democracy, and considerably expand al Qaeda’s territorial reach and resources. Critics of Obama’s desire to invade Pakistan were correct to call him ignorant and naïve on this issue.

Most sensible candidates would realize that after turning the other cheek and having that one slapped too there is no third cheek to turn to opponents, but Obama found one nonetheless. After talking tough of invasions of Pakistan and taking the fight to al Qaeda leadership, Obama clarified that he would never use nuclear weapons in the War on Terror. He began his comment about nuclear weapons use by stating that he would not use such weapons to fight terrorists in circumstances involving innocent civilians, but immediately retracted that position and declared he would not use them under any circumstance in fighting terrorism. Hillary Clinton and other critics in both parties seized on this comment as a further illustration of Obama’s foreign policy ignorance and evidence that he lacks the mettle to be commander-in-chief. They cited perhaps the most overused cliché in Washington, “never take anything off the table,” as the best position for a leader to take, but Obama, albeit inadvertently, raised an important tactical issue that comes part and parcel with a policy of threatening nomadic terrorists with nuclear annihilation: the terrorists are not officially tied to any foreign governments.

What Obama should ask his critics in both parties to explain, for this is a bipartisan issue, is under what specific scenarios they would authorize the use of nuclear weapons in the War on Terror. A logical follow-up question would be to ask what it would take for them to reach the point of unleashing a nuclear weapon, such as terrorists detonating nuclear devices in America, and how they would determine whom to strike in retaliation. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have truly examined this issue and its tactical implications, but some have, in their efforts to sound forceful, stated they would strike in knee-jerk reaction against nearly any available target. For example, presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, who fought admirably to defeat the recent illegal immigration amnesty bill, stated that America should threaten to detonate nuclear weapons at Muslim holy sites as a deterrent, apparently believing that terrorists will equivocate on their “American Hiroshima” plans if they are convinced we would destroy Mecca or a similar sacred place if provoked.

It is not clear who is more ignorant, Obama or Tancredo, when it comes to nuclear weapons use in the War on Terror, but there is no mistaking that both are fundamentally unqualified and naïve on how their positions would be interpreted by our Islamic terrorist enemies. Whereas Obama would never use nuclear weapons, Tancredo would, especially if provoked by a nuclear detonation on American soil, retaliate against Islam itself rather than any specific enemy. In his view, an attack motivated by religion demands a response that targets that religion. The logic behind such action is severely flawed. The terrorists worship martyrdom and would consider the destruction of holy sites as collateral loss in a permanently escalated war. If they are willing to martyr themselves and their children for the cause, they will merely shrug at the loss of buildings and other material representations of their faith. Additionally, the world’s moderate Muslims would not remain moderate after Tancredo wiped out the symbols of their faith.

Tancredo’s nuclear gunslinger mentality is symptomatic of the thinking of many in Washington. America’s reliance on Mutually Assured Destruction in the Cold War has created a false sense of security that the threat of our nuclear arsenal will protect us from traditional powers like Russia or China as well as Islamic terrorists. Internet forums are filled with comments about “turning the whole area into a sea of glass,” or “they won’t realize what they’ve unleashed if they set off a nuke in America,” and other similar boasts. Our military might blinds us to the reality that if terrorists detonate a nuclear device in America, Obama’s position on using our nuclear weapons might actually be the most correct because of one simple question: whom and where would we strike in retaliation?

Our American bravado and outrage after such an event would make us want to react decisively; to punish and avenge; to destroy everyone responsible for the heinous act. The pressure on an American president to retaliate against someone, anyone, would be unbearable. The initial impulse would be to consider any Muslim nation known to harbor terrorists as targets, and the ignorant among us would believe in those moments that all Muslims everywhere are the enemy and thus fair game for nuclear annihilation. Consider for a moment the dilemma a president would face after such a cataclysmic event in America. What if al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the nuclear detonation in America? Would we bomb all of Iraq in response? What if Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah claimed responsibility? Would we bomb all of Iran in retaliation? What of the millions of Iranians who are reportedly pro-western but are ruled by a radical regime? What if al Qaeda elements hiding in Pakistan gloated that they nuked America? Would we bomb Pakistan, a Muslim nation also armed with nuclear weapons?

