Michael Chertoff didn't consider WMD?

Michael Chertoff’s concerns (Washington Post 11-3-13 “Invading our own privacy”) over the increasing invasive nature of public recording technology and its effects on “our culture” and “laws” should be dwarfed by humanities increasing capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction -- using the range of other dual use technologies increasingly affordable and available to all.  The exponential growth of bio, cyber, nano, and even conventional technologies makes virtually anyone with a grudge a lethal superpower.  

While expansion of public recordings impinge on our sense of privacy it could be our greatest tool in identifying and preventing potentially catastrophic consequences of violent extremists.   The WMD threats we now face are far more dangerous to privacy, freedom and prosperity.

Our culture cherishes our independence from one another (and other nations) as much as we cherish freedom and security.  The debate Americans must have is not about balancing a freedom/security dilemma.  It should highlight the trilimma that we really face.   We can’t have freedom, security and independence.  We can only have two in our technologically and biologically interdependent world. 

As Wood Allen once said “Humanity stands at a cross road. One road leads to utter hopelessness and despair, the other, to complete annihilation.”  He hoped “we have the wisdom to choose the right path.”  

I’m surprised Mr. ‘duck tape’ Chertoff missed this obvious reality.  

Shut down threatened US National security and Global economy!

US political extremists unaccountable on national or global levels.

The October 2013 US government shut down exposed a significant weakness of our Constitutional republic. The consequences were felt locally, nationally and globally. Basically, our democratic system allowed a tiny fraction of a political opposition party to dictate whether the US would pay its ‘non essential’ government workers. Even if those workers were ultimately essential to our nation’s security and protecting or saving the lives of individual Americans.

As Congress debated and another debt ceiling approached this tiny minority put the US economy at risk of default. A default that most political and economic experts believed would have had catastrophic effects on the US economy and ultimately the world economy. The global effect would have fueled the lawlessness that gives further advantage to terrorists and global organized crime which are increasingly working together to weaken US power.

The minor structural factor of the US Constitution (based on the concept of independence) that allows political parties to gerrymander Congressional districts virtually ensures a particular party will win the District election. This legal rule pits members of the same party against each other and leads to favoring the purist party ideologue. This closed system strongly encourages more radical posturing. While it may hurt that party in the long run, the short term consequence can produce politics and politicians that push extremist policy and put the whole world at risk. And, the rest of the world has no vote how it turns out.

The bad news is that Americans rarely change their political structures without the motivation of actual pain and suffering here at home.

So aside from the real national security risks listed below that were directly associated with the government shut down, the global consequences could have been worse.

1. On the Wednesday after the shutdown US intelligence officials warned that the government shutdown was making our nation more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and other security risks by forcing US spy agencies to send tens of thousands of employees home. The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that furloughs of civilian employees could have an ‘insidious’ effect, degrading intelligence-gathering capabilities in ways that may not become fully clear for weeks or months. He went on to testify that “As each day goes by, the impact and the jeopardy to the safety and security of this country will increase.” Key intelligence officers considered “Essential” will be kept in place but Clapper’s office indicated that 72% of the intelligence community work force has been sent home creating holes in virtually every agency and department.

2. Iran Sanctions weakened. The under-secretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, says the ability to enforce sanctions on Iran has been significantly hampered. "Note, our ability to do that, to enforce sanctions, to stop sanction evaders, is being hampered significantly by the shutdown," she told the Senate foreign relations committee on October 3rd. The Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Treasury team responsible for overseeing the sanctions, was "utterly depleted", she said.

3. Embassy security: Intelligence staff in the US provide information that means as much or more to embassy staff abroad as the uniformed Marines that guard the embassy gates. One aspect of the security failure at the US facility in Benghazi, Libya which killed 4 Americans was a lack of sufficient intelligence.

4. Chemical security: The Obama administration added closure of the Homeland Security Department's chemical security program to its list of reasons why Congress should end the partial government shutdown. The Chemical Facilities Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which is in the middle of a multi-year effort to approve security plans for high risk chemical plants in the United States, ceased most operations last week as a result of the congressional stalemate over fiscal 2014 spending and health-care reform, Global Security Newswire reported. Congress has yet to permanently authorize the CFATS program, so the failure to pass a spending bill means the initiative not only lacks funds but also the legal authority to operate. "This underscores the need for the shutdown to end, and for Congress to pass a permanent reauthorization of the CFATS program," DHS spokesman Clark Stevens said in a statement to GSN. Stevens confirmed that employees of the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, which runs the chemical security program, have been furloughed.

