The Update

Columbia’s International Relations and Domestic Challenges – July 20th – Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

2005-07-21T01:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday’s event dealt with a subject that is oftentimes overlooked by the U.S. media. The Columbian Peace Process was the topic of debate, and more specifically, the new Law for Justice and Peace. The law has been debated for two years now, and has gained the support of 70% of the Columbian population. An unprecedented law for Columbia, it seeks to dismantle the Autodefensas Unidas de Columbia (AUC), a large paramilitary force, by offering reduced sentences to those who hand over their weapons. The process has been very successful so far. However, a handful of people – particularly human rights groups – are up in arms (no pun intended) with this legislation. They feel the law doesn’t sufficiently punish those guilty of human rights violations. I witnessed this debate firsthand yesterday, which gave me an opportunity to solidify my own opinion.

First, it’s necessary to examine the history of the AUC. Initially, it was a private force sanctioned by the government to protect civilians from rebel guerillas. In certain parts of the country that lacked any government presence, locals united to form small bands as means of self-defense. After serving this purpose for nearly two decades, the paramilitary bands began changing. Wealthy individuals, particularly those with drug ties, took over existing forces and began using them to protect their own interests. Finally, in 1989, the AUC lost its government sanction.

This colorful history brings an interesting challenge to the peace process. The AUC militants can be seen as both heroes and criminals. In one sense, the government owes them thanks for noble service, but in another, the militants deserve punishment for later crimes. In light of this, the Columbian government has to examine cases on an individual bases, realizing that not all of the AUC members are hardened criminals. All of the current militants have participated in an illegal organization, but not all of them are guilty of equal crimes. Clearly, the problem is more complex than many realize.

Second, those who lobby to have AUC members punished more severely need to look at the significance of the current demobilization. Ultimately, thousands of lives are being saved. However, this demobilization will not continue unless the troops continue to get something in return. Can anyone really think that guerillas will surrender their weapons and cease hostilities if surrender will lead to lifelong incarceration? Many of the militants deserve harsher punishments than they will receive, I don’t deny that. However, in the end, this concession seems a fair price to pay for the rewards of peace throughout Columbia.

In closing, I’d like to make one final point. Before condemning the new Columbian law over technicalities, we in the United States need to take a good look in the mirror. In the U.S., we have a witness protection program that is very similar to what Columbia is trying to achieve. Yet, no human rights groups seem bothered by the fact that we release criminals in exchange for information. If Human Rights Watch doesn’t mind our own system, how can they be so critical of the Columbians? Finally, since Columbia’s violence is fueled primarily by drug trade, one could criticize the U.S. and Europe for purchasing the majority of the drugs. People in the U.S. are providing the money for the AUC’s guns. Hence, Americans should worry about solving our part of the problem, and if we’re not going to help the Columbian government, we should at least get out of its way.

The Future of the Coast Guard: A View from the Top – July 18th - Heritage Foundation

2005-07-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

Today’s event featured U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thomas H. Collins. The Admiral is an animated speaker and spoke passionately about the future of the Coast Guard he currently commands. Admiral Collins stressed the idea that the Coast Guard is successfully adapting to the post-9/11 world. The USCG has increased the resources devoted to homeland security by more than 20% since 9/11. Several changes have also been made, including an alteration of Notice of Arrival (NOA) policy. Previously, all incoming ships were required to submit a NOA within 24 hrs. of reaching a U.S. port. Now the notice must be submitted 96 hrs. prior to arrival. This provides more than enough time for a ship to be processed in the agency’s intelligence database. Any suspicious vessel will then be monitored more closely. Thus, the Coast Guard is moving in the right direction. In the words of Admiral Collins, “We have a sense of urgency about this . . . the stakes are high and we’re not going to fail in this.” The Admiral realizes that security risks cannot be eliminated, but he is committed to mitigating these risks substantially. I strongly support him in this effort.

