Scary Stuff

What I think is interesting is how those closest to enhanced interrogations (i.e. the interrogators) have pounced on the airwaves saying how the information collected was useless for the most part. Meanwhile those closest to the top are saying that the information collected halted major disaster and provided good intelligence.

What alarmed me was this question. What changed in the information between the interrogators and the policy-makers?

I don’t think what follows is going to actually answer the question, but I think it’s important to highlight something I’ve thought for some time.

I think those who handle intelligence information on its way up are doing something wrong. By this I mean that the information that gets run up to the top may not be the information that was collected on the ground.

Consider this:

1) The people writing information reports know the questions that need to be answered.

2) Sometimes these people already know the answers, OR what they suppose should be the answer, OR what they think the commander thinks is the right answer. They just need the proof.

3) There is an incentive to get the answers, down to the individual and unit level in the form of awards, promotions and definitely prestige. There is also the genuine spirit that the work being done is for the right reasons.

What’s your conclusion from all this?

Techniques for changing information range from “sprucing up” the language of the report to omission, to outright making things up. It happens.

Let me tell you a story…

I had the privilege of working a fun little mission screening recorded conversation traffic that needed to be translated for possible juicy bits. It was something we did in our down time. I was the senior guy on the project and I got passed a report detailing something mildly exciting.

The guy who sent me the report was a real hotshot operator-high test scores. We knew it and more importantly, HE knew it. So I gave the conversation a listen. We didn’t hear the same thing. I didn’t hear anything like the report said. I wasn’t the high score tester like he was, despite having the longest time on the job. I passed it off to my number two guy. He heard the same thing I did-nothing. I turned it back to the hotshot who wouldn’t give it up, and he took it to the analysts who loved it and wanted to know more. They wanted a full-blown detailed transcript.
So the hotshot and I got to work. I spent the rest of the day on it. Hotshot spent an hour. The analysts worked off of his transcript until mine arrived with more details and less juicy content. They still wanted to send the report off of his copy.

We wound up bringing in the big chief and he shot the thing down, taking my side-thank goodness!

What is scary is that it took a fight to shoot the thing down. I was the senior man in the room. Why was there ever a question? How did the hotshot supported by a hungry analysis crew get this report on the big chief's desk.

This would have wound up being our first nugget after a long time working on low-priority busywork. There was a big incentive to "answer the question".

Scary right?

So I just want to wrap this up quoting a line from the Military Intelligence Soldier’s creed. I think it’s an important reminder when these situations come up.

…AND ABOVE ALL: INTEGRITY - FOR IN TRUTH LIES VICTORY.

Pork or Proper?

There is an argument in support of earmarks that applauds congress members for specifying how federal money will be spent and utilizing congress’ constitution-supported “power of the purse.” The alternative being that congress is simply handing money over to bureaucracy of the executive administration like a blank check. Okay not a blank check but a check that is only partially filled in with a payee and an amount with nothing in the “memo” line.

H.R. 1105 was signed by President Obama on 11 March 2009 and included over nine thousand earmarks totaling 1.8% of total funding or $7.7 billion. (These are the checks with “memo” lines)

H.R. 1105 passed with the sum of $410 billion, leaving a $402.3 billion dollar “blank check” for the administration.

It would seem that for this argument to be sane, that congress should use its “power of the purse” to a much greater extent than 1.8% of its constitutionally-appointed duty.

Now bogging congress down to earmark every penny is unreasonable but this argument about congress performing its duties falls apart pretty quick when it only does it two percent of the time.

H.R. 1105 contained $7.7 billion of pork. ($7,700,000,000)

Earmarks are pork. This is pork.

-Citizen

John McCain responsibly wags finger at H.R. 1105

Sen. John McCain beginning at 20:20.

Despite my recent voting practices I am VERY pleased to see John McCain leading the debate on H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, and calling out both parties for sticking thousands of earmarks into appropriations legistalion for the rest of this federal fiscal year.

Anybody with any sense knows that earmark appropriations are wasteful. I'm happy that it is John McCain's priveledge to "cast the first stone" so to speak on this spending.

I'm also thinking back to the election debates and wondering if I ever noticed John McCain get this intense before. He really seems in his element during this entire clip. I can honestly say that Senator McCain has impressed me in a way that I hadn't been before.

Two of my favorite highlights (both from the 26th minute):

“So, I guess we’re doing last year’s business. Does that mean that last year’s president will sign this pork-barrel bill?”

If this pork gets approved in the Senate I hope this appropriations bill gets turned right back around at the White House. We shall see.

“I want to freely acknowledge that Republicans were guilty of this as well.” 

I think this last quote speaks to McCain's integrity. I can see House Republicans ducking beneath this shotgun blast statement.

Thank you John McCain. 

-Citizen

References: 

John McCain on Earmarks and Pork (cited)

H.R. 1105

Transcript of Debate including McCain (if video goes down)

Don't Ask. Don't Tell.

"Equality is a moral imperative." That's what Barack Obama said in an open letter in February 2008, describing the civil rights of the LGBT community.

In the president's civil rights agenda he calls for the repeal of the military "Don't ask, don't tell." policy that requires the discharge of servicemembers who perform homosexual acts or make statements identifying themselves as homosexuals. Here he cites the dramatic losses (300) of valuable individuals who served in the military as linguists, 50 of which were capable in Arabic. Here is a piece about one of those fifty patriots who were discharged under "Don't ask, don't tell." I can personally vouch for the superb character of the individual, who I count as a good friend.

At this time, Politifact.com's Obameter is tracking Obama campaign promise #293 - "Call for repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy" as a "no action" promise.

So what is the delay on this "moral imperative?"

No action?

There is the argument that Obama is waiting for consensus to develop in congress before making any moves at suggesting repeal. This is what prompted Servicemembers Legal Defense Network to conduct a 300-person rally in Washington on 13 March 2009. Nancy Pelosi says that repeal of D.A.D.T. is a priority and expects to pass it "when we have the votes."and is quoted in the last link.

But...

No action?

Perhaps the "moral imperative" can wait until after midterm elections in 2010. That way some members can avoid the risk of upsetting voters that are against repeal. Obama will still be president in 2010 right?

Perhaps the "moral imperative" can wait until 2012. This way Obama won't risk a second term to the loss in support a repeal might make.

Maybe I'll be checking Politifact's Obameter late into the second term sometime around 2015 when it might just change to an "in the works" campaign promise.

-Citizen

(Thanks to two friends who reminded me I was upset about this)

Integrity in Washington

First, some old news...

26 Jan 2009 - Timothy Geithner is confirmed as Treasury Secretary although drawing 34 senate votes against his confirmation after news of his failure to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes in time.

02 Feb 2009 - Nancy Killefer, first-ever named Executive Chief Performance Officer withdraws candidacy after findings of late payment of household payroll taxes which were paid after a lien was put on her home.

03 Feb 2009 - Sen. Tom Daschle withdraws from consideration as President Barack Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services in the face of findings that he only recently paid back in the amount of $128,000; says that he is not a leader who "can operate with the full faith of Congress and the American people."

These three are all highly qualified individuals (Geithner, Killefer, Daschle) with many years of expertise in their fields that they bring (would have brought) to the Executive cabinet. They were perhaps the best possible people to work in those jobs.

The best people in Washington are being precluded from service because of a lack of integrity. (Don't tell me that an IRS efficiency official actually screwed up on her taxes and it took a lien on her home for her to notice.)

My larger question is: Can qualified people even be found in politics who haven't got some story like these?

This is the question I've heard most often one day after the fact and a big question I have myself. Where can integrity be found anymore? This government has got some serious housekeeping to do.

-CITIZEN