Former Vice--President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration, once again, of fishing in the wrong waters. If a precedent was set for every new government to investigate the activities of a previous administration, there would not be time enough to look into other serious matters affecting the nation, particularly where national security issues were concerned.
He was commenting on the decision by the Obama government to investigate CIA operatives who, according to the Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder, have broken laws while interrogating terror suspects during the Bush administration. His intention of opening a probe into such matters was based on a 2003 Inspector General's report, which has been previously examined and dealt with in the past. There was nothing new in that report, except for President Obama to renege on a decision to declare the case closed only a few weeks ago.
"It's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say", Mr. Cheney said on FOX News Sunday, yesterday morning.
He maintained that, constitutionally, the President was the chief law enforcement officer, and although Mr. Holder was the Attorney General, he could not overrule his (Obama's) decision unless he allowed him (Holder) to do so.
"I have serious doubts about his policies," Cheney continued while being interviewed by FOX News' Chris Wallace in Wyoming. "Serious doubts, especially, about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation", Mr. Cheney further said.
The interview dealt with several issues, covering the newly formed unit that was set up to interrogate terrorists; thus shifting control of such interrogations away from the CIA and thrusting it (control) into the hands of the FBI under the supervision of the National Security Council. Who would be responsible for the HIG, as the unit would be called, with the initials standing for "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group".
Well, every administration has the right to pursue its own policies, whatever they might be; and there should not be any qualms about President Obama doing just that. Nevertheless, precious time should not be wasted on bygone issues.
This blog, however, had dealt with the same matter before, asking, "WHO IS IN CHARGE?", as if what was highly volatile an issue as making the CIA the scapegoat of what happened in another administration should be taken lightly.
Was the decision purely a political one, and if so, should not the President seize the opportunity to straighten things out, as Mr. Cheney was suggesting, before it (matter) went too far?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
CYBERSECURITY.
The Internet being under the control of anybody is not a prized idea; but that is what is being suggested by a new bill in the Senate to empower the President to "essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency'. In other words, President Obama can declare a cybersecurity emergency relating to "nongovernmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger that the enemies of the United States may pose.
It is believed that the original bill by Senator Jay Rockefeller has been revamped, but the new version still contains language which will whittle away civil liberties of both individuals and private companies and networks operating on the Internet. He has previously said that the legislation "was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records". He has also added, "I know the threats we face,.....Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest".
Of course, it is necessary for the government to take precautions to protect the interest of the nation against any kind of threat, foreign and/or domestic, whether it is physical, and in the case of cyberspace, virtual. However, as he President Obama had said before in a May science policy review, which would take cybersecurity in the right direction "by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures"; the government must not reverse that policy.
Although, private industry has the expertise, when it comes to cybersecurity, and not the government; but it (private Industry)must not be allowed to dominate the Internet; and that measures are needed to curb its powers from doing so. Yet, with its know-how, it (private industry) must take the lead in this matter and start working from this instance with the government to stop any such attacks that are being espoused by the proponents of the Senate bill. They (Senators) mean well; but surely, they are not advocating any law that will cripple any person's freedom in the use of the Internet.
Individuals must be concerned with any type of intrusion of the Internet, although its (Internet's) security is essential for people to go "online" without fear of their names and email addresses being listed for any reason, good or bad. They are also aware that the government has the responsibility of safeguarding the use of the Internet, and to stop the enemy from using it against the nation in any way, shape or form; but it (government) must work closely with The Internet Security Alliance, The Business Software Alliance, and many other such entities that are available, to find the solutions for any emergencies, instead of the concept or proposition of putting a "kill switch" in the hands of any one person.
It is believed that the original bill by Senator Jay Rockefeller has been revamped, but the new version still contains language which will whittle away civil liberties of both individuals and private companies and networks operating on the Internet. He has previously said that the legislation "was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records". He has also added, "I know the threats we face,.....Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest".
Of course, it is necessary for the government to take precautions to protect the interest of the nation against any kind of threat, foreign and/or domestic, whether it is physical, and in the case of cyberspace, virtual. However, as he President Obama had said before in a May science policy review, which would take cybersecurity in the right direction "by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures"; the government must not reverse that policy.
Although, private industry has the expertise, when it comes to cybersecurity, and not the government; but it (private Industry)must not be allowed to dominate the Internet; and that measures are needed to curb its powers from doing so. Yet, with its know-how, it (private industry) must take the lead in this matter and start working from this instance with the government to stop any such attacks that are being espoused by the proponents of the Senate bill. They (Senators) mean well; but surely, they are not advocating any law that will cripple any person's freedom in the use of the Internet.
