Threats to U.S. National Security or Windmills?

As the semester draws to a close and we have discussed many current situations that could be threats to the national security of the United States it bears addressing what could be a U.S. policy of becoming Don Quixote and setting out chasing windmills.

When there truly is a threat to U.S. national security is clearly is the duty of the government to act preferably first in a diplomatic manner and if that approach is unsuccessful then a military approach must be considered. The federal government is given this power by the U.S. Constitution in the preamble as it states that one of the purposes the founding fathers intended when creating the Constitution was “to provide for the common defense”. However the government must act responsibly in its wielding of said power, this is why the founding fathers saw fit to give Congress the power to declare war and after Congress has declared war the President has the power as Commander in Chief, the only manner to alter this procedure is by amendment to the Constitution. The founding fathers intended bringing this country into war and continuing it involvement in a war to be difficult, not simple. Overwhelming circumstances will make it easy for the support required for a declaration of war to be acquired. Why did they make this difficult? Because they knew what would happen if they did not, and what has now happened because the Constitution is not upheld as it should be, rather it is treated as a historical document, not what it is, the supreme law of the land.

After the U.S. entered WWII a buildup occurred in the United States of manufacturers of the goods and weapons required for war. This buildup allowed the U.S. the supply itself and its allies with the materials required to win WWII; however after the victory the buildup did not cease, rather it continued. This high level of capacity to create goods and weapons required for war would become known as the military industrial complex (MIC). The MIC would have its own lobbyist in Washington, D.C. and would continue to fight to supply reasons that would require its existence. Now the MIC not only supplies funding for a Congressional campaign but it also provides employment in the Congressman’s home district, both giving him reasons to resist any defense budget cuts and to brand anyone who dare suggest such cuts as unpatriotic. It is these corporations of the MIC that profit from the act of war, it is in their interest that governments go to and stay at war. These organizations not only supply the goods and weapons required for war, they also supply the funding required for the conflict. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the country of the MIC, and the warning went mainly unheeded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

One has to consider the existence of this ability to go to war might increase a country’s willingness to actually go to war. This is why for any war, Congress must be required to fulfill the requirement given to it by the Constitution and declare war or not become involved in a conflict, incidents such as Libya and the combating of the Lord’s Resistance Army are unconstitutional. Our servicemen joined the military to defend the United States against threats to its national security, not against threats to its corporate interests or for the national security of other nations.

One incident where the United States went to war in a conflict that did not present a national security threat to the country was the Vietnam War, which the Gulf of Tonkin incident was responsible for drawing the U.S. into the conflict. However then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara later admitted the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was a false flag reason for the U.S. going to war, a war which profited the MIC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k

If this was one incident where the America people were misled into going to war, one must wonder how many other times such an act has occurred? One has to consider if Iraq and its alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were another such event that prompted the U.S. to go to war to profit the MIC. Those WMDs, which were whose “certain presence” was what prompted the U.S. invasion of Iraq, were never found and likely never existed. Now the sabers are once again rattling, this time for an attack on Iran. The question that must be considered is this: Is Iran truly a threat to the U.S. (let other countries worry about their own defense) or is Iran just another windmill to profit the MIC?

With Liberty and Justice For All!

After reviewing the recent GOP National Security Debate it was alarming how easily the majority of the candidates would continue to give up liberty to attempt to increase their security. One of the most interesting topics was the Patriot Act and the views each candidate held on it.

Just how much liberty are people willing to trade in to be secure, or maybe more accurately, to allow themselves the illusion they are more secure? Maybe we need to ask ourselves how secure do we want to be in our privacy? Regardless of a person’s view it must be remembered by all that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the law, any law (or act) that violates it is null and void, including the Patriot Act.

Several of the candidates supported the idea that criminal acts and domestic warfare acts are separate. They need to be reminded that the Constitution does not say the rights it protects are only for U.S. citizens; rather it was intended to protect the rights of everyone on U.S. soil. Rights are not given to us by the government, they are given to us by our Creator and it is the duty of the government to secure those rights, not trade them in for “protection”. To say we are at war and that is grounds to violate the Constitution is ludicrous! The War on Terror is a war that is vague enough to encompass whatever the government wishes it to, it could be said to be similar to the War on Drugs. Does that mean to combat drug use we should ignore the Constitution for drug related crimes? (After all it would help law enforcement eliminate drug crimes.) Of course not!

With the exception of the honorable Ron Paul, each of the candidates have made it clear that it is acceptable to trade in liberty for security; and our current President is no different. Any politician who suggests you do not need *THAT* much liberty and attempts to convince you to give it up because after all you want to be safe is not to be trusted. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Notice how the founding fathers took care enough to specifically name liberty as an unalienable right and how liberty is actually related to true safety instead of one being traded for the other. Only when a society has liberty is it truly safe.


