WIKI LEAKS - a classic case of Cognitive Dissonance

Julian Assange, the self-anointed “star” of the Wiki Leaks saga, has declared, among other things, that his release of State Department cables will forever change the global landscape of geopolitics. Mr. Assange, the quintessential narcissist, has credited himself far too much. His self-indulgent and self-serving opinion of himself is consistent with those who rationalize their acts in spite of their criminal and unethical basis. I’ve talked to hundreds of these personalities through the bars of prison lock-ups throughout the world. In Mr. Assange’s case, his rationalized and self-righteous behavior has put U.S. soldiers in harm’s way, short-circuited diplomacy, damaged life-long careers, and dampened intelligence sharing.
What will be released in the coming days and the ensuing consequences remains to be seen. Rumor has it that the next wave of “leaks” will involve the Russians and will provide documentary evidence of repression and human rights violations under the current and former Russian regimes. If that is the case, Mr. Assange may want to navigate carefully. The risk of civil and criminal charges may not faze Mr. Assange with his legion of leftist financial and moral supporters but those who criticize the Russian bear have been known to mysteriously turn up dead.
Mr. Assange views himself a global “game-changer”, but let’s take a macro-look at his releases. The first two releases consisted of battlefield reports from Afghanistan and Iraq. Although the leaks did provide some interesting details, but for those who have paid attention, it didn’t reveal any information beyond what has already been known or published. Similarly, in the “cable gate” release of State Department cables, nothing of a Secret or Top Secret level was released. Nonetheless, compromises were realized in that secret matters or operations were often mentioned or alluded to in those cables. However, the bulk of the media reporting and talk around the world focused on the chatter amongst diplomats citing personal opinions based on observations of foreign leaders personal habits, weaknesses or proclivities. All of which, undoubtedly, caused some “red faces” in Embassy communities, a few mea culpa’s and unquestionably more than a few unexpected but necessary transfers to other posts, but it won’t change the geo-political landscape. It was revealed, for example, that Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi is buddies with the Russians and likes to party with blonde 23 year olds. Well, the Italian press has been reporting this and memorializing his dalliances for years.
How did this happen and how did Mr. Assange come into possession of sensitive government documents through Army Pfc. Bradley Manning and other surrogates, yet to be identified, is the salient issue. It goes back in part to that fateful event that changed the course of Western civilization in modern times, 9/11. In the wake of fear, the unknown and the protracted attempts to understand why and how this happened to us, one common denominator surfaced from the ashes of the hearings, analyses and 9/11 Commission findings: government agencies and the intelligence community had failed to properly share critical information and thus, did not “connect the dots”. The resulting mantra mandated that agencies had to break down those walls, cease the compartmentalization and “stove piping” of vast amounts of information and intelligence and open up the Intel flow between all agencies directly or indirectly involved in the “fight against terrorism”. Intel professionals heard the cry and, to a certain extent, understood the need for increased sharing but those in the business also recognized the inherent dangers of sensitive, lives-in- the-balance-dependent information getting into the wrong hands. There is a natural tension regarding sensitive information sharing and security and, as is evidenced in the Wiki Leaks matter, some folks and agencies that end up in the information loop, probably don’t need to be or, at a minimum, are not properly protecting it. Consider this, does a lower level enlisted analyst like Pfc. Bradley Manning sitting in a backwater base in Afghanistan really have a need to have access to State Department diplomatic maneuvers along with everything else that he is alleged to have downloaded?
