Homeland Security Watch

    Photo by AFP

From today’s Jerusalem Post:

At midday on Friday, 25 hours after the start of the inferno that has taken more than 40 lives, forced 13,000 people from their homes and consumed vast swathes of the northern Israeli countryside, Israel’s utterly under-equipped Fire Service offered the first real glimmer of hope.

“We do not have the fire under control, but we do have the situation under control,” said Hezi Levy, the Fire Service spokesman. “We have commanders deployed on the ground in all the key areas. We are properly coordinating our work, between the ground operations and the air forces. We have our priorities straight, focusing on preventing the blaze from destroying residential areas.”

Levy stressed that new blazes were erupting all the time, the battle complicated by the day’s fierce winds. “The fire is still spreading. I’m not sure we’ll put it all out today,” he said. “It’s the worst I’ve ever seen in 21 years, and colleagues with a lot more years of experience than me say they’ve never, ever had to fight anything like it.

“But,” he stressed, “we will beat it. We’ll fight it until we beat it.”

According to the Financial Times:

Following Israel’s request for international assistance on Thursday, aid such as firefighting aircraft, helicopters and trucks was expected from Britain, Cyprus, the US, Russia, Egypt and Spain throughout the day.Turkey, putting aside recent tensions over Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians, also sent two firefighting aircraft.

According to Haaretz:

The enormous blaze that broke out on the Carmel will be remembered as the Yom Kippur War of the Fire and Rescue Service, who were not prepared to counter a disaster of such magnitude. Yesterday it turned out that Israel is not prepared for war or a mass terrorist strike that would cause many casualties in the home front. The warning of the outgoing Military Intelligence Chief, Amos Yadlin, that the next war will be a lot more difficult than past experiences, and that Tel Aviv will be a front line, was not translated into the necessary preparation by the authorities assigned the protection of the civilians.

Early Friday morning (US time) there is breaking news in Israel that the police and fire services suspect the fires were purposefully set. 

The risks we face — all of us — are natural, accidential, and intentional in origin.  Crafting a truly all-hazards strategy of risk readiness is as important as it is elusive.

Commenting on the Wikileaks leaks in The Guardian, the historian Timothy Garton Ash writes:

More broadly, what you see in this diplomatic traffic is how security and counter-terrorism concerns have pervaded every aspect of American foreign policy. But you also see how serious the threats are, and how little the west is in control of them. There is devastating stuff here about the Iranian nuclear programme and the extent not merely of Israeli but Arab fears of it (“cut off the head of the snake”, a Saudi ambassador reports his king urging the Americans); the vulnerability of Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile to rogue Islamists; anarchy and corruption on a massive scale in Afghanistan; al-Qaida in Yemen; and tales of the power of the Russian mafia gangs, that make John le Carré’s latest novel look almost understated.

If the leaks are a representative sample of US diplomatic activity and if the Oxford (and Stanford) scholar’s judgment is accurate, then the focus on counter-terrorism is both understandable and unfortunate.

Unfortunate because given the US role and influence in the world we might be better at counter-terrorism if we were focused on a more positive strategy of global engagement.

The world is in the midst of a fundamental shift.  This can be observed in economics, politics, demographics, religion, and more.  Terrorism is one symptom of this profound transition.  There are other crucial issues, some which have an indirect but potentially powerful influence on terrorism.  How is US diplomacy being applied to shape a new synthesis?

Our choice is almost always between giving more attention to risks or more attention to opportunities.  A strong defense may win more football games.  It is seldom the best strategy in the rest of life.

The first Hanukkah candle was lit Wednesday night. Tonight there will be three.  Today in 1763 the first synagogue in what was to become the United States was dedicated in Newport, Rhode Island.

In many Christian churches December 3 is the feast day of St. Francis Xavier, co-founder of the Jesuits and missionary to India.   Today the Eastern Church remembers the martyrs Agapius, Seleucus, and Mamas.

Next Tuesday, December 7, is New Year’s Day on the Islamic calendar.  Shia Muslims will remember Ashura — the martyrdom of Ali, grandson of the Prophet –on December 15.

On December 8 many Mahayana Buddhists, especially in Japan, celebrate the Enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama.  This is sometimes called Bodhi Day.

The inter-faith calendar could easily be expanded and extended.  The darkness of the northern hemisphere’s winter seems to have made these next few weeks especially full of religious memorials.

