Iran has a number of intelligence and security organizations that include the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (known as VEVAK for its initials in Farsi), as well as the group called the Pasdaran, or Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. Up to 1978, Iran was controlled by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, who maintained power through a state security organization, SAVAK. His overthrow led to the establishment, in 1979, of the world's first major Islamic theocracy under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Thus was born a new form of police state in contrast to the Soviet, Nazi, or nationalist models—a state in which security forces are often directed toward the enforcement of religious law.

In accordance with the theocratic nature of government in a country officially known as "the Islamic Republic of Iran," the nation's "supreme leader" is a religious authority: first Khomeini and then, after Khomeini's death in 1989, Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei. The "supreme leader" sits on the Joint Committee for Special Operations, an Iranian organizational equivalent of the U.S. National Security Council.

Other members of the Joint Committee include the nation's president (its top secular official), and representatives of the Pasdaran, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Security and Intelligence. The Joint Committee coordinates international activities of Iranian operatives, which include intelligence-gathering, attempts to obtain special weapons technology by clandestine means, and efforts to control the community of Iranian exiles—as well as alleged enemies of the revolution—overseas.

VEVAK. Iranian leaders' legendary hatred of the United States is rooted in history. The Central Intelligence Agency helped overthrow the government of Mohammad Mossadeqh in 1953, and provided support to his replacement, the Shah. U.S. and Israeli intelligence helped train the hated SAVAK, which included some 15,000 operatives and practiced torture using electric shock and other brutal methods. Ironically, when the new regime established its replacement for SAVAK—initially known as SAVAMA, and later re-titled VEVAK—it needed experienced intelligence operatives, so it brought in former low-ranking officers of SAVAK and the Shah's military.

VEVAK operatives overseas use a number of covers, posing as bankers, students, laborers, or employees of Iran Air. These operatives help oversee an international terror network that claimed well over 1,000 lives in more than 200 terrorist attacks during the first two decades after the revolution. At times their work is assassination, as when they conducted a worldwide manhunt for author Salman Rushdie after the publication of his allegedly blasphemous 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.

In 1997, a German court convicted four assassins linked with Iran for the slaying of three Kurdish dissidents and their translator at a restaurant in Berlin in 1992. Much of the Iranians' operations in Germany took place through their diplomatic mission, from which they monitored some 100,000 Iranian expatriates throughout the country. Iran also used its diplomatic mission as cover for efforts to procure nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons technology.

Iranian and Iranian-sponsored terrorists have been involved in an array of worldwide terrorist activities including: the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983; bombings in Paris in 1986; at the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994; and at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in June 1995. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq, and North Korean "Axis of Evil" in his 2002 State of the Union speech.

The Pasdaran. Western analysts argue that sponsorship of terror in the name of Islam is one of the few things Iran has in common with Iraq, against which it fought what became the longest and bloodiest war anywhere in the world since WWII. Among the notable aspects of the grisly 1980–88 Iran-Iraq war were the Bajeef (volunteers), young men without military training who volunteered to go to the front on suicide missions. After the war, they were incorporated in a larger force that had existed since May 1979, when Khomeini established it by decree: the Pasdaran.

Former Bajeef members, and other Pasdaran with lower levels of training, were detailed to perform the functions of a theocratic police force—harassing or arresting women who wore makeup or inappropriate attire, and seizing forbidden items such as videotapes, photographs, pork products, and alcohol. At the more sophisticated end of Pasdaran operations are its activities overseas, including those of the Qods or Jerusalem Force, which in the mid-1990s allegedly trained terrorists in Sudan and elsewhere.

Exporting the revolution. Iran sought to export its revolution through support of Shi’a Muslim factions such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, but its leadership did not necessarily resist alliances with Muslims of the larger Sunni sect. Hence, during the mid-1990s Iran sought to build ties with Bosnia—ironically, a country known in the West for the relative moderation of its Muslims. Still, Iran succeeded in placing several hundred agents in Bosnia, where they even penetrated U.S. efforts to train the Bosnian army.

A recent article published by the Associated Press (AP) titled: Officers’ failures cited in inquiry caught my attention. In brief the journalist reported, “An internal investigation into the shooting at the Texas army post in November found that several officers failed to use appropriate judgment and standards in overseeing the career of Army Maj. Nidal Hasan and that their actions should be investigated immediately. Hasan an Army psychiatrist, has been charged with killing 13 people.

