Cole has a thorough and devastating critique of Sandy Berger, ex-NSA, and those who claimed that these charges were part of a smear campaign by Republicans. Everything that Berger detractors had argued about his illegal behavior, was in fact, what Berger presented in his allocution.
Berger purposefully took those documents and destroyed classified documents in violation of federal law.
Now, where are the apologies to those who said that Berger was illegally handling documents, illegally shredded documents, and violated federal law?
Friday, April 01, 2005
Why Isn't Sandy Berger Going to Prison?
Instapundit has a good roundup of the news relating to Sandy Berger copping to a single count of misconduct due to his theft and destruction of classified documents. Consider the following:
Martha Stewart got a harsher sentence for doing far less. What kind of message is being sent here by federal prosecutors? Why is Berger being given such a lenient sentence? It really makes no sense considering that this is a cut and dried case of illegal activity, plus a coverup of those activities.
And yes, the question remains just what was Berger trying so desperately to destroy and hide from investigators? Was the Clinton Administration handling of counter terrorism so awful (and more damning than we already know) that Berger felt the need to break the law to hide this fact from the public?
Sadly, this chapter is not over.
UPDATE 9:41AM EST:
I believe that Berger should have faced prison time over his actions, which include the destruction of original documents relating to the 9/11 investigation. These were draft copies that included original notes in the margins, some of which could have shed light on how the Clinton Administration dealt with counter terror efforts.
The crimes Berger likely committed include Obstruction of justice (18 USC 1505), Destruction of records (18 USC 1519), Obstruction of criminal investigation (18 USC 1510), etc. You get the idea.
A slap on the wrist was wholly inappropriate. Will Berger's security clearance be revoked so that he can no longer have any access to classified documents? He's completely untrustworthy at this point to be entitled to such access.
UPDATE II 10:07 AM EST:
The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.Berger admits to purposefully destroying classified documents, which is a federal crime. It should be punishable by prison time. Yet, Berger gets off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil. . . .
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
Martha Stewart got a harsher sentence for doing far less. What kind of message is being sent here by federal prosecutors? Why is Berger being given such a lenient sentence? It really makes no sense considering that this is a cut and dried case of illegal activity, plus a coverup of those activities.
And yes, the question remains just what was Berger trying so desperately to destroy and hide from investigators? Was the Clinton Administration handling of counter terrorism so awful (and more damning than we already know) that Berger felt the need to break the law to hide this fact from the public?
Sadly, this chapter is not over.
UPDATE 9:41AM EST:
I believe that Berger should have faced prison time over his actions, which include the destruction of original documents relating to the 9/11 investigation. These were draft copies that included original notes in the margins, some of which could have shed light on how the Clinton Administration dealt with counter terror efforts.
The crimes Berger likely committed include Obstruction of justice (18 USC 1505), Destruction of records (18 USC 1519), Obstruction of criminal investigation (18 USC 1510), etc. You get the idea.
A slap on the wrist was wholly inappropriate. Will Berger's security clearance be revoked so that he can no longer have any access to classified documents? He's completely untrustworthy at this point to be entitled to such access.
UPDATE II 10:07 AM EST:
The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.Instead, he got a $10,000 fine and no prison time. Something fishy? You bet.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Toxic Indifference to North Korea
Since 2002, defectors among the flood of refugees from North Korea have detailed firsthand accounts of systematic starvation, torture and murder. Enemies of the state are used in experiments to develop new generations of chemical and biological weapons that threaten the world. A microcosm of these horrors is Camp 22, one of 12 concentration camps housing an estimated 200,000 political prisoners facing torture or execution for such "crimes" as being a Christian or a relative of someone suspected of deviation from "official ideology of the state." Another eyewitness, Kwon Hyuk, formerly chief manager at Camp 22, repeated to me what he asserted to the BBC: "I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. . . . The parents were vomiting and dying, but until the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing."The problem with the strategy prescribed by the author is that China and Russia are badly in need of regime change themselves; they're simply the lesser of the competing evils at this particular moment. Both were involved in mass murder and the utilization of gulags and concentration camps by both countries is well documents (though understudied by those who think that socialism and communism is humane and a model for all countries to follow).