Individuals must be concerned with any type of intrusion of the Internet, although its (Internet's) security is essential for people to go "online" without fear of their names and email addresses being listed for any reason, good or bad. They are also aware that the government has the responsibility of safeguarding the use of the Internet, and to stop the enemy from using it against the nation in any way, shape or form; but it (government) must work closely with The Internet Security Alliance, The Business Software Alliance, and many other such entities that are available, to find the solutions for any emergencies, instead of the concept or proposition of putting a "kill switch" in the hands of any one person.
Friday, August 28, 2009
THE H.I.G.
The White House idea of wrestling the investigation procedures from the CIA, and giving it to a newly formed group, "The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group" (H.I.G), smacks National Security right in the face. The group will be composed of interrogators from several agencies, including CIA operatives, and it will be answering to the FBI, which will in turn be subjected to the WH based National Security Council.
The FBI, as we all know, gathers information for criminal proceedings in domestic courts, and does not have the relationship with foreign intelligence that will allow its personnel to fish out adequate information from various sources to sufficiently question terrorist suspects; and therefore, when it comes to Intelligence gathering, the FBI will fall short, because that is not what it is designed for.
Bringing other agencies in to do the job they are not fully trained for will only complicate matters. Some scraps of CIA know-how, they say, will be thrown in to make it sufficient for the interrogation of High-Value detainees that have serious information needed to deter mishaps; perhaps, another 9/11 attack.
It will be the case of "too many cooks spoiling the broth"; and it must be left for the new CIA Director Leon Penetta to be at the helm of any such group that will be responsible for conducting the interrogation of terrorists. He already has access to President Obama, and also to the National Security Council through the WH. Therefore, the scenario of going round in circles to get vital information to protect the nation does not seem reassuring at all. It cannot be seen as making changes to improve methods to keep America safe.
It can only be viewed as making changes in techniques of interrogation to prevent any kind of abuse or torture, as the case may be, of terrorists who are determined to use any means at their disposal to destroy the United States. It seems like a political maneuver to appease the left of the Democratic Party. They, the leftist organizations, think of their party first before the nation; hence, their recent attacks of the CIA.
For the safety of all Americans and the security of the nation, the CIA must be permitted to do its work, as has been intended by previous governments, with no interference from the left of the Democratic Party.
The FBI, as we all know, gathers information for criminal proceedings in domestic courts, and does not have the relationship with foreign intelligence that will allow its personnel to fish out adequate information from various sources to sufficiently question terrorist suspects; and therefore, when it comes to Intelligence gathering, the FBI will fall short, because that is not what it is designed for.
Bringing other agencies in to do the job they are not fully trained for will only complicate matters. Some scraps of CIA know-how, they say, will be thrown in to make it sufficient for the interrogation of High-Value detainees that have serious information needed to deter mishaps; perhaps, another 9/11 attack.
It will be the case of "too many cooks spoiling the broth"; and it must be left for the new CIA Director Leon Penetta to be at the helm of any such group that will be responsible for conducting the interrogation of terrorists. He already has access to President Obama, and also to the National Security Council through the WH. Therefore, the scenario of going round in circles to get vital information to protect the nation does not seem reassuring at all. It cannot be seen as making changes to improve methods to keep America safe.
It can only be viewed as making changes in techniques of interrogation to prevent any kind of abuse or torture, as the case may be, of terrorists who are determined to use any means at their disposal to destroy the United States. It seems like a political maneuver to appease the left of the Democratic Party. They, the leftist organizations, think of their party first before the nation; hence, their recent attacks of the CIA.
For the safety of all Americans and the security of the nation, the CIA must be permitted to do its work, as has been intended by previous governments, with no interference from the left of the Democratic Party.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
HEALTH CARE....
The Health Care reform by the Obama administration should be done without controversy of any kind, so long as it would be fair to everybody; seniors, in particular, must have their golden years unperturbed in any way; and the government must insist on a safety-net requirement for those who would become uninsured if they lost their jobs or even changed them (jobs).
The furor that was taking place in town hall meetings across the country indicated that all that people wanted was fairness, as well as quality care. Some of them said that they were happy with their present insurance coverage; others were advocating patient freedom to choose their own doctors; while some other sections wanted government supervision to curtail the shenanigans of the Insurance Companies, because they (shenanigans) happened.
