The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 9 - The Distance That Destroys

What is democracy?

This, in America, should seem obvious: democracy has two main forms of representative democracy and direct democracy.

Direct democracy is the direct ballot or vote or other assessment given by all individuals that meet those necessary qualifications to meet such input needs. This is true in representative democracy for the casting of the ballot, but only for direct measures does that devolve into direct democracy. Direct democracy is the direct casting of such ballots or votes for measures to help govern society and no one is appointed to do that save by those actually casting the votes.

This, in modern terms, has been seen as 'one man, one vote', save that all questions of governing reach no higher authority than that vote: there may be appointed officials to carry out such things voted on, but the vote, itself, is the authorization and legitimacy of those things voted upon. These are usually systems of 'majority rule', or 50%+1 rule, or 'super majority rule' or those votes requiring a more than 50%+1 legitimacy either by 66% (two-thirds), 75% (three-quarters) or 100% (unanimity). Some States in the US use this for direct ballot measures, but in a direct democracy each and every measure would need to meet the majority rule of all of those voting: society.

America, however, does not do this at the Federal scale and not only has representative democracy but of republican form: it has a head of state. This concept need not, of necessity, mean a legislative body, but can be an actual individual. That said republics can also consist of a Consul as individual (such as the Roman Republic having two Consuls that exchanged office) or a Council as group performing that role (such as Switzerland with its ruling committee). This form of government then separates the Head of State function from the Head of Government function either via different individuals (ex. a President and a Prime Minister) or a division of functions by Executive and Legislative concepts.

The US Constitution by ensuring that all States have a form of republican government ensures that there is no State that invests all of its powers into one individual. With that being said, the Constitution does not speak on any actual form of republic so that the States may choose, for themselves, how to constitute their governments and ensure that some form of republicanism is put into place.

To run this system with the additional division of Judicial to be a check and balance on the Executive and Legislative branches, and by dividing up the Legislative into two bodies so that no single body may sign away the rights of both, the US system of Constitutional republic is most complex. The final complexity added is that of representative democracy.

Representative democracy is that form where individuals vote for a single individual to represent that constituency. In this there are also many forms available to not only determine who gets to represent a given constituency but what the level of satisfaction must be to meet that.

The US for the House of Representative districts uses one form of this: districts of roughly equal population, save in low population States where only one Representative is given for that State (the district is the State). The most number of representatives that the US can have is at the lowest representative proportion set in the main body of the Constitution: 1:30,000. Congress, however, is allowed to adjust this so that it may decide the level of representation (and that could go down to a minimum of 1 per State by current reading of the Constitution as there is no requirement for multiple Representatives, only that a minimum number be given which is 1 per State).

A district restricts candidates by geography, and then allows for a system of majority election in that district to determine who represents the district in a 'first past the post' schema. That schema means that so long as majority is won in the district, there is only one representative from it. That is the logic of by district, first past the post elections: majority rules via limited geography to elect a representative.

There are, however, other systems that are perfectly allowable and, indeed, were run by the States early in the republic of the United States. With a given number of House Seats available many States ran an 'at large' system of votes, where the top number of vote getters across the State would take those seats. If one had 4 seats then the top 4 were chosen without respect to geographical origin within the State. This form of system allowed multiple parties to work hard to be 'competitive' within the State so as to garner one of the top positions. If Congress were given to run at 1:30,000, then the necessary 'barrier to entry' becomes that of 30,000 votes with no other qualifier necessary. Thus at the extreme other end of a 50 seat House is that of a nearly 10,000 seat House, and these two disparate forms of representative democracy are perfectly amenable to the US Constitution as it only sets minimums and maximums, and does not dictate: number of parties, types of proportionality or even the presence of absence of districts.

There are other, and more diverse systems that have been devised, such as the 'second choice ballot' system where, if the number of final representatives is not met, then the lowest is taken out and the second choice marked on the ballot is then implemented. Elimination is usually of a given percentage of the lowest candidates in order to meet some minimal representative number (50%+1 or set number by proportion, or both). There is also the system where if none meet the necessary qualifier for first past the post, then the top two vote getters have a second or 'run-off' election between them so that a single winner can be found. The US actually has a form of this system embodied in the Electoral College for Presidential Elections, in which representative electors are what is actually chosen via ballot and the Electoral College convenes to cast its votes. Not all States have a requirement that such Electors actually cast their vote as given by the election, however, so that higher level political deals can be made for election of a President. If the College cannot agree then the House of Representatives is given final vote and say for President.

The concept embodied by representative democracy (be it in the House or the two seats per State Senate or the Electoral College) is that of 'knowing who you are voting for'. The basis of representative democracy is that an individual represents all of those either in a district, in those systems, or those that actually voted for them, as in those systems of meeting proportionality or the highest number of vote getters. Thus the weight of decision making is either to make the best decision for a diverse district, in which one did not get unanimity, or along ideological/party lines as in a proportional system, or an admixture of both in a 'top number chosen' system. Actually having an idea of who it is you are voting for to represent you becomes the key part of each of these systems, so that an individual may wisely cast their votes for their chosen representative (win or lose).

When there is distance put between the voter and their representative, so that less and less is known about that representative, the system begins to break down. This is not a new worry in democracies and has been a problem of democracy since the concept was invented in its representative form. The ongoing discourse during the years 1787-89 between multiple individuals would bring out how such democratic systems erode and implode to ones of tyrannical rule, authoritarian rule or outright despotism. The Swiss system was held as one key in that debate by many, and all recognized it as a republic and form of representative democracy that was proving to be relatively stable. From Maryland Farmer, Essay No.3, Part 1, 07 MAR 1788:

That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few.…

Here the Maryland Farmer identifies the salient points of limited representational democracy are seen: keeping government close to the voters and ensuring that the distance between voters and their representatives does not get too large.

Notice that this is from an 'Anti-Federalist' but is *not* an argument against federal forms of government (that is shared and distributed power between local, State and National government, with checks and balances between governments and inside them) but an argument that localized democracy is necessary to keep corruption low and foreign influence out. When power is concentrated into too few hands, dangers arise.

Indeed, a federal form of government was argued *for* by many of the 'Anti-Federalists', which belies what they saw and talked about as not *being* 'Anti-Federalist' but something else, entirely. To be sure many did argue against the federal as opposed to the then confederal form of government, but the hallmarks of what we come to call 'federalism' were well understood and supported. This was seen by Federal Farmer, No. 17, 23 JAN 1788:

I have often heard it observed, that our people are well informed, and will not submit to oppressive governments; that the state governments will be their ready advocates, and possess their confidence, mix with them, and enter into all their wants and feelings. This is all true; but of what avail will these circumstances be, if the state governments, thus allowed to be the guardians of the people, possess no kind of power by the forms of the social compact, to stop, in their passage, the laws of congress injurious to the people. State governments must stand and see the law take place; they may complain and petition — so may individuals; the members of them, in extreme cases, may resist, on the principles of self-defence — so may the people and individuals.

It has been observed, that the people, in extensive territories, have more power, compared with that of their rulers, than in small states. Is not directly the opposite true? The people in a small state can unite and act in concert, and with vigour; but in large territories, the men who govern find it more easy to unite, while people cannot; while they cannot collect the opinions of each part, while they move to different points, and one part is often played off against the other.

It has been asserted, that the confederate head of a republic at best, is in general weak and dependent; — that the people will attach themselves to, and support their local governments, in all disputes with the union. Admit the fact: is it any way to remove the inconvenience by accumulating powers upon a weak organization? The fact is, that the detail administration of affairs, in this mixed republic, depends principally on the local governments; and the people would be wretched without them: and a great proportion of social happiness depends on the internal administration of justice, and on internal police. The splendor of the monarch, and the power of the government are one thing. The happiness of the subject depends on very different causes: but it is to the latter, that the best men, the greatest ornaments of human nature, have most carefully attended: it is to the former tyrants and oppressors have always aimed.

Not only was a strong federal government protested against, but the reasoning was that a distant federal government would find it easier to unite rulers than to unite disparate States across the Nation. Those that would govern would find more in common amongst themselves, being governors, than the people would amongst themselves, being diverse and in many different communities. With that power, handed to the National level, those in such government would then seek to secure their power by playing off faction against factions, piece upon piece, until there was no coherent unity amongst the States and only the National government was left.

While the final form of such things cannot be predicted, the movement to faction based politics is one that is of extreme danger for large republics with poor representation systems. The ability of government to use pre-existing differences to turn them into political divisions is one that is a siren's song of political parties - it is a path to government but also a path to instability. Governing for the good of all the people in a democratic republic run via representational means does not become an end in such situations and is, instead, replaced by catering to one faction over another via gifts from government taken from all of the people. When this is combined with the shift of politics to those factions and away from commonality by those in power over years or decades, governing for the good of the Nation, itself, disappears.

We see this, today, in this thing known as: Identity Politics. While such political divisions created by the parties in the US to exploit such differences was always a worry, the entrenchment of it by those in government to ensure that such divisions become defining for government becomes a detriment not just to the Nation but a corrosive effect on its corrective, which is democratic will. Disenfranchisement need not be by disbarment from voting or by intimidation, and can be just as easily done by entrenching preferred groups above the entirety of the population for special favor and attention and then shunting aside criticism and petition.

The first order corrective, however, before that of the people, is the States, as given by Federal Farmer. By making the States an integral part of the checks and balance system, the National government was held accountable not only by the people, who may become dissuaded from voting and keeping the interest of the Nation foremost, but also by the States that would ensure that their interest as autonomous actors within the Union were not infringed upon.

The main body of the US Constitution did try to address some of the concerns given, as: Article I, Section 2 addressing Taxation (and the additional injunction in Section 9 against any direct tax whatsoever) to be handed to the States to collect, the Article I, Section 3 ability of a State Legislature to choose Senators, and the Article I, Section 10 escape clause to allow States the ability to defend themselves separate from the Union when invaded or in imminent Danger as will not admit delay. These each served as a check and balance against the power of National government to raise taxes, to withdraw Senators to demonstrate the State's non-acceptance of legitimacy and the ability of the States to actually continue on the ancient right of self-defense and have that available to it, separate from the National government.