So why no worldwide outrage?
For now it appears that realpolitik trumps distant horrors. Despite heroic efforts by Christian activists on both sides of the Pacific to sound the alarm, the South Korean government views these accusations as unwelcome complications to its problematic and complex relations with the North. Indeed, a foreign ministry official whom I met did not deny that North Korea gassed political prisoners to further its program to develop weapons of mass destruction. He politely stated that Seoul was focusing exclusively on the threat from Pyongyang's nuclear program in the context of the six-nation peace talks. Meanwhile, most South Korean nongovernmental organizations are so committed to the idyllic vision of a reunified Korean Peninsula that they have turned a deaf ear to the horrors inflicted on their own people north of the 38th parallel.
The Western media haven't exactly ignored this story. Instead, they have generally treated it in an offhand manner chillingly reminiscent of how the Holocaust was reported during World War II. For example, the Pentagon just recently sought emergency authority to resume administering the anthrax vaccine to U.S. troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula as well as in the Persian Gulf because of "a significant potential for a military emergency involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack." The limited coverage of the story focused not on the threat posed by North Korean chemical and biological weaponry but on the controversy over the safety of inoculating the troops.
North Korea's Mengele-style experimentation with killer agents such as anthrax has not escalated into a mass-murder campaign against the regime's own population, the Allied troops stationed in the Korean DMV or North Korea's neighbors -- not yet. But beyond the nuclear threat, the world has reason to be deeply concerned over how much of this deadly know-how has been transferred to terrorist states or entities.
It isn't necessary to insist on "regime change" as a precondition of dialogue. But the world community -- with the United States, Japan, China and Russia in the lead -- must insist on behavioral change, ameliorating the North's human rights pathologies, before making diplomatic concessions. We should start by identifying -- by name -- those involved in crimes against humanity against their own people, and warning these criminals that eventually they will be held accountable before the bar of justice.
For starters, there should be no concessions whatsoever. North Korea will implode from within unless the US and others keep the inevitable from happening. North Korea cannot feed itself, nor can it do much of anything other than hold the world hostage to its claims of possessing nuclear weapons (and the attendant selling of said weapons on the black or open market). Further isolating the country may actually hasten the demise of the old regime and bring about greater change than engagement.
Photo of the Day
Sunrise over the Atlantic at Key West. The colors were extraordinary as the sun's rays cut through a series of cloudbanks.
Reality Check Time
Environmentalists want to shut down Indian Point nuclear power plant. Okay, that's fine. There are questions about the safety of the plant from terrorists and what to do with the spent fuel. Those are legitimate questions.
But so is what will actually provide electricity to the entire region if the plant is shut down.
In neighboring Rockland County, a local power supplier is facing a crisis of its own, and residents may be faced with higher costs because local power plants may be shut down within two years:
Those same environmentalists who complain about Indian Point and want to have alternative sources of power have absolutely no answer for how to provide current levels of power with the technology currently available. The region, and indeed the entire nation, is facing an energy crunch and environmentalists are seeking to further limit the choices for supplying the power that the country and region needs to sustain economic growth and development.
Electricity demand continues to increase, and environmental groups are limiting the choices available to policy makers for what power sources can be used.
Tidal power? Well, that could harm sealife so that's nixed.
Wind power? Unsightly and it would harm birds.
Nuclear power? Where's the waste going? How safe are the plants from terror attacks?
Hydroelectric? Harms fish spawning grounds, destroys local ecology
Coal, gas? Smog? COx and other pollutants cause global warming.
Oh, and all plants suffer from NIMBY. Nobody wants them in their backyards, but they have to go somewhere.
Not many choices left, but something has to be done to provide the power that we rely on.
But so is what will actually provide electricity to the entire region if the plant is shut down.
In neighboring Rockland County, a local power supplier is facing a crisis of its own, and residents may be faced with higher costs because local power plants may be shut down within two years:
The Mirant Corporation which owns the two major electric generating stations is in bankruptcy and the power plants are too old to meet present day standards. Mirant plans to shut down the Lovett Generating Station in Stony Point in 2007.
