Waterboarding has come up a lot in class and I didn't really understand what it was, so I looked it up on wikipedia (where else, right?). Then I followed a link in a footnote to this site. It features a video of a reporter voluntarily being waterboarded and his discussion with a professional interrogator and two faculty members at Harvard. It reminded me of Bruce Hoffman's piece "A Nasty Business" where he talks with a counter-terrorism worker who has engaged in coercive methods of interrogation. The interrogator says that he doesn't feel good or bad about what he's done and that no one really knows what they'd do in a position like that until he or she is actually in the moment.
In this video clip, the interviewed interrogator--Mike Ritz--says he has to make decisions between saving people and punishing alleged terrorists. I found his point interesting about torture: when torture is used and innocent would-be-victims are saved as a result, people are left with two conflicting beliefs (that torture is illegal and bad, and that saving people is good) that they have to reconcile. This video furthers our discussion on Hoffman's piece about torture being horrible but sometimes having good effects. However, unsurprisingly, it doesn't resolve the issue.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Refusal Keeps Terrorism Convict in Prison
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102775.html?hpid=sec-nation
I read this article on Former university professor Sami al-Arian wants to finish serving his prison sentence for a terrorism-related crime next month so that he can be deported to the Palestinian territories. In this article I read that professor Sami al-Arian was arrested for collecting money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group that is based out of Pakistan. Professor Sami al-Arian,
"was at the center of one of the nation's highest profile terrorism cases, accused of conspiracy to commit racketeering and murder and to aid a terrorist group, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in 2003. Two years later, a jury acquitted him of eight counts and deadlocked on others, but Arian pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to "make or receive funds . . . for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad" and was sentenced to 57 months in prison, which included time already served."
Professor al-Arian just wants to finish his jail time, and be deported to Pakistan. He was supposly offered a plea bargain for his testimony, and he would not be subpoena. However, the courts may hold al-Arian in jail until he testifies against Charities that are supporting terrorist. I wonder what everyone thinks about this article? Is it right to remove all right from a terrorist to protect national security? I think it is. I would rather take away rights from one person to save thousands or maybe millions.
Let me know what you think. I hope you like the article.
Austin Conners
I read this article on Former university professor Sami al-Arian wants to finish serving his prison sentence for a terrorism-related crime next month so that he can be deported to the Palestinian territories. In this article I read that professor Sami al-Arian was arrested for collecting money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group that is based out of Pakistan. Professor Sami al-Arian,
"was at the center of one of the nation's highest profile terrorism cases, accused of conspiracy to commit racketeering and murder and to aid a terrorist group, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in 2003. Two years later, a jury acquitted him of eight counts and deadlocked on others, but Arian pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to "make or receive funds . . . for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad" and was sentenced to 57 months in prison, which included time already served."
Professor al-Arian just wants to finish his jail time, and be deported to Pakistan. He was supposly offered a plea bargain for his testimony, and he would not be subpoena. However, the courts may hold al-Arian in jail until he testifies against Charities that are supporting terrorist. I wonder what everyone thinks about this article? Is it right to remove all right from a terrorist to protect national security? I think it is. I would rather take away rights from one person to save thousands or maybe millions.
Let me know what you think. I hope you like the article.
Austin Conners
Friday, March 21, 2008
Protecting Your Sources How Far Does it Go ?
So this video shows an interview by a reporter for NYT . This guy has trained hundreds of terrorist by his accounts and carried out attacks himself. Why isn't this guy in jail ? The reporter says they had to conceal their location in order for him to agree to the interview. I suppose a reporter would argue you have to protect your sources but... where is the limit? If I have information about a terrorist who carries out terrorist action am I obligated to pass it onto the state dept ? Or break a big story instead .. Hmmm which sounds more towards the rights of the innocent that will suffer from the attack or the people this guy trained ?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Israeli Counter Terrorism
I just read an article concerning Israel and its counter terrorism policy in its airports. (Article)
The Israelis are using the denial technique to stop potential attacks by racially profiling those of Arab descent. In the U.S. this is illegal to do, but some terrorist experts say that this specific practice is the reason there hasn't been an attack/hijacking on an Israeli plane for decades, even superseding reinforcing the luggage compartments with armor, reinforced cockpits, and armed marshals. Now there is a debate in Israel in the Supreme Court about its legality.
