Thursday, May 18, 2006
Geopolitical tidbits
I've accumulated a lot of interesting bits from Stratfor's recent emails and other analyses, some of which are worth passing along. In no particular order or organization:
Good news from Turkey
TURKEY: More than 15,000 people marched in the Turkish capital of Ankara to protest the May 17 attack by a suspected Islamist gunman against a session of judges. One judge was killed and four were wounded. Members of the judiciary, academics and other secular-leaning Turks marched to the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic, saying, "Turkey is secular and it will remain secular." The march was shown live on several Ankara TV stations.
As my grandmother used to say, every little bit helps. Fifteen thousand Turks in the streets to demonstrate against rising Islamism in that country is better'n stick in the eye.
How to tell if your neighbor is a bombmaker
Hotel staff, landlords and neighbors can fairly easily notice signs that someone in their midst is operating a makeshift bombmaking laboratory. They should be suspicious, for example, if a new tenant moves several bags of fertilizer into an apartment in the middle of a city, or if a person brings in gallons of acetone, peroxide, sulfuric or nitric acids, and tools such as beakers, protective gloves and masks. And, although electronic devices such as cell phones or wristwatches may not seem unusual in the context of a hotel room or apartment, signs that they have been modified or taken apart entirely should raise a red flag, as these devices are commonly used as detonators. Metal powders such as aluminum, magnesium and ferric oxide, large quantities of sodium carbonate -- commonly purchased in 25-pound bags -- and large containers of methyl alcohol, used to stabilize nitroglycerine, are other unusual items that might signal a bombmaker is present.
Fumes from the chemical reactions are another telltale sign. Depending on the size of the batch being concocted, the noxious fumes can bleach walls, curtains and, in the case of the London attackers, for example, the hair of the bombmakers. The fumes can even waft outside of the "lab" and be detected by neighbors in the vicinity. Spatter from the mixing of the ingredients is another way for hotel staff or landlords to recognize that something is amiss.
Is China the next target?
In its latest threats against foreign energy interests, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has singled out Chinese investments and workers in Nigeria. For Beijing, this is new territory. China has thus far relied on being able to get into places other companies fear or are politically unable to visit. This is particularly troubling for Beijing, since April 27 it defended its Sudan investments and bluntly said, "China will never follow the same disastrous road of the Western colonists who bloodily plundered and violated human rights." Is MEND serious about targeting the Chinese? What does Beijing do in response, particularly with international attention on the issue? Will this trigger a stronger response from Nigeria or will the two simply collaborate in the way that Western multinationals used to work with Nigeria in the 1980s?
Is China paying for protection in response?
Has Hugo Chavez peaked?
Over the past few weeks, several Latin American leaders have issued statements criticizing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, while two presidential candidates have openly campaigned against the Chavez model for the region. Although strong words against the Venezuelan president are not unusual in Latin America, the intensity of the anti-Chavez sentiment has grown since Bolivian President Evo Morales nationalized his country's energy sector May 1 -- a move that bears a strong Chavez imprint.
The leaking of the NSA phone logs story
Let's begin with an obvious question: How in God's name did USA Today find out about a program that had to have been among the most closely held secrets in the intelligence community -- not only because it would be embarrassing if discovered, but also because the entire program could work only if no one knew it was under way? No criticism of USA Today, but we would assume that the newspaper wasn't running covert operations against the NSA. Therefore, someone gave them the story, and whoever gave them the story had to be cleared to know about it. That means that someone with a high security clearance leaked an NSA secret.
Americans have become so numbed to leaks at this point that no one really has discussed the implications of what we are seeing: The intelligence community is hemorrhaging classified information. It's possible that this leak came from one of the few congressmen or senators or staffers on oversight committees who had been briefed on this material -- but either way, we are seeing an extraordinary breakdown among those with access to classified material.
No kidding.
We hereby solicit comments on any or all of the above.
11 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Thu May 18, 01:44:00 PM:
Damn whistleblowers! Stop telling the American people that their government is spying on them! Don't you realize that the terrorists will explode us all if we don't break the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Anyone who leaks information that might get the President in trouble will be held personally responsible when the next deranged Islamist blows something up.
You see, we have to circumvent the Constitution in order to protect it. It's the only way. We have to undermine everyone's civil liberties or the terrorists will have won.
Don't you idiots get it? It's either break the law or watch the mushroom cloud rise. Any journalist who reports about it should be jailed because reporting about breaking the law will kill us all!
If there is any Congressional oversight, we're dead, dead, dead. If anyone but the President and his America Force know anything we're going to die! Don't you get it?
By allen, at
Thu May 18, 04:05:00 PM:
TigerHawk,
“hemorrhaging classified information”
While admittedly simple minded and comically unsophisticated, some cauterizing of the old fashioned sort might staunch the flow from within the NSA. I’m thinking the Rosenbergs.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu May 18, 09:16:00 PM:
Tiger, I love you like a brother and all, but isn't the OBVIOUS question whether the government should be conducting surviellance on millions of US citizens?
