With China's help Arizona law can work

Journalist James Fallows has an interesting suggestion about how Arizona can effectively implement its new immigration law, citing his experience in China:

I typically did not see Chinese police asking for papers on a whim. Usually something had to happen first. Maybe soon the Chinese State Security apparatus can travel to Arizona and give lectures to local police and sheriffs. They can explain how to avoid going crazy with a new power that so invites abuse. "Civil Liberties: Learning from China" can be the name of the course.

China faces similar threats to the US, including illegal immigration and terrorism.  DOF agrees that we can learn a lot from our Chinese law enforcement counterparts.  

Accordingly, the agency has invited Prof. Xu Wei of Beijing University to give a lecture.  Prof. Wei will speak about how China has countered the threats posed by illegal immigrants along the China-North Korea border.   The event, co-sponsored by the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, will be held on Tuesday May 11 at 20:00 hrs in the main auditorium of the DOF Center, Joseph R. McCarthy Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington D.C.   It is open to the documented public.

Illegal immigration supporters' protest turns violent

From a Fox News report headlined, "Violent Scenes From Immigration Rallies":

The fight over Senate Bill 1070 took to the streets of downtown Phoenix, as riot Police were called to the Capitol to control an unruly group of protesters.
 
Witnesses say a group protesting against SB1070 began to fight with a man who was for the controversial immigration bill.
 
Police tried escorting that man away from the scene, fearing for his safety, when they too came under attack by people throwing items, including water bottles.

A young man was arrested during that melee.

Things calmed down moments later, but riot Police remained at the capital to maintain some sort of order.

Not only are illegal immigrants to be feared, so are those who support them.

Illegal immigrants and the Mexican threat to National Security

Here's a quote from a 2006 USAWC Project study entitled, "Illegal Immigration: Is it a threat to National Security?":

Illegal immigration is a concern that poses a serious threat to national security. In the broadest sense, it sends a dangerous message that to the U.S. Government: its laws do not matter, it is incapable of enforcing its borders, and it cannot protect its citizens. Illegal immigration has been shown to provide cover for terrorist opportunities, spur growth in crime, and strain social resources. Although illegal immigrants come from numerous origins, the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico. Illegal immigration from Mexico has several root causes stemming from Mexican criminal elements exploiting flaws in U.S. immigration law enforcement, Mexican economic depression, Mexico’s disregard for U.S. rule-of-law, and Mexican society along with the Mexican government waging a comprehensive information campaign against the U.S.

Fear Mexico.

Mike McConnell on private-public intelligence partnerships

Op-Ed published by The Washington Post and authored by Mike McConnell:

The United States must also translate our intent into capabilities. We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options -- and we must be able to do this in milliseconds.  More specifically, we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment -- who did it, from where, why and what was the result -- more manageable....

To this end, we must hammer out a consensus on how to best harness the capabilities of the National Security Agency, which I had the privilege to lead from 1992 to 1996.   The NSA is the only agency in the United States with the legal authority, oversight and budget dedicated to breaking the codes and understanding the capabilities and intentions of potential enemies. The challenge is to shape an effective partnership with the private sector so information can move quickly back and forth from public to private -- and classified to unclassified -- to protect the nation's critical infrastructure.

We must give key private-sector leaders (from the transportation, utility and financial arenas) access to information on emerging threats so they can take countermeasures. For this to work, the private sector needs to be able to share network information -- on a controlled basis -- without inviting lawsuits from shareholders and others. . . .

DOF believes Americans have every reason to support this kind of initiative.

The whole world is the battlefield

Sen. Lindsey Graham, hearings of April 14:

I totally agree that if you’re going to charge someone under domestic criminal law you should read them their rights, I would just urge my colleagues to understand that when you’re fighting a war, and you capture people on the battlefield, and the whole world is the battlefield in my view, the primary goal is to find out what they know about enemy operations, get them off the battlefield, then reserve prosecution decisions later, so I hope we do not criminalize the war and we will remain flexible, pragmatic and aggressive.

You cannot escape the battlefield.  It is everywhere.