I read the article several times looking for those buzz words we’ve grown so fond of in the last 20 years but didn’t find one single mention of political correctness. The article makes me wonder what the behind-closed-door meetings at the Pentagon were really about. Were the military officials who conducted the investigation ignorant or just scared out of their wits when they penned their names to this report citing failure to use appropriate judgment and standards in overseeing Maj. Hasan’s career? Think about this for a moment—imagine that you were in charge of overseeing the promotion of various officers under your command. The majority of those reporting directly to you are medical doctors, nurses, surgery technicians, etc, and with two wars in progress there was a shortage of those professions. You needed all you could get. Now, stay in your imaginary state a while longer, Hasan is a US born medical doctor with a degree from an accredited school of medicine here in America, everything is okay so far, right? You know that Hasan is Muslim and he is also Arab, how about his status now, are there any red-flags? According to the ACLU and a host of other watchdog organizations (all US populated, funded and organized) there should not be any red-flags. As a matter of fact some of those US funded organizations and the people who populate them will call you racist and a bigot if you allow that red-flag to be flown, in other words if you as Hasan’s supervising commander utter words of a suspicious nature you probably can kiss your next promotion goodbye. The probability of an American doctor killing 13 people is so very remote it wouldn’t show on anyone’s radar. Plus, you don’t want to be called a bigot and a racist and you don’t want to lose those eagles you have worked 20 years to get, so you keep your mouth shut. What do you get for your effort of trying to balance PC and the medical needs of soldiers in a war zone (a real catch-22)? Your reward for doing the best you can under extremely difficult conditions imposed by factions that are at odds 24/7—the public, victim’s families, your superiors and the PC watchdog groups—is humiliation and career ending military reckoning. The same thing you hoped to avoid in the first place.

If the mass murder of innocent people weren’t so absolutely terrible in and of itself the impending political and military shuck-n-jive would be some reality TV I’d like to watch. The posturing and government two-step we will be exposed to now that the “investigation” is concluded will be entertaining in a sadistic sort of way.

Marvin Wiebener

http://marvinwiebener.tatepublishing.net/

President Obama chaired a meeting of those agencies responsible for America’s safety and security January 6, 2010. He was concerned about the security lapse that allowed a suspected Islamic radical into the US with one carry-on and a one-way ticket. All of which were big time signals that the guy shouldn’t be allowed to board a plane but did. Oh yes, another thing, his own father contacted the US state department and told them he might be a threat. The president held a news conference after the meeting and in no uncertain terms told the listeners he was putting his foot down. All this of course is routine behavior from anyone who has the misfortune to be president, Democrats do it and so do Republicans. The problem as I see it isn’t so much that Obama ‘put his foot down’ but that he did it for the wrong reason. The president, after months of placating performance, now decides to be ‘tough’ and his effort seems hollow, toothless, at the risk of sounding cliché. A president can not be open, transparent nor extend a hand to known enemies nor apologize for past US alleged transgressions nor bow to other world leaders and then expect to pull off a Dirty Harry act. It is much easier for the president to start out tough until things are going more his way then soften and show an openness to negotiation as compromises are agreed to. This is the wrong reason I referred to above, President Obama put his foot down to shore up his position as a tough minded leader of the most successful democracy in the world. Going from a social work approach to trying to appear strong isn’t easy, as I am sure the president is finding out.

President Obama is earning a reputation for being weak, how can he ‘put his foot down’, even within his own administration and expect to be taken seriously? Agency heads that attended the aforementioned meeting will respond appropriately but not because their boss is a hard-hitting no-nonsense leader, they will respond because they know it is the right thing to do.

Since this blog deals mostly with espionage I will say, in regard to this matter, that there is enough blame to go around, however, as far as intelligence gathering goes those folks did their job. The breakdown wasn’t with the CIA but with those responsible for acting on the intel gathered and appropriately distributed.

Marvin Wiebener

http://marvinwiebener.tatepublishing.net/

Obama and his administration took another public hit this week on two fronts. First, Napolitano (Homeland Security) said, “The system worked.” She was talking about Abdulmutallab’s (Fruit-of-the-Loom bomber) failed attempt to bring down a plane load of innocent people. Secondly, the president himself called the same event “an isolated incident” in an attempt to persuade US citizens to think differently about the scale of the narrowly averted attack on US soil.