5. Economic Security: If the shutdown lasts long enough it could crimple the US economy (the source of our military funding and educational foundation that provides us with troops and advanced technologies). The two-and-a-half-week government shutdown probably reduced quarterly G.D.P. growth by about 0.3 per cent. Hopefully, the same mentality won’t lead to our nation’s debt default which would be catastrophic to our prosperity, freedom and security.

6. Bio Security: NIH/CDC non-essential employees who help monitor disease outbreaks here and abroad are vital to early detection and response of pandemics or bioterrorist events. With the speed of global air travel a matter of a few hours delay in detection of a pathogen could mean tens of thousands if not millions sick and/or dying.

7. Space security: Are NASA employees working to detect near earth objects similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs…considered nonessential employees? The amazing answer is ‘yes’.

8. Food security: More Americans die from food contamination each year than from the attacks on 9-11. Food inspectors are helpful in keeping those numbers down and from detecting any possible intentional contamination of the food we consume. Nearly half of all Americans ingest legal drugs. Inspections and speedier drug approval also saves American lives.

9. Maintaining alliances: Individual nations cannot effectively cope with any global threat (terrorism, pandemics, chem/bio/cyber WMD attacks, climate change, economic instability, genocide) without strong international cooperation. Obama was scheduled to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Bali next week but on Thursday the White House canceled it’s plans for the trip. Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in Bali a few days ahead of time. Obama excluded China from his planned 12 nation Trans-Pacific Partnership. Xi pushed his his rival pact, which included China and 15 other nations but not the US. Regional trade deals, offsetting Chinese power and it’s territorial claims (Japan, Taiwan, Burma…) in the region and other foreign policy developments in US interest in that part of the world will have to wait.

Ultimately, this flaw in our constitutional frame work should be reversed.  But even if our nation strives for a more perfect union, political extremists anywhere in the world increasingly have the power to influence the economic, political, health, security, environmental and legal aspects of our nation.  Neither the national or the global lack of accountability is unlikely to be addressed anytime soon.  And we all live with increased risks because of it.  

National Sovereignty threatens our national security, prosperity and freedoms.

John Bolton’s criticisms of the United Nations (Sept 24, 2013 “the Myth of a United Nations”) are as flawed as the UN itself.

First, the Security Council has never been “a reflection of the larger world.”  It remains a reflection of the world as it was 60 years ago when a handful of victorious nations selected themselves to represent nearly 200 sovereign nations for eternity.  And, with no democratic ideals or accountability to “we the people” of the world. 

Second, Mr. Bolton ignores the growing list of lethal national security threats that all Americans face for which our Constitution is incapable of dealing with effectively.  From pandemics, to terrorism, to proliferation of WMD, to economic instability or environmental catastrophe or cyber criminals.   International cooperation is essential to dealing with these and unenforceable treaties are all we can count on.  Without demonstrating sincere interest and support for the key interests of other nations we can’t rationally expect their cooperation when we need it most.

Third, it is actually the UN’s embrace of ‘national sovereignty’ that “provides harsh lessons in reality.”  With every nation in the world retaining the freedom to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants -- within its own borders -- we can count on global chaos fueling the security threats that in turn threaten our freedoms and prosperity. 

It is Mr. Bolton’s “faith-based, almost religious in nature, and unquestioning” support for the flawed concept of national sovereignty that ensures our nation’s continued loss of freedoms and increasing security risks.  National sovereignty is an invented mental construct modeled on the heart felt ideal of ‘independence’... which unfortunately doesn’t exist in the real world of chemistry, biology, physics and WMD.  National Sovereignty will be useless when Al Qaeda or some other state or individual actor acquires a chemical or biological WMD, the cyber or nuclear capacity to bring down our electric grid or economic system.  

Mr. Bolton is correct that fundamentally there is no “United Nations”. Unlike the “United States” the UN remains a confederation of states much like our original 13 colonies before they become a federation based on the rule of law instead of paper agreements.  Today our 50 US states use elected bodies and a supreme court to make and interpret laws and settle differences.   Nation states only have war as a final course of action. 

Until Mr. Bolton and others who worship the national sovereignty that is still enshrined in the UN’s charter, help democratize the UN and establish a structure where individual leaders and states are held accountable for their actions and war crimes, we will never know peace.  And, we will continue to see our freedoms diminished. 

