Department of Homeland Security's New Two-Tier System: My Take

The Department of Homeland Security is dropping the old - and much-maligned - five-step color system for alerting folks in America on how wary we should be.

The new system includes a Twitter account - which I'm now following. They haven't tweeted anything yet: which is good news, in a way.

My guess is that the new system will be praised by some, reviled by others - and prove to be imperfect.

Before anything else, here are two links. I put these, and more, under "Background," at the end of this post:

• "@NTASAlerts"
  on Twitter
• "Department of Homeland Security
  On Facebook
• "National Terrorism Advisory System"
  dhs.gov (last reviewed / modified on January 28, 2011)

Following the KISS Rule

Back when I was doing marketing for a small publishing house, I ran into the KISS rule. Or, for the more polite and/or sensitive, the KIS rule. Here's the full version:

Keep
It
Simple,
Stupid!

If you follow this blog (thank you!), you know that I don't always follow that excellent advice.

Looks like the Department of Homeland Security decided to embrace KISS, though. In principle, anyway.

National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS): Two Tiers; No Colors; Online

Like I said, I'd be very surprised if the new system was perfect.

I'm also pretty sure that some folks will hate it, some will love it - or say they do - and most of us will try to use it. At least, I hope that most Americans will pay attention. I'm on Twitter (where I'm Aluwir ), and started following NTASAlerts earlier this afternoon. So far, "@NTASAlerts hasn't tweeted yet." Which is fine by me, considering possible implications of an alert.

About those alert levels:

Elevated
• A credible threat against the U.S.
• Probably not specifying when or where an attack might happen
• Giving Information which officials think should be shared
  • To prevent the attack
• Expiration date
  • No more than 30 days from first issue
  • May be extended
• Imminent
  • Warning about a terrorist threat or attack against the U.S. which is
    • Credible
    • Specific
    • Impending
  • Expiration date
    • No more than seven days from first issue
    • May be extended
  (Information from Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
  

I think this two-tier system makes sense, at least on paper. Having expiration dates will help, I think, avoid the 'boy who cried wolf' situation.

Still, this system is designed and administered by human beings - and we've got a knack for making mistakes.

And, it'll be used by human beings.

I'm pretty sure that some of the alerts will be massively misunderstood. And some may be - imprudently written.

Like I said, we're all human beings.

With the new system, I think there will be less room for foul-ups. And, happily, folks who are interested can go directly to Twitter or Facebook (see "Background," below) and see what the DHS actually said. Not what a reporter says an expert thinks about what the DHS said.

A few excerpts, and I'm done:

"The U.S. government's new system to replace the five color-coded terror alerts will have two levels of warnings - elevated and imminent - that will be relayed to the public only under certain circumstances for limited periods of time, sometimes using Facebook and Twitter, according to a draft Homeland Security Department plan obtained by The Associated Press.

"Some terror warnings could be withheld from the public entirely if announcing a threat would risk exposing an intelligence operation or an ongoing investigation, according to the government's confidential plan.

"Like a gallon of milk, the new terror warnings will each come with a stamped expiration date...."

"...According to the draft plan, an 'elevated' alert would warn of a credible threat against the U.S. It would not likely specify timing or targets, but it could reveal terrorist trends that intelligence officials believe should be shared in order to prevent an attack. That alert would expire after no more than 30 days but could be extended.

"An 'imminent' alert would warn about a credible, specific and impending terrorist threat or an on-going attack against the U.S. That alert would expire after no more than seven days but could be extended...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews)

---

"...The new system, called the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS), reflects the reality that we must always be on alert and ready. Under the new, two-tiered system, DHS will coordinate with other federal entities to issue formal, detailed alerts regarding information about a specific or credible terrorist threat. These alerts will include a clear statement that there is an 'imminent threat' or 'elevated threat.' The alerts also will provide a concise summary of the potential threat, information about actions being taken to ensure public safety, and recommended steps that individuals and communities can take....

