The Sunday business section of The New York Times featured a long article by Peter S. Goodman looking for lessons in the ruins of the failed crisis management efforts of Toyota, BP and Goldman Sachs (among others). Sadly, the piece overlooked the most important lesson we could take from these debacles: Look before you leap. Goodman's informants, like too many others, describe the jobs of crisis management practitioners from the limited perspective of what happens after the crisis become apparent to others. This narrative suggests effective crisis managers do little more than help their clients or bosses face facts, accept responsibility and chart a clear and direct course to safe ground. For this reason alone, they start from the flawed premise that the primary objective of crisis management is to protect -- or failing that to restore -- the tarnished image of the poor company and its executive whose best laid plans somehow went awry despite their best intentions. To the extent that this position represents crisis management orthodoxy, it casts the affected company in the position of victim not villain. Sadly, most crises cannot be resolved by sinking to such simple tactics, especially when real victims are left with little recourse but to lick their wounds and hope someone will come along to make them whole again sooner rather than later. Crisis management is not -- or should not be -- a separate and distinct discipline occupied predominantly by flaks and fixers. Clearly, many who labor under this label have little more to recommend them than their experience spinning for others or keeping them out of courtrooms rather than actually taking responsibility. Real crisis managers though are closely related to risk managers and emergency managers, both of whom take a comprehensive approach to their fields, which requires them to consider ways of preventing and mitigating harm before things start to become unwound.

Emergency managers think in terms of risk reduction, readiness, response and recovery (or prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery if you prefer). Crisis managers would do well to think in terms of awareness, ambiguity, adaptation and accountability. Conventional crisis management as practiced by spinmeisters and pettifoggers focuses on the external side of the crisis management diagram. Crisis managers cannot, however, afford to overlook internal dynamics any more than they can afford to worry so much about what people will think tomorrow that they fail to do something constructive today. As such, crisis managers can play important roles helping organizations design effective monitoring systems that anticipate problems, amplify weak signals, appreciate their salience and ask (or inquire) actively what can go wrong and what should be done to avoid or control it. When problems emerge, effective crisis managers seek to promote and institutionalize organizational learning from the outset rather than rushing to deflect responsibility or avoid accountability. Goodman and his experts wonder whether the problem is not what people could have done to avoid the problems they created, but whether the consequences of bad decisions are sometimes so riveting or revolting they make it impossible to change the subject. If that's true in any way whatsoever, then those responsible for the decisions that led to these disasters should have considered such possibilities before things started going wrong. How, you wonder, could anyone have foreseen such devastating effects from the actions of these companies and their executives? In hindsight, as Goodman and his experts note, it is all too clear that all these situations were both foreseeable and avoidable. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt, if only as a thought experiment, to see what would happen if we assumed everyone did everything they could to prevent these disasters from happening. Why should this have stopped them from asking what they would do if their assumptions proved incorrect? This is not such a far-fetched idea. Building codes require designers to consider the effects of earthquakes, which people cannot prevent. But they also require designers to protect a building from fire, which the occupants presumably can control. That's right, we do not allow people to assume they will always be successful avoiding or controlling fire hazards. We require people to pursue fire prevention measures diligently. At the same time, we still require the same people to take reasonable precautions against the outbreak of fire so people can escape without injury and any fire can be controlled before spreading to the property of others. We apply very similar logic to many other complex risks. When the stakes are big enough or the consequences terrible enough we ask people to do everything they can to avoid a problem while still taking precautions against its occurrence. Often these added investments prove unnecessary, but we rarely consider them entirely unwise. Any company, institution or individual unable or unwilling to take a comprehensive approach to managing its crisis exposure leaves no one else to blame. We cannot blame the regulator or the consumer. We cannot assume bad things sometimes happen to good people. We can only make sure we hold good people accountable for becoming better people when they make big mistakes so others won't have to suffer the same fate in the future.

Order sildenafil citrate, On the eve of Independence Day -- on one of the most beautiful afternoons of the year so far -- long-time contributor William R. Cumming has raised an intriguing issue regarding an instruction released by President Obama. 

The issue was a particular concern of the Founders and deserves our continued vigilence.  I happen to disagree with Bill's interpretation, but I cannot claim the President's language or intent is altogether clear.  So we begin with the President's words and then continue to Bill's and my own. 

The White House

 June 30, 2010

Memorandum from the President on the Long-Term Gulf Coast Restoration Support Plan

SUBJECT: Long-Term Gulf Coast Restoration Support Plan

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to an area that has already suffered significant hardship, spain female cialis. In addition to fighting the spill, conducting environmental cleanup, and ensuring such a crisis does not happen again, Tadalafil seizures, we must help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. A long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region is therefore necessary.

As I announced on June 15, 2010, and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I assign to the Secretary of the Navy (Secretary) the responsibility to lead the effort to create a plan of Federal support for the long-term economic and environmental restoration of the Gulf Coast region, zocor alternative sildenafil citrate, in coordination with States, local communities, tribes, Cialis available in india, people whose livelihoods depend on the Gulf, businesses, conservationists, scientists, and other entities and persons as he deems necessary, viagra online pharmacy. In addition to working with these stakeholders, the Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with the heads of executive departments and agencies, as well as offices within the Executive Office of the President (collectively, executive branch components), order sildenafil citrate.

Specifically, I direct the following:

Section 1. As soon as possible, Original use of viagra, the Secretary shall develop a Gulf Coast Restoration Support Plan (Plan), based on the following principles:

(a) The Plan shall provide a comprehensive assessment of post-spill needs, as well as a proposal for Federal assistance in the overall recovery of the region.

(b) The purpose of the Plan shall be to develop an approach that will ensure economic recovery, community planning, cheapest prices on tadalafil, science-based restoration of the ecosystem and environment, public health and safety efforts, and support of individuals and businesses who suffered losses due to the spill. Herbal tadalafil,

(c) The Plan shall take into account resources already available to respond to the oil spill, and complement the on-going oil spill response efforts. Order sildenafil citrate, The Secretary will also coordinate, as needed, with the State, Federal, and tribal trustees who have responsibility for directing the natural resource damage planning process under the Oil Pollution Act and other applicable law.

(d) The Plan shall identify long- and short-term objectives and, where applicable, how the achievement of these objectives will be measured, tadalafil how it works.