Assange and his liberal supporters, like Michael Moore and other anti-government “intellectuals”, want it both ways. Openness and transparency are paramount virtues in their world and believed to expose the "sins" of government throughout the world. Secrecy is a “bad word” in their world. The naiveté of this premise is beyond all logic. The reality is that all societies and civilizations have survived and protected themselves by collecting intelligence and knowing who, what, when, where and how “bad guys” were out to hurt them. From the tribes of Babylon, through the empires of the Inca, to the Patriots of the American Revolution, collecting intelligence against those who may do you harm has clearly established this business as the world’s “oldest profession”. And secrecy is an integral part of that process. If we as a nation and as a society cannot effectively maintain secrets we will be seriously handicapped. How will military collectors ever get anyone behind enemy lines to cooperate with us; how will CIA officers develop assets within terrorist cells overseas that are targeting American citizens if they can’t be assured that their identity and information is protected? How will FBI agents get confidential informants to provide key information against global organized crime groups victimizing U.S. businesses or terror cells inside the United States targeting transportation targets and Christmas lighting ceremonies if secrecy and their confidentiality are not preserved? Beyond government and the maintenance of public safety, national security and the preservation of peace, how could a business or a university or a church operate without secrecy and confidentiality?
Assange asserts the Wiki Leaks project is his affirmation that he is an opponent of the war and a supporter of peace. Clearly, the case of the war and its strategies has and will be debated for generations to come, but Assange’s simplistic position contradicts the larger issue. Diplomacy and the ability of governments to conduct successful international relations is a precursor to avoiding global conflict and maintaining peace in the world. Why would Assange want to undermine and damage the State Department, our global arm of diplomacy, the beacon for peace and justice to all western democracies of the world, and negate that critical element in the maintenance of peace between governments?
It is clear though that Assange speaks out of both sides of his mouth and believes that the concept of “no secrets” applies to everyone else but him and his organization. He is committed to transparency and exposing the truth as long as it serves his purpose and herein lays the contradiction of his hypocrisy. Julian Assange is taking every step possible to protect his sources, funding, contacts, surrogates and his full repertoire of secrets. He has even made the oblique threat that if he is “harmed”, massive files will be released while implying that if not, they will not be revealed.
The other lingering issue is can Assange be arrested and prosecuted in the United States for his leaks of classified material. Inasmuch as he is not an American citizen, he cannot be charged with treason, but he could be charged with espionage. The key issue regarding prosecution, the details of which will be secured through the ongoing investigation by FBI and Army investigators, is did Pfc. Manning act alone or were Assange and other confederates complicit in the securing of the sensitive documents from government computers. Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the Pentagon papers to a New York Times reporter, is the precedent case and has established the standard which the courts have followed in these cases. It is a crime for someone with a security clearance to secure and provide classified documents to a publisher, but, although it may be unethical, it is not a crime for a publisher to publish them. If the investigation reveals, and prosecutors can prove that Assange encouraged or was complicit with Pfc. Manning or others, Assange could be charged.
In conclusion, a number of issues remain unclear at this time including the ultimate cause, effect and outcome of the Wiki Leaks release and the man at the epicenter of this matter, Julian Assange. Nonetheless, a few fundamental issues are already clear: national security, diplomacy and, ultimately, peace is dependent on secrecy; who obtains, handles and has access to classified materials will be reviewed and hardened and, finally, without a doubt, Julian Assange and his revelations have not changed the landscape of geopolitics.
Beyond the sexual assault allegations and other potential civil and criminal issues confronting him, Julian Assange, a man with a huge ego and driven by his own narcissism, faces a future of uncertainty. Ultimately and ironically, transparency and openness will emerge, this time to the chagrin of Assange, secrets will evaporate as the global investigation comes to fruition, players and relationships are exposed and the civil or criminal consequences of his reckless actions are delivered by a court of law.

