Intelligence Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics
The Terrorists Friend
   Next Article → PHILIPPINES: Blame It On Feudalism and Religion
June 9, 2007: The American Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to rescind certain portions of the Military Commissions Act - a move that will draw few headlines, but which holds the potential to do great damage to intelligence agencies, which are vital in the war on terror. Should the practice of giving terrorists access to federal courts be resumed, the Department of Defense would face the choice between protecting the means of gathering intelligence and the sources of intelligence, and letting terrorists go free, or placing the information gathered on the record, and risk aiding terrorists' counter-intelligence efforts.

This is really not a surprise. Many in the new Democratic Party congressional leadership opposed the Military Commissions Act, echoing complaints from human rights groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights and Amnesty International. The Democrats are now tossing this over to their supporters, in essence, seeking to score political points from their supporters - and get positive press from the mainstream media.

The problem, of course, is that in the past, criminal trials have led to intelligence being compromised. In the 1995 trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the government's evidence was turned over to his attorneys. At least one of the documents handed over in accordance with rules of discovery ultimately found its way to an al-Qaeda headquarters in the Sudan. That document contained a list of people who were on the government's radar screen - and thus alerted al-Qaeda to the possibility of surveillance told them who we were interested in.

This is a bigger deal than it might sound like. If you know what someone else knows about you, it helps you to figure out how they might have discovered the information. That enables you to take countermeasures, be it feeding disinformation through a source you know is compromised, or by making sure that the snitch is tortured (for information on his intel connections) and killed. Compromising methods of gathering intelligence, and the sources of intelligence, also creates a chilling effect. If a source wants to be extracted, intelligence he might have gathered in the future is lost. The same loss of intelligence happens when a source stops cooperating for fear of exposure, which happened in 1995 after then-Congressman Robert Torricelli burned a CIA source. Cooperation with other intelligence agencies will also suffer - as they act to protect their methods and sources from being exposed.

The compromising of intelligence sources and methods of gathering information also makes it more likely that plotted attacks will succeed. A terrorist cell that is conscious of operational security as the result of leaks,  and which is dealing with fewer potential snitches, is more likely to evade notice. In essence, they have a better chance at getting lucky - and a terrorist cell planning an attack only needs to get lucky once. The terrorists planning the attack on Fort Dix are the exception - and the next group of terrorists is not going to take their videos to the local Circuit City or Best Buy.

On the contrary, when terrorist cells do not think someone is listening, they are more likely to screw up and attract attention. The more that informants believe they will be protected, the more likely they are to keep snitching on the bad guys. This means there is a better chance for the cops and FBI to get alerted. Considering that these agencies are largely reactive, they can use all the informant tips they can get.

When it comes right down to it, a major battle in the war on terror will be fought in Washington. Al Qaeda could easily end up a big winner by gaining invaluable assistance in counter-intelligence,  assistance that the DOD will be forced to provide unless they want terrorists to go free. That is a choice between two very bad options. - Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

 Next Article → PHILIPPINES: Blame It On Feudalism and Religion
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
davod    Intelligence   6/9/2007 9:11:24 AM
At some stage you have to decide whether the Dems are human rights orientated to a simplistic degree, political animals who will do anything to get a vote,  fellow travellors who have never got off the Ameria is bad bandwagon, or simplistic fools. I include the Republicans involved in the simplistic fools area.
 
The politicians who have access to secret intelligence and compromise the intelligence should be prosecuted.
 
Quote    Reply

E. J.    Oh get real   6/9/2007 8:02:04 PM
Bush is the one who chose to make terrorism a political football. I believe his administration rightly saw in 9/11 both tragedy and threat. But sadly they also saw 9/11 in a partisan light, as an opportunity to enact unconstitutional (in the judgement of their own lawyers) levels of executive power, perpetuate partisan political advantages, and browbeat congressional leaders into entering the Iraq war against U.S. interests.
 
It's a shame we didn't have a statesman (Republican or Democrat) in power when 9/11 occurred. A true leader would have enlisted senior intelligence leaders in congress, of both parties, to craft a constitutional approach to the challenges of al-Qaida terrorism. But the Bush administration has proven both untrustworthy and unwilling to work constructively in any way with anyone else in government. This is a poisonous combination when trying to deal with new challenges in a way that doesn't undermine basic American values and rights.
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       6/9/2007 8:04:00 PM
How about arrest everyone in the Legislature then have them executed for treason???
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    Some obvious counters   6/9/2007 9:16:18 PM

Several counter tactics suggest themselves.

