#NSA Quote of the Day: Andrew McCarthy edition

Quotes, actually, as there are two from his latest post at NRO’s The Corner blog. Both, I think, reflect the way I’m leaning in the uproar over the NSA’s telephone record and Internet data collection program:

How are Americans supposed to rely on congressional oversight to keep the administration in check if the administration misleads Congress about what it is doing?

Which is a huge part of the problem the administration has defending these programs: having been shown repeatedly to be idiots at best and bald-faced liars at worst in scandal after scandal, how are Congress and the general public supposed to trust them now, even though they might actually be telling the truth about how the data is collected and used?

The fable of the boy who cried wolf endures for a reason, you know.

And then…

If politics were logical, we would say: “It is necessary to have awesome national security powers but they can only be trusted in the hands of honorable officials; since the officials we have cannot be trusted, we need to get new officials.” But politics is not logical: It is a lot easier to slash the powers we need than the officials we don’t. That is where this is headed, and I fear we’ll regret it. 

As I’ve been saying, “baby, bathwater.” This is my fear, too.

PS: McCarthy is a writer you should must have in your news reader. Even if you disagree with him, his arguments are always edifying and thought-provoking.

Quote of the Day: Mark Steyn edition

After observing that the US government issues so many security clearances that it couldn’t possibly properly vet them all:

One reason for the citizenry not to entrust its personal information to the government is that the big, bloated, blundering government is stupid enough to entrust it to Edward Snowden, as it was previously stupid enough to entrust it to Bradley Manning (the Wikileaks leaker). It’s only a matter of time before the halfwit leviathan entrusts it to a Major Hasan or a Tamerlan Tsarnaev. 

Quite.

(Do read the rest. Steyn is quotable in almost every paragraph he writes.)

Paging John LeCarre! #NSA leaker a Chinese agent?

“Would you believe…?”

This is getting weirder and weirder, but, at the same time, tantalizingly plausible:

Former CIA case officer Bob Baer revealed on CNN Sunday evening that intelligence officials were possibly considering Edward Snowden’s case as Chinese espionage, after Snowden came forward this afternoon from an undisclosed Hong Kong location.

“Hong Kong is controlled by Chinese intelligence,” Baer said. “It’s not an independent part of China at all. I’ve talked to a bunch of people in Washington today, in official positions, and they are looking at this as a potential Chinese espionage case.”

“On the face of it, it looks like it is under some sort of Chinese control, especially with the president meeting the premier today,” Baer said. “You have to ask what’s going on. China is not a friendly country and every aspect of that country is controlled. So why Hong Kong? Why didn’t he go to Sweden? Or, if he really wanted to make a statement, he should have done it on Capitol Hill.”

When you think about it, the possibility of Snowden being used by Chinese intelligence is not at all unreasonable: the US news had been filled for months with items about Chinese hacker attacks and complaints about stolen data, and Obama was expected to bring this up at their summit here in California. Could he have been used by a Chinese “handler” to release this information when it would be both embarrassing to Obama and useful to China by cutting O’s legs out from under him at the summit? “Shut up, you guys are spying, too?” I’ve got no firm opinion about Snowden, himself, though, from what I’ve read, he does strike me as a immature narcissist who could be played by skilled operators. And what free-speech and civil liberties advocate who donates to Ron Paul would take refuge in China, of all places? (1)

There’s something really, really odd about this.

via Legal Insurrection

PS: I haven’t written much about these NSA revelations, the phone metadata collection and the information culling from Internet providers (PRISM), because there is so much to absorb and it has such profound implications for a free society that I think silence, on my part and for now, is better. I’ve seen too many outraged knees jerking, too much heat and not enough light, too much reaction and not enough reading; it makes me worry that, traumatized as we are by the IRS and Rosen scandals, etc., we may throw the “national security baby” out with the bathwater. For now, though, let me leave you with an article by Jonah Goldberg that best captures my thinking at the moment: healthy skepticism.

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, I know he is/was in Hong Kong, which is very free market and capitalist, but if you don’t believe Beijing pulls the strings of what goes on there, especially in an intelligence matter, I have a bridge for you.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

History lesson: The crucial differences between Bush and Obama's NSA phone surveillance programs

Reblogged from Michelle Malkin:

It is certainly schadenfreudelicious to see Al Gore and assorted Democratic tools going bonkers over news of President Obama's radically expanded phone call data collection program -- which he, ahem, inherited from the Bush administration and has apparently now widened far beyond anything Bush ever enacted or proposed.