The fallout from this ‘event’ was inevitable as well as expected. Obama’s administration began closing the gate after the horse got out, fortunately the horse didn’t get far before they were able to corral it. Now, to appease the public, heads will roll. Your guess is as good as mine as to who will face the guillotine, probably a midlevel manager that is willing to fall on his sword in anticipation of later rewards down the road. The “heads will roll” metaphor is the blood sacrifice (another metaphor) offered up by the administration in hopes it will placate the masses and calm us down, although I believe it to be a distraction from what the real problem is. The real problem is Obama’s obsession with trying to prove to his constituency that his policies are lifting the US out of the muck and mire of the Bush era. To that end he is minimizing the scale of events occurring around the world on behalf of the Islamic extremists bent on killing us. The reverse of this would be that Bush maximized the scale of events. I don’t see that one approach is better than the other but Obama’s administration apparently does. The only things between us (American citizens) and them (Islamic extremists) are intelligence gathering, the US military and common sense. When our own government threatens CIA operatives with legal action, and threaten legal action against Navy SEALS (and other military) for doing their job under the most difficult of conditions, when we offer foreign combatants the legal rights of US citizens and when we downplay the threat of Islamic extremism by calling an attack (failed, but nonetheless an attack) an isolated incident the administration has effectively weakened the US in the eyes of both our allies and our enemies. Loss of confidence in the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military is a standing we can’t afford to be in.  What’s next?

Marvin Wiebener

http://marvinwiebener.tatepublishing.net/

Obama and his administration took another public hit this week on two fronts. First, Napolitano (Homeland Security) said, “The system worked.” She was talking about Abdulmutallab’s (Fruit-of-the-loom bomber) failed attempt to bring down a plane load of innocent people. Secondly, the president himself called the same event “an isolated incident” in an attempt to persuade US citizens to think differently about the scale of the narrowly averted attack on US soil.

The fallout from this ‘event’ was inevitable as well as expected. Obama’s administration began closing the gate after the horse got out, fortunately the horse didn’t get far before they were able to corral it. Now, to appease the public, heads will roll. Your guess is as good as mine as to who will face the guillotine, probably a midlevel manager that is willing to fall on his sword in anticipation of later rewards down the road. The “heads will roll” metaphor is the blood sacrifice (another metaphor) offered up by the administration in hopes it will placate the masses and calm us down, although I believe it to be a distraction from what the real problem is. The real problem is Obama’s obsession with trying to prove to his constituency that his policies are lifting the US out of the muck and mire of Bush’s presidency. To that end he is minimizing the scale of events occurring around the world on behalf of the Islamic extremists bent on killing us. The reverse of this would be that Bush maximized the scale of events. I don’t see that one approach is better than the other but Obama’s administration apparently does. The only things between us (American citizens) and them (Islamic extremists) is intelligence gathering, the US military and common sense. When we threaten CIA operatives with legal action against them, when we threaten legal action against Navy SEALS (and other military), when we offer foreign combatants the legal rights of US citizens and when we downplay the threat of Islamic extremism by calling an attack (failed, but nonetheless an attack) an isolated incident the administration has effectively weakened the US in the eyes of both our allies and our enemies.  What’s next?

Actually the ‘story’ can’t be told, it is a secret and should stay that way. Many pundits/journalists and story hounds will dig deep, no stone left unturned looking for the real story behind this mission but, hopefully, they’ll not find a thing. And why are they so intent about discovery and revealing their finding via a well crafted article? Is it because you and I need to know, absolutely not. Like almost everyone else journalist want to be the best at what they do, win awards maybe even a Pulitzer for their work. But there is a limit to freedom-of-information and the first amendment—this is an example.

The following article characterizes America’s need for espionage (as a task) and secrecy (as a foundational element) in order for our way of life to remain secure. The second article exemplifies the desired result. President Barak Obama, armed with irrefutable proof secured through the act of espionage, made the right call.

Born in U.S., a Radical Cleric Inspires Terror

 By SCOTT SHANE

Published: November 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — In nearly a dozen recent terrorism cases in the United States, Britain and Canada, investigators discovered the suspects had something in common: a devotion to the message of Anwar al-Awlaki, an eloquent Muslim cleric who has turned the Web into a tool for extremist indoctrination.

Mr. Awlaki, 38, the son of a former agriculture minister and university president in Yemen, has never been accused of planting explosives himself. But experts on terrorism believe his persuasive endorsement of violence as a religious duty, in colloquial, American-accented English, has helped push a series of Western Muslims into terrorism.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., on Nov. 5, is only the latest suspect accused of perpetrating or plotting violence to be linked to the cleric.

In 2006, for example, a group of Canadian Muslims listened to Mr. Awlaki’s sermons on a laptop a few months before they were charged with plotting attacks in Ontario to have included bombings, shootings, storming the Parliament Building and beheading the Canadian prime minister.