The wanna-be bomber in Portland and the arson of the Islamic center in Corvallis are the latest in a series of events that highlight the religious challenges of our age.  Long before the “Ground Zero Mosque” or even 9/11, Samuel Huntington described a clash of civilizations erupting along cultural boundaries largely defined by religious belief. In the current issue of Foreign Affairs we are told to be ready for even more religious turmoil in the next thirty years. (See “A Globalized God” and “The Rise of Mezzanine Rulers”.)

My identity is of a generation, a social class, and a region that was taught to use civic language — and avoid religious language — in secular space.  Whatever the merits of that old discipline, it is increasingly abandoned. Today and in six weekend posts I will leave these restraints mostly behind.

Over the next three weeks I will use Saturday and Sunday to post some thoughts on six excerpts of Christian scripture I perceive to be specifically relevant to inter-faith relations and, therefore, to homeland security.  I will finish the series on Christmas Eve. 

The texts all relate to what Jesus said about the Samaritans. In the New Testament the inter-religious issue is framed as between Jews and Gentiles (mostly Hellenistic peoples) and between Jews and Samaritans. The relationship between first century Jew and Samaritan was especially tense, reflecting how much was shared between the two religious traditions.  It seems to me there are clear analogies for contemporary Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

The Samaritans were (and are) a people centered in a region north of Jerusalem. Samaritan origins are disputed. The Samaritans themselves claim to be descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel, especially the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. The Samaritans see themselves as a remnant of the Northern Kingdom that survived Assyrian exile. Jews who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity considered the Samaritans an entirely separate people, despite a wide range of linguistic, geographic, and theological proximities.

The Samaritans consider themselves the true descendents of Moses. The Samaritan Bible is almost identical to the first five books of the Jewish Bible. But the Samaritans do not consider the other books – the prophets and readings – to be sacred. The Samaritans focus their tradition at Shechem and Mt. Gerizim. The Jews (Judeans) looked to Jerusalem and Mt. Zion.

It was roughly 500 years from the reestablishment of the second temple at Jerusalem to the life of Jesus. Over these five centuries the religious differences – rather modest to an outsider – were exacerbated by a host of political and cultural conflicts. To Jewish contemporaries of Jesus the Samaritans were entirely other and spiritually polluted.

How did Jesus engage this otherness?  There are six scriptural references to Samaritans, I will examine each.  I welcome your comments or critique.  More tomorrow.

Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”
-John F. Kennedy (JFK)
In an address before the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 1961

I just wanted to bring to readers’ attention a recent “Forum” held at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government concerning the documentary “Countdown to Zero.”  A video of the entire event can be found here: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Multimedia-Center/All-Videos/Future-of-Nuclear-Weapons-Countdown-to-Zero

“Countdown to Zero” is a movie that supports the efforts to eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons.  It categorizes nuclear threats into three categories: terrorism, accidents, and miscalculation.  I personally found it engaging and interesting, but would certainly recommend that you come to you own conclusions.

This event in particular is interesting because they do not merely recap what is mentioned in the film.  Instead the participants (moderated by Belfer Center Director Graham Allison and including Matthew Bunn, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, and Valerie Plame), all of whom have some screen time in the documentary, provide their personal opinions about not only the topics raised in the movie but those regarding current nuclear-related subjects such as New START, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.

If you follow nuclear terrorism and proliferation topics closely, you will recongize the instances where the panel members identify points of disagreement.  While it may be surprising to nuclear terrorism skeptics, even “true believers” disagree in their personal analysis about specific topics under the larger rubric of nuclear issues.

Also, and this might be just personal opinion, but my favorite part of these Forums (which are held regularly at the Kennedy School) is that no matter the topic or speaker, the invited guest must take questions from the audience.  And these are never staged–you reach the microphones first, you get to ask whatever question you wish.

So for nuclear terrorism skeptics in the audience, get ye self to a related Harvard Kennedy School Forum and get to a microphone early.  You will have your concerns addressed, even if you do not like the answer.

For those interested in learning more about the Zero effort, obtaining a copy of the movie, or contributing to the cause can visit: http://www.takepart.com/countdowntozero

Five years ago, Portland elected officials withdrew local police support for the Joint Terrorism Task Force amidst public concern that officers embedded with federal operations would not be subject to an appropriate degree of civilian oversight. Now, after the arrest of Somail-born Mohamed Osman Mohamud, age 19, on charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction last Friday night during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony attended by some 10,000 people, this decision is under review.