Airport Security...an Exercise in Balance (12/01/2010)

We made it….after all the trauma and turmoil over the TSA screening protocols over the Thanksgiving holiday by Monday morning it turned out to be much ado about nothing. Passengers were threatening security officials not to touch their “junk” and staunchly berating the process as a clear violation of their 4th Amendment rights to “unlawful” search and seizure.
Well, the dreaded security-concerned holiday week-end passed without any major travel incidents and the news quickly shifted to the success of the FBI short-circuiting a planned bomb plot by a Portland Somalia student bent on jihad and fully committed to killing thousands of parents and their children attending a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
A few points merit consideration here. First, for the folks screaming that airport searches are “illegal”, the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to airports…nobody has any right to 4th Amendment protection in airports …or borders or prisons for that matter. This is not a TSA rule but a Supreme Court decision decided in the spirit of safety and national security so folks need to stop stomping their feet that their constitutional rights are being violated….not at an airport security checkpoint anyway. When you fly, or cross a U.S. border, you lose all “expectation of privacy”…people have live with it or not travel.
The Portland incident that was thwarted by the hard work and diligence of the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI brings us back to the hard, cold reality of the bigger issue, national security, airport security and the overlap. Since 9/11, the FBI has made counterterrorism their number one priority and has been successfully foiling terror operations targeting New York subways, JFK airport fuel lines, synagogues, the Sears Tower in Chicago, Los Angeles landmarks, Wrigley Field in Chicago and on and on. Many more are quietly short-circuited and never get reported in the press in order to protect sources and methods in this quiet war on terror in the United States. Without a doubt too, we’ve gotten lucky on a few occasions. Richard Reed couldn’t get his shoe bomb lit before some alert airline passengers and crew wrestled it away from him before he blew a gaping hole in the an aircraft flying 6 miles above the Atlantic. Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber just couldn’t get the detonation device right or carnage would have engulfed Times Square. Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, also failed to property ignite the PETN bomb hidden in his shorts as his aircraft approached Detroit International Airport last Christmas day full of holiday travelers. Had any of these jihadists successfully pulled off their intended act of terror, the carnage would have been unmistakably terroristic bringing Americans back to a mindset of September 12, 2001.
These guys are out to get us and the game has gotten tougher!
People have seemed to have forgotten we are at war on two fronts against those who have contorted and hijacked their faith and believe that America and Israel must be destroyed and its citizens attacked on all fronts and at any cost.
This is a “cat and mouse” game and they plot and plan and recruit “homegrown” boys with U.S passports to fly under the security radar. Their on-line recruitment and chat-rooms have obviated the need for jihadists to travel to foreign lands and to attend training camps as evidenced by the Madrid train bombings, the London subway bombing and the many plots foiled in the U.S. This has added an entire to new dimension to the challenges of counterterrorism. Those “tripwires” that traditionally aided law-enforcement and the intel community; airline reservations, travel, money transfers and the like, have, in many instances, gone away.
Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are clearly determined and aviation targets remain their prime focus as evidenced the missed attempts of Reed and Abdulmuttalab and the attempted attack on U.S bound cargo planes just a few weeks ago. They also like symbolic targets; military, government, economic and Christian to include holidays like Christmas day. Al-Qaeda in its new web-based magazine, Inspire has declared PETN as its explosive of choice which poses its own vexing problems for security official and airports screeners in particular. PETN is a salt-like substance with a stability that makes it easy to hide, its molecular structure makes it difficult to detect and a small amount packs a powerful punch.
This is not a zero sum game and the odds are against us so back to airport security.
Give TSA some consideration, they are working against tremendous odds and are under the gun to keep the flying public safe. Who is to say, TSA was not in receipt of a particular threat stream or piece of intelligence indicating an aviation asset may be targeted over Thanksgiving. The popular outcry has been why don’t we follow the Israeli model of airport security and a couple of points merit consideration here. First of all, the Israelis only have two international airports and only 9 million people fly through Israel each year; 600 million people fly through the U.S. each year. Yes, the Israeli “profile” but in the U.S., profiling is a pejorative term and claims are it is race-based and, hence, it’s termed “racial profiling". Yes, police and security professionals “profile” situations and suspects all the time and thankfully, they do. But profiling in these instances is never based solely on race. It is based on the totality of a situation. Race may play a role, but the way someone is dressed, their conduct, nervousness, the use of their hands, eye-contact, the way they purchased their ticket, the type of ticket, the amount or lack of luggage, whatever the variable, plays a role. Doctors profile us for heart disease each year when we go in for our annual physical taking into account, weight, cholesterol, age, eating habits and the like. Profiling by professionals, including the police is standard and expected practice. Just as my doctor can see and hear things I would never notice, security professionals hear and see things the average person would never notice. Israelis profile and they do it well and Israeli society accepts that. They know the “profile” of the terrorists trying to kill their citizenry and they screen them accordingly. But, we are not Israel in that we live in an inordinately ”politically correct” and extremely litigious society, so everyone gets and will continue to get equal treatment at security screening checkpoints whether one is a Yemeni male on a student visa returning from Haj or one is an 85 year old grandma, a Sister of Charity, and an eight year old member of the local cub scout chapter.

Guns and Violence in Mexico...is the U.S to blame?

It's a constant drone of accusations and finger-pointing that the U.S. is responsible for the violence on the streets of Mexico edging the country close to a state of anarchy. Yes, we Americans who represent only about 6% of the worlds population, consume nearly 90% of the worlds drugs and thus, represent the key marketplace for South American cocaine and other drugs shipped via Mexico into the U.S. Clearly, serious steps in the realm of education, socialization and media have to come into play to somehow try to reduce that consumption rate. But let's examine the violence associated with this "drug war". Amidst the violence, the terror, the beheadings, the senselessness of it all, it is the sheer overwhelming use of firepower by the Cartels that stands out; fully-automatic military-grade machine guns as high as 50 caliber, IED's, grenades and rocket-propelled grenades (RPG's) in this three-pronged war between the seven Cartels and the government of Mexico and the Cartels and their rival factions for control of the "plazas" or distribution routes. As one organization is taken out, another quickly moves in to fill the vacuum and establish control of that plaza through violence and intimidation. Some recent activities appear to come right out of the terror playbooks of the FARC or even al-Qaeda.

