All Desiree Carpenter wanted was a chance to succeed. As a young woman Ms. Carpenter (not her real name) had been subjected to repeated physical and sexual assaults, losing her eyesight during one attack. Her assailant did hard time, but now he was back on the streets and vowing to track her down. 

Her only hope was to flee to another state, assume a new identity, and start over. Washington was the best place to begin anew, since the state had passed tough anti-stalking laws. So she packed her bags and hopped on the train with her two children in tow, bound for Bellingham, a couple hours north of Seattle. 

Being blind, she had come into a laptop computer with a screen reader that converts text to the spoken word. That’s how Desiree and I exchanged information for this article.  

Arriving at the Bellingham train station, she expectantly called the Womencare Shelter, a group that bills itself as a “feminist organization working to end violence against women:” www.womencareshelter.org . 

Desiree was told to go to the local MacDonald’s to be interviewed by an intake worker. There she was scrutinized to make sure “I was acceptable,” as Desiree later recounted. The staffer told Ms. Carpenter to detail her rape experiences while her children sat quietly and listened. 

Admitted to the shelter, the staff removed her daughter’s electronic homeschooling program, saying African-Americans spend too much time with rap videos. Desiree’s television was padlocked and she was informed she could only watch TV on weekends. 

Like all residents, Desiree was assigned housekeeping chores. It’s not that the tasks were menial, but asking a blind woman to clean toilets and sort broken glass seems a little cold-hearted. When the new resident questioned her duties, the staff urged her to become more “empowered.”  

The staff forbade the woman from making safety accommodations on the shelter’s flat-top stove. So Desiree and her young children ate micro-waved meals and peanut butter sandwiches for the rest of their stay. 

When residents wanted to re-enter the facility, they typed in a security code. Desiree asked to have the keypad marked with Braille dots, leading her to be ridiculed as being disruptive and manipulative.  

At one point a resident confided to her, “The staff here acts worse than an abuser.” 

The shelter did help Desiree to secure the all-important name change. Of course that entailed losing all her educational credentials, job references, credit cards, and so forth. That was the sacrifice she knew she would have to make. 

Over the next two weeks things went from bad to worse, especially after Ms. Carpenter complained about the videotape that lectured residents why organized religion was “oppressive” to women. 

In desperation, Desiree contacted the Bellingham Adult Protective Services, pleading they dispatch a disability aide so she could cook her own meals.  

But the Womencare director ordered “Nyet,” claiming that would compromise the shelter’s secret location. Then the shelter staff began to suspect she was planning to file a complaint with the Washington Human Rights Council – of course that was forbidden by shelter rules. 

So that evening the director barged into Desiree’s room and issued an ultimatum: “Either you drop your civil rights complaint or you’re out of here!”  When Desiree tearfully said she had only requested someone to assist with the necessities of life, the staff interpreted her claim of innocence to be further proof of guilt.

That was reason enough to summon the police. Within minutes a female officer dashed into the shelter, gun drawn, pulled the startled children out of bed, and ordered them out. The officer explained that even though Desiree had not violated any rules, the shelter was “exiting” her because she was unhappy with their services. 

Then came the crushing blow – the shelter director blurted out Desiree Carpenter’s previous name. The officer hastily entered both names, linked by a single report, into the National Crime Information Center database.  

In that moment, all the labors of the past month were undone, all her hopes of a life free of fear were dashed! 

The staff then ransacked Desiree’s room, stuffing her possessions, food, and legal documents into a black trash bag. Mother, son, and daughter were sent packing into the rainy night. 

During her one-month nightmare at Womencare, Ms. Carpenter suffered too many indignities to recount in a single column – more details can be seen at www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-54.htm .  

In the end, Desiree’s daughter said she would rather die than ever again trust an abuse shelter.

I was thinking earlier today about the huge numbers of Democratic distortions and outright deceptions swirling around in the news. Nancy Pelosi calling drilling a GOP hoax and continuing to blame Republicans for gas prices; Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats deflecting attention from their historic 91% DISapproval rating by renewing calls for W to be impeached; their deafening silence on how badly the war in Iraq is going and their insistence on sticking the many with the tab for the greed and ignorance of a few in housing speculation. All of these things and so much more await the nation foolish enough to grant these people additional power in November in the name of ‘Change’. What we need a change from is Democratic policy!

Just exactly how bad would it be for Democrats to be in charge of both the White House and Congress? While there is no way to tell for sure beyond the incontestable “Very, very bad!”, we have a fly-on-the-wall view of the destruction awaiting America’s millions. It was provided by none other than Democratic icon and NY Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer.