All those were important factors that our Congressmen and women should seriously look into before they proceeded in passing a bill that would enable President Obama to sign into law, to have every American covered, as 46 million people were not insured at all. That was a diabolical situation for many families, who had no choice, but to go to hospital emergency rooms instead; and those places were sometimes jam-packed to the point of making doctors, nurses and other hospital workers very uncomfortable, let alone the suffering patients who were there just for some medical attention or treatment that they badly needed.
Profit making Insurance companies, as the name implied, did not want their businesses hampered by laws and regulations; they (laws and regulations) would reduce or minimize their profits; however, they were part of the problem. Instead of providing quality care for sick people, they would consider the premiums that were being paid to see if they were comparable to the kinds of treatment they should offer their patients. In their calculation, money was what people should have to get adequate treatment, and so many (patients) lose their coverage because they could not afford those high premiums. Doctors would then say that they (patients) were not sufficiently covered.
What people needed was proper health care and not unnecessary hassle, when they or their loved ones got sick; and that should be the bottom line for Insurance companies, if they wanted to stay in business. The government should also be involved, with appropriate laws and regulations, to make sure that health care services were provided equitably.
There was no way that the Insurance companies could rule that out; and if there should be a "public option" or an idea to bring competition into the field of health care, by virtue of having co-operatives, for them (Insurance companies) to to toe the line that would ensure reasonable health care for all, why not?.
The furor that was taking place in town hall meetings across the country indicated that all that people wanted was fairness, as well as quality care. Some of them said that they were happy with their present insurance coverage; others were advocating patient freedom to choose their own doctors; while some other sections wanted government supervision to curtail the shenanigans of the Insurance Companies, because they (shenanigans) happened.
All those were important factors that our Congressmen and women should seriously look into before they proceeded in passing a bill that would enable President Obama to sign into law, to have every American covered, as 46 million people were not insured at all. That was a diabolical situation for many families, who had no choice, but to go to hospital emergency rooms instead; and those places were sometimes jam-packed to the point of making doctors, nurses and other hospital workers very uncomfortable, let alone the suffering patients who were there just for some medical attention or treatment that they badly needed.
Profit making Insurance companies, as the name implied, did not want their businesses hampered by laws and regulations; they (laws and regulations) would reduce or minimize their profits; however, they were part of the problem. Instead of providing quality care for sick people, they would consider the premiums that were being paid to see if they were comparable to the kinds of treatment they should offer their patients. In their calculation, money was what people should have to get adequate treatment, and so many (patients) lose their coverage because they could not afford those high premiums. Doctors would then say that they (patients) were not sufficiently covered.
What people needed was proper health care and not unnecessary hassle, when they or their loved ones got sick; and that should be the bottom line for Insurance companies, if they wanted to stay in business. The government should also be involved, with appropriate laws and regulations, to make sure that health care services were provided equitably.
There was no way that the Insurance companies could rule that out; and if there should be a "public option" or an idea to bring competition into the field of health care, by virtue of having co-operatives, for them (Insurance companies) to to toe the line that would ensure reasonable health care for all, why not?.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
KENNEDY.
Senator Edward Kennedy's passing hit many of us like a hard stone on Wednesday morning, when the news came out. It was not just right to receive that kind of news about a man who was "The Rock" of American politics for quite a long time. So, the whole country should be in mourning with the Kennedy family for a man who was everything to each and every one of us; first, a brother, followed by a dear husband, a glorious Uncle and an ardent friend.
To many, he was only a politician; but to his children and other relatives, he stood out as a citadel of courage, to be able to withstand all the tragedies that had befallen their famous family.
Socially, and politically too, there was no necessity for the Kennedys to side with the poor and the down trodden; but as if it was embedded in their character, probably, from their upbringing and training of strict parents, to see and recognize what need was; even though it did not touch them in any way; to be compassionate and to position themselves to help those who were in awful need.
John, the President, showed it; Robert, the next senior to "Ted" (as Edward was commonly called) revealed it; and he Edward himself demonstrated that nature of innate concern for the needy, wherever and whenever he found the opportunity to redress it.
As a stalwart politician, he championed many social causes that were not regarded as the responsibility of a person whose background was as opulent as his was; health care, Vietnam, Iraq, food for the elderly, and many other such programs. His time in Congress as a Senator was never wasted, for he was on his feet for most of the time, fighting to correct the incorrigible; and even not stopping there, but reforming them to benefit those not of his own kind, but for those who were neglected by the system generally, but hardly congenially, referred to as society.