Senate Armed Services Committee: Military Justice and Detention Policy in the War on Terror – July 14th

2005-07-14T12:53:00.000-07:00

Today’s hearing gave me my first opportunity to see Senators Ted Kennedy, John McCain, and my own senator from VA - John Warner. While Senator Warner was in and out of the meeting and didn’t get too involved, Senators Kennedy and McCain took a more active role. Noticeably absent from the hearing was New York’s Senator Hillary Clinton. This was a shame, but probably for the best. I used to play third base in high school and the Senator would have been well within range. Don’t get me wrong; I have great respect for the Senator’s office. I just think she belongs to a special class of people who deserve to have fruit thrown at them.

Several themes emerged in today’s event. There was unanimous agreement that Gitmo is a valuable tool in the war on terror. It was also pointed out that the base is in a prime location. However, the senators were alarmed by the fact that no terrorists from Gitmo have been prosecuted yet. A large portion of the hearing was spent debating whether or not Congressional action would speed things along. While several of the senators believed such action would be beneficial, the witnesses from the military disagreed.

Personally, I was most intrigued by a different debate. Senator McCain was extremely concerned with the morality of certain interrogation techniques. He believes, for example, that the use of dogs during interrogation is unethical and not in accord with the Geneva Convention. Senator Levin also questioned the use of certain tactics. Interestingly, the military panel agreed that several methods currently practiced at Guantanamo are in violation of the Convention. However, the officers were quick to point out that neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaeda falls under the parameters of Geneva. Al-Qaeda troops don’t wear a uniform, nor do they themselves follow the guidelines of the Convention; they don’t conduct war according to the accepted standards. Though the Taliban was affiliated with the former Afghan government, because they too constantly violate rule of war, they are not subject to Geneva protections.

I was glad to hear the military make this statement so boldly. Their remarks illustrated a very important distinction between a soldier and a terrorist. Soldiers shoot enemy soldiers, but terrorists target civilians. Hence, we shouldn’t be expected to give terrorists the same treatment we offer to enemy soldiers. Please don’t think I’m advocating torture or anything like it. Terrorists are still human; they have rights and they deserve humane treatment. However, I don’t think we need to handle them as gently as we do traditional combatants.

Senator’s McCain and Levin still objected to the use of “un-Geneva-like” methods. Both senators felt it would unfair to our own troops to use such harsh interrogation techniques. They believe our enemies will see the way we treat the terrorists, and they will subject our troops to the same treatment. I do not believe this is a valid argument. We need to remember that we’re fighting a war against terrorists. They have already brutally abused and killed POWs, as well as civilian hostages, and they clearly have no regard for human rights or rules of war. This fact will not change, even if US policy does. Negotiating with terrorists has proven fruitless. I believe we need to stand firm and refuse unnecessary concessions. Terrorists deserve humane treatment, but their rights as prisoners do not equal those of traditional enemy soldiers.

House Armed Services Committee: CNOOC and Unocal – July 13th

2005-07-13T16:45:00.000-07:00

After failing to gain admittance into today’s House Armed Services Committee Hearing, due to lengthy lines, I have reason to be thankful for modern technology. Thanks to the House website, I was able to listen in on the hearing. It was a very lively event.

Of the four witnesses who testified, only one was a supporter of China’s move to buy Unocal. CATO institute’s Jerry Taylor forcefully argued that China’s purchase of Unocal would pose no threat to the US. His colleagues disagreed, and they argued with equal vigor. The event turned into a very heated debate, with a few of the Congressman making some rather unkind references to Mr. Taylor and the CATO institute.

In his initial testimony, Taylor indicated that Japan took action similar to China’s current move, back in the ‘80s. Though the media cried wolf, nothing ever came of it. Congressman Curt Weldon responded by pointing to Japan’s actions during WWII - they used our equipment against us. Weldon argued that we need to make sure this doesn’t happen with our oil. R. James Woolsey (former CIA Director) agreed with Weldon. He reminded the audience that we are still in the middle of a war against terror. Terrorists could strike at our oil supply and significantly increase its scarcity and cost. Thus, we should be hesitant to sell US oil to China. Also opposed to CNOOC’s purchase of Unocal was witness Frank J. Gaffney. He asserted that Chinese academics believe war with the US is inevitable. Hence, they shouldn’t be getting our oil.