But unlike Gore and company, I am not going to engage in a full, NSA-bashing freakout.

Read more… 3,209 more words

Excellent column by Michelle Malkin on the differences between the Bush-era warrantless wiretap program and the Obama administration's tracking of *all* domestic calls on the Verizon network. This should be read by everyone, especially knee-jerk civil liberties absolutists on the Left and reactionary Libertarians on the Right. I only differ with her in being a little more open to the idea that the Obama effort *may* be legal/justified/needed, etc., but we need much more information in order to judge. Also, she makes an excellent point about the administration's loss of credibility with the public on national security and constitutional issues, compared to the wide public support for the Bush-era program.

(Video) The President on the North Korean threat

The Virtual President, that is. “President” Bill Whittle holds a press conference to explain American policy (and opinion of) North Korea in no uncertain terms:

Honest, direct, and no diplomatic weasel words such as “unacceptable,” “world opinion,” or my favorite, “the international community.” (1)

Neither bellicose nor warmongering; no chest-thumping to be seen. Just a clear, confident statement of the problem and the actions the president will take in defense of American national interest, American lives, and American allies. It’s like Walter Brennan used to say in “The Guns of Will Sonnett” — No brag, just fact.

Isn’t that how an American president should be?

Footnote:
(1) Imagine me pausing for a moment to gag. Actually, no. You’re not imagining it at all.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Border control: This reassures me. Not. Update: Napolitano 2016?

At the moment I consider myself agnostic about the latest immigration proposal, this time from a bipartisan group of senators including Marco Rubio (R-FL). We all know the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli plan was a bust, because the promised border security arrangements were never implemented. And there are serious questions in this latest proposal: J. Christian Adams raises a few good ones. On the other hand, Rubio has promised to withdraw his support for the bill, should the border security provisions not be adequate.

One good sign they won’t be is just who gets to determine when and if the border is secure: Janet Napolitano.

Under a bipartisan Senate framework, Democrats say, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano would have final say over whether the border is secure enough to put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

If Napolitano does not provide the green light for putting illegal immigrants on a pathway to citizenship, the responsibility for judging whether the metrics for border security have been met will be given to her successor.

This is the same idiot who declared, after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit was stopped by an alert passenger at the last minute, that “the system worked.” And she’s to be put in charge of determining when the border is secure? What’s her criteria, tea-leaf readings?

And, to be blunt, I wouldn’t trust any politically appointed official in the Obama administration to make an objective call; the self-interest of the president’s party means that they have an interest in granting citizenship as soon as possible and as fast as possible to as many Latin American immigrants as possible, because they are more likely to vote Democratic. The pressure on Napolitano to declare the border secure ASAP would be tremendous. (Not that it would take much, as Janet has shown herself to be a willing tool.)

If this provision stays in the bill, I’d advise Senator Rubio to have a press release handy announcing his opposition.

via Bryan Preston

UPDATE: Janet Napolitano is thinking of running for president in 2016? Seriously??

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

DHS: “We can buy assault weapons to protect ourselves; you can’t. Hah-hah!”

Since the Newtown school massacre, there have been renewed calls for bans on so-called “assault rifles.” There was a march in D.C. this last weekend, and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Nannystate) introduced legislation to ban all sorts of weapons, mostly based on cosmetic factors that scare lefties, but make no difference in the weapon’s lethality. One of the most common arguments made is that you “just don’t need” such a weapon to defend yourself. (1)

But those are the rules for peasants such you and me. If you work for the Department of Homeland Security, well, that’s different:

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Let’s keep this straight, shall we? When you want an AR-15 for home defense, you’re a dangerous, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Bible and Constitution (and wife) beating radical who finds his manhood enhanced by getting your hands on an “assault weapon.” And should you want a magazine that holds ten or more rounds… You’re just fantasizing about shooting up a mall, aren’t you?

But, when the DHS wants its agents to have similar weapons… Those aren’t “assault weapons,” silly! Those are for “personal defense!” And, unlike you, they really do need high-capacity magazines! Ten rounds? Bah! Let’s go for 30! And the option for full auto-fire!

Why? Well… because, it’s not the same thing, you bitter-clinger!

In all seriousness, I have no problem with DHS buying weapons for its agents’ personal defense; they do dangerous work in the service of the nation. But shouldn’t ordinary, law-abiding Americans have the right to make the same choices for themselves and their families?

