CNN Hedline News hits a new low:
Does the current coverage of the abusive mother in Somewhere, USA strike you as particularly irrelevant? My thoughts are, "there are abusive parents, is this news?"
Friday, September 20, 2002
Time to End Half Measures in Palestine:
Yes, I did just call the current events in Palestine (which is actually just the West Bank, a geographical entity) "half measures." The reason for it is that despite the use of force there have been over half a dozen such incursions in the last year, and it is not forseeable when it will be unnessecary to do so. Also, while Yasser Arafat deserves to be put under house arrest, it accomplishes nothing to do so for any less of a reason than capturing any terrorists that he is harboring. Doing so distracts from the real issues with the situation, such as that the incursions into the West Bank to break up terrorist groups are not a permanent solution.
The problem, surprisingly, is that too much force is being used at once. Why cut steak with a chainsaw when a knife will do? I propose that Israel establishes a permanent Israeli security agency in the West Bank, that will work more discreetly and with greater freedom of initiative than military forces. It is also possible that such an organization could be gradually phased over to Arab staffing and command. As the U.S. has shown with fighting terrorism within our own borders, it takes a person who captures criminals, trained investigators a.k.a. FBI agents, to capture a terrorist, just another criminal.
Yes, I did just call the current events in Palestine (which is actually just the West Bank, a geographical entity) "half measures." The reason for it is that despite the use of force there have been over half a dozen such incursions in the last year, and it is not forseeable when it will be unnessecary to do so. Also, while Yasser Arafat deserves to be put under house arrest, it accomplishes nothing to do so for any less of a reason than capturing any terrorists that he is harboring. Doing so distracts from the real issues with the situation, such as that the incursions into the West Bank to break up terrorist groups are not a permanent solution.
The problem, surprisingly, is that too much force is being used at once. Why cut steak with a chainsaw when a knife will do? I propose that Israel establishes a permanent Israeli security agency in the West Bank, that will work more discreetly and with greater freedom of initiative than military forces. It is also possible that such an organization could be gradually phased over to Arab staffing and command. As the U.S. has shown with fighting terrorism within our own borders, it takes a person who captures criminals, trained investigators a.k.a. FBI agents, to capture a terrorist, just another criminal.
Thursday, September 19, 2002
The Real Problem with Homeland Security
It appears that the Bureau of Homeland Security does many things that are already done by other government agencies. All recent evidence points to a major lack of information-sharing betweeen existing government agencies. Do we really need yet another large organization. What we should do instead is force all info on possible terrorists to be entered into a dataabase of iinfo on terrorism and have it cross-referenced with what other organizations have discover. For example, the FBI informant who was living with two of the hijackers could have told their names to the FBI, whom would then cross-reference it with a joint CIA-FBI-INS database, which would turn up any connections, such as the CIAs knowledge that they were Al-Quaida terrorists, and alert the people who should decide what to do about it.
The main function of Homeland Security should be as an evaluator of the performance of other agencies, and serve as consultants on dealing with terrorism.
It appears that the Bureau of Homeland Security does many things that are already done by other government agencies. All recent evidence points to a major lack of information-sharing betweeen existing government agencies. Do we really need yet another large organization. What we should do instead is force all info on possible terrorists to be entered into a dataabase of iinfo on terrorism and have it cross-referenced with what other organizations have discover. For example, the FBI informant who was living with two of the hijackers could have told their names to the FBI, whom would then cross-reference it with a joint CIA-FBI-INS database, which would turn up any connections, such as the CIAs knowledge that they were Al-Quaida terrorists, and alert the people who should decide what to do about it.
The main function of Homeland Security should be as an evaluator of the performance of other agencies, and serve as consultants on dealing with terrorism.
How an Invasion of Iraq Can Go Wrong:
It seems as if everyone of note has failed to consider a very bad set of possibilities; what can go wrong in the short-term in a campaign against Iraq. It all boils down to 2 very important points.
1. If it is so likely that Saddam will pass his chemical and biological weapons off to terrorists, what is to stop him from doing it as we invade? What is to stop Saddam from making a donation to Hamas of 20 suitcas sized tubes of nerve gas? If he doesn't give his weapons away right off, there will be no way to account for all of them after his regime collapses. He has had experience at moving his weapons quickly before while evading the inspectors. Any claims that he will not be able to move them over the border are nonsense, as Israel, who is trying to keep people out, has not been able to keep out suicide bombers. Does Syria or Saudi Arabia have better border security than Israel!?! If we invade to keep him from providing terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, how are we going to suceed if most of Saddam's weapons escape during the invasion. Have we asked Israel if it is okay if the next suicide bomber releases several bottles of nerve gas?
2. I can see a very efficient terrorist group forming of ex-Saddam followers. If one does, it will have expertise with military tactics, chemical and biological weapons, and knowledge about producing nuclear weapons. They will also have a vengeful hatred of America. They don't need to even be popular. Nearly 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 by 19 murderers with box-cutters. Think of what fifty people with chemical and biological weapons and military training will be able to do.
It seems as if everyone of note has failed to consider a very bad set of possibilities; what can go wrong in the short-term in a campaign against Iraq. It all boils down to 2 very important points.
1. If it is so likely that Saddam will pass his chemical and biological weapons off to terrorists, what is to stop him from doing it as we invade? What is to stop Saddam from making a donation to Hamas of 20 suitcas sized tubes of nerve gas? If he doesn't give his weapons away right off, there will be no way to account for all of them after his regime collapses. He has had experience at moving his weapons quickly before while evading the inspectors. Any claims that he will not be able to move them over the border are nonsense, as Israel, who is trying to keep people out, has not been able to keep out suicide bombers. Does Syria or Saudi Arabia have better border security than Israel!?! If we invade to keep him from providing terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, how are we going to suceed if most of Saddam's weapons escape during the invasion. Have we asked Israel if it is okay if the next suicide bomber releases several bottles of nerve gas?
2. I can see a very efficient terrorist group forming of ex-Saddam followers. If one does, it will have expertise with military tactics, chemical and biological weapons, and knowledge about producing nuclear weapons. They will also have a vengeful hatred of America. They don't need to even be popular. Nearly 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 by 19 murderers with box-cutters. Think of what fifty people with chemical and biological weapons and military training will be able to do.