In the U.S. this policy wouldn't work for a couple reasons: 1) It's illegal and is not likely to pass scrutiny, 2) Focusing on a certain race (how can people always tell the race of a person?) will eventually overlook other people that are terrorists. The U.S. policy is to randomly check passengers which so far, with the increased security measures, seems to be effective enough. Thoughts?
~Greg
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Waterboarding
I recently learned during an ROTC briefing that U.S. military servicemembers attending SERE-C school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) are waterboarded as part of their stress-inoculation training. I'm definitely not making a final judgement call in favor of the technique, or coercive interrogation in general. However, I do think the fact that we somewhat-routinely waterboard our own soldiers, sailors, and airmen as part of training weakens that case that waterboarding is a form of torture, and legitimates it as an interrogation technique.
I'm interested in hearing what everyone else thinks.
JFK Special Warfare School webpage on SERE training. Obviously it avoids any controversial subjects.
Both of these article are rather obviously trying to make a political statement, but they do highlight the relationship between SERE training and coercive interrogation. I'm not claiming to agree with the conclusions, though.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Al-Qaeda and the Internet
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15net.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205784903-nGAiqDYmnZTfuEdmebRl/Q
The New York Times recently reported about Al-Qaeda's growing use of the internet to attract support from potential terrorists in the West, particularly young Muslims living in Europe and the United States. The author of the article discussed how Al-Qaeda has had a lot of success in gaining sympathizers in the West through various propagandist endeavors disseminated through the internet. As mentioned in class, the author highlights Al-Qaeda's use of hip-hop videos with anti-West messages to attract support. The organization has found this tool effective. It seems odd to me that Al-Qaeda would approve of hip-hop, a Western trend with sometimes questionable messages, as the mode by which their ideas are spread to young adults. Is this a double standard that the Al-Qaeda organization has, or is the use of hip-hop to gain support perpetuated by individuals not truly part of the group but rather distant supporters of Al-Qaeda? I would be interested in knowing what you all think.
The New York Times recently reported about Al-Qaeda's growing use of the internet to attract support from potential terrorists in the West, particularly young Muslims living in Europe and the United States. The author of the article discussed how Al-Qaeda has had a lot of success in gaining sympathizers in the West through various propagandist endeavors disseminated through the internet. As mentioned in class, the author highlights Al-Qaeda's use of hip-hop videos with anti-West messages to attract support. The organization has found this tool effective. It seems odd to me that Al-Qaeda would approve of hip-hop, a Western trend with sometimes questionable messages, as the mode by which their ideas are spread to young adults. Is this a double standard that the Al-Qaeda organization has, or is the use of hip-hop to gain support perpetuated by individuals not truly part of the group but rather distant supporters of Al-Qaeda? I would be interested in knowing what you all think.
Development as an Anti Terrorism tool
Last week in class we talked about the role of development in countering terrorism. Specifically we listed Global, Strategic and Tactical development. For some reason, I find development in any of these forms as lacking the potential to curb terrorism. While poverty may be a factor that promotes terrorism, it cannot be considered a cause of terrorism, because there are a lot of countries around the world which are poor but do not display any signs of terrorism.
Because most terrorists have multiple sponsors, I do not think that the aid that supports one or two of their constituencies may be an incentive for them to denounce terrorism altogether.
I further find it ironic that a terrorist group such as the Al-Queda, which is fighting the effects of globalization under a religious banner, and do not want any kind of foreign influence on their lands will accept foreign aid from the countries it is fighting.
Whether we choose to improve the GDP of particular countries, or develop certain cities regions etc, it is the terrorists we have to appease and not just their constituent public. After all, most terrorist organizations do not necessarily represent main stream demands.
Because most terrorists have multiple sponsors, I do not think that the aid that supports one or two of their constituencies may be an incentive for them to denounce terrorism altogether.
I further find it ironic that a terrorist group such as the Al-Queda, which is fighting the effects of globalization under a religious banner, and do not want any kind of foreign influence on their lands will accept foreign aid from the countries it is fighting.