In 2007, one of six men later convicted of plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey was picked up on a surveillance tape raving about Mr. Awlaki’s audio clips. “You gotta hear this lecture,” said the plotter, Shain Duka. Mr. Duka called the cleric’s interpretation of Muslim duties “the truth, no holds barred, straight how it is!”

Last year, Mr. Awlaki exchanged public letters on the Web with Al Shabaab, a Somali Islamist group that has attracted recruits among young Somali-Americans living in Minnesota. The message from Al Shabaab praised the cleric as “one of the very few scholars” who “defend the honor of the mujahideen.”

“Allah knows how many of the brothers and sisters have been affected by your work,” it said.

Evan Kohlmann, a counterterrorism researcher who has testified in terrorism trials in the United States and United Kingdom, said Mr. Awlaki’s work had also turned up in cases in Chicago and Atlanta and in at least seven in the United Kingdom.

“Al-Awlaki condenses the Al Qaeda philosophy into digestible, well-written treatises,” Mr. Kohlmann said. “They may not tell people how to build a bomb or shoot a gun. But he tells them who to kill, and why, and stresses the urgency of the mission.”

For at least a decade, counterterrorism officials have had a wary eye on Mr. Awlaki, an American citizen now living in Yemen. His contacts with three of the Sept. 11 hijackers, at mosques where he served in San Diego and Falls Church, Va., remain a perplexing mystery about the 2001 attacks, said Philip Zelikow, who was executive director of the national 9/11 commission.

But in recent years, concerns have focused on Mr. Awlaki’s influence via his Web site, his Facebook page and many booklets and CDs carrying his message, including a text called “44 Ways to Support Jihad.”

Mr. Awlaki’s current site, www.anwar-alawlaki.com, went offline after he was linked to Major Hasan, apparently because a series of Web hosting companies took it down. The home page on Wednesday displayed a Muslim greeting and a promise: “The Web site will be back to normal with a few days time.”

Starting late last year, Major Hasan sought religious advice from the cleric in e-mail messages intercepted by American intelligence. He had seen Mr. Awlaki preach at the Virginia mosque in 2001.

In July, the month Major Hasan was transferred to Fort Hood, Mr. Awlaki posted a blistering attack on his Web site denouncing Muslim soldiers who would fight against other Muslims, a conflict that preoccupied Major Hasan, who was facing deployment to Afghanistan.

“What kind of twisted fight is this?” Mr. Awlaki wrote on “Imam Anwar’s Blog.” A Muslim soldier who follows orders to kill Muslims, he wrote, “is a heartless beast, bent of evil, who sells his religion for a few dollars.”

After the Fort Hood shootings, Mr. Awlaki called Major Hasan a hero. “The only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. Army,” he wrote on his blog, “is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

The question of what to do about terror propagandists like Mr. Awlaki is complex. His writings, though they encourage violence, are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, legal authorities say.

Moreover, even as they fuel extremism, Web sites like his can be a valuable counterterrorism tool, because intelligence analysts use them to track those who, like Major Hasan, visit a site, post comments or e-mail its creators.

“The debate has gone on for a long time: take these sites down or leave them up to gather information,” said Brian Fishman, a consultant to several government agencies on terrorism.

Mr. Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971, where his father, Nasser al-Awlaki, was studying agricultural economics. After studying Islam in Yemen, Anwar, too, pursued an American education, earning a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Colorado State University and a master’s in education at San Diego State. While in San Diego, he was arrested for soliciting prostitutes, law enforcement records show.

At a San Diego mosque where he was an imam, Mr. Awlaki met two future hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. In early 2001, Mr. Awlaki moved to the Virginia mosque, attended by Mr. Hazmi and a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour. The 9/11 panel described the connection as suspicious. Law enforcement officials say they strongly doubted Mr. Awlaki knew of the plot, though they could not prove it.

While in the United States, Mr. Awlaki presented a moderate public face. A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, as imam at Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia, he told The New York Times that he would no longer tolerate “inflammatory” rhetoric. The article said Mr. Awlaki “is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.”

Johari Abdul-Malik, imam of the Virginia mosque, said Mr. Awlaki’s sermons were accessible, often witty explorations of Koran passages. “We could have all been duped,” he said. “But I think something happened to him, and he changed his views.”

One thing that happened, after he left the United States in 2002 for London and then Yemen, was eighteen months in a Yemeni prison. He has publicly blamed the United States for pressuring Yemeni authorities to keep him locked up and has said he was questioned by F.B.I. agents there.

Since his release in December 2007, his message has been even more overtly supportive of violence. In “44 Ways to Support Jihad,” he showed a wry awareness of intelligence agencies’ interest in him and his writings.