Most of you are by now aware of the failure of either the second or third largest bank in US History on Friday, July 12th, 2008. Depositors staged a run on California based IndyMac to the tune of $100 million! The bank collapsed and was taken over by the federal government who opened up again this morning for business as usual. Well, except for the depositors with balances over the FDIC guaranteed $100,000 limit. As of this writing, there’s no word on what happened to balances over that amount although the first $100,000 is safe.

What you may not be aware of, as I was not, is WHY there was a run on IndyMac. I assumed, incorrectly, it was related to the subprime mortgage bailout and poor loan management and performance by IndyMac. Subprime mortgages are involved. They provided the weakness IndyMac was dealing with. However, that’s not why depositors broke the bank and headed for the hills with their cash.

Erick Erickson at RedState has the scoop. It seems Senator Schumer was not content to notify the Office of Thrift Supervision, IndyMac’s regulator, of his concerns about IndyMac’s condition and stability. Beyond that responsible notification, Senator Schumer made his concerns very public via a series of strategic leaks via letters to . When the public got wind of his concerns, they panicked and destroyed a financial institution.

This is not simply my highlighting a Democrat’s bad behavior. The Office of Thrift Supervision’s Director, John Reich, issued a written statement laying IndyMac’s collapse at Charles Schumer’s feet.

“As a regulator of insured depository institutions, we do not publicly comment on the financial condition or supervisory activities related to open and operating institutions,” Reich wrote. “We believe it is critically important to maintain the confidentiality of examination and supervision information.”

He went on: “Dissemination of incomplete or erroneous information can erode public confidence, mislead depositors and investors, and cause unintended consequences, including depositor runs and panic stock trades. Rumors and innuendo cause damage to financial institutions that might not occur otherwise and these concerns drive our strict policy of privacy.”

Senator Schumer evidently felt such a responsible handling of matters such as these was, itself, irresponsible and needed a little nudge in the right direction from his office. He did not deny or even apologize for his actions. Instead he justified them in a statement issued through his office in which he said,

The home loan bank system has an obligation to lend responsibly and police its members. But it has not been doing its job. We have found the only way to get the home loan bank system to act appropriately and positively is to make public the concerns we’ve already expressed privately.

Schumer’s hubris and arrogance as evidenced by his actions were summed up in a statement by former US Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke.

“If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system,” Hawke said.

“Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don’t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you’d be crazy to share information with Schumer.”

I opened with noting this post would give you a glimpse into government with Democrats in control. Hawke’s comments are all the description one needs when contemplating such a horror. Havoc causing; reckless; grossly irresponsible; untrustworthy; incredibly stupid; putting [America] at risk; not to be privy to confidential or delicate information. One Senator, acting as he saw fit with no thought or concern for the people affected, decided to impose his will on a segment of the American people. That they weren’t people who could hold him accountable for his actions at the ballot box is even more disgusting. His actions have done incalculable harm to the economies, jobs, futures and dreams of thousands of people associated with IndyMac; the very little people Schumer and company ceaselessly tell us they look out for.

There’s some looking out to be done here, all right. America had better look out for itself and vote, not just “No!”, but “Heck, NO!” to any Democrat seeking office in November. If we don’t, we can all sit back and look out for more destruction born of arrogance headed down from the heights of Capitol Hill courtesy of Democrats.

Discuss this personally with Blue Collar Muse

by Jim Kouri, CPP
Closely tied to the question of how best to set intelligence requirements are the larger questions of how to improve analysis by the intelligence community and how to increase its impact.

Many policymakers and lawmakers are critical of the analysis they receive, and both intelligence consumers and producers often share a frustration over its perceived lack of utility and hence lack of impact. This includes local law enforcement commanders who — more than ever — depend on solid information in order to deploy their resources in post-9/11 America.

The best way to ensure high-quality analysis is to bring high quality analysts into the process. Here it helps to think of the challenge as one of improving both the stock and the flow of personnel. Certain stock (career personnel) need to be encouraged to specialize in a geographical area or function and rewarded for excellence. Not everyone need pursue a career with a management component. This is not meant to diminish the value of management skills. To the contrary, the CIA in particular needs to place much more emphasis on formal management and leadership training as well as demonstrated competence as a prerequisite for promotion for those headed for senior levels.

But better analysis will also require reducing the isolation of the intelligence community. A greater flow of talented people into the agency from academia and business is essential. Greater provision ought to be made for lateral and mid-career entry as well as for short-term entry (measured in weeks, months, or years) or even for just a single, short-duration project. In this way the intelligence community could attract and exploit some of the best minds from academia and other sections of society that would otherwise not be available.