Scratch that. It’s not “have the right,” which implies a debatable question or request. No, Americans have that right as an inalienable natural right that preexists government, and the Second Amendment is a recognition of that right, not a grant.

So, if the managers of DHS can decide that they and their people need these weapons for their personal defense, shouldn’t the government acknowledge that individuals have that same right?

via John Kass

Footnote:
(1) With the usually unspoken corollary: “And you don’t get to make that choice for yourself, either.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Mexico arrests two in Arizona Border Patrol killing

No word on whether any weapons were recovered or, if there were, if they’ve been tied to Fast and Furious, but it’s nice to see some suspects brought in quickly:

Mexican troops have arrested two suspects in the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent and the wounding of a second officer in Arizona, Mexican security officials said on Wednesday. [T]he two suspects were detained in a Mexican military operation in the city of Agua Prieta, in Mexico’s northern Sonora state, a few miles from the spot where Nicholas Ivie was shot dead early on Tuesday while responding to a tripped ground sensor, a Mexican Army officer, who declined to be named.

Ivie was among three agents who were patrolling on foot about five miles north of the international border when gunfire erupted. A second agent was also wounded while the third, a woman, was unharmed.  

The agents had been patrolling in an area near the border town of Naco, well-known as a corridor for smuggling, and the Cochise County Sheriff’s department has said that tracks were found heading south after the shooting.

Ivie was a 30-year-old father of two, he had been an agent for four years.

A Mexican police official in Naco, across the border from the Arizona town of the same name, confirmed the arrests, which occurred in the early hours of Wednesday.

(Link added)

US officials have had no comment on the arrests. If I were a cynic, I might think that’s because they’re desperately looking for an OF&F connection they can bury.

But we all know I’m not a cynic, right?

Meanwhile, thanks and congratulations to the Mexican Army for quick work. It will be interesting to see what stories these suspects have to tell.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

New OPSEC ad: “Bumps in the Road?”`

OPSEC comprises a group of former Special Forces and intelligence personnel who have criticized President Obama before for revealing classified information in pursuit of his reelection. They’ve come out with a new ad in the Virginia market smacking the president for his “bumps in the road” description of the deaths of Americans in Benghazi:

It’s a smart ad buy; Virginia is both a swing state and heavily military. I doubt many there will appreciate the comparison of the president’s victory laps for the killing of bin Laden on the one hand, and his dismissal of military deaths as “bumps in the road” on the other.

OPSEC has a web site for donations. If you feel that this is an important message to get out to other battleground states, consider sending them a few bucks.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

One Border Patrol agent killed, another wounded in Arizona border shooting

One agent was shot dead, another wounded, and a third escaped unharmed while on horseback patrol in southeast Arizona:

Two U.S. Border Patrol agents were shot, one fatally, Tuesday morning in an area in south Arizona known as a major drug-smuggling corridor, authorities said.

The identities of the agents were not immediately released, but the shooting occurred at the Brian Terry Station near Naco, Ariz., which is just south of Tucson. The station was named after an agent who was killed in the line of duty in December 2010. The area is considered a remote part of the state and sources tell Fox News that the shooting occurred at 1:50 a.m. local time and about 8 miles from the border.

The agents who were shot were on patrol with a third agent, who was not harmed, according to George McCubbin, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing about 17,000 border patrol agents. The agents were on horseback at the time of the shooting.

McCubbin said he had no further information regarding the shooting.

The shooting occurred after an alarm was triggered on one of the many sensors along the border and the three agents went to investigate, said Cochise County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Carol Capas.

Public Service Announcement: According to the President of the United States and the Director of Homeland Security, the Mexican border is more secure than ever. Nothing to see here, move along…

The FBI and local sheriffs are conducting a joint investigation –on horseback, because the terrain is so rugged– but, let’s be honest. The maggots who did this are either back in Mexico or halfway to New York by now.

There’s no word on who did this or why, or whether the weapons used were courtesy of the Department of Justice, but this incident serves as a reminder of just how dangerous our southern border has become, particularly in Arizona; Naco isn’t all that far from Douglas, near where rancher Robert Krentz and his dog were gunned down.

Tomorrow night is the first of three debates between President Obama and Governor Romney, and the focus is on “domestic issues.” Border security would be a good topic for the Governor to raise; when Phoenix becomes the kidnapping capital and Americans are warned against entering sovereign American territory and residents have to live in fear of possibly-armed people crossing their land, I’d call that a “domestic issue.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

9/11: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and the duties of a president

Today is the eleventh anniversary of al Qaeda’s attacks on New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, in which Muslims waging jihad fi sabil Allah –war for the sake of Allah– killed nearly 3,000 Americans and foreign guests.