“The only ones who are spending the money and time translating Jihad literature are the Western intelligence services,” he wrote in English, “and too bad, they would not be willing to share it with you.”

Sources: Radical Cleric ‘Probably’ Killed

December 24, 2009 - 8:13 AM | by: Mike Levine

Hours after an interview with a radical Muslim cleric tied to the alleged Ft. Hood shooter was posted online, the cleric is now believed to have been killed in an airstrike in Yemen, two sources told FOX News.

U.S. officials believe Anwar al-Awlaki was "probably" killed in the airstrike, which killed dozens of militants, one source said.

Authorities are currently working to confirm that Awlaki is among the dead, the two sources said.

Late yesterday Al Jazeera's web site published an interview with Awlaki, who said the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at Ft. Hood early last month asked him whether killing fellow U.S. soldiers "was a religiously legitimate act or not."

In the interview, translated by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, Awlaki said he first received an email from Maj. Nidal Hasan on Dec. 17, 2008, and that initial email "was asking for an edict regarding the [possibility] of a Muslim soldier [killing] colleagues who serve with him in the American army."

Awlaki said subsequent emails "mentioned the religious justifications for targeting the Jews with missiles."

"Then there were some messages in which he asked for a way through which he could pass to us some money [and by that ] to participate in charitable activities," Awlaki said in the interview, as translated by MEMRI.

In one other email, as described by Awlaki, Hasan wrote: "You are the only Muslim Imam who lived in America and who understands Allah's words and knows well how to address people with a Western mentality."

FBI officials have said they first learned of Hasan in December last year while keeping tabs on Awlaki.

Over several months, Hasan communicated 10 to 20 times with Awlaki, but the "general tenor" of the communications was "fairly benign" and fit with research he was conducting at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., one U.S. official said last month.

"Because the content of the communications was explainable by his research and nothing else derogatory was found, the [investigators] concluded that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning," the FBI said in a statement issued days after the Ft. Hood shooting.

In the interview posted on Al Jazeera, Awlaki said he was surprised that U.S. authorities did not catch on to Hasan earlier.

"I wondered how didn't the American security agencies who claimed that they can read numbers of car plates from space, from everywhere in the world, I wondered how" they didn't reveal Hasan's plans, Awlaki said, according to MEMRI.

Awlaki said he first met Hasan about nine years ago, during Awlaki's short-lived tenure as head of a mosque in Northern Virginia, outside the nation's capital.

In his interview with Al Jazeera, Awlaki insisted he did not "recruit" Hasan to kill U.S. soldiers. But, Awlaki said, he wishes he had "the honor of having a bigger role" than he actually did.

"I may have a role in his intellectual direction, but nothing beyond that," Alwaki said.

Awlaki expressed hope that Hasan, charged by the military with 13 counts of pre-meditated murder and another 32 counts of attempted murder, would be executed.

"I pray to Allah to receive him in the ranks of the martyrs, since when he did what he did he was expecting to be a martyr," Awlaki said, according to MEMRI. "If he is executed, good for him."

The FBI declined to comment about Awlaki's latest claims, adding that last month's statement on the Ft. Hood shooting "still stands."

"The investigation to date has not identified a motive, and a number of possibilities remain under consideration."

The FBI and Justice Department have launched internal investigations into the handling of Hasan's case.

What will become of the USA in twenty-five years if we continue this trek down the yellow brick road (a fantasy metaphor) toward democratization of countries that lie outside the circle of American influence?

What will become of the USA if the executive and legislative branches of government continue to weaken America’s worldwide status? Obviously no one can predict the future or answer those questions even if one proposes a theory based on the outcome of historical events, but that doesn’t mean we can’t prognosticate.

I say that continuing to assert our way of life and governing on the rest of the world is a task we will never accomplish no matter how badly we feel for the people living under oppressive governments. And, we can not pursue governmental lucidity as long as we include agencies that provide intelligence to policy makers. Open records and transparency are concepts applicable to the departments of education, transportation, health, agriculture and so on but not for the CIA, NSA, DOD. You may be asking what’s this guy trying to say. If you read my blogs you’ll notice a pattern in my rants. The point I try to convey is that it’s asinine for the president and the attorney general to continue their dismantling of the CIA’s purpose by exposing the agencies inner most information gathering methods and techniques. To most of us who live outside NYC conducting Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s trial in a civilian court right at the epicenter of world curiosity seems to be misguided but it is much more serious than merely misguided. If we look closely we’ll see many from around the world there with eyes wide and ears open watching and listening for clues to how our intelligence network functions. Those folks (UN mid-level foreign diplomat staff) could care less about KSM, what they are looking for are US vulnerabilities.  You and I won’t see this taking place; it will be done with the greatest of stealth and diplomatic immunity. Instead, our attention will be on what we hope to see—a conviction. We will smile when the trial is over and comment about justice being served but much information will have been publicly shared that will help educate our opposition to the way America does business. What a windfall for those that would try to destroy us.

