Holy Amnesia

Both views are pointedly wrong. But they are regularly presented as “facts” and believed by the media, the public and the intelligence community. Additionally, these same people tend to ignore the fact that the Christian Bible and the Jewish Tora are more violent in their outlook. This form of amnesia is problematic and needs to be better understood. The Tora, incidently, is also known to Christians as the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Old Testament. These books contain numerous references to wife stoning, murder and genocide.

Dr Phil Jenkins, (Pennsylvania State University) who recently completed a comparative study of the Bilble and the Qur’an makes the following observation: “Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.”

The Bible not only condones violence, it requires it under certain circumstances. Note the following comments from Dr Jenkins:

“There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide. It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1st Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: ‘And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them,’ God says through the prophet Samuel. ‘But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ When Saul failed to do this, God took away his Kingsdom.”

Violence and Its Purpose

The Tora, the Bible’s Old Testament and the Qur’an all condone or suggest violence under various circumstances. The Qur’an, however, suggests the use of unrestrained violence (Sura 9:5) only in defensive warfare and does not advocate aggressive warfare. The Bible (Old Testament) actually suggests and condones the use of genocide and punishes those who do not follow this view.

This Biblical view has been apparent in history on several occaisions. In the Indian wars of 19th Century USA, it was not only allowable to kill the Indians, according to the views of the day, it was necessary to kill all of them.

The Three Abrahamic Faiths: Violence in Context

All three of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have a certain amount of violence in their founding documents. This needs to be studied and explained in context and through the lens of the history of the time they were written. This is an uncomfortable fact most analysts and the media are overlooking, mainly due to ignorance. By focusing on the violence in one over the others, however, the overall problem grows and ignorant views push out the knowledge required for rational assessments. Terrorism, which is ultimately a political act, can only be defeated through knowledge and skill, not through the use of force ignorantly applied.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

The barrage of attacks against WikiLeaks has proven generally futile, slowing, but not stopping the flow of information. For the US government and its agencies leading the charge against WikiLeaks, it should be remembered that the Internet was designed precisely to provide communication redundancies in the event of a series of major attacks. It should also be noted that Julian Assange is the messenger in this case, not the perpetrator. Killing the messenger may prove to be a difficult task as the messenger is using the Internet which, as noted, was designed to survive under the worst of circumstances.

Attempting to attack the Wikileaks’ “centres of mass” shows that the US government is still a believer in 18th Century warfare. Clauswitz, a Prussian General, believed that you could defeat an enemy by identifying its centre(s) of mass and destroying them. Many military strategists still read and actually believe Clauswitz, despite the fact that his advice to leaders has been inadequate since the beginning of the post-industrial warfare era.

By attacking the WikiLeaks’ site and putting coercive pressure on companies such as Paypal, Amazon and Visa, the US government has either deliberately or inadvertently decided to declare the first real information war. Who will win is not clear, although the US government and its allies are clearly losing the first rounds. WikiLeaks may have lost the use of the servers of Amazon under political pressure, but it now has 1300 mirror sites that are willing to help instead. These 1300 hundred new allies range from major companies to individuals, but they are dispersed over a huge geographic area and are virtually unafraid of retaliation from a ‘superpower’ which will be unable to do anything more serious that launch counter attacks which can be repulsed or waited out. The result may soon be clear as the actual content of the original WikiLeaks site has now been spread to so many other sites that it will be impossible to contain.

Any individual skilled in counter insurgency theory knows that if you kill one insurgent, many more will rise up in his place. As it is with insurgency, so it will be with Infowars. The attack or coercive suppression of one site will only lead to hundreds or thousands more joining the fray.

The Next Round

The real test of the effects of WikiLeaks is yet to be seen. Despite the often artifical press furor created by the WikiLeaks of American diplomatic cables, the real excitement is yet to come. WikiLeaks has made a series of vague claims that they have 5GB of email material from a major American bank. The hints have been ambiguous, but the Bank of America has been repeatedly named in this context. If there are people who are angry about the American diplomatic cables, then the emails of an American executive at the helm of a company that was at the centre of the 2007/08 economic crisis may cause even more of a reaction. The fallout will take us into more uncharted territory.