Sec. 2. (a) This assignment is prescribed as an additional responsibility of the Secretary in accordance with section 5013 of title 10, Generic viagra pay pal, United States Code. This additional responsibility may not be delegated under section 5013(f) of title 10, United States Code, order sildenafil citrate. (b) To assist in accomplishing the directive in section 1 of this memorandum, executive branch components shall make available information and other resources, including personnel, deemed by the Secretary to be necessary for development of the Plan, women does tadalafil work.

Sec. 3. (a) Executive branch components shall carry out the provisions of this memorandum to the extent permitted by law, Recreational tadalafil, subject to the availability of appropriations, and consistent with their statutory and regulatory authorities and their enforcement mechanisms.

 (b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, cheap generic overnight tadalafil, or legislative proposals.

Order sildenafil citrate, (c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Nothing in this memorandum shall relieve or otherwise affect the obligations of any responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act or other applicable law.

Sec. Buy generic viagra india rx, 4. The Secretary is hereby authorized to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Signed/ BARACK OBAMA

--+--

Commenting on a prior post Mr. Cumming wrote:

Yes and the oldest and richest democracy (Republic) has now celebrated July 4th by putting the US Navy in charge of long term recovery in the Gulf of Mexico, order sildenafil citrate. The militarization of US domestic policy continues apace just as in foreign policy and relations. Salute that flag.

To which I replied:

Bill, online order url tadalafil, Where did you see the US Navy assignment. I know about Secretary Mabus’ assignment. Order sildenafil citrate, But I have perceived that as separate from his SecNav role — and much more connected to his background as a former Governor of Mississippi. If that’s wrong, Tadalafil free trial, want to know more.

Mr. Cumming responded:

Presidential proclamation published in Tuesday’s Federal Register. Sent it to you and will send again. John Paul Jones to the rescue, order sildenafil citrate.

To which I responded:

Bill, cheap viagra, thanks for resending the reference. For the benefit of other readers a web version is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-president-long-term-gulf-coast-restoration-support-plan

As you know, I share your concern regarding militarization of government operations. Koop korting cialis, As such, it is certainly appropriate to raise the concern in this case.

I would offer, however, that based on the (little) I know and my own reading of the President’s memorandum, generic tadalafil canada, I understand that Secretary Mabus is, essentially, being seconded from his current role as SecNav to a leadership position for both the National Security Staff and Domestic Policy Staff.

This is my reading of the intent of the following:

Order sildenafil citrate, In addition to working with these stakeholders, the Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with the heads of executive departments and agencies, as well as offices within the Executive Office of the President(collectively,executive branch components).

The reference to Executive Office of the President includes both NSS and DPS, especially a well-established recovery working group spanning the two EOP functions. Where can i buy real sildenafil citrate, I agree the situation is ambiguous. I bet there will be some SecNav staff involved. And this is another example of an increasing tendency for us to turn to military resources (active or retired) for commmand and operational competence. It is a worrisome trend.

Mr, order sildenafil citrate. Cumming respectfully disagreed:

Having read thousands of these memos it looks like a formal delegation of authority to me, veega. See 3 USC Section 301. By passes SECDEF and others. But hey Phil you could be right and only a designation. Order sildenafil citrate, As always I could be wrong but a designation names a person while a delegation names a postion. Buy tadalafil tadalafil, Basic black letter ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

I guess this WH knows the difference and did what they wanted to do (accomplish). Even though Roy Mabus is former governor in a Gulf Coast state I could name perhaps a 100 others better qualified to save the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, tadalafil in canada pfizer, Louisiana and TEXAS. In fact why not George W. Bush, tan, rested and ready, order sildenafil citrate. Give him a chance to redeem his Katrina castrophic efforts. Alternative search cialis, This is not a joke. At least he is not eligible for re-election [but of course Jeb is also tan, rested and waiting his turn). Hey this is a bipartisan or non-partisan response effort correct.

To which I offered a sort of rebuttal: Order sildenafil citrate, I will further note that Title 10 USC, section 5013 (f) as referenced in the President’s memorandum reads:

The Secretary of the Navy may assign such of his functions, powers, and duties as he considers appropriate to the Under Secretary of the Navy and to the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy. Officers of the Navy and the Marine Corps shall, tadalafil online, as directed by the Secretary, report on any matter to the Secretary, the Under Secretary, or any Assistant Secretary.

The President’s memorandum explicitly excludes delegation under paragraph 5013 (f), which — at least in my reading — is the White House effort to give the former Governor, who happens to be SecNav, an additional duty, but to avoid militarizing the additional duty.

I wonder if there might not have been a less ambiguous way of accomplishing the same thing, but there seems to me a pretty clear and appropriate effort to focus this additional role outside the Department of the Navy.

--+--

Before retirement Bill Cumming was a long-time lawyer with the US government.  I am neither a lawyer nor an experienced government official. If you have further insights -- or suggestions -- please add your comments.

.

Similar posts: Order propecia. Order clomid no prescription. Soma over the counter. Viagra prices. Ordering viagra online legally. Buy viagra from canada.
Trackbacks from: Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate. Order sildenafil citrate.

Order diazepam no prescription, In 2005, Stewart Baker joined the Department of Homeland Security as Assistant Secretary of Policy for the entire Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Michael Chertoff. The position, Kjøpe diazepam online, which evolved from the Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy and Planning position, has the following responsibilities, according to the DHS website:

• Leads coordination of Department-wide policies, order diazepam without prescription, programs, Cheap generic diazepam, and planning, which will ensure consistency and integration of missions throughout the entire Department.

• Provides a central office to develop and communicate policies across multiple components of the homeland security network and strengthens the Department’s ability to maintain policy and operational readiness needed to protect the homeland.

• Provides the foundation and direction for Department-wide strategic planning and budget priorities.

• Bridges multiple headquarters’ components and operating agencies to improve communication among departmental entities, eliminate duplication of effort, osta alennus diazepam, and translate policies into timely action.

• Creates a single point of contact for internal and external stakeholders that will allow for streamlined policy management across the Department.

Baker would hold the position for the next four years, Kjøpe billig diazepam, tackling a variety of issues from border and travel to cybersecurity and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to bioterrorism.  In his upcoming book, Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism, Baker offers an intriguing view of our homeland security posture that ties back to the central theme that technology is both our savior and our enemy as it empowers not only us but our foes.  Coming from Baker, Indiana IN Ind. , who has been described by the Washington Post as “one of the most techno-literate lawyers around, Buy diazepam online without prescription, ” the analysis of homeland security technology from a policy/legal prism is refreshing.  This is not a Luddite's view of why technology harms, but an expert's finely woven story of "how the technologies we love eventually find new ways to kill us, and how to stop them from doing that."