President Calderon of Mexico, in his spring visit to the U.S., admonished the U.S. and the availability of weapons in the United States for the cause of the weapon-related violence in Mexico. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton echoed similar sentiments in a visit to Mexico City earlier this year. California Senator Diane Feinstein claims 90% of the guns killing police, judges and mayors in Mexico come from the United States and the media constantly beats a similar drum regarding the U.S. and our lax gun laws feeding the violence in Mexico.

The fact is, only a small percentage of the guns linked to drug-related violence in Mexico actually come from the U.S.

Mexican law-enforcement and the military have jointly worked with ATF and other U.S. agencies and have passed the identity of seized guns with obvious markings and serial numbers for tracing and further identification. The operative word here is traceable weapons. In these instances, where seized weapons have serial numbers and can be traced, a significant portion will be traced to the U.S. and that's where the media and politicians hang their hat. But to stop there and characterize the problem as one with purely American roots is unfair and, frankly, disingenuous. The real fact is, over 80% of the weapons seized at Mexican crime scenes are untraceable and never submitted to U.S. authorities. Those traceable U.S. firearms actually only represent about 17% of guns and weapons found at Mexican crime scenes.

So where do these guns come from? On the surface, a cursory review of the high-powered military-grade seized weaponry; grenades, RPG's, 50 caliber machine guns clearly indicates this weaponry is not purchased at gun shows in the United States and can't even be found commercially available to consumers in the U.S. The vast majority of the weaponry used in this "drug war" comes into Mexico through the black market and the wide-open porous southern border of Mexico and Guatemala. This black market emanates from a variety of global gun-runners with ties to Russian organized crime, global terror groups with a firm foothold in Latin-America such as Hizballah and the FARC as well as factions left over from the civil wars in Central America during the 1980's. Chinese arms traffickers have managed to disperse weapons, particularly grenades, on the streets of Mexico. In addition, many of the Mexican military issued Belgian-made automatic M-16's currently in the hands of traffickers have been pilfered from military depots and the thousands who have deserted the Mexican army in recent years.

The Mexican Cartels, who conservatively realize annual profits approaching $50 Billion (that's Billion with a B) are not realistically going to establish straw buyers at U.S. gun shows when the merchants of death in Russia, China, Latin-America, Israel and South Africa are willing to peddle their wares.

Americans are not fully responsible for the gun-related violence in Mexico......we are responsible for the creation of the world's premier drug marketplace for the Cartels and their surrogates.

To that end, as a society, we have a responsibility to intelligently consider solutions to this problem that we share with our neighbors to the south.