On that day, the federal government failed in its primary duty: protecting the United States and her people.

Since then, one would like to believe the men in the Oval Office have taken that duty, assigned to them by the Constitution as Commander in Chief, damned seriously; that they would bend every effort to making sure it never happened again.

We know that was true of George W. Bush. He not only ordered the invasion of Afghanistan to destroy the regime that sheltered al Qaeda, but he received bipartisan congressional approval for the liberation of Iraq (rightly perceiving Saddam’s monstrous regime as a strategic threat that couldn’t be allowed to continue) and he set in motion the intelligence operations that eventually lead to Osama bin Laden’s death under Barack Obama.

Agree or disagree with what he did, there’s no doubt George W. Bush took to heart the national security of the United States.

But, after reading Marc Thiessen’s column in the Washington Post, can we same thing about Barack Obama when he skips out on half of his national security briefings?

President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

Thiessen questioned a NSC official, who argued that attending the meetings isn’t important and that Obama learns what he needs to know from reading the daily briefings, which he receives wherever he is.  Other “former officials” (Bush administration?) disagreed, saying it’s very important for the president to attend these briefings, so that he can clarify his own understanding, question assumptions, and let his advisers know what he thinks is important. The interchange is a vital part of the process leading to national security decisions.

And before anyone can say “Well, he’s got a lot on his plate,” Thiessen relates how Obama’s predecessor handled his briefings:

While the Bush records are not yet available electronically for analysis, officials tell me the former president held his intelligence meeting six days a week, no exceptions — usually with the vice president, the White House chief of staff, the national security adviser, the director of National Intelligence, or their deputies, and CIA briefers in attendance. Once a week, he held an expanded Homeland Security briefing that included the Homeland Security adviser, the FBI director and other homeland security officials. Bush also did more than 100 hour-long “deep dives” in which he invited intelligence analysts into the Oval Office to get their unvarnished and sometimes differing views. Such meetings deepened the president’s understanding of the issues and helped analysts better understand the problems with which he was wrestling.

(Emphases added)

That schedule included President Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign. When he was on the campaign trail, they were probably held by secure conference call. He always made time, always put his duty ahead of his campaign.

In 2012, we’re still at war. The jihad didn’t end when SEAL Team 6 put a couple of bullets into Osama. While al Qaeda has seemingly been savaged to the point that they cannot launch catastrophic attacks against us (we hope), they and other jihad groups haven’t given up trying.

They’re still trying to kill us.

And yet President Obama thinks it’s sufficient to read the morning memo and get on to other things.  Not only does he pass on face to face briefings, but his Defense Secretary all but admitted that the President himself (1) authorized the recent national security leaks. There’s only one real conclusion to take from this:

The current President of the United States does not have as his first priority the security of the United States.

Remember that when you vote on November 6th.

via Bryan Preston and NRO

PS: Romney-Ryan 2012, because I want a Commander in Chief, not a campaigner in chief.

Footnote:
1) As he is allowed to do under law, so there’s no criminal violation. Because it’s legal doesn’t make it right, smart, or ethical, though.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

ICE Chief of Staff resigns in face of sexual harassment allegations

Well, that didn’t take long:

ICE Chief of Staff Suzanne Barr has resigned after allegations of lewd behavior. In a letter to ICE Director John Morton, Barr denied the sexual harassment claims made against her.

“As such, I feel it is incumbent upon me to take every step necessary to prevent further harm to the agency and to prevent this from further distracting from our critical work. Therefore, it is with great regret that I submit my resignation as Chief of Staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

Last month James Hayes filed a lawsuit saying women closely connected to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano were promoted over him. He also claimed Ms. Barr instilled a “frat-house” atmosphere at DHS “to humiliate and intimidate male employees.”

I reported on the two lawsuits alleging female-on-male sexual harassment and demeaning behavior at the Department of Homeland Security several weeks ago. At the time, I speculated that Suzanne Barr would be resigning to spend more time with her family, or some other excuse. We now know that a “decent interval” in the DHS is two weeks.

And, don’t forget — these are the people who are supposed to keep us safe.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) SEALs don’t fight so American presidents can bow to kings

Another hard-hitting ad by special operations veterans, this time from Special Operations For America (SOFA), headed by former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke, a Montana state senator.