Two of these has been removed by Amendments that have bestowed direct powers to the National government and removed the recourse of the States to keep it in check. Amendment XVI specifically removed the direct taxation of citizens and corporations and handed that to the National government without the need nor intervention of the States. Amendment XVII shifted the Senatorial selection out of the Statehouse and into direct elections, thus negating that check and balance on the legitimacy of the National government. Only the Art. I, Section 10 right of self-defense backed by the militia language in Amendment II has remained in place, but that, too, has been eroded by the ability of the States to have non-standing forces available in case of ready need by those pressing for the centralization of all forces to the federal government. The vestment of the power of the Union's forces has been shifted to the National via legislation so that modern readers of Art. I, Sec. 10 and Amend. II are left to scratch their heads as to the meaning of them. It not only is the incorporation of the individual's right to self-defense, but of the State to organize separate, non-standing forces for ultimate self-protection. That latter cannot be garnered without the former, and the citizenry, without the right to organize via their States, find difficulty in understanding just how the Nation viewed arms and their use from that era. Many, today, believe that the States have *no* right to separate protection on their own, and castigate any attempts to do so. That is centralized socialization pressure backed by government to erode the States of the right to their own autonomy in those cases where the federal government either cannot or will not respond. That is a federalist view of military power, the division of it between the Nation and the States, and is something supported by both federalists and 'Anti-Federalists'.

Indeed, many of the 'Anti-Federalists', were quite trenchant in their output, making a few of today's bloggers with their worst innuendos seem tame by comparison. And yet that era was one in which the future outlook not only of the Nation but of democracy itself was at the deciding point. The power being handed to this federal government in a representative democracy under republican format was quite large, and the worries coming out of the Revolution and seeing the problems of past republics was foremost in the minds of many. Thus the warnings, such as those by Luther Martin's Address No. 4, on 04 APR 1788, may seem a bit harsh in the addressing of those like Hamilton and Madison, yet the point made is clear and well spoken even when we must consider those that we disagree with:

Those who would wish to excite and keep awake your jealousy and distrust, are your truest friends;—while they, who speak peace to you when there is no peace—who would lull you into security, and wish you to repose blind confidence in your future governors, are your most dangerous enemies. Jealousy and distrust are the guardian angels who watch over liberty:—security and confidence are the forerunners of slavery.

But the advocates for the system tell you that we who oppose it, endeavour to terrify you with mere possibilities, which may never be realized, that all our objections consist in saying government may do this,—and government may do that.

I will, for argument sake, admit the justice of this remark, and yet maintain that the objections are insurmountable.—I consider it an in-controvertible truth, that whatever by the constitution government even may do, if it relates to the abuse of power, by acts tyrannical and oppressive, it some time or other will do.—Such is the ambition of man, and his lust for domination, that no power less than that which fixed its bounds to the ocean, can say, to them, "thus far shall ye go and no farther."—Ascertain the limits of the may, with ever so much precision, and let them be as extensive as you please, government will speedily reach their utmost verge; nor will it stop there, but soon will overleap those boundaries, and roam at large into the regions of the may not.—Those who tell you the government by this constitution may keep up a standing army,—abolish the trial by jury,—oppress the citizens of the states by its powers over the militia,—destroy the freedom of the press,—infringe the liberty of conscience, and do a number of other acts injurious to and destructive of your rights, yet that it never will do so; and that you safely may accept such a constitution, and be perfectly at ease and secure that your rulers will always be so good, so wise, and so virtuous—such emanations of the Deity, that they will never use their power but for your interest and your happiness—contradict the uniform experience of ages, and betray a total ignorance of human nature, or a total want of ingenuity.

Actually, pretty vicious stuff about those 'who would lull you into security' given the era. The point that wariness of those offering platitudes and easy assurances is one that has lived on since that era to the present, and we still find ourselves confronted with politicians preferring to speak of great, vague things that they will not put down firmly so as to tell those voting for them what they actually wish to achieve.

One of the most divisive parts of society is religion, and was a worry to that era as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 had only been in place for 130 years or so, and had often been obeyed in its breach: not only was the open practice of some sects forbidden, but in a few areas, such as Spain, persecution and inquisition were still in place. In England social isolation of Puritans and others would lead to the diminution of mobility in society and government, while allowing same in commerce. By restricting religion by government and politics, social division, isolation and persecution would be manifest as a societal view. In Maryland Farmer, Essay VII, 04 APR 1788,we see the following:

Thus it is that barbarity—cruelty and blood which stain the history of religion, spring from the corruption of civil government, and from that never—dying hope and fondness for a state of equality, which constitutes an essential part of the soul of man:—A chaos of darkness obscures the downfal of empire, intermixed with gleams of light, which serve only to disclose scenes of desolation and horror—From the last confusion springs order:—The bold spirits who pull down the ancient fabric—erect a new one, founded on the natural liberties of mankind, and where civil government is preserved free, there can be no religious tyranny—the sparks of bigotry and enthusiasm may and will crackle, but can never light into a blaze.—

[..]

Religious tyranny continued in this state, during those convulsions which broke the aristocracies of Europe, and settled their governments into mixed monarchies: A ray of light then beamed—but only for a moment—the turbulent state and quick corruption of mixed monarchy, opened a new scene of religious horror—Pardons for all crimes committed and to be committed, were regulated by ecclesiastical law, with a mercantile exactitude, and a Christian knew what he must pay for murdering another better than he now does the price of a pair of boots: At length some bold spirits began to doubt whether wheat flour, made into paste, could be actually human flesh, or whether the wine made in the last vintage could be the real blood of Christ, who had been crucified upwards of 1400 years—Such was the origin of the Protestant reformation—at the bare mention of such heretical and dangerous doctrine, striking (as they said) at the root of all religion, the sword of power leaped from its scabbard, the smoke that arose from the flames, to which the most virtuous of mankind, were without mercy committed, darkened all Europe for ages; tribunals, armed with frightful tortures, were every where erected, to make men confess opinions, and then they were solemnly burned for confessing, whilst priest and people sang hymns around them; and the fires of persecution are scarcely yet extinguished. Civil and religious liberty are inseparably interwoven—whilst government is pure and equal—religion will be uncontaminated:—The moment government becomes disordered, bigotry and fanaticism take root and grow—they are soon converted to serve the purpose of usurpation, and finally, religious persecution reciprocally supports and is supported by the tyranny of the temporal powers.

This applies not only to religion but any enforced differences imposed by government amongst the people for any reason whatsoever. When factions are empowered by government to enforce views and coerce others into holding them, or kill them because they confess to other views that are seen as heretical, then society is at peril of government. That is not only in the religious realm, but the secular of race, creed, political viewpoint, and any other thing used to divide the people against themselves. Only in an era of Political Correctness have we seen 'sensitivity training' enforced by mandate and have we seen tribunals in other democracies set up to withhold the power of freedom of speech that may be 'offensive' to some minority. At that point it is not the minority that is put at peril, but civil society and government *both*. Not just democracy, but any secular government that empowers such puts itself at peril of becoming the victim of bigotry and certitude as one faction is deemed to be in need of 'power' over others.

There is a stark difference between society recognizing the error of its ways in areas of discrimination and removing those obstacles and in setting up tribunals to make all individuals in society adhere to Politically Correct mandates handed down by those in power.

Government being restrained from punishing is one thing.

Government used to punish society so as to change it to other views is destructive to society and to those in power as they objectify their fellow citizens into those needing to be 'purified' to some unknown and untold standard.

That is not democracy by any scope of the imagination, and yet we have heard in this election year those willing to put race, gender and religion as litmus tests for high office and, indeed, the highest office in the land. Yet another of those things give to us as warning by the 'Anti-Federalists' who seem to have had some understanding of how democracy can fail and what the ends of government can be when it does so. It is not a pleasant thing to see the warnings of those who criticized the Constitution coming true, and yet if we blind ourselves to those facts coming before us, then we also blind ourselves to what these fellow citizens saw as solutions.

Unlike the modern era of criticism *only*, this was an era that understood that the duty of the citizen was not only to criticize, but to offer something better and hope to build something better. Thus, if in their trenchant tracts they demean and diminish, many also offered to help and to build something new and better: not just the Constitution as it was but to Amend, change or alter it to adhere to principles that were still in accord with democratic and republican ideals and yet put safeguards into it against those problems they saw.

Of these 'critics that do more than criticize' there was Federal Farmer No. 3, 10 OCT 1787, who would offer such criticism and then solutions:

I am fully convinced that we must organize the national government on different principles, and make the parts of it more efficient, and secure in it more effectually the different interests in the community; or else leave in the state governments some powers proposed to be lodged in it—at least till such an organization shall be found to be practicable. Not sanguine in my expectations of a good federal administration, and satisfied, as I am, of the impracticability of consolidating the states, and at the same time of preserving the rights of the people at large, I believe we ought still to leave some of those powers in the state governments, in which the people, in fact, will still be represented—to define some other powers proposed to be vested in the general government, more carefully, and to establish a few principles to secure a proper exercise of the powers given it. It is not my object to multiply objections, or to contend about inconsiderable powers or amendments. I wish the system adopted with a few alterations; but those, in my mind, are essential ones; if adopted without, every good citizen will acquiesce, though I shall consider the duration of our governments, and the liberties of this people, very much dependant on the administration of the general government. A wise and honest administration, may make the people happy under any government; but necessity only can justify even our leaving open avenues to the abuse of power, by wicked, unthinking, or ambitious men. I will examine, first, the organization of the proposed government, in order to judge; 2d. with propriety, what powers are improperly, at least prematurely lodged in it. I shall examine, 3d, the undefined powers; and 4th, those powers, the exercise of which is not secured on safe and proper ground.

A more straightforward view cannot be found today on how to work with one's fellow citizens to change and adjust government. First you state the problem, second you define what needs to be done and third you point out how these things will benefit everyone without exception. Then restate the entire thing in short form. Additionally the concept of 'change as little as possible' is also given, which others would see as a wise way to change government. Really, this is the modern technique of problem solving, along with the acknowledgement that this may not be perfect, but it is better than what is proposed, and what is proposed is good but not well thought out. A rarity today, in an era that should be more enlightened.