Working to improve the quality of analysts, however, is not enough; it is also necessary to change the relationship between intelligence producers and consumers. Intelligence professionals must understand the needs of policymakers and vice versa. One way to do so is through regular rotation of career intelligence officers into positions in the policymaking departments (State, Defense, Treasury, etc.) and the NSC. Temporary assignment to the relevant congressional staffs should also be an option. Sabbaticals as in academia or business would be similarly useful; indeed, such rotations should be required for promotion to senior levels. The same logic argues for assigning careerists normally in the policymaking realm to periodic tours inside the intelligence community.

The danger of politicization — the potential for the intelligence community to distort information or judgment in order to please political authorities — is real. Moreover, the danger can never be eliminated if intelligence analysts are involved, as they must be, in the policy process. The challenge is to develop reasonable safeguards while permitting intelligence producers and policymaking consumers to interact.

The need to protect intelligence from political pressure and parochialism is a powerful argument for maintaining a strong, centralized capability and not leaving decisions affecting important intelligence-related questions solely to the policymaking departments. (Centralization raises the risk of politicization stemming from the DCI. Only the president, senior officials involved in national security, and Congress can help guard against politicization-though they too can try to politicize intelligence.)

Unlike business, in the intelligence business, the customer is not always right.

The intelligence community can protect itself from political pressure through competitive analysis of controversial questions. Guarding against politicization is also a useful function for Congress and the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. (One option to consider in this regard would be to reconstitute  to make it selected by and responsible to Congress as well as the president, as was the Aspin-Brown Commission.) Perhaps most important, the leadership of the intelligence community should reinforce the ethic that speaking the truth to those in power is required-and defend anyone who comes under criticism for doing so.

Irrelevance is a related and arguably bigger problem for analysts than politicization. Intelligence analysis rarely impresses itself upon policymakers, who are inevitably busy and inundated with more demands on their time and attention than they can possibly meet. Intelligence officials must draw attention to their product and market their ideas. This is especially true in the case of any early warning or intelligence-related development that has potentially significant consequences for important interests. A phone call, a personalized memorandum, a meeting-any and all are required if the situation is sufficiently serious. Involving relevant policymakers and other consumers in the regular personnel evaluations of the analysts who serve them would underline the importance of such an effort and provide an incentive to individual analysts.

Another serious problem to be avoided is mindset or “groupthink.” Any organization, and the CIA or any intelligence agency is no exception, can fall into the trap of not questioning basic assumptions that affect much subsequent analysis. It is essential t hat competitive or redundant analysis be encouraged. Currently and historically, less than a tenth of what the United States spends on intelligence is devoted to analysis; it is the least expensive dimension of intelligence. Not all duplication is wasteful. This country could surely afford to spend more in those areas of analysis where being wrong can have major adverse consequences.

One other aspect of analysis merits mention, namely, the balance between current intelligence and long-term estimates. For years the culture of the intelligence community, in particular that of the CIA, has favored the latter. But it is precisely in long-term analysis of familiar subjects and broad trends where secret information tends to be less critical and government analysts are for the most part no better and often not as good as their counterparts in academia and the private sector.

Also, many estimates are likely to be less relevant to busy policymakers, who must focus on the immediate. All this suggests that the emphasis placed on such estimates should be reduced. To the extent long-term estimates are produced, they ought to be concise, written by individuals, and sources justifying conclusions ought to be shown as they would in any academic work. If the project is a group effort, differences among participants ought to be sharpened and prominently acknowledged. While it is valuable to point out areas of consensus, it is more important that areas of dispute be highlighted than that all agencies be pressured to reach a conclusion that represents little more than a lowest common denominator

The most important function of the clandestine services-mostly found in the CIA Directorate of Operations — is the collection of human intelligence. Such intelligence can complement other sources and, in certain instances, be the principal or sole source of information.

This tends to be true in closed societies, where decision-making and information is limited to a few, highly valued efforts are meant to be kept secret, and the targeted activity is not easily captured by reconnaissance or eavesdropping. Human intelligence can also help shed light on intentions as well as capabilities. Such knowledge is likely to prove crucial in tracking the activities of terrorists and in determining the status of unconventional weapons programs. Human intelligence is no panacea. Contacts and networks take years to develop, if they can be developed at all-but it holds the often unique potential to provide an integrated look at a subject’s thinking and capability.