It is needless to say that "Ted" Kennedy will be missed, not just by his colleagues in The Congress of the United States of America, but just as his brothers, by "we the people".
To many, he was only a politician; but to his children and other relatives, he stood out as a citadel of courage, to be able to withstand all the tragedies that had befallen their famous family.
Socially, and politically too, there was no necessity for the Kennedys to side with the poor and the down trodden; but as if it was embedded in their character, probably, from their upbringing and training of strict parents, to see and recognize what need was; even though it did not touch them in any way; to be compassionate and to position themselves to help those who were in awful need.
John, the President, showed it; Robert, the next senior to "Ted" (as Edward was commonly called) revealed it; and he Edward himself demonstrated that nature of innate concern for the needy, wherever and whenever he found the opportunity to redress it.
As a stalwart politician, he championed many social causes that were not regarded as the responsibility of a person whose background was as opulent as his was; health care, Vietnam, Iraq, food for the elderly, and many other such programs. His time in Congress as a Senator was never wasted, for he was on his feet for most of the time, fighting to correct the incorrigible; and even not stopping there, but reforming them to benefit those not of his own kind, but for those who were neglected by the system generally, but hardly congenially, referred to as society.
It is needless to say that "Ted" Kennedy will be missed, not just by his colleagues in The Congress of the United States of America, but just as his brothers, by "we the people".
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
WHO IS IN CHARGE?
First, there was a "list" of Al Qaeda leadership targeted to be killed during the Bush administration, which was proposed to be debated in the House of Representatives, by a parasitic Democratic Congressman from Texas; then yesterday, the Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that "terror suspects were abused at the hands of their CIA interrogators". What a smack idea.
The near surprise of the announcement to appoint Justice Department prosecutor John Durham, came soon after the President had left for his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, amid the turmoil of his comprehensive health care proposals. Although he, President Obama, had previously remarked that the issue should be "put behind us", and that there would be changes in the interrogation styles under him, when the story broke several weeks back.
Now, Holder's move to investigate CIA employees and agency contractors and subject them to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects after September 11, went contrary to what was said by the President only a short while ago. Therefore, who is in charge?
The question stemmed from the fact that the President, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, was responsible for the security of the United States, and so he controlled all the policies that affected national security. Well, finally prosecuting CIA agents and finding them guilty if they went overboard in questioning terror suspects during a war, was a matter of national security; and therefore, it (issue) should be left to him. Mr Holder's intentions also ran counter to the President's stated wishes to leave the matter in the past.
In view of that, it could be said that the Attorney General's actions were based on the wishes of Organizations as Move-on.org and the ACLU, who were endeavoring so hard, and even desperately, to politicize the CIA issue. It would therefore be just a political witch hunting expedition on his part, pure and simple; and particularly, with him knowing that the agents concerned were all acting on the orders given by their superiors. The chain of command would climb into the upper echelons of the Bush administration.
If that was his aim, just to please his political associates, then he should know that his decision would only polarize the nation even more so as it already was; and also it would bring havoc into the operations of the CIA, whose members were on the front lines fighting to protect the U.S. from the same terrorists he considered as "victims". He should know that they (terrorists) had nothing better to do than to kill, kill, kill. Mr. Holder, who is in charge?
The near surprise of the announcement to appoint Justice Department prosecutor John Durham, came soon after the President had left for his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, amid the turmoil of his comprehensive health care proposals. Although he, President Obama, had previously remarked that the issue should be "put behind us", and that there would be changes in the interrogation styles under him, when the story broke several weeks back.
Now, Holder's move to investigate CIA employees and agency contractors and subject them to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects after September 11, went contrary to what was said by the President only a short while ago. Therefore, who is in charge?
The question stemmed from the fact that the President, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, was responsible for the security of the United States, and so he controlled all the policies that affected national security. Well, finally prosecuting CIA agents and finding them guilty if they went overboard in questioning terror suspects during a war, was a matter of national security; and therefore, it (issue) should be left to him. Mr Holder's intentions also ran counter to the President's stated wishes to leave the matter in the past.
In view of that, it could be said that the Attorney General's actions were based on the wishes of Organizations as Move-on.org and the ACLU, who were endeavoring so hard, and even desperately, to politicize the CIA issue. It would therefore be just a political witch hunting expedition on his part, pure and simple; and particularly, with him knowing that the agents concerned were all acting on the orders given by their superiors. The chain of command would climb into the upper echelons of the Bush administration.