Did I say “hard hitting?” Make that a gut-punch.

Ben Shapiro at Breitbart spoke with Senator Zinke about why these former special operators have chosen to speak out:

The ad is sure to provoke massive consternation on the left, which has been in a frenzy ever since Special Operations for America launched. The event at which the ad launches, “Defending Our Defenders: A Salute to the United States Military,” will feature a tribute by Congressman Louie Gohmert, former members of SEAL Team Six, Army Rangers, Gold Star parents, and a few surprise guests.

Ryan Zinke, the former Navy SEAL who started the super PAC, spoke exclusively with Breitbart News today. “The ad itself accurately portrays where this President is,” said Zinke. “It accurately portrays his core belief that America should not lead. This president is shaping America to be one of the followers, to relinquish our role as a world leader. I didn’t fight 23 years as a Navy SEAL to watch America bow to anybody.”

(…)

When asked whether it was inappropriate for former SEALs to speak out, as some on the left have alleged, Zinke answered, “If the veterans can’t speak out, who can? I think it’s a duty of every veteran and every citizen to be actively involved in our political process, especially when the president sets out to negotiate away our rights under the Constitution. There have been other veterans — TR, Eisenhower, JFK — they’ve been active in speaking out and shaping the policy and politics of our country. I’m going to stand for what I believe in, and I’m encouraging every veteran and every citizen to do the same. Our country is at a crossroads, and this election is certainly the most important in my lifetime.”

And, as Shapiro notes, for their choice to speak freely as American citizens and veterans, SOFA has been placed on the White House “enemies list.”

Nice way to say “thanks for your service,” isn’t it?

RELATED: An earlier short video from another group of concerned veterans and intelligence operatives, this time on White House leaks.

PS: Romney-Ryan 2012, because they won’t glad-hand our enemies.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Special Ops and Intelligence professionals to Obama: “Shut up!”

Several times in the past, I’ve gone off on the Obama administration for seeking domestic political advantage by revealing military and intelligence secrets: when it comes to our struggles with al Qaeda and Iran, national security takes a back seat to the president’s reelection efforts. Spiking the ball after bin Laden’s assassination was only the most famous (and shameful) example.

But, hey, who am I to be advising the fourth greatest president ever on matters of national security? I’m just a guy behind a keyboard.

But maybe he should listen to those who know the value of keeping secrets and know the harm that can be caused by revealing them. A group of retired military and intelligence professionals have come out into the light to tell Obama to stop acting like a pol and start acting like a commander-in-chief. And if he won’t listen to them, they’ll make sure we know the danger, too, starting with this short video. Twenty-two minutes long, watch the whole thing; it’s powerful:

A few months ago, I wrote the following about keeping secrets secret:

One of the greatest secrets you can have in intelligence work –especially when dealing with a deadly enemy– is that you’ve compromised their security. That you’ve cracked their codes, found their safe houses, planted a bug in their meetings, slipped a mole deep inside… so many things. You want them kept secret because you can exploit the advantage again and again, disrupting and demoralizing your enemy because they can’t figure out how you’re always one step ahead. These are secrets you go to your grave with, because, once blown, they’re useless.

And the same goes for the methods we use and the “rough men” who do the work. Revealing secrets makes future missions riskier and endangers lives — not just those of the special forces soldiers and intelligence operatives, but those of their family and friends, because of the danger of retaliation. To reveal those secrets for personal political gain is incredibly childish, venal, and shortsighted.

I’m sure we’ll be seeing excerpts from this video and others to follow in commercials in battleground states a lot between now and November. Meanwhile, memo to Team The One:

Shut. Up.

LINK: The Opsec Team’s web site.

PS: Romney 2012, because I want an adult in charge of our secrets, not an attention-seeking man-child.

PPS: Eric Boehlert of the leftist, Soros-funded Media Matters for America calls the Navy SEALS in this group “gutless.” Eric, dude, I dare you to say that to a SEAL’s face.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Raunchy affidavits filed in DHS sex discrimination suit — Updated: Barr goes under the bus?

More allegations about Animal House-like behavior at the Department of Homeland Security have come to light, this time in affidavits filed in the first of two lawsuits (so far):

The affidavits were given as part of a discrimination and retaliation suit filed earlier this year by James T. Hayes Jr., the head of the New York office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Hayes claimed that Napolitano presided over a female “frat-house”-style department that routinely humiliated male staffers.

