August 10, 2006, evening.  We are at war. American civilians have a very superficial understanding of the profound difference between fighting a war and catching criminals. These are two very different activities. Law enforcement officers investigate criminals. Intelligence professionals investigate our enemies. Law enforcement officers conduct investigations and gather information with the goal of convicting those they arrest in a court of law. Intelligence operatives investigate and analyze information with the goal of gaining an advantage over an adversary. Law enforcement officials are seeking convictions. Intelligence professionals are dedicated to defeating an enemy. They defeat their enemies by killing them or degrading their ability to wield power or wage war. While an intelligence operation may result in the apprehension, trial and conviction of an adversary, that is often not the planned goal. It is rarely the first priority. Priority number one is to defeat one's adversary.

Law enforcement organizations are very oriented towards preserving evidence and the rights of the accused so that after they have enough evidence to get a conviction, they can arrest the bad guys and prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Law enforcement sources and methods are pretty well known.

Intelligence operations are designed to gather useful information about an adversary so that you can use that information against them. The rights of an enemy are not much of an issue. If they are agents of a foreign government, they have none, except those provided when their governments are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. If their governments are not signatories, or if they are stateless terrorists, they have no legal rights. They have only the privileges we give them. Intelligence sources and methods are very sensitive. If an enemy becomes aware of an intelligence source, they will shut it off. That gives the enemy the advantage, not a desirable outcome.

Our government has made some mistakes. The biggest one so far in the Global War on Terrorism is to not call for a new Geneva Convention to come to a consensus with the rest of the world the most humane way to deal with captured stateless terrorists. They are not mere criminals. They are not conventional soldiers. The Conventions do not address them, so we have no agreed-upon way of handling them. Since no treaty nor convention addresses their status, individuals and nations have been making things up to address the issue. Conjuring up rights out of nothingness is arrogant and unhelpful. It is an emotional response to a legal problem.

August 10, 2006, morning.  I am alarmed. We are a shift towards a policy of appeasement in the Middle East. We have a presidential administration that invented the phrase Global War on Terror. This same administration has been supporting a cease fire plan bi-laterally developed with France (France??). Of course, France is now listening to the Arab League, so they have waffled and want a complete Israeli withdrawal now. Imagine that, France waffling. Who’d’ve thunk it? So will we go with France now that they surrendered to the Arab street? What, indeed, is the point of negotiating a cease fire with Hezbollah? There was already a diplomatic solution in place. Hezbollah disregarded it, attacked Israel and killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Does anyone with half a brain think that Hezbollah will honor a new cease fire or that any peacekeeping force sent by the UN will actually disarm them? Israel started off this war by half-stepping and talking cease fire, but then they noticed that they were not overwhelming their enemy, and they changed tactics. I hope the Bush administration quickly realizes there is no point in negotiating with terrorists.

Remember, we are losing the Global War on Terror, and Iran is winning.