10 Year Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Part 1

 Take a deep breath and think back to 10 years ago...

 This is pretty close to the general consensus of the time.

Our tax dollars do not always make us safer.

Yes, our taxes pay for the bombs that deliver "democracy" to other nations, which eventually make us safer (excluding the Americans that die and are maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan) -- as well as much of our infrastructure. But this is a case that exhibits a weakness of the "very crucial" (had to be passed post-haste) law that created the Department of Homeland Security -- not a bad idea in concept, but our representatives in Congress may have failed us in the execution.

Frank Terreri is the president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association's (FLEOA) Federal Air Marshal Agency, and he cannot criticize another agent or the Department of Homeland Security IN ANY WAY without violating his employment agreement. Explicitly, no air marshall can do so. Essentiallly, anyone in the DHS who disagrees with the status quo could be punished for expressing his opinion -- publicly or personally. Bottom line: __IF__ someone wants to make us safer and their superiors don't like their advice, they could be out the door INSTEAD of improving national security.

Read this and discuss...

###

New York Times

Some U.S. Security Agents Chafe Under Speech Limits

By ERIC LIPTON

Published: April 26, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 25 - It would be natural to expect that as president of an employee association that represents more than 1,000 federal air marshals, Frank Terreri would be a reasonably outspoken guy.

But since Mr. Terreri became the association's president two years ago, he has been effectively prohibited by the rules of the Federal Air Marshal Service from speaking in public about airline safety matters. He has never been quoted in a newspaper article or written letters to the editor or to members of Congress outside his district.

These limitations - based on a ban, imposed on all federal air marshals, on speaking about their work without explicit permission - set off a feud last year between Mr. Terreri and the marshal service, part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Terreri, who was suspended from active duty in October after sending a personal e-mail message to another air marshal that was critical of a colleague, picked up his badge and gun Monday after being told that he would soon be back patrolling the skies.

Four days earlier, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Mr. Terreri's behalf in United States District Court in Riverside, Calif., claiming that the department was violating his free speech rights and jeopardizing public safety by preventing agents from serving as whistleblowers.

"He has serious concerns about policies that he believes threaten the effectiveness of the Federal Air Marshal Service that make us more vulnerable to another 9/11-type attack," said Peter J. Eliasberg, a civil liberties lawyer representing Mr. Terreri, 38, who lives in the Riverside area.

The case may end up serving as a test of restrictions imposed on workers throughout the Department of Homeland Security, whose rights to speak out publicly are often compromised, employee leaders say, because of excessive concern about the possibility that their comments might compromise public safety.

"They are abusing the power they have under the guise of national security," said Shawn Moran, vice president of National Border Patrol Council local in San Diego.

The rules given to air marshals are quite explicit. A 2002 employee policy statement says they may not "criticize or ridicule" the agency "by speech, writing or other expression," and they may not "address public gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any articles for publication" or release any information about the agency unless explicitly authorized to do so by management.

Limits on public comments by Border Patrol agents are not as well defined, but union leaders say that many agents fear they will be fired if they speak publicly.

David M. Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshals Service, said the restrictions were necessary because marshals work in plain clothes, ready to step forward only in the event of a hijacking or other emergency.

"Obviously there are certain perimeters [sic :rv] about discussing our policies in the media because of the need to ensure the safety of our work force and the flying public," Mr. Adams said.

Mr. Terreri's lawyer said his client had no interest in discussing matters that might compromise national security. In fact, the e-mail message that resulted in his removal from active duty criticized another air marshal who, with permission from management, had appeared in a People magazine article that disclosed operational details Mr. Terreri believed should not have been made public. The article reported that air marshals board the plane before passengers do.

Shortly before Mr. Terreri was removed from active duty, his employee group, the air marshals' division of the Federal Law Enforcement Association of Lewisberry, Pa., called for the resignation of Thomas D. Quinn, the agency director. In a statement released by an individual who does not work for the service, the group said that by requiring marshals to dress conservatively and cut their hair in a military style, and to identify themselves when checking into hotels to get a discount rate, the agency was compromising safety.