Let us see what the good Federal Farmer came up with in those things to be examined, and I will do some minor consolidation:

First. As to the organization—the house of representatives, the democrative branch, as it is called, is to consist of 65 members; that is, about one representative for fifty thousand inhabitants, to be chosen biennially—the federal legislature may increase this number to one for each thirty thousand inhabitants, abating fractional numbers in each state..—Thirty-three representatives will make a quorum for doing business, and a majority of those present determine the sense of the house.—I have no idea that the interests, feelings, and opinions of three or four millions of people, especially touching internal taxation, can be collected in such a house.—In the nature of things, nine times in ten, men of the elevated classes in the community only can be chosen—

The first complaint is that 1:50,000 for the first proposed legislature is too small and that electors will tend to be drawn from the upper class and not from the middle or lower class. Additionally 1:50,000 is too small to properly represent the interests of 3-4 million people. Basically the House of Representatives is seen as too small, too far removed and drawing from a non-representative portion of the population. And his remedy is as follows just a bit further down:

—The branches of the legislature are essential parts of the fundamental compact, and ought to be so fixed by the people, that the legislature cannot alter itself by modifying the elections of its own members. This, by a part of Art. 1. Sect. 4. the general legislature may do, it may evidently so regulate elections as to secure the choice of any particular description of men.—It may make the whole state one district—make the capital, or any places in the state, the place or places of election—it may declare that the five men (or whatever the number may be the state may chuse) who shall have the most votes shall be considered as chosen—In this case it is easy to perceive how the people who live scattered in the inland towns will bestow their votes on different men—and how a few men in a city, in any order or profession, may unite and place any five men they please highest among those that may be voted for—and all this may be done constitutionally, and by those silent operations, which are not immediately perceived by the people in general.—I know it is urged, that the general legislature will be disposed to regulate elections on fair and just principles:—This may be true—good men will generally govern well with almost any constitution: But why in laying the foundation of the social system, need we unnecessarily leave a door open to improper regulations? —This is a very general and unguarded clause, and many evils may flow from that part which authorises the congress to regulate elections—Were it omitted, the regulations of elections would be solely in the respective states, where the people are substantially represented; and where the elections ought to be regulated, otherwise to secure a representation from all parts of the community, in making the constitution, we ought to provide for dividing each state into a proper number of districts, and for confining the electors in each district to the choice of some men, who shall have a permanent interest and residence in it; and also for this essential object, that the representative elected shall have a majority of the votes of those electors who shall attend and give their votes.

Don't let the House of Representatives set its own size, give that over to the people. For a 'minimalist' approach, that works very well: let the people vote across the Nation in their States on proposed size. If the Congress wants a different size, make it come to the people and the States and *ask for it*.

Next remove the power of Congress to legislate elections and leave that up to the States. By removing the definitional power on elections, the States then have the ability to choose how they want to within the State to find the number of Representatives necessary to represent the people. This is devolving power to the States and the people so as to remove any chance to abuse it from the National side. By common agreement the States set their election to a single day, as done via the Constitution, but how they fill the Representative seats is left up to them, also. Do note that the conception is one of a district based system, but by leaving the concept of how elections are to be run up to each State, multiple systems could be seen across the Union and yet the results would not infringe upon any individual's right to choose. Those States that want district based Representation can have them and those wanting at-large can have that, and those delegating some to districts and some to at-large could have that, too. By making districts allowable one does not mandate them.

And the goal of this first fix is given thusly:

Perhaps, nothing could be more disjointed, unweildly and incompetent to doing business with harmony and dispatch, than a federal house of representatives properly numerous for the great objects of taxation, &c. collected from the several states; whether such men would ever act in concert; whether they would not worry along a few years, and then be the means of separating the parts of the union, is very problematical?—View this system in whatever form we can, propriety brings us still to this point, a federal government possessed of general and complete powers, as to those national objects which cannot well come under the cognizance of the internal laws of the respective states, and this federal government, accordingly, consisting of branches not very numerous.

It is to remove a complete suite of powers from the federal and ensure they are held by the whole of the Nation so as to keep the federal in check. The goal of efficient government is not to make it run smoothly, but to keep it in check and balance by the States. By putting a whole power into the hands of the National government, the opportunity for abuse and expansion arises, thus the goal is to mitigate that by ensuring that no individual or set of individuals can arise in power so as to consolidate and expand those powers.

In this first fix we have one of the greatest criticisms of the current government: not that it is too unwieldy to do good, but it is to wieldy to do ill. This is, perhaps, one of the keenest observations on what efficient representative democracy *is*: it must efficiently be representative and democratic FIRST. The goal of government that is based on representative democracy must be unwieldy enough so as to not concentrate powers and ensure that they are dispersed over enough people so as to limit the abuses of same.

It is very strange that one of the most keen observations on how to create a good federal system is relegated to the 'Anti-Federalist' pile because it dares to criticize the Constitution as written. This is *not* a criticism of federalism but an attempt to make it work more within the confines of what federalism *is*. This first part is not an argument for *less* federalism but *more of it* and *mean it*.

Then Federal Farmer finds much good with the Senate and says *why* it is good:

The house of representatives is on the plan of consolidation, but the senate is entirely on the federal plan; and Delaware will have as much constitutional influence in the senate, as the largest state in the union; and in this senate are lodged legislative, executive and judicial powers: Ten states in this union urge that they are small states, nine of which were present in the convention.—They were interested in collecting large powers into the hands of the senate, in which each state still will have its equal share of power. I suppose it was impracticable for the three large states, as they were called, to get the senate formed on any other principles: But this only proves, that we cannot form one general government on equal and just principles—and proves, that we ought not to lodge in it such extensive powers before we are convinced of the practicability of organizing it on just and equal principles.

[..]

The clause referred to, respecting the elections of representatives, empowers the general legislature to regulate the elections of senators also, "except as to the places of chusing senators."—There is, therefore, but little more security in the elections than in those of representatives:—Fourteen senators make a quorum for business, and a majority of the senators present give the vote of the senate, except in giving judgment upon an impeachment, or in making treaties, or in expelling a member, when two-thirds of the senators present must agree.—The members of the legislature are not excluded from being elected to any military offices, or any civil offices, except those created, or the emoluments of which shall be increased by themselves: two-thirds of the members present, of either house, may expel a member at pleasure. The senate is an independent branch of the legislature, a court for trying impeachments, and also a part of the executive, having a negative in the making of all treaties, and in appointing almost all officers.

Yes, this is an individual lumped in with the 'Anti-Federalists', amazing, isn't it? Yes, he gets 'federalism' and perhaps a bit more pointedly than the 'federalists' liked in identifying the Senate's powers, the division of powers and how it acts as a check and balance, which makes his criticism of the House all the more pointed. He doesn't like the power on the elections, says so, but does not continue as he said his peace in the House portion.

His view on the Presidency is likewise insightful, and perhaps missed by many modern readers:

The vice-president is not a very important, if not an unnecessary part of the system—he may be a part of the senate at one period, and act as the supreme executive magistrate at another—The election of this officer, as well as of the president of the United States seems to be properly secured; but when we examine the powers of the president, and the forms of the executive, shall perceive that the general government, in this part, will have a strong tendency to aristocracy, or the government of the few. The executive is, in fact, the president and senate in all transactions of any importance; the president is connected with, or tied to the senate; he may always act with the senate, never can effectually counteract its views: The president can appoint no officer, civil or military, who shall not be agreeable to the senate; and the presumption is, that the will of so important a body will not be very easily controuled, and that it will exercise its powers with great address.

Yes, the Executive is housed between the President and the Senate. I am sure I heard that in school once or twice, but it tends to flow out of our minds when election season rolls around. And I will say that quite a large number of people have seen the VP in that exact, same, light. That said, the view that Senators and Presidents would tend towards aristocracy has been something of a problem with the longevity of members in the Senate and some number of family members also gaining high office. And the President's office has only been threatened a few times by family continuity: Adams', Roosevelts (extended family), Kennedys, Bushs with the Clintons trying to do similar as of late. The Senate has proven more attractive due to length of office and ability of incumbents to retain it and secure a greater power base for themselves via appropriations than the President has been able to do with relatively limited powers.

From there to the Judicial which Federal Farmer also sees much in agreement with and then some more observations:

In the judicial department, powers ever kept distinct in well balanced governments, are no less improperly blended in the hands of the same men—in the judges of the supreme court is lodged, the law, the equity and the fact.

[..]

The convention found that any but a small house of representatives would be expensive, and that it would be impracticable to assemble a large number of representatives. Not only the determination of the convention in this case, but the situation of the states, proves the impracticability of collecting, in any one point, a proper representation.

The formation of the senate, and the smallness of the house, being, therefore, the result of our situation, and the actual state of things, the evils which may attend the exercise of many powers in this national government may be considered as without a remedy.

And that was POINT 1!

Federal Farmer is pointing out that the ideals of federalism and democracy are being put under the problems of actually running them. By putting forward high concepts and then brokering them away, federal government that is not federal and representative government that does not represent is seen as a problem. One can see why many Federalists wanted his views put into the 'Anti-Federalist' arena: his complaint is that the Federalists aren't seriously looking at how to make federalism along with representative democracy *work* within the bounds of the income given.

Problems such as those given so far are not ones we normally expect from that era as we have been given it. While some 'Anti-Federalists' did prefer a confederal system, there are those that actually did understand federalism and then criticized the Constitution on federalist terms, and pointedly. The concepts of concentrating power, gaining aristocratic (or at least lineage dependant) attitudes, being drawn from the wealthy classes and being distant from the more common man show up time and again and all gain a source from representative democracy not being representative *enough*. This distinctive class separation leads to attitudes of factionalizing the people via politics and the goods that government can disburse and the crimes that it can prosecute.

It is that distance, between the governed and those who govern, that lead to disillusion by the people and distrust of National government. The road to representative democracy is to ensure that representative democracy is the means to that end, not to be an end in and of itself, but to ensure that the people, in their diversity, can create a good end as they see it. Those ends of Liberty ensuring Freedom via Democracy are hard ones to keep, especially when concepts of 'efficient government' arise time and again. One can have 'efficient government' but do not expect it to be representative nor to offer much in the way of Liberty or Freedom, as those are inefficient being vested in the people and not in government. The distance required by efficiency is destructive to those things, and as representatives become more distant and unknown, democracy itself wither, and soon the Liberty and Freedom it protects as power is secured to those in government and out of the hands of the governed.