If WikiLeaks can get this material released, in spite of US pressure and attacks, then it will show that it has a second strike capability and is capable of fighting both a tactical level insurgency style conflict while opening up a second strategic front in an information war. By so doing, it will rewrite the laws of both war and political power. The Internet, the creation of the US government, may turn around and bite its own creator.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

The current round of information provided by WikiLleaks has produced little of consequence in its first round. Observers are said to be ‘shocked’ to find out that American officials may be spying on the UN. Where is the surprise? The USA is a major power with an extensive intelligence collection capability. And the UN Headquarters is in New York. It would be shocking if it was found that the USA (and many countires) were not spying on the UN and each other at the same time.

The second major ‘revelation’ is that senior leaders from Arab powers have been encouraging the United States to bomb Iran. Again, this will not be a shock to regional observers. Most Arab leaders (Sunni) are frustrated and angry at the rise of Iranian influence (Persian and Shia) and want desperately to see the rise of Iranian power stemmed. In many countries (read Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc) a restive Shia minority exists which may well enjoy the rise of Iranian power. By a trick of nature (or perhaps Allah has a sense of humour) most of the oil in the predominantly Sunni country of Saudi Arabia rests under the region where the Shia reside.

The primary fallout from the WikiLeaks will be embarrassment. Diplomatic gossip about the personal views of various state leaders will not look good on the front pages of newspapers around the world. However, finding and reporting this sort of information has been the stock-in-trade function of modern diplomacy at least since it was founded in the age of the Venetian States and probably well before that. Despite denials to the contrary, one exact role of diplomats is to find and report information on the opposition and on allies. In circles that are less polite than those of the diplomats, this is known as spying.

Nothing new here. Move along.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

Roger Clement, a 58 year old former employee of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has pleaded guilty to firebombing the RBC branch in Ottawa last May. This is good news in one sense, in that Ottawa Police Service and their partners must have compiled sufficient evidence to convince even well known defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon that a trial would not be of benefit for his client.

It is unfortunate, in another sense, that there will not be a trial in which the public would have seen evidence as to what was really behind the attack on the bank. Was it merely a matter of property damage? Or was there some connection to the dozen other attacks against the RBC across Canada as well as the firebombing of Banque Nationale ATMs in Montreal?

It appears certain that Mr Clement did not carry out the other bombings. It is curious to note however that language used in the firebombing video posted on the Ottawa Indymedia Website is similar to that made in other claims of responsibility across Canada. These claims were made in support of some 20 other relatively minor attacks across Canada, including a dozen made against banks.

Was this firebombing an event that occurred in isolation? Or is it part of a larger problem? Was it really connected to environmental activity and native rights as was claimed in the video? It appears that the public at large will not get the answers to these questions, at least not at this time.

Justice is best served by an open justice system. Open trials in court are a good thing, even if that did not occur in this particular case.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

The various groups of insurgents and terrorists loosely known as ‘Al Qaeda in Yemen’ or ‘Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’ have now tried to launch three international attacks, but all three have failed. In a high profile event, the ‘under wear bomber’ (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) failed to detonate his bomb on 22 December 2009 on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Previously, Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri had tried to kill a Saudi Prince in August of 2009, but he succeeded only in killing himself.

Now, the group has failed again with an attempt to send bombs disguised as printer cartridges through air cargo services. The final targets of the bomb remain somewhat unclear. The bombs (apparently) travelled on a series of aircraft and may have been intended either to destroy a cargo aircraft or (alternatively) may have targeted one or more Jewish institutions.

Although this terrorist group now has a 100% failure rate on its attempted international attacks, various authorities in the international community are (over) reacting out of a sense of fear or the need to be seen to be ‘doing something.’ The same behaviour was seen after the 2006 ‘liquids plot’ when a group of terrorists in the UK were planning a bomb attack using bottled liquids. Despite the plot being a miserable failure, passengers around the world are still having their toothpaste seized by airport screeners. Are we any safer? Or is this just window dressing?

As a result of this latest failure, we will be barraged with a new series of security regulations which will have little or nothing to do with actually increasing security while at the same time, we will see increased costs forced on everyone from airlines to shipping companies and taxpayers. The noise of the barn doors slamming after the horses have escaped is deafening.

Clearly, terrorist groups are winning the overall political battle. Many countries, and especially Western democracies, are still on the defensive almost ten years after 9/11 and more than two thousand years after terrorism and political violence became a normal part of political struggle.

It should be remembered that terrorists only resort to terrorism because they are the weaker party. If they had the influence to obtain the political change they wanted through other means, they would do so. A terrorist is, by definition, the weaker party in a political confrontation.

Ironically, there was a car bomb discovered at the Belfast Airport at approximately the same time. This incident generated almost no media attention outside of Ireland, despite the fact that the Real IRA (and others) have successfully carried out numerous other plots and killed multiple victims in the past. Why is there such limited reporting on a group with a long history of success, yet we are treated to thousand of articles on failures?