Whether we choose to improve the GDP of particular countries, or develop certain cities regions etc, it is the terrorists we have to appease and not just their constituent public. After all, most terrorist organizations do not necessarily represent main stream demands.
al Qaeda
So I have been working on gathering information for paper #5 and I have been finding a lot of interesting little websites that have some information about Al Qaeda. A lot of it is stuff you may already know, but a lot of it was new to me so I thought I would share it here you go...
First
Second
I hope those were helpful and interesting for at least a couple of you. They are just small little sites with some basic information, but I thought it was good to know.
First
Second
I hope those were helpful and interesting for at least a couple of you. They are just small little sites with some basic information, but I thought it was good to know.
Debating Cost-effective Counter-terror
After reading the article posted by Chris on Sunday, I wanted to hear what others had to say specifically about the perceived lack of cost-efficient counter-terrorism.
I found the following sentence interesting: "Spending ever-more money making targets 'harder' is actually a poor choice."
It's easy to see where the authors are coming from--every time we fortify one target, we leave plenty others without defense. And there just isn't enough money to fortify everything. However, if the authors are advancing the notion that all fortification is futile, I would strongly disagree. As Schneier (or Heymann) mentioned, certain targets such as air travel merit special attention. After all, on 9/11 the control by terrorists of four airplanes killed thousands of Americans, greatly damaged the economy, and succeeded in creating mass fear and uncertainty.
It is undeniable that, "Increased counter-terrorism measures simply transfer terrorists’ attention elsewhere." But this does not always make costly counter-terror programs a failure. On the contrary, I find it reassuring that terrorists are having to turn away from their first-choice targets to secondary preferences. I think it is also fair to assume that terrorists will attack the best targets first, the next-best targets second, and so forth. As long as terrorists are having greater difficulty carrying out attacks against their preferred targets (which are most likely to kill civilians, damage property, hurt the economy and create fear), then I'd say the counter-terror measures which focus on fortifying potential targets are fulfilling their purpose.
I believe that the drastic inefficiency that appears to exist in our current counter-terror agenda is largely due to the hidden costs of fear. Part of the reason Americans are willing to submit to annoying security measures is because they feel threatened by the possibility of a terrorist attack and are willing to sacrifice for the feeling of security. I think that the question is: How much is America willing to pay to feel secure? The answer: a lot.
What do you think? Are counter-terror strategies worth the cost they impose? What role does fear play in the price of counter-terror? Is it warranted? How can counter-terror strategies be more cost-effective?
I found the following sentence interesting: "Spending ever-more money making targets 'harder' is actually a poor choice."
It's easy to see where the authors are coming from--every time we fortify one target, we leave plenty others without defense. And there just isn't enough money to fortify everything. However, if the authors are advancing the notion that all fortification is futile, I would strongly disagree. As Schneier (or Heymann) mentioned, certain targets such as air travel merit special attention. After all, on 9/11 the control by terrorists of four airplanes killed thousands of Americans, greatly damaged the economy, and succeeded in creating mass fear and uncertainty.
It is undeniable that, "Increased counter-terrorism measures simply transfer terrorists’ attention elsewhere." But this does not always make costly counter-terror programs a failure. On the contrary, I find it reassuring that terrorists are having to turn away from their first-choice targets to secondary preferences. I think it is also fair to assume that terrorists will attack the best targets first, the next-best targets second, and so forth. As long as terrorists are having greater difficulty carrying out attacks against their preferred targets (which are most likely to kill civilians, damage property, hurt the economy and create fear), then I'd say the counter-terror measures which focus on fortifying potential targets are fulfilling their purpose.
I believe that the drastic inefficiency that appears to exist in our current counter-terror agenda is largely due to the hidden costs of fear. Part of the reason Americans are willing to submit to annoying security measures is because they feel threatened by the possibility of a terrorist attack and are willing to sacrifice for the feeling of security. I think that the question is: How much is America willing to pay to feel secure? The answer: a lot.
What do you think? Are counter-terror strategies worth the cost they impose? What role does fear play in the price of counter-terror? Is it warranted? How can counter-terror strategies be more cost-effective?