The only ones who can stop that from happening is We the People, as that is trusted to no party, no sub-group, no caucus, no ruling body.

Democracy is ours for the making, if we dare to keep it, and step away from the tyranny of efficiency.

Lest we be destroyed by it.

For the New Year and onwards, ever onwards

The following is a personal position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

It is always fascinating to see how writers look at the roots of problems in one party or another and come back to very, very basics without intending to. Take Michael Tomasky in The New York Review of Books on his 17 JAN 2008 article They'd Rather Be Right, looking at the plight of the Republican Party. Mr. Tomasky is, to say the least, liberal in his outlook especially his views on the 'progressive' concept. So when reading such a writer it is best to ditch the modern day polemic and see how far back they go in looking for the origins of things. Mr. Tomasky heads straight to the chase, after much verbiage, to give this view of the US two party system:

The two major American political parties have always been amalgams of factions, especially the Democratic Party, from its early tensions between Jacksonian frontier populists and Adams-descended Northern reformers up through the late-nineteenth-century disputes between the mercantilist "Bourbon Democrats" and the prairie populists led by William Jennings Bryan. Then came the uneasy New Deal coalition of Northern liberals and Southern segregationists, and finally, in our time, the sometimes bitter feuds between liberals and centrists. The Republican Party's history is slightly less convulsive, partly because its initial factions such as Whigs and Free-Soilers found unity under Abraham Lincoln on the central question of slavery. But in time the Republican coalition came to include both staunchly pro-business and trust-busting interests; nearer our own era, there was also room enough within the party for domestic conservatives and moderates, supporters and foes of the New Deal, and foreign policy internationalists and isolationists.

Here we get one of the times where the current 'power politics' is, actually, seen through to near its beginnings when populism had to fight business interests and government interests, with the differences between Jacksonians and Adams', and it is this start that would pit 'government hands-off' of Jacksonians against 'government hands-on' of the Whigs against each other.

Coming from the purely industrial view of things, not sociological or other realms, Jacksonians supported individuals and States to make good decisions for themselves without the interference of the Federal government. This is not only a 'frontiersman' view, but an expansionist one: that the best way to expand liberty is to allow the common man to do good by his own hand. While the Whigs wanted a controlled Nation, Jacksonians placed their trust in the People as the background of the Scots-Irish plus various other English, Nordic and Germanic immigrants would find this attitude appealing after having life so strictured and confined by the State (or Principalities) that making National government more powerful was the last thing they wanted. The Whig Party would die and the Republican Party form in its wake, with Abraham Lincoln being first a Whig and then a Republican, and the quest to control westward expansion and put government in charge of conducting the economy would be put to the wayside after the Civil War. The 'Prairie Populism' of William Jennings Bryan bears the scars of that post-Reconstruction era and the slow shift of the Democratic Party away from Jacksonianism and towards a more controlled Nation concept. Those frontiersman ideals, however, would be picked up, almost exactly, by Theodore Roosevelt and recrafted for the industrial age. The exact, same, instinct to not have a Federal Bank was then shifted to the control of monopolists and industrial 'robber barons' who had 'industry towns' in which those working were in virtual servitude to the company owning the town. Theodore Roosevelt would push for American Exceptionalism of its people and enforce the anti-monopoly laws and seek to them extended. Theodore Roosevelt would then excoriate those seeking to give government ultimate control over markets, like Woodrow Wilson and his supporters, as taking liberty from the common man.

On the sociological side, Jacksonians are a tough lot to cleave from something they start: and they stuck with the Democratic Party through thick and thin as it *was* the Party of Jackson. That would last right up to 1968 where the force of the Democratic Party expanding government and denigrating the Nation reached a fervor and the Party, itself, started to shift to an anti-Nationalist or Transnationalist stance. Big business would re-coalesce around the Republican Party after the era of Wilson and FDR, and offer a 'business only' economics view that no longer upheld views of Theodore Roosevelt and personal liberty. These voters now no longer have a party that will: uphold personal liberty, hold government and business accountable to the needs of the Nation, will disavow Transnationalism, shift course from Big Government Nannystatism, or even be able to properly call an enemy 'an enemy' and mean it outside of petty, partisan political views.

Factional politics inside the Republican Party, as Mr. Tomasky sees it, breaks down into:

neoconservatives; theo-conservatives, i.e., the groups of the religious right; and radical anti-taxers, clustered around such organizations as the Club for Growth and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.

And to take a bit of a look on the other side here are the factions as they stand on the Democratic side, as seen at Wikipedia, and I will summarize:
1) Progressive Democrats - From the George McGovern to Dennis Kucinich axis.
2) Liberal Democrats - From the Ted Kennedy to Nancy Pelosi axis including Bill Clinton.
3) Labor Democrats - From the Sherrod Brown to John Edwards axis.
4) Moderate Democrats - The DLC axis of Walter Mondale to Mark Warner. Nearly defunct.
5) Conservative Democrats - The 'Blue Dog Democrats' characterized by Zell Miller, in theory many elected in 2006 are from this axis, but events have shown shifting to Moderate, Liberal and Progressive axes. Nearly defunct.
6) Libertarian Democrats - Democratic Freedom Caucus axis, a non-player in most politics.
7) Ethnic Minoritarian Democrats - Multiple minorities seeking gains from other axes, especially 1 through 4.

In general for the Democratic Party the Transnationalists consist of: 1, 2, 3, 4, and often 7. Nationalists tend to be in 4 through 6 although those are dying breeds in the Democratic Party and nearly gone now.

To be fair I will expand upon Mr. Tomasky with Wikipedia's view of Republican Party factions:
1) Religious Right - Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Traditionalists of different sorts end up here, with Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum being members of note.
2) Neoconservatives or Neocons - Interventionist foreign policy as seen by Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and others. Often coming from the Liberal Democratic faction and disavowing it when it went Transnationalist for governing concepts.
3) Social Conservatives - Anti-Big Government individuals, in strong support of the military and second amendment rights.
4) Security Oriented - Those individuals alarmed by threats to the US, and I disagree with the article's listing and reasoning, but not the presence of this faction.
5) States' Rights Oriented - Those wishing to keep the Federal Government small and out of State only issues. Strongly opposing Federal laws on marriage, property or anything else not given to the Federal government to do.
6) Paleoconservatives - Distrustful of modern ideologies and statecraft, and the expansion of government. Opposed to multi-culturalism, restrictionist on trade and foreign policy, generally isolationist.
7) Libertarian Conservatives - Emphasizing market over social controls, especially on spending, regulation and taxes. Generally seeking to privatize government and shift them to the States or private interests.
8) Log Cabin Republicans - Those that favor gay rights.
9) Liberal Republicans - "Rockerfeller Republicans" - Harold Stassen, Richard Nixon, Michael Bloomberg and Jim Leach axis. Supporters of the 'New Deal' and its concepts, generally.

The Transnationalists, Free Trade and pro-morality enforcement through government action of alignment have parts of 1, 2, 7, 8 and all of 9. Nationalists tend to be in 3 through 6 and parts of 1, 2, 7, 8.

Jacksonians tend to cluster on purely National interests, seeking social control of things like trade for the good of the Nation, not of industries, and keeping government small so it can do its job of protecting the Nation well. Jacksonians are pro-liberty and freedom as global ideas, but put forward you must *work for it* to get it and sustain it. The last real strongholds in the Democratic Party are in 5 and 6: Conservative and Libertarian. There are always some outliers cropping up in 7, as recent immigrants with a 'can do' attitude tend to shift to frontiersman views. There aren't that many of those remaining there. In the Republican Party this tends to be centered on 3-6, with parts of 1, 7, 8.

President Andrew Jackson in his Bank Veto Message of 10 JUL 1832 sums up the view:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy....

Keep government *confined* to ensure that all garner equal protection so that prosperity can be created. Ensure the rich do not bend government to its will, nor that government create distinctions amongst the people between rich and poor. And stand against those seeking 'new rights' and 'new privileges' and 'entitlements' as they create worse problems than any original problem they seek to solve.

And, above all, Citizenship is not a 'right' it is a Duty as Theodore Roosevelt would point out on 23 APR 1910 at the Sorbonne (via the Theodore Roosevelt site):

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."

Citizenship is in the doing, not the criticizing and it is in that doing that all life gains worth:

Such ordinary, every-day qualities include the will and the power to work, to fight at need, and to have plenty of healthy children. The need that the average man shall work is so obvious as hardly to warrant insistence. There are a few people in every country so born that they can lead lives of leisure. These fill a useful function if they make it evident that leisure does not mean idleness; for some of the most valuable work needed by civilization is essentially non-remunerative in its character, and of course the people who do this work should in large part be drawn from those to whom remuneration is an object of indifference. But the average man must earn his own livelihood. He should be trained to do so, and he should be trained to feel that he occupies a contemptible position if he does not do so; that he is not an object of envy if he is idle, at whichever end of the social scale he stands, but an object of contempt, an object of derision. In the next place, the good man should be both a strong and a brave man; that is, he should be able to fight, he should be able to serve his country as a soldier, if the need arises. There are well-meaning philosophers who declaim against the unrighteousness of war. They are right only if they lay all their emphasis upon the unrighteousness. War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is a war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this is whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is it right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong.

Finally, even more important than ability to work, even more important than ability to fight at need, is it to remember that chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. It was the crown of blessings in Biblical times and it is the crown of blessings now. The greatest of all curses in is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility. The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children, so that the race shall increase and not decrease. If that is not so, if through no fault of the society there is failure to increase, it is a great misfortune. If the failure is due to the deliberate and wilful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves form the thraldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done. No refinement of life, no delicacy of taste, no material progress, no sordid heaping up riches, no sensuous development of art and literature, can in any way compensate for the loss of the great fundamental virtues; and of these great fundamental virtues the greatest is the race's power to perpetuate the race. Character must show itself in the man's performance both of the duty he owes himself and of the duty he owes the state. The man's foremast duty is owed to himself and his family; and he can do this duty only by earning money, by providing what is essential to material well-being; it is only after this has been done that he can hope to build a higher superstructure on the solid material foundation; it is only after this has been done that he can help in his movements for the general well-being. He must pull his own weight first, and only after this can his surplus strength be of use to the general public. It is not good to excite that bitter laughter which expresses contempt; and contempt is what we feel for the being whose enthusiasm to benefit mankind is such that he is a burden to those nearest him; who wishes to do great things for humanity in the abstract, but who cannot keep his wife in comfort or educate his children.