The two new affidavits described separate incidents in 2009. Both accounts described the actions of ICE chief of staff Suzanne Barr, who was also mentioned in Hayes’ lawsuit.

One of the employees claimed that in October 2009, while in a discussion about Halloween plans, the individual witnessed Barr turn to a senior ICE employee and say: “You a sexy” (expletive deleted).

“She then looked at his crotch and asked, ‘How long is it anyway?’” according to the affidavit.

“Several employees laughed nervously,” the affidavit said. The names of the workers making the claims have been redacted.

The other account recalled a trip to Colombia in late 2009, attended by ICE Director John Morton, Barr and Ray Parmer, who is special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in New Orleans.

The account said Parmer and Barr were “drinking heavily” at the house of the deputy chief of mission for the U.S. Embassy there. It said Parmer took the BlackBerry of another employee, Peter Vincent, and sent “lewd messages” to Barr.

The affidavit went on to say: “During this party, Suzanne Barr approached me and offered to” perform oral sex.

The two accounts were submitted this week to the defense attorney in the case Hayes filed against Napolitano.

Is this the Department of Homeland Security or Cougar Town? Sounds like a perfect place for a President Romney to impose some adult supervision by appointing Rudy Giuliani as Secretary.

RELATED: Other DHS posts.

via Gabriel Malor

UPDATE: Well, that was fast.

ICE chief of staff on leave after new allegations of lewd conduct surface

The top Homeland Security official accused of cultivating a “frat-house”-style work environment has “voluntarily placed herself on leave” amid an internal review, the department told FoxNews.com late Tuesday evening — just hours after FoxNews.com contacted the agency about new allegations against her.

The official, Suzanne Barr, is chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(…)

“ICE has referred these allegations to the DHS Office of Inspector General and the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility for review. Ms. Barr has voluntarily placed herself on leave pending the outcome of this review,” ICE Public Affairs Director Brian Hale said in a written statement.

Why do I have a feeling Ms. Barr will be “resigning to pursue other career options”, soon? Someone wholly innocent would fight these allegations tooth and nail. This sounds like the start of a “decent interval,” if you know what I mean.

Question for any Arizonans reading this: Did Napolitano have management problems like this when she was governor?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Napolitano’s DHS: another sex-discrimination lawsuit filed

Following up on this item, I think we’re starting to see a pattern:

A second employee at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is suing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano over claims his career was curtailed due to anti-male bias at the agency, The Post has learned.

Jason Mount alleges in court papers that he was denied 43 promotions because he’s a white male and that he took a lower-grade job because of “how serious the discrimination and retaliation had become.”

Mount, 37, filed suit on July 31, about two months after ICE official James Hayes Jr. sued Napolitano for $3 million for allegedly pushing him out of a top job in Washington, DC, to make way for Dora Schriro, later named New York City’s jails commissioner.

(…)

His DC federal court filing details dozens of incidents in which he was allegedly passed over for promotions despite being fully qualified.

The litany of allegations include Mount’s September 2010 application to fill an assistant-special-agent-in-charge, or ASAC, post with Homeland Security Investigations in Boston.

Despite receiving “a rating of 100 percent on the knowledge, skills and abilities rating factors for the position,” Mount says, he was never contacted “to take part in an interview or further selection activities.”

Instead, court papers say the job went to a woman who was one step lower than Mount on the federal civil-service pay scale.

In addition, the woman, Linda Hunt, hadn’t completed an 18-month tour of duty at HSI headquarters in Washington, which “is required to be considered for an ASAC position,” the suit says.

Because of “the severe and pervasive retaliation and discrimination,” Mount says, he “essentially committed career suicide” in December 2011 and asked for a reassignment, “stating that he would be willing to accept a downgrade” in rank and pay.

Once could be a disgruntled employee just looking for payback; twice makes that less likely and starts to indicate a pattern. What lends credibility to Mount’s claims, in my opinion, is his refusal and that of his attorney to talk to the press about the suit. Usually, I’d expect people making bogus claims to go find their nearest Gloria Allred clone and call a press conference, hoping to win in the court of public opinion and persuade the other side to settle out of court (or at least get TV appearances and a book deal), knowing their case is weak on the merits. This, on other hand, has the look of someone who wants to go before a jury.

