The Humanitarian Argument For Border Closure

While conservatives argue for closing the southern border and enforcing the law to deport illegal immigrants, our opposition argues for a supposedly more humane approach of either completely open borders or the granting of amnesty to the twelve million who have already come to the US. That argument wins on the basis of understandable sympathy for poor people who want to escape crushing poverty in their native land, primarily Mexico; it makes the conservative argument sound heartless and cruel.

But is it really? An e-mail I received this evening from Eusebia Flores at Artcamp Artesanas Campesinas in Guerrero, Mexico argues the exact opposite -- that the lure of American dollars literally subsidizes the abandonment of Mexico and families by the men who could otherwise have helped transform the destitute Mexican economy:

Dear friends in the United States....

We are Mexican women from villages in the southern Mexico state of Guerrero.

Our brothers and husbands have left us for work in the US.

We strongly support closing the US-Mexico border to illegal entry.

We did not want our men to leave and we want them to return to us.

As we struggle as women, against the difficulty of our situation, we focus all effort on building a business to sustain ourselves and our children.

But we need the help of our husbands and our brothers to re-unite our families and to help us develop economic opportunity in the traditional fashion jewelry production industry that is the heritage of our parents.

Please close the US Border to illegal migration and send our men home to us. Thank you.

Best wishes from Mexico to all persons of good will.

We should continue to be friends and respect each other.

Atentamente,

Eusebia Flores
Artcamp Artesanas Campesinas
Tecalpulco, Municipio de Taxco de Alarcon; Guerrero, Mexico

I assume that this message is legitimate; it came with contact numbers that match the communal business in Mexico, and a follow-up e-mail got a prompt response from the organization. They have posted their own protest against the normalization of border crossers on their site, demanding that the US send their men home in a humane manner. This page comes from the same server as their e-commerce site. The artisan community certainly exists; the Texas Women's University School of Management toured the facility recently. Take a look at the site for yourself to see whether you find this legitimate.

This should remind us that the draw of the illicit money offered by American businesses to the poor workers of Mexico and Central America not only takes potential work away from Americans and legal immigrants but also creates a cultural and productivity drain from those areas abandoned by the able men who cross the border. It has the potential to cause social damage for generations in Mexico and other nations. The businesses who offer the work for the men and women draw them from the opportunity to improve their own communities. The men who leave often do so for years, leaving the women behind to fend for themselves and their children.

As the women of Artcamp Artesanas Campesinas say on their site, they remain proud artisans who do not want anyone's charity but want their men back to help rebuild their community. American exploitation of Mexican poverty keeps the people of that country from investing their effort into transforming their nation economically so that they can sustain themselves without breaking American immigration laws. Shame on us for not providing a credible deterrent and for turning a blind eye to a practice that has created a modern serfdom while stripping Mexico of what could be the roots of a genuine middle class.

Movie Review: Thank You For Smoking

We decided to go out to see a movie this evening, and instead of going for some cheap escapism, we chose the political satire Thank You For Smoking, a viciously hilarious and twisted look at lobbying and the tobacco industry. This movie has been out for quite a while, and while most of those who are inclined to see it probably already have, the rest should consider it.

Aaron Eckhart plays Nick Naylor, a ruthless tobacco industry flack who tells himself that he argues for the defenseless. The movie starts out with a skin-crawling sequence where his character appears on a Joan Lunden talk show along with a teenager dying of cancer and manages to charm the kid into shaking hands with him while the audience shifts from visibile hostility to acceptance. Needless to say, this kind of talent allows Naylor to make a very comfortable living. Unfortunately, a desire to connect with his son and a very attractive and equally ruthless Washington reporter is about to undo all the work he has ever done -- and give him an opportunity for a world-class comeback.

The movie doesn't have a single mediocrity in it. Maria Bello plays a supporting role as an equally cynical alcohol-industry flack. William H. Macy brilliantly plays a Birkenstock-wearing, egotistical, and pseudointellectual Vermont senator determined to best Naylor and undermine the tobacco industry. Katie Holmes has a small but significant role as the reporter who screws Naylor in more ways than one. Sam Elliott plays an aging Marlboro Man dying of his association with tobacco who allows Naylor to manipulate him. But the main reason the movie works is the performance of Cameron Bright, who appears a bit too open to his father's role modeling.