These are all things that Jacksonians understand deeply and fully: one works to achieve by their own ends to create a better society so that the entirety of society may have liberty and be free. Your rights are self-evident... securing them comes at a cost.

No one in either party now speaks in these terms and that 40%+ of society that no longer votes does so because this sort of voice has been removed from politics. In wanting to secure 'special rights' and 'entitlements' we are losing liberty and freedom. Yet society does have a responsibility to care for those who have suffered in life: to do otherwise is not civilized. That does not mean mortgaging the Nation to provide goodies for everyone. That does mean tending to the sick who have no means to care for themselves and for those mentally and physically able to contribute finding ways that such contribution can get them out of the public sphere as the government is the very worse caretaker for anyone ever invented.

That is why we trust the heart and soul of charity to ourselves and hand it to no other as no other can ever represent us in that realm. Governmental charity is not charity at all, but policy run by bureaucrats who have no heart and soul in what they do, just a paycheck. Every time and each that we hand more charity to government, we lose it in ourselves and to recover that we must recognize that no government represents the strength of its People or Nation.

Every 'special right' demeans that right for all to uphold it for the few.

Every 'entitlement' diminishes self worth until we are supplicants to government for all things.

Kindness is not the role of government, it has never been such at any time or place as it only has powers to enforce and punish, and that had best be equal for all.

Righteousness is in our hearts and souls, not in legislation or the prison cell.

We judge now only on those things done to us and our society so that justice may be done for us, and let final and other judgment be done by those worthy of such things, which will not once nor ever be our created government.

Only free People know how to build on kindness and that when such is not returned we understand and turn from its denial seeking to create understanding until it confronts us in opposition and lets us know that they consider themselves the final measure of us.

Let us join together to remember that Society is the creator of the Good, and Government the restrainer of the Bad, and that we will never, ever confuse the two.

I will, as I have previously, stand by that this New Year and onwards as these are the stars in the Sky of Liberty.

Syria's credible threats [UPDATED 27 DEC 2007]

Spain and the US are being threatened, and the threats are very credible, in my eyes and extend far beyond the immediate of Lebanon and Spain.

Cross-posted from Dumb Looks Still Free.

From Naharnet News Desk, Beirut, 24 DEC 2007 (link liable to change), with h/t to Across the Bay:

Syrian Intelligence Threatens Spanish Peacekeepers in Lebanon

Syria's secret service has threatened Spanish soldiers in Lebanon in a bid to block the extradition of suspected arms dealer Monzer Al-Kassar to the United States, the newspaper El Mundo reported Monday.

The Spanish intelligence service, according to a memo cited by the newspaper, fears that troops on U.N. deployment in south-east Lebanon could be targeted if the Spanish cabinet ratify a judicial verdict and send Kassar to the United States.

General Assef Shawkat, chief of Syrian military intelligence, wrote to his opposite number in Spain: "If you think we are going to ignore the affront inflicted by north-American henchmen on our brother (Kassar), you don't really know us and [you] are no friends of the Syrian people."

Dated end-July, the note also refers to Shawkat delivering a thinly-veiled threat during a discussion with Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos.

Around 1,100 Spanish soldiers serve in the U.N. interim force in Lebanon deployed following the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah. Six Spanish soldiers were killed during a bombing there in June.

Syrian native Kassar, known colloquially as the "Prince of Marbella" where he has been based for the last decade, is wanted in the U.S. on suspicion of arranging arms deals for leftist FARC rebels in Colombia.(AFP)


Beirut, Updated 26 Dec 07, 04:17

This comes as no surprise, really, after recent events in Spain. This from the Times Online UK 01 NOV 2007:

November 1, 2007

191 dead, thousands of victims - but the ‘mastermind’ is cleared


Thomas Catan in Madrid
The accused mastermind of Europe’s worst Islamist terrorist attack was cleared of all charges along with six others yesterday in a shock judgment that angered victims.

Twenty-one others were convicted of playing a role in the 2004 Madrid train bombings, though many of them on much lesser charges than the prosecution had sought.

Family members of the 191 people killed and 1,800 injured expressed astonishment, branding the sentences as lenient and feeble, and vowing to appeal.

Pilar Manjón, who heads the largest association of victims, said: “I don’t like to see murderers walk free.” She lost her 20-year-old son when ten bombs packed into sports bags and detonated by mobile phone ripped through four commuter trains.

The court ordered victims of the bombings to be paid between €30,000 (£20,900) and €1.5 million (£1 million) in compensation.

One of the highest amounts will go to the family of Laura Vega, 29, who remains in a coma in a Madrid hospital. They will receive about €1 million to help to pay for her continuing care.

The atrocity was the world’s largest terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, and was the first European example of al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism on a large scale. But prosecutors failed to convince judges on the three-man panel of a direct al-Qaeda link. And the verdicts also failed to answer the question of who plotted the attack.

The accused mastermind, Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, known as Mohammed the Egyptian, burst into tears of relief upon hearing the verdict, shouting “You see that I’m innocent?” according to his lawyer.

He is serving a ten-year sentence on unrelated terrorism charges in Italy, where police taped him bragging in a telephone call about his supposed plotting of the Madrid bombings.

Amid a heavy security operation that included armoured cars and police helicopters buzzing overhead, Judge Javier G�mez Bermúdez read out the verdict to a hushed courtroom. Three men - two Moroccans and a Spaniard - were given the toughest sentences in the complex six-month case.

Jamal Zougam, 34, a Moroccan who lived in Madrid, was convicted of mass murder, having placed one of the bombs packed with dynamite and nails aboard the trains. Police arrested him after finding that one of the mobile phones used in an unexploded bomb had been sold from his shop. Several witnesses also reported seeing him aboard one of the trains that morning.

Othman el-Gnaoui, 32, was also found to have had a direct role in the attack and was convicted of murder.

José Emilio Suárez Trashorras, 31, a Spanish miner with a history of mental illness, was convicted of being a “necessary collaborator” in the bombings after selling the dynamite used in the attack to the Madrid cell.

The three were each sentenced to between 35,000 and 43,000 years in prison - though under Spanish law they will serve a maximum 40 years.

Three other Spaniards were convicted of helping Trashorras to traffic the explosives stolen from his mine.

And who is left out?

In my article Monzer al-Kassar and Transnational Terrorism, I look at some of the evidence that has shown up in Spain. That would take me to Winds of Change's Joe Aguilar look at part of that plot and how it involved Monzer al-Kassar:

Well, we are approaching the culmination of this article, the Schwerpunkt, the point where the main forces of the investigators of 3/11 and the ones that want it covered-up are heading for a perhaps decisive confrontation. At the centre of it, there is a man of Syrian origin, a National Police officer named Ayman Maussili Kalaji.

Kalaji arrived to Spain in 1980 as a political refugee, fleeing from the Civil War in Syria. He had served in the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (FDLP) in Lebanon, and it appears that he reached the rank of second commander of a missile base there. He also took the anti-government side in Syria, during that country's repression of the Muslim Brotherhood, resulting in Kalaji knocking on Spanish Immigration's door in order to keep his head on his shoulders. What may be more interesting to us is that as a bright teenage, he had been well trained in terrorist techniques, including electronics, and intelligence operations, and might even have been trained in the Soviet Union.

Regarding his experience, he began to collaborate with the Spanish security forces. Among other duties, he controlled the communications of Monzer Al Kassar, an arms trafficker that supplied to Palestine terrorists the weapons used in the assault of the Achille Lauro. Al Kassar bought Spanish protection against any awkward Israeli attention by selling two SA-7 portable antiaircraft missiles equipped with a transmitter to ETA. He was also allegedly a friend of Secretary of the Interior Rafael Vera. Later, in 1989, Kalaji worked in an operation to arrest a Hizbullah cell in Valencia, the year in which he was finally admitted to the National Police corps.

What is his relation with the 3/11 plot? Well, he owns a mobile phone store where the mobile phones allegedly used in those attacks were unlocked, (manipulated their software so they can use SIM cards from any company) as he himself has recognized. However, that is not all; the Civil Guard unit that is investigating the plot sent a communication to Judge Del Olmo in which, due to (a) the short time frame (from March 4th and 8th to 11th) to manipulate the phones, (b) the knowledge of Kalaji about terrorists operations and electronics (those well soldered wires) and his relations with other Syrians involved in the attack, requested an arrest warrant against him. The Civil Guards suspect that he is the person that attached the wires to the vibrating units of the mobile phones used in 3/11.

That is, no Al Qaeda, no ETA, but a Police officer.

Then on to Barcepundit gives a 2005 review of events:

El Mundo explains how the police found out that one of their own was the owner of the store where the cell phones were programmed:

From the data obtained in the van, plus the data from the unexploded knapsack bomb, the cell phones that Jamal Ahmidam’s people bought at Bazar Top (the Indian store), and the following “release” [by which the cell phones were able to be operated from any source including calling cards] of those phones, Kalaji’s coworkers at the General Information office came to his store, Tecnología de Sistemas Telefónicos Ayman.

From that very moment, Maussili Kalaji began to fully cooperate with his ex-coworkers at the Information Office, and thanks to him, and to his having written down the IMEI identification numbers of the Bazar Top cell numbers he had been asked to “release” (i.e., program so they phones would allow calling cards from any company and in any modality, prepayment, or contract), the investigators were able to find the Leganés apartment where the terrorist leader of the 3/11 trains of death had taken shelter.
. . .
He was in charge of the Syrian Monzer Al-Kassar
Maussili Kalaji thoroughly knows the Syrian community in Spain, and additionally, was the Spanish agent in charge of listening to and translating all of the telephone conversations of Monzer Al-Kassar, allegad weapons trafficker that was charged by judge Baltasar Garzón for collaborating in the Achille Lauro hijacking.