This raises interesting questions. Are democracies hardwired for failure when it comes to the struggle against political extremism and terrorism? Can they not react intelligently, even when warning has been provided? Is it the form of government that causes this problem, the type of people who become politicians in a democracy or is the open media the problem? Maybe it is all of the above?

Whatever the answers, the problem is obvious. Politicians, the media and the ‘security and intelligence community’ are the greatest assets of the current group of terrorists. They can be regularly and continuously counted upon to provide the terrorists with exactly what they need – an amplifier for their propaganda. By feeding into the climate of fear, they provide terrorists with success, even when the terrorists themselves fail.

Terrorism can only succeed in a climate of fear, as fear is the only weapon of the weaker party. If a group of three-time losers are capable of setting the media, political and security agenda, then we are in trouble and will remain so for a long period of time until learning occurs.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

The current UN/ISAF mission in Afghanistan has no militarily achievable objectives, it has no credible local political partners, there is no coordinated aid mission and its political objective of ‘democratization’ is an illusion. No ‘success’ in this mission can occur because no one individual or group can realistically define what is required for success to emerge. Statements about winning the war and fostering democracy are little more than political spin.

The Military

By definition, deployed military forces can only accomplish three things. They can take ground. They can defend ground. And they can impose order for short periods of time. Military forces have also performed heroically under stressful conditions such as floods, famines and other disasters. These are not, however, traditional military roles and they succeed only because militaries have pools of decision makers and soldiers who show excellence in their ability to adapt, to presevere, and to overcome obstacles.

The current UN/ISAF mission in Afghanistan has no militarily obtainable objectives now and has not had them since January 2002 when it overthrew the ruling Taliban. Nine years after the military mission started, there are no military objectives which can be defined which would then produce ‘victory’ by using the force of arms. As such, the military forces cannot, by themselves, define or achieve victory.

The Local Partners

If an outside force such as the UN or NATO wants to have influence while having military and political forces deployed in a foreign country, they need a local partner who has credibility with the local population. The simple reality is that the local partners chosen by the UN and NATO are devoid of local (and international) credibility. A series of embarrassing election, political, criminal and economic scandals have repeatedly revealed that the local partners in Afghanistan cannot rise above their own short term and personal ambitions.

The Aid Mission

Developmental progress in Afghanistan is as important as the security mission. Although politically incorrect to say so, it is increasingly apparent that the current style of international aid missions, first started with Biafra, may be doing as much harm as good. Short term aid missions to help those suddenly struck by natural famine or disease may be truly useful and represent the best of the human condition. In Afghanistan however, despite the passage of nine years of time, there is no coordinated aid or development program in Afghanistan. The long term presence of multiple aid missions with divergent aims and interests may be distorting the local economy to the disadvantage of the locals while failing to provide aid to those who need it most. The issue of corruption, always a problem in any aid mission, appears to have become endemic in the Afghan mission.

Democratization and Afghanistan

Democracy may be valid goal in the abstract. However, democracy is not a tool for development. To the contrary, democracy is more likely to be the outcome of development. To have an obviously fraudulent election and then claim that this represents progress is an illusion.

Afghanistan and the Graveyard of Empires

In the past, Afghanistan has been known as ‘the cradle of empires,’ the ‘highway of conquest’ and also as the ‘graveyard of empires.’ Since about 1840, the term graveyard of empires seems more appropriate as a series of British, Russian, Soviet (and other) forces have tried to push their will on the Afghan tribes. The complexity of internal Afghan politics and the rather difficult neighbours (Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China), ensure that any solution in Afghanistan must have a greater appeal to a wide range of powerful political actors. An outside solution proposed by North Americans and Europeans and imposed by force is unlikely to have the answers.

Mission Accomplished?

What exactly was the intent of the mission in Afghanistan when it started in 2001? It seems rather clear that the mission was twofold. The first (and sometimes unstated) mission was to punish al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts for the 9/11 attacks. The second and perhaps more public mission was to destroy al Qaeda’s capabilities to operate in the lawless countryside and prevent further attacks based on those capabilities.