The movie, based on a widely acclaimed novel by Christopher Buckley (the son of conservative icon William F. Buckley), delivers a joyful sort of cynicism that makes us laugh at the worst instincts of human nature. The movie makes it possible to sympathize with a man who has an irredeemable job and actually believe that he may have a point. In its way, it argues for Naylor in the same way that Naylor argues for tobacco -- and damned if you won't start thinking about smoking in Naylor's terms of libertarian politics even while you see it for the manipulation it is. That comes to a glorious climax in the committee hearing scene that all political movies must include ... and it demands an answer to the hypocrisy of the politics surrounding the issue while providing an epiphany for Naylor.

If you haven't yet seen this movie -- and I admit I may be among the last -- be sure to see it soon, before it disappears altogether.

Addendum: I have to note that the end credits are accompanied by one of my favorite folk songs, "Greenback Dollar", sung by the Kingston Trio. The First Mate was surprised when I sung the entire song almost word for word along with the credits, but I have a Hoyt Axton version of the song as well as a recording of Jim Croce and his college band performing it that I've had for years.

UPDATE: The title of this post had the movie name incorrect; thanks to reader David H for pointing it out -- and he also recommends the movie.

Northern Alliance Radio Today

The Northern Alliance Radio Network takes to the airwaves and the Internet stream again today. The first two hours will feature Brian and Chad from Fraters Libertas and John Hinderaker from Power Line debating the issues of the day. Right now they're discussing the staging of the Vagina Monologues at Notre Dame, and next hour they'll be hosting Vox Day.

In the second two hours, starting at 1 pm CT, Mitch Berg and I will broadcast live from Saint Paul's Rivercenter at the Minnesota Association of Christian Home Educators conference (MACHE). We should have some interesting debate on the benefits of home schooling in today's educational environment. We will also discuss the outing of Mary McCarthy as a CIA leaker and the Russian developments. Join us at 651-289-4488!

Starting To Get The Message

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pens a column for today's National Review that demonstrated that GOP leadership has heard the conservative base on immigration. It falls short in several respects, but Frist's article shows that the message has finally started sinking into the stubborn heads of legislators:

Democrat obstruction torpedoed comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate earlier this month. At the same time, concerns about getting our border under control came into clear relief with news this week of the Department of Homeland Security's effort to crack down on egregious violations of immigration law. It is time to both secure our borders and reform our immigration system. So next week, the Senate will act to increase funding for border security-first. And then, before the end of May, the Senate must again take up-and finish-comprehensive immigration system reform.

When it takes up the immigration reform, the Senate must address border security, worksite enforcement, and the status of the 12 million people who are currently here illegally. But to build confidence among Americans and Congress that the government takes border security seriously, we have to act to help get the border under control right now.

By Memorial Day, the president plans to sign an emergency-spending measure, which we will use to fund this next step in border security. ... Last year, Judd Gregg and others lead an effort to hire 1,500 new border patrol agents and build 1,800 new detention beds. The proposal we will consider next week provides nearly $2 billion to build a border fence in high-traffic areas, add new border-patrol aircraft to help police lower traffic areas, and support training for additional Customs and Border Protection Agents.

There isn't a tremendous amount to love in this proposal. First, why do we need emergency spending bills to take care of the chronic problem of immigration. Congress has fallen in love with this method of budgeting; three years into the Iraq War, they are still funding operations through emergency spending legislation. Immigration has been a problem for decades now. It's no longer an emergency, it's just an embarrassment.

More substantially, the proposal to build security barriers in "high-traffic areas" has some serious and common-sense holes, literally and figuratively. For one thing, if we only build barriers in places with high traffic, what does anyone outside of Congress think will happen? The illegal immigrants will flock to the places where no barrier exists. When the US Army builds fortifications, do they only build them on the one spot where the enemy attacked before? Of course not -- they secure their entire perimeter. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

On the plus side, at least Frist is finally addressing security as a prerequisite to resolving the problem of the illegals already here. That represents a leap forward in GOP thinking, and the conservative base can pat themselves on the back for that much progress. Frist has finally heard the message that any "reform" that does not credibly secure the border will be viewed as Simpson-Mazzoli Part Deux, with the force-multiplying effect that its predecessor had on illegal immigration. The conservatives have not put up with the budget-busting antics of this Congress and this administration to once again grant amnesty to illegals and put out an even larger welcome mat than before for the rest.