 

1.      Leak a memo compartmentalizing intelligence so that law enforcement will not have access to information that could compromise resources if revealed.  An exception should exist for situations expected to produce massive casualties (say 1,000+) in a single incident.  Basically a return to the pre-9/11 status.

 

This will move the security issues to the front of the debate, and probably cost a few of the supporters their offices in the next election.  The rest will pull the heads in and things will return to reasonableness.

 

2.      Set up “canary traps” in the intelligence that is released to the courts to identify the law firms that are leaking information.  Arrest and inter the entire firm for the duration of the conflict as enemy combatants (I expect that this will go on for at least 20 years).  If any are still alive at the end of the war, then deport them when released.

 

Lawyers like to think that they can have it both ways (just like the press).  Even if this does not convince them, they will be a lot less effective if the support staff is scared off.

 
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       6/9/2007 9:20:20 PM

Bush is the one who chose to make terrorism a political football. I believe his administration rightly saw in 9/11 both tragedy and threat. But sadly they also saw 9/11 in a partisan light, as an opportunity to enact unconstitutional (in the judgement of their own lawyers) levels of executive power, perpetuate partisan political advantages, and browbeat congressional leaders into entering the Iraq war against U.S. interests.

 

It's a shame we didn't have a statesman (Republican or Democrat) in power when 9/11 occurred. A true leader would have enlisted senior intelligence leaders in congress, of both parties, to craft a constitutional approach to the challenges of al-Qaida terrorism. But the Bush administration has proven both untrustworthy and unwilling to work constructively in any way with anyone else in government. This is a poisonous combination when trying to deal with new challenges in a way that doesn't undermine basic American values and rights.



So you're saying that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are trying to rescind those portions of the Military Commissions Act that the Administration's own lawyers said were unconstitutional but that the Administration enacted anyway (neat trick that: the Executive passing legislation)?  Because if not, then stop changing the subject.  But thankls for playing.  Post a second time and double your presence on these boards (but first go back to MoveOn and choose another talking point to parrot).
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mountaintroll       6/10/2007 4:00:56 AM
Of course, trials are not required if there are no live prisoners to try.  But is this really the sort of thing we want to encourage?
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       6/10/2007 10:30:44 AM

Of course, trials are not required if there are no live prisoners to try.  But is this really the sort of thing we want to encourage?


What does encouraging "no live" (presumably as opposed to keeping live) prisoners have to do with the Military Commissions Act?  And who is the "we" that is engouraging no live prisoners?  Troll, indeed.
 
Quote    Reply

E. J.       6/10/2007 7:18:45 PM


So you're saying that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are trying to rescind those portions of the Military Commissions Act that the Administration's own lawyers said were unconstitutional but that the Administration enacted anyway (neat trick that: the Executive passing legislation)?  Because if not, then stop changing the subject.  But thankls for playing.  Post a second time and double your presence on these boards (but first go back to MoveOn and choose another talking point to parrot).
 


OK, I will try to be more clear. First, background:
 
In my opinion, it is clear that in crafting legislation for extraordinary treatment of terror suspects over and above our existing judicial system has important ramifications not only for our national security (which is of course important), but also for our traditional national history of taking the moral high ground (pesky things like the presumption of innocence), for the maintenance of core constitutional rights (especially to the extent that US nationals are treated under this law, which I honestly don't know, but certainly US nationals have repeatedly been swept up by the war on terrror in ways that appear potentially unconstitutional to me), and even for our international relations.
 
Obviously none of us know what has happened in secret during the War on Terror, this is the elephant in the room. We haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11, and I'm thankful for that. But then, we weren't successfully attacked in the U.S. from 1993-2001 either, so who can say? I have to act on what I can see or know, and what I can see and know is that the public results of the War on Terror seem pretty darn mixed: yes a lot of Taliban fanatics have been caught, and that's great, but a lot of quasi-innocents were caught up and imprisoned for 4 years with no recourse; and an awful lot of touted terror cases now look over-blown and have collapsed into minor immigration charges.
 