The ship’s hijacking took place in 1985, and in 1992 judge Garzón charged Al-Kassar -- Syrian resident of Marbella and representative of the Spanish government in some weapons sales to third countries – of allegedly belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (led by Abu Abbas [see link]), of murder, of belonging to an armed gang and terrorist organization, of attempted murder, illegal detention, and piracy.

Kalaji, as member of the Office of Information and by order of the judge, kept close match on Al-Kassar and his family; but eventually the Syrian friend of former Cesid director Alonso Manglano and ex-Secretary of the Interior Rafael Vera, was absolved of all charges of which judge Garzón had accused him.

Kalaji's Palestinian connections are strong and remain strong. El Mundo describes him as "Kalaji, who considers himself a defender of the Palestinian cause". My question is, is it wise of the Spanish intelligence services to have place in such sensitive jobs both Kalaji and members of his family?

Yes, Monzer al-Kassar, involved with the 3/11 Madrid train bombings. Syria wants him not to be extradited which comes down to a pretty blunt piece of work by Syria.

Here is what they are saying: Your soldiers in Lebanon are hostages of fortune, release Monzer al-Kassar... or else.

And Syria has delivered a message to the US on this, from Naharnet News, Beirut, 26 DEC 2007:

Syria Warns 'Resistance' Against Being Dragged into Civil War

Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Mustafa, has cautioned that a political failure could plunge Lebanon into civil war and warned Hizbullah against being dragged into the battle which could be a "great national disaster for Syria and victory for the enemies of the Lebanese resistance."

Mustafa also dubbed a possibility to elect a new Lebanese President by a simple majority vote an "explosive choice."

He hoped that Lebanon would get out of the presidential vacuum, adding, however, that there is a "strong possibility that an agreement could be finally reached" where the Lebanese would have a consensus President "who enjoys respect of all factions and that (person) is Army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman."

Mustafa said the enemies of Lebanon were "those who wish that civil war break out in it," adding that the same foes "are instigating one Lebanese party against the other in the hopes that this would lead to an internal political strife; they are the ones who are turning Lebanon against its brethren and neighbors."

He believed that the Hizbullah-led opposition's aspirations were "Lebanese ambitions," stressing that there is nothing harmful in them.

Beirut, 26 Dec 07, 09:51

Couple that with the threat to Spain and what do you get?

Something like: Give up extraditing Monzer al-Kassar and looking into the assassinations in Lebanon, or things will go very badly in Lebanon and we will pin it on you.

This is the other shoe dropping on trying to get Monzer al-Kassar.

This is not over by a long shot.

UPDATE 27 DEC 2007
From Reform Party of Syria via wadinet

Assad Behind Bombs to Stop the Extradition of Kassar

RPS Press Release/ -- The Reform Party of Syria condemns the latest bombs, which exploded in Iraq killing at least 34 innocent Iraqis in two separate cities on one of the holiest days of the year and accuses Baschar al-Assad of carrying out a well calculated terror campaign against Iraq.

The cold killing comes on the heels of a court order in Spain to extradite the Syrian arms dealer Monzer al-Kassar, a close Assad operative, to the US who is suspected of selling arms to various anti-US groups and whose history of drug smuggling and other illegal activities mirrors the Assad regime qualitative purpose. The latest spate of killing in Iraq was intended to send a signal to the White House that unless the US vacates its request for the extradition of al-Kassar, the Assad regime will continue terrorizing Iraq and its innocent citizens. Al-Kassar can indict Assad directly in suspected killing of Americans, which explains the threats Assef Shawkat, Assad's brother-in-law and Chief of the Military Intelligence, made against Spanish UNIFIL troops in the south of Lebanon should the Spanish government comply with the US request.

Kassar is an important asset and when he points the finger at Baschar al-Assad and his immediate family, the US will be able to threaten the Assad family directly and much more impetuously than the parallel indictment expected from the UN international tribunal investigating the murder of Rafik al-Hariri. The cat and mouse game between the Assads and the international community is on high octane manifested by appeasing words from diplomats in the US and Israel while behind the scenes, tracts are pursued to clip Assad's wings once and for all.

We salute the Spanish government for its brave stand against terror and urge it to extradite Kassar expeditiously. We also urge the US administration to expedite its pursuit of the Thugs of Damascus as they continue disrupting Lebanon, killing innocent Iraqi civilians, and threatening the region with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The alternative to Assad are Syrian dissidents and patriotic politicians committed to democracy, freedom, and human rights.

© Reform Party of Syria

My thanks to Mark Eichenlaub for pointing to this material.

The understated implication of the NIE

As few have picked up on this, I sent an email to a few folks and decided to post it here. There are National policy and governmental security issues that the recent NIE on Iran has brought up and I find them troubling based on my works over the past couple of years.

From here on I repeat the letter:

The thing I have been trying to get across on the NIE is the point that zero people want to pay attention to:

We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon.

This is not something I would ever expect to see on an unclassified report on Iran. The ability to import nuclear material through clandestine networks can only be assessed with 'low confidence'. Add that to the generally well known non-placement of CIA agents (or DIA for that fact) into transnational criminal organizations, and you get the following conclusion based on how sophisticated the Red Mafia is (and my recent article on same is lengthy and tough to get through as it is an extremely difficult subject):

1) Unknown amounts of nuclear material have gone unaccounted for since the fall of the USSR. This is not only 'yellowcake' but also refined material that was part of the nuclear disarmament agreement (START). The US, by not helping the cash strapped Russians to continue that program robustly had started to suffer security lapses. Unlike many alarmists I do not believe that any nuclear devices were taken from the inventory, but a high probability of warhead material (not just fissionables, but hardened electronics) has worked its way into criminal underground networks is something that cannot be discounted. Reports by various police and INTEL agencies across the globe point to something like this.

2) The Chorny brothers and other Red Mafia groups in the 'Heavy Metals' gang have been running factories under the Russian regime with little to no oversight of their activities. Heavy metals like lead and cadmium are essential components of nuclear reactors and warheads, along with other materials and, yes, electronics. Without proper safeguards we have seen in other areas of the Russian economy that goods (not just consumer goods, but weapons, vehicles and such) have been in the organized crime pipeline since the mid-1990's. Of note is that some of the old Nomenklatura apparatchiks moved into co-support of enterprises with organized crime, thus bringing contact lists with them for expertise.

3) The most sophisticated Red Mafia operator is part of the larger syndicate operating with the Chorny brothers, he is the 'Red Don' Semion Mogilevitch. He has an advanced degree in economics and I have not fully scoped out his criminal enterprises, but they stretched into Canada, US, parts of S. America, throughout Europe and all the way to China and the Golden Triangle. He also has an operation in Marbella Spain and that is the home of the Syrian narcotics/arms/money laundering 'Prince of Marbella' Monzer al-Kassar. Of him I have done scads of research (a few articles here, here, here) and his contacts reach deep into Syria, Iran, Argentina, the narcotics syndicates in S. America, Hezbollah and in the weeks leading up to 9/11 he and Mogilevich were scheduled to meet up with Osama bin Laden's bagman who died in a plane crash heading to Marbella. Additionally al-Kassar is on the 'Most Wanted' list of Iraq... not by the US, but by the Iraqi government.

4) Iran has been using Syria for major weapons purchases, not only for itself but for its Foreign Legion called Hezbollah. Additionally Iran has a base of support in the Balkans which is a major hub for E. European organized crime and trans-ship point with Africa and South America. That also fits in with the Hezbollah organization set up in S. America by al-Kassar and Imad Mugniyah, thus allowing Iran to have the ability to stage indirect purchases in the West through trusted intermediaries. Syria, itself, has NoKo contacts as seen not only via its purchases of NoDong missile technology used to help advance their own SCUD program, but through the supernote trade showing up in the drug trade areas of the Bekaa and outwards from there. The al-Kassar family is in charge of that trade and has been for three generations.

5) The narcotics trade, itself, brings in money laundering and, beyond the penetration of the Bank of NY system in the 1990's, there are simpler systems for doing such work, which tend to be ethnic community oriented. The most sophisticated are those that operate so much in the 'white world' that they cannot be easily tracked or traced, like the Black Market Peso Exchange system, but other Middle Eastern systems (such as the hawala system). Do note that the Red Mafia by working on 'both sides of the street' via partial industrial ownership in Russia is a perfect set-up for money laundering in and of itself... before skilled individuals start running so many companies that no one can find them all even knowing they are there. That individual is back out on the streets: Simon Reuben who was part of the Chorny business... he famously ran 300 companies spanning from Cypress, Bahamas, Grand Caymans, Abu Dhabi and Switzerland with 200 people and even set up three companies to take care of his rent, all in his head not written down or in a computer.

6) In the USSR/Russia one remaining problem that remains unsolved is that of the compromising of the KGB (now FSB) by a death cult. That was something I was a bit startled to run across looking at how al Qaeda borrowed operational ideas from another terror organization. That cult was Aum Shinrikyo, famous for the sarin gas attack in Tokyo and also having devised the proper method for dispersing anthrax, save they got an animal specific strain not a human specific one. As part of their expansion in the late 1980's, they went into the USSR and started buying plans and equipments from the Soviets. The KGB sent agents to watch them, but some of those agents apparently shifted allegiance and when the cult went down after the sarin attacks, these agents slipped out of view by the KGB. During the turmoil of the USSR ending no one bothered to keep track of them so there is no way to know exactly who, how many or what they are doing. It is not a heartwarming thought to have individuals looking to 'purify humanity' by ending it roaming around in Russia with large numbers of contacts in Russian industry which is, now, compromised by organized crime. While actually a low probability that such individuals are still around in Russia and doing something, it cannot be discounted, and these individuals would also have sufficient contacts in Japan to work out deals... like getting Mitutoyo nuclear separators into the black market. Someone had to do that and it isn't normal Yakuza work (from what I've read about them) that would leave Chinese Triads or the Red Mafia, or anyone with sufficiently good connections and motivations to set things up. Someone had to set up the connections to the AQ Khan network with Mitutoyo and we still, to this day, have no handle on that. Just like someone had to make the commercial/Triad connections to buy the CV Varyag for China.


It is for those things that admitting we have 'low confidence' in understanding of how Iran can import goods via such networks that is troubling. Frankly, you could drive nuclear devices through that with the right connections and the right connections *are* available and *in* the network.