I know you don't want to write about that here, because it's for national security, and one can't be critical of the president without losing Hawkish street credit.
I also know you can't support it, 'cause someday a Democrat will be in the White House and overnight this will become an egregious abuse of power and breach of law. (gotta be careful what we write...the blogosphere has a long memory)
But can't you do better than attributing some misdirection and serving it up without comment? (And don't tell me "No kidding" is commentary anymore than "Heh, indeed".)
Anyone here dare to go on the record about whether the government should be data mining phone records from millions of US citizens? TH? CP? CV?
Since I'm frequently wrong, I'll offer advance apologies if any of you have written about it and I missed it.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 18, 10:12:00 PM:
SH: It's amazing that one can consider the collection of phone records 'spying.' I guess that makes Verizon, SBC, AT&T, etc intelligence organizations doesn't it? Man, something should really be done about them. They've been collecting private information about Americans for decades! That's way more intrusive than the government knowing where you live, the VIN and license plate # of your vehicle, (not to mention make, model, and color) your SSN, your DOB, how many kids you have, whether you're married, your criminal record, how much money you make...
'Whistleblowers' do not run to the fucking press. Whistleblowers run to the men in charge of the offenders, the appropriate authority for whatever you think is wrong, (FBI, whatever) or to Congress. There are established channels in the various agencies for this kind of thing. If an operation goes rogue (which has happened on occasion) there are procedures to follow that will bring it back under control without leaking classified information to the public. People who go outside that to the press do it because #1 they have a grudge, #2 they're being blackmailed, #3 they're being bribed, or #4 they are lazy and don't care that they could be killing American operatives or agents and damaging the security of their nation. In all cases, they richly deserve prosecution. Sadly, such prosecutions have not been forthcoming and unauthorized leaks from major agencies have become kind of routine.
LB: "Anyone here dare to go on the record about whether the government should be data mining phone records from millions of US citizens? TH? CP? CV?"
Yes, if it is useful. Do you really think that the NSA gives a shit how often you call your girlfriend? Do you seriously believe that they would dedicate expensive equipment and personnel to finding out what kinds of 1-900 numbers you prefer? They don't even care if you're a buddy of a local cocaine dealer in your town; law enforcement is not their function, and such evidence is inadmissable anyway.
But they *do* care if you've been in contact with Hamas or Hezb-Allah members. Everyone else should care too. You might well be planning on killing them.
Pretend that this kind of program was instituted under the Clinton administration. By June '01, the communications of Muhammad Atta and co. could have been repeatedly tracked to their fellows in Germany, the UAE, and Afghanistan. What might that have changed?
"I also know you can't support it, 'cause someday a Democrat will be in the White House and overnight this will become an egregious abuse of power and breach of law."
Read: 'You're a hypocrite, Tigerhawk.'
By 
, at
Thu May 18, 11:56:00 PM:
Query whether analyzing telephone records which are already in the hands of third parties (i.e., telephone companies) – and in which there accordingly can be no reasonable expectation of privacy – is “spying” or “surveillance.”
But let’s assume that this analysis of business records is a “search” for 4th Amendment purposes. The 4th Amendment does not prohibit government from “searching” with the consent of the party whose property is searched. TH or some other enterprising blogger should institute a national “Consent To Search Telephone Records” sign-up. Names and telephone numbers could readily be forwarded to NSA without being published. For the sake of national security, I for one will gladly consent to NSA having access to my telephone records – both incoming and outgoing. By the time a few tens of millions of right-thinking Americans have signed up, the folks at NSA will effectively have nearly all of the telephone records. In addition to the results of analysis of these records, they will, by process of elimination, be able to identify those remaining who necessarily either a) are too lazy to sign up, b) are conspiracy theorists, or c) genuinely have something to hide.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri May 19, 02:14:00 AM:
Please Dawnfire, I wouldn't call Tiger a hypocrite unless he said something hypocritical. He parses well enough to understand exactly what I said, and is free to confirm, refute, or ignore my presumptions at his leisure.
On the other hand, since you clearly support the program as it exists now, I'll expect you to continue supporting it without any oversight, even if Hillary Clinton inherits the reins (reign?).
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri May 19, 02:20:00 AM:
Anonymous- Query whether legality of giving/selling records to our government implies legality of giving/selling records to other entities or governments.
Also, why haven't Cato and the Federalists heads exploded?
By John A, at
Fri May 19, 03:10:00 AM:
the NSA phone logs story -
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060518-043007-7223r
NEW YORK, May 18 (UPI) -- BellSouth Corp. Thursday demanded USA Today retract its claim that the phone company gave the U.S. National Security Agency domestic calling records.