Peace is a function of justice…not armaments or disarmament.  And Justice is a function of laws based on democratic principles…not military or economic power or paper agreements.  Freedom is a universal blessing from our creator.  It was not endowed on us by presidents, dictators or generous governments. 

And no government in the world should retain the right to abuse the inalienable right of innocent humans. 

Space security requires global government.

In response to the Press Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Washington, DC January 17, 2012

There is no doubt that the sustainable use of Earth’s orbit space environment is at serious risk from space debris.
There is also consensus that ensuring the security of our space systems is essential to numerous aspects of our national security and of vital interest to the global community.
Satellite systems enable the free flow of information across a variety of platforms that expand global markets, enhance weather forecasting and environmental monitoring, enable global navigation, transportation, and military targeting, and provide instantaneous data regarding natural and man made disasters.
Unless the international community successfully addresses the problem of space debris the orbital environment around earth will become increasingly hazardous to human spaceflight and all satellite systems. Such a hazard has security consequences for us all.
In response to this challenge, the US has joined with the European Union and other nations to develop an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. This Code of Conduct is intended to “help maintain the long-term sustainability, safety, stability, and security of space”. Unfortunately, establishing guidelines for the responsible use of space, will be as effective as any other unenforceable international agreement.
No nation will constrain it’s national security-related activities in space without assurances all others will.
Working to reverse the threatening trend that is populating orbital space with lethal debris will require 100 percent involvement. Any one nation, under any threat circumstance will move unconstrained to gain advantage of the high ground that orbital space offers.

National Sovereignty is lethal

The Book review of “Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be ruled by Others?” (“Why global governance does not work” Washington Times, Nov 7, 2011) was so full of misconceptions and misinformation it should be shelved under fiction or humor.
First, “one-world government” isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a wise and rational goal given the reality that there is only one world and one human race. And we are running out of time to decide if we will continue to risk out most cherished freedom and security in a lawless world of war, genocidal leaders, catastrophic pandemics, and economic chaos, or thrive under a global rule of law established on most of the same principles our founding fathers aspired to.
As former Issues Director for the World Federalist Association (which unfortunately abandoned its original mission for reasons of political correctness) I can attest that the “transfer of political power to unaccountable transnational organizations” was never on the agenda. In fact, accountability of every government, corporation, president and dictator was. In the current system where national sovereignty reigns supreme over human rights, any government, can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, without any accountability unless some other nation or extremist group decides to wage war, try to enforce sanctions which can be more deadly than war, or take their grievance to an anemic UN talk fest. Meantime, genocides go without intervention, explosive deadly border disputes rage for decades, and WMDs, pathogens, recessions and pollutants roam freely across every national border because ‘national sovereignty’ is powerless to stop them.
Mr. Fonte is “one of the very few scholarly defenders of sovereignties ideas” because the rest have come to the same realization. ‘National sovereignty’ is useless against a the growing array of threats that come with hyper globalization that is amplified by the exponential growth and increasing affordability of powerful dual-use technologies... a growing gap between rich and poor... and abusive governments and corporations that are not accountable to “we the people”.
Not a single ‘one world’ advocate that I know wants to “council countries like the United States to become like the United Nations”. In fact just the opposite. Most want the United Nations to be like the United States. They see the historical failure of confederations of states and the genius of federalism with a proper balancing of power between democratically elected bodies. Such a world federal government would “derive” it’s “just powers through the consent of the governed”, unlike the current system where the IMF, WTO, Iran and the USA can take actions that effect the world without being held accountable for the consequences.
While “it is unclear whether a majority of Westerners desire to live under the Kyoto Protocol” any rational schooled individual can see that ‘national sovereignty’ can’t protect them from the extreme weather conditions and other consequences associated with a changing climate. A climate most likely influenced or exacerbated by the policies of any nations excessive contribution of CO2 to our common atmosphere.
In the world government I (and many others advocate for) the WTO would have elected representatives, and there would be a supranational bureaucracy to appeal to, like the U.S. supreme court, as greivences arise. And, other measures like war and sanctions would no longer be needed.
And, yes, there would be a global bill of rights with an irrevocable “second Amendment” ensuring the basic right of every person and every nation the “right to bear arms”. If they wanted to waste their limited resources on such useless things, no law would stop them. But the misuse of any weapon for taking property or taking innocent lives would be dealt with swiftly. A SEAL Team like police force that would have the world’s people and all other nations backing it would capture suspects if possible, without the loss of innocent lives, and a world court of elected judges would hear the case.
We are not faced with a “clash between global governance and democratic sovereignty” as Mr. Fonte writes. We really face a reality struggle against those who think ‘sovereignty’ resides in governments...and those who believe sovereignty resides in “we the people” of the world.