Given the many other mistakes I perceive the Bush administration to have made, I am hesitant to "just trust them" so I think we need to get the balance in this legislation right. Let's face it, even if you think the Bush administration is the best ever, then you need good laws in place to protect you from the next Bill Clinton. Not to be alarmist, but in my reading about the collapse of various republics, it seems to me they often involve the subtle erosion of "minor" freedoms - by the time the damage is evident it's too late - so I am sensititive to going too far in our terror laws, especially where US nationals are concerned. If that makes me a bleeding heart, OK, but I think America has benefited from being a country of principle and holding ourselves to higher standards than those of the world around us. Not to say we can always live by our principles, but if we stop aspiring to, it will be a sad day for America.
 
 
Now, to the point, a major theme in Harold's article, which I am replying to, is that Democrats are providing aid and succor to terrorists in order to score political points with human rights groups. I feel that is a one-sided and simplistic interpretation.
 
Yes, this legislative process has become overly partisan and politicized. The law was originally written in a highly partisan environment just prior to a change in the make-up of Congress, and happened only because Bush's attempts at secret and unilateral executive action began to become known (including, let's say, "near-torture" techniques -- the list of accepted non-torture interrogation methods sounded to me uncomfortably like the activities of Stalin's secret police in Darkness at Noon)
 
So, is this law right or not? I don't know, and this article doesn't even say specifically what "certain portions" of the MCA are to be recinded (although the bulk of the article seems to suggest that the Democrats are planning to throw the MCA out altogether and replaced with normal judicial proceedings, which is the first I heard of it). At any rate, I certainly don't think the process by which the law was written was right. Sadly the environment was indeed partisan and politicized when the law was written and remains so today. My point is that this article blames the Democrats, while the Bush adminsitration is up to their eyeballs in this state of affairs. They created this political environment by, for example, working tirelessly to: push an agenda of excessive and unnecessary secrecy before 9/11; expand exec
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       6/11/2007 12:26:26 AM
Well spoken, an excellent response. Articulately crafted, much better than I could have done. I agree to a great extent with you concerning your trepidation over infringements on liberties. Sacrificing liberty for safety is rarely a good idea, or at least quickly exceeds what I consider the proper balance point between the two. That doesn't make you a bleeding heart, and it also doesn't make you a liberal; conservatives like me are right there with you at the root of it. 
 
I do admit right off that you and others here know more about the specifics of this issue than I do. However, the specific subject matter appears to me to likely have to do with investigating and "prosecuting" foreign terrorists, not Americans. You point out your concern is in particular directed to treatment of Americans. I agree with you over the demise of republics coming from within by creeping gradualism, and therefore you are certainly right to show heightened concern over the potential for constitutional abuses. 
 
I may be wrong, or at least there is also still the possibility of abuse against Americans, but the tone of the original article made it sound to me that the Military Commissions Act and the proposed changes are directed at how we treat investigation and prosecution of foreign terrorists, not Americans. As far as I'm concerned, those are two fundamentally different groups whose treatment is governed by two different sets of rules. It seems to me something that was not adequately defined before 9/11 still haunts us today, which is that we should act against terrorists according to military principles, not law enforcement principles. Part of that is that non-American terrorists do not have Constitutional rights and do not need to be afforded all the protections inherent in our legal system (such as disclosure of all evidence to the defense and confronting/cross-examination of all witnesses against the defense). We are in a war (or ought to be) against foreign adversaries, not in a legal campaign against American criminals. 
 
The Washington Post? Public television? Yikes! No, I don't listen to Rush much lately. I stopped when Klinton left and Rush became a bit too Republican trying to defend President Bush instead of defending conservatism.  But with the Communist Party back in control of Congress I wonder if maybe we should both tune him in, and EJ, turn of PBS and turn on Fox News Channel for crying out loud! ;-) 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Take the foreign JJs in the field and place them under the UCMJ.   6/11/2007 2:08:51 AM
If we ultimately are going to classify them[the foreign JJs] as EPW war criminals as some democrats wish then to be classified, then drop the US military court system on them.
 
Rights will be protected, secrets will be protected, and we can shoot them as terrorists at the end of the process.
 
Domestic terroirists we try under the sedition statutes we have, convict them, and kill them as well.
 
Ultimately there should be no provision for starchamber courts which is what legislatively happened under the Klinton Klown Kirkus Klutch^1 when the donkeys ran Congress.
 
Herald
 
^1 circle jerk.
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2