Power, once given to the government, is never reclaimed. The government will continue to provide a reason (or supposed threat) which supports its retaining of that power, and it will likely claim anyone who would suggest the government lay down those powers is a threat to the nation itself. The risk associated in having a truly free society is outweighed by the benefits of liberty, if we are “fighting for our freedom” and in order to fight we must give up our freedom, then the very act of fighting results in our defeat. Again if we temporarily give up our liberty now, we will never reclaim it. Supposedly the terrorist hate our freedom, well because we fear them so much we ourselves are eliminating our freedom, all they have to do is watch.

Iran into a trap. . .

Iran stole the headlines earlier this week with allegations that operatives associated with Iran's Quds Force tried to hire a Mexican cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Already, some news outlets are posting alarmist commentary, warning of the nefarious connections between the Quds and the Zetas; others are advocating a more measured response. A recent Financial Times article does a good job articulating the debate between the two sides.

Some, like AEI contributor Jose Cardenas, argue we should assume terrorist organizations are working with Mexican cartels; indeed, we should be surprised if they aren't working together. Others, like Sylvia Longmire, argue that cartels are unlikely to work with terrorists for fear of jeopardizing their lucrative business model by incurring the wrath of the U.S. military. They argue that the paltry sum of $1.5 million wouldn't be enough money to persuade any cartel to execute such a risky plot. In the middle are analysts who argue that while the central command of the Zetas or the Sinaloa Cartel would be unlikely to assist terrorists, the cartels use a diffuse network of gangs to accomplish their goals. These decentralized components might be more likely to take on a terrorist client.

One last group (not mentioned in the FT article) asks whether CS-1, the alleged DEA informant who posed as a Zeta, is a new Curveball. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the U.S. government relied on intelligence from a defected Iraqi codenamed "Curveball." Later, the informant admitted he had falsified his reports. Jefferson Morley of Salon highlights some of problems with the U.S. building its case on the credibility of CS-1, and warns that until his credibility is better established we should be wary of escalating already heightened tensions with Iran.

In my view, the U.S. does not need to worry about a possible Iran-Mexican cartel link. First, as far as we know the Iranians never met with an actual Zeta — only a U.S. informant posing as a cartel representative. None of the information we have about the case shows that Mexican cartels would be willing to work with international terrorist organizations. Second, we have no proof any of the cartels would have the capability to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, especially in Washington, D.C., a city far from the border. While Mexican crime organizations have a drug trafficking presence in hundreds of U.S. cities, there is little evidence that these networks are capable of staging a violent attack. Lastly, performing an act of international terrorism on U.S. soil would be extremely risky and would threaten their business model. The U.S. would act aggressively to crush any cartel that worked with a terrorist organization. Until the drug trade becomes less lucrative, cartels have every incentive not to work with terrorists.

In the end, it appears the Iranians were duped. We know that Iran has courted different groups elsewhere in Latin America, and it is likely they were trying to do the same in Mexico. However, in doing so they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the capabilities and interests of Mexican criminal organizations. Unless new information surfaces later, indicating Los Zetas (or any other group) actually expressed interest in working with the Iranians, it is probably safe to assume Iran acted haphazardly. Furthermore, by publicizing this story the U.S. government is sending a strong message to both the cartels and terrorist organizations. To potential terrorists, the U.S. government is saying "We've infiltrated the cartels, so don't bother trying to use them to carry out an attack in the U.S." Meanwhile, the Zetas and other groups in Mexico now have further confirmation the U.S. government has infiltrated their operations, which could seed mistrust and discord within those organizations.

This is a bizarre — but fascinating — story. It will be interesting to see what actions the U.S. will take to hold Iran accountable, and whether this leads to any changes in U.S. policy with respect to the drug war in Latin America.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Government Assassination

With the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html ) there is some controversy regarding the legality of the U.S. government killing a U.S. citizen it deemed a terrorist without due process. The Constitution seems to address this issue.

U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3.1

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

U.S. Constitution 14^th Amendment Section 1

“All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

First quote mentions “convicted”, typically being convicted involves a trial. Additionally al-Awlaki neither confessed in open court nor did two witnesses testify in any court (that I am aware of).

The second quote mentions “nor shall any state deprive any person of life… without due process of law”. The issue should be handled in a way that leaves no doubt to its legality. The U.S. should not worry about how close to the line of legal and illegal its actions are, instead when the situation involves the constitutional treatment of U.S. citizens, the U.S. government should ensure there is no doubt whatsoever its actions are constitutional.