Mirant's other power plant - Bowline in Haverstraw - has been shut down for unspecified problems.
Those same environmentalists who complain about Indian Point and want to have alternative sources of power have absolutely no answer for how to provide current levels of power with the technology currently available. The region, and indeed the entire nation, is facing an energy crunch and environmentalists are seeking to further limit the choices for supplying the power that the country and region needs to sustain economic growth and development.
Electricity demand continues to increase, and environmental groups are limiting the choices available to policy makers for what power sources can be used.
Tidal power? Well, that could harm sealife so that's nixed.
Wind power? Unsightly and it would harm birds.
Nuclear power? Where's the waste going? How safe are the plants from terror attacks?
Hydroelectric? Harms fish spawning grounds, destroys local ecology
Coal, gas? Smog? COx and other pollutants cause global warming.
Oh, and all plants suffer from NIMBY. Nobody wants them in their backyards, but they have to go somewhere.
Not many choices left, but something has to be done to provide the power that we rely on.
This Is The Lead Story In Today's Metro Section?
This was the lead story above-the-fold in the print edition of the New York Times Metro Section. With today being the day that the MTA is going to be announcing the winner of the bidding on the West Side Stadium, with local politics heating up in anticipation of the November mayoral elections, and a panoply of other issues, news that New York metro commuters face long commutes is a nonstory.
In fact, the story only states that the average commute in New York City is 38 minutes.
I wish. As do nearly every one of my coworkers, colleagues, and friends. 38 minutes would be nearly half the time they currently spend.
Now, this story could have taken on an extra dimension and been above-the-fold worthy had the Times actually done a little work and spoken with experts on ways to actually reduce the commute time - improving traffic patterns, reducing congestion, more mass transit, more efficient mass transit, etc.
The article was silent on all that.
In fact, the story only states that the average commute in New York City is 38 minutes.
I wish. As do nearly every one of my coworkers, colleagues, and friends. 38 minutes would be nearly half the time they currently spend.
Now, this story could have taken on an extra dimension and been above-the-fold worthy had the Times actually done a little work and spoken with experts on ways to actually reduce the commute time - improving traffic patterns, reducing congestion, more mass transit, more efficient mass transit, etc.
The article was silent on all that.
Amber Alert: Missing Headlines at BBC
The headline, "Iraq Child Malnutrition Rates Cut by Two Thirds" has been abducted from the masthead of the British Broadcasting Service, and replaced with the misleading headline, "Children 'Starving' in New Iraq".Anyone care to guess why the focus is on starving children and not children fed in larger numbers with better food since 2003? One guess - media bias, because there is no other logical explanation for why this story is even being addressed. It is a shame that there are still malnourished kids in Iraq, but there's absolutely no evidence that the BBC story is accurate in any way.
Second among the reported missing facts was a prewar United Nations report, cited by PeaceAction.org and countless other sites, which found that 25 percent of Iraqi children were malnourished during the final years of Saddam Hussein.The offending article had claimed that malnutrition among Iraqi children had doubled since the US invaded Iraq in 2003.
Investigators for Countercolumn have confirmed that the 8 percent malnutrition rate reported by the United Nations under the coalition government is less than one third of the 25 percent figure cited by UNICEF prior to the war, and taken as gospel by numerous progressive organizations calling for the lifting of the UN sanctions.
Investigators have ruled out charging BBC reporters and editors as well as United Nations diplomats with any crime, since anybody who's too stupid to figure out that today's 8 percent malnutrition rate is not double 25 percent malnutrition, as the BBC lede reports, cannot be held responsible for their actions as if they were, you know, sentient adults.
Someone needs remedial math lessons, and methinks that would be the folks at the BBC.
UPDATE 9:32AM EST:
We're not alone in seeing the discrepancies and math illiteracy at the UN. In fact, this is a political hatchet job intended to attack the US even though the situation in Iraq is far better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. And that's by simply looking at the UN figures pre- and post- invasion.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Iraq's Prison Population Grows...
