Wednesday, November 18, 2009

GOP Blogger Conference call on Gitmo, NYC terrorist trials and Ft. Hood shootings

Hoekstra's starting:

Re: Fort Hood: Hoekstra was one of the first to call this a terrorist act by a self-radicalized American. He says we've only seen the tip of the iceberg, we will see much more coming out on where the whole process broke down to allow Hasan to function much less be deployed to A-stan. How did Hasan get good performance reviews? (Hoeksta has seen?) H believes there is serious evidence to consider as a terrorist attack.

Re: KSM trial. Attack American civilians and you get a civil trial. All stems from O's ill fated Jan 22, 2009 decision to close Gitmo. Jack Reed's comment on Fox Sunday in reply to what do we do if KSM acquitted, and Reed said we'd still hold them, was an embarrassment. If we missed the deadline on Gitmo closing, we may very well miss the deadline on the trial and these guys may well go free.

Hoeksta mentions the John Adams project and says start researching them, and ask which side their on?

What's update on Patriot Act? It's getting hung up on definition of lone wolf. Administration is in free fall on the act with three key provisions getting set to expire.

Doesn't the trial put our whole Intel Apparatus on trial? H: amen.

We can fully expect AQ will use a trial to expose US Intel Methods and they will use the John Adam's project as an ally.

Re: Thomson and a threat assessment. Ask for the same information House Intel has and let everyone make their own threat assessment. Average American gets that and will say whow... now we know we have Gitmo in Cuba.

1 comment:

John Byrnes said...


The dilemma caused by the shooting at Fort Hood by Major Hasan exemplifies how each of our programs have failed us. When supervisors, counselors and task forces members rely on subjective references of culture and mental illness, observers miss the signs specific to aggression referenced in post analysis. When observers focus specifically on aggressive behavior, the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” standout, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters.

Major Hasan was under surveillance by two Terrorist Task Forces, one with Department of Defense oversight and the other with FBI oversight. So why wasn’t he stopped?

The use of subjective/qualitative indicators, prone to stereotype individuals by culture or religion; versus quantitative indicators and the use of mental health references know to mislead and misconstrue, fails us repeatedly in our attempts to prevent acts of violence. Only when we use the specificity of “aggression” and its objective, culturally neutral indicators can we get-out-in-front of these acts of aggression and prevent them. Why are current systems uses on campus failing us?

The answer is quite simple – The military does not have an objective and culturally neutral system that collects information and evaluates it to determine the degree (or level) of aggression an individual is displaying, nor has it people who have a clear responsibility to observe and report this information. Learn more about the problem and the solution by reading our Blog: