Hunting bin Laden: Part 3 - Storming the Compound

So, they've found his courier, the Kuwaiti. Obama is in office. America seems unlikely to employ a "forgive and forget" policy. What's next?

Well, it's the final stretches now. They didn't know it at the time, but finding the courier would be the key to the final location and putting the whole issue to rest. The States started by talking around a little, and managed to find out the courier's real name (Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed) from an unnamed third country. Managing to track the man down, an asset in Pakistan saw the man's truck and followed it back to Osama's compound.

It's location was in quiet Abbottabad, a place where there are plenty of schools, a low crime rate, and as far as Pakistan goes, a quiet retirement community. Considering that a very real possibility was Osama hiding in a cave, he seemed to have done quite well for himself. He had the place built especially for his needs (well-defended, secretive compounds don't just spring up), designed as a two-story and adding on a third specifically for Osama and his wife (well, one wife). In the compound he had four wives, aged 29-62, a dozen grandkids, as well as the Kuwaiti, his brother, and their families. It was a veritable community inside a single compound.

A view of the compound; it's a bit of a fixer-upper, but
location, location, location.

Naturally, it was well protected; twelve foot high walls, barbed wire, security cameras... the works. The kind of place where "Ocean's Fourteen" might take place. Oddly, the high security and tech stuff goes against the bin Laden style - a very stripped down, spartan existence. Both air conditioning and heating were low, the beds were made from boards hammered together, and there weren't any pictures or paintings.  There was one particularly memorable item, however. To make sure he kept his youthful appearance, he used "Just for Men" on his beard and hair. I guess he wanted to be...

A jihadi and a hottie.

Now, most of this stuff couldn't be discovered from the outside. They could only get so much info, and no one in the surrounding area had any idea of what was going on inside the mysterious, well-protected house/fortress hybrid. Worried about a major international incident, the Americans desperately wanted to know who was inside before storming it. Their ideas for figuring out who was inside ranged greatly from realistic and practical to hairbrained schemes that the most ridiculous television plotlines wouldn't come up with - one was to lob stink-bombs into the place and hope they come out, and another was to place loudspeakers near the compound and pretend to be the voice of Allah, calling for them to leave. Unfortunately, they would have to deal with copyright issues with the latter. As for definitive proof, there was little; just a lot of circumstantial evidence. They believed Osama to be a man they called "the pacer", who would walk the compound daily, providing only the image of his shadowy silhouette obscured by drapes above him.

Even though bin Laden's influence was fading (even pro-al-Qaeda people didn't like the fact that they were also killing Islamic citizens and offered few solutions to their difficulties) the U.S. was still willing to risk a lot going after him. Fortunately for them, they were now allowed to do covert missions without letting congress or the public know, and this would certainly be one of them. The fallout of saying they think they know where Osama is, having everyone get hyped up, only to have it blow up in their face would be catastrophic. With mounting pressure to capture him, the knowledge that intelligence only lasts for so long, and the fact that if anything leaked to Pakistan it might find its way back to Osama they had to act and they had to act quickly.

Not pictured: popcorn and pizza for the bin Laden hunting
viewing party.

One option was to bomb the city, but that was less than desirable. It would mean civilian casualties and uncertainty whether or not bin Laden was actually there. A covert, secret surprise attack would be much safer, and ideally one that had some variety of deniability. That would mean they would have to get in, kill whomever they needed, and get out without leaving much of a trace - especially if they were wrong. If they were right, they could pretty well get away with it, albeit with a little bit of damaged relations but nothing they couldn't fix later. Now, this is all contingent on if they wanted to go in at all; most people were sitting at about seventy percent certainty, but a number were about fifty-fifty on it, which aren't exactly odds you want to bet something of this great importance on. After careful deliberation, they decided it was worth it. It was just a matter of how and when.

Going in at 11:00 p.m. local time, picking a week without a moon and a day where Pakistani guards would be on the lighter side, they sent in the SEALs, America's cream of the crop in regards to their special forces military. Flying in with stealth helicopters just a few feet above ground level, navigating through trees, they arrived at the compound.