... but the number of Iraqi criminals (and jihadists, terrorists, and insurgents or whatever the media is calling them these days) walking the streets is declining.
Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with a growing prison population. The mention of Abu Ghraib is a tangential one at best. The fact is that better policing of Iraq has netted more criminals, including those released by Saddam. The same thing happens in the NYT, when the paper claims that NY prison ranks are swelling while crime is decreasing. The fact is that the two statistics are related. If more criminals are in prison, there are fewer criminals on the streets to commit crime. So, the streets are safer - and Iraqis are seeing that as well.
Always looking for dark clouds instead of the silver linings.
The increase is also due to the fact that many of the prisoners are among those who were released by Saddam Hussein in the days before the US invasion and are only now getting back into the prison system. These are not folks who are wrongly imprisoned, but those who raped, killed, kidnapped, and caused mayhem previously. Yet, MSNBC takes an ominious tone with the fact that the prisons are growing - which means a corollary is taking place - there are fewer criminals walking the streets.
Five months ago, the military said it was holding about 4,300 prisoners in Iraq. The growth in the prison population has come amid a lingering insurgency in Iraq and despite the formal transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government last June.
The number of U.S.-held prisoners in Iraq declined last summer after international outrage over abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Revelations of abuse have continued since then; on Friday, the Army released documents detailing a half-dozen prison abuse investigations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with a growing prison population. The mention of Abu Ghraib is a tangential one at best. The fact is that better policing of Iraq has netted more criminals, including those released by Saddam. The same thing happens in the NYT, when the paper claims that NY prison ranks are swelling while crime is decreasing. The fact is that the two statistics are related. If more criminals are in prison, there are fewer criminals on the streets to commit crime. So, the streets are safer - and Iraqis are seeing that as well.
Always looking for dark clouds instead of the silver linings.
A Firing Offense
That they do not call for Kofi's resignation is also interesting. The Times itself moved quickly to change executive editors when it was found that a reporter, Jayson Blair, had fabricated stories. Yet Oil-for-Food, even at the level that it is currently understood, is far worse than a few made up tales. It concerns mass thievery, the starvation of children and the very nature of Security Council decision-making leading up to war. If this isn't a firing-offense, what is?It is interesting that the Times goes out of its way to avoid calling for Kofi's resignation despite the mountains of circumstantial evidence that he was up to his neck in the corruption, and did nothing about it. As Roger notes, the Times fired its editor in chief for a single journalist fabricating stories that the editors failed to catch. Of course, that took a near mutiny in the newsroom to accomplish the editor switch, but the UN situation is far worse.
Under what circumstances would the Times demand that Kofi step down - that way we'll know its boundaries.
What Report Was Kofi Reading?
If anyone thinks that the latest UNSCAM report exonerates Kofi from wrongdoing, they haven't been paying attention. The report does everything except explicitly state that Kofi should be fired from his job as Secretary General for his actions, inaction, and inability to police the oil for food program.
At best, the Volcker report presents a tale of mismanagement and gullibility that should give Kofi Annan serious pause about sticking around.
And the commission hardly exonerated Annan of wrongdoing: Lacking a smoking gun to prove otherwise, it merely chose to believe his denials.
Yet Annan yesterday pronounced himself cleared, to his "great relief." Asked point-blank whether he would resign, he declared: "Hell, no."
The fact is, even this report — as protective as it is of the secretary-general — seriously undermines his credibility and effectiveness. And it still falls far short of explaining how this monumental scandal was perpetrated.
If the United Nations ever is to realize Volcker's stated "larger objective of a reformed U.N., a U.N. capable of commanding and maintaining the support of its member states and the public at large," it never will do so until the present leadership is gone.
Starting with Kofi Annan.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
About the West Side Stadium
By now, most of you have heard about the West Side Stadium plans, which are being touted as a way to resuscitate and develop an underdeveloped and underutilized area of Manhattan.
The plans were put forward by the New York Jets, Cablevision (owners of Madison Square Garden and opposed to the competition of a new stadium venue in Manhattan), and Transgas, whose plan would involve so many options and conditions, that it isn't even serious to consider them.