Furore over Muslim terrorism claims
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=727578
I read this article on how an academic professor made claims agains Muslims in South Africa. Prof Hussein Solomon, director of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for International Political Studies said, "South Africa was becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists." This comment has outraged Muslims in South Africa. There are death threats on his life and his family's. The Media Review Network (MRN), a Muslim media watchdog, this week demanded an apology from the academic. In this article it discusses how people in South AFrica think that there is no evidence for this remark. However, Professor Solomon states several causes and will not back down. This article deals with terrorism because for one it is calling a state a sponser of terrorist (state sponsered). Also by Professor Solomon's remarks this could work out for the terrorist, because it looks like the people are backing them up by going against PRofessor Solomon. I was wondering if anyone knew what other problems this could cause in the region now, that it has created tension, let me know what you guys think,
Thanks
Austin Conners
I read this article on how an academic professor made claims agains Muslims in South Africa. Prof Hussein Solomon, director of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for International Political Studies said, "South Africa was becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists." This comment has outraged Muslims in South Africa. There are death threats on his life and his family's. The Media Review Network (MRN), a Muslim media watchdog, this week demanded an apology from the academic. In this article it discusses how people in South AFrica think that there is no evidence for this remark. However, Professor Solomon states several causes and will not back down. This article deals with terrorism because for one it is calling a state a sponser of terrorist (state sponsered). Also by Professor Solomon's remarks this could work out for the terrorist, because it looks like the people are backing them up by going against PRofessor Solomon. I was wondering if anyone knew what other problems this could cause in the region now, that it has created tension, let me know what you guys think,
Thanks
Austin Conners
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Counter-Terrorism Measures
I found this great article in the Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper. You can find the article here.
This article highlights a very interesting study done by the Copenhagen Consensus which studies the cost-benefit ratio of different counter-terrorism methods employed by Western gov'ts. The results show that has gov't increase security in one area or threat, terrorist organizations are adapting and attacking other targets.
The study shows that increasing the counter-terrorism budget just 25% worldwide would cost the US at least $75 billion over the next 5 years. If we overestimate the result of this and assume a 25% drop in terrorist attacks, this would only save the international economy $22 billion. The costs would be three times the expected benefits. This is only a 30 cent return for every dollar spent on counter-terrorism efforts. The article estimates that in this best case scenario, only 105 lives would be saved each year. Compare that with the 30,000 deaths on US highways annually, and it almost doesn't seem worth it.
The study proposes a solution however. If governments around the world cooperated to cut of the finances of terrorist organizations and networks, then expensive, large-scale attacks could be eliminate. This would be hard to do because some countries prefer to work autonomously, but the authors estimate that this would cost only $128 million annually (read the article to find out how they got this number). Preventing one large scale terrorist attack could save over $1 billion dollars. The returns could be several times the initial investment.
In short, the US and other Western countries need to rethink how they are investing counter-terrorism fund and seek get better returns and benefits for their money, in the form of lives saved.
This article highlights a very interesting study done by the Copenhagen Consensus which studies the cost-benefit ratio of different counter-terrorism methods employed by Western gov'ts. The results show that has gov't increase security in one area or threat, terrorist organizations are adapting and attacking other targets.
The study shows that increasing the counter-terrorism budget just 25% worldwide would cost the US at least $75 billion over the next 5 years. If we overestimate the result of this and assume a 25% drop in terrorist attacks, this would only save the international economy $22 billion. The costs would be three times the expected benefits. This is only a 30 cent return for every dollar spent on counter-terrorism efforts. The article estimates that in this best case scenario, only 105 lives would be saved each year. Compare that with the 30,000 deaths on US highways annually, and it almost doesn't seem worth it.
The study proposes a solution however. If governments around the world cooperated to cut of the finances of terrorist organizations and networks, then expensive, large-scale attacks could be eliminate. This would be hard to do because some countries prefer to work autonomously, but the authors estimate that this would cost only $128 million annually (read the article to find out how they got this number). Preventing one large scale terrorist attack could save over $1 billion dollars. The returns could be several times the initial investment.
In short, the US and other Western countries need to rethink how they are investing counter-terrorism fund and seek get better returns and benefits for their money, in the form of lives saved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)