Life is a gamble. Internet Gambling is a threat.

Without enforceable international standards for online gaming/gambling, we increase risks to American security, prosperity and freedoms. After hearing the testimony on C-span below it will be as clear as full house.

National sovereignty is useless against this and every other global influence (finance, disease, climate change, WMD...).

Why can't any Member of Congress, Presidential candidate or Administration admit it?

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-internet-gaming-is-there-a-safe-bet
Hearing on “Internet Gaming: Is There a Safe Bet?” | Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled “Internet Gaming: Is There a Safe Bet?”

Space! The final frontier, if we can get past the trash.

Our nation’s satellite communications, meteorological and GPS systems are the foundation of America’s traditional military national security system as well as our vital infrastructure and addictive comforts. This is our Achilles heel that has at least three serious vulnerabilities.
In 2007 China demonstrated its capacity to hit that heel when it destroyed one of its own weather satellites with a direct hit from one of their own surface to space missiles. That ‘test’ intended to send a message to the US but it also created over 150,000 pieces of debris. It’s possible that the loss of a few of our key satellites would render many of or most powerful weapons systems blind.
With other nation’s launching satellites into space and acquiring missile and drone technologies that can match, assist or surpass China’s capability our Achilles heel will grow in vulnerability. And without an enforceable set of global rules and regulations an arms race in space appears inevitable. Given China’s growing economic and technological prowess, this is an arms race we may be destined to lose.
But even if humanity never sends up another rocket, there is another inevitable lethal threat to our nation’s dependence on space technology. Space junk. According to NASA there are tens of millions of pieces that space age nations have left in the heavenly region above earth since we started launching satellites over 50 years ago. Most trash pieces are much smaller in diameter than a baseball, with the majority being as small as screws or flecks of paint. But, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network is currently tracking approximately 22,000 pieces of orbital trash that are 4 inches in diameter or greater.
Still, some of the tiniest pieces of space trash can seriously damage or destroy a satellite when they collide at 17,500 miles per hour (orbital velocity) or faster. The kinetic force of almost any object at “a not-unreasonable relative velocity of, say five miles per second” could splinter another object or even a satellite into thousands of other pieces. Each piece then increasing the odds of creating more collisions. And when satellites accidently collide as two did in 2009 (a retired Russian communication satellite Cosmos 2251 with the US privately owned satellite Iridium) tens of thousands of new lethal trajectories can be created.
Defending satellites against small pieces of space trash is possible but expensive. The International Space Station has been covered with over 100 shields made from aluminum, ceramic and Kevlar fiber that can protect against objects smaller than half an inch. Taking evasive maneuvers against larger objects - as the International Space Station has done at least six times - can cost precious fuel and shorten the lifespan of the satellite.
As even a child can imagine, the inevitable collision of any combination of existing satellites and junk will create a runaway cascade of debris that will render space virtually unusable for any future scientific, private, militaristic or extraterrestrial endeavors.
Gravity, over decades will gradually remove some pieces. And intentional removal of space debris is certainly feasible. But it won’t be cheap. There are already dozens of ideas for junk recovery on the drawing board but it is unlikely we will be able to afford any of them given the our current inability for finding adequate financial resources essential for dealing with a growing array of problems down here on earth. Problems which arise from, or are perpetuated by, the unworkability of our world’s current ‘national sovereignty’ paradigm. It simply doesn’t allow for the democratic creation and global enforcement of universal rules and regulations.

Conclusion: Whether exploring for oil or other vital earth resources, tracking climate change or the movement of enemy troops, we depend on our eyes in the sky for our security and essential needs. If just one nation or corporation is allowed to trash the heavenly commons, no one will be spared the potentially catastrophic consequences. Enforceable global rules and regulations, democratically acquired and protective of humanities most basic human rights...is essential to a sustainable future of peace, prosperity and unprecedented freedoms. The key question is ‘Can we overcome our earthly worship of ‘national sovereignty’ to ensure a world that works for all.