What Obama Should Have Said

Here's what Obama should have said after receiving the court order to release the CIA documents:

I categorically refuse to release these memos on the grounds that so doing would endanger national security, by compromising certain CIA interrogation tactics. During my presidency there will be no public discussion of classified CIA operations by this administration. And anyone found to be leaking such information will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This administration has already made its position clear on interrogations, and what is and is not acceptable. There is no point in obsessing about every detail of the former administration's policies. President Bush acted as he thought best in order to protect the country in the wake of 9/11. Naturally some of my actions would have been different. But there will be no politically-motivated prosecutions during my presidency, not of the CIA members who interrogated our enemies, not of the politicians who ordered them, or of the lawyers that advised them on the legal issues involved. That is all.

I know, I'm dreaming that Obama would ever have the nerve to do anything like that. I might as well wish he was a Republican. But it would be nice to see him take a strong stand to protect the secrecy of CIA operations, which is vitally important to national security. Hopefully the CIA has already used the experience gained from their various interrogations of Al Qaeda members to develop new, improved, secret methods of using psychological torture to break down terrorists and extract useful information. If so, maybe the release of the memos does no real damage. But it would be nice to see the president err on the side of protecting the country.

HOT5 Daily 4/20/2009

1. "Enough With the Torture Sanctimony" Includes suggestions for some new torture techniques.

Representative Sample: Telephoning Subjects are given rotary dial telephones and told that they will be released if they call a certain number and follow the prompts, which will instruct them to “press” various numbers

2. "This is energy independence?" Not possible because of environmentalists.

Representative Sample: As expected the enviro-weenies block the only 2 options for more energy creation - no more drilling, no nukes. If they have their way - we would be left with reducing demand.

3. "Liberal Democrat Jobs Program - Example Of Wasted Money, No Jobs For America" Not at all surprising.

Representative Sample: a liberal Democrat Congressman by the name Jack Murtha has been wasting our hard earned tax money on an airport with his name on it

4. "Remembering the demonization of Bush " How could we possibly forget, since it is still ongoing?

Representative Sample:It will be difficult, even if still possible, for right-wing attacks on Barack Obama to exceed those of the left on Bush for tastelessness, shrillness, and sheer unhinged insanity.

5. "What President Obama Won't Admit About His So-Called "Torture" Policy" What would Obama do with captured terrorist leaders?

Representative Sample:President Obama, according to his announced policy, would have taken his chances with American lives.  Fortunately, President Obama wasn't in office on 9/11.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Icelanders Agnostic on Elves

According to one set of statistics, the population of Iceland is 16-23% atheist, (compared to 3-9% in the U.S.).  But when it comes to elves Icelanders are agnostics.

A 2007 University of Iceland poll found that, while few people will go on the record to say they believe in elves, 54 percent of the Icelandic population will not deny that they exist.

What about gnomes? Every one always forgets about gnomes. They are just not as glamorous as elves. It would be interesting to poll different countries and find out which mythical creatures have the most people who believe in them.

DNA Database Expansion

The New York Times reports that starting this month, the FBI will massively expand its DNA databases to include the genetic information of people who haven't been convicted of anything.

the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.

Essentially this means that if you are arrested and charged with a crime, your  DNA could be recorded by the FBI and stored in a database.  As an expert quoted by the Times said,

“Over time more and more crimes of decreasing severity have been added to the database. Cops and prosecutors like it because it gives everybody more information and creates a new suspect pool.”

It expands the "suspect pool" to include many more innocent people. If you were charged with a crime but completely innocent, it won't matter. You will be a possible suspect in future crimes, because your DNA will be sitting in a database along with actual convicts. Hopefully the ACLU will find the time to act against this disturbing expansion of police power, in between defending terrorists and trying to cripple the CIA.    

Dumb Idea of the Day

Tom Ricks wants to close our military academies, and thinks we should also consider shutting down service war colleges as well.  What's the rationale behind this radical idea? Not much. Basically he thinks it would save money, and that somehow future officers would get better educations in civilian schools -- a highly dubious assertion. The service academies have a long history of providing a solid core of officers to the U.S. military, as Ricks acknowledges. And they specifically attract people who plan on making the military a career, unlike ROTC programs. Any cost savings would be a classic illustration of penny-wise, pound-foolish.