Mr. Adams said the complaints came from a small minority of air marshals. He also said that the decision to reinstate Mr. Terreri had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

"There is no longer any reason not to put him back into flight status at this present time," he said, adding that an investigation had been completed into the e-mail message.

Mr. Terreri's lawyer said his client was determined to pursue the lawsuit.

"Secrecy can be the enemy of accountability and security," Mr. Eliasberg said.

For the Two-Year Anniversary of what may be America's Worst Foreign Policy Decision

The folowing is an email (without my desired editing) that I sent to almost everybody in my address book on what turned out to be the eve of the Iraq invasion. If you think any part(s) of this email was prescient, keep in mind that these are the conclusions of one shmuck who got his news from just a few various but disparate sources along with some personal analysis.

Think of this as a time capsule of an unpopular view of the impending war, because this was a relatively controversial view at the time. And I recall that this was my attempt at an objective statement. For the most part, this stance was against the conventional wisdom at the time. I received some replies that were encouraging for speaking my mind, but most responses were non-committal or they clearly disagreed with my opinion. *THAT* is what reminds me how we were being manipulated at the time.

We were railroaded, and a lot more people agree about that now. Isn't arbitrary to invade one particular country and kill thousands to install a "democracy" while ignoring other countries? Why did we liberate the people of Iraq and ignore the people of Kazakhstan? or Uzbekistan? or Belarus? or Myanmar? Can anyone say "Darfur"? Hello, Sudan! The list goes on.

I don't need to say the three-letter word that makes Iraq a 'strategic location', but many people in the Bush admistration already had a hard-on to invade Iraq in the 90's because "Capitalism" constantly demands more resources for it's growth.

Okay, I always want to make a statement... In my defense, _my ideas_ have never killed anyone.

* * * * *

From: R----- V------
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:49 PM

I’ve been trying to sort out my thoughts about the impending war on Iraq.  I am against this military attack, but I have tried to the best of my faculties to consider the other side of the debate.

Is it likely there are chemical or biological weapons in Iraq? Yes, there probably are some of these weapons there.  However, we use US & UK intelligence to convince us they exist.  I wonder why we should trust that evidence to interpolate that there are large deposits of such weapons, but that this intelligence couldn't help UNMOVIC find any of it?

Is it likely that Iraq has nuclear weapons?  Not likely.  The administration wants people to believe Iraq has nuclear capabilities, but numerous pieces of evidence that demonstrates Iraqi nuclear capabilities (or even the attempts to gain such) have been discredited.

Does the lack of evidence prove that there are no Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons in Iraq?  No, there may be N/B/C’s in the Iraqi arsenal; but we basically are relying on gut feelings and educated guesses that they exist. Iraq has not proactively cooperated with weapons inspectors, but even Dr. Blix has said that it does not necessarily prove the existence of such arms. I have a hard time supporting war based on this type of evidence.  

Al-Qaeda.  If you are someone who believes Saddam Hussein was involved the attacks of September 11, 2001, then I can only suggest that you think about changing your medication AND your news sources.  If there are terrorist camps in Northern Iraq, why haven’t we bombed them?  Why hasn’t that question been answered?  We have bombed sites in Iraq on a near-daily basis for 12 years, but none of these terrorist camps?  Hmm...

I am not convinced that this is an important battle in the War Against Terrorism.  The strongest argument seems tenuous.  “He could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists!”  Do you think that Saddam is more likely to distribute N/B/C’s to terrorists when A) such action would risk an international attack and his ouster, or  when B) there is no hope of his regime’s survival and he has nothing to lose?  I think we have witnessed his strong survival instincts over the years. At best, it seems the effect on the W.A.T. will be negligible.  We hope that few will be inspired to rise against perceived Western imperialism, and we hope the US-led forces don’t kill too many Muslims.

