Charles Allen, the senior intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security, has recently decried using the term “War on Terror” saying that it creates “animus” in Islamic countries.

According to Financial Times: 

“[It] has nothing to do with political correctness,” Mr Allen said in an interview. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this.”

Allen is a CIA veteran who has spent most of his 50 year career fighting terrorism.

Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, disagrees that the term, coined by President Bush in the wake of the September 11 terrorism attacks, is suggestive of a war on Islam.

Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, on the other hand, agrees with Allen calling the phrase “dumbest term…you could use”. He has urged the Bush Administration, especially Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, not to use the expression.

Financial Times also points out that military personnel often use the same vocabulary as the President:

While the military in general tends to echo the langauge of the president, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs who recently met with moderate Muslim leaders to hear their concerns, tries to ensure his language does not create the perception of a war against Islam, Captain John Kirby, his spokesman, said.

“The chairman is aware of the concerns voiced by many in the Muslim community about the phrase ‘war on terror’,” Captain Kirby said.

“He is committed – when speaking of it – to focusing his language and efforts on the violent extremists we are fighting. This is not a war on Islam. It’s a war against lethal enemies who are using a warped view of that faith to justify killing innocent civilians.”

While the Admiral might be using the term in a way that he feels is “focusing… on the violent extremists we are fighting” individuals in the Muslim community might not feel the same way. The terms “War on Terror”, “Islamic Terrorists”, and “Islamo-Fascists” tend to bear negative connotations for Islamic people by equating the religion itself with terrorism.

shout it 

On a recent trip to Iowa, Rudy Giuliani was asked about HIV funding.  He responded with fascinating verbal ju jitsu bringing his answer around to a solid dose of homeland security with allusions to 9/11:

“My general experience has been that the federal government works best when it helps and assists and encourages and sets guidelines… on a state-by-state, locality-by-locality basis. It’s no different from the way I look at homeland security.  Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse.”

I guess he really can bring any question back to 9/11.  I just don’t understand how people buy into this tripe.  The man was mayor of a city that experienced the worst terrorist attack on US soil and that somehow makes him a expert on the subject?  This is the same guy who will not aknowledge blowback as a possible cause for our problems with the Middle East. 

While it may be old news that the FBI has been sending out its so-called “National Security Letters” to private businesses with the goal of coercing them into revealing personal information about their clients or employees, most people are probably not aware that the FBI was not being entirely truthful in these letters.  Where are the “check and balances”?

Many of the letters were written with the following language:

Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone numbers be provided.  Subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office who will process and serve them formally.

The letters promised that the proper papers were filed with the U.S. Attorneys office.  In many cases, however, this was an utter fabrication.  It seems as though these bureaucrats think they can alter reality.  They think therefore it is.  

Thanks to the Electronic Freedom Foundation, the FBI was caught in this blatant abuse of the Patriot Act — a law which already gives too much authority to the government.  I use the word ‘give’ very loosely of course, considering that words on a piece of paper do not have the ability to give anyone anything.  At most, the law allows the government — who created the law – to obtain an aura of legitimacy regarding its otherwise obscene actions.

All of the letters seem to be coming from the Communications Analysis Unit which appears to be stationed in room 4944 of the FBI Headquarters.  The only name on any of the letters is Larry Mefford.

Mefford is the former Executive Assistant Director, in charge of the Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Division of the FBI.  He was in charge of preventing domestic terrorism. 

It makes you wonder what type of “special project” this information – in many cases multiple pages worth of domestic telephone records — was needed for.  Why did the FBI need to reach around the Patriot Act in order to obtain these names?  Could it be because there was no evidence to excuse such a blatant disregard for privacy rights?

I will leave you with a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Remember it well, he was a smart man.

shout it