Keeping you safe in a dangerous world

The Economist observes, "...most of the top 20 are made up of American firms that specialise in selling arms or have a defence division. America's huge defence budget—it should reach some $700 billion in 2010—provides an inviting target for the country's home-grown defence industry."

The continued viability of our major arms suppliers is all that stands between your family and a dangerous world.  Write your Congressman, share your fears, and ask him to support our military.   

Changes to USNCTC communications guide reflect longstanding DOF policy

We've received numerous citizen inquiries about how the new Obama terrorism communications policy will impact DOF.  For the most part, recent changes to the WWWGCTC of the USNCTC reflect longstanding DOF policy.  For the benefit of the public, following are excerpts from a staff-edited summary of the new policy, with comments dictated by DOF Directorate Secretary Malcom P. Stag III:

An 2008, the US National Counter-Terrorism Centre produced a document, called “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication,” which encouraged government agencies and officials to avoid characterizing Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as “Islamic” or “Muslim,” as that could “unintentionally legitimise” their tactics.

Sec. Stag: With few exceptions, DOF has followed this new policy since its inception in 2004.   We have been critical of other agencies that have not adopted what some deride as "political correctness" on our part.

The document that the Obama administration is consulting for drafting the new strategy — “A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication” — urges US officials to “avoid labelling everything ‘Muslim.’ It reinforces the ‘US vs. Islam’ framework that Al Qaeda promotes.” It reminds US officials that “a large percentage of the world’s population subscribes to this religion” and “unintentionally alienating them is not a judicious move.”

Sec. Stag: DOF seldom uses the label "Muslim." Instead, the Department talks mainly about "danger," "terrorism," and we emphasize "risk."

Urging officials not to use the word Islam in conjunction with terrorism, the guide notes that, “Although the Al Qaeda network exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions, we should treat it as an illegitimate political organisation, both terrorist and criminal.”

Sec. Stag: This part of the guide needs some more work.  We are talking about an illegitimate political organization "with an army". They forgot to mention that part.  They may be criminal, but we do not want the public to think of Al Qaeda fighters as mere common criminals or community organizers.  We must portray them as soldiers of a powerful -- and yes, illegitimate -- organization.   

Instead of calling terror groups Muslim or Islamic, the guide suggests using words like totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist — “widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”

Sec. Stag: Totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist -- all good words.

By employing the language the extremists use about themselves, the guide warns, officials can inadvertently help legitimise them in the eyes of Muslims.

“Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahideen’ … to describe the terrorists,” instructs the guide. “A mujahid, a holy warrior, is a positive characterisation in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies Jihadis and their movement a global Jihad unintentionally legitimises their actions.”

Sec. Stag: Approved. "Terrorist" sounds just as scary.

The guide also bans the use of the word caliphate to describe Al Qaeda’s goal. The term “has positive connotations for Muslims,” says the guide, adding, “The best description of what (Al Qaeda) really want to create is a ‘global totalitarian state.’”

Sec. Stag: The phrase "Beware the Caliphate" has dependably scared English-speaking peoples for almost a century.  On this account, it would seem a shame to abandon a phrase that has proven track record.  But over the past decade, with the American public ever more ignorant, fewer citizens have a clue what a Caliphate is, let alone why they should  fear one.  As per our moto [ed. note: timendi causa est nescire,  "ignorance causes  fear"] this trend is indicative that our overall approach is succeeding.  Approved.

A longer document — “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims” — says officials should use “terms such as ‘death cult,’ ‘cult-like,’ ‘sectarian cult,’ and ‘violent cultists’ to describe the ideology and methodology of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.” It recommends eschewing the terms Islamist or Islamism — the advocacy of a political system based on Islam – while referring to terrorist groups.

Sec. Stag: DOF approves.  Americans hear the term "death cult" and they think "suicide cult."  Nobody is afraid of a suicide cult.  And only the freaks are lining up to join one. Most recently, we had the Branch Dividians in Texas who blew themselves up.  Christians!  These organizations pose a danger mostly to themselves.  How  many Americans have heard of the Om cult in Japan that gassed a subway?  If it didn't happen in America, Americans don't remember or care.  Americans don't fear cults.  It's a wise move to discard all these terms.