Border Security: Legal and Policy Issues Require Detailed Study

by Jeffrey F. Addicott, Director*
Center for Terrorism Law

There can be little doubt that the so-called "War on Terror" has caused great stress to "civil liberties" over the past nine years. Without question, certain basic privacy rights of the individual have given way to ever increasing security measures designed to protect the American people from the reality of global terrorism. Nowhere is this concern more loudly raised than in discussions of border security, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico international border. While the matter of real border security is often portrayed as a necessary imperative to protect the public from attacks by al-Qa’eda and other radical Islamic groups, the issue of securing the border goes far beyond concerns about international terrorism. Indeed, in tandem with terrorism, meaningful discussions regarding border security must include other
homeland security imperatives related to transnational drug crime, human smuggling, and illegal alien immigration.
First, America’s borders are not secure. With 5,525 miles of border with Canada, 1,989 miles of border with Mexico, and a maritime border of 95,000 miles of shoreline, this is in large part a function of the magnitude of the geography involved. Add to the shear length of the border the fact that only a tiny fraction of the millions of people (400+ million), cars (130+ million), trucks (12+ million), rail freight cars (2+ million), and maritime containers (8+ million) that enter the United States (at over 3,700 terminals and 301 ports of entry) are ever subjected to inspection of any kind and the problem of border security seems beyond resolution.
Even in light of the above physical assessment, the functional matter of border security presents a difficult, but not insurmountable, task. In fact, the real and central challenge that the United States faces revolves around legal and policy debates about how to realistically secure the
border under a democratically based rule of law — a rule of law that strikes an acceptable balance between increased security and civil liberties.
Certainly, the protection of human rights and civil liberties is a greater obligation for the government in times of crisis than in times of peace. On the one hand, while a fundamental obligation of the State is to protect its citizens from external as well as internal threats to person and property, civil liberties given up in the name of security are often hard to regain once the
security threat passes. In many instances, they are irrevocably lost. On the other hand, an unsecured border represents a threat that is growing in intensity, whether viewed from the perspective of terrorism, crime, or illegal immigration. Clearly, a coherent and workable solution must be developed and then enacted with alacrity. The sticking point, of course, is precisely where the line should be drawn between increased security needs and civil liberties.
A central hallmark of any free people is the ability to debate issues and to petition the government as it makes policy and law. There is no question that the issue of border security covers matters that span across a variety of fundamental legal concerns. Not only does a
majority of the American people express great dissatisfaction with Federal and State government responses to border security, there appears to be little effort to pull all
of the applicable information together into a single reference point for study and assessment.
A much needed step forward in this process would be to develop a detailed "Legal & Policy Border Security Bench Book," which would identify, address, and analyze specific categories of legal and policy issues associated with border security to include: international terrorism, narco-terrorism, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and illegal alien intrusion on the U.S. borders (Mexico and Canada). At a minimum, the bench book would serve as an invaluable resource for those operating in the sphere of border security. The study would enhance organizational preparedness of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, first responders, the U.S. military, and the general public by detailing the interaction of existing laws and regulations within a framework that encompasses multi-level legal and technology compliance requirements from Federal, State, local, and international perspectives.
In this light, the Center for Terrorism Law, St. Mary’s University School of Law, San Antonio, Texas, is working in conjunction with other academic institutions to explore the viability of conducting such a study with additional hopes that it will be able to offer and conduct tailored
training courses and seminars to law enforcement organizations (and National Guard) using the bench book as the central training/ discussion focus about technological/counter-terrorism tactics, legal concerns, and conflict management. Balancing the rights of individuals with the need for increased security requires that enforcement officers have a clear understanding of the legal
implications of their actions, which can affect their exposure to criminal, civil, and administrative liabilities. Additionally, the effort will significantly improve the legal and operational understanding of contemporary border issues and provide those charged with protecting the border with the necessary tools to overcome barriers to effectiveness.
In conjunction with nationally recognized subject-matter experts in the public and private sector, who will work closely with select academic institutions to delineate the required informational product, the "Legal & Policy Border Security Bench Book" would identify areas of conflict and agreement across the full spectrum of individualized legal issues, i.e., privacy concerns, compliance issues, and government/ business relationships. Specific categories of study would include: (1) surveillance technology; (2) various Federal authorities regarding immigration administration and enforcement; (3) constitutionality of border searches; (4) integrated systems’ vulnerabilities; (5) civilian patrols; (6) border landholder’s property rights; (7) enforcement of current domestic laws; (8) isolation and quarantine issues; (9)
international treaty obligations; (10) DoD activities; (11) criminal law enforcement; and (12) privacy concerns.
Not only is there inconsistency in Federal legislation and regulations, but a growing volume of State level developments in this area will certainly have various consequences which must be addressed both within and across State and international boundaries.
Furthermore, the development of judicial case law is a topic that requires a detailed analysis in order to determine how broadly judicial decisions will impact on specific areas of concern.
In conclusion, the government’s goal is to implement border security that does not impede the efficient movement of legitimate commerce, citizens, and authorized visitors while deterring, detecting, and denying unwanted goods and people. South Texas in particular constitutes a unique venue where homeland security and criminal justice professionals are faced with
numerous law enforcement problems — the region boasts the largest U.S.-Mexico inland port and millions of people, cars, commercial trucks, and trains enter and exit the United States annually through a variety of entry points, e.g., (on the Texas border) El Paso, Brownsville, and Laredo. Federal prosecution of drug and immigration offenses has risen substantially over the past decade.
Apart from the practical uses outlined above, the scope and breadth of the envisioned study will go far beyond serving government professionals exclusively, or even serving as a needed depository of knowledge for security and immigration issues. The real thrust of the study will be to energize policy makers, government leaders, and law enforcement officials to collaborate and test the efficacy of proposed laws, regulations, and procedures that safeguard the Nation under a rule of law that correctly balances civil liberties and security.