Thus is the paradox of leaving nuclear weapons on the table as a response to terrorism. Terrorists know no borders; they blend into local civilian populations; they strike and move, rarely remaining in place long enough to be hit by initial retaliations; the terrorists usually do not represent the political or even religious views of the majority of their countrymen, thus retaliation against an entire nation merely punishes millions of innocent foreign citizens as recompense for the deaths of millions of American citizens. Such a response, while it may appeal to our baser instincts, would be tactically unsound and surely result in further nuclear destruction and literal fallout across the globe. How would we have responded to 9/11 had it been a nuclear detonation in New York perpetrated by the same group of nineteen al Qaeda operatives? They were natives of Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among other nations. Would we have retaliated against each of those nations for the actions of their rogue citizens?

Unless a nuclear terrorist attack could be proven to have been the sovereign decision of a foreign government, a nuclear retaliation by America against an entire nation would be counterproductive. It is not an act of war by a nation if some of its radical residents, unaffiliated with that nation’s government, perpetrate an attack on another nation. Thus a measured response is essential. It is perfectly justifiable to issue ultimatums to that nation to capture those responsible immediately or allow us to do so, but an emotional and rash nuclear response against an entire nation to punish a small group hiding therein would be irresponsible in the extreme.

Harry Truman approved the use of atomic weapons against Japan in WWII because tactically it made sense to demonstrate destructive power to Japan’s government in order to convince it to surrender. The government of Japan, not wanting to see any more of its citizens annihilated, surrendered, ultimately saving millions of lives in both nations. Nuclear response against terrorists is an entirely different matter. There is no central government anywhere that can be intimidated into halting all terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals. Likewise, the deaths of possibly millions of innocent Muslims would be viewed as merely the creation of millions more martyrs to the cause and further incentive to continue targeting America and our allies. Use of nuclear weapons in a declared war between nations, as tragic as it is, makes tactical sense. Using them against an enemy hidden within nearly every nation on earth would be logically unsound and tactically impractical.

Obama likely did not weigh such considerations before arriving at his decision to never use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. It is far more likely that his opposition to such weapons is purely ideological and reflects the influence of the view held by many on the anti-war left that nuclear weapons are innately evil and never should be used under any circumstances regardless of the enemy we face. However, as it applies to combating terrorism, an undefined and nomadic enemy, Obama was right to suggest that nuclear weapons not be used. Nuclear weapons carry a finality that never can be undone.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Tom Tancredo, Nuclear Weapons, War on Terror, Mecca, Muslim Holy Sites, Radical Islam

Illegal Video Games or Illegal Immigrants?

Which is a greater threat to America’s national security, pirated video games or criminal illegal aliens? While the answer to that question may seem obvious, apparently the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has funding for spending its time and resources to conduct raids and seize illegally modified Wii and PlayStation video game console chips but insufficient funds to dedicate its full resources to the highest priority job that Americans expect of it: locating and deporting criminal illegal aliens. When it comes to prioritizing between video game piracy or illegal immigration investigations, ICE must face the decision, paraphrasing Shakespeare, to Wii or not to Wii.

In fairness to ICE, many federal law enforcement agencies are mandated to enforce multiple federal criminal statutes, some of which have conflicting priorities that often force those agencies to choose investigations based on dollar-loss amounts, likelihood of prosecution by U.S. Attorneys, and positive media attention that generates increased budgets from a media-influenced Congress. Enforcement of immigration statutes and subsequent deportations, as important as they are to national security, do not meet these criteria. As a result, ICE is vilified in the media for tearing apart families, “unfairly” targeting day laborers, or ruining American businesses by disrupting their workforces when it actually enforces existing illegal immigration statutes.

The uproar over ICE enforcement of immigration statutes tends to remind ICE officials that it has multiple missions to perform, and not surprisingly those officials logically conclude that the best way to garner positive media coverage and subsequent Congressional gratitude is to actively enforce other criminal statutes that are less controversial than illegal immigration. One such statute involves the smuggling and distribution of illegal devices that allow pirated video games to play on video game consoles.

This crime may not have any impact on national security, but it does cost businesses like Sony and Nintendo approximately $3 billion in video game sales annually. Of course Sony and Nintendo have effective lobbyists who bring these losses to Congress’ attention, and when ICE conducts raids and executes search warrants to curb this $3 billion per year loss, the media praises it, congress basks in the positive coverage given to its well-spent law enforcement funding, and ICE’s decision to actively enforce non-controversial crimes unrelated to national security is reinforced.