The document urges officials to consider describing Al Qaeda’s ideology as “Takfirism” — the practice of declaring Muslims who disagree with extremism apostates who can be killed.

Sec. Stag: They've got to be kidding.  DOF won't be using that term.

Editor's summary
DOF gives the new communications guide its qualified approval -- pending submission of the above noted revisions.  Essentially, the federal government will retain ample linguistic latitude to frighten Americans, it's just that officials will no longer be quite so culturally insensitive in their choice of words.  From the perspective of DOF, that's always been the essence of good communications policy. 

MPS/tbc

Jane Harman on Anwar al-Awlaki

CSM:

Rep. Jane Harman (D) of California, who chairs the homeland security subcommittee on intelligence, calls Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”

Obama is determined to assassinate this American citizen.    But until we get him, Jane Harman's statement affirms that Americans have all the more reason to be afraid.

President Obama orders execution of Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki may be an American, but he's also a radical Muslim cleric. By targeting al-Awlaki for assassination, the president reminds Americans of a growing danger, thus helping to persuade Americans that they have reason to be afraid.

Take good hard look at the adjacent photo of the notorious al-Awlaki that DOF staff located on the Google.  Notice the figure waving a jihadi flag in the background.

Sen. Feinstein talks of danger, spreads fear

Senator Dianne Feinstein's letter to President Obama hits all the right notes:

... the terrorist threat to the United States remains high. Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat.

....Our adversaries are capable and adaptive, however, and I believe holding this trial in Manhattan makes their interest in a terrorist attack even stronger. . . . 

. . . .In my view, trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City presents an avoidable danger, very large costs, and undue burdens on the city. . . .

It's a dangerous world.  Why bring any more of that danger into New York City?   We commend Feinstein for having the courage to share her fears with the American people.

Al-Qaida WMD threat calls for more defense spending

Greenwald, towards  the end of an otherwise pedantic blog post about budgetary matters,  describes how America ought to respond to the breaking MSNBC* report pictured at right. Greenwald:

But we should all try to remain a little calm, at least.  I'm sure if we just buy some more fighter jets, create some better underground bombs, invade a few more Muslim countries, keep more Muslims Islamic terrorists [sic] imprisoned forever with no charges, give the Pentagon, the CIA and their private contractors a lot more unaccounted-for cash and stay out of their way, expand our domestic spying networks even further through private sector telecom contracts, pour tens of billions of dollars more into the coffers of our Middle East client states, and kill a few more civilians terrorists [sic] with drones, this problem will be handled.  It's just a matter of making sure we bulk up our military budget -- and Look Forward, not Backward to what was done in the past -- and we'll be able to Stay Safe from this Terrorist-WMD menace.

[USDOF legal council have edited some lines due to concerns about political correctness - ed]

Greenwald, who typically blogs about superfluous pre-war constitutional matters, actually makes some valid points here.  As Greenwald explains, various military and security initiatives can go along way towards keeping American corporations secure in our dangerous world.  These measures require spending significantly more on defense.   Elsewhere in the post, Greenwald notes that less than half the federal budget goes towards defense.  Well, where is all the rest of the money going?  What could be more important than national security?  

Greenwald anticipates that increasing defense spending would have a calming effect on the population.  USDOF understands this risk, and -- cognizant of the need to counter it -- is planning new campaigns.
__________

*Regrettably, USDOF media analysts missed the MSNBC story as our televisions are usually tuned to FOX News, but we are committed to partnering with MSNBC parent company GE.

Best news article of 2009

USDOF took a vote. Hands down, the Department staff think the best news article of 2009 was "A Dangerous World" published by the Heritage Foundation.   Our favorite quotes:

"The world remains dangerous."

"Congress should keep these vast and varied threats in mind as it debates the Pentagon's budget. . . ."

USDOF welcomes Surpeme Court decision on campaign finance

Corporations -- particularly defense contractors -- have a role to play in keeping the public informed about policies critical to our security.

Thanks to yesterday's US Supreme Court decision, corporations will be better positioned to help voters become fully informed about our dangerous world before they cast their votes.   Debacles like the Congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 -- when fear took a backseat to naive hope --  are never likely to happen again.