*Jeffrey F. Addicott is a Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Terrorism Law, St. Mary’s University School of Law. B.A. (with honors), University of Maryland; J.D.; University of Alabama School of Law; LL.M., The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School; LL.M. (1992) and S.J.D. (1994), University of Virginia School of Law. Additional reading on this topic can be found in Addicott, Terrorism Law: Materials, Cases, Comments, 6th Edition (2011)

Mexico's Police Strategies must shift to a Terrorism Model

By Jerry Brewer


Those that are diligently following the massive violence and escalating carnage in Mexico may have difficulty explaining how something so horrific can occur within their homeland, but accurately defining it may hold promise and strategic relevance.

We are inundated by the world media coverage ad nauseam with explanations of drug trafficking organizations versus rival organized elements and their turf wars for control of drug routes and the demand for drugs. Reports touting “an explosion of drug violence in Mexico” are a common theme.

President Felipe Calderon says he won’t relent on the “drug fight,” and blames the United States for its insatiable “addicted” demand for drugs. However, before hate groups begin to burn the President in effigy it is critically important to see the credible tactical gains of the military with many genuine security improvements, and the capture of many individuals of high value.

There certainly was no alternative of resource other than a well-armed military to combat these narcoterrorists. The police were never a formidable opponent nor did they possess the skills or physical resources to interdict this enemy that has morphed into a plain and simple terrorist.

The effectiveness against the drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), as with terrorists, cannot be measured in the numbers of those combatants killed or captured, but by the ability to counter the psychological impact and political effects of the battle.

We must all understand the true definition of terrorism and a terrorist. There are a myriad of ideologies, contraband, causes, and rationales for terrorism and the subsequent terror that ensues from this mindset. Terror groups are not of a random rise and stand symbol alone. They must have an intent, motive, and common agenda that unite their members to action. Supplying a demand that brings massive revenue, wealth, and power is not enough to earn the terrorist label.

The DTOs have graduated towards achieving political aims and motives using a psychological warfare agenda to instill massive fear and far-reaching psychological effects beyond the usual rival targets and related victims. The terror is in the indiscriminate brutality, cruelness, and associated evil of their violent actions. As with terrorists, these non-state combatants attack legitimate governments and seek to destroy and undermine a political system, its enforcement arm, and a homeland’s way of life.

Helping to analyze the facts conducive to Mexico’s terrorist model is the current killing spree that has spread throughout Mexico, this irrespective of drug routes, DTO turf, and routine rival confrontations. One of their common agendas is in fact the interdiction itself, and all of those perceived to be in support of President Calderon’s “drug war.” Routine and direct ambushes against military and police are becoming common operational acts. The narcoterrorists can match the firefight with paramilitary types of armaments, as well as supersede the enforcement cadre’s weapons in many instances.

Twelve federal officers were killed in an ambush in mid-June. Armed confrontations against police officers and others claimed several hundred lives last week alone. In another strange incident, 19 drug addicts were murdered in a rehabilitation clinic. A newspaper report claimed 96 people were killed in seven Mexican states. Terrorist modi operandi (signatures) are also becoming common practice as there are an increased number of victims of unusual torture, beheadings, and evisceration.

This enemy that is contained within no special boundary, border, or jurisdiction is on a full scale rampage, and is not only more than capable of the violent and murderous onslaught, but is highly motivated and resourced to do so. Police interdiction and related tactics and strategies are of no moment to this terror model.

Terrorist interdiction requires the analysis of patterns, trends, the evolving modus operandi and signatures, as well as the intelligence and determinations of their vulnerabilities. Much like al Qaeda and other Middle Eastern terror groups, they will not respect symbols of authority such as badges, laws, threats to incarcerate and other police enforcement methodology. They are war-like, battle hardened, transnational, and have adopted violent extremism and irregular warfare as their battle plans.

Despite Mexico’s successes and U.S. cooperation in training, equipment, and other expertise, the effort continues to fall short and significant challenges remain. Too, the U.S. homeland will continue to face great risk and a persistent threat to its citizens as these terrorists boldly move to confront any obstacles impeding their agenda. While immigration border issues remain a common topic, neither the Mexican nor U.S. government can ignore nor afford not to keep a vigilant eye on the ball — which is the high potential for fluid and random attacks.

