more of "a nasty business"

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.

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

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 ?

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

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.

SERE Training

JFK Special Warfare School webpage on SERE training.  Obviously it avoids any controversial subjects.

Article 1

Article 2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Secret Captures by CIA

This article is about the secret capture of Muhammad Rahim a guy who helped Usama hide out at one point and a bunch of other nasty terrorist activity. The intresting part of the article is that the CIA had secretley detained and interrogated him back in April 2007 only now after almost a year of intergation does he get turned over to the military and guantanmo bay. So my question : We capture people for the intellegince but why not say we captured them ? Doesnt this give fuel to the counter-stratgies we have been talking about ? Why not tell everyone ?

Colombia and Scheier

In class today we talked about the irony in the Scheier piece. Scheier said the targets we try to protect from terrorism are physical, economic, and social, and yet we unwisely spend money and give up civil liberties in our attempts to combat terrorism. So we're actually in some sense attacking two of the three targets which we're trying to protect.

This week's Economist had an article about Colombia's bombing of a FARC camp just across the border in Ecuador ("On the warpath"). Scheier's point can be seen in the current situation in South America, too. Colombia--like the US--wants to protect itself physically, economically, and socially. Yet it is spending a lot in its drive to eliminate the FARC and has violated civil liberties. Surely the bomb which killed Mr. Reyes was expensive, as was the Super Tucano plane. I'm not sure what the Colombian-US deal was, but President Uribe's forces were using US intelligence (whether or not they had to pay for it, or were just given it, I'm not sure). As for civil liberties, even if those of the Colombian people were not violated, surely the territorial integrity of Ecuador was when Colombian forces bombed a FARC camp about a mile inside the country (and did not get permission from President Correa of Ecuador).

So, rights and money are still ironically being used in the fight to protect them. However, the situation in Colombia may be a bit different from that in the US. It seems that Colombia may be able to permanently cripple the FARC and is on the path to doing so, whereas the US, according to Scheier, is not getting as much security as it should be for the price it is paying.

Terrorism and WMD's

We have discussed in class the probability of terrorists obtaining and using WMDs to achieve their goals. Recently, a man posted two specific ways to cultivate anthrax on a pro Al-Qaeda public forum. According to the article, the cultivation of anthrax is not extremely difficult, and anthrax is extremely inexpensive to produce... "Production costs are low; one kilogram of anthrax bacteria costs about $50 even though a lethal dose can be as little as one millionth of a gram." The man who posted on the forum included detailed microscopic photos of the bacteria in different phases of the production. It is alarming to think that such information is readily accessible in public forums. Although making anthrax as a weapon is dangerous and somewhat complicated, it is not impossible. As the article states, the equipment and know-how to produce anthrax are not available to "most jihadis." At the end of the anthrax production post, the man concludes by saying "wait for my next detailed posting on how to build a Cessna 128 aircraft" (used for chemical dispersion in agriculture). Even though it may be difficult and improbable for terrorists to produce and use WMDs, I believe that sooner or later, WMDs, probably biological weapons, will be used in the future by terrorists. I don't think that it is just because of this post of instructions, I'm sure Al-Qaeda knew most if not all of the information in that post, but it is becoming more accessible to anyone who desires it. There are further commentaries to be read at these websites.

Peaceful Jihad

The President of Indonesia (largest Muslim population in a country), calls for an "Islamic Renaissance." Link

"Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for greater democracy and efforts to improve the plight of Muslims and spread Islamic values..."

"History tells us that Muslims in the past contributed immensely to the march of civilization through groundbreaking achievements in the sciences, as well as in arts." But Yudhoyono added that Islam was now "on the defensive."

If you look at the history of Islam you see the balancing between making Islam first in sciences and technology and this is another example of it. But there is two ways that Islamists try to make this possible: Violent or peaceful expansion. The President's view of it seems to be the best and most effective as violent expansion turns many people away.

~ Greg

Speaking of financial analysts...

...we have another contest! I have replaced the header graphic at the top of the blog, and I have a few questions to ask about the international terrorist pictured here.

Here are the contest rules: The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.

Questions:

1. Where does this man currently reside?

2. In what country was he (probably) born?

3. What coercive interrogation method has the CIA admitted using to get information from this man?

4. Where is the famous university alumni page on which he should appear?

5. What is the name of one person he has beheaded?

6. What relative of his is also a famous international terrorist?

Good luck!

Financial Analyst

In TUFP and in class we talked about financial controls in combating terrorism. Someone mentioned that his dad was a financial analyst. It sounded interesting to me so I went looking through some job descriptions on the FBI website. In the professional staff section they have a specific number for financial analysts 1160. Then I went to USAJOBS.com to find out more about this position. The FBI isn’t the only agency looking for financial analysts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Park Service, Federal Deposit and the Army all had openings. The duties describe this position as dealing with white collar crime investigating large corporations domestic and international. The analyst has to look over individual transactions, bank statements, and insurance claims. In light of the recent discoveries about Mayor Spitzer and how he got caught (suspicious money transfers) I thought this was relevant. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1) I believe that is how we have caught and froze accounts belonging to terrorist networks like al-Qaeda operating out of charities. Does anybody know why on P.93 in TUFP it says we have not frozen any funds from Syria?

Hammas and Iran

We have mentioned in class that Hezbollah is sponsored by the Iranian government. A couple of the authors we have read have described different layers of their involvement including military training and monetary contributions. A recent article in the Jerusalem Post found here describes a similar connection between Hammas, Iran and Syria. Recently in a meeting of the Shin Bet, Israeli intelligence agency, an official described this link. Later that week an unnamed Hammas leader described in greater detail the relationship.

He stated that members of Hammas were filtering into Syria, where passport restrictions are less extreme, and meeting up with Hezbollah operatives to recieve weapons training from the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Members who are rated high in the exercises are then filtered from Syria to Iran for even greater training and then sent back to Palestine. The Hammas leaders claims that at least 650 individuals have been trained in this manner, and that the organization now has 15,000 fighters.

This link between Hammas and Iran may be more of a recent development, but it indicates a dangerous direction for Israel's future, if it's enemies are combining together and sharing assets in this manner.

Random Terrorism Links

I know there was some concern over just what the government can view as far as our searching the internet, well here's some insight as far as that. Here's also some new technology used to prevent terrorist attacks in airports through new methods of X-Ray technology. Finally, here's talk about a manual on torture. This is from howstuffworks.com which will explain plenty of other ideas that might be of interest relative to terrorism as well.

We've been studying different causes of terrorism this semester, so I found it very interesting to read the results of a study done that states that Australia anti-terrorism tactics might actually cause terrorism.

The study states that all too often the Australian police are so aggressive in their tactics that they can actually cause Muslims to radicalize and turn to terrorism.

One research said that the current "the more aggressive the better" line of reasoning is actually doing more harm then good, and a community-based approach would be much more effective.

Check out the article here