A second task for the clandestine services is covert action, that is, the carrying out of operations to influence events in another country in which it is deemed important to hide the hand of the US government. Historically, covert action has included such activities as channeling funds to selected individuals, movements or political parties, media placements, broadcasting, and paramilitary support.

Such operations can be designed to bolster the capabilities of friendly governments in dealing with challenges to them and their societies. Covert measures can also have the opposite purpose, to weaken a hostile government. The capability to undertake these and other tasks-be it to frustrate a terrorist action, intercept some technology or equipment that would help a rogue state or group build a nuclear device, or assist some group trying to overthrow a leadership whose actions threaten US interests-constitutes an important national security tool, one that can provide policymakers a valuable alternative or complement to other policies, including diplomacy, sanctions, and military intervention.

Clandestine operations, whether for collection of foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or covert action, will often require associating with individuals of unsavory reputations who in some instances may have committed crimes. This differs little from the tradition in law enforcement of using criminals to catch criminals and should be acceptable so long as the likely benefits outweigh the certain moral and potential political costs of the association-a calculation that should not be made solely by the person in the field. The only other word of caution  (in addition to ensuring legality, sufficient control, and adequate oversight) is that any covert action must appear consistent with established US policy so that, if discovered, the purposes behind the effort would be understood.

Clandestine operations for whatever purpose currently are circumscribed by a number of legal and policy constraints. These deserve review to avoid diminishing the potential contribution of this instrument. At a minimum, the Task Force recommended that a fresh look be taken at limits on the use of nonofficial “covers” for hiding and protecting those involved in clandestine activities. In addition, rules that can prohibit preemptive attacks on terrorists or support for individuals hoping to bring about a regime change in a hostile country need to be assessed periodically.

Maintaining and enhancing clandestine capabilities takes time and resources; creating and nurturing such capabilities ought to be a high priority of the intelligence community given the importance of targets that otherwise cannot be reached. Individuals must not only learn the craft but also develop language skills, deep knowledge of a society, and covers to shield their intelligence-related activity. They will also benefit from having available an adequate official US presence; the closing of US embassies and other missions abroad reduces the capacity to collect intelligence and undertake clandestine operations.

On the other hand, one cannot ignore the Directorate of Operations’ record of operating with questionable legality and judgment. Constant vigilance inside the CIA is needed to ensure that the DO is doing quality work consistent with policy priorities, senior officials inside and outside the CIA are kept fully informed, officer’s actions are consistent with existing regulations and laws, senior DO personnel are treating their employees responsibly, and analysts outside the directorate have full access to its product.

In return, those in the operations directorate should know that risk-taking will be supported and they will be politically protected so long as what they do is authorized and legal under US law at the time. Such support is crucial; contrary to widespread impressions, one problem with the clandestine services has been a lack of initiative brought about by a fear of retroactive discipline and a lack of high-level support. This must be rectified if the intelligence community is to continue to produce the human intelligence that will surely be needed in the future.

(The above is an abridged version of a lecture given by this blogger at a conference held by the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police.) 
 
 
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
   

-By Warner Todd Huston

French media loses big court case proving Palestinian propaganda false, New York Times ignores shocking story… Why?

France TV 2 has lost a major court case in France that makes the lie to a major piece of Palestinian propaganda. In 2000 an incident occurred in the Palestinian areas that has since been used as propaganda for the Palestinian cause all across the world and the New York Times has repeatedly been a willing host for this propaganda. Now, however, it has been proven that France 2 perpetrated a lie that has given succor to terrorism. And where is the New York Times with this momentous news that proves Israeli innocence? Nowhere to be seen.

In 2000 the Palestinians began what they called the second intifada against Israel, a kick in the teeth to the Israelis seeking only peace. During the early stages of this attack France 2 TV, a state run television station, aired what it claimed was a video of a child and his father being shot and killed by Israeli security forces.

Palestinian sources claimed that what France 2 TV showed the French public and the world was the death of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura and his father, killed by Israeli security forces. The shock of this small boy being mercilessly shot down by Jews drew condemnation like a lightening rod. Supporters of Palestine the world over were outraged, posters appeared, protests were whipped up, postage stamps with the image of this child’s supposed last minutes on Earth were even created in Egypt and Tunisia. The “death” of Muhammad al-Dura rallied support to Palestinians against the Jews. And for the last 8 years the New York Times has been right there with the “news” pushing the story for all its worth.

