July 23, 2004

Thomas Barnett says some things worth reading in response to the 9/11 report. "I don't think it will harm anything, but neither do I think it will fix much of anything, he writes. "My real fear is that this grand commission's vision becomes a substitute for further thinking..."

Much of the piece assumes you already understand his basic analysis of the world situation into Gap and Core states, but even so, the piece gets at something fundamentally right, IMO: The instability we're suffering from is a global structural issue.

July 13, 2004

John Perry Barlow writes about the absurdity of even considering suspending elections if there's a terrorist attack:

Even during the Civil War and both World Wars, presidential elections were held on schedule. I can imagine no terrorist attack that would justify postponing them now, unless, of course, the administration were seeking a reason to do it anyway. Even if Al-Qaeda were to pop off a tactical nuke on Wall Street November 1, reducing me and lower Manhattan to our elemental constituents, I would want the election to proceed on schedule. I vote absentee anyway.

I share JP's suspicions, of course, but I don't think it's necessarily evil to think through unpleasant election day scenarios. E.g., imagine Florida's ballots matter to the outcome. What would we say to the, let's say, 10,000 residents of Broward Country who were unwilling to walk through sarin to get to their polling place? Tough nougies and W wins Florida again? Or: We don't want you disenfranchised by terrorism, so you can vote tomorrow? I don't know the answer to that question, but it's one we ought to consider.

(There's more in the post than this point, including why Osama is voting Republican and how truly awful the USA PATRIOT Act is.)

Frank Paynter puts beautifully the case for asking for UN supervision of our elections.

I respect the impulse, but I don't think UN supervision would work: The country's too big and if there were actual discrepancies, I don't think we'd be willing to give the decision over to the UN. (Headline: "Federal Troops Advance on UN in Battle of Broward Country").

The FBI translator who is under a gag order has nonetheless talked with the UK's The Independent. The story by Andrew Buncombe says:

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened. She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

I have not faulted the Bush administration for failing to protect us from the 9/11 attack because I've assumed that terrorists are devious bastards who can find a way to work their will. But this, along with what else we've learned, paints a picture of an administration who wasn't paying sufficient attention to terrorism as threat. No administration can protect us from all attacks, but increasingly it looks like Bush's attention simply was elsewhere.

July 09, 2004

A judge yesterday supported the DoJ's gag order on Sibel Edmonds who

alleged in her lawsuit that she was fired in March 2002 after she complained to FBI managers about shoddy wiretap translations and told them an interpreter with a relative at a foreign embassy might have compromised national security.

There's an interview with her that tells the story in detail: here. E.g.,

You would think that that ... the information would go first from the translators then to the analysts for color commentary, then finally to the agents to be acted on.

But no. You translate it, give it to the agent and if he decides it's important, he will send it to the analysts – maybe seven or eight days later!

Her's her October, 2002 interview with 60 Minutes. And here is a more overheated rendition of the story:"Translator alleges FBI / State Dept espionage, possible treason."

Dan Gillmor posted about this a couple of days ago, citing the Dave Farber list which cited a Boston Globe article. So, don't forget, you heard it here fourth!