For more on the effects of small yet methodical enemy incursions go to: http://marvwiebener.wordpress.com/ and read Lobster Boil.

Jonathan Alter titled his most recent article in the June 14 issue of Newsweek, Cheney’s Tortured Logic. The story is about enhanced interrogation techniques—that’s benign politicolegaleze for torture. Alter actually says in the article that Eric Holder the US Attorney General is wrong for assigning a federal prosecutor to delve into the matter, which I wholeheartedly agree with and have said so in previous blogs and to my wife, when she’ll listen. My criticism of Alter is that I think he added gratuitous spice to the article in order to sell it to Newsweek. Controversy sells magazines, therefore the tweaks that were sure to draw applause and consternation at the same time. If you didn’t have an opportunity to read what I’m referring to here they are, followed by my consternation-revealing remarks. And I quote:

          “Two words jumped out at me from Cheney’s Fox News interview last week. Chris Wallace asked, “So even in those cases where CIA interrogators went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it?” Cheney answered, “I am.” Alter says in his article to that, “That unadorned ‘I am’ was terrifying.”

          Please, Mr. Alter, terrifying? I think not. There are many of us who believe Cheney simply puts words and actions, no matter how unpopular, to how we feel. I do not engage in conversations promoting the torture of known terrorists that may have information critical to saving the lives of innocent people. However, have no doubt, if it were my responsibility to save one innocent I’d torture until I got verifiable information. Call me immoral, some would. Call me a hero, some would do that too but be assured I wouldn’t indulge in debate over the morality of such an act while waiting for a bomb to explode. Neither would Cheney. What would you call Cheney, Mr. Alter, if he authorized, condoned, encouraged, participated in the torture of someone who had foreknowledge of an event that would most certainly injure or even kill one of your family members?

          Secondly, Mr. Alter said, “As much as I’d like to see Cheney frog-marched out of Jackson Hole and sent to prison…” My problem with this remark is Alter’s apparent lack of respectful decorum when speaking of a former elected official who spent the better part of his life serving the USA. And frog-marched out of Jackson Hole, wouldn’t that be humiliating and possibly torturous? Many legal scholars as well as political ethicists would find that extremely unreasonable and bordering on criminal. Frog-marched, that sounds terrifying.

Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano was lambasted a few weeks ago for releasing publicly her thoughts concerning the growing number of militant groups here in the US. She mentioned that many disgruntled former military servicemen were either forming these groups or at least joining them. She miscalculated the backlash and probably, unintentionally I’m sure, simultaneously encouraged ex-soldiers and marines to do just what she claimed was occurring. I don’t have facts to support the above statement, but I’m guessing there is a level of truth to it.

Most of these groups are not dangerous; as a matter of fact it may be a proper venue for disgruntled ex-military, military wannabes, and anti-government rightwing pseudo-revolutionist to burn off some of their anger and hostility. Eventually, I hope the majority of these folk will mature and realize operating a government is not all black and white nor is it easy.

I said, “Most of these groups are not dangerous…” However, there are some that are potentially dangerous and those groups seem to be growing also. On the far left are the environmentalist groups and on the right are the racist groups and extreme religious fundamentalist groups. I have concern about all these factions but this is my biggest fear and one we all need to be aware of especially when engaged in debate with people on the verge of blowing their top.

I did not vote for Obama and the reason I did not vote for him has nothing to do with bigotry or racism, contrary to what Wright, Sharpton, and the rest of the race baiters say. I did not vote for him because I believed he was too naïve, inexperienced and promising a change for the good in the way we live far beyond what God himself could do. Obama is obviously far more intelligent than most of us and he has a surplus of wonderful qualities but his politics are far too socialistic sounding for me. Now, that is why I didn’t vote for him.  

My concerns are for those on the verge (see above) as well as skin heads, Arian Nation/Neo-Nazis and whoever else shares those imbecilic notions.  I suspect they interpret the tea-parties, town hall meetings, and the growing grassroots movement against the new administration’s policies as a clear sign that most of the white-ish population just doesn’t want a black man running the country and I, for one, want to make it clear that’s absolutely wrong. As a matter of fact, had she run for president I would have voted for Condoleezza Rice.