These missions, such as they were, have been accomplished. Al Qaeda has been destroyed in Afghanistan and it has been reduced to begging for money as it has slid into local irrelevance. What is left of al Qaeda as a core group is not in Afghanistan; it is in Pakistan. Without delving into detail, the reality is that a military mission in Afghanistan will not destroy what is left of core al Qaeda and its 80 to 200 followers who are living in Pakistan. The drone missions are more likely to be destabilizing the region and building support for radicals, rather than having the desired opposite effect. The Taliban (however defined) are unlikely to play host to al Qaeda again if they get that chance. Mullah Omar never did like the radical Arab presence and hosted them more out of a sense of obligation and debt rather than seeign it as a sensible foreign policy decision. Given the choice, he will not risk hosting them again.

Pakistan

The road to success in countering radicalism and defeating groups such as al Qaeda and the LeT lies through Pakistan. Until the issues of stability and fear are solved in Pakistan, nothing useful can be accomplished in Afghanistan or the rest of the region. If the rest of the world wants to truly help, then finding a way of resolving the conflict between India and Pakistan is necessary. After that, regional progress may actually be possible.

Declare Victory and Leave

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has been broken and will not be able to recover there. This was the initial mission in 2001, so it is time to declare victory and withdraw combat forces. With no definable military role in sight and no credible local partners emerging, the continued presence of the UN/ISAF mission is not going to lead to ‘victory.’ Concentrate instead on the bigger picture of stability in South Asia (read India and Pakistan) and use this to counter the base of radicalism that is growing daily in the region.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

Dr. Harold Lewis has resigned his position as a Fellow of the American Physical Society after having been a member of that learned organization for 67 (sixty-seven) years. The resignation was prompted by his belief that the fears of global warming are false and have been generated for reasons of money, politics and glory rather than science. Dr. Lewis is a former student of Robert Oppenheimer who is widely perceived as the father of the atomic bomb. In short, Dr. Lewis is no intellectual lightweight who can be dismissed as a disgruntled junior scientist. He has been, literally, a pillar in the science community and one of its godfathers.

Dr. Lewis believes that the fears over global warning are false, but they are the logical end-product of a climate industry driven by (literally) trillions of dollars. Writing an opinion piece in the normally staid daily newspaper the Christian Science Monitor, Anthony Watts claims that the resignation letter of Dr. Lewis may cause a scientific revolution in much the same way that Martin Luther’s letter nailed to the door of a church in 1517 caused a religious and political revolution.

Why Should Intelligence Analysts Care?

Dr. Lewis’s resignation should serve as an object lesson for others, including those who are involved in the ‘intelligence industry’ or those who may be (un)wittingly using its analytical products. The intelligence industry has been accused of hyping the threat of al Qaeda and all things terrorist since 9/11. The charge carries considerable weight.

What lies at the heart of Dr.Lewis’ s concerns is that it has been money rather than science that has been driving the global warming industry. He pulls no punches in his resignation letter when he states:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Later in the letter he adds:

It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity.

Perhaps the most damning statement is:

This is not science; other forces are at work.

The intelligence industry that has existed for years, yet grew explosively after 9/11, may wish to draw some cautionary advice. Consumers of intelligence may wish to think about the issue as well.

The intelligence industry can only exist if governments feel that their own intelligence capabilities are overwhelmed by events on the ground. As such, the intelligence industry has a built in incentive to make exaggerated claims about the threat of terrorism in much the same way the global warming industry has reasons for exaggerating claims about the effects of carbon in the atmosphere and the rate of planetary warming. The reasons are profit driven, not fact driven.

All claims, especially those made with absolute certainly, should be regarded with a healthy degree of scepticism. There are few, if any, absolutes and neither hard science nor intelligence analysis can make claims to hold absolute truth.

The greatest indication of doubtful analytical work (scientific or intelligence) is that a position is ‘incontrovertible’ or that a subject of discussion has been ‘settled.’ As anyone who understands either science or intelligence analysis would tell you, few facts are incontrovertible and no question is ever finally settled. The very process of science itself depends directly upon the continuous attacking of a hypothesis and the progression of knowledge can only occur when the attacks are heard out and assessed in a calm manner. For those who doubt, perhaps a reading of the works of Thomas Khun or Carl Popper is in order.

Buyer beware. An industry will produce that which will make a profit. Science, as Dr.Lewis sadly notes has become a profit driven industry and has suffered from it. The intelligence community is also rapidly being industrialized and profit driven and will suffer from this as well.

Among other positions, Dr. Lewis is or has been an Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board and served in US Navy in WW II.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

The nature of protests by social activists (violent and non-violent) has been changing since the “Battle in Seattle” of 1999. One of the key changes occurring is the nature of the targets of the protests.