That there were only three plans submitted for bid to the MTA shows that the property in question wasn't nearly in as much demand as some people were led to believe - including the MTA. Not that many developers want to get into the middle of a project that requires building over working rail yards just to be able to build whatever the developers have in mind. That means that the prices submitted likely reflect the market as it currently stands.
So, which is the best bid? The Jets are the frontrunners because they have a plan, have been examining the site for the longest time and know what is involved in building the platform on which any structure would be built, and have the support of the Mayor. That said, they have to overcome stiff resistance from the local community that doesn't want new development, if only because it would raise the rents in the area making it prohibitive to live in yet another area of Manhattan.
Cablevision is running a media campaign to derail the stadium, assisting local opponents to development. Theirs is a campaign of dishonesty since they have no intention of building anything - and Cablevision's experience in business is less than sterling considering that they've bankrupted former businesses, and turned their sports franchises into shells of their former glory.
Now, there a stadium could be built in some area of New York other than the West Side - Sunnyside, Queens is a possibility over the rail yards there - but the West Side project will move forward, if only because the Javits Center adjacent to the rail yards needs to be expanded to meet modern demands for convention space.
The plans were put forward by the New York Jets, Cablevision (owners of Madison Square Garden and opposed to the competition of a new stadium venue in Manhattan), and Transgas, whose plan would involve so many options and conditions, that it isn't even serious to consider them.
That there were only three plans submitted for bid to the MTA shows that the property in question wasn't nearly in as much demand as some people were led to believe - including the MTA. Not that many developers want to get into the middle of a project that requires building over working rail yards just to be able to build whatever the developers have in mind. That means that the prices submitted likely reflect the market as it currently stands.
So, which is the best bid? The Jets are the frontrunners because they have a plan, have been examining the site for the longest time and know what is involved in building the platform on which any structure would be built, and have the support of the Mayor. That said, they have to overcome stiff resistance from the local community that doesn't want new development, if only because it would raise the rents in the area making it prohibitive to live in yet another area of Manhattan.
Cablevision is running a media campaign to derail the stadium, assisting local opponents to development. Theirs is a campaign of dishonesty since they have no intention of building anything - and Cablevision's experience in business is less than sterling considering that they've bankrupted former businesses, and turned their sports franchises into shells of their former glory.
Now, there a stadium could be built in some area of New York other than the West Side - Sunnyside, Queens is a possibility over the rail yards there - but the West Side project will move forward, if only because the Javits Center adjacent to the rail yards needs to be expanded to meet modern demands for convention space.
Photo of the Day
National Cathedral, Washington D.C., taken 3/2005. This is one of my favorites from the trip because I managed to capture the nighttime shot about as well as I could have hoped for. It always helps that your subject is extremely well lit.
Hundreds Killed By Indonesian Quake
The massive 8.7 quake, which was located near the Indonesian coast, did not produce a tsunami, but was deadly nonetheless. Hundreds of bodies are being recovered from the island closest to the epicenter.
More aftershocks are expected, and the tsuanmi threat was on the minds of many who felt the tremors, as many sought higher ground without thinking twice.
More aftershocks are expected, and the tsuanmi threat was on the minds of many who felt the tremors, as many sought higher ground without thinking twice.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Major Earthquake Alert
8.5 quake occurs in Indian Ocean, tsunamis feared: Japan agency +...
8.3 Mag... same location as the giant quake that hit the area Dec. 26: U.S...
The prudent thing for local governments may be to warn local populations to stay away from the coast and head towards higher ground. I hope that the local governments are watching the sitaution closely and putting safety ahead of economic concerns.
UPDATE 3/29/2005 11:20AM EST:
No tsunami detected, and scientists are puzzled over reasons. There is much that scientists have to learn about destructive forces of nature, and it is possible that the reason that this quake did not cause a tsunami has to do with the fact that this quake did not displace water in the same way as the December 26 quake did.