A subtheme throughout the book is that information sharing, Georgia GA Ga. , or lack thereof, Købe diazepam, has hindered our nation’s efforts to fight terrorism, especially when “privacy” has played a role.  In setting up a discussion of what led to his time at DHS, Baker recounts some of the failures leading up to 9/11, diazepam online, including the information sharing wall put up at the Department of Justice between intelligence and law enforcement elements of the agency, Diazepam kopen, as well as challenges at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. His view is of someone who has spent time in the intelligence world as the General Counsel of the National Security Agency and as General Counsel of the Robb-Silberman Commission investigating intelligence failures before the Iraq War. The account dives into the intricacies of Justice and its overseers, West Virginia WV W.Va. , as well as how bureaucracy and personalities can so easily define our government’s most sensitive policies. Kaufen diazepam, The book then looks at his days at DHS and attempts to strengthen border and travel programs and policies for acronym-named programs, including Passenger Name Records (PNR), the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), buy cheap diazepam online, Electronic System of Travel Authorization (ESTA), North Dakota ND , Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), and Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II (CAPPS II),  among others.  If you have ever doubted Washington's love of acronyms and initialisms, order diazepam online, this read will certainly change your mind.

In evaluating efforts in the aviation space, Baker is critical of a number of groups that he deems to have stood in the way of the Department’s mission during his tenure, including the private sector, European governing bodies, bureaucrats, Congress, and privacy/civil liberties groups, all of whom he argues are all about the status quo and not open to change.  Some of his criticisms are valid while others seem to simplify the views of the various actors.  For example, in dismissing some of the tourism industry’s concerns related to travel policies, he argues that the industry did not want innovation in government security on the border, order diazepam no prescription. Diazepam online cheap, Having been in the trenches at the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee during many of these debates, I would argue that the balancing of the numerous parties’ interests and concerns was not always that simple or easy to discern, acquistare a buon mercato diazepam, especially when assessing the right security path forward.  Some programs mentioned in the book, Illinois IL Ill. , such as WHTI, succeeded, in part, online diazepam, because they were implemented once necessary infrastructure had been deployed. Order diazepam no prescription, His strongest concerns are reserved for privacy and civil rights advocates and the government policies they either tout or hate.  There is a great deal of skepticism for “hypothetical civil liberties” and “hypothetical privacy concerns,” without evidence of demonstrated abuses by the government. He cites numerous incidents, ordering diazepam no rx, some of which certainly demonstrate the tension between privacy and security co-existing.  A few of the examples he uses have even been explored here at HLSWatch, Köpa billiga diazepam, including complaints about whole body imaging machines in airports.  See, e.g. Order diazepam no prescription, The Right to Be Left Alone (October 27, 2009) and “Where are all the white guys?” (November 10, 2009). Reading the book, privacy and civil liberties supporters may find it hard to balance Baker's call for imagination when tackling homeland security policy and decisionmaking without calling for a similar level of creative thinking when addressing how those policies and decisions will affect privacy and civil liberties.

The book goes on to describe how the Department and Administration tackled (or failed to tackle) cybersecurity and biosecurity and the differences between the approaches, Montana MT Mont. . In both sections, Diazepam discount, privacy and information sharing are undercurrents, though we also see some interesting discussions of such topics as patent protections, self-regulation, and the evolution of security in each of these areas.  The discussions are intriguing and provide both a history and analysis of why we are where we are on those issues.   The cybersecurity and related CFIUS discussion brought back some memories to this self-proclaimed cybergeek, including some of my first interactions with Baker when he was in private practice and I was at the Justice Department.

One last observation: while the focus on the book is obviously on the time that Baker served at the Department under Secretary Chertoff, it leaves much to the imagination of what work Secretary Ridge and his team- from their early days in the White House after 9/11 until the changing of the guard to Secretary Chertoff - undertook and how that may have contributed to some of Secretary Chertoff's and Baker's successes, challenges, and mindset.  In addition, despite the focus on privacy and civil liberties, there is little mention of the other DHS offices, including the Privacy, Civil Liberties, and General Counsel’s offices, who may have been engaged in many of the battles noted by Baker. The book is not lacking in detail or intrigue because of these exclusions, though I wonder how they affected the decisions of Baker and his policy team. Perhaps these items are the subject of another book for another time, order diazepam no prescription.

Stewart Baker provides insight into a D.C. perspective of homeland security and the struggle of a Department to tackle technology, privacy, and information sharing. The book provides some valuable lessons for those who are on the frontlines of homeland security policy as they attempt to tackle future threats. For an observer of homeland security development, Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism is a must-read. The book will be released on June 15th and is available for pre-order on Amazon.com.  In the meanwhile, excerpts from the book and other missives from Baker can be found at a blog with the same name, http://www.skatingonstilts.com/.

Similar posts: Order clomid online cheap. Cheapest viagra prices. Propecia over the counter. Buy cheap viagra online. Buy clomid cod. Cheapest viagra in the world.
Trackbacks from: Order diazepam no prescription. Order diazepam no prescription. Order diazepam no prescription. Order diazepam no prescription. Order diazepam no prescription. Order diazepam no prescription.

Ordering viagra, Earlier this week, I wrote - Is the Internet Creating Terrorists? - in recognition of the modern Internet's 25th birthday.  In that piece, I asked whether the Internet has enabled terrorists to increase their recruiting efforts and what does it mean for law enforcement.  Yesterday, Christopher Bellavita wrote an interesting related piece, Could terrorists on the internet be the next dot com bubble?, exploring Marc Sageman's book Leaderless Jihad, and its analysis of potential Internet radicalization.  Chris' conclusion, if I may simplify,is that there may be less of a link between the Internet and radicalization than expected.  He approached the issue from a different angle than I did - reviewing, in part, the lack of a correlation between countries that access extreme websites and countries that produce foreign fighters.   He does caution that without a critical analysis of claims and evidence demonstrating that the Internet is creating terrorists, we may end up wasting resources on the wrong problem.