It was probably really, really cool.

Initially the plan was to drop off two dozen mend and fly away, returning to pick them up a short time later. However, bad weather caused the helicopter to clip a rotor and have to make a rough landing, no longer able to fly out of there. They would have to call in a reserve helicopter, and, in order to not let the technology fall into the wrong hands, blow up their massively expensive plaything. The downed helicopter wasn't just a money issue either; when it fell the whole plausible deniability idea went out the door with it. Mind you, I can't see how they could cover up a large contingent of highly trained men storming a compound in Pakistan, but... what do I know.

People cheering in the streets outside the White House
following the news. If they were wearing SEAL jerseys
it would look exactly like a sporting event.

Now was the time to storm the compound, shooting everything in sight. Inside, they found the Kuwaiti, shooting him in the head twice, also shooting his wife in the shoulder. Next up, they shot the Kuwaiti's brother and his wife - both unarmed. Next was bin Laden's son, who was also likely without a weapon. None of that really mattered, though - it would all be for naught if they couldn't find the head honcho.

He was next on the list. Finding him in his bedroom as he was listened to the events unfold, they barged in, shot his wife in the calf (who then fell unconscious) and shot him twice, killing him. The pictures were never released as they could serve to spark retaliation as they could use him as a martyr. It was May 2nd, 2011, almost a decade after the initial attacks. Shortly after, Obama announced they defeated Osama bin Laden after long last. Never before had a president walked up to a podium with such a cocky strut.

And the Middle East and the the United States never fought again.

Hunting bin Laden: Part 2 - Regruping

After the mishandled attempt at capturing bin Laden so shortly after his attacks, al-Qaeda managed a bit of a resurgence. They began recruiting oversees, showing they can hit targets abroad and not just in their territory. The most notable attack was in 2005 when suicide bombers attacked the people of London on the trains for their morning commute, killing dozens. Especially in recent years, that's kind of the tone for terrorism; crazed individuals killing typically less than a hundred (well, at least in the Western world), but increasingly large amounts due to the fact that weapons are more dangerous than ever and the only major hinderance to committing atrocities is a sense of basic morality.

America's response to this has been to amp up the drone program, effectively increasing what Osama claimed he was trying to prevent - an increased presence of Americans in the Middle East. Eventually, around 2007-2008, America simply stopped asking Pakistan for permission to drone-strike certain areas and began doing it on their own accord. Bringing out more controversy was their decision to also do a cross-border raid that killed mostly women and children, damaging relations with Pakistan and covering the face of the Americans with many an egg. However, at the core of it all they were still eliminating al-Qaeda leaders left, right and centre all from the safety of places hundreds of miles away. It suddenly became very dangerous to be a leader al-Qaeda, but the most important one was nowhere to be found. All the while, terrorists were citing him as their major influence the way rock stars say they learned from some past musician. Osama was the Beatles of modern terrorism.

The search for him never died down, in spite of the fact that they had very little evidence on

Osama bin Laden's father; siring 55 kids. It was
his winning smile and devout religious extremism
that his wives just couldn't resist.

where he might be residing. It mostly came down to where he couldn't be. Initially they believed it couldn't be Yemen as he would be too recognizable, and most likely Afghanistan or Pakistan. From there they searched the history books. They searched where his father hid when he was on the run, hoping he would be in a similar situation (in searching up his father I discovered that bin Laden's dad had over twenty wives and 55 children, which would make keeping track of birthdays a tiresome issue). They discovered he had a network of safehouses everywhere, leading them to believe he could very well be in an urban centre.

From there, they looked for what they referred to as "four pillars" - his family, hints in his messages to the media (if there was a plant, a bird, voices in the background, anything that could lead them in a direction), communication with the other leaders, and his courier network. It was the lattermost of these pillars that eventually led to his capture.

Aguilera: proudly doing her part in the
war on terror.