"...The alerts will be more focused to a two-tier system - 'imminent' or 'elevated threat.' At a minimum, alerts will include a statement of whether there is an imminent or elevated threat...."
("Sharing the Responsibility for Our Collective Security," Secretary Janet Napolitano, The Blog @ Homeland Security (January 27, 2011)

Somewhat-related posts:

• "Information Technology, People, and a Changing World"
  (February 23, 2011)
• " 'The System Worked' - Napolitano and an Unscripted Interview"
  (December 28, 2009)
• "Test: Bombs Built in Government Buildings"
  (July 8, 2009)
• "Right-Wing Extremists Really Are Terrorists, Sometimes"
  (June 6, 2009)
• "Department of Homeland Security No Longer Fears American Veterans?"
  (May 14, 2009)

In the news:

• "US to use Facebook, Twitter to issue terror alerts"
  Associated Press, via Foxnews.com (April 7, 2011)
• "U.S. to issue terror alerts on Facebook, Twitter"
  Computerworld (April 7, 2011)
• "U.S. to replace color-coded terror threat alerts"
  Jeremy Pelofsky, Edited by John O'Callaghan, Edition: U.S., Reuters (January 26, 2011)
• "Color-coded threat system to be replaced in April"
  CNN (January 26, 2011)
• "Homeland Security Department Considers Ending Color-Coded Terror Alerts"
  Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (November 24, 2010)

Background:

• @NTASAlerts
  on Twitter
• "Department of Homeland Security
  On Facebook
• Department of Homeland Security
  • "National Terrorism Advisory System"
    (last reviewed / modified on January 28, 2011)
  • "Secretary Napolitano Announces New National Terrorism Advisory System to More Effectively Communicate Information about Terrorist Threats to the American Public"
    Press release (January 27, 2011)
  • "Prohibited Items"
    About airline carry-on luggage:
    • Among other things, no:
      • Baseball Bats
      • Cattle Prods
      • Brass Knuckles
      • Hand Grenades
    • Common sense, pretty much
      • In my opinion
    • There's such thing as a foolproof system, though
      • In my opinion
      • As demonstrated in the nipple ring incident (March 27, 2008)
  • "Citizen Guidance on the Homeland Security Advisory System" (.pdf)
    
    • Designed with the old color-coded system in mind
    • Still useful
      • As a set of guidelines
      • In my opinion
  • "Homeland Security Presidential Directive 3: Homeland Security Advisory System"
    HSPD 3 Abstract and Full Text (March 11, 2002)

'Draw Mohammed Day,' the Sequel

Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric, put Seattle's Molly "Everybody draw Mohammed Day" Norris on an execution list. Here's what set him off:

"...Norris published a 'blasphemous cartoon' on her website in April in protest to Comedy Central's decision to censor an episode of a popular show, 'South Park' that depicted Islam's Prophet objectionably...."
(The Times of India)

I haven't seen the "South Park" episode in question, but I don't doubt that it was offensive. Or, at any rate, that it offended quite a number of Muslims.

It's not just the citizen from Seattle who's threatened. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officials spoke with a Canadian woman who, inspired by the Seattle cartoonist, set up her own 'draw Mohammed' Facebook page. The RCMP suggested that she remove that page - and not speak with reporters. Looks like she took half their advice - but talked to at least one reporter. Or maybe a journalist spoke with someone from the RCMP. (FOXNews)

Killing Offensive People Isn't Nice

I realize it's applying my values to other people, but I don't think it's nice to kill people, just because they're boors.

I don't think it's right to call for the execution of a cartoonist, based on something the cartoonist drew.

I also think it's not right to tell folks to kill someone who set up a Facebook page for the cartoonist.

Killing someone because the other person offended you isn't considered proper behavior in the West. Quite a few countries even have laws against that sort of thing, and it was regulated before that. It's one of the cases in which the beliefs I've chosen are on the same page as Western values. Which is another topic.

Islamic Terrorists aren't Nice

I also think that outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are:

• Under the impression that they're defending Islam
• Not even close to being on the same page with Western laws and customs

The incidents of September 11, 2001, should have made nearly everybody in the Western world aware of this.

We Live in a Global Community: Deal With It

And I certainly think that it's - silly, at best - for a grown person to intentionally offend people who have a track record for killing folks who offend them.