So, what is the federal government doing to analyze the use of the Internet as a potential terrorist recruitment, dissemination, buy viagra online legally, and tool for terrorism. Obviously, Viagra online, with proper procedures and legal process, the government can monitor non-public sites promoting criminal behavior.  We will leave out of the discussion scenarios of what our cloak and dagger friends may be doing.

Also not discussed here are the legislative and legal procedures at the federal level for tracking an individual's use of the Internet if criminal or security implications exist.  The intricacies of surveillance policy - bother criminal and intel-related - is a topic that alone fills many a blog.

Instead, viagra for sale, this post focuses on what potential government action exists to address the potentially offending websites that are disseminating terrorist information and/or inciting terrorist activity.  In doing so, I admittedly am taking a simplified approach to a complicated subject but hope to at least start a dialogue on the issue.

As far as I am aware, there is no public analysis that explores the degree to which the U.S, ordering viagra. Viagra online stores, is generally monitoring public websites and communications on open blogs, social networks, and the like, though we know such efforts are underway in some form or fashion.  Just last month, buy viagra no rx, the Department of Homeland Security undertook a Privacy Impact Assessment for the "Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, 2010 Winter Olympics Social Media, Viagra without prescription, Event Monitoring Initiative." The PIA assessed a number of DHS activities in preparation for the Vancouver Olympics, including the monitoring of social media websites (including this site) to "provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture."

In 2008, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs released a report, Violent Islamist Extremism, ordering viagra online without prescription, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat, Viagra pharmacy,   which touched upon the government's response capability.  The report stated:

Despite recognition in the [National Implementation Plan] that a comprehensive response is needed, the U.S. government has not developed nor implemented a coordinated outreach and communications strategy to address the homegrown terrorist threat, especially as that threat is amplified by the use of the Internet, comprar viagra baratos. According to testimony received by the Committee, no federal agency has been tasked with developing or implementing a domestic communications strategy.

Shortly after the report was released, Cheap viagra no prescription, Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman sent a letter to Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt saying that the company needed to take extensive steps to remove videos from YouTube that promoted terrorism.  While YouTube is hardly a terrorist-sponsored site in and of itself,  Lieberman found that some videos posted on the sharing site "provide weapons training, speeches by Al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits."  While Google removed a number of videos that violated its own guidelines, buy viagra online cheap,  Lieberman continued to raise concerns with additional videos that remained on the site.

Lieberman's actions were met with criticism from civil rights and First Amendment advocacy groups, Cheap viagra, who saw it as an attack on the First Amendment and the Constitution. Ordering viagra, Others balked at the potential for censorship of content on the Internet.

The First Amendment, at least with regards to acting on and removing materials from sites, is one of the biggest challenges facing the federal government.  Those hosting websites may loathe removing or censoring sites without some legal process served by authorities, pharmacy viagra,  a process that requires a determination of a specific illegal act, or without a clear violation of their contractual agreements with site owners.   In looking at the offending act for terrorist sites, Massachusetts MA Mass. , part of the challenge goes back to an issue that Homeland Security Watch discussed in great detail several weeks ago - what is terrorism and what constitutes a criminal (or national security) act?  Do lone wolf sites suffice?  Does it have to be linked to a terrorist group?  How does the government meet the threshold of a terrorist act when it involves online speech.

Of course, there may be ways to avoid the "what is terrorism" definition for potential acts by looking at other laws, especially if criminal activity is evident.  For example, comprar viagra,  in 1996, Senator Diane Feinstein included in the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act a provision that required the Justice Department to produce a report analyzing the extent to which bomb-making instructions are available in the U.S. Cheap viagra tablets, via various forms of media.  The Justice Department issued a report in April 1997 stating that laws restricting the dissemination of the media could be constitutional if narrowly-crafted.    Senators Feinstein and Orrin Hatch included an amendment on the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act that prohibited teaching or showing how to make explosives with the intent that the information will be used to  commit a federal crime.   Consequently, if a potential terrorist site shows how to make explosives and IF intent can be shown that the site's owners planned for individuals to use that information to commit a violent crime, then legal process could be attainable.  Likewise, if specific links to fraud, ordering viagra online cheap, money laundering, or inciting specific incidents of violence are evident, Cheapest viagra in the world, there potentially could be legal action in those cases.

Even then, however, if the sites are hosted outside the U.S., South Dakota SD , the issues become murkier and require international cooperation, perhaps with nations with different norms, Buy viagra online without prescription, standards, and definitions of criminal and national security acts than the U.S.

Complicating the situation even more -- if  a site is successfully knocked off a hosting company's server,  it is very easy to migrate and move a site to a new location.  Indeed, in testimony before Lieberman's Committee in May 1997, Lt, ordering viagra. Col. Joseph H, Connecticut CT Conn. . Felter, U.S. Ordering viagra, Army director of the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Ordering viagra, Military Academy, testified that "[a]ttempts to shut down websites have proven as fruitless as a game of whack-a-mole."

The government actions above, however, assume that law enforcement or security officials want a site to be removed. There may be instances where the preferred action is to leave something up as it may be valuable for intelligence or evidence gathering reasons.

Tackling terrorism online is not one that the U.S. alone is facing.  Just last month, lowest price viagra, the United Kingdom's Association of Chief Police Officers created a unit for fighting online terrorism activity, complete with a portal for citizens to report suspected sites.  Other nations that do not provide the same free speech protections have taken similar actions for a variety of criminal security activities, Illinois IL Ill. , including those related to hate speech.

In short, the challenges for government action against terrorist sites "generally" are many and raise serious constitutional and legal hurdles, both here and abroad.  Of course, Arkansas AR Ark. , we still most determine the extent to which terrorism-promoting sites are a problem - and that, in and of itself, may be our biggest challenge.

Similar posts: Generic viagra. Cheap viagra online. Cheap viagra. Order viagra online. Buy propecia online cheap. Cheap viagra tablets.
Trackbacks from: Ordering viagra. Ordering viagra. Ordering viagra. Ordering viagra. Ordering viagra. Ordering viagra.

Viagra without a prescription, Today marks the opening of the RSA Conference where geeks and cyberwonks gather in San Francisco for five days of information security overload.  The conference, started in 1991 as a conference where approximately 50 cryptographers gathered to talk shop, is expecting more than 11,000 attendees this year and includes 250 sessions across 18 tracks.   Since 1995, the conference has focused on a unique theme to highlight a "significant historical contribution to or illustration of cryptography, mathematics, or information security."  This year's theme is the Rosetta Stone, designed to remember "the Rosetta Stone's legacy to modern Egyptology and its lasting message on the power of collaboration."