Mr. Mohamud’s arrest followed a months’ long joint investigation by federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The mayor, who also serves as the commissioner responsible for police oversight, learned of the investigation only after the suspect’s arrest.

The mayor seems comfortable with the decision to keep him out of the loop. After all, such investigations are highly sensitive and may involve extraordinary risks to the undercover agents engaging the suspected terrorist, including risk to their personal safety and risks of failing to uncover elements of the plot or connections to networks of operatives that could harm others.

Any investigation that involves such risks to others would, it seems to me, also suggest a much higher risk to the investigation’s integrity in the event classified information was disclosed prematurely or inadvertently than would occur in a case where the risks to others was indeed minimal. In a case where law enforcement officials believe they have everything under control, the release of information should be of less importance or concern, but that was clearly not the case here.

This point is not lost on the defense team representing Mr. Mohamud or the prosecutors presenting the government’s case. Every effort seems to have been made to acknowledge and address risks that the government’s agents would be construed as having lured an innocent man into committing an otherwise unconscionable act. As such, they have gone to great pains to make clear that Mr. Mohamud was afforded opportunities to disavow his plan and change course at several points along the way. The defense seems to be less concerned with the availability of these opportunities than the relative ease with which Mr. Mohamud’s alleged criminal dispositions were facilitated by government agents.

Mayor Sam Adams indicated Monday in a live interview with CNN that he would have been given more information in advance had there been even the slightest chance that the attack would have posed a risk of harm to the public. This begs the question then what would the mayor know when and under what circumstances?

When confronted about the decision to withdraw Portland’s support for the Joint Terrorism Task Force in a Tuesday interview on NPR Mayor Adams indicated the city’s concerns included the risk of racial or religious profiling and other violations of individual civil liberties. He conceded that things had changed a lot in the country since that decision, and acknowledged that he had a great deal more confidence in the new U.S. Attorney and FBI special-agent-in-charge now posted in his city.

Assuming this is so, one might reasonably wonder what it is about them that gives him such confidence. The city was concerned that individuals and groups targeted by terrorism investigations might not receive appropriate due process protections. He expressed concern both about how oversight of these cases might be handled as they progressed and how suspects might be handled after their arrest.

Mayor Adams seems pleased that the case is heading through an Article 3 court as opposed to a military tribunal. And he believes the citizens of Portland who will be empaneled as jurors to decide Mr. Mohamud’s fate possess the traits necessary to approach the evidence objectively.

If so, they will find a challenging set of circumstances placed before them. Published accounts of statements from officials at the local level all the way up to Attorney General Eric Holder indicate that those involved in the case proceeded mindful of past precedents associated with entrapment. These concerns seem justified on one hand: The defense has already made clear they will pursue this avenue of argumentation. But on the other hand they have little to fear: No federal jury since 9/11 has acquitted a defendant on the basis of arguments of entrapment.

How this jury will decide may well depend on how they view the choices put before the defendant. They will undoubtedly be encouraged to consider not just the weight of the choices in terms of their potential outcomes, but also the ease with which each could be pursued by the defendant. The latter part is all-important but often overlooked in such cases. Many decisions that appear irrational to others seem perfectly rational to us, especially if they reinforce the image we have of ourselves and the commitments we have previously made. In this regard, the first meeting between the agents and young Mr. Mohamud could well prove the all-important key to how this case unfolds in a courtroom. And here is where the government’s case is the weakest: They have already acknowledged that recording equipment intended to capture these conversations failed. The only record they have of these conversations is the agents’ reports of their contact.

The ideal of civilian oversight of police is a hallmark of our system of government. It ranks alongside due process and privacy in terms of principles we regard as core elements of our democratic system. Insofar as we believe we have bo room for error when it comes to protecting our nation from the potential harm of terrorism, it may soon become equally clear that we have no room for error when it comes to managing these cases.

As the Portland City Council takes up the question of whether or not to rejoin the Joint Terrorism Task Force, they will have many things to consider besides the change in politically climate nationally and locally. They must also consider what civilian authorities responsible for police oversight need to know and when they need to know it. The answers to both the general and specific questions should focus on making the community safer while upholding its commitment to justice rather than making up for the past.