Until we credibly secure the border and end the flood over the Rio Grande, then no reform package will do anything except encourage more people to break our laws and bust our borders. Fifty-five months after 9/11, we still cannot convince Congress that national security demands tough border enforcement. Now that we have made it clear that re-election requires tough border enforcement, we seem to have their attention.

Build the wall all the way across the border. Stop the acute issue of illegal and uncontrolled entry into the US by foreign nationals, whatever their motivation. Once we have that accomplished, then we can debate the full range of possible solutions to those already here.

Russia And Iran Reach Enrichment Agreement

The Ap reports breaking news that Russia and Iran have reached some sort of agreement on uranium enrichment. However, Iranian TV gave few details about the arrangement:

Iran's envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Saturday the Islamic republic had reached a "basic deal" with the Kremlin to form a joint uranium enrichment venture on Russian territory, state-run television reported.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, "spoke of a basic agreement between Iran and Russia to set up a joint uranium enrichment firm on Russian soil," Iranian state television reported.

It remained unclear, though, whether Iran would entirely give up enrichment at home, a top demand of the West, or whether the joint venture would complement Iran's existing enrichment program. Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear reactors that generate electricity or to make atomic bombs.

"Only issues regarding technical, legal and financial matters remain to be resolved which need more deliberation and exchange of views," the television quoted Soltanieh as saying Saturday in Moscow.

Immediate questions:

1. Did Iran give up their domestic enrichment program? After the gala celebration that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threw when their scientists announced the successful enrichment in their 164-centrifuge cascade, it would seem difficult for him to suddenly announce that the program had ended.

2. Even if they did agree to stop enriching uranium on their own, what kind of verification regime has Iran endorsed in this agreement? Does the IAEA get to conduct snap inspections of all suspected nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic? One would presume that Russia would have required this within the framework of any agreement it wanted the West to accept, but that assumes that Russia cares about the West's reaction any more.

3. Given the recent history of Russian appeasement of terrorists and their enablers, who monitors the Russian facilities and output to ensure that they don't just ship Iran weapons-grade material?

This agreement, if on the level, could help defuse the tense situation and allow Iran enough nuclear technology for domestic energy purposes while denying them the bomb. That requires a faith in Moscow that long ago should have been abandoned. Three years ago or even two, I might have applauded this development. Now it appears more like a Locarno Treaty -- an agreement that binds Iran only to the extent that Iranian capabilities do not currently exceed the limits of the agreement. Absent the key details, it looks more like a dangerous panacea that will Iran to continue its enrichment program relatively unfettered, under the protective wing of the Russian autocracy.

Milblogger Conference Under Way

The first Milblogger's Conference has opened this morning, led by the inestimable Col. Austin Bay and including such luminaries as Smash, Op-For, BlackFive, and several others. La Shawn Barber will live-blog the event, and an audio/video feed is available. Be sure to tune in!

Russians Insist On Sale Of Missile System To Iran

Russia will not back away from its planned sale of air-defense missile systems to Iran, the Washington Post reports this morning, as Vladimir Putin continues his march against the West and his determination to restart the Cold War. In response, the US hinted that Russian intransigence on Iran will push the issue away from the United Nations and into a new multilateral coalition that will impose its own response to the Iranian nuclear program:

At a news conference in Washington yesterday, the State Department's third-highest-ranking officer, R. Nicholas Burns, said the time has come for countries "to use their leverage with Iran" and halt exports of weapons and nuclear-related technologies. He singled out the sale of 29 Tor-M1 air-defense missile systems to Iran under a $700 million contract announced by Russia in December.

"We hope and we trust that that deal will not go forward, because this is not time for business as usual with the Iranian government," said Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs. ...

"There are no circumstances that would obstruct fulfillment of our obligations in military-technical cooperation with Iran," said Nikolai Spassky, the deputy head of the Kremlin's Security Council. "This goes for all the obligations we have made, including the commitment to provide Iran with Tor-M1 air defense systems." ...

But given the potential for continued stalemate, Burns raised the possibility that some nations might act against Iran without waiting for a Security Council agreement.