We know now that bin Laden was holed up in a compound in a quiet town in Pakistan (more on that later). It was isolated; with cell phones being tracked, messaging was very slow in the al-Qaeda world. That meant that much of the messaging had to be done by a courier, transporting whatever had to be transported in and out of the compound to the beck and call of Osama. The courier himself, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, with his real name being Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed (we'll refer to him as the Kuwaiti for brevity, and so I don't have to keep double checking the spelling) had been close to bin Laden for ages. Eventually, the U.S. Jack Bower'ed just the right people - meaning torture - until a few coughed up information about the Kuwaiti and what he might be doing.

So, does that mean that torture works?
Sort of. First off, it was pretty brutal; one man was kept awake twenty hours a day, stripped nude, left cold and isolated, and, interestingly enough, subjected to hours of blaring Christina Aguilera music - a fate typically reserved for suburban fathers of white teenage girls in the 2000-2010 decade. Another man, also tortured (although not as heavily - perhaps with smooth jazz) led to the Kuwaiti as well. Certainly, it looks promising; that is, until you consider that another high ranking member was waterboarded almost two hundred times and still told the Americans the Kuwaiti had retired - another provided only disinformation. So, the answer to the original question is... maybe?

Barack, after being asked where the drone strikes
 are coming from.

It was right around this time finds the end of the George Bush era. New to the warfront is Barack Obama, the first black president that has one letter off the name of the terrorist he's hunting (considering how America looks currently, that's nothing short of a miracle). Being fiercely anti-war on the campaign trail and before, he shifts the tone from saying "war" to "policing", putting a fresh new spin on it. He then took the drone program, amped it up to never before seen levels, and declared stronger than ever that it's Osama season. After what seems like ages, they have their first real lead, and he was feeling like they just might get 'im. American style.

Hunting bin Laden: Part 1 - First Attack and a Chance at Capture

I'll admit it is a little eerie - but not so much that it's worthy
of a conspiracy theory.

(I suppose I should preface this blog by saying that writing this on September 11th was purely coincidental. I read books and write on them at my own pace, and it just happened to land like this. Nothing more than a coincidence, but hey, so is the picture on the right, but it's always a little interesting nevertheless.)

I was in grade six when the Twin Towers went down. It would have been a normal day I wouldn't have taken note of, but there was a stark difference; Garfield wasn't on the TV when I got out of bed and came downstairs. Instead, my parents were watching the news of the worst terrorist attack on American soil before or since with ten times the loss of life on the second on the list. I didn't know much of what the attacks meant or why they happened, but even as a child I knew whatever it was, it was big. I feel it's the only time when watching the news I've witnessed a major world-changing event that will define how the following decades will proceed. Also, it left me without a compass for my thoughts on lasagna and Mondays for that particular day of school.

Soon after, Osama bin Laden became perhaps the most notorious person in the world after revealing it was he who commanded the attacks under the terrorist group al-Qaeda. He couldn't immediately reveal it was him because that would force the hand of then Afghanistan President Mullah Omar. If he showed himself to be the mastermind behind the attacks and Omar wouldn't hand him over, the repercussions of it would pretty much mean a flat out war between the two countries, and Omar couldn't afford that. Knowing this, Osama laid low for a while and didn't immediately take ownership until he was hidden well enough - and once they started bombing Taliban targets and the cat was out of the bag.

I was really hoping to find a picture of Osama
bin Laden not smiling politely, but you take what
you can get.

Ironically, Osama carried through on this plan to get the Americans out of the middle east, thinking that if they struck the United States at home they would surely have to back out of there. It wasn't the greatest plan; striking at the strongest military in the world and thinking their reaction would be to slink away like a wounded animal was perhaps being a touch optimistic. To be fair, there were many that thought this way - specifically, the Taliban, al-Qaeda's older brother. They told him it would be unwise to start a war with the U.S. and attacking them would have massive, bloody repercussions at the expense of Afghanistan. Since al-Qaeda still had to listen to the Taliban, they offered them a deal; they would assassinate the leaders of the remaining anti-Taliban resistance in Afghanistan to earn the right to go after the States. Of course, Osama's plan backfired terribly. It only took until September 17th for President Bush to sign the plans to overthrow the Taliban and hunt down and if need be kill the leaders of al-Qaeda, with the big prize being Osama himself.