8.3 Mag... same location as the giant quake that hit the area Dec. 26: U.S...
THIS EARTHQUAKE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PACIFIC. NO TSUNAMI THREATNow, let's be absolutely clear on this. There is still no Indian Ocean tsunami warning system in place, but there is a distinct possibility that a tsunami could have been created by this latest earthquake. Only time and direct observations will be able to determine whether that has occurred.
EXISTS TO COASTLINES IN THE PACIFIC.
WARNING... THIS EARTHQUAKE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE A WIDELY
DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI IN THE OCEAN OR SEAS NEAR THE EARTHQUAKE.
AUTHORITIES IN THOSE REGIONS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS POSSIBILITY
AND TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION. THIS ACTION SHOULD INCLUDE EVACUATION
OF COASTS WITHIN A THOUSAND KILOMETERS OF THE EPICENTER AND CLOSE
MONITORING TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR EVACUATION FURTHER AWAY.
THIS CENTER DOES NOT HAVE SEA LEVEL GAUGES OUTSIDE THE PACIFIC
SO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DETECT OR MEASURE A TSUNAMI IF ONE WAS
GENERATED. AUTHORITIES CAN ASSUME THE DANGER HAS PASSED IF NO
TSUNAMI WAVES ARE OBSERVED IN THE REGION NEAR THE EPICENTER
WITHIN THREE HOURS OF THE EARTHQUAKE.
THIS WILL BE THE ONLY BULLETIN ISSUED FOR THIS EVENT UNLESS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.
The prudent thing for local governments may be to warn local populations to stay away from the coast and head towards higher ground. I hope that the local governments are watching the sitaution closely and putting safety ahead of economic concerns.
UPDATE 3/29/2005 11:20AM EST:
No tsunami detected, and scientists are puzzled over reasons. There is much that scientists have to learn about destructive forces of nature, and it is possible that the reason that this quake did not cause a tsunami has to do with the fact that this quake did not displace water in the same way as the December 26 quake did.
The 'Newspaper of Record'
How is it that the New York Times continues to underreport stories from Iraq that show that the coalition and Iraqis are doing pretty well two years following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?
Simple.
It ignores the stories showing that there is good news.
That's how people don't get a full picture of events in Iraq, the Middle East, or even local news. When newspapers choose to avoid dealing with the sum of all news, you get only what the media outlets want you to see. And that version of events is a distortion of how things really are.
That's why websites by Chrenkoff and Instapundit are so valuable. You can see alternative news sources, often from foreign media outlets, that invite readers to make their own opinions on what is really going on. They find that the situation in Iraq was never as dire as the Times reported, and that underreporting of good news in Iraq continues to be a major problem.
How else can one describe the inability of the Times, through either willful or negligent means, to carry a story showing a major roundup of terrorists in Iraq, along with their weapons?
Wouldn't you think that a story with a lede of ... two days ago, Iraqi security forces captured 130 terrorists, tons of explosives, and three fully-assembled car bombs outside the Shiite city of Kerbala was a hot and newsworthy story?
Not the case at the Times. What is their reasoning for that?
Simple.
It ignores the stories showing that there is good news.
That's how people don't get a full picture of events in Iraq, the Middle East, or even local news. When newspapers choose to avoid dealing with the sum of all news, you get only what the media outlets want you to see. And that version of events is a distortion of how things really are.
That's why websites by Chrenkoff and Instapundit are so valuable. You can see alternative news sources, often from foreign media outlets, that invite readers to make their own opinions on what is really going on. They find that the situation in Iraq was never as dire as the Times reported, and that underreporting of good news in Iraq continues to be a major problem.
How else can one describe the inability of the Times, through either willful or negligent means, to carry a story showing a major roundup of terrorists in Iraq, along with their weapons?
Wouldn't you think that a story with a lede of ... two days ago, Iraqi security forces captured 130 terrorists, tons of explosives, and three fully-assembled car bombs outside the Shiite city of Kerbala was a hot and newsworthy story?
Not the case at the Times. What is their reasoning for that?
The Decapitation Strike
Somewhere, in the deep dark recesses of an overactive imagination, the idea that someone could conceivably eliminate the ability of the US government to function began to take form. It grew and took on new significance following the 9/11 attacks, which included a strike against the Pentagon, and potentially made the Capitol or White House a target.