Expect a good share of government officials - from the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI to the White House to the Department of Defense to Congress - to be wandering around the conference.   DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller are both slated to speak.  According to a release from conference organizers, buy viagra online cheap, Cheapest viagra prices, Napolitano will "speak to the impact of information security on today’s society and how cybersecurity will continue to be a key area of focus for the Department of Homeland Security in the coming years," while Mueller will "detail cyber threats through the years – from criminal threats like computer intrusions and identity theft to the use of the Internet by extremists and hostile foreign powers."  Will be interesting to learn what insight each offers on the growing cybersecurity challenge and what is being done within the government to address that challenge, billig viagra apotek. Koop korting viagra, Also slated to speak is Howard Schmidt, the recently appointed  "cyberczar" or, buy viagra pills, Cheap viagra from canada, if you prefer, his official title - "White House Cybersecurity Coordinator, viagra generic, παραγγείλετε online viagra, National Security Council, Executive Office of the President."  Schmidt will give a keynote and, District of Columbia DC D.C. , Lowest price viagra, according to the conference schedule, will be busy participating in a number of other events, αγοράζουν φτηνά viagra, Ordering viagra online, including a town hall sponsored by the Business Software Alliance.  In many ways, RSA represents a coming out for Schmidt, cheap viagra online without prescription. Oklahoma OK Okla. , He has appeared and spoken at some DC-oriented events but this is (I believe) the first time he has been in a national venue and the first time where experts and industry will get a public account of what to expect from the Obama Administration on cybersecurity going forward.  It is big task but, as a veteran and well-respected expert on cybersecurity (including public-private partnerships), South Carolina SC S.C. , Rabatt kaufen viagra, Schmidt should be up to the task.

Other big-name former government officials who have tackled cybersecurity are also plentiful. Schmidt' predecessor (at least in an acting status), comprar en línea viagra, Nebraska NE Nebr. , Melissa Hathaway, is slated to speak on a panel on "Delivering a Unified and Resilient National Cyber Security Framework" and former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and the first cyber-czar under President Clinton, North Carolina NC N.C. , Buy cheap viagra, Dick Clarke, are also on the agenda.

Moving from wonks to lawyers (if there is really a difference), pharmacie viagra bon marché, Where to buy viagra, back in D.C., the American Bar Association will be hosting its Fifth Annual Homeland Security Law Institute.  Chaired by Joe D, Utah UT . Viagra prices, Whitley, former General Counsel of DHS, viagra no prescription, the conference gathers together practitioners  to examine legal issues surrounding various homeland security areas.  Among the panels topics:  homeland defense, international issues, chemical and personnel security, supply chain, CFIUS, immigration, detention of terror suspects, cybersecurity, privacy, homeland security grants, and H1N1.

Among the keynote speakers - Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee,  W. Craig Fugate, the Administrator of  FEMA, and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

Two very different conferences offering different perspectives on how to address homeland security problems.  Stay tuned to any announcements or surprises that might come from either conference.

.

Similar posts: Order viagra online without prescription. Buy sildenafil citrate. Buy viagra c.o.d.. Sildenafil citrate cod. Ordering viagra pills. Buy viagra free samples without prescription.
Trackbacks from: Viagra without a prescription. Viagra without a prescription. Viagra without a prescription. Viagra without a prescription. Viagra without a prescription. Viagra without a prescription.

Viagra without prescription, The incident yesterday in Austin, Texas raises questions on what is terrorism or, more specifically, what is domestic terrorism.  Reports have varied on whether yesterday's attack, in which 53 year old Andrew Joseph Stack III - after setting fire to his house  crashed a Piper Cherokee PA-28 into a building housing nearly 200 IRS employees, is an act of terrorism.  He left behind a suicide note, ranting about taxation in the U.S. and the IRS, cheap viagra no prescription. Köpa viagra,

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said ""At this time, cheap viagra, Cheapest viagra, we have no reason to believe there is a nexus to terrorist activity. We continue to gather more information, buy viagra overnight delivery, Oregon OR Ore. , and are aware there is additional information about the pilot's history."  The White House gave a more tempered answer, with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs telling reporters, Jotta viagra verkossa, Billige viagra apotek,   "I am going to wait, though, köpa billiga viagra, Massachusetts MA Mass. , for all the situation to play out through investigation before we determine what to label it." Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo called the incident "a criminal act by a lone individual."  Meanwhile, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), billiga viagra apotek, Buy viagra online legally, a Member of the House Homeland Security who represents the area hit,  suggested it was an act of terrorism, viagra without prescription, För viagra online, saying, "We saw a deliberate and intentional attack against a federal building, viagra without a prescription, Pharmacy viagra, ” he said. “It's something that's exposed a weakness we haven't seen since 911.., viagra ordine on-line. that airplanes can fly into buildings."

For what it is worth, the New York Times ran a piece entitled "In Plane Crash Coverage, Networks Use the Word ‘Terrorism' With Care," detailing how the various outlets used and didn't use the word terrorist and criminal, viagra without prescription. Kansas KS Kans. , So was the incident a terrorist attack.

Under Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act, Pennsylvania PA Penn. , Buy viagra cod, a person engages in "domestic terrorism" if he commits an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, Illinois IL Ill. , South Dakota SD , assassination or kidnapping.  Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, cheap viagra overnight delivery. Buy generic viagra, At face value - the incident would appear to fit within what is a very broad definition of terrorism.  Let's take a look:

• Stack flew his plane into a building -- an act that is certainly "dangerous to human life" and "a violation of criminal laws."


• It is arguable that he was trying to influence the policy of the government or, more likely, Michigan MI Mich. , affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction.  In his suicide note, he says "Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer."  He also says, in referring to the IRS and taxation, "I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Viagra without prescription, Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."

Of course, the bigger question - does it really matter how this incident is labeled?  The individual committing the act perished in the attack.   The definition of domestic terrorism is relevant mostly to the legal means of gathering information in the investigation, allowing for the seizure of assets, disclosure of educational records, and, ironically, the disclosure of taxpayer information. It also has implications for living individuals who have been labeled as terrorists, including the banning of their ability to handle sensitive biological materials. In this case, the  act, however you want to label it, has been committed.   Many of the materials above could assumingly be gained through the criminal process.

