National Security // Current

Nextgov: Search for White House e-mails could span administrations

American historians, may yet be able one day to sort what happened and why. Something all Americans have a right to know and... more

thornyisu
added this

Nervousness IN the Heartland

Can Obama really re a uniter alion, Ohio, is a conservative small town, surrounded by corn-fields and woods. It has an... more

TexasPatriot67
added this

Chinese hack into White House network

Chinese hackers have penetrated the White House computer network on multiple occasions, and obtained e-mails between government... more

thornyisu
added this

Behind the Candidates: Meet the people behind John McCain and Barack Obama

Who will be the key players in an Obama or McCain administration? Who will shape our economic, foreign, trade, energy, and health... more

brooklynian
added this

Surveillance Society

ARE YOU LIVING IN THE CONSTITUTION FREE ZONE? Click on your state in the map to find out how many Americans are currently living... more

uppityprogressive
added this

As U.S. and European officials ponder what to do about the situation in Afghanistan, they are coming to a perhaps surprising conclusion: The simplest way to stabilize the country may be to negotiate a truce with the Taliban fundamentalists.

The question isn't whether to negotiate with the Taliban but when. There's a widespread view among Bush administration officials and U.S. military commanders that it's too soon for serious talks, because any negotiation now would be from a position of weakness. Some argue for a U.S. troop buildup and an aggressive military campaign next year to secure Afghan population centers, followed by negotiations.

A few years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the U.S. would consider any discussion with the Taliban militants who gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden as he planned the devastating attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The painful experience of Iraq and Afghanistan has convinced many U.S. commanders that if you can take an enemy off the battlefield, that's better than getting pinned down in protracted combat.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the argument for negotiations with the Taliban during a meeting with NATO allies who are weary. "There has to be ultimately -- and I'll underscore ultimately -- reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this," Gates said. "That's ultimately the exit strategy for all of us."

Gen. David Petraeus, who has overall responsibility for the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has made similar arguments. He believes that the U.S. must work to separate the "reconcilables" among the Taliban from those who are allied with al-Qaeda, and draw the moderates into the government. Petraeus successfully pursued that strategy with Sunni Muslim insurgents in Iraq -- encouraging them to break with al-Qaeda then forming alliances with them.

Petraeus believes an effort to co-opt the Afghan insurgency should probably be accompanied by a stronger U.S. troop presence, just as it was in Iraq. He argues that it's a mistake to think that there's a purely military solution in either country. "You can't kill or capture your way out of this," he explains.

A move to negotiate with the Taliban is already underway thanks to a quiet diplomatic push by Saudi Arabia. Late last month, at the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Saudi King Abdullah met in Mecca with representatives of the Taliban and other Afghan insurgent groups headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani.

Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, who was represented in Mecca by his brother Qayoum Karzai, supported the Saudi mediation. "We're at the very early stages now, but we do have hope for the future," Qayoum Karzai said.

President Karzai is said to have demanded that the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, publicly renounce bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as a condition for further talks. A Taliban representative took this demand to Mullah Omar in his hideout in Afghanistan and returned to Mecca with a positive answer, according to a source familiar with the talks.

Mullah Omar has sent the Saudis a list of seven demands of his own, according to this source. Among the items on the Taliban agenda are a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan; a role for Taliban representatives in provincial and national government; assimilation of Taliban fighters into the Afghan army; and amnesty for guerrillas who fought against the United States.

The Saudis have proposed a second round of discussions in Mecca, when the hajj pilgrimage season begins. U.S. officials are said to be skeptical, but France and Britain appear to be encouraging the Saudi effort. Some Pakistani government and army leaders are also supportive.
Gates notes that we reached just such an accord in Iraq with Sunni insurgents. "At the end of the day, that's how most wars end," he said.
As U.S. and European officials ponder what to do about the situation in Afghanistan, they are coming to a perhaps surprising... more

starr111
added this

4 responses

20 days ago

McCain Links Economy, Security

Sen. John McCain yesterday sharpened his critique of Sen. Barack Obama's ability to serve as commander in chief, arguing that... more

starr111
added this

0 responses

20 days ago

What you NEED to know if you eat food!!!!!

"In a open letter to the next president, author Michael Pollan writes about the waning health of America's food systems... more

Delta_Wave
added this

1 response

27 days ago

Generation War

5 years in Iraq. 7 in Afghanistan. Over 600 billion dollars spent. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have debated over battle... more

CJCollectiveWorks
added this

26 responses

29 days ago

Response to 9/11 was 'huge overreaction' - ex-MI5 chief

A former head of MI5 today describes the response to the September 11 2001 attacks on the US as a "huge overreaction" and says the invasion of Iraq influenced young men in Britain who turned to terrorism.

In an interview with the Guardian, Stella Rimington calls al-Qaida's attack on the US "another terrorist incident" but not qualitatively different from any others.

"That's not how it struck me. I suppose I'd lived with terrorist events for a good part of my working life and this was as far as I was concerned another one," she says.

In common with Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired as MI5's director general last year, Rimington, who left 12 years ago, has already made it clear she abhorred "war on terror" rhetoric and the government's abandoned plans to hold terrorism suspects for 42 days without charge.

Today, she goes further by criticising politicians including Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, for trying to outbid each other in their opposition to terrorism and making national security a partisan issue.

It all began, she suggests, with September 11. "National security has become much more of a political issue than it ever was in my day," she says. "Parties are tending to use it as a way of trying to get at the other side. You know, 'We're more tough on terrorism than you are.' I think that's a bad move, quite frankly."