Traditionally governments, and to a lesser extent, corporations have been the primary targets of social activist protests. This is gradually changing as social activists are changing their own views on government, corporations and the financial sector. For them, government is losing relevance.

In Canada, a recent series of attacks against RBC banks (and others) has served to highlight this issue. In Germany, there have been some 500 cars burned in the last two years. Most of the cars targeted have been high end Porsche, BMW and Mercedes. While some of the activists are believed to be little more than the spoiled children of the rich themselves, the claims of responsibility for the fires clearly highlight that the targets are being hit because the owners are the (presumably rich) beneficiaries of the financial system.

David Korten is an economist and psychologist who is popular with intellectuals in the social justice movement. He rather bluntly explains the situation this way: The world is not, in fact, ruled by global corporations. It is ruled by the global financial system. This view is consistent with that of the Princeton Professor Emeritus Dr. S. Wolin. He also believes that the centres of power have shifted in recent years as he notes in his book Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. He states that: In totalitarian regimes such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. We are in a position where many people now believe the economic sphere (and its personnel) dominates the political sphere at the expense of the democratic process and the well being of the middle class.

Many street level activists, including those prone to acts of violence, are expressing similar views. As one claim of responsibility for burning police cars and ATMs in Montreal in 2008 stated: Let us not forget that the police and banks mutually sustain each other. Government as a whole and politicians did not even get a passing mention. Ironically, another anarchist, observing the riots in Greece, made the observation that rioters should not even attack police as they are simply shock absorbers or punching bags for the state. Rioters, observed writer A.G. Schwarz, should not attack police, but should focus on damage to the state instead, especially banks, even if the individual attacks are relatively minor.

Changing Times

The dramatic economic downturn of 2008 and the weak recovery have brought a greater focus on the effects and influence of the financial sector on political decision making circles. The reasons for the economic crash may be varied, but the focus in social activist circles has fallen on financial systems, especially banks and regulators. The generalized view of social activist protestors is that the financial sector pressured politicians into softening regulations so that the financial sector could increase their profits by removing regulations that had been designed to prevent the very crisis that occurred. As such, they believe that politicians have been subordinated to a lesser role than those who manage large financial institutions.

Changing Targets

In the future, it is probable that the focus of protestors, including those with violent intents, will focus less on targets related to government, such as Parliament buildings or offices. The targets may not even be corporations, but will instead be the visible symbols of the financial sectors such as banks and related institutions.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

Videos and TV advertisements by activists and protest groups are designed to influence their audiences both through direct and indirect messages. This is a normal practice and one that falls clearly within the right of freedom of speech and thought. However, the recent advertising video by the UK based 10:10 ecological movement is a rather clear call for the violent death of those who are doubtful or sceptical about the global warming movement.The video is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g

The title of the video is: No Pressure or There Will Be Blood. The video presents a series of scenes showing small groups of students, office workers and professional soccer players. Each small group is encouraged to take steps to reduce their energy consumption and carbon footprints. While most of the individuals agree to participate in the program, there are a few who express disinterest. The reluctant individuals are then told that it is OK as it is their choice to either participate or not to participate in the energy saving program. However they are then killed by a command detonation system which explodes their bodies and leaves all others in the scene covered in blood and body parts. Most surprisingly, the narrator in each scene simply carries on after the explosions and deaths as though they were not important. There is no attempt to soften the message or suggest that it is using (sick) humour to advance an idea. This video was not done with a nod of the head to the traditional UK sense of offbeat humour.

The not-so-subtle message in the video is that the killing of those who do not agree with the environmentalist message is an acceptable and normal state of affairs. This message of coercion and violence has been appearing repeatedly in a series of situations. The movie Avatar has been portrayed, fairly or unfairly, as being in favour of political violence when the protection of the environment is at stake. Additionally, there have been environmental voices who have spoken out on radical action. Well known activist Dr David Suzuki has stated that political leaders who do not share the environmentalist viewpoint on global warming should be thrown in jail for an “intergenerational crime.”

The danger of killing those who disagree with a given ideology should be self-evident, but the global warming movement has enough of its own fallacies to warrant great caution. John Holdren is the Assistant to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and a Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. While he is currently a strong supporter of the global warming thesis, it should be noted that he started his career as an advocate of the overpopulation thesis, since proved false, and the global cooling thesis, which runs directly contrary to his current position. If an ideological movement such as the overpopulation fanatics of the 1970s had been allowed to kill their opponents at will, many innocents would have died because of a false ideological movement.