Taylor did seem to have one supporter in Congressman Vic Snyder of Arkansas. Rep. Snyder made a very interesting observation. He claimed, ‘If you call someone an enemy, often they become an enemy.’ Congressman Snyder believes we are not yet an enemy of China; but if we continue to use such rhetoric, that situation might take a turn for the worse.

As for myself, I’m not prepared to come down on either side yet. I recognize good arguments on both sides. There is certainly a danger of China threatening Taiwan, and thereby the US. However, I don’t believe we should treat them as an enemy unless they actually are. It also seems unfair to condemn the Chinese for expanding their military or bettering their economy when the US is guilty of both. I am very much against double-standards. If the US has a right to expand and look out for its interests, I don’t think we have a right to deprive other nations of that same right without sufficient cause. The question at hand is whether we do have sufficient cause.

Pentagon Tour - July 12th

2005-07-13T09:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday’s tour of the Pentagon was a forceful reminder of the events of 9/11, and the heightened security which has ensued. During the tour there were numerous references to the terrorist attack. We were told the names and ages of the youngest and oldest victims of that day, and shown the flight path of the hijacked aircraft. The soldier who conducted our tour told us of the dedication of the workers who rebuilt the structure in less than a year. Our guide made the event as interesting as he could – considering the fact that we were touring a big office building – and told a few interesting stories. At the beginning of the tour, one of my colleagues suggested that if the tour got too boring, we could lose our little yellow tour passes and see what happens. Fortunately it didn’t come to that - although it would have been interesting to see the security forces in action.

Meeting with Congressman Connie Mack's Staff - July 8th

2005-07-11T10:28:00.000-07:00

Meeting with Congressman Connie Mack’s legislative assistants was an interesting opportunity. Though we couldn’t speak directly with the Congressman, his assistants were extremely knowledgeable. My fellow interns and I asked questions ranging from CAFTA to Immigration. The assistants informed us of the Congressman’s position on the different issues, and then made predictions of how upcoming votes would turn out. At one point, the conversation even turned to the approaching college football season! The Congressman’s staffers wrapped things up by giving us some valuable information for getting jobs on the Hill. They echoed a common D.C. theme: "it’s all about networking."

Thoughts on London - July 9th

2005-07-09T00:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday London was struck by four timed bombs. American hearts go out to our brethren across the Lake. Meanwhile, as investigators work to learn more about the attacks, we can at least make a few initial observations.

The attacks were allegedly staged by al-Qaeda – they’ve publicly taken credit for them anyway. The explosions were closely timed and definitely share this characteristic with the 9-11 attacks. If al-Qaeda is responsible, then Coalition forces have been given a clear message that the group is still alive and well. And, regardless of whether al-Qaeda is responsible, we still see that the War on Terror is far from over. Perhaps this will silence the demands for a quick withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. In any case, it gives us sufficient cause to step back and examine the war’s progress thus far.

For the time being, though, we face an interesting problem. How should we respond to this latest dose of terrorism? Here in the US, we’ve seen somewhat tighter security on the metro. More police are patrolling the metro stations, and we’re also seeing a lot of German shepherds sniffing around. Still, are these measures enough? Quite frankly, I don’t think the steps so far have made us any safer. It still wouldn’t be very difficult for a terrorist to hop on the metro, plant a bomb and slip away without anyone noticing. This being said, are even greater security measures justified? I’m not sure that would be in our best interest right now.