So does it matter?  Besides the statistical notekeeping on incidents, we also must think of the psychological effects of whether the act is criminal or terrorist and how that affects the citizenry's behavior. There have been studies on these issues and I would welcome comments from those who are experts or more knowledgeable about this effect.

One last note --  the incident could also raise questions about the Federal Protective Services, which has long been responsible for the protection of government buildings and has faced numerous personnel, morale, and operating challenges within DHS.  To be fair, however, how the FPS could have prevented a plane crash into a building in its current operational mode, is hard to say.   In any event, expect hearings and assessments on how to better protect  government buildings around the country.

Similar posts: Order viagra free samples without prescription. Purchase viagra. Order diazepam online cheap. Cialis over the counter. Sildenafil citrate from mexico. Cheap viagra.
Trackbacks from: Viagra without prescription. Viagra without prescription. Viagra without prescription. Viagra without prescription. Viagra without prescription. Viagra without prescription.

CQ's Rob Margetta posted a story last night, "Panel Worries Congress Isn’t Ready for Worst," that reminds us of the "what ifs" of 9/11 - what if the Capitol and White House had been successfully hit?  What if that or another event was so catastrophic that it caused mass casualties among our political leadership? What if there were few to none left in Congress to legislate after such an event? Margetta  profiles the Continuity of Government Commission, formed in 2003, by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Brookings Institute, which has  "pushed for years for a constitutional amendment that would allow emergency interim appointments to replace members of Congress who are casualties of a catastrophic emergency." The Commission, co-chaired by former Senators Alan Simpson and David Pryor, issued its second report earlier this summer, which concluded that our nation's current legal and constitutional framework is not well-suited for resisting a catastrophic attack on our nation's Capitol.  As Margetta notes, the Commission gathered "in a largely empty conference room" this week to continue it push "for a constitutional amendment that would allow emergency interim appointments to replace members of Congress who are casualties of a catastrophic emergency." Currently, existing law does not readily allow such action as the Constitution provides that governors whose states have Congressional vacancies shall call for elections to fill such vacancies or, in the case of the Senate, may temporarily appoint persons, if state law allows.   Under this provision, House Members cannot be appointed, even temporarily.  As a result, in the event of a catastrophe, some states that have longer time-frames for calling and hold elections, could be left without representation. To be fair, Congress has taken some action to deal with catastrophic circumstances debilitating its bodies. House Rule XX contains a requirement that if the "House shall be without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances," then quorum shall be determined based upon the provisional number of the House.  This "provisional number" shall be the number of Members who are able to respond. That said, while the House may be "operational" in the very basic sense of the word, its legitimacy and functionality could easily be called into question, especially if controversial measures are undertaken.  AEI's Norm Ornstein, who played a critical role in putting together the Commission, has written extensively on this issue.  As he noted in Roll Call column on October 4, 2001 in an article entitled, “What If Congress Were Obliterated? Good Question:"

Even if it could convene, for Congress to operate under those circumstances for long--passing sweeping anti-terrorist laws, emergency appropriations and economic recovery measures--would tax its legitimacy, particularly if there were much greater partisan and regional differences among the surviving (and ambulatory) lawmakers than existed in the full House.

Imagine the uproar if the USA Patriot Act were passed today with 15 votes.  What if economic recovery funding were determined by a handful of Members concentrated in one region? A handful of proposals have floated around since 9/11 to overcome these potential issues. Most of these were last seriously considered in 2003.  The House, after rejecting a proposed constitutional amendment,  actually approved legislation (H.R. 2844) that would require states to hold special elections within 45 days after the announcement of vacancies resulting from a catastrophe.  The Senate, however, did not take up the House bill or move any of the bills introduced in the Senate on the issue. Eight years after 9/11, we've failed to address effectively one of the most devastating gaps in our nation's security.  There is no question it is a wonkish and inside the beltway issue to many, especially when compared with first responder funding, security at our airports, and threats to our computer networks.   It is, however, one of the most local issues out there on the homeland front, as residents of almost every district of the House would not want to be without their voice should an incident occur. Our nation has been fortunate enough (or prepared, depending on who you ask) to have not been successfully attacked again.  It would serve the U.S. government and citizens well for there to be renewed dialogue on the issues that the Commission is calling to be addressed.

The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut broke the story yesterday of the expected creation of a new inter-agency elite group of interrogators know as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (aka the "HIG") who will "question key terrorism suspects" as "part of a broader effort to revamp U.S. policy on detention and interrogation." The White House confirmed that the President had indeed signed off on the HIG, which will be overseen by the White House and National Security Council and housed at the FBI.  The new group will be expected to follow the Army Field Manual, unless its "scientific research program for interrogation," which it will also oversee, supports otherwise. Where does the HIG leave the CIA? And how about the ODNI, whose "goal is to effectively integrate foreign, military and domestic intelligence in defense of the homeland and of United States interests abroad." By all accounts, yesterday wasn't a good day for intelligence agencies.  It remains unclear what role either organization will have in the HIG, though the White House has said they will have seats at the table.  One wonders whether that means that they will be at the kiddie table down the hall, far away from the adult table where serious discussions are happening. The CIA was having an especially bad day, as the New York Times reported that Attorney General Eric Holder named John H. Durham, a veteran federal prosecutor out of Connecticut, to examine how the CIA treated prisoners and whether a full criminal investigation of CIA employees and contractors for abuse was merited. While it is clear that President Obama is trying to distinguish his Administration's interrogation and detention policies from that of his predecessor, what is not so clear is how the creation of the HIG will accomplish that.  If the CIA's policies and procedures of most concern were generated and supported by some in the White House in the Bush Administration, how will creating a unit that reports directly back to the White House eliminate potentially potential influence, regardless of who is in the White House?  Does the creation of the group at the FBI mean that we are merging even further the legal and procedural regimes that govern criminal and intelligence cases? Perhaps these questions will be answered when more details about the HIG emerge.  Until then, it feels a lot like a High Value (And potentially High Cost) Shuffling of Chairs in areas in need of serious oversight and analysis.