Combined with these and other statements, it is becoming clear that an attempt is being made to create a political space whereby violence, including murder, is an acceptable method of pushing a political agenda with respect to the environment. In some ways, this is not new. Terrorism as a means of political action has been a theme of human history for over two thousand years. However, any time a self-appointed group of individuals suggests killing others in the name of their own ideology, we should all be frightened. Who is the next to be targeted because you do not fit into someone else’s view of the world? It could be you.

The underlying problems with the videos are these:

1. No attempt is made in the video to suggest that the violence is in support of a ‘just war’ theory nor is any reference made to argue that non-violent resistance methods such as those of Ghandi could work. In other words, terrorism is OK because a small group of elites believes the cause is just.

2. It is possible that those targeted for killings might turn out to be innocents or those doing the killing could be simply wrong, and therefore unjustified. If killings had occurred in the name of global cooling, overpopulation, the ozone layer, disappearing farmland, or North American deforestation, many people would have died for causes that have proven false. Simply believing that you have “The Answer” to a particular set of political problems is not sufficient to start killing those who disagree.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

“There’s smart secrecy and stupid secrecy, and this whole episode sounds like stupid secrecy.” This is the view of Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative scholar and Senior Fellow from the equally conservative Hudson Institute. He is the author of the recent book “Necessary Secrets - National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law”. Schoenfeld was commenting on the recent events in America where the US Department of Defence is attempting to silence the voice of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (Bronze Star)of the US Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency. His book “Operation Dark Heart,” is having its entire first run bought up and destroyed by US authorities. It is currently available only in a censored version. The book had originally been cleared for publication, but it appears as though political pressure from intelligence agencies resulted in the withdrawal of the publication approval.

In this case, the censors are claiming that the book could reveal national security secrets such as the fact the Fort Meade in Maryland has a nickname: “The Fort.” Apparently, revealing the nickname of this well known signals intelligence installation is a national security threat – even though you can see the installation on Google Earth.

Equally dangerous and censored from the book is that signals intelligence is sometimes known as “SIGINT,” even though the term SIGINT regularly appears in the press, academic articles and government websites, including Canada’s own SIGINT agency, the Communications Security Establishment.(www.tscm.com/cse.html)

Equally amusing is that the mention of the CIA’s training facility at Camp Peary (The Farm) is also censored out of the book, although the training facility has its own Wikipedia entry which explains the purpose and history of the site. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Peary)

In Canada, a similar bit of “stupid secrecy” is being played out in Toronto. A set of non-public hearings, under the auspices of the Ontario provincial Ombudsman, are being held into a law that was passed without public input or notifications by the Ontario legislature. This law amended the Public Works Protection Act which was originally passed during World War II, a time when there were real threats to national security and critical public infrastructure. The amendments were passed by the Ontario Legislature by an Order in Council and were clearly aimed at the G20 meetings that were held in Toronto in June of 2010. The new amendments allowed for the arrest of individuals who either approached within five metres of the G20 security fence (as originally announced) or of those inside the perimeter fence (as later explained). There is a certain absurdity in having closed hearings to investigate how a law was passed without the pubic being aware of it.

Confused Between Secrecy and Security

As Bruce Schneier, Chief Security Technology Officer of British Telecom put it: Considerable confusion exists between the different concepts of secrecy and security, which often causes bad security and surprising political arguments. Secrecy usually contributes only to a false sense of security. He further expands on this by saying: The argument that secrecy is good for security is naive, and always worth rebutting. Secrecy is beneficial to security only in limited circumstances, and certainly not with respect to vulnerability or reliability information. Secrets are fragile; once they’re lost, they’re lost forever. Security that relies on secrecy is also fragile; once secrecy is lost there’s no way to recover security. Trying to base security on secrecy is simply bad design. A fallacy of the secrecy argument is the assumption that secrecy works. Do we really think that physical weak points of networks are a mystery to bad guys unable to discover vulnerabilities?

Secrecy has a valid place in intelligence agencies and in government in general, even in democracies. It can be a valid concept when an agency has to protect a source or agent or to protect an ongoing operation. Secrecy is, however, the enemy of knowledge. An overuse of classification means that knowledge and information has a difficult time crossing the artificially created boundaries of secrecy. With knowledge being the only real weapon against an asymmetric threat, such as terrorism, large secrecy-driven bureaucracies are making the problem of security more difficult. With too much secrecy, the intelligence world becomes an insular place where analysts will only talk to people who confirm what they already (mistakenly) may know.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.