When the United States went hunting for them they came with all the might of a rich, powerful and bloated military budget paired with a thirst for blood the Americans haven't seen in ages. They absolutely devastated al-Qaeda, using drone strikes, the use of torture, and a willingness to bend the rules on what they can and cannot do in foreign countries. Pre-9/11 al-Qaeda was doing quite well for itself, with a very almost mundane bureaucratic air about it: they had disability insurance and vacation time, media outreach, and thirty-two pages of bylaws (The Office: Kabul?). Afterwards, their economy was in shambles, their infrastructure literally exploded and their allies either dead or scattered. With the major population centres no longer being safe they resorted to moving to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan where they had to deal with very limited amounts of communication due to the lack of infrastructure in the area. For Osama personally things were faring little better. Two months after the attacks, he had lost his longtime military commander, a whole bunch of his family was fleeing into exile, and since al-Qaeda's funds were running out he had little financial support.

The Americans reducing Tora Bora to a fiery hellscape
significantly reduced its ratings on Tripadvisor.

He decided to flee to Tora Bora, a complex of caves in eastern Afghanistan where he had previously used the mountainous terrain to hold off the Soviet Union in 1987 to great success. His battles there had made him somewhat of a military hero, and he was hoping to relive that and once more stand against a more powerful army using the tactical advantage of a difficult terrain in which he and his forces were familiar. Quickly, the Americans discovered he was there and pressed their attack - but not as heavily as one would imagine.

Fearing political retribution of the dangers of bringing a large number of soldiers into remote Afghanistan, already hostile to the U.S. and likely to get in skirmishes with civilians and villagers, they refrained from sending in too many. Instead, they opted to pay off the local Afghani warlords in the area and supported them with American firepower in the form of bombing runs in lieu of personnel. It appeared to be working at the time (at least somewhat) and a number of audacious military plans were denied - one of them being a plan to scale the mountainous region around them and descend on them from above, sandwiching them between the friendly(ish) Afghani warlord fighters and themselves. I believe the planning for that was a number of fifteen-year-old consultants getting together and considering what would be the most "awesome" way to take bin Laden down. The Americans, however, decided to lean on the side of caution and rely on planes and bribes. There were more journalists there than western soldiers.

It didn't pan out.

Much to the dismay of the Americans that paid them, the warlords agreed upon a ceasefire between the two, and Osama ordered his men to retreat. His closest bodyguards scurried away to Pakistan where they were promptly arrested - but Osama wasn't with them. He remained in Afghanistan and found shelter elsewhere. It was only December of the same year as the tragic, fateful events of September 11th, and they were so close to bringing the perpetrator to justice. Considering the cost, effort and time that would be put into finding him over the next several years, it's incredible to think that the Americans lost him by putting too much restraint on their efforts in the first few months.

American Counter-Terrorism: Opinions

This is my third post putting my personal opinions on whatever subject I may be delving into up for you to read, and it's the first time I'm not entirely sure how to feel. Regardless, I'll do my best to put my spin on the tough questions, as who else would be more qualified than a twenty-five year old who has read one book on the subject? Well, at least that makes me more qualified than the average internet opinion.

Should the U.S. and the rest of the world continue to use drone strikes?

This is a complicated one. I hope I've helped show that drone strikes are left wanting in accuracy and purpose, frequently hitting targets they don't wish to hit and removing the valuable asset of information from captured terrorists, as capturing someone after a drone strike is far less beneficial. However...

Looking from the States' perspective, sending troops is bad for business. No one wants fallen soldiers and it's hard to deny a process that removes the risk. They are still effective at hitting their targets, just not so great at hitting only their targets. For that reason I'd say they should probably keep using them, but perhaps a little less recklessly and a little less often. The problem is they've put themselves in a tough position, lending itself to a drone-strike heavy option. Obama has been big on the idea of keeping soldiers out of the war zones, which, in a roundabout way, indirectly states they'll be up in the sky rather than on the ground. However, with fewer forces on the ground, accuracy for drone strikes decreases due to a lack of information coming in (coming back to the lack of prisoners, thus a lack of interrogation). It seems drone strikes are things to be used in tandem with regular forces. A weapon to be used to hit specific targets that cannot be safely (well, at least relatively) reached otherwise. Let's not ignore the fact that drones are high powered death machines that above all else get the job done.