The US Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina has indicted seven on federal terrorism charges.  According to the News & Observor, "All are charged with conspiring to provide support to terrorists and conspiring to murder, kidnap, maim and injure persons abroad. The charges are related to allegations that they helped raise money and provide training for terrorism operations in Tel Aviv, Israel." The seven count indictment filed with the federal court reads, in part, "In the period from 1989-1992, Daniel Patrick Boyd, a/k/a "Saifullah" traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan where he received military style training in terrorist camps for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad."  The indictment then sets out how Boyd sought to involve members of his family and others in terrorist actions. A study of federal terrorism indictments released last week found that of 214 defendents involved in terrorist cases that have been resolved, 91 percent were convicted.  The study, completed by former federal prosecuters for Human Rights First, argues this demonstrates the counterterrorism efficacy of the legal system. A Saturday frontpage story in the New York Times reported that the Bush administration seriously considered declaring even more US citizens as "enemy combatants" and placing them in military stockades.  According to the Times, "Former officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody." The so-called Lackawanna Six were convicted of  terrorism-related charges in May, 2003. UPDATES:  Indepth background piece (07/29) is available from the Washington Post. More on the Pakistan connection (07/30) is available from the Associated Press.

Tonight  and tomorrow I have  meetings near a beautiful mid-Atlantic beach.  This morning I am heading down early to walk  the sand and, if the waves permit, ride some crests.  So two reruns: Yesterday Napolitano announced a 60-day review of the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS). A task force will assess the effectiveness of the system for informing the public about terrorist threats and communicating protective measures within government and throughout the private sector.  A complete announcement and some helpful background is available from the Department of Homeland Security website. Back in November and December I was invited to review and make recommendations regarding the twenty-four Homeland Security Presidential Directives signed by President Bush. I suggested that six be affirmed and adapted.   Here's what I offered regarding the HSAS. HSPD–3: Homeland Security Advisory System Delegate for review outside the White House and Revise. This is a notorious system that undermines public confidence in Homeland Security. But sudden abrogation would complicate several current procedures for jurisdictional alert and response. Delegation for review and revision outside the White House was my most common recommendation for most of the HSPDs. Many are surprised to see President Obama "continuing" several Bush administration anti-terrorism polices.  Examples include extraordinary rendition, the use of military tribunals, preserving state secrets, and other policies and tactics. This administration's unfolding approach certainly deserves close-attention (power corrupts and so on...),  but so far I perceive a careful reforming (and occasional rejection) of Bush policies rather than simple continuation.  Obama is as tough a counter-terrorist as Bush or Cheney, but much more attuned to being publicly explicit regarding rationale, legal process, and desired outcomes. In this -- coincidentally or not -- I see the administration carrying out what Philip Bobbit recommended in his Spring 2008 tome, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century.  In a review published last year by the Homeland Security Affairs Journal, I wrote and quoted as follows: Bobbitt’s mitigation goes far beyond resilient design of critical infrastructure; it is focused on resilient design of our constitutional order. He argues for vigorous – some will say Draconian – measures of prevention, preparedness, and mitigation. But unlike so many making similar arguments he insists these measures must emerge from thoughtful, transparent, and principled legislation, executive enforcement, and judicial review. We must behave wisely and consistently as a state of consent or – without ever intending so – we are likely to end up living in a state of terror.

"The states of consent must develop rules that define what terrorism is, who is a terrorist, and what states can lawfully do to fight terrorists and terrorism. Unless we do this, we will bring our alliances to ruin as we appear to rampage around the world, declaring our enemies to be terrorists and ourselves to be above the law in retaliating against them. We will become, in the eyes of others, the supreme rogue states and will have no basis on which to justify our actions other than the simple assertion of our power. At the same time, we must preserve our open society by careful appreciation of the threat that terror poses to it and not by trying to minimize that reality or to appease the sensibilities of people who would wish it away… We must do this because an open society depends upon a government strong enough and foresighted enough to protect individual rights. If we fail to develop these legal standards, we will find we are progressively militarizing the domestic environment without having quite realized that we are at war. And, when a savage mass strike against us does come, we will react in a fury that ultimately does damage to our self-respect, our ideals, and our institutions (p. 394)."

I will not be thinking about either of these -- or other -- important issues as I paddle in place watching for the perfect wave.

  Committee of Five presents Declaration to the Second Continental Congress A Declaration of the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature & of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change. We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses & usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government & to provide new guards for their future security...

-- + --

The complete first draft is available from the Library of Congress. The final draft of the Declaration of Independence is available from the National Archives.

Yesterday, June 15, the United States and the European Union issued a joint statement on Guantanamo and "future counterterrorism cooperation."  Most media are focusing on the implications for placing Guantanamo detainees.  It is reported that EU member states have agreed to receive fifty current detainees. The Luxembourg declaration is also a mile marker for  negotiations that began even before the inauguration to ensure closer cooperation between Europe and the United States on a whole range of CT issues.  The Guardian reports, European diplomats are "saying that the aim was also to come up with a new transatlantic strategy on counter-terrorism, as well as on a broader joint agenda for fighting international organised crime, intelligence sharing, international travel security and data protection. The ambitious aims are bedevilled by legal wrangles and mismatches between US and European legal systems, with Europeans, for example, enjoying higher standards of privacy protection." Negotiations are continuing on a comprehensive CT agreement between the US and EU.  Some reports suggest progress is sufficient that it may be ready by the end of the year. Yesterday's agreement set-out principles on which the fuller agreement is expected to be based. "Efforts to combat terrorism should be conducted in a manner that comports with the rule of law, respects our common values, and complies with our respective obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law. We consider that efforts to combat terrorism conducted in this manner make us stronger and more secure." The potential for greater cooperation between the US and EU is underlined by the first-ever EU-Pakistan summit which will begin tomorrow in Brussels. Taliban and al-Qaeda present a shared threat to the US, EU, and Pakistan. US military operations on the Afpak border (and incursions across the border) make a crucial contribution to containing -- and eventually eliminating -- this node of terrorist planning, training, and operations. The same US operations complicate bilateral relations with Pakistan in a way that limits Washington's ability to contribute to shaping a post-Taliban/after-al Qaeda future.  Greater involvement by the EU in supporting democratic and social resilience in Pakistan can pick up where the US cannot go. In an interview with the Financial Times, "Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the (Pakistani) foreign minister... said Pakistan would need up to $2.5bn (€1.8bn, £1.5bn) in emergency relief and for long-term reconstruction of the Swat valley and the surrounding region, once the fighting between government troops and militants, now in its final stage, had ended. That figure compares to the $1bn in aid initially estimated by government officials. The warning comes as Pakistan widens its military offensive to other areas suspected of providing a haven to the Taliban, such as the Waziristan tribal region along the border with Afghanistan." The US and EU can benefit from collaboration in many other areas -- intelligence sharing, border controls, planning, training,  joint exercises, and more -- but especially as Pakistan's military begins operations in South Waziristan, the potential in terms of this trilateral relationship is especially important.

