PoliBlog (TM): A Rough Draft of my Thoughts

Via the BBC: Mexican navy seizes cocaine sub

The Mexican navy says it has seized nearly six tonnes of cocaine found inside a 10m-long (31ft) makeshift submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

Such subs have been under use by Colombian smugglers for over a decade.

Sphere: Related Content

Via the BBC: Colombia rebels seize 10 hostages

Colombia’s left-wing Farc rebels have kidnapped 10 people in the north-west of the country.

Guerrillas forced a boat load of people travelling along the Atrato River in Choco province to the shore, before seizing the hostages.

Kidnappings for ransom remain the main source of income for the Farc, along with drug trafficking.

And one suspects that the kidnappings will continue, even given the recent dramatic rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and 14 others.

Indeed, I fear that there may be an uptick in such actions as a means for the FARC to make a statement that recent setbacks have not harmed their operational capabilities.

A point of order (so to speak): last time I saw hard numbers, the estimates were that the FARC’s revenue source is roughly half from kidnapping and half from drug-related activities.

Sphere: Related Content

Via Reuters: Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan: report

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

[...]

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

This strikes me a boon for Obama, as it enhances his credence in terms of the Iraq question.

Consider: the basic public sentiment within the majority of the US electorate is to withdraw. There is clear fatigue with the war and there are real concerns over the ongoing cost thereof. For Maliki to essentially endorse the notion that a phased withdrawal in line with what Obama has suggested is to give Obama enhanced credence. It certainly gives him a useful talking point.

In terms of pure politics, it stands in stark contrast with McCain’s statement about potentially being in Iraq for 100 years. ((And yes, I know he meant in a peaceful capacity, a la South Korea, but the bottom line is that leaving in 16 months. I even understand that a phased withdrawal of combat troops over 16 months will not mean the utter cessation of a US presence. However, I am speaking here in terms of political perception.) Beyond that, when it comes to basic policy direction, Maliki’s statement bolsters Obama’s position, not McCain’s.

Andrew Sullivan notes some other reactions here.

Sphere: Related Content

Via the AP: Oil prices tumble in biggest weekly drop everblockquote>Light, sweet crude for August delivery fell 41 cents Friday to settle at $128.88 on the New York Mercantile Exchange — well below its trading record of more than $147 a week earlier.

Intriguing.

Beats the econ news last Friday (i.e., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac)!

The DJIA had a better than expected week as well.

Sphere: Related Content

On Monday I noted an ACLU press release that estimated that the TSA’s terrorist watchlist had grown to over 1,000,000 names. A reader e-mailed to note that the TSA says that the list is only at roughly 400,000 (WaTi: ACLU errs in list of names:

Officials with the departments of Homeland Security and Justice responded by saying the ACLU incorrectly equated the one million “records,” or pieces of information about each suspect, with the number of individuals on the list, which they say is 400,000.

The ACLU apparently misunderstood the inspector general’s report to issue its claim; however, the document itself makes clear the distinction between “records” and “suspected terrorists.”

“The reported figure represents the number of records in the system,” the report said. “This does not equate to the number of known or suspected terrorists in the system, as a single person may have multiple records to account for the use of aliases, alternate identities and multiple identifying documents.”

However, I would note that the ACLU wasn’t really all that off. The problem is that a given name may lead to the detention of an innocent person, whether the name (or record, to be specific) is on the list because it is an alias or because it is a real name.

For example (via CNN):

The Justice Department’s former top criminal prosecutor says the government’s terror watch list likely has caused thousands of innocent Americans to be questioned, searched or otherwise hassled.

Former Assistant Attorney General Jim Robinson would know: He’s one of them.

Robinson joined another mistaken-identity American and the American Civil Liberties Union on Monday to urge fixing the list that’s supposed to identify suspected terrorists.

“It’s a pain in the neck, and significantly interferes with my travel arrangements,” said Robinson, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division during the Clinton administration. He believes his name matches that of someone who was put on the list in early 2005, and is routinely delayed while flying — despite having his own government top-secret security clearances renewed last year.

It doesn’t matter if “Jim Robinson” is one of the names of the suspected terrorists or if it an alias of one of the suspected terrorists, the one being harassed at the airport is not a terrorist (indeed, quite the opposite).

Another example would be CNN reporter Drew Griffin, who found out he was on the list roughly two months after a report on the TSA’s air marshal program. From CNN (Formal calls for probe into reporter’s name on no-fly list:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about “a curious and interesting and troubling phenomenon” that CNN Investigative Correspondent Drew Griffin was added to the list.

“My question is, why would Drew Griffin’s name come on the watch list, post-his investigation of TSA?” Jackson Lee said.

“What is the basis of this sudden recognition that Drew Griffin is a terrorist? Are we targeting people because of their critique or criticism?”