"It's not beyond the realm of the possible that at some point in the future, a group of countries could get together, if the Security Council is not able to act, to take collective economic action or collective action on sanctions," he said. "That's important, because those that might prevent the Security Council from acting effectively need to understand that the international community has to find a way, and will find a way, to express our displeasure with the Iranians."

The Russians appear intent on eclipsing France's efforts to position themselves as the countervaling force against the United States, in this case militarily as well as diplomatically. To that end, they have continually enabled the mullahcracy of Iran to develop their nuclear ambitions as well as supporting the Islamofascist protostate of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. This follows on the revelations of their intelligence support for Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. They have taken the side of terrorists and terrorist enablers, and the time has come for even the State Department to recognize that Russia is not our ally.

What can be done? The first action we must take is to follow through on Burns' threat and bypass the UN on Iran. If Russia (and China) do not wish to be part of the solution, we can keep them from being part of the problem. A coordinated effort by Europe and the US will have a large impact on Iran's economy; China might help but the Russian economy is so bad that it can't help itself, let alone buffer Iran from an economic boycott.

The second action: pull out of the G-8 conference scheduled for July. Putin wants to use it to convince his people that despite his progressively autocratic and dictatorial changes, Russia still has the imprimatur of the West. Take it away from him. Refuse to attend any economic summit hosted by Russia. We have the power to humiliate Putin, and we should start using it. The Russians need to know that we will not stand quietly while they undermine us diplomatically or militarily, and if Putin wants to play that game, we can play it better.

This is not the Russia we imagined when Boris Yeltsin stared down a Communist putsch, or even the Russia of six years ago. Putin wants a Cold War, and eventually we will have to provide it.

Iraq Forms The Unity Government

The Iraqi National Assembly has wasted no time after the Shi'ite compromise on Ibrahim al-Jafaari's withdrawal and has begun forming the national-unity executive for which America has pressed since the December elections. The division of power among the top slots remains as it did before, with the Kurds holding the presidency and the Sunnis and Shi'a taking the two vice-presidential positions:

After months of political deadlock, Iraq's parliament convened Saturday to select top leadership posts, launching the process of putting together a new government aimed at pulling the country out of its sectarian strife.

Before the session, Shiite lawmaker Ridha Jawad Taqi said all sides agreed on a package deal for the top spots: Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, would remain as president for a second term, with Sunni Arab Tariq al-Hashimi and Shiite Adil Abdul-Mahdi holding the two vice-president spots.

In its first vote, lawmakers elected Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a Sunni, parliament speaker.

This last position hold special import for the Sunnis, who presumably have the most influence with the native insurgents. The key to ending that part of the terrorist activity in Iraq will be to establish credible access to the political process for the Sunni minority in the central region of Iraq, where oil is scarce and their economic prospects look less engaging than in the Kurdish and Shi'ite regions. The Sunnis need Iraq to hold together to avoid having control of a rum consisting mostly of Baghdad and its environs, a development that likely would leave them destitute and stuck between two protostates that would recall Sunni domination in very unpleasant terms.

For this reason, I believe most Sunnis will grasp this opportunity to work within the system to maintain Iraqi unity. They know that a civil war and fracture of the nation impacts them most, and they need to find a way to keep the Kurds and the Shi'a from spinning away and taking the mineral resources of Iraq with them. The Shi'ites knew this as well, which is why they stuck with the highly unpopular Jafaari for so long. When the Kurds backed the Sunnis on Jafaari, the Shi'ites finally realized that they could not win the battle, but waited as long as possible to get as many concessions as they could. It took Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's rhetorical kick in the fanny to get the majority Shi'ite coalition to finally recognize reality.

One assumes that the parliamentary action this morning indicates that the Cabinet issues have been resolved and that portfolio assignments are set. If so, it delivers a long-delayed blow to both the foreign and native insurgencies in Iraq. The first permanent constitutional government in Iraq has shown that democracy can survive in a polarized Arab state, although it seemed a close-run thing. It also shows that the Sunnis can win a political battle when needed, a lesson that should encourage them to support the political process more enthusiastically than before. With those developments, the insurgents will find themselves ever more isolated and ineffective. The battle for Iraq has been lost by the insurgents.