After all, a terrorist is in business not so much to kill or wound as to spread fear. The odds of being a direct victim of terrorism are still far smaller than the odds of being injured in a car accident, but a terrorist doesn’t want us to think about that. Ultimately, terrorists have an agenda. Their political or religious aims are achieved by convincing the individual that he or she could be the next victim. If enough people are driven to a state of panic, they can be coaxed into yielding to the terrorists’ demands. Thus, we are very much engaged in a psychological battle. Is there a danger of being killed by a suicide bomber on the metro? Yes. But there are many other more feasible dangers we face every day without thinking twice. For example we could be caught up in an armed robbery, run over by a drunk driver, or involved in some kind of natural disaster at almost any time. It’s simply a fact of life that there are many unpredictable events over which we have no control. Thus, we need to realize exactly what the terrorists are trying to do - they want to get inside our heads.

In my opinion, the increased security measures taken so far can help us win the mental battle. Even if they don’t actually deter or thwart terrorist activity, they are beneficial, because they give the civilian populace a greater sense of security. However, if we take even greater steps in security – like metal detectors – which would theoretically make our subways and buses safer, we might actually be catering to the terrorists. A security measure of this type would be very impractical in terms of cost in time and money. While it might make our public transportation safer, it would significantly reduce the number of people utilizing our facilities. This would be perceived as a victory for the terrorists. They will have succeeded in disrupting our day-to-day activities. I believe this would be further motivation for terrorism, insofar as it sends the message that the savage targeting of innocents yields results.

To wrap things up, I believe we should commend Londoners for their “stoicism,” as Prime Minister Blair has put it. A day after the attacks people were back in the subways and on the buses. Maintaining this phlegmatic mindset is essential to the defeat of terrorism. Londoners have realized that terrorists will succeed only if we let them. The rest of us should follow suit.

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review: China and Space – The Unmentionables - July 7th - Heritage Foundation

2005-07-08T14:45:00.000-07:00

Today it was back to Heritage for another great lunch. We also attended a lecture beforehand. Due to a mix-up regarding the location of the event, I missed the first of the two panels. Thus, my remarks will deal only with the second panel.

Panel number two dealt with the issue of weapons in Space. In a rare event – at least at Heritage – the two panelists had very different opinions on the subject. Michael Krepon, who spoke first, argued against the militarization of space. Essentially, we would be opening Pandora’s Box. We already have a substantial lead over China in the space arena, and we don’t need to start an arm’s race in Space. No country has attacked a rival’s satellite yet, since all states equipped with satellites realize their own dependence on them. Ultimately, the US has the most to lose as far as satellite capability. To introduce Space as a new theater of war would be to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Mr. Baker Spring spoke next, and came to a different conclusion. He believes Space is already weaponized, since nuclear weapons are guided by satellites. He also supposes that a US Space program would serve as a deterrent, rather than starting an arms race. The current US naval policy is “reassurance through dominance.” Mr. Spring believes this policy will also work in Space

Personally, I side with Mr. Krepon. I can’t see China sitting quietly while we launch a program to put weapons in Space. They will perceive our move as a threat and will start a similar program. If the situation were reversed, does anyone think that the US would sit idly?! Also, even if we have progressed much further in Space technology so far, as Mr. Krepon pointed out, it doesn’t take much to shoot down a satellite. China – or any country with the ability to launch a satellite – can do so with ease. We also might want to look back to the development of the nuclear bomb. At that time the US was the only nation with such capabilities, but it didn’t take long for Russia to catch up. Granted, we should be prepared to strike at an enemy’s satellites if our own are attacked, but I don’t think we want to deal with the consequences of being the first to shoot.

Duncan Hunter Reception – June 30th – Capitol Hill Club

2005-07-01T11:05:00.000-07:00

It’s a good time to be an intern at the American Security Council. Today the Council held an event in honor of Congressman Duncan Hunter and his service as its former President. In its 50th year, the ASC is seeking a return to its glory days. Board Member Bill McCollum addressed the audience on the rebirth of the ASC, as it once again strives to influence public policy, particularly through involvement in grassroots activity. Mr. McCollum then presented Congressman Hunter with a plaque commemorating his years of service with the Council. Major General Thompson also gave a brief presentation on the resurgence of the ASC. He mentioned his interest in Latin American affairs and how this region is now one of the four major fields studied by the Council. Following Gen. Thompson’s remarks, Congressman Hunter gave a brief speech on his involvement with the ASC. After the event, my fellow interns and I had our picture taken with the Congressman, and I even got to talk fishing with him! It turns out the Congressman loves to fish as much as I do. It’s definitely a neat experience to make small talk with a Congressman!

Meeting with the Honorable Bill McCollum - June 29th

2005-07-01T10:52:00.000-07:00

Late this afternoon the ASCF interns met with former Congressman Bill McCollum. Mr. McCollum also happens to be an ASC board member. He spoke with us for about an hour and gave us some basic info on the Council and its new goals. Mr. McCollum is also an expert on terrorism, so I hope to consult him regarding my research project. He struck me as being both genuinely friendly and also very knowledgeable. He cares about the issues I care about, and I look forward to working closely with him.

Eurasia in Balance: The US and Regional Power Shift - June 29th - Heritage Foundation

2005-07-01T07:29:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, this Heritage lecture wasn’t up to par with some of the previous ones. Central Asia was the topic of discussion. Admittedly, I know very little about that part of the world, and this was probably the problem. I simply failed to enjoy a lecture on an issue I’m not particularly interested in and know nothing about. I had to agree with the speakers that Central Asia is overlooked all too often. However, I did come away from the event with a greater awareness of that part of the world and its potential security concerns. The speakers felt China and India wanted to exert too much control over the region. They also feared that radical Islamists would influence Muslims in the area and try to set up an HQ there. The panel also mentioned the abundant resources in the region. It concluded that the US should take a closer look at Central Asia and realize the benefits of closer cooperation with its leaders. It makes sense to me.

Is the European Union in the Interests of the United States? – June 28th – Heritage Foundation

2005-06-30T09:57:00.000-07:00

The Heritage Foundation continues to impress me with its special events calendar. Today I attended an all-day presentation on the European Union. The event was fascinating. I’d never been in a room with so many European politicians. There was a representative from Portugal, several from England, and one gentleman who walked out before I could discern his ethnicity. The event actually served – at least initially - as a hostile battleground for these foreign politicians to debate the EU.

The first speaker was Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. He made it very clear that he is not in favor of the EU and its constitution as they are. He feels overall that the institution is vehemently anti-American. The same views were expressed by all the speakers and panels that attended. Though the people at Heritage are strongly opposed to the EU and showed a clear bias in their choice of speakers, I don’t find that disturbing. In addition to providing me with a great deal of factual information, the day’s speakers thoroughly convinced me that their position is correct. Thus, I don’t think it was particularly necessary to have anyone representing the opposing viewpoint. Supporters of the EU were in the audience – very briefly – and were able to ask some very direct questions. Within the first half-hour several members of the European Parliament attempted to change the format from lecture to debate. I thought their manner was unnecessarily rude and disruptive. In any case, I felt the panel did a fine job of answering the MEP questions. In the end, their arguments made the EU supporters look pretty silly. However, the EU fans do deserve credit for sticking it out in an unfriendly environment for as long as they did.

After Sen. Smith spoke, the first panel took the stage. This panel gave a basic introduction to the EU and what it’s about. They believe it is intrinsically undemocratic, and its purpose it to undermine the US. Currently 80% of British legislation is decided by the EU, and, thus far, no EU legislation has been overturned by Parliament. Daniel Hannon made an especially impressive speech. By the end of the day I had built up great respect for Mr. Hannon, and I sincerely believe he is the greatest rhetorician I’ve ever seen in person. His presentation skill was phenomenal.

The second panel focused on the EU as it relates to US defense interests. Speakers argued that the EU is a threat to Anglo-American cooperation. Intelligence sharing, as well as strategic military cooperation with the British friends, is seriously compromised by giving the EU control over British treaties. Likewise, NATO is threatened, and there is a very real danger that European uniformity will mean no allies for the US. Finally, terrorism expert Youssef Bodansky argued that the EU can afford to update its intelligence system only by close cooperation with China.
The impact of the EU on the US economy was discussed by the next panel. Frankly, this was extremely boring, so I won’t spend much time on it. I was able to gather that the EU has enacted a plethora of regulations which hurt businesses. Otherwise, the economic jargon had the effect of soft music after a hearty meal. This session was the one sour spot in an intellectually stimulating day.