Granted, whoever censored that "South Park" episode wasn't following contemporary American/Western mores. Offensive portrayal of sacred things, like that "South Park" episode and putting a crucifix in urine is perfectly acceptable behavior. Even, in some circles, commendable.

As long as a person is living in a closed society where everybody agrees that religion is icky - that sort of behavior doesn't do any obvious, immediate, physical harm.

The problem is that the 'proper' sort of people don't live in a nice little gated community, cut off from the world. Like just about everybody else, they live in a village with a population of over 6,830,000,000.

And we're not all exactly alike.

Outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban have their own way of coping with a diverse world. I think their approach is wrong.

Folks who deliberately offend their neighbors have another way of coping with a world that isn't just the way they'd like it. I think their approach is wrong, too.

I've discussed this before:

'Draw Mohammed Day' - This Does Not Help

Whatever the motives of the 'Draw Mohammed Day' organizers, I have more trouble sympathizing with their cause. It's hard to believe that many in the English-speaking world who have heard of Mohammed are unaware of the prohibitions against drawing a likeness of The Prophet.

I don't have a problem with visual depictions of living creatures - but I know that others do. I would no more invite people in a public setting to draw The Prophet, than I would to offer an orthodox Jew a ham sandwich, or insist that a strict vegetarian eat a porterhouse steak.

Not that those three examples are quite equivalent. The point is, I've lived among people who weren't exactly like me. It really isn't smart to intentionally insult and abuse another's beliefs or customs.

I understand that it may 'feel good' to fling insults at 'those people.' It may even earn you some status in your own little subculture.

But we live in a big world. I can understand Sudan's leaders having fits over a teddy bear, and a Saudi cleric who wants women to use one eye at a time. Understand, not condone.

That 'Draw Mohammed Day' has a Western feel to it - which makes the 'Draw Mohammed Day' organizers more culpable. They presumably either grew up in a culture that - in theory, at least - practiced tolerance: or learned about the concept in their studies. You'd think they'd know better.
(" 'Draw Mohhammed Day?!' Get a Grip!" (May 19, 2010))

Related posts:

• "'Draw Mohhammed Day?!' Get a Grip!"
  (May 19, 2010)
• "About Somali Monkeys, Mohammed's Mother, and Other Strange Comments"
  (October 16, 2008)
• "Another Teacher in Trouble in a Muslim Country"
  (September 14, 2008)
• "A Muslim Protest: Peaceful, Civil, Courteous"
  (February 6, 2008)

In the news:

• "Prophet cartoonist on cleric's hit list"
  The Times of India (July 13, 2010)
• " 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day' Advocate Rattled by Death Threats"
  FOXNews (July 12, 2010)

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary)'s on Twitter

I like to be able to write about something positive. This is one of those opportunities.

A few minutes ago, I learned about this Twitter account:

13_ESC_PAO
* Name MAJ Raul Marquez
* Location Fort Hood, Texas
* Web http://www.hood.a...
* Bio 13th ESC Public Affairs section is the link between the 13ESC and local, national and international media outlets as well as the Central Texas community.

Twitter URL:
twitter.com/13_ESC_PAO

You may know 13_ESC_PAO as the 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary).

Someone from that unit asked other Twitterers (Tweeters?) to promote the 13th's Twitter account: and now I have.

They're Following Me! Another Digression

Day before yesterday, I wrote a slightly off-topic post. The important point was the current administration's experiment in digital transparency in government.

I also announced that the USAF is following me. On Twitter. All five of the American armed forces have some sort of Twitter presence, and I've been following at least one Twitter account from each.

It's not that I'm particularly bold and brave: I just don't have the sort of excessive caution - paranoia might be more accurate - about the American military that I could have learned in college, or by talking to 'socially-conscious' people.

That's a good thing, or I'd be a nervous wreck right now. First the USAF started following me: now the Naval War College is, too.