So what would be a solution? The U.S. should attempt to capture the individual and bring him back to the U.S. to stand trial. If he is found guilty, he should be executed, consideration should be given to making the execution public, possibly a public hanging in downtown D.C. on the Capitol lawn, surrounded by the symbols of the very country he was convicted of committing treason against. Public execution like this could serve to deter others from committing similar acts, as it would for domestic crimes if applied more frequently; yet I digress. For a U.S. citizen that has committed treason against his country, death by missile is too good for him, rather the trial and execution should be publicized in order that the traitor must go through the humiliation and stress that would accompany such a trial; then after conviction the execution would see to it that he was just as dead.

When we combat a threat in an any-methods-necessary approach, we risk losing what makes us different than our enemies. In the combat of terrorism, we need to act in a manner which leaves no doubt we are behaving in a righteous manner. President Kennedy said: “There is little value to insuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it.” Liberty and justice have always been traditions in this country, we must ensure their continued survival or risk losing all that is worth fighting for.

Terrorism | The Big Elusive Kahoona: Sports Stadiums

I love going to football games at Commonwealth Stadium. There's nothing better than hanging out in the parking lot with good friends, eating some good food, maybe playing a little cornhole, then heading in amidst a sea of blue and white and finding my seat as the band plays On, On, U of K. Indeed, football is a fundamental part of the American way of life and each fall millions of fans gather in stadiums across the US to support their teams and continue this great American tradition.

From a security perspective though, you know what is interesting? You never really hear about terrorists targeting football stadiums (or any US sports stadiums for that matter), save during the lead up to the Super Bowl each year. We all know security is extremely tight for the Super Bowl, but what about the hundreds of games before the Super Bowl? Now that I think about it, I can't remember when the targeting of sports stadiums during the regular football seasons was a subject of discussion of a news segment or Sunday morning talk show or anything. I can't recall reading anything about the targeting of sports stadiums during the regular seasons either. In fact, the only time I can think of sports stadium terrorism being addressed by mass media (again, the Super Bowl aside) is toward the end of the 2001 movie The Sum Of All Fears, when a terrorist nuclear bomb detonates during a Baltimore Ravens game, killing thousands and almost setting off a nuclear war between the US and Russia. Thank the Lord Jack Ryan was there to save the day.

A quick Google search reveals some thought on the issue, an article written by private security firm CEO here, a Time media segment on sports terrorism there. But nothing comparable to what you'd think would be found for such a obvious and devastating potential threat. Terrorism discussion seems to focus on airplanes and airports, the presidential inauguration, and other big events, along with critical government infrastructure in Washington.

So is the targeting of sports stadiums across the US just not really that big of a deal? Not a serious threat? I would think it would be, and I'm sure there are plenty of security folks who would agree. Any one of the hundreds of sports stadiums across the US would seem like a perfect target. Take Commonwealth Stadium, home of the Kentucky Wildcats, as an example. The stadium has a capacity of 67,606, more than four times the average number of people in and around the towers on September 11. There are hundreds of staff, players, and workers in and out of the stadium during any given week with little to no obvious security in place (hopefully it's there and we just don't know about it). There is no real force protection at the crowd entrances during the games, unless you call this security; yes, they check your coats and bags, however, I'm thinking about a couple vans and some fertilizer at 60 miles-an-hour. And again, Commonwealth Stadium is just one among hundreds of stadiums filled with people each Saturday during the fall football seasons.

The objective of terrorism is to attack a civilian population in order to create political and economic disruption. The attack itself is secondary to its after affects. Fear is the terrorist's primary weapon, bombs are just the method used to achieve their end. If one or two stadiums were attacked, not only would the enormous concentration of people allow for maximum causalities, but the economic aftermath would be devastating to the industry. A very plausible scenario in which after a major terrorist attack on a stadium Americans are afraid to attend games, attendance drops by forty and fifty percent (if not more), games are canceled, the lost revenue is in the billions, etc. can be imagined. This is all not to mention the effect on the

American psych; a foundation of American life would be shook to the core. The fear affect would be even greater if a stadium like Commonwealth were to be attacked, because "if it can happen there, in Kentucky, then it can happen anywhere." When asked why he chose his location, the potential bomber of the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, last week said, "because nothing ever happens there."

Over 3,000 people were killed on September 11, with approximately another 6,000 were injured, in a terrorist attack that changed the US and the world forever. For 9 years now, the American security establishment has been thinking up ways to prevent the next 9/11, yet it seems that a major vulnerability is not being addressed, at least in the public discourse.

And if as a result of this blog post, UK hires someone to beef up security at Commonwealth Stadium, please don't let it be the guy who came up with this idea (see picture above).