James von Brunn, the alleged assailant in yesterday's  fatal shooting of Stephen Johns at the Holocaust museum, has a long history of racist, anti-semitic, anti-government speech and action.  Would he have been a proper target for law enforcement intelligence gathering? Mr. von Brunn is an 88 year-old,  military veteran with a prolific and, until today,  easy-to-access collection of writings attesting to his hatred of certain groups.  Many of these writings and rambling threats have been available at www.holywesternempire.org.  This morning the URL  announces: "HTTP 403 Forbidden."  He is the author of a 1999 book entitled, Kill the Best Gentiles. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Mr. von Brunn's website among its large collection of "hate sites."  The Anti-Defamation League has also monitored Mr. von Brunn. (See more from USA Today.) Would it be appropriate for local, State, or federal law enforcement agencies to collect and store similar information? Or does such information fall within the constitutional provisions of protected speech? Arguably the most common legal standard for answering the question is 28 CFR, part 23 (or Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 23).  This regulation was established, in part, to counter abuse of protected speech by law enforcement agencies in the 1960s and 1970s. The core legal standard for gathering, collecting, and sharing information (or not) is set out as follows.

§ 23.20 Operating principles. (a) A project shall collect and maintain criminal intelligence information concerning an individual only if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity. (b) A project shall not collect or maintain criminal intelligence information about the political, religious or social views, associations, or activities of any individual or any group, association, corporation, business, partnership, or other organization unless such information directly relates to criminal conduct or activity and there is reasonable suspicion that the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct or activity. (c) Reasonable Suspicion or Criminal Predicate is established when information exists which establishes sufficient facts to give a trained law enforcement or criminal investigative agency officer, investigator, or employee a basis to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an individual or organization is involved in a definable criminal activity or enterprise. In an interjurisdictional intelligence system, the project is responsible for establishing the existence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity either through examination of supporting information submitted by a participating agency or by delegation of this responsibility to a properly trained participating agency which is subject to routine inspection and audit procedures established by the project.

 In the case of Mr. von Brunn was there reasonable suspicion?  How about criminal predicate?  Were there a sufficient number of "trained law enforcement or investigative agency" personnel assigned to establish reasonable possibility? I am not a trained law enforcement officer.  But I sometimes train such officers.  If I had, before yesterday's attack, read Mr. von Brunn's writings, I would not have perceived strong grounds for "reasonable suspicion."  I would have had difficulty reading much of the hate-filled, often turgid prose and would have quickly moved on to other targets of concern. (Even last evening, with the day's events underlining the potential importance, it was a slog to read.) If for some reason I was motivated to do additional research, I might have established "criminal predicate."  In 1983 von Brunn was convicted of several charges and imprisoned for an armed attempt to "arrest" Paul Volcker and other members of the Federal Reserve Board.  But even with criminal predicate in hand, given the quarter-century elapsed and the age of the suspect, it is unlikely I would have established  "reasonable possibility." Which would have done nothing to save the life of Stephen Johns and -- if not for the response of Mr. Johns and other security guards -- my inaction could have led to the death and injury of many others at the museum. I am not arguing for an easy answer.  I am suggesting the need to wrestle with a very tough question.  We can invest so much in defending pre-established positions that, too often, there is little energy left for crafting an imperfect, but principled solution. Related background: Russell Porter testimony: Report Card on Homeland Security Information Sharing Practical Guide to Intelligence Led Policing Intelligence Led Policing: New Intelligence Architecture The Constitution Project: Liberty and Security America's growing surveillance state Intelligence Agency Does Not Distinguish Between Terrorism and Peace Activism (This event's connection with the withdrawn DHS report on right-wing extremism is covered by Ed O'Keefe in this morning's Eye Opener. And if you are looking for evidence of the energy invested in defending pre-established positions, check out the comments on O'Keefe's report.) UPDATE: Museum Suspect's Writings Had Not Triggered a Probe (Washington Post) Shootings show threat of 'lone wolf' terrorists (Associated Press)

On Monday, nearly six years after being removed from the jurisdiction of US courts, alleged terrorist Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri appeared before US District Judge Michael Mihm.  Arrested by Peoria police and on the edge of being brought to trial, the Bush Administration had declared al-Marri an enemy combatant and removed him into military custody.  On February 26 a Federal Grand Jury returned new indictments against al-Marri.  The Obama administration has restored the suspect to civilian custody.  Yesterday al-Marri entered a plea of not guilty.  The trial is expected to take several weeks. More from the Peoria Journal Star and New York Times.

On Friday the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in al-Marri v Spagone (see Certiorari order).  By vacating the 4th Circuit's ruling the potential for its future use as a legal precedent is eliminated.  In this way the legal authority of the executive to indefinately detain without trial individuals legally resident in the United States is considerably weakened.

Late Friday, February 27, the Obama administration ordered that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri be transferred into civilian custody and relocated from the Navy Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.  The instruction came after action on Thursday by a federal Grand Jury in Peoria, Illinois indicting the suspect under terrorism conspiracy and material support statutes.  Designated an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, al-Marri, a dual citizen of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, has been in military custody since 2003. While suspected of terrorism at the time of his Peoria arrest in December 2001, al-Marri was originally  indicted for credit card fraud, making false statements, and identity fraud.  For a time he was also held in civilian custody under material witness statutes. In June 2007 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that al-Marri's status as an enemy combatant does not preclude the right to challenge his accusers in the federal courts.  In particular the Fourth Circuit found, "we conclude that we must grant al-Marri habeas relief. Even assuming the truth of the Government’s allegations, the President lacks power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain al-Marri." The United States Supreme Court has been scheduled to hear al-Marri's appeal in April.  Friday Attorney-General Holder indicated the Solicitor-General will, based on these new indictments and transfer to civilian jurisdiction, petition for dismissal of al-Marri's case before the Supreme Court.  Attorneys for al-Marri have said they will press for the Supreme Court case to proceed. (On February 23 The New Yorker published a good overview of the al-Marri case by Jane Mayer.)