Some military Twitter accounts:

• AFPPA
  Official U.S. Air Force Twitter: news, images, video from www.af.mil about our Airmen around the world. (Following does not=endorsement.)
• Amver
  Global search and rescue system sponsored by the USCG. We use commercial ships to rescue people in distress at sea.
• CGBlog
  The official twitter account for CGBlog.org- all things Coast Guard (USCG)
• NavalWarCollege
  We develop strategic and operational leaders, help the CNO define the future Navy, strengthen maritime security cooperation and support combat readiness.
• USArmy
  Official U.S. Army Twitter: news, images, video from Army.mil about our brave Soldiers around the world. (Following does not=endorsement.)
• uscoastguard
  Official Twitter account for the United States Coast Guard.
  (Just a little overwhelming: the USCG Twitters what they're doing, almost in real time)
• usmc
  (They don't say much: four posts since November 10, 2007)
  (Location: "Everywhere")

Related post:

• "Transparency and Being Followed: A Digression"
  (March 10, 2009)

I'm on Twitter, too, as Aluwir: (requires Flash 9)

Banning Online Terrorist Recruiters? Be Careful About What You Wish For

Terrorists recruiting vulnerable, unsophisticated, youngsters online has been a concern for quite a while now. I think it's a reasonable concern, but I'm not all that surprised at what an ICSR report said recently.

The International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence, or ICSR, is a sort of think tank over in London. They say that they're against radicalization and political violence, and I have no reason to doubt that. On the other hand, I don't know that much about the outfit.

They did make some sensible observations though, which got reported today:

• "LONDON (Reuters) - Western governments have overstated the role the Internet plays in the recruitment of militants, and measures to block extremist material are 'crude, expensive and counterproductive,' a report said on Tuesday...." (March 10, 2009) (Reuters via Wired)
• "Strategies to combat online extremism can be crude, expensive and counter-productive, says a report by experts...." (March 10, 2009) (BBC)

Those "crude and expensive" efforts have been making the news, too:

• "Extremist groups in Southeast Asia are increasingly using the internet and social networking to radicalise the youth of the region, said a new security report released on Friday...." (March 6, 2009) (Reuters via International Herald Tribune)

The Reuters article in Wired did a pretty good job of discussing technical issues related to blocking online terror recruitment.

Bottom line? It would be somewhere between hard and impossible.

I think I see their point. Let's say that someone decided to use blocking software to keep terrorists and other extremists from getting viewers. An obvious starting place would be to start with words and phrases that Muslim extremists, the white power types, and others typically use.

The software would look for words and phrases like

• black
• red
• satan america
• white
• yellow

Then, when people couldn't find any references to red paint, black eyed peas, or the White House, programmers would start refining the software. I don't think they'd ever get it "right:" The meaning of words in English, at least, is very contextual. That's one reason that we don't have really effective AI that can understand natural language yet. But that's a whole different topic.

Blocking Terrorists or Silencing Criticism?

The Reuters/Wired article brought up something I'm very concerned about.

"...Officials have argued that it should be possible to filter militant material in the same way authorities crack down on child pornography.

"But the report said this analogy was flawed: issues surrounding militant content are less clear cut, and it is politically hard to decide what is illegal and what is merely offensive...." (Reuters via Wired)

It's awfully easy to see strongly-worded criticism as a terrorists threat. Sometimes the strongly-worded criticism actually is a terroristic threat, uttered by someone with strong feelings and self-control issues, but no serious intent to cause harm.

Particularly since I experienced the golden age of political correctness in American academia, I'm very concerned about attempts to control the ideas people are allowed to express, how they express them, and how they discuss ideas that other people were allowed to present. As I said in a previous post, "Knowledge is Power: and I Like Power".

Freedom is precious. And, although I understand how important being safe is, I'm inclined to agree with Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (from Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 (The Quotations Page)

"One of the drawbacks of having freedom is that, after a while, it's easy to forget about the alternatives." (March 8, 2009)

Related posts:

• "Minnesotans Recruited for Terror?"
  (March 10, 2009)
• "Recruiting for Terror? Somali Minnesotans Missing, One Found Dead"
  (December 4, 2008)
• "Pro-Islamic Ads Coming to New York City Subways: There's a Real Danger Here, of Becoming Informed"
  (July 21, 2008)
• "Obama's a Radical Muslim; McCain's a Racist: Facts, Mud and the Anonymous Expert"
  (October 7, 2008)
• "New York City Counterterrorism Report: Profiling, Stereotyping, or Common Sense"
  (August 17, 2007)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)

