TERROR TECHNIQUES CREATE TERROR

Some of the counter terror techniques being used by the US have not only seriously damaged America’s image in the world but may also be fuelling terror.
Most studies on terrorism confirm that terrorists thrive on propaganda to fill their ranks and are most successful when they can get a democracy to over-react and to set aside principles of justice that support the very fabric of democracy. So far, the Bush administration has handed Al Qaeda and other insurgents the propaganda they need to portray America as a country willing to abandon the Geneva Conventions, to abuse prisoners in its custody and to hand over suspects to countries that use torture - to countries like Syria that the US publicly denounces as a supporter of terror.
When US terror tactics are condemned by human rights groups throughout the world, as well as by the Council of Europe, leading European parliamentarians and British Law Lords, terrorists rub their hands with glee. They are being handed a propaganda victory because those international condemnations call into doubt the mortal authority of the US to wage war and to portray itself as the defender of justice and liberty.
The questions many people tend to ask is how this has happened and how can it continue to happen. The answer lies in the failure of the Bush administration to understand that, even in this new form of warfare being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, America must abide by the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and be circumspect about the way its uses its extraordinary military might. Vietnam was an example of how not to wage war but many of the lessons of that period were consigned to history. That changed recently when General Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran and former Secretary of State, warned the Bush administration against modifying Article 3 of the Geneva Accords.
Powell knows that the present conflicts, including what the White House calls “the war on terror,” are not new forms of warfare. Terrorism has always been with us but now terrorists are better armed and much more dangerous, as Al Qaeda proved on September 11. But, as with all terrorist conflicts, the dangers for society lie in over-reaction – the kind of over reaction that makes an enemy of the civilian population, thereby providing the terrorists with support and cover.
The British Army's over reaction in Northern Ireland in 1970-71 was a case in point. In July of 1970, the British military launched what British generals later called a crude operation. It involved sealing off a Catholic area for over two days, using large numbers of troops. Civilians were killed, property was damaged and the Catholic population turned against the British. That was followed by internment without trial during which a special unit of British military intelligence, without British Cabinet approval, conducted secret interrogations of selected detainees. The detainees were subjected to stress positions and periods of white noise. They had hood placed over their heads and were dropped from helicopters hovering above the ground. They were also slapped and beaten and held incognito. A decade later, the European Court of Human Rights condemned their treatment. The real damage however was to British policy in Ireland. The emerging Provisional IRA exploited the torture of the men to depict the British as a cruel enemy. In so doing, the Provisionals filled their ranks and so began a long war that ended decades later.
Recently, Senator John Mc Cain revealed that he had spoken to a British General about the failure of the interrogations tactics used in N. Ireland. Sen. Mc Cain made the point that the techniques used by the British were exactly those the CIA was using and that the Bush administration wanted legal cover for them. Stephen Hadley, the president’s national security adviser refused to confirm that those were indeed the techniques. He made the rather silly point that he could not publicly discuss the interrogation techniques. To do so, he said, would help the enemy develop new anti-interrogation measures. That statement highlighted the utter naivety of men like Hadley. Someone should have told him that terrorists watch television and read newspapers like the rest of us. If they don’t know by now the tactics the CIA and others use in Guantanamo and in secret CIA prisons, they must be living in cloud cuckoo land. But, as we all know only too well, terrorists are not that dumb.
If one applies the N. Ireland model to the present war on terror, which is taking place on a massive scale, one can see how this White House has got its tactics so badly wrong. Since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people have been arrested and held for questioning. Some have remained in custody for months and even years, the majority of them without ever being charged with an offense. Why that has happened, you may ask. The answer can be found in a study of British counter terror tactics in Kenya, Aden, Cyprus and N. Ireland. Big arrests operations of the kind used in those countries have since been employed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were then, as they are now, programs to screen large sections of the male population. In 2004 alone, the US released over 18,000 Iraqis without charge and as 14,000 may still be held in detention centers. In Iraq particularly, the screening process has been so huge it is has led to prisoner abuse and prisoner deaths. Little, however, is known about the true scope of the screening in Afghanistan or the state of the prisons there. The effect of mass arrests and the harsh treatment of detainees is that each man arrested may not become a terrorist but he will see the US as the enemy. He will, therefore, be more likely to support insurgents. Widespread arrests also alienate the civilian population.
But, the US also shoots itself in the foot with other parts of its counter terror strategy. The CIA’s rendition policy, Guantanamo and the US military’s excessive use of force, which has led to large numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, have proved counterproductive. They have drawn global criticism and alienated Muslims across the globe. It would not be surprising if some of those Muslims have reacted by contributing financially to the coffers of organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas Al Qaeda or by joining terror groups.
Many of the neoconservatives who shaped the bogus agenda for the war in Iraq and the war on terror were impressed by the way the Israelis combated terror. As a result, they recommended the US should adopt similar policies. They failed to see that Israel has achieved little using crude tactics. Israel believes in the excessive use of force, even if it means terrorizing its neighbors and killing children, but most of its military adventures, such as the recent invasion of Lebanon, have been counterproductive. It sucked the US into the Lebanon crisis and only succeeded in making more enemies and strengthening Hezbollah. In the last days of the war, it fired US-supplied cluster weapons into civilian areas of Lebanon, leaving 350,000 cluster bomb droplets. Children and adults are being killed by those droplets on a daily basis. It also used phosphorous weapons. The outcome is that not only Israel stands accused of war crimes but also America for supplying those weapons and giving Israelis a green light to use them.
Until this White House takes a cold, calculated look at its counter terror strategies America will continue to accumulate enemies and subject itself to international ridicule. If this White House cannot listen to men like Sen. John Mc Cain and General Colin Powell who fought America’s enemies on the battlefield there is little chance we will win the war on terror.