We’ll see. It could be bogus, but my gut feeling is that this is a case of smoke indicating fire. Yet another reason to elect a new administration that can bring some adult supervision to the DHS “animal house.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Your DHS professionals in action: maturity is a relative thing

It’s nice to see that the women’s movement in this country, at least on the Left, has come so far that they now feel free to subject their male colleagues to the same frat-house disdain and abuse they and their forebears endured:

Janet Napolitano-run Homeland Security treated male staffers like lapdogs, federal discrimination lawsuit charges

A blistering federal discrimination suit accuses agency honcho Janet Napolitano of turning the department into a female-run “frat house” where male staffers were banished to the bathrooms and routinely humiliated.

James Hayes Jr., who now is New York’s top Homeland Security cop, claims Napolitano filled top spots in Washington, D.C., with two of her gal pals who were bent on tormenting male employees.

The suit identified them as Dora Schriro, who is now running the city Department of Correction, and Suzanne Barr, the chief of staff for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Soon after Schriro and Barr were hired in January 2009, male staffers were treated like lapdogs, Hayes claims.

Barr “moved the entire contents of the offices of three employees, including name plates, computers and telephones, to the men’s bathroom at ICE headquarters,” the suit says.

Barr also stole a male staffer’s BlackBerry and fired off a message to his female supervisor indicating that he “had a crush on [her] and fantasized about her,” Hayes claims.

Sometimes, Barr took a more direct approach. In one case, she called a male colleague in his hotel room and screamed at him using sexually humiliating language, the suit says.

Hayes claims that after he reported the abuse to the Equal Employment Opportunity office, Napolitano launched a series of misconduct investigations against him.

And this is the mindset of people charged with the solemn responsibility of protecting us from another 9/11.

I feel more secure, don’t you?

Now, of course, we don’t know the truth of Mr. Hayes’ claims; he could just be an embittered ex-employee who’s just making stuff up for some reason. But it rings true. For some reason, and to put it bluntly, many on the Left lack maturity. Whether it’s vandalizing the White House or excusing people who poop on police cars – and now, it seems, workplace sexual harassment– time and again Our Betters on the Left (all bow) seem to think it’s okay for them to do things they would denounce as crimes against nature, were they committed by Republicans.

That’s not to say Republicans and conservatives don’t have their problem children, too. (John Ensign, anyone? Larry Craig?) But we, at least, usually police our own and send the offenders away. That’s because conservatives recognize that this behavior is juvenile, wrong, and unworthy of someone granted the public trust and the dignity of office.

For many on the Left, that seems to be a feature, not a bug.

via izzysroses

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Secrets? We don’t need no steeenking secrets!

Oh, what the heck? Why not tell al-Qaeda just what we’re doing in North Africa, where we’re doing it from, and what kinds of planes we’re flying?

And while we’re at it, let’s give them the nuclear launch codes, too:

U.S. expands secret intelligence operations in Africa

Note that word “secret” Shh! You don’t know anything about this… Don’t tell! 

The U.S. military is expanding its secret intelligence operations across Africa, establishing a network of small air bases to spy on terrorist hideouts from the fringes of the Sahara to jungle terrain along the equator, according to documents and people involved in the project.

At the heart of the surveillance operations are small, unarmed turboprop aircraft disguised as private planes. Equipped with hidden sensors that can record full-motion video, track infrared heat patterns, and vacuum up radio and cellphone signals, the planes refuel on isolated airstrips favored by African bush pilots, extending their effective flight range by thousands of miles.

About a dozen air bases have been established in Africa since 2007, according to a former senior U.S. commander involved in setting up the network. Most are small operations run out of secluded hangars at African military bases or civilian airports.

The article insists that much of this report (and, again, it’s fascinating reading) comes from public sources… but much of it doesn’t, also. And while it’s one thing to say the US is ramping up special forces operations in Africa with the cooperation of friendly local governments, it’s a whole other ball of “WTF??” to publicize details of bases, cities, and just which governments are helping us. Just the kind of things Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQAM, the local AQ affiliate) or the Nigerian Boko Haram would love to know so they can have an easier time striking back against our… “secret” operations.

I had to love this little gem from late in the article:

In an interview with The Post, Djibril Bassole, the foreign minister of Burkina Faso, praised security relations between his country and the United States, saying they were crucial to containing al-Qaeda forces in the region.

“We need to fight and protect our borders,” he said. “Once they infiltrate your country, it’s very, very difficult to get them out.”

Bassole declined, however, to answer questions about the activities of U.S. Special Operations forces in his country.