After raids and search warrants were conducted yesterday on 32 businesses and homes in 16 states, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for ICE made the following statement:

Illicit devices like the ones targeted today are created with one purpose in mind, subverting copyright protections. These crimes cost legitimate businesses billions of dollars annually and facilitate multiple other layers of criminality, such as smuggling, software piracy and money laundering.

The same is true of illegal immigration, which costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually and involves smuggling, human exploitation, money laundering, and a host of other criminal activities. Yet ICE officials recently made it clear to Virginia’s state legislature that it cannot scrape together sufficient funds to train and work with state and local law enforcement officers in Virginia’s jails to deport criminal illegal aliens already in custody. That is worth repeating. Virginia was merely asking ICE to train its deputies to deport illegal alien criminals already in custody and sitting in the state’s jails. Virginia had previously enacted a law allowing its law enforcement agencies that staff state jails to attend official ICE training programs designed to help local agencies check the immigration status of prisoners and begin the deportation status on behalf of ICE. However, earlier this week ICE officials informed Virginia’s legislature that it simply did not have adequate funding to extend the immigration enforcement training to agencies throughout the state. ICE has received similar requests from many law enforcement agencies throughout the nation and its budget to provide the training that would help locals enforce existing illegal immigration laws cannot keep pace with the current demand. Meanwhile, ICE continues to use a portion of its funds to investigate video game piracy.

Virginia’s response was predictable and poignant:

Delegate Robert G. Marshall, Prince William Republican, declined to say whether he would support using state funds for immigration enforcement, but said the federal government should pay to enforce its own laws.

"If we're doing the job of the federal government, they should be humiliated that they wouldn't offer to pay for all of this," said Mr. Marshall, who sits on a separate commission studying the effects of illegal aliens on the state. "I'm not going to start putting the state's cards on the table until the federal government is going to openly say, 'We don't have the interest. The state of Virginia can [forget] their efforts to enforce immigration law.' "

There are an estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States. More than 250,000 of them lived in Virginia in 2005, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Virginia’s counties have been so impacted by illegal immigration that two, Loudoun and Prince William counties, recently voted to deny county services to illegal immigrants, a move that was widely applauded by residents who already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation.

The question this budget shortfall for ICE training for local agencies raises is an important one: in a War on Terror, should Homeland Security agencies like ICE continue dividing their manpower, equipment, energy, and budget resources between financial crimes like video game piracy and national security responsibilities like illegal immigration? Like many other agencies, ICE has conducted many successful high-profile criminal investigations of smuggling, counterfeit merchandise, and child pornography materials, among others. They are good at what they do. However, as the recent national uproar over the “comprehensive immigration reform bill” demonstrated, Americans do not want amnesty or new laws; what they want is enforcement of existing illegal immigration laws, and the issue is considered to be directly related to national security. In war, priorities are paramount.

While it is unfortunate that Sony and Nintendo lose money annually due to video game piracy, there are many agencies in departments other than Homeland Security that could enforce piracy and intellectual property statutes. It would make sense if the agencies grouped into the behemoth Department of Homeland Security actually performed duties that directly protect some aspect of the homeland. Agencies that do not perform national security functions should be relocated to other departments, so that the remaining agencies would all reflect what the Department of Homeland Security’s name implies. ICE clearly belongs in Homeland Security, but some of its investigative case load includes enforcement of statutes that are completely devoid of any national security nexus.

If ICE could dedicate its funds, manpower, and other resources exclusively to criminal investigations related to national security rather than to a year-long investigation of video game piracy, it would find funds to help Virginia’s jails start criminal illegal aliens on the path to deportation. ICE did good work in its raids and seizures of 61,000 illegal game console chips, but there is more important work to be done to secure the homeland and our resources must be dedicated to priorities that improve national security. Illegal immigration is such a priority; illegal video games are not.

Americans care far less that their neighbor’s Wii or PlayStation games are legal than they do that their neighbors themselves are here legally.

Technorati Tags:
ICE, Illegal Immigration, Software Piracy, Video Games, Sony, Nintendo, Wii, PlayStation, Virginia, Loudoun County, Prince William County