Going all-out on drone strikes seems like it won't really solve the problem, and if anything, it'll perpetuate it. Taking out groups of people that may or may not be enemy combatants is going to inevitably rile up an already strong anti-American (anti-western world, really) sentiment. You may kill a terrorist, but you make him a martyr and two pop up in his place. Taking out soldiers who are shooting back is one thing, but a flying death machine wiping out a building is another. It'll breed hatred, and it's a nasty cycle. However, they can't really back out now so it looks like it'll just continue for a while.

Yeah, it's a downer.

Final answer? Yes. Use drone strikes. But stop using them all the freaking time. 

So what really is the civilian count on the death toll?

This seems to vary widely. Like, ridiculously widely. We're talking some sources saying 2% of the kills are terrorists, while others say 2% of the kills are civilians. This is due to a number of factors, and the answer probably lies in a middle, shady grey, as most things in life tend towards. First off, it's incredibly hard to actually count up who is being killed. Typically a drone strike is done because they don't have any forces near it, meaning they can't just waltz in afterwards and count out who's dead. That means it comes through other sources, often local ones, and numbers can be fudged to push an agenda - positive or negative, depending on where you sit. So, that's problem number one - the info is loose, at best.

Problem number two is deciphering who is a terrorist. In my first blog in this series I spoke on the The Economist. It's a year old now, but it details (with cool graphics!) the drone deaths in Pakistan from when they started to now (if now was a year ago). In case you can't read the picture on the right, the numbers at the end are as follows: 190 children, 534 civilian, 52 high profile, and - here's the big one - 2565 other. What the heck is other? Other could mean so many things.

The prettiest way to demonstrate a massive death toll.

fact that any male of a certain age that's caught talking to a terrorist and gets caught in the blast of a drone strike blast is labeled as an "enemy killed in action", or more honestly, "probably an enemy because of association."  The problem is that final category is massive, making up the majority of drone strike deaths and it's not really clear who exactly they are. Watch the video on this article from

From what I can tell, it's the vague "enemy killed in action" designation with maybe a few unclear hits mixed in. All of these numbers are fairly unreliable so they have to be taken with a grain of salt, but it does paint a fairly clear picture - they don't really know who they're killing, but they're probably bad. The question is, are they right to believe so?

Once more, it's a shade of grey. I'm going with a hardline stance on this one, and saying "yeah, probably".

Let's go through an example. They hit a terrorist training ground, hoping to kill one well known, verified terrorist. They blow it up, killing, say, fifty people. They're all males, between 18-35 years of age, and thus get tossed in to the "enemy killed in action" category, explaining why that's huge in comparison to the rest. If they're there, with a known terrorist, and they're all males of a certain age, there's a pretty good chance they're not exactly good-guys. Of course, this isn't always true - and they definitely make mistakes. Plenty of them. Once more, it's hard to form an opinion without all the information on the table - but I guess that's part of the problem, isn't it?

But they need to be verified or else it's an assassination. Right?

A big complaint is drone strikes shirk international law as the enemy is frequently not in a designated war zone and they're not brought to a full trial, deeming it an assassination and thus against whatever codes are in place for that. The response to this from the United States is a bit of a shrug, a bully on a schoolyard saying "well, what are you going to do about it?".

Anyways, I don't really buy this argument. There is always going to be collateral damage, always going to be unwanted, unjustified deaths and there will always be mistakes. It's the sad, terrible truth of war. The goal is to minimize these risks while still being able to achieve the goals the military is putting forth, but minimizing them is not a perfect science. (If I sound callous, remember I'm in favour of reducing drone strikes, just not eliminating them entirely.) Giving every enemy combatant a fair trial would be the ideal, but an impossible one considering the circumstances. As for hitting them outside of designated war zones... well, I hope they vet their targets well. Sadly that's not always true. But, that's not an inherent problem with drone strikes - that's a problem with using them too recklessly.