News and views:

• "Report Slams 'Crude' Effort to Fight Web Militants"
  Reuters via Wired (March 10, 2009)
• "Online extremism tactics 'crude' "
  BBC (March 10, 2009)
• "Internet growing weapon in Asian radicalisation"
  Reuters via International Herald Tribune (March 6, 2009)

Background:

• ICSR home page
  Countering Radicalization and Political Violence

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Transparency and Being Followed: A Digression

This post is just a tad off-topic, but not all that much, I trust. Two things:

1. Transparency and the Obama administration
2. The Air Force is following me!

Transparency and Other Changes in Washington

I'm no great fan of President Barack Obama, but he has some ideas I think are worthwhile.

He'd promised to post bills that are ready for his signature online, five days before he signed off on them. I think this is a great idea.

Actually, I think that these laws should be in digital, searchable, form, while legislators discuss them. The senators and representatives might not know how to work a browser's search function, but they could have their staff look for meaningful terms - more accurately and efficiently than reading through pages of a printed document.

Obama's signed three bills before the five-day window was up, but maybe he was in a hurry, or forgot. Accidents happen. The bills were:

• A "fair-pay" law, whatever that is
• An expansion of health insurance for children
• The $787 billion economic stimulus package

As the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington director, Melanie Sloan, said: It's too early to give Obama a clear grade on transparency. " 'Have they done it right on every occasion? Clearly, no,' she said. 'They seem to be making an effort.' " (FOXNews)

The Air Force is Following Me!

A number of my online acquaintances have a sort of hypertrophied (caution?), regarding lackeys of the military-industrial complex. I first ran into that attitude toward government entities like the FBI and the American armed forces back in the sixties and seventies.

So, when an email announced that "US Air Force (USAF) is now following you on Twitter!" - I had a brief flashback to those days of yore, when incense and chants of "hell no, we won't go" filled the air.

It's only fair, I suppose, that the USAF follow me: I followed them first; again, on Twitter.

In the news:

• "Obama Administration Struggling to Live Up to Transparency Pledges"
  FOXNews (March 10, 2009)

Father Kills Daughters, Disappears: Surprisingly Little Hysteria

The Dallas Morning News reported on the funerals of Sarah and Amina Yaser Said today.

They're the sisters, age 17 and 18, who were found shot to death in their father's taxi. Those three, the young women's mother, and their brother, are Muslims.

News reports have carefully avoided the term "honor killing," except when reporting the reaction of a third party.

The blogosphere has been admirably restrained, too, with a few exceptions (more on this at "Father Kills Daughters, Disappears: Watch This Story" (January 4, 2008).)

This lack of Muslim-bashing is pretty remarkable, considering how 'Islamophobic' Americans are sometimes imagined to be. It's particularly remarkable, since in this case it's easy to see a Muslim father killing his westernized daughters as being an honor killing.

Maybe it helped, at least on the state level, that there had been an attempted filicide earlier this month: "San Antonio man shoots his two daughters, kills himself." Salvador Paralta apparently was upset because the girls' mother was leaving him.

Meanwhile, back in the Dallas area, funerals for the murdered teens were decidedly interfaith: "The funeral at the Rahma Funeral Home on Spring Valley Road highlighted the two vastly different cultures the girls had come from. Mingling among women wearing hajibs covering their hair and loose-fitting flowing clothing were teenagers and adults in Western clothing.

"Robert Crisp, a Catholic priest, led a Baptist service, which was followed by a service at a Richardson mosque."

Islamophobia doesn't seem to be an issue on the north side of Dallas, Texas.

From the bits and pieces of hearsay and rumor that are coming out in the news, my guess is that it's at least even odds that Sarah and Amina Yaser Said were killed by their father, Yaser Abdel Said, and that his motive only slightly connected with his Islamic beliefs.

So What?

You'll find jerks everywhere.

But not everyone is a jerk.

And Muslims don't have a monopoly on having a few members of their community who are able to commit horrible crimes.