If that was his aim, just to please his political associates, then he should know that his decision would only polarize the nation even more so as it already was; and also it would bring havoc into the operations of the CIA, whose members were on the front lines fighting to protect the U.S. from the same terrorists he considered as "victims". He should know that they (terrorists) had nothing better to do than to kill, kill, kill. Mr. Holder, who is in charge?
Monday, August 24, 2009
AFGHAN ELECTION IN PERIL.
The news of the Afghanistan Presidential election being rigged is quite disturbing, with voter fraud allegations rising, and doubts being cast on a fair outcome.
Millions of Afghans risked their lives, in the face of Taliban threats, to vote, thinking that it was a national responsibility to do so. Some had their fingers dismembered, and even others were killed, after they had performed their civic duty, according to reports; and all that was coming to naught.
Karzai's top challenger, Abdullah was insistent that widespread irregularities occurred, such as the turnout of 40% in areas where only 10% of the people there voted; and that in southern Kandahar province a general had used his house as a polling station and ordered polling booth personnel to stuff the ballot box for Karzai. He named the the general as Gen. Abdul Razig. Other candidates have displayed mangled ballots that have be thrown out by election workers; and voter complaints continued to mount.
According to FOX News, "The controversy threatens to discredit an election that the Obama administration considers a key step in a new strategy to turn back the Taliban insurgency"; and if not dealt with within a short period of time, it (controversy) would drag down the political process to the point of allowing the election to be declared null and void. Hopefully, that would be out of the question, if the electoral complaints commission handled the legal appeals brought to its attention by Abdullah to prevent that from taking place.
The Canadian head of the electoral complaints commission, Grant Kippen, has mentioned that his group has received over 200 such complaints, 35 of which were "material to the election results". The Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan has "also catalogued violations", which made the situation looked pretty bad. Added to that was the fact that, the Afghan Independent Commission could not have a positive input in the matter or could not play an imprartial role, since its head was a Karzai appointee.
The Karzai people were naturally saying that the allegations were untrue, but that the oppositon was "just spreading propaganda" of fraud.
In view of all the turmoil, there happened to be a "safety net" of a runoff election, if any thing went wrong; however the electoral commission must be able to finish investigating most of the major complaints before a clear winner could be certified. The legitimacy of the election must first be established before the Taliban could be routed out, and to make the Afghanistan War worth fighting.
Our men and women in uniform deserved a better result of the election; for it (result) would be a notable recognition of their sacrifices. The Afghan election should not be in peril.
Millions of Afghans risked their lives, in the face of Taliban threats, to vote, thinking that it was a national responsibility to do so. Some had their fingers dismembered, and even others were killed, after they had performed their civic duty, according to reports; and all that was coming to naught.
Karzai's top challenger, Abdullah was insistent that widespread irregularities occurred, such as the turnout of 40% in areas where only 10% of the people there voted; and that in southern Kandahar province a general had used his house as a polling station and ordered polling booth personnel to stuff the ballot box for Karzai. He named the the general as Gen. Abdul Razig. Other candidates have displayed mangled ballots that have be thrown out by election workers; and voter complaints continued to mount.
According to FOX News, "The controversy threatens to discredit an election that the Obama administration considers a key step in a new strategy to turn back the Taliban insurgency"; and if not dealt with within a short period of time, it (controversy) would drag down the political process to the point of allowing the election to be declared null and void. Hopefully, that would be out of the question, if the electoral complaints commission handled the legal appeals brought to its attention by Abdullah to prevent that from taking place.
The Canadian head of the electoral complaints commission, Grant Kippen, has mentioned that his group has received over 200 such complaints, 35 of which were "material to the election results". The Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan has "also catalogued violations", which made the situation looked pretty bad. Added to that was the fact that, the Afghan Independent Commission could not have a positive input in the matter or could not play an imprartial role, since its head was a Karzai appointee.
The Karzai people were naturally saying that the allegations were untrue, but that the oppositon was "just spreading propaganda" of fraud.
In view of all the turmoil, there happened to be a "safety net" of a runoff election, if any thing went wrong; however the electoral commission must be able to finish investigating most of the major complaints before a clear winner could be certified. The legitimacy of the election must first be established before the Taliban could be routed out, and to make the Afghanistan War worth fighting.
Our men and women in uniform deserved a better result of the election; for it (result) would be a notable recognition of their sacrifices. The Afghan election should not be in peril.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)