Wondering why this has shown up in the middle of a blog on spying? Because the government must take whatever measures it deems necessary to spy on these groups. Yes, is the answer to your next question. We do spy on them but usually at a level less sophisticated than we do with potential foreign adversaries, such as Iran. Law enforcement keeps a close eye on these groups and when there is evidence wire tapping is permitted. Their criminal enterprises are busted and culprits prosecuted. ATF, FBI infiltrate groups and funnel intelligence back to their respective agencies and so on. However, with all that’s being done I don’t think we’ve taken the newest threat as seriously as we should. The problem is that we—our own citizens—are preventing this by taking a stand on such things as gun control and government intrusion into our personal lives.

Before you react to what I’ve just written and click to something else hear me out. I have four hand guns and two rifles. I’m still mulling over how I will answer questions on the 2010 government census form that I don’t believe is anyone’s business. I’ve been a republican for over forty years with no plans of changing, ever.

Our government does all kinds of things outside the continental limits of the US that they cannot do here. Although there are rules set by our government that apply to espionage in a foreign land we American citizens don’t really care how spying is carried out there, we just want it done and done accurately. That isn’t so here in America, just read the accounts—and watch the movie adaptations—of glorified anarchists allegedly standing up for their rights and claiming protection under various articles of the US Constitution. And it seems every time an account makes the news there is a ground swell of support for the poor soul that was simply exercising his or her right as a free citizen. Never mind what it was that brought that free citizen to the attention of authorities in the first place. Hollywood and tabloid news tend to make heroes of the anarchist and villains of law enforcement and other participating government agencies. The point of all this is to say that some (the free citizen and others mentioned above) fancy themselves as revolutionists who believe their cause is just and will make better the world we live in. Underlying that false revolutionist mentality we usually find a person or group entwined somehow in illegal activity such as tax evasion, polygamy, illegal weapons, drugs, prostitution, environmental terrorism as well as those who not only claim their own interpretation of constitutional rights but hide behind their own interpretation of the Bible as well.

These groups, if you will allow me to clump them together, concern me for the very reason I mentioned earlier. Are they misinterpreting my disagreement with the Obama administration because he is black and if so do they think this disagreement is a mandate for them to act on? A man brought a gun to a town hall meeting to make a point. I don’t know if he is a member of any of these groups or if he is just angry and wants someone to see just how angry. But if he’s an average citizen, like you and me, think about the anarchist and consider what lengths he might go to especially with the aid and encouragement of other like minded psycho’s.

How to find out who is thinking this and how to find those preparing to act violently toward the president and other representatives of Obama’s administration is a question needing to be answered. How to do it without stepping all over the US Constitution is another matter entirely.

I refuse to talk more about the US Attorney General Eric Holder and his misguided attempt to reconcile Bush-era interrogation methods via the investigation and possible prosecution of CIA operatives. However, I will say the act of appointing a federal prosecutor in and of itself is a strike—intentional or not—at the heart of what keeps America secure.

The espionage void began shortly after the Berlin wall fell. Russia, or what was left of it, was no longer seen as a great threat. Nuclear weapons were de-commissioned; nuclear non-proliferation was on the uptake. All of a sudden the nuclear armed countries had all these expensive and technically complicated rockets that were no longer needed. An effort began then to disarm, and with disarmament came downsizing of various intelligence gathering agencies. Fear of instant annihilation was set aside as a reasonable issue for consideration at another time. And at that point or somewhere close to that point the baby was thrown out with the bath water. If these big threats, we were thinking, were no longer as concerning then why spend billions on spying-information collection and analysis? It made no sense, besides that we needed money for other things.

This was a clear bi-partisan error committed under Reagan and Bush 41 and carried over into the Clinton era. The difference being that Reagan and Bush valued the contributions made by those agencies and Mr. Clinton didn’t. Bill Clinton had, at best, distain for them and dismantled them during his presidency. He even apparently ignored warnings from those agencies that further attacks against US interests overseas were eminent.  In addition to the first World Trade Center bombing in `93, there were the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. To be fair I should mention that President Clinton vowed to hunt the culprits down and bring them to justice, but was hindered in the attempt to do a thorough job by a number of legitimate factors. There is also a good chance the Monica Lewinsky scandal had a deleterious effect on the president’s judgment at the time. At least it would have mine.