In 2002, for instance, a Times story told of how little Muhammad al-Dura was a “12-year-old boy from Gaza whose father could not shield him from a hail of Israeli gunfire.” In 2000 a Times story told us of frightened Gazan Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, who told a pitiful story of the fear of his own children based on the “death” of little al-Dura.

”Like every child here, they are haunted by the image of Muhammad al-Dura,” he continued, referring to the 12-year-old boy shot dead as he crouched behind his father — film that is repeatedly shown on Palestinian and Arab television stations. ”I have never had a gun in my life. But my children — who are doing pee-pee in their beds — want me to buy one, because obviously Muhammad al-Dura’s father couldn’t protect him well enough with his bare hands.”

The New York Times has been at the forefront of allowing Palestinians and their sympathizers use the al-Dura tale as propaganda to further Palestinian interests. Dutifully, maybe even with relish, the Times has recorded how this image has been a rallying point for supporters of the Palestinians against the Jews.

There was a problem, however, with this little tale. The film showing the death of little Muhammad al-Dura didn’t seem exactly right to some folks in France, in particular a bulldog journalist named Philippe Karsenty (among others). Mr. Karsenty didn’t think things seemed right with the claim that it was Israeli bullets that struck the boy and his father. It seemed to Mr. Karsenty that the trajectory was wrong for bullets to be coming from where the Israeli forces were firing. Then he noticed that, despite the fact that the boy and his father were supposedly shot to death, no blood appears anywhere on the video of the “shooting.” Not on the walls where bullets seemed to splatter, nor on the pavement under the prone, supposedly dead, figures of the two. Philippe Karsenty felt that the whole thing was a Palestinian fake and he began to agitate for the truth.

France 2 TV, however, not only denied any such possibility, but refused to show the world all the video before and after the supposed shooting that might clear the matter up and prove one way or the other. Philippe Karsenty continued agitating and writing excoriating France 2 TV for its obstinacy until the TV station decided to take him to court for “libel.”

In 2005, the New York Times published a story detailing the case against France 2 TV. It seems to me that this is the only story that the Times published about the questions over the authenticity of the al-Dura video. I have searched the Times archives and found but this one story.

Well, it is now 2008 and the French court case is over and it is a stunning result. Mr. Karsenty won. The case of libel was thrown out. This is a stunning victory because Mr. Karsenty had to prove to the French court that his claims that the film is a fraud are legitimate claims. Karsenty presented enough evidence for the French court to rule against a state operated entity and this is a big upset in France because this does not typically happen. The state almost never loses.

Karsenty had several experts come to his aid as technical witnesses that the whole thing did not add up but the French court also at last had a look at some more of the film that France 2 TV had steadfastly refused to show up until this point. It clearly showed Palestinian operatives staging a faux fight between themselves and the far off Israeli security forces. It revealed fake rescues of unharmed people, fake casualties and staged injuries. What the court saw was the creation of Palestinian propaganda. In other words, the “death” of Muhammad al-Dura was a staged lie, invented as theater by Palestinian operatives to use as anti-Jewish propaganda. Karsenty, for his part, has demanded that France 2 TV admit their lies.

Now it is time for France 2 to acknowledge that it created and is continuing to perpetuate the worst anti-Semitic libel of our era. It’s the responsibility of the French government and, ultimately, the responsibility of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy — who is, for all practical purposes, the chief executive of French public television — to finally reveal the truth.

Since the New York Times has used this story to the succor of terrorist supporters everywhere since 2000, one might imagine that the Times would rush to correct the record now that the evidence proving that the al-Dura tale is a lie has been accepted by French courts.

One would be wrong to assume that the Times was so willing to debunk its favorite anti-Jew story, sadly.

There is no story in the Times print edition on the Karsenty victory since the French court ruling was handed down on May 21st. Not one. All I can find is one mention in a NYT Internet blog, The Lede, by Times blogger Mike Nizza from May 21st, 2008.

And, instead of a story revealing how this al-Dura film was a lie, what does Nizza conclude about the court case? That the “debate” is “far from over.”

The court’s ruling has not been released, increasing the likelihood that this round in a continuing debate is far from over.

Nowhere does Nizza mention that the rest of the al-Dura film clearly shows the staging of a firefight. Nizza doesn’t bother with the fact that the al-Dura death scene was an Oscar worthy performance by Palestinian propagandists.

So what gives, New York Times? Why the reluctance to cover this new twist in the al-Dura story that you have used so many times in the past to support Palestinian terrorists? You have used this tale to beat the Israelis up for 8 years, now. But, we have final proof that this is a faked video. The Jews didn’t kill little Muhammad al-Dura.

Where is your story now?