*I published this, thought on it harder, and immediately came back. To really make an educated statement on this, I feel you have to know so many outside factors. How do they designate war zones? What are the international laws in place? How are they enforced? Is the U.S. breaking them, and if they are do they do it brazenly? Battles are complicated, and nothing is ever as obvious as it seems. However, at the core, if they know a know there's a terrorist that's planning something and they have an opportunity to act on it... well... that's a tough one.*

Hey, we talked about surveillance, too.  What's up with that? Is it bad? Will Edward Snowden soon be canonized?

You know, I'm going to take an unpopular opinion here and say that much of the surveillance technology is overall positive, although not necessarily used particularly well. Yeah, I know, I'm a government shill.

I'm not in the slightest worried about anyone reading, storing, or hacking my emails, texts, or what-have-you. Mass data collection means that inevitably no one will actually read it, save for if they're searching for someone or something more specifically. The more information there is, the less likely someone is going to see me text whatever mundane garbage I'm sending that day to my friends or the emails I keep getting from that shoe store I got something from that one time. I know it could have deeper consequences later, but the fact of the matter is it's not there yet. It's not that much of an issue for the average person right now, and honestly, I don't believe it will be. Yes, slippery slope and what not, but we can cross that bridge if we get there. If it legitimately helps to keep the peace I'm all for it.

However, it does have to be kept in check. Warrants should be needed, laws should be made for it, blah blah blah. Anything new will come with difficulties. As for the eight year old who was the suspected terrorist? Well, people just need to use some common sense and we'll all be fine.



Closing it out, a summary:

Drones are effective military technology, used far too often.
Bombing the middle east isn't really going to solve anything, but we're pretty much all in on it now so there's no way out now.
The surveillance state issue is an unnerving one but ultimately it just doesn't effect me enough to care.
The United States is probably evil, but not as evil as we're making them out to be most of the time.

Admittedly, I'm probably wrong on all of this, but I'm blessed with the knowledge that no one really cares what I think on it anyways. Nice.

American Counter-Terrorism: Part 2 - Watchlists and Surveillance

In 2013 talking about government surveillance was all the rage. Edward Snowden had just spread leaks like a drunk at a urinal, and while the general public didn't really read any of the papers (there are thousands of them, so I hope there's a sparknotes somewhere) the main point of it was the American government is spying on you. Americans were angry, they felt betrayed, and the sales of George Orwell's 1984 shot up. (I looked it up - that's actually true.) Unbeknownst to the American public, the National Security Agency - the dreaded N.S.A. - has been collecting telephone messages, emails, and, I don't know, maybe Tinder profiles, all under the blanket purpose of fighting terrorism.

An American spy rocket chose this as their logo.
It looks like it belongs to the stereotypical evil
organization in a Michael Bay movie.

I'm talking about this in a drone strikes blog because finding terrorists at home and abroad falls to many of the same agencies with many of the same lists and programs. Further, military technology oftentimes gets passed down to local police departments, and counter-terrorism stuff is no exception. No, it's not the missiles (although taking out drug lords with drone strikes sounds kind of cool, albeit in a terrifying way). We're talking the surveillance equipment; they have the technology to retrieve deleted text messages, spy on SMS (essentially texts), eavesdrop on calls, extract media files, address books and notes, and so forth. Most of it is done through cell-site simulators (also called StingRays, if you want to sound cool) which function as a mobile cell tower that people can inadvertently use, thus allowing them to track the information coming in. Initially this was used to target the terrorists' devices, thus allowing for more information, locations, and so forth. However, since 2007 they've been used on American soil 4,300 times - and that's just the Baltimore Police Department. I'm glad the only text messages I send are either mundane or childish. I'm also glad I live in Canada.