Panel four exposed a number of scandals that have occurred within the EU. Thus far, no one has been fired for participation in known scams. However, two people have lost their jobs for exposing scams. Ultimately, it was argued that the EU is a corrupting system. It has become a racket.

The day ended with a bang, as Judge Robert Bork headed a panel on the EU and American law. In the words of Judge Bork, “We now have a court that is divorced from the Constitution.” He specifically mentioned the fact that US courts have recently begun citing foreign precedents! This asinine practice is destroying the sovereignty of our own constitution and must cease immediately. Our legal system is based on the Constitution. Our courts must interpret the Constitution as it’s written and not according to some evolving standard.

After the event, I was privileged to shake hands with Judge Bork and thank him for his work in defense of the Constitution. It was truly one of the highlights of the day, and of my internship. To conclude, I simply say thank you to France and Holland.

Russia, Iran, and the Bomb: What Should the Bush Administration Do? – June 27th - Heritage Foundation

2005-06-27T16:59:00.000-07:00

Of the events I’ve attended with the ASCF this summer, I found today’s lecture on Iran the most intriguing. Author Joel C. Rosenberg forcefully addressed the problem of Iran and its desire for nuclear capabilities. He boldly argued that Iran is the most dangerous terror state on the planet, and that our security would be severely jeopardized should Iran obtain nuclear weapons. Mr. Rosenberg pointed out that US and British intelligence confirm the fact that Iran could be able to produce the type of uranium used in nuclear weaponry as early as January of 2006. Within only a few months, Iran could then assemble its own stash of nuclear weapons. Both Democrats and Republicans realize the danger this poses to US security.
Having argued that the situation in Iran truly is a crisis, Mr. Rosenberg addressed possible solutions. He believes the Bush administration has four reasonable options. The first option is diplomacy, which we are currently engaged in. We seek to negotiate a peaceful solution with the Iranian mullahs. Unfortunately, this strategy hasn’t worked so far, and there is a danger that lengthy negotiations could be used by Iran to buy time for their nuclear buildup. Another alternative Mr. Rosenberg labeled “democracy.” Essentially, the US would engage in a propaganda campaign to convince the Iranians to overthrow the current regime. Though the strategy could work in this case, it failed to rid Cuba of Fidel Castro. Also, there’s no guarantee that a new regime would give up the nuclear program. As a third option, the Bush administration could choose to simply accept the inevitability that Iran will eventually obtain nuclear weapons and work to convince its leaders not to use them. Though this would be the least expensive strategy, it also makes us look weak and gives the appearance of “rewarding bad behavior.” Finally, as a last resort, the US could take direct military action against the Iranian government. The least appealing option of all, this would receive fierce public opposition and would be costly in blood and treasure.
None of these options looks very good, as Mr. Rosenberg aptly pointed out. Unfortunately, he failed to mention which option(s) he believes President Bush should choose. Speaking for myself, ideally diplomacy will succeed in convincing the Iranians to disarm. Should negotiations fail, it seems the nation will be faced with a serious decision. Are we willing to risk the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons and/or selling the technology to its terrorist friends? I, for one, am not comfortable with the idea of terrorists gaining access to nuclear bombs.