Most of what's happening on the north side of Dallas, Texas, seems to show that the people who live there, Muslim, Christian, whatever, are decent sorts who want to support each other.

I think that communities like this are common in America. And, that American laws and customs which allow people to worship, or not worship, as they please help make such communities possible. I think it's easier to love your neighbor, if some authority isn't forcing you to worship the same way your neighbor does.

Father Kills Daughters, Disappears: Watch This Story

Yaser Abdel Said, of Lewisville, Texas, shot his teenage daughters, Sarah and Amina, on Wednesday of this week. Then he disappeared.

It's hard not to think, 'honor killing,' when two bright Muslim girls who wore western clothing show up shot to death, in their father's taxi. But it's early days: and very few facts have been released about the case.

Apparently, the most that a police spokesman said about a motive for the double murder was that "there have been some 'domestic issues' with the family, but he did not elaborate." A secretary of the Lewisville High School who had taken classes with both sisters said that they were very bright, wore "American" clothes like other teens, and didnt have much to say about their family. "I didn't know they were Muslims until she told me they were Egyptian and Muslim," she said. Mr. Said is from Egypt, and moved to Lewisville around the 1980s.

Some bloggers have already labeled the double murder an honor killing and/or a case involving pedophilia: "Brother of Slain Lewisville Girls Tries to Dispel Honor Killing Theory" and "Another Islamic 'Honor Killer' On The Loose?," for example. At least in the second example, there's a question mark at the end.

The dead teens' older brother, Islam Said, told WFAA television, "I never thought this would happen," and, about his father: "Tell him to turn himself in." He also said that his sisters' murders were not honor killings: "It's something else. Religion has nothing to do with it."

He may be right. The killings could be anything from an honor killing, to a misguided attempt to cover up sexual misconduct, or a drug deal gone bad, or the result of somebody getting the wrong meds.

The fact is, we don't know the facts. All we know is that

• Two young women are dead
• A family is hurting
• The suspected killer is on the run

Speculation on motive is just that: speculation.

So What?

The Said sisters' killings, and the reaction of some to the way they died, tells me two things:

1. People are going to make assumptions that fit their beliefs
2. Muslims are associated with honor killings right now

Even if news media carefully avoids mentioning the 'h-k' phrase, the idea that their father thought he had a right and duty to clean up his family will surface. Making assumptions based on previous experience is a human trait. But it is possible to change people's experiences.

This would be an excellent opportunity for an Islamic group in America to get involved with this tragedy: and show examples of American Muslims who are not killing members of their own families, or plotting to blow up shopping malls. I don't mean to sound flippant or sarcastic about this. Public perception is important, and right now Islam has what could at best be called a public relations problem in America.

---

Online memorials to Sarah and Amina are at www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7824062165 and www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7321382086.

---

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Censorship: Watching Governments, and Watching the Watchers

Repressive regimes restricting what their subjects see and hear is nothing new, but McClatchy Newspapers ran "Middle East censors seek to limit Web access" today.

Rulers in the Middle East doesn't have a monopoly on the power in "knowledge is power" to themselves. In fact, the McClatchy article says that some Arab countries have little or no filtering:

• Lebanon
• Morocco
• Jordan
• Egypt

Egypt may be off the list soon, though. Politicians there are looking at criminalizing some online activity.

I'm no believer in the idea that everyone should have access to all information: online child pornography is, for the most part, illegal in America, and I don't have much of a problem with that. I even think that restricting access to details of troop deployments in wartime is debatably proper.

Reporters without Borders (RWB) gives a global look at how will journalists think they're being treated. RWB's "Predators of Press Freedom" is a sort of rogue's gallery of leaders with an aversion to their subjects getting facts on their own.

RWB is a Paris-based organization with an international flavor, and names to match.