That is our blind-spot because we want so much 'free trade' and commerce that we want no oversight on it. And so we devote little in the way of resources to penetrate those networks... that will come back to bite us.

The NIE on Iran's Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has released its 2007 summary of Iran's Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities with regard to weapons. I have previously reviewed NIEs on terrorism here and here.

I will draw on the intro of that second to help orient the reader on what an NIE is and what it does:

First and foremost it is a bland cross-agency summary of where the INTEL Community thinks things were as of MAR 2006. And as it is a set of Judgments on that intelligence information, it is summary in nature and an overview of the material.

Secondly, this is a high-level summary for an Executive and so must be short and easy to read. The President has daily IC briefings with his Cabinet officers and can get the daily work and updates as necessary. Every so often, probably quarterly, the IC does a summation of their work and then tells what is going on. Thus there will be little to NO backing evidence in the actual summation, but an overview of what the actual information hold.

Third, while it tries to be predictive, it is done so cautiously and must gain adherence from the Agencies involved. Further, Federal Agencies have a large amount of CYA involved, and so try not to 'make waves' or put forth partisan views, but offer the best analysis on the facts.

Fourth and finally, INTEL in all of its forms (HUMINT, ELINT, SIGINT, IMINT, MASINT, etc.) is never, ever certain and has a probability of being correct attached to it or likelihood of certainty. Thus any analysis, even one that is apparently 'slam dunk' is only in the 85-90% certainty range and is seen as conclusive as nothing else fits the overviews when pieced together. The whole of the information shows up much more than the pieces by themselves do. This is 'connecting the dots' to form the larger picture, so that a bunch of unconnected dots have inter-relationships and form a coherent whole.

This does mean that things can get cast into a view that is NOT as it appears due to unexpected connectedness, lack of connectivity or causality that is not there, but apparently *is* there. The art of INTEL analysis is to cast worst and best case scenarios and see what the outgrowths of those are and how well each fits with new and incoming data. These models of how relationships form, work and reach outwards are then reviewed and adjusted to take new facts into account. Often entire structures need to be removed and rethought because facts fully contradictory to the existing models and with a very high degree of reliability come to light which invalidates previous worst and best case scenarios.

Before going on to the actual analysis, there also needs to be something stated about the DNI and the Intelligence Community (IC), which I have looked at here in regards to the problems of the IC, and here with regard to the turf wars, which I will draw on for this understanding of bureaucracy in government:

We do not see this in politics today as it is harsh, results-oriented, extremely basic and makes good sense. Plus it endangers pet projects by Congress, who are loathe to give up same. Until such time as that can be done, trying to reform the system from the *inside* is a non-starter and any added 'oversight' organization immediately looks to create its own, sinecured fiefdom, put in further blocks to actually producing work products, and increase the overall overhead of the entire affair in time, money and wasted man hours. Process reform from bureaucracies and those empowering them do not work, as the Federal Government has demonstrated for decades. If it did then the Dept. of Education could tout 100% reading for all Citizens and that overall reading comprehension rate is above that of the 5th grade. Unfortunately those exact same problems remain just where they were in 1958 when Johnny couldn't read. Putting in a Director of National Intelligence hasn't seemed to have made the flow of INTEL any faster and, in point of fact, is allowing Agencies to further propagate their *own* outlook on things contrary to that of the President. More oversight is leading to less accountability. The Dept. of Agriculture, originally set up to research better ways to actually manage crops and to have a goodly sized fund to support farmers in case of emergency, now has that portion of its budget as the smallest part of it and over 20 times that amount going to crop subsidies and paying farmers not to farm. Somehow I can imagine better uses for those funds and skills in Afghanistan than in paying for crop subsidies here.

Thus the DNI will increase regularity, increase oversight and decrease accountability across the IC. This NIE is a product of that regularization process and is most soothing to the reader, as it is regularized, bland, and with large amounts of CYA by the IC and its component organizations. In no way is it a 'fraud', but folks do need to understand what is going on to render such documents and to not dress up a pig to be Cinderella.

The opening paragraph is a statement of the DNI and what it does and that it is, indeed, following the mandates of Congress. The ODNI does no INTEL work on its own, and is a coordinating office amongst the IC components and our International partners in the INTEL field. That is the 'depth' it brings: coordination, not original product.

From there the ODNI clearly states that it is added above the National Intelligence Council, which had been the previous body to help coordinate cross-IC NIEs. The ODNI is, thus, a coordinater and manager of the NIC and getting the rest of the IC to play together to form cross-IC documents and products. ODNI is an added procedural office, then, with its own goals and outlooks separate from the IC components, although given authority over their budgets and line items. Notice that in no way does ODNI have any responsibility for removing governmental pork: it is only an oversight and management organization and extra procedural step for vetting cross-IC needs, not put in charge of removing time wasting Congressional projects or re-purposing them to better fit National Intelligence needs.

To regularize the NIE process and familiarize the reader, the second page goes over that. It is of note that the procedure is one that adds bias into the NIE at the start of the process, this taken from the second paragraph:

The NIEs are typically requested by senior civilian and military policymakers, Congressional leaders and at times are initiated by the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Before a NIE is drafted, the relevant NIO is responsible for producing a concept paper or terms of reference (TOR) and circulates it throughout the Intelligence Community for comment. The TOR defines the key estimative questions, determines drafting responsibilities, and sets the drafting and publication schedule. One or more IC analysts are usually assigned to produce the initial text.

Stepping an outsider through this on a high level, we see the following on page 3:

1) Request from proper source for INTEL product, in this case the NIE, which goes through the NIC for approval - There is minimal bias in this step, as it is an attempt to look at things cross-IC. The only bias is in the *originating* request, which can be damned biased for the originator, but the NIC examines the request and then tries to remove the initial bias as best it can.

2) The request is handed to a component of the IC (National Intelligence Organization) - Notice that all other acronyms in this paper are spelled out, but NIO is not. An NIO is something we call an 'Agency' or 'Department' with CIA, NSA, DIA, NGA and others being NIOs. At this point, although there is specialization to INTEL collection type generally assigned to these NIOs, each has its own bureaucracy and outlook. An NIE gains bias at two points here: first, in selecting which NIO(s) get to draft the structure of the NIE and the internal NIO bias of each component organization. The ODNI is set up to try and minimize this, but its function has inherent bias in its set-up: if the ODNI wants a confrontational document, one NIO may be preferred over another, if a more soothing document is wished, a less confrontative and more bureaucratic organization is chosen.

3) The NIO creates the Terms of Reference (TOR) - The TOR is an outline of what the stated area of INTEL is and how it will be looked at based on the TOR language. TOR language typically has a 'shelf life' depending on the 'product' and its 'importance', so that stolid forms of INTEL will rarely change basic TOR terminology and meaning, while those that are fluid will often have single-document specific TOR language. Which NIO and individuals within NIOs that choose this scope of mission language is a source of bias, also, this reaching down to the mid-executive or high civil service staff level.

4) Cross-IC gathering of information is then performed by the guiding group for the document involved - This becomes a major area of deconfliction for assessment and is part of the 'blandifying process'. Different organizations with different specialties have their own way of viewing such things as 'risk' and level of confidence on sources. The most troubling from this is the final vetting of source and *who* gets to do that, as seen here at the end of paragraph 2 on page 3:

Working with their Agencies, reps also assign the level of confidence they have in each key judgment. IC reps discuss the quality of sources with collectors, and the National Clandestine Service vets the sources used to ensure the draft does not include any that have been recalled or otherwise seriously questioned.

This is, because it is handed to the clandestine side of the house, directed at CIA and parts of DIA (especially the field Military Intelligence staff). These are the 'keys to the Kingdom' as an NIO that has multi-source reliable information may have it invalidated due to a single source seen as unreliable, or have the reliability so pushed down as to not be considered as part of the NIE. In theory this is made to remove questionable materials and increase reliability, but in practice this can be utilized as a major way to remove information that the clandestine services, particularly CIA, find to be counter to anything it is looking at.

If one remembers back to the 1980's, it was the clandestine services that confidently predicted the continuation of the USSR up to 2030. INTEL on terrorist groups and Saddam's operations have both demonstrated that the clandestine services have decade long problems, actually going well past two decades if the USSR outlooks are included, plus not realizing how close India and Pakistan were to gaining nuclear power status. These organizations are now the 'gatekeepers' to getting views into the NIE. Instead of an all-source reliability assessment, including open source, this reliability and authenticity gatekeeping position has been, basically, handed to the CIA.

5) The draft NIE is sent to the National Intelligence Board for review, rework, re-draft, until the document can be finalized. That is a long process.

6) The summation is to demonstrate, again, what the ODNI has done so that it can justify its next budget.

That is *not* a humorous jab at ODNI, but an actual reason and rationale to put such language into such documents: if the ODNI were TRANSPARENT to the process, it might find its budget getting squeezed in the next budget cycle. By putting in such verbiage throughout the document, ODNI justifies its staff, funding and any and all increases it is looking for to Congress and the Executive.

That is a 'Turf War' game.

Page 4 hands us the TOR scope of the document. Funny its not called that.

That scope statement is part CYA, part process justification and some of it is 'real', meaning that at some point in the staff process (not the analyst process, but the high level NIC/NIB/ODNI staff) a decision is made to say: if we remove all our previous NIEs and positions from our vies, what does this stuff say to us now?

Good and critical analysis of product evaluation (product being the reports from analysts as filtered through Agency staff and then filtered through, again, to executive staff) is vital as well as trying to divorce oneself from past documents and give a fresh review on things. This has been a problem for previous NIEs as NIOs are more wedded to previous views than is the executive staff. And the NIOs also have a better handle on their own source material than the executive staff, which can be troublesome if another NIO, CIA say, invalidates some or all of a view from its perspective and does not take into account the originator's suite of sources for a view. At the highest level of the NIE the ability of analysts to actually get critical information through the multiple levels of 'oversight' is diminished to near nothing.

With all of that said, the proviso of not examining Iranian 'intention' but its 'capability' becomes clear: is Iran capable of processing nuclear material through to a finished device? I will address that problem later, after the examination of the conclusions, such as they are.

