Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Taliban, Insurgents, Somalia Warlords: Do they do a better job than the American Government?

There should be no surprise why the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, and fighters in Somalia have support: They are marginally more competent than the reckless buffoons in the US government, law enforcement, and US intelligence community.

* * *

America's problem is despite the catalyst of Sept 2001, it still hasn't mobilized.

Nor has the nation's psyche changed: The same non-sense excuses prior to Sept 2001 continue.

As before Sept 2001, the US government is more interested in silencing the messenger than in addressing real concerns.

* * *

The American government and public institutions continue their non-sense. Despite calling for more information about suspicious behavior, the US government and other public institutions are more interested in maintaining the illusions of oversight and competence, than delivering.

Part of what emboldens the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, and Somali war lords is their ability to demonstrate marginally better competence than the US government.

Afghanistan was the only target country after Sept 2001. Iraq was not on the radar. There is no excuse for the US government and NATO to have recklessly bungled the post-invasion stabilization efforts required in Afghanistan.

The US government, as with Katrina, fell down on the job. The Taliban have filled the power vacuum.

* * *

Of concern are US law enforcement practices of labeling reports of "suspicious behavior" as something other than what they are: Reports of problems which need investigation.

As before Sept 2001, law enforcement is interested in making excuses for its inaction, rather than seriously reviewing the suspicious behavior.

It's hard for the American government to credibly assert they are concerned about real threats when they go out of their way to [a] inspire people to step forward; [b] abuse those who do exactly what is requested; and [c] shift attention from the reasonable concerns to whether someone has or has not appropriately complied with new excuses law enforcement has created.

* * *

The same incompetent, recklessness, and stupidity in all levels of US government operations that contributed to the Sept 2001 "non-response" continue. The issue isn't whether there is or is not a wall, but whether the real consequences needed after Sept 2001 will or will not be imposed:

___ More oversight and training for law enforcement who are unable, unwilling, or not interested in reviewing the full record

___ Law enforcement inconsistent statements on whether they did or did not know something

___ Adequacy of oversight for law enforcement when they are specifically coordinated with on plans to conduct intelligence operations

___ Whether ground units are or are not in a position to fully implement, enforce, and support higher management policies;

___ Extent to which specialized units, receiving targeted training, are or are not able to fully apply their training without management supervision;

___ Whether intelligence gathering is sidelined by law enforcement to make excuses not to take action; arguing, "It's not a crime" as a basis for law enforcement to justify their refusal to review the intelligence information;

___ Degree to which confidential informants identifies are compromised, permitting suspects to retaliate against those most able to provide reliable information;

___ Extent to which law enforcement recklessness, misconduct, and incompetence is inspiring law enforcement to craft new excuses to avoid oversight, accountability, and consequences;

___ Extent to which intelligence gathering operations are adequately managed, or whether personnel target informants from raising issues warranting senior management concern: Incompetence, violation of policies, refusal to review records, abusing cooperative citizens

___ Extent to which law enforcement targets cooperative citizens: individual choices are incorrectly labeled as indicators of disorders, while law enforcement and intelligence personnel rebuff reasonable concerns, and target private citizens because they dare to disclose evidence of law enforcement and intelligence personnel incompetence

___ Extent to which law enforcement provides implausible excuses to justify inaction

___ Extent to which intelligence and law enforcement personnel make fatal defenses: Arguing that their statements were uncertain, yet their actions are specific, abusive, and clear. [Why are they taking specific actions, but claiming their accusations were not emphatic, but conditional? It makes no sense for them to argue they have a vague mental state, but law enforcement is taking specific actions. Do the key stone cops want us to believe despite their uncertainty; they didn't ask questions, jumped to conclusions and took specific actions?]

* * *

It's curious to hear the US government claim in their propaganda how "great" America is, but the results are abysmal.

There is no reason private citizens should have to know work place policies, standards of conduct, and the rules of evidence better than so called experts in the fiduciary community.

American citizens are asked to pay taxes to a system that fails. America's leadership needs to wake up: We are not required to support a system that provides us this recklessness; nor can we be compelled to be silent about this abuse.

This is what I would prefer:

1. Procedural Review

Law enforcement and intelligence officials spend less time abusing the public, and more time reviewing their files and evidence;

2. Management Responsiveness

Supervisors stop, as a defense, making apologies for law enforcement abuse; fix the problem. It's a fatal admission when supervisors say, "Oh, were they being confrontational again?" This fatally admits the supervisors knew of a problem with conduct, but haven't managed it.

3. Public Does Not Have A Responsibility To Coordinate Intelligence Operations

When law enforcement agrees or understands what is going to happen on an intelligence operation, the personnel assigned to subsequent steps are fully briefed. It is not the role of the private citizen to coordinate management in JTTF to ensure all the players on the same sheet of music. At worst, the bungled operation will compromise the identify of confidential informants. They are less likely to step forward and provide assistance.

Private citizens do not have an oath or duty to do something which law enforcement refuses to do: Comply with procedures, take responsibility, and solve situations; not make them worse with bungling.

4. Cooperation Is Not Criminal

Stop using the public's freely-taken decision to cooperate as evidence that they are up to no good. Put that focus on the people who are engaged in the suspicious behavior.

If officers are going to claim -- as an excuse not to have taken reports -- that the activity was or was not a crime; do not reserve yourselves and assert that lawful activity by your informants is something that does warrant scrutiny, challenge, or attack.

Put this focus on those who are engaged in the suspicious behavior. You bring discredit upon yourselves when you misdirect your attention, and not focus your energies on the suspicious behavior.

5. Notice the Diversions

Consider when your targets are or are not attempting to divert your attention from behavior, statements, or other evidence. They have a reason for ending suspicious behavior, and pretending the concern was something other than what they recognize has been observed.

6. Defensiveness of Caseworkers Not Impressive

Stop making excuses, interruptions, and just listen. If you're going to spend your time making adverse inferences about your informants, then you're spending time judging those who have freely taken on identifies, roles, and behaviors to fit into the environment. You should not be judging the credibility of your witnesses and informants on the basis of their perceived choices, but what you are really getting from them: Is the information reliable or not. The behavior choices are part of their cover, and should never be used as "proof" that your most loyal have problems more serious than those you are supposedly fighting.

7. Stop Retaliating For Private Decisions

Stop telling cooperative citizens to do or not do something, but then use their subsequent choice -- regardless what it is -- as "proof" that they are up to not good. Citizens will learn: It is safer and more productive to not bother ever interacting with the US government, intelligence officials, or US law enforcement. It is not worth the hassle: US government personnel are incompetent, stupid, not all that bright, and more likely to bungle an operation than get it right.