What would have happened if the plane struck into the Capitol and killed 300 members of Congress? What would have happened if the plane overflew the Capitol and instead destroyed the Supreme Court, killing the entire bench, plus a dozen visiting federal court judges?
Would the government had been able to continue functioning?
The simple answer is no. At least not in the way that most Americans envision government operating.
And that's the big problem. A huge problem actually.
Back in the Cold War, there were groups of planners who thought up ways to deal with the situation, but it all boiled down to some form of martial law until resources and individuals were able to reform and reconstitute the government branches. That same mindset continues to operate throughout the government.
If Congress is unable to meet with a quorum, no business can be conducted. That means no appropriations, no declarations of war, no disaster relief. Nothing.
The business of restoring the government after such an attack would be paralyzed because there is no way to quickly and swiftly address the matter and that is a dangerous situation.
One must consider the possibilities, no matter how dark and ominous, so that government can continue functioning.
Whether it means giving the individual state governors the power to appoint the replacement members, or calling for a line of succession for the President that makes political and practical sense, the government continues to appear to be burying its collective head in the sand. And, that's not even getting into the issue of continuity of government at the state levels, which in some cases is even worse than at the federal level.
Practically no one wants to deal with the problem.
So, how do we deal with an issue that no one wants to address? For starters, talk with your members of Congress to demand that they work on a plan that provides for continuity of government under such scenarios, one that elevates certain members of the federal bench in an interim manner to the Supreme Court until formal confirmation hearings are conducted, and a line of succession for the President that makes sense.
One possible way of reconstiting Congress may involve requiring state legislatures and governors to put forward a slate of representatives from the same political party that lost members so that the political makeup of Congress is not altered by an attack. The same should apply for the line to succeed the President. Under the current system, the political party in the Presidency could change if a different political party is in the majority in Congress. I don't think anyone would want to see that happen, or contemplate terrorists who might exploit that scenario to impose fundamental changes of government as a result of an attack.
Yet, these questions remain unanswered. And thus, the decapitation strike remains a distinct, yet remote, possibility.
What would have happened if the plane struck into the Capitol and killed 300 members of Congress? What would have happened if the plane overflew the Capitol and instead destroyed the Supreme Court, killing the entire bench, plus a dozen visiting federal court judges?
Would the government had been able to continue functioning?
The simple answer is no. At least not in the way that most Americans envision government operating.
And that's the big problem. A huge problem actually.
Back in the Cold War, there were groups of planners who thought up ways to deal with the situation, but it all boiled down to some form of martial law until resources and individuals were able to reform and reconstitute the government branches. That same mindset continues to operate throughout the government.
If Congress is unable to meet with a quorum, no business can be conducted. That means no appropriations, no declarations of war, no disaster relief. Nothing.
The business of restoring the government after such an attack would be paralyzed because there is no way to quickly and swiftly address the matter and that is a dangerous situation.
One must consider the possibilities, no matter how dark and ominous, so that government can continue functioning.
Whether it means giving the individual state governors the power to appoint the replacement members, or calling for a line of succession for the President that makes political and practical sense, the government continues to appear to be burying its collective head in the sand. And, that's not even getting into the issue of continuity of government at the state levels, which in some cases is even worse than at the federal level.
Practically no one wants to deal with the problem.
So, how do we deal with an issue that no one wants to address? For starters, talk with your members of Congress to demand that they work on a plan that provides for continuity of government under such scenarios, one that elevates certain members of the federal bench in an interim manner to the Supreme Court until formal confirmation hearings are conducted, and a line of succession for the President that makes sense.
One possible way of reconstiting Congress may involve requiring state legislatures and governors to put forward a slate of representatives from the same political party that lost members so that the political makeup of Congress is not altered by an attack. The same should apply for the line to succeed the President. Under the current system, the political party in the Presidency could change if a different political party is in the majority in Congress. I don't think anyone would want to see that happen, or contemplate terrorists who might exploit that scenario to impose fundamental changes of government as a result of an attack.