The problem with this technology is it tends to drag a net across an area and brings in way more information than it wants or needs. They don't specifically target one phone; it'll sweep, meaning whomever happens to be using their phone around a StingRay will suddenly have their information put into the system. While that sounds pretty doom and gloom (I'll admit it's a little disconcerting) let's not forget that no one's really reading any of it, unless they're hunting you specifically. I sincerely doubt there are a bunch of CIA guys reading your stuff and laughing at you - unless you said something really embarrassing, (and you know what that is!) in which they totally are for sure.

So yes, a lot of data is being collected (all but an infinitesimal percentage surely completely useless). However, if they do find something about you - either at home or abroad - there's a chance you'll be placed on the terrorist watchlist. You've probably heard the terms "no-fly list" and that sort, and that's basically what we're talking about here. You would think that it would be fairly hard to get on the watchlist - and to be fair if you're a law-abiding citizen, again, the chances you'll be on it are so, so small - but in countries the States is casually bombing you have a pretty decent chance. The laws at home don't apply to the U.S. overseas (or more accurately they just kind of ignore them most of the time) so the whole "fair trial" idea doesn't really hold water. Concrete facts and irrefutable evidence would be nice, but they're far from necessary and pretty rare, meaning that if you're suspected in any way you're essentially seen as guilty enough to be placed on it. That's why there are so many on the watchlist; 680,000 as of 2014, 280,000 of them not belonging to a terrorist organization. The no-fly list is smaller, but rising at the same dramatic rate over the past ten or so years.

This is Marvel's logo for Hydra, the
fictional terrorist organization. Now, my
question is does this look more or less
evil than the world-consuming octopus?
My follow up question is how disturbing
is it that it's a tough call?

TIDE, or the Terrorist Datamart Environment, (not to be confused with the rise and falls of sea levels, or detergent) is even larger - holding over a million names. Basically everything gets funneled through TIDE, splitting into different organizations, groups, programs, etc. - some of them with names that are seemingly designed to sound as villainous as possible. The best example is Hydra, which "utilizes clandestinely acquired foreign government information" to find more info on TIDE members. Holy crap. Type "Hydra" into google and the first thing that comes up is the Marvel universe's terrorist organization of the same name. That's unfortunate.

So what we've established here is the databases are huge, the networks for collecting information are

Cub Scout Mikey Hicks immediately
regretted getting his merit badge in
bomb-making.

 massive and wide reaching, and reasonable doubt is an archaic method of justice. What we haven't talked about yet is how you get on the no-fly list while being a resident of the United States. Fortunately, it's not particularly easy to do, and I'm sure that most of the people on there are written up for a good cause - but errors do happen, like the case of Mikey Hicks. Hicks shared the name of a known terrorist and was mistakenly put on the no-fly list (so I guess there was a terrorist named Mikey out there) and was taken aside for a pat down at an airport. At first that sounds upsetting and inconvenient, but there's a troubling twist.

Mikey Hicks was two years old. They gave a pat down to an infant. (I really hope whoever gave the pat-down said "he's clean - except his diaper" once they were done.) By the time he was eight, he was still on it - and still receiving pat-downs at the airport - and that's mostly because once you're put on it it's awfully hard to get taken off. You can apply, get your information put through and so forth, but there's no actual confirmation if you're removed, leaving the possible watchlisted to sit in a state of unknowing whether or not the government sees them as potential mass murderers. Obviously with Hicks it was a case of mistaken identity, but it's not entirely uncommon if you share a name. If anything, that exposes a problem with the system where they're accepting so many names and not properly vetting them or knowing what exactly to do with them. In 2013, 468,749 "Known Suspected Terrorist" nominations were put forth, and all but 4,915 were accepted, putting it at about 99%. It certainly makes you wonder.

I know I've already used one picture of this poor kid,
but this has got to be the funniest picture I've ever seen.

Now, I tried to keep this neutral, although I'll readily admit that the book I got this information from is obviously leaning. Personal opinions on this will come in the next post, but at the very least it's information that the falls in that category of "you should probably know this is happening".

___________________________________



The information for this blog has been taken from "The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program" by Jeremy Scahill. It's... OK. The problem is it's written as a number of news stories compiled into one volume, meaning plenty of the information doubles up and makes for a frustrating read. Nevertheless, it's an interesting one.