HOMELAND SECURITY PORK BARREL

Five years after the 9/11 attacks Homeland Security has steadily become the largest pork barrel game in Washington with lobbyists setting up shop all over capitol to get a slice of the pie for states across the nation, as well as for big security companies.
For example, The Ashcroft Group LLC, founded in May 2005 by former Bush attorney general, John Ashcroft, has clients that include major technology and surveillance giants like ChoicePoint. Ironically, it was companies like ChoicePoint that benefited from Justice Department contracts while Ashcroft was in office authorizing new surveillance programs to extend the fight against terrorism. The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based watchdog, has said that Ashcroft has been able to trade on his post 9/11 role as attorney general and that his White House connections have proved invaluable.
Ashcroft’s’ company’s website is not yet up and running and his staff have refused to disclose the names of his clients. However, reports have connected his company to an Israeli aircraft corporation, a French firm involved in email monitoring and to several research corporations involved in counter terrorism.
In February 2006, O'Dwyer's PR Daily reported that Oracle paid Ashcroft $220,000 and four months later the same publication announced that General Dynamics had retained him for “trade and defense” matters.
The 9/11 Commission in its report on the 2001 attacks warned that Homeland Security was vulnerable to pork politics and that, if care was not taken, members of Congress would seek to exploit HS funds to benefit their own states. That warning was ignored and the growth in firms with security contracts, as well as lobbyists and lobbying has been staggering. The figures speak for themselves.
In 1999 there were fewer than 10 companies with federal homeland security contracts. Two years after the 9/11 attacks that figure reached several thousand. Today, there are 33,890 companies with HS contracts, representing a 3,000% increase in nine years. And what of the billions of dollars earmarked for the security of this nation? Well, since 9/11 over $100 billion has been awarded in contracts and it is thought that spending could reach an unthinkable $150 billion per year within the next decade.
There is so much money available even now that is has not been surprising there has been an appalling amount of wasteful spending. The incentive for states to grab some of the money has meant that Congress has played pork politics with the HS budget and states have sent an army of lobbyists to swarm all over Washington and Capitol Hill. In the three years since the Bush Administration created the Homeland Security Department, scores of its top staff have left their posts to set up their own lobbying firms. A stark example of that trend was Tom Ridge the HS Department chief who handed over the reins to Michael Chertof and then established his own lobbying group. Normally, Federal employees, like those involved in Homeland Security, are not permitted to transfer to jobs in the private sector until they have been out of a government contract for more than 12 months but that rule has rarely been applied to Homeland Security staffers.
The sheer scale of the privatization of Homeland Security has meant that the scope for companies seeking contracts has quickly been extended from research organizations looking for millions to develop new surveillance programs about email and personal banking to contractors paying mercenaries to undertake the patrolling of waterways and to provide personal protection for visiting foreign diplomats and heads of state.
The biggest scams, however, are by individual states seeking HS dollars for the most bizarre projects, including bullet proof vests for police dogs, a popcorn factory, and a $260,000 bomb disposal robot in Grand Forks ND.
In search of lucrative HS contract are 543 security experts, or as they like to call themselves “security consultants. Compare that to the fact there were only 2 security consulting companies registered before the 9/11 attacks. Nowadays there are HS bulletins, pamphlets, magazines, conferences and training courses, some at universities.
The 9/11 Commission foresaw the dangers in creating a HS department with a massive budget that was not allocated on proper risk assessment across the nation and that handed out contracts as just another way of subsidizing individual states. While those issues wait to be properly addressed, bigger problems are surfacing as more money becomes available and lobbyists exploit the Congressional tendency to favor pork barrel politics over political integrity. No one doubts the threat to the nation but the sheer expansion of companies claiming to have a genuine security role has meant that there has been little oversight of the security industry. That in turn has led to HS contracts being awarded purely on the basis of successful lobbying, political favoritism and nepotism. The casualty has been security at our critical parts of our infrastructure such as ports and airports where more needs to be done to combat the terrorist threat.
Some critics claim that too much HS money is being handed to companies like ChoicePoint and the Dulles Research Corporation who have become surveillance giants involved in spying on American citizens and eroding their constitutional rights.