Rimington mentions Guantánamo Bay, the practice of extraordinary rendition, and the invasion of Iraq - three issues which the majority in Britain's security and intelligence establishment opposed privately at the time.

She challenges claims, notably made by Tony Blair, that the war in Iraq was not related to the radicalisation of Muslim youth in Britain.

Asked what impact the war had on the terrorist threat, she replies: "Well, I think all one can do is look at what those people who've been arrested or have left suicide videos say about their motivation. And most of them, as far as I'm aware, say that the war in Iraq played a significant part in persuading them that this is the right course of action to take."

She adds: "So I think you can't write the war in Iraq out of history. If what we're looking at is groups of disaffected young men born in this country who turn to terrorism, then I think to ignore the effect of the war in Iraq is misleading."A former head of MI5 today describes the response to the September 11 2001 attacks on the US as a "huge overreaction"... more

toshiba
added this

42 responses

1 month ago

Airport Security Not That Secure

Airport security in America is a sham—“security theater” designed to make travelers feel better and catch stupid... more

advertisehere
added this

1 response

1 month ago

John McCain: The Nuclear Option

Building 45 new nuclear plants in this country is insanity and will doom the waterways of this country and put our national security at risk. For a candidate who also talks about fighting the 'war on terror' as well, how could this thought even be entertained in the world we live in? Nuclear energy is not safe, it is not CO2 free, and I am truly getting tired of John McCain talking about what he really knows nothing about. He was on a nuclear submarine that didn't get blown up so that is how he assessed nuclear power is safe? Does he even understand the process of how the uranium is extracted and the toxic pollution it causes to our waterways and land? Does he understand how the toxic waste causes cancer? Does he understand the radioactivity of the waste? The immense amount of water nuclear uses? (Not good in a country now experiencing droughts, especially in the US Southwest) The cost in dollars and in potential lives?

My one message to him and yes, Obama as well who has now flip flopped to say he too engages nuclear is: STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The strides being made in solar, wind, and geothermal are here and now. We could take the money their congressional subsidies give out for their nuclear pipedreams and repower this country! I will make a pledge that should John McCain be corronated I will call the White House every day regarding this issue and 'clean coal.' And I will do the same if it is Obama.

It is unconscienable to me that they could ever want to foist this antiquated unsafe energy source on us just to appease backers and the lobbyists who get the subisidies from Washington Dc. The nuclear option must be out of the question. It is antiquated. It is unsafe. It is toxic. It wastes water. It is expensive. It puts our national security at risk, and will take too much time in light of the reports coming from peer reviewed scientists regarding the current state of our world. Why don't these candidates ever pick up a report instead of a poll to craft their policies? Building 45 new nuclear plants in this country is insanity and will doom the waterways of this country and put our national... more

JanforGore
added this

68 responses

1 month ago

We do not need A Nationalist Everything

WE NEED TO DOWNSIZE NOT SUPER SIZE Written by Trace Mayer, J.D. Wednesday, 08 October 2008 21:53 Under monetary... more

TexasPatriot67
added this

0 responses

1 month ago

Government Scheme Will Monitor All Communications In The UK

A rather alarming headling to greet me over my evening coffee, but apparently this new project is really set to monitor the whole... more

purplefox
added this

0 responses

1 month ago

Standard Warfare May Be Eclipsed By Nation-Building

The Army on Monday will unveil an unprecedented doctrine that declares nation-building missions will probably become more... more

starr111
added this

0 responses

1 month ago

Homeland security researching new airport body scanner that reads minds

The Department of Homeland Security is testing a type of body scanner that seeks out invisible clues that a person might be harbouring criminal intent, such as raised body temperature, pulse and breathing rate.

The system, called MALINTENT, uses a raft of "non-invasive" sensors and imagers to detect such factors remotely - subjects are not hooked up to anything. It also evaluates a person's facial expression to help to gauge whether they could be planning to commit an attack or crime.

The technology, developed by the Human Factors division of Homeland Security's directorate for Science and Technology, would be used at border checkpoints, airports and special events that require security screening.

Unlike current technology which aims to detect devices such as guns or explosives, it focuses on the person who could pose the threat.

The technology, dubbed Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST, deploys a range of "innovative physiological and behavioural technologies" to pick up "indications of malintent or the intent or desire to cause harm", according to the DHS.

Still in the development stage, it is designed to streamline screening of people at security checkpoints enabling large numbers to be vetted swiftly.

"It would take imaging and sensor technologies to observe physiological changes that might indicate intent to harm, such as skin temperature, pulse, respiration and gestures," said Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman.

She added it would be capable of distinguishing between someone with a hostile intent and a plane passenger, for example, who was merely stressed about missing a connection.
The technology is currently installed in a mobile unit, or demonstration laboratory, that scans people with multiple sensors while they walk through it. Last week it was tested in Maryland using nearly about 140 volunteers, Ms Kudwa said.

Some of the volunteers were told to act suspiciously as they walked past the FAST sensors.

"We're still very early on in this research, but it is looking very promising," John Verrico, a DHS spokesman, told New Scientist. "We are running at about 78 percent accuracy on mal-intent detection, and 80 percent on deception."

If the sensors pick up anything considered alarming, analysts can decide whether to subject a person to questioning.The Department of Homeland Security is testing a type of body scanner that seeks out invisible clues that a person might be... more