Now, after a disastrous eight years trying to reorganize and repair our country—after 9/11 and two wars—we find ourselves needing quality intelligence as much as we did during the cold-war. Instead of our government providing support to the CIA, political and otherwise, the attorney general wants to expose the ugly side of something (espionage) we all know exits. This looks and smells to me like one of those back room hidden agendas you hear about from the far left and far right conspiracy kooks. You don’t suppose I’m being influenced by those kooks do you?

After two days of seeing the sights we boarded a bus for Damascus, Syria. Everyone on board bore the signs of retirement; graying hair, wrinkles, loose fitting comfortable cloths, a tourist bag, camera and a friend or spouse to set with. I on the other hand was alone, carrying no bag, was then 34 years old, and wearing jeans, polo shirt and light jacket. I don’t know what my attire communicated but evidently it wasn’t tourist. When we got to the boarder between Jordan and Syria two twenty-something military types came aboard the bus to check pass-ports. Both had assault weapons dangling dangerously from their shoulder, the muzzle banging against the metal back rests as they moved from person to person down the aisle. One got to me and reached for my pass-port in a manner different than he had with the other tourists. Rather than just taking the document from my hand he grabbed and jerked it from me. I played it cool and looked out the window, ignoring the abrupt gesture. The soldier showed my pass-port to his partner, they exchanged comments in Arabic in a tone recognizable in any language—hostility—and ordered me off the bus and escorted me to a small guard shack. Once inside the soldiers seemed to argue, from time to time they’d point at the pass-port and then stare at me, not saying anything. Finally the bus driver, an older man, came into the shack and intervened. By all appearances it looked as though the driver was berating the soldiers. I was hoping he wasn’t antagonizing them further. Rather quickly the shouting quieted and the driver motioned for me to follow and as soon as I’d returned to my seat on the bus we were back on the road. That evening one of the tour group members asked me if I was afraid during the incident. I said, “No”. I explained at the time I wasn’t at all apprehensive, all I thought about was that the incident might be worthy of a book one day. However, as the day passed I became acutely aware of how close I came to losing my family first and my freedom second. The incident at the boarder turned out to not be a big deal, hardly worth mentioning, but I learned a valuable lesson that has remained with me since then. Never take your safety for granted, even under the most benign circumstances (especially in unfamiliar territory) life can change in a second.

Since then I’ve thought about the hundreds of people carrying out clandestine missions every day with one goal in mind and that is the safety of America and our way of life. Their job is thankless, and their achievements are buried because of the confidential nature of the mission. No one knows what sacrifices they’ve made on our behalf and they can’t tell, ever.

My novel, mentioned in an earlier blog, tells a story of a few fictional characters performing a thankless job under conditions that aren’t at all fiction.

My interest in espionage, the CIA, and military intelligence work never waned, although marriage, education, kids and my profession all took precedence during the following years.

 In 1977 I embarked on a mission to further my understanding of two more interests I’d only day-dreamed about; The Holy Land and archaeology. My wife Nancy Egner (deceased 1994) surprised me with a tour package for my birthday. I tried several times in the following months to talk her into going with me but Nancy opted to look after our two young children not wanting to burden relatives with that task for two weeks.

The plane full of tourists, including me, landed in Amman, Jordan after dark on October 17, 1977. We were ushered to our hotel with orders from our guide to get some rest so we’d be ready for a busy day of sight-seeing. I tried to take a shower but the pressure was nonexistent. I tried to sleep but was too excited. I was hungry but the hotel wasn’t a Marriott, not even close and as far as I could see out my fourth story window there was not a neon sign advertising food and drink anywhere. I learned to adapt. More tomorrow.

I first became interested in intelligence gathering during my enlistment in the U.S. Marine Corp. While a member of the Third Reconnaissance Battalion, Third Marine Division from 1963 until 1964 I participated in three classified missions. Being one of only a few enlisted men with a secret clearance I had access to information only a small number were privy to. While participating in various military ‘exercises’ throughout the far east Third Recon, as well as Navy Underwater Demolition Teams, were also involved in ‘other’ maneuvers, some of the recon marines weren’t even aware of how involved. I became enamored with the whole idea of secrecy, gathering information others didn’t want you to have. Near the end of my enlistment in 1965 I applied to and was accepted into Marine embassy school in Washington D.C., all I needed to do was sign-up for another six years, I was ready. Now, for better or worse, as life happens I was arrested by the San Clemente police less than two blocks from the rear gate at Camp Pendleton driving under the influence. By the time I’d paid the fine and gotten myself out of jail the embassy school dream had faded into oblivion. I guess they didn’t want drunk drivers representing the U.S. on embassy duty around the world. Go figure.