Page 5 is one of the very, very few times I have ever seen the IC come forward with its direct view on 'level of confidence' (LOC)! Frame it as a first of its kind. It is given as the 'estimates of likelihood' but is a good shading of LOC and follows the same concept for the same reason: they both measure uncertainty. Estimates of likelihood are based on original analysis which has an LOC and then combined with other products, which change the estimate and then the overall thing is given a final, very fuzzy LOC.

One of the huge sticking points inside the IC is varying LOC based on INTEL type. SIGINT, on the one hand, is very direct: the signal from a given point was interecepted, decrypted and reviewed. That has a high LOC to it. Interpreting who sent it and to whom has its own LOC which starts to move it from 'certain' into shades of gray. Add in other possible sources for sending such messages and LOC goes down, yet again. Throw in analyst knowledge of source type, use, and analyst background and the LOC gets moderated, but usually downward. This works by the concept of multiplication of percentages: two items that relate to each other at 90% LOC yield a sub 90% likelihood (although not exactly 81%) and that, combined with other documents with other likelihood estimates will then moderate downwards from the 81% (if it is the highest) until a final and synthetic LOC is formed.

Now put a 'gatekeeper' on vetting other NIO's LOCs and you get an idea of how the CIA can bolster or reduce the overall LOC for any given view, without, itself, being a primary shareholder in an INTEL area.

That brings us to page 6 and the actual assessments!

What are they saying, given ALL of the above?

1) Iran had been persuing nuclear weapons technology up to the fall of 2003.

2) A generalized halt in the nuclear weapons program started in Iran and lasted for many years.

3) Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007 and we cannot tell its intentions past that point.

4) Iran does not now have a nuclear weapon (as opposed to radiological).

5) The assessment is that Iran has stopped its work directly on devices and nuclear weapons since mid-2005 and attributes this to international pressure.

Those are the 'moderate to moderately high' estimates of likelihood, save the last which is bureaucratic interpretation not linked to NIO analysis as it has NO estimate on it. Yes, all of point 5 is internal view *only* backed by high level summation from multiple organizations, but lacking an estimate of likelihood it becomes something else.

A guess.

The few 'low to moderate' points are telling about what we are missing in our IC:

We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon.

We have no idea if Iran has been importing processed fissionable materials from other countries, like North Korea, say, via clandestine means.

That is extremely painful to read and points out the paucity of HUMINT and reliable cross-INT analysis on the third party arrangements that would indicate an AQ Khan similar (only in type, not personnel or outlook) network for fissionable material. In doing research for an article on the Red Mafia, the number of hints given to organized crime having access to such material in Russia is worrying, particularly as many firms are owned by state permission, invested in by organized crime and white industrial organizations and then have a portion of their output filter into underground networks. It is highly damning to the IC to admit this failure: we cannot even figure out if *anyone* has been *capable* of supplying such material in a clandestine way.

This is not good.

The next point on Iran, internally, getting enriched Uranium to the amounts necessary for a device cannot happen before 2009.

After that Iran is seen as working on generalized high level nuclear capacity that can be 'dual-purpose' in scope. Intention unknown. That intention unknown also goes to all internal workings of the IRGC in the nuclear area, although I would say with so many captures of 'Secret Cells' leaders tied to the IRGC, that we are getting a good look at the overall organizational structure of the IRGC.

Point F on the last page examines that Iran doesn't have enough internally produced HEU to produce a Uranium bomb, and that, in point G, a Plutonium device is off in the 2015 timeframe.

Their point about Iran being able to produce a nuclear device with time and commitment is well taken, but, as they haven't bothered to address intentions, that leaves us a bit out of luck on figuring out what, exactly, they are up to and *why*.


What has been left out?

Pretty obvious, really: Syria.

Iran is not alone in this endeavor and, as I have documented before, Syria has expertise on basic enrichment and processing, plus long term skill in working with scientific groups. As reported in the Jerusalem Post, the site bombed by Israel was most likely *not* a nuclear reactor site but a nuclear device construction site or research site into how to make nuclear weapons. The first report of this site was given to us by Ray Robison last year, before the bombing, with a report in a Kuwaiti newspaper that has been generally reliable on reports from Syria:

A Syrian nuclear program managed by Iraqi and Iranian scientists in the Al Haska area.

Brussels- From Hamid Geriafi

European intelligence sources based at the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels released information yesterday about the “presence of an active Syrian nuclear program in a secret location Northeast of the country, being supervised by nuclear scientists from Iraq, Iran and some scientists of the previous Muslim Soviet Republics, and it seems that the program has reached the stage of medium activity”.

The information, which Al seyassah got from British security sources in Brussels, revealed that “the brother of the Syrian president, Major Maher Al Assad -in charge of the Republican Guard brigade- along with his maternal cousin of the Makhlouf clan are supervising this program since the end of 2004 in the Northeastern district of Al Haskah situated next to the Iraqi and Turkish borders and which has a Kurdish majority”.

The information - of which the British security sources hinted that it might be coming from the German intelligence which is active in some Middle Eastern countries- revealed that “the Syrian nuclear program is relying on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Udai and Qusai supervised their transfer to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains, before and after the US-British invasion in March 2003”. Therefore according to those sources, the international inspection teams or the British and US intelligence could not find one “nuclear needle” in Iraq even though everybody knew about the existence of a huge program since the end of the seventies, before the Israeli planes struck and destroyed its main reactor in the Tuwaitha area near Baghdad in 1981.

The British security sources in Brussels assure Al Seyassah that “Iranian nuclear scientists are cooperating with their expertise, equipment and materials in addition to approximately 60 Iraqi nuclear scientists” that had found refuge in Syria after the onset of the war in Iraq and around 20 scientists that had moved from the former Soviet republics at the beginning of the nineties after the collapse of the Soviet Union and after the first government of Gorbatchev pulled out its nuclear weapons from those new republics”.

The sources said that “the Iranians are supporting the Syrian nuclear program, which was originally built on the remains of the Iraqi program after it was wholly transferred to Syria, with materials, equipment and expertise which are more advanced than it originally was. The Iranian could have brought up an advanced plant to enrich Uranium, of which the West is totally unaware.”

Add that to the missing Mitutoyo separators from the AQ Khan network, that I found via TMC net (although the link is probably dead by now):

31 AUG 2006 - Mitutoyo exported 10,000 devices since 1995, most of them illegally+

(Japan Economic Newswire Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) TOKYO, Aug. 31_(Kyodo) _ Mitutoyo Corp., a precision instrument maker at the center of an export scam linked to weapons of mass destruction, has exported some 10,000 precision measuring devices, most of them illegally, since around 1995, investigative sources said Thursday.

The Metropolitan Police Department's Public Safety Division is investigating the possibility that some of these instruments were exported to North Korea and other nations suspected of developing nuclear weapons via a nuclear black market formerly run by Pakistani nuclear physicist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the sources said.

In addition, the police are investigating suspicions that a Mitutoyo-made precision measuring machine of a different type from the firm's three-dimensional measuring machine that went to Libya via Khan's smuggling network was exported to an Iranian firm suspected of links to Iran's nuclear development program, they said.

On Aug. 25, the police arrested Mitutoyo Vice Chairman Norio Takatsuji, President Kazusaku Tezuka, and three other executives on suspicion of illegally exporting two high-tech measuring devices convertible for use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons to Malaysia in 2001.

One of the two 3-D measuring machines was found in a nuclear research facility in Libya by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors during their 2003-2004 checks.

The machines can be used to make centrifuge machines to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons by determining their dimensions and minimizing shape distortions with high accuracy. Their export is subject to restrictions under the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law and the Export Trade Control Ordinance.

The police found that Mitutoyo's two other precision measuring instruments -- a form tracer for measuring the roughness of the surface of products and a roundness tester -- were handed over to Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn. Bhd. of Malaysia, suspected of being at the core of Khan's network, the sources said.

The police are investigating fresh suspicions that the two devices were exported to Libya as a "three-item set" with one of Mitutoyo's two 3-D measuring machines, which had been found to have been shipped via Dubai to Libya on an Iranian-registered vessel, they said.

The sources knowledgeable about investigations at the Public Safety Division said the Mitutoyo management decided to expand exports in the first half of the 1990s when its sales dived.

Then its project team developed computer software to make its precision measuring machines appear less accurate than they are to bypass Japan's export regulations on high-tech products convertible for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, the sources said.

Although some Mitutoyo employees alerted the management to the illegality of exporting high-performance machines using the software, referred to with an in-house code name of "COCOM," Takatsuji and others silenced the critics, telling them such exports have been decided as "a company policy," they said.

In addition to disguising the precision machines as devices with lower capabilities than they actually have, Mitutoyo filed export permit applications with customs, in which they falsely said their overseas arms were the final destinations of the machines to bypass the regulations on exports to countries and firms suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, they said.

Mitutoyo, based in Kawasaki, Kanagawa Prefecture, is a leading maker of high-tech precision measuring machines and runs a network of subsidiaries, research institutes and factories in more than 20 countries, including the United States, Europe and Asia.

Takatsuji and Tezuka acknowledged the allegations related to the exports to Malaysia for which they had been arrested, informed sources said, adding the two executives have denied that the management ordered employees to bypass the export regulations.

But a senior official at the Public Safety Division said they believe the management issued such orders, adding Mitutoyo "has placed priority on just boosting sales and I cannot find any sense of ethics in them as a company."

Copyright 2006 Kyodo News International, Inc.

And that Iran only has 3,000 separators and, by all reports, Libya having less than 1,500, and we have a major problem of missing high tech nuclear separators roaming around the planet.

Yes, indeed, Iran, internally has sufficient capacity to do this work, but, no, we don't think they are.

And we have no good handle on clandestine networks on the criminal side going into and out of Iran.

We have no mention of Syria in the NIE, yet Israel was sufficiently worried to have Syria come out as an up and coming threat that needed to be addressed with a bombing raid.

It is always fascinating what the NIE does say... even more fascinating in how the bias of what is chosen to be looked at, how it is looked at and the blandness of the conclusions seem to arrive at odd times.

Iran, alone, is not acting in a manner to demonstrate its ability to create nuclear devices.

Iran and Syria?

Well this paper doesn't address that, now, does it?