As for the war colleges, they serve the purpose for which they were created. There are no equivalent civilian programs that I'm aware of. Military history programs are not exactly widespread among civilian universities, let alone programs that study current issues of military strategy and tactics. If there are problems with the curriculum and teaching at the service academies and war colleges, as Ricks suggests, those problems should be addressed. Simply closing them down would be stupid and wasteful.

HOT5 Daily 4/19/2009

1. "THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE" Making a strong case.

Representative Sample: American society has moved on — culturally as well as legally — from traditionally defined “marriage” and has embraced different ways people choose to live and love.

2. "Is the world out of balance?" Depends on how you define balance. Interesting article.

Representative Sample: Has American international primacy taken a shattering hit, or is this merely a minor downturn? After all, other potential competitors have been hurt just as badly

3. "Leftwing extremism, rightwing extremism, and why all the rhetoric matters..." A look at the DHS extremism reports from a libertarian perspective.

Representative Sample: there are two DHS reports that have been leaked to the wider world: one on rightwing extremism (dated 7 April 2009 and leaked the following week) and one on leftwing extremism (dated 26 January 2009 and not leaked until the other one had caused such a furor).

4. "Obama To Israel: This Way To The Trains"Title is over-the-top, but a good post about what U.S.-Israel relations are looking like under Obama.

Representative Sample: Israel is sitting in Obama's waiting room with England, France and other one time American allies who Obama is also too busy to see since he is busy making overtures to America's enemies like North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

5. "The Future of the United States Military" Links to an interesting article on the subject.

Representative Sample: "Unmanned drones, lightly manned arsenal ships capable of operating in lit-toral waters, and special-ops forces would be better suited to fighting the asymmetrical conflicts against irregular forces that would be the hallmark of future warfare, went the thinking.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Aim the State at Our Enemies Abroad

Safety in general and national security specifically are probably the two main justifications for the state reducing the liberty of its citizens -- especially here in the U.S. Much of the right accepts expanded state power in the interests of national security and protection against crime, while the left often supports it on the basis of economic safety & security. Times of crisis exacerbate these tendencies, as we saw after 9/11, and we are now seeing because of the economic meltdown. The problem with any expansion of state power, no matter how justified it seems at the time, is that the liberty lost is almost never regained. Many small things that seem almost trivial and certainly not worth worrying about, become taken for granted. This is particularly true of any measures taken in the name of safety and security. Regulations for airline passengers are an obvious example. 

Like most threats, the state has two main strategies for dealing with terrorism: offense and defense. If one of these strategies fails, it is almost axiomatic that the other one will gain increased precedence. Our defenses against terrorism failed on 9/11. That failure produced an unprecedented surge of offensive efforts to stamp out terrorism, to the point that we even engaged in a so-called "War On Terror." There were also increases in defensive measures of course, such as the Patriot Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and so forth. But an offensive strategy dominated.

Anyone that cares about freedom, and favors a minimum of state reduction of liberty in the name of security needs to ask one question: Which strategy is less damaging to to the rights and freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S.? In my opinion an offensive strategy that aims the power of the state at disrupting our enemies abroad, is far preferable to more defensive measures at home that invariably impact the liberty of Americans. This is a major reason why the blind legalism of the terrorist rights movement is so dangerous.

The anti-terrorist actions taken by the CIA and other arms of the U.S. government abroad, do not affect the rights of Americans here at home, and they may help prevent attacks on the U.S. But another successful attack on the U.S. will inevitably lead to defensive measures that reduce the liberty of our citizens. There will be more surveillance, more police powers, and more domestic security efforts of all types. Secret CIA torture of someone like Al-Nashiri at a secret location, has zero impact on the liberty of U.S. citizens. Zero. But the attempt to provide terrorists with rights, and to cripple the clandestine operations of the CIA with legal restrictions, is a direct assault on one of our main offensive weapons against terrorism. And if offense fails, increased defensive efforts are inevitable.

Military force is a clumsy, blunt instrument against terrorism, as our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate. Intelligence is the key to any offensive strategy that aims to disrupt terrorists abroad before they can attack. In order for intelligence efforts to be successful they need two things: secrecy & flexibility. Misguided attacks on the CIA which expose its cloak of secrecy and attempt to impose legalistic restrictions on its operations abroad have no benefit to American freedom and liberty, and may instead help undermine it by reducing our ability to prevent attacks.