Yet, these questions remain unanswered. And thus, the decapitation strike remains a distinct, yet remote, possibility.
Kofi Knew More
The committee has been interviewing Pierre Mouselli, a businessman in Paris who was Kojo's business partner. Their relationship started in 1998 when then 45-year old Mouselli met young Kojo (then 23) at a Bastille Day Party in the French Embassy in Lagos, Nigeria. Mouselli, who has been a cooperative witness and is not under investigation himself, has told the committee numerous interesting things, which deserved to be followed up, They include:Roger, along with Claudia Rosett, is doing amazing work in this effort to unveil the corruption at the UN, via UNSCAM. The more information that comes out about UNSCAM, the less one should pin their hopes on the UN to do anything worthwhile.
1. Previously unrevealed private meetings between Kojo and two separate Iraqi Ambassadors to Nigeria, arranged by Mouselli in or about August 1998. At these meetings Kojo presented the business card of Cotecna, which subsequently won the lucrative oil inspection contract for Oil-for-Food. Cotecna had previously been blacklisted from doing business in Nigeria for alleged arms trafficking.
2. A trip in September 1998 by Mouselli and Kojo to the Non-Aligned Nations Movement Conference in Durban, South Africa during which they traveled with the Secretary General's entourage and later had a private lunch with Kofi Annan. In Mouselli's view, the purpose of the lunch was to make the Secretary General aware of the various business dealings in which he and Kojo were engaged, in order to get the Secretary General's "blessing". It was Mouselli's understanding at the time that Kojo had previously discussed the Iraqi Embassy visits with his father, though he does not recall specific statements regarding the UN inspection contracts.
3. Early Autumn 2002. The Iraqi Ambassador to Nigeria makes a surprise call to Mouselli inquiring of the whereabouts of Kojo (at this point Mouselli and Kojo were not in close contact). Mouselli goes to the Iraqi Embassy where he is informed by the Ambassador that we (the Iraqis) have done favors for Kojo in the past and now need to see him. The Iraqis do not specify what these favors were or what they needed from Kojo, but offer Mouselli a visa to come to Baghdad for further discussion. Mouselli picks up the visa in Paris but does not go to Iraq because of the increasingly violent situation.
Mouselli appears to be reliable. I have spoken to him briefly on the phone in Paris and at some length with his attorney Adrian Gonzalez-Maltes. (Interestingly, witnesses and their lawyers seem not to be under confidentiality agreements in this investigation, possibly because there is no governing body to enforce them.)
Photo of the Day
Zion Gate, Old City, Jersualem. If you're wondering what all those pock marks are in the stone walls, those are bullet marks left from the 1948 and 1967 conflicts, which ultimately left Israel in control of all of Jerusalem. Those bullet holes are a testament to the tenacity of Israelis to gain access to the Old City, and the lives lost to unite Jerusalem under Israel's control.
Taken July 1993.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
UN Trials and Tribulations
KOFI ANNAN, the United Nations secretary-general, is said to be struggling with depression and considering his future. Colleagues have reported concerns about Annan ahead of an official report this week that will examine his son Kojo’s connection to the controversial Iraqi oil for food scheme.I can't quite figure out why Annan is depressed at this particular moment. It's not like he simply stood back and watched the genocide in Sudan happen in slow motion, as he did when he was in charge of UN operations in Rwanda in 1994. No, he's suffering from the culmination of more than a decade of personal and professional failures, including moral and ethical lapses that boggle the mind.
Depending on the findings of the report, by a team led by the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, Annan may have to choose between the secretary-generalship and loyalty to his son.
American congressional critics of the UN are already pressing him to resign over the mismanagement of the oil for food programme, and even his supporters have been dismayed by the scandals on his watch, including the sexual abuse of children by UN peacekeepers in Congo.
One close observer at the UN said Annan’s moods were like a “sine curve” and that he appeared near the bottom of the trough.
That he has lasted this far is startling.
That there are now public whispers among his colleagues at the UN for him to be considering leaving the UN represents a major step towards his ouster.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)