In response, Chertoff said it was “not my understanding the reporter was put on,” but that Griffin may share a name with someone put on the list.

“We do have circumstances where we have name mismatches,” he said.

Setting aside the curious timing of Griffin encountering problems with the list, the response from Chertoff underscores the entire problem, as he makes it sounds as if a terrorist’s name/alias is on the list it will only be used to stop the terrorist and that it would never affect an innocent persons, except by some big mistake. However, a name on a piece of paper is a fairly blunt tool. Indeed, by definition the more “records” one has on file, the more innocent people will be harassed.

As such, the following isn’t that helpful:

Federal officials who manage the list say the ACLU’s claim is exaggerated, and that about 400,000 names are currently on the list. The Terrorist Screening Center, a division of the FBI, said about 5 percent of those on the list are Americans, and most aren’t even in the United States.

If a terrorist suspect named “John Smith” is thought to be a terrorist from Ireland, somehow I don’t think that means that all the John Smiths in the US who fly daily will be left alone. Like so much of the logic that undergirds the administration’s GWOT policies, the assumption here seems to be that only the guilty will be effected, yet such an outcome is not the case.

What I would like to know (and I am sincere in the question): has the TSA’S terrorist watchlist actually resulted in the detention or apprehension of any actual terrorist, and if so, how many? Further, how many innocent persons have had to deal with the TSA because of the unfortunate coincidence between their name and that on a list?

These are not unreasonable questions, and they do get to the efficacy of the policy. Really, a name alone is an insufficient tool, and yet clearly a name has been all that was needed to detain people.

There are multiple examples of people caught in this web:

Committee members noted during the meeting that Congressman John Lewis, D-Georgia, is also on the no-fly list and has been trying for years to get removed.

“He’s still having trouble,” said committee chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, showing a letter from Lewis.

“And according to this letter, it’s still not happening,” Thompson said, “even to the point that the department gave him a letter attesting that he was John Lewis and he should be allowed to get on planes.” (source)

If a well known member of Congress and a former DoJ official with a top-secret security clearance can’t get relief, what chance does an average citizen have?

audits of the watch list over the last several years, however, have concluded that it has mistakenly flagged innocent people whose names are similar to those on it. More than 30,000 airline passengers had asked the Homeland Security Department to clear their names from the list as of October 2006. (source)

Is this really the way we want things to work in the United States of America?

Sphere: Related Content

I was out at lunch today and saw something that reminded me of a post I had been meaning to write. What I saw was a patron of the restaurant wearing an Obama t-shirt. Over the last six weeks I keep seeing Obama bumper stickers, Obama yard signs and Obama t-shirts. Not a great tidal wave, but one here and one there every few days. This is true in and another Montgomery, AL and when we drove across the south (AL, MS, LA and TX) heading to Texas a couple of weeks back, and then while we were in Texas.

The one thing I have not seen is anything with John McCain’s name on it.

Now, I fully recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but it does seem to feed into the enthusiasm gap hypothesis rather well.

Sphere: Related Content

Larry Hunter writes:

I’m a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole’s presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp’s Empower America.

This November, I’m voting for Barack Obama.

Why? you ask:

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

I have long had a sense that there is a certain slice of Republican supporters who feel this way–the question remains, of course, as to what size that slice is (and we won’t really know until November, and even then only if exit pollster ask the right questions). Regardless, I think that there are voters who consider themselves conservative and who have voted Republican in the past who will be motivated by the belief that the current administration has gone too far in its GWOT policies, and therefore the only thing to do is to vote against those policies by voting for Obama (or, alternatively, for Barr, or by abstaining). Even a very small number of such voters is not good news for McCain.

Now, it ultimately remains to be seen if Obama will, in fact, roll back the expansion of executive overreach that we have seen in the Bush administration. He shift on the FISA bill that caused an uproar on his leftward flank underscores that he is willing to compromise on these issues and it is also historically true that once in power, politicians have a tendency to jealously guard the prerogatives of their office.

Hunter states:

John McCain would continue the Bush administration’s commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That’s what conservatism used to mean - and it’s what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.

At a minimum, the risk of continuism is greater with McCain than Obama, and that may be enough for those who share Hunter’s concerns to take the plunge and support Obama (as, for example, Andrew Sullivan did some time back). Indeed, I count myself basically in that camp. The main positive reason I can conjure for voting for McCain is divided government. However, since the current divided government situation has not generated much in terms of addressing these keys issues about executive power, one wonders about that argument as well. At a minimum I find myself for the first time in my life in a position where I could see myself voting Democratic, Republican or Libertarian. And, I suspect that I am not alone. I was having a conversation the other day with a lifelong friend who is also a lifelong conservative. He concurred that he, too, had a similar view on the choices and his own possible voting behavior.

Sphere: Related Content