Does anyone believe this invasion will create long-lasting goodwill towards the United States?  I guess that would be the best-case scenario, but I have a hard time swallowing that.  We’ve left the Shiites and the Kurds hanging out to dry before, and I’m not comforted when the Bush administration’s latest budget had a grand total of $0 aid for Afghanistan.  (True!  Don’t worry, Congress has taken care of it.)

Sorry, that may have been a pot shot.  I still don’t think our chances of creating domestic tranquility in Iraq are good.  Especially in light of three ethnic/religious groups that do not want to maintain the post-WWI, British-drawn nation of Iraq.   I laugh when Mr. Bush says he wants to liberate the people Iraq.  He wants to only liberate them, but only up to a certain point that he decides.

If this bothers me, isn’t possible that there are Kurds and Shiites and Sunnis that might feel the same way?  Could some of these people be the some of the future leaders of “Iraq”?  We can’t discuss the possibility of the balkanization of Iraq, because that would disturb other countries in the region such as for example -- Turkey (and Iran) which is opposed to a Kurdish state.  Could this spark a destabilization in the Middle East?  Either in the relations between neighboring governments or amongst the general public against their leaders? Will this encourage US involvement/presence in other countries?

None of this may occur, but is anybody worrying about this?  I worry about it, I don’t know if anyone in the White House is.

Saddam Hussein is tyrant.  No one doubts this.  In my heart, the suffering of the Iraqi people is the most compelling reason to remove Saddam from power.  Thousands of Iraqis have been murdered and tortured by the current regime, and this is why we should intervene in Iraq. While it is too late for anything or anyone to stop a military invasion, I don’t believe that now is the time to kill thousands of people so we can 'save them'.  Is there an acceptable number of (American and Iraqi) casualties to stop murder and torture?  10,000?  100,000?  I can’t answer that.  No one wants to answer it.

Mr. Bush at one time stated that war would be the last resort.  I supported that plan.

The threat of force has been effective to a certain point, and I would support the use of force if there was no other choice.  Did we explore every avenue to resolve this situation?  I doubt that every non-lethal alternative has been explored. I am glad that US posturing allowed UNMOVIC to restore inspections in Iraq. Would it have been so bad to give weapons inspectors more time? While the Iraqis have been dragging their feet, Dr. Blix has reported that cooperation has increased.  Bush and Blair have repeated the need for complete, immediate disarmament; even if Saddam had told us there was a cache of N/B/C weapons, Blix said yesterday that it would take a few more months to confirm it. Would it be impossible to give an international crisis our attention for more than six months?

Would it have been so bad to send a UN peacekeeping force to enforce an aggressive inspections process to ensure disarmament? Could that have been the beginning of the end for Saddam?  Could a coup have developed while an external force was in Iraq?  If we’re willing to let Saddam go into exile now, why wouldn’t we be willing to negotiate with him before threatening invasion?

I don’t know the answers to these questions or scores of other potential scenarios, but it gives me confidence that I can answer one question: Have we reached the 'last resort’?  My answer is no. Your answer may differ, but I wanted to briefly share some of my thoughts to make myself feel better.

The bombs will be dropping soon, and I hope the bloodshed is relatively light.  (I shudder when I dwell on the meaning of this idea of 'minimal bloodshed’.)   I remain hopeful for a miracle, but I’m expecting something less.  

I support our troops, but I retain my freedom of speech to criticize the policies of our government.  I doubt there will be any unfavorable reports about the progress of the war.  I expect that there will be much success to show when the attack is over.  I suspect our long-term success in Iraq will not be very close to our current ambitions.

Good luck to us all.  

###

Other posts may follow at my whim, because we're up to our necks and there's no way to get out soon with any dignity. Plus a full withdrawal is too risky in the court of public opinion.

In case you stumbled on this and you live in the Greater Boston area, this post was intended for the subscribers of Cheap Thrills - Boston, my weekly e-list of Bostonian entertainment highlights of $10 or less. To suscribe, send an email to cheapthrillsboston@verizon.net.