As DoF Director Stag told Fox News this morning, "This decision represents a major positive step. A revolution, really."

Vice President Dick Cheney to Obama: "We are at War"

On Christmas Day, Obama received a serious wake up call from the terrorists.    POLITICO transcribed the Vice-President's remarks as follows:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.

DOF advisory: red

Analysts have advised the DOF Directorate of Information (DOFDI) that a code "orange" terror alert is unlikely to produce the intended effect of bringing more security-minded voters to exercise discretion at the polls on 4 November 2008.

Accordingly, DOF has advised DHS to raise the Homeland Security Terror Alert Level Status to "red" within the next seven days. Furthermore, it is strongly advised that this action be taken in coordination with other branches of government; including the White House, the Pentagon, Fox News and other major networks.

DOF requests raised security threat level

DOF has issued an urgent request to DHS to raise the The National Security Threat Level from "yellow" to "orange" in advance of the November 4 election. APA certified psychologist Dr. Vince Mince reports that unless the threat level is raised to "orange" within the next two weeks, "fear insufficiency" may deter many security-minded voters from going to the polls. Mince writes:

In such an event, a relatively reckless, youthful cohort of voters is likely to comprise a large proportion of the electorate.

Five great years

DOF staff want to congratulate our friends at Homeland Security -- particularly Mike and the rest of the leadership team -- for making history these past five years.

How effective has Homeland Security been? Well, ask yourselves this question: Since 2003 -- when the Department of Homeland Security was founded -- have Americans become less fearful of the world or more fearful? We at DOF firmly believe the latter. Today most Americans have a robust and healthy fear of the unknown.

Given recent events, that is quite an accomplishment. To think that nothing -- not the destruction of New Orleans, not the prospect of Iraq turning into a failed state, nor even the collapse of the US financial system -- has overtaken "the unknown" as Americans' greatest fear. Against the odds, Homeland Security has successfully nurtured fear of the unknown in the hearts and minds of the American People.

While Congress squabbles, Americans know that Homeland Security will be there to protect America's major corporations from the really serious dangers: the threats that have yet to strike us.

We at DOF are proud partners of Mike and the entire team at HS.

Red Dawn remake in the works

We all remember the day Georgia attacked Russian-allied South Ossetia. Our country's support for Georgia's courageous leader gave him and his fellow Georgians the courage to take on the Russians.

Some will say the following is just a coincidence. Don't believe them.

Three weeks before the war, Hollywood had agreed to do a remake of Red Dawn. Red Dawn, of course, is the celebrated 1984 film that described the invasion of the United States by the Russians. On July 9, 2008 this story ran in the Hollywood Reporter:

"The tone is going to be very intense, very much keeping in mind the post-9/11 world that we're in," says Ellsworth, who was 11 when the original was released. "As 'Red Dawn' scared the heck out of people in 1984, we feel that the world is kind of already filled with a lot of paranoia and unease, so why not scare the hell out of people again?"

DOF wishes Mr. Ellsworth success towards achieving his goal for the film.

Movie plots need to be taken more seriously

A citizen named Jennifer writes:

Today, a security analyst wrote in the Guardian: "We need to defend against the broad threat of terrorism, not against specific movie plots." As someone who thinks a lot about movie plots, I was wondering: what is the position of DOF?

Bob Smith, Deputy-Directory of Public Relations at DOF replies:

Jennifer, DOF recommends that Americans get their information from US-based networks and cable news channels, i.e. Fox. Foreign media sources can be unreliable. Concerning the opinion piece in the Guardian, DOF experts point to common sense. We all know that it is the scariest movies that feel the most real and give us our worst nightmares. Such fears are real to the American people, and we at DOF along with partner agencies, and the President are doing everything we can to defeat those who could cause our worst fears to be realized.

In the meantime, be afraid Jennifer. It is a dangerous world.

Current threat level

Today's DHS advisory:

September 3, 2008 — The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow.

There is no credible, specific intelligence suggesting an imminent threat to the homeland at this time. Still, we are closely assessing potential threats and response planning leading into and following the electoral process in 2008 to 2009.

To be on the safe side, stay afraid.