Arizona's Call for Help!

The call by the State of Arizona to have local and state police now conduct "legal status" checks on anyone questioned by the police is the result of a deeper issue. The Arizona legislature and the people of Arizona are simply responding to the failure of the Federal government to respond to the growing issue of illegal immigration and the increasing state of crime, and drug-related violence in Arizona. Enforcing immigration laws and the status of aliens has always been the responsibility of the federal government, formerly, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and in recent years, the Department of Homeland Security, but in instances where the states have stepped in, the status of an individual can be pursued in the process of a law-enforcement stop. Recent polling indicates that over 70% of the population in Arizona, including Latinos legally residing in the state, support the new law.

Let's review of few salient points in the analysis of this issue that are being misrepresented by activists, the press and even law-makers and policy-makers. Police will not and cannot, under the laws of the United States simply and arbitrarily stop and detain people without "reasonable suspicion". The standard of "reasonable suspicion" has long been established by the Supreme Court and sets the guidelines under which police can stop, detain and question people pursuant to the investigation of a crime. It is only within this context of a police stop, when police see and believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, based on "reasonable suspicion", that they can then further ask the individual about their legal status. It is this standard of "reasonable suspicion" that establishes this window of detention and questioning. The next standard established by the Supreme Court of "probable cause", established the standard by which police can make an arrest.
The "Nazi" tactics being screamed about by those opposed to the new legislation, have never existed in our country and would never be tolerated under our civil rights laws and any police practicing such arbitrary tactics would himself or herself be exposed to arrest for a federal violation of the law. "Racial Profiling" is another term being screamed by those opposed to the new law. Yes, police profile situations and suspects all the time and thankfully, they do. But profiling by police is never based solely on race. It is based on the totality of a situation. Race may play a role, but the way someone is dressed, their conduct, nervousness, hands in their pockets, whatever the variable, plays a role. My doctor profiles me for heart disease each year when I go for my annual physical taking into account my weight, my cholesterol, my age, eating habits and the like. Profiling by professionals, including the police is standard and expected practice. Just as my doctor can see and hear things I would never notice, police hear and see things on the street the average person would never notice.
The idea that local and state police in Arizona where the crime rates have skyrocketed in recent years, have the time and inclination to simply stop people based on race and their own alleged prejudices is ludicrous and insulting to their professionalism.

Let's go back to Arizona and the 800 pound Gorilla in the room. The fact of the matter is, predatory street crime and violence in Arizona is off the charts in recent years. Phoenix, which just a few years ago, barely ever saw a kidnapping now tops the national chart with nearly 400 kidnapping last year! Street crime, including assaults, murders. and gang-related violence is through the roof. The people of Arizona are desperate and the enactment of this law is a call for help. The huge up-tick in crime in a border state like Arizona is directly related it's shared border and to the crime and violence related to drug cartel activity on both sides of that border.
Cartel violence in Mexico has led to the death of over 20, 000 Mexicans in the past 5 years and has brought the northern states of Mexico to a near state of anarchy. The Calderon administration has bravely responded and has made significant inroads on the dismantling of the powerful and violent cartels but the carnage continues. That violence has "spilled over" into the border states, particularly Arizona, where gangs acting as surrogates for the cartels carry on their stateside activities of drug distribution, collection of proceeds and the enforcement of their "laws" through violence and retribution. Yes, we in America, are the primary drug "marketplace" so we are the end-game in the drug business and that distribution and collection activity goes on here and the violence associated with it.

Americans are not inherently anti-immigration...we are all immigrants, one, two or three generations removed but we are opposed to crime and violence. We want good productive folks to immigrate to our country just as our grandparents did... but we don't want criminals and we don't want those would bring harm and huge costs, both socially and in dollars and cents, to our society. Both the U.S. and Mexican economies are interdependent on one another. The frustration with Washington policy-makers to come up with a simple, viable guest-worker program is beyond frustration. This could be accomplished through a basic application process and criminal background check that would hugely benefit everyone but that's a discussion for another day.
In the final analysis, President George Washington said, "we are not a country of men, we are a country of laws". We are a country of laws and we have the right and the responsibility to enforce those laws. The people who are screaming that we don't have a right to respect and enforce the laws of our sovereignty are of a mindset or a culture that doesn't have any respect for the rule of law nor an understanding of it's vital role in a society that protects and preserves the democratic rights of every individual and concept of "justice for all".