• French: Reporters sans frontières
• Spanish: Reporteros Sin Fronteras, or RSF
• German: Reporter ohne Grenzen or ROG

RWB's "Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007 / Eritrea ranked last for first time while G8 members, except Russia, recover lost ground" looks like a pretty good ranking resource. On the down side, the list has a built-in bias: rankings are based on questionnaires sent to

• Freedom of expression Organizations partnered with RWB
• Correspondents in RWB's network
• Journalists
• Researchers
• Jurists
• Human rights activists

I take what advocacy groups say with a grain of salt: including the ones I agree with. To RWB's credit, they show how they collected and analyzed the data:

• "Questionnaire for compiling a 2007 world press freedom index" to compile the report
• "How the index was compiled"

The questionnaire was refreshingly objective, overall. I could quibble about a few questions.

For example,

• "During this time, how many journalists and media assistants: ... 6. Were personally threatened?" I remember the days leading up to a Miller Brewing Company executive getting fired for talking about a "Seinfeld" episode to a colleague of the opposite sex (or should that be 'non-identical gender?'). The threshold of being "threatened" has gotten pretty low at times.
• "Over the period, was/were there (yes/no): ...Restricted physical or reporting access to any regions of the country (official ban, strict official control etc)?" I think I know what RWB means, but what if a reporter was offended because she wasn't allowed to take photos in part of Peterson Air Force Base?
• "Over the period, was/were there (yes/no): ...Routine self-censorship in the privately-owned media? Give this a score from 0 (no self-censorship) to 5 (strong self-censorship)?" This has the same problems of interpretation as being "threatened." Again, living in a country where hypersensitivity is close to becoming a right may be coloring my perceptions.

Finally, although the ranked list gives some guide to how tightly the countries control information, the "Evaluation by region" links give a more detailed (and so, I think, better) look at what's going on

Civil War in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, doesn't really exist. Maybe.

My guess is that the U.S. Army Brigadier General who made the announcement earlier this month is right.

Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner announced that the Islamic State of Iraq is a cyberspace fake, and that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is a virtual leader of a Web hoax. The fake Islamic State of Iraq was cooked up by by an Iraqi terrorist and Egyptian Abu Ayyab al-Masri, al Qaeda in Iraq leader, and Ayman al-Zawahri, al Qaeda number two world leader.

If Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, non-existent leader of a fake organization, is an "Iraqi" leader of the "civil war" in Iraq, then the conflict in Iraq starts looking a lot less than a civil war, and much more like the work of a group from outside Iraq.

It's early days, but I think that the U.S. Congress should stop, take a deep breath, and think very hard about whether their "civil war in Iraq" is real, or as fake as any other online hoax.

Especially the Senate. They'll probably be voting soon on whether or not to abandon Iraq to whatever armed faction is left in the chaos that would follow after a U.S. troop pullout.

That's my opinion. The rest of this post is what I dragged out of the news.

It's been hard to find much information about this online. Some of the first references I found were a USA Today blog, and an article in the Sacramento Bee.

A more detailed source was Al Qaeda in Iraq Duped Into Following Foreigners, Captured Operative Says, a DefenseLink News article dated July 18, 2007.

The man thought to be the senior Iraqi in al Qaeda in Iraq, Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, was captured in early July. According to the U.S. military, al-Mashadani said that he was one of the people who created a virtual organization, called the Islamic State of Iraq, on the Web in 2006.

Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, made the announcement.

"The rank-and-file Iraqis in (al Qaeda in Iraq) believed they were following the Iraqi al Baghdadi, but all the while they have actually been following the orders of the Egyptian Abu Ayub al Masri," DefenseLink quotes Bergner as saying. "Mashadani has said in his own words that the Islamic State of Iraq should be free of foreign influence, but that is not the case."

Quoting from the DefenseLink article: "In fact, Bergner said, Masri relies solely on the direction of foreign leaders and doesn’t trust or seek the advice of Iraqis in the network.

'The disclosures of Mashadani show how (al Qaeda in Iraq) leaders misrepresent themselves and purposely deceive the Iraqi people and their own members,' Bergner said. 'ISI leaders cloak themselves in Iraqi nationalism, but in fact their purpose is to subjugate the Iraqi people under a foreign-led terrorist organization that wants to impose a Taliban-like ideology on Iraqis.'" The DefenseLink article didn't mention Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi's name did turn up in a Reuters article. Reuters has Bergner saying that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is a non-existent figurehead for the virtual Islamic State of Iraq.