Congressman Dave Weldon - June 23

2005-06-23T16:12:00.000-07:00

Earlier this morning, my fellow interns and I had the opportunity to meet with Congressman Dave Weldon. I had done a fair bit of research on his background beforehand, and I was anxious to speak with him. A Republican, Congressman Weldon strongly supports the War on Terror. Also, being a physician by trade, he is very conservative in “family” or “life” issues. He is strongly Pro-Life. The Congressman worked to illegalize partial-birth abortion, ban cloning, and end embryonic stem cell research, and he was also a strong defender of Terry Schiavo. I wanted very much to commend the Congressman for his work on these issues. Unfortunately, his schedule is very busy and he was only able to entertain a few questions.
I did get the opportunity to ask the Congressman for his assessment of the War in Iraq. His answer was twofold. Congressman Weldon believes the war has two “fronts,” so to speak. On one hand we have the actual combat, and on the other there is the battle for public opinion. According to the Congressman, while we are making great progress in the former, we are not doing as well in the latter. Dr. Weldon pointed out that we have had no major terrorist attacks on the US since 9-11 and that al-Qaeda has nearly been wiped out. Still, the Congressman believes that reconstruction in Iraq poses a difficult problem. We must work to prevent Iraq from evolving into a battleground between the Sunnis and Shiites, while not forgetting other strategic objectives.
Congressman Weldon is also of the opinion that the mainstream media is very much anti-Bush. They publish an inordinate number of negative stories regarding Iraq. The media has also failed to point out the economic successes our country has enjoyed – specifically the low unemployment and a record number of minorities owning a home - which Weldon believes are a result of the President’s tax cuts. The final issue that Congressman Weldon touched on was Social Security. He mentioned the fact that Franklin Delanor Roosevelt - and now Alan Greenspan - argued that the system is unsustainable in its present form. Congressman Weldon believes introducing personal accounts would be a positive step in reforming the current system.
To wrap things up, I just want to mention once again my admiration for the Florida representative and the strong positions he has taken on such controversial issues. Congress needs more men like him.

The EU Constitution: America Must Beware – Heritage Foundation - Dr. Liam Fox – June 22

2005-06-22T15:54:00.000-07:00

Today’s lecture was very well-done. Dr. Fox is a member of the Conservative Party and House of Commons in Britain. It was clear from the beginning that he is no fan of the EU Constitution. He mentioned that he and his fellow Englishmen are very opposed to the EU acting as an independent state. They are uncomfortable with the idea of the EU making treaties that would bind England or performing any other action that would excessively interfere with British affairs. Dr. Fox sees the Constitution as the antithesis of the US Bill of Rights. While the Bill of Rights uses negative language to limit the power of the state, the EU Constitution uses positive language and speaks of the institution's rights instead of citizen’s rights. Fox fears that the EU sees itself as a European rival to the US, and he indicated that several EU members harbor anti-American sentiment. Thus, reform of the EU is essential to US interests. The EU and its single currency, says Fox, will bring about economic crisis that could serve as a breeding ground for extremists who may find a home in terrorist camps. I found Dr. Fox’s presentation to be quite impressive and his arguments very convincing. America should take a serious look at the European Union, it's Constitution, and the direction it is going.

Capitol Tour - June 21

2005-06-22T15:03:00.000-07:00

Today I had the privilege of attending a tour of the Capitol building. The building has a rich history, some of which was conveyed to us by our chipper tour guides. It was an interesting experience to stand in the old Supreme Court room where great men like Chief Justice John Marshall once stood. There was also a substantial amount of artwork throughout the building. Unfortunately, having visited several world-famous museums in Europe, it was difficult for me to fully appreciate the Capitol’s artwork. The tour concluded with a real treat. My fellow interns and I were allowed to sit in on a House session. Because we were only able to stay for a few minutes, I wasn’t able to pick up much – other than the fact that they were discussing some aspect of intelligence. Still, it was neat to be in the center of the legislative process, and in a room that – before today - I’d only seen on TV.

Using Open-Source Information Effectively – House Subcommitte on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment - June 22

2005-06-22T14:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday’s hearing on open-source information was an enjoyable and informative experience. Open-source information is unclassified info that is readily available to the public. It includes things like newspaper articles, books, television and radio. The Committee was examining the intelligence community’s ability to make use of this vast amount of information. Ultimately, it was concluded that various intelligence agencies have failed to make sufficient use of this open-source info. Though the info is available, the agencies neglect it by spending too much time analyzing classified info. Dr. John Gannon, the first witness, suggested that this situation be remedied. He also suggested that the DHS become a “full-player” in the intelligence community. This position was emphatically supported by Mr. Eliot Jardines, the second witness. Mr. Jardines advocated establishing and open-source intelligence (OSINT) network within the DHS. He also believes it is necessary that open-source intel be made more accessible for persons like Police and Fire Chiefs. I thoroughly enjoyed the testimony of these two men and subscribe to their position.
I also enjoyed the testimony of the third witness, Mr. Joe Onek, though I do not agree with some of his opinions. Mr. Onek spent time addressing the possibility of open-source intelligence being used in a way that might violate individual’s civil rights. He feared Muslim Americans might be targeted unfairly. However, Mr. Onek failed to give any grounds for his fears. He also suggested that open-source info might be used to by the government to attack political opponents. To solve these potential problems, Mr. Onek believes it is necessary to enact legislation that would prevent intelligence gathered for anti-terrorist purposes to be used elsewhere. For example, if the government is watching a suspect for potential terrorist activity and discovers that he is an illegal immigrant, it should not be able to prosecute him for this crime. To me, this solution is very problematic. Open-source information is open to the public by definition. To say that we should not be able to use this information to prosecute a criminal is, I think, ridiculous. It is my opinion that regardless of who is doing the looking or why they are looking, if someone legally obtains evidence – especially when it’s open to the public – it should be admissible in a court of law.

Civilian Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes – June 16th - Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

2005-06-20T16:02:00.000-07:00

This morning we attended a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. The topic wasn’t particularly interesting, but it was a great experience to be among senators, press, and important political figures of Washington. The hearing opened with statements by several of the committee members. These statements gave some basic information on the topic of contractors cheating on their taxes. One senator informed the audience that, “It is illegal for contractors not to submit their taxes,” and “Tax chiseling is not a new story.” Another senator declared that, “Federal contractors must be held accountable for their actions.” Of course I agreed with all of these statements, but they seemed rather obvious. The Senators and the witnesses, who were later sworn in, did delve deeper into the issue. It was at this point that the hearing became much more engaging. The dialog between the senators and the witnesses was much more interesting that the senators individual declarations. I mean no disrespect to the senators, but all three that read statements said the same thing. It was when the witness testified that everyone began looking for a solution to the problem. Prosecution of high-profile delinquent contractors was one obvious but very important step. The Committee also seemed anxious to tighten regulations that had previously allowed sneaky contractors to slip thru the cracks with millions of government dollars. The trip to the Senate was an interesting experience. I’m looking forward to visiting again – hopefully when a more exciting issue is being addressed.

Reagan and the 80's - Heritage Foundation - June 14th

2005-06-20T12:14:00.000-07:00

My fellow interns and I attended a series of brief talks on Ronald Reagan, at the Heritage Foundation. I admit I didn’t get as much out of the talks as I thought I would. Unfortunately, the talks weren’t as in depth as I was expecting. All of the speakers were great fans of Reagan, which wasn't surprising, and several had worked closely with him or written books about him. I share their attitude towards our former president. I also know that the ASCF worked closely with him and was a strong supporter. However, to me it seemed that the talks could all be summed up by saying, “Reagan was a great guy.” Frankly, I already knew that much. Each speaker took a slightly different angle on the former President, but they were all pretty vague. One speaker talked a lot on Reagan’s character, comparing him to Winston Churchill. I found his talk fairly interesting. Another speaker focused on how Reagan was seen by the Media. In general, I felt like all the talks were more on how Americans - particularly the media - perceived and perceive Reagan, rather than on the greatness of the former president himself. Overall, the talks were good – just not particularly interesting to me. Part of the problem was probably due to the fact that I was very young during the Reagan years and don't remember the politics of the time. Thus, I don't know as much about President Reagan as I should, and the speakers probably presumed its audience was more familiar with Reagan and his accomplishments than I am. In any case, I enjoyed the event. The free food afterwards was a nice treat too.