“I cannot provide details, but it has been very, very helpful,” he said. “This cooperation should be very, very discreet. We should not show to al-Qaeda that we are now working with the Americans.”

Umm…. too late?  Hate to break it to you, Djibril, but al-Qaeda has people who can use computers and probably saw the same article I did. Agreeing to drinks with the Post reporter was not the best idea, capiche?

This may be another in the series of leaks designed to make Obama look tough on national security, or it may just be a case of too many people being too willing to talk to the reporter from the big newspaper and wanting to look important. Regardless, I wish to God more people would remember that we are at war and that, sometimes, silence really is a virtue.

As the great Strother Martin once said, “Morons. I’ve got morons on my team.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Israeli Intelligence to Obama: Quit stealing the credit!

Remember when I blew my stack over “someone” (*cough* White House *cough*) leaking classified information about the development of the Stuxnet virus, aimed at Iran’s nuclear weapons program, to the New York Times? It was evident that these and other leaks were being made to boost Obama’s reputation in a difficult reelection race.

Well, well. Surprise, surprise. It seems President Look-At-Me has been caught claiming credit that wasn’t his to claim:

In his book [NYT reporter David] Sanger argues that it was an American idea to attack Iranian nuclear installations with sophisticated and clandestine cyberspace warfare – planting viruses and worms in Iran’s computers.  According to the writer, the operation — code-named ”Olympic Games” — was initiated in 2007 by the Bush administration and sped up under President Obama. In an excerpt adapted from his book by the Times, Sanger wrote that only at a later stage were Israeli intelligence experts and computer wizards were brought in and joined forces.

The Israeli officials actually told me a different version. They said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of.

The author of the article, former Haaretz reporter Yossi Melman, also quotes these officials as saying they were reluctant to get involved because they realized the US is deep into its election season. But… come on. Melman would never have been told this information if someone high up didn’t want it to get out. The message is clear: “We did the hard work; stop being a schmuck!”

So now we know(1) not only the president is self-centered enough to leak classified information to make himself look good, but he has to exaggerate his role, too.

But, then again, this is a man who (or whose flunkies) thought it a good idea to insert himself into the official biographies of his recent predecessors, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.

We should just roll our eyes, instead.

via Joel Pollak

Footnote:
(1) Sure, I recognize the Israelis could be telling their own fibs for their own purposes. Maybe. Given recent history of leaks all designed to make the boss look good, however, I’m inclined to credit Melman’s reporting more than the White House.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

President “Look at Me!” blows our national secrets — again

This time about Stuxnet, the super-virus that’s been wreaking havoc with the Iranians’ “peaceful” nuclear program. The New York Times Obama Marketing Department has the story:

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.

“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.

Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium.

This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day.

What was it I said in another post about keeping one’s mouth shut with national secrets? Oh, yeah…

One of the greatest secrets you can have in intelligence work –especially when dealing with a deadly enemy– is that you’ve compromised their security. That you’ve cracked their codes, found their safe houses, planted a bug in their meetings, slipped a mole deep inside… so many things. You want them kept secret because you can exploit the advantage again and again, disrupting and demoralizing your enemy because they can’t figure out how you’re always one step ahead. These are secrets you go to your grave with, because, once blown, they’re useless.

Again, this is great news, and the article is a fascinating read, but does anyone really believe that its publication on the same day as a horrific, recession-foreboding jobs report is just a coincidence?

No, I didn’t either.

Yeah, I know they said they interviewed a bunch of people (Do you really think they talked without Washington’s permission?) and said some secrets were kept secret, but… give me a break.

The danger of an article like this is that the Iranians (or their patrons in Russia and China) might be able to deduce from what is said and not said crucial information — about Stuxnet itself, about how it was inserted into Iran, about who may have helped us from the inside… who knows?

And that’s the point. We don’t know what they know, and thus we don’t know if anything in this article might provide them with a valuable clue or a key to a defense. Remember, it was a series of small, seemingly obscure clues that lead us to the big secret of Osama bin Laden’s location. Who knows what tidbit useful to Tehran might be found in this article?

Thus the correct thing to do would have been to shut the Hell up.

After WWII, the British kept the truth about Ultra secret for 29 years. With a national secret of comparable importance, Obama can’t wait 29 months to brag about it.

This is an administration so self-absorbed, so puerile, that it values the security of American strategic secrets lower than the president’s reelection chances.

November can’t come fast enough.

PS: Romney 2012, because he’s an adult and can keep his mouth shut.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)