...
That same USA Today article said that Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. also provided the NSA with massive databases of domestic calls. Both those companies also denied the claim.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri May 19, 08:12:00 AM:
Regarding those Telco denials...
ThinkProgress: "Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an presidential memorandum signed by the President on May 5 allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A))"
In otherwords, it's legal for them to lie about it.
Dawnfire, you're a strange bird. You think the government ought to be able to monitor our every move. Since when did Republicans become the big govt. party? And if you think innocents won't get snarled in the administration's intel, you haven't been paying attention to the Quakers in Florida, to the PETA folks, to the journalists who are been spied on right now.
It's folks like you who allow dictators to rise without a peep. Sorry to say it, I know you love America and all that, but sweet Jeebus, what will it take for you to say that this administration has gone too far?
By Pax Federatica, at
Fri May 19, 11:17:00 AM:
That the bloom is off Hugo Chavez's rose is (sort of) old news. He's hitched his wagon to Amlo's (Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador) star in the Mexican presidential campaign, yet Amlo, the early front-runner in the race, has lost that lead and has been slowly and steadily losing ground in polls. If Amlo loses, Chavez also loses his chance to put the economic screws to the U.S. through a Mexican ally, and thus also loses much of his anti-American "street cred."
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri May 19, 04:30:00 PM:
"On the other hand, since you clearly support the program as it exists now, I'll expect you to continue supporting it without any oversight, even if Hillary Clinton inherits the reins (reign?)."
A perfectly fair expectation, except for this: 'without any oversight.' Aside from inhouse oversight by federal lawyers (oh how we in the IC hate them...) haven't choice Congressmen been getting updates on the NSA stuff for years now?
SH: You've inadvertantly triggered some severe pet peeves of mine, but I'll be nice.
"Dawnfire, you're a strange bird. You think the government ought to be able to monitor our every move."
I hate it when other people tell me what I think. How do they know?
And anyway, I never said that. I pointed out how much the government ALREADY knows about the typical American and has for many years, for mere bureaucratic or domestic purposes. Most people are ok with that. So why is this, done during a time of conflict in direct response to enemy activity, so intolerable?
Aside, it's impossible for the government to 'monitor our every move.' Unless you just mean you. (i.e. 1 person in particular) That's easy.
"Since when did Republicans become the big govt. party?"
Since 2001, and only on certain issues. BTW, I'm not a Republican. Completing this thought, however, is why Democrats (the traditional 'leave everything up the government' group in American politics) are so against it all of a sudden? Just because they hate the sitting president? How petty. This is the exact kind of hypocritical behavior that Lanky Bastard was referring to.
"And if you think innocents won't get snarled in the administration's intel, you haven't been paying attention to the Quakers in Florida, to the PETA folks, to the journalists who are been spied on right now."
I'm not familiar with Quakers or PETA folks, but the journalists (that I've heard about, anyway) brought it on themselves by soliciting and publishing classified national security information, which is a crime BTW. I like how you use the term 'spied on' to mean 'investigated.' Very clever subterfuge, that.
'It's folks like you who allow dictators to rise without a peep.'
I take grave offense at this.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
It's pretty clear, isn't it? As soon as the President tries to abolish scheduled elections, impose martial law to crush dissent or peaceful protest, have members of the political opposition arrested, or engage is other forms of tyrannical behavior (and for some reason isn't impeached first), then you will see me and the rest of the Army (Marines, Navy, etc.) launch a coup because that is our duty.
One of the reasons that you and I are on different sides of the fence in regard to security issues is because that's my profession. I know what kinds of (sometimes assinine) safeguards are in place to prevent the establishment of some sort of American KGB. I was thouroughly tested on them before given my badge. I know how enemy agents, including terrorists, use our free society against us. I've read the Al Qaeda training manual. I know how close we've come to being struck by terrorists with WMDs. (that is not a false concern, and that operation will probably be classified until the end of time) Did you know that an agent of Al Qaeda successfully infiltrated the Army Counterintelligence school at Fort Huachuca? Happily, his falsified documents were exposed and he was arrested before causing any real damage. Basically, I have a good idea about how important the new reforms and initiatives since 9/11 are, and how weak our intelligence community was vis a vis terrorism before them.
Maybe you and people like you think that the NSA examining phone records is horrific on some abstract, idealistic level; that your sense of justice and faith in privacy (which is not explicity guaranteed, BTW) has been broken. I'm sorry for you, but I prefer your discomfort and anger to your death or maiming by an NBC attack. I guess I'm just a softie that way.
"Sorry to say it, I know you love America and all that, but sweet Jeebus, what will it take for you to say that this administration has gone too far?"
When people like you are afraid to speak out anymore. So long as anti-establishment wingnuts and outspoken dissidents have an unhindered voice, including their votes, then we're fine.