Hitting Them In The Wallet

It turns out that the man killed by Pakistani forces near Khaar two days ago had a key role in what is left of al-Qaeda, and also had information that more clearly shows the connection between the bin Laden network and the Iraqi foreign insurgency:

Documents found on an operative for Al Qaeda who was killed by Pakistani forces showed that he was an explosives expert and a money carrier who appeared to be distributing cash to the families of Qaeda members, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the organization's leader in Iraq, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said Friday.

The operative, Marwan Hadid al-Suri, 38, also known as Abu Marwan, was shot to death on Thursday during a gunfight outside Khaar, a tribal area close to the Afghan border, Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao said.

A notebook found on Mr. Suri contained details and diagrams of bomb circuits and chemicals used to manufacture explosives, including TNT and C-4, said the intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media. "This is a big achievement because he was Al Qaeda's explosives expert," Mr. Sherpao said.

A diary written in Arabic contained a list of families of senior Qaeda operatives who received regular cash payments from the organization, including relatives of Mr. Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The list did not give the whereabouts of the families, but it described paying $2,500 per family every three months. According to the list, each family was also paid $500 per child every three months.

One interesting aspect of the Marwan case is his assignment to two very distinct tasks, which indicates that AQ may have some trouble getting higher-level competency. Normally an organization like AQ would not use one of its explosives experts as a bagman; the risk of exposure heightens dramatically when someone has to interface so often with others in the network and at banking institutions. Ideally the terrorists would want someone with specialized operational knowledge to remain hidden as much as possible. The fact that one of their explosives experts had to double as the paymaster tends to imply that they do not have enough reliable people to handle each task separately.

The notes on cash disbursements puts an end to the speculation that the leader of the Iraqi foreign insurgency, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, assumed the role of an AQ leader as a public pose. The regular payment of $2500 per quarter to his family indicates that AQ indeed accepts him as a leader and in fact pays him a salary commensurate with his assignment. That kind of money goes a long way in Jordan, Iraq, and other places in the Middle East. This gives yet another indication that the fight against the Zarqawi network in Iraq is no distraction from the war on terrorism but instead gives us another front on which to fight al-Qaeda.

The final irony in this story is that Marwan didn't get killed as a result of a raid, although his home was the target of the earlier American attack on Bajaur that initially generated reports of Ayman al-Zawahiri's death, which later was shown as a near-miss. His bus in Khaar got stopped at a regular security checkpoint, and Marwan shot a soldier trying to get away. He knew the value of the information he carried with him -- the pay receipts, plans for explosives, and four grenades for good measure -- and apparently panicked. The other soldiers at the checkpoint shot him while he tried to run away, providing an ignominious end to this Islamofascist lunatic.

A Sting Operation?

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse wonders if the story on CIA detention centers might not have been a sting operation to unmask leakers at Langley. The possibility comes up because on the same day that the CIA terminated Mary McCarthy for her communications to the press, the New York Times reports that European investigators cannot find any evidence that the detention centers ever existed:

The European Union's antiterrorism chief told a hearing on Thursday that he had not been able to prove that secret C.I.A. prisons existed in Europe.

"We've heard all kinds of allegations," the official, Gijs de Vries, said before a committee of the European Parliament. "It does not appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt." ...

Mr. de Vries said the European Parliament investigation had not uncovered rights abuses despite more than 50 hours of testimony by rights advocates and people who say they were abducted by C.I.A. agents. A similar investigation by the Council of Europe, the European human rights agency, came to the same conclusion in January — though the leader of that inquiry, Dick Marty, a Swiss senator, said then that there were enough "indications" to justify continuing the investigation.

A number of legislators on Thursday challenged Mr. de Vries for not taking seriously earlier testimony before the committee of a German and a Canadian who gave accounts of being kidnapped and kept imprisoned by foreign agents.

The committee also heard Thursday from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who said: "I can attest to the willingness of the U.S. and the U.K. to obtain intelligence that was got under torture in Uzbekistan. If they were not willing, then rendition prisons could not have existed." But Mr. Murray, who was recalled from his job in 2004 after condemning the Uzbek authorities and criticizing the British and American governments, told the committee that he had no proof that detention centers existed within Europe.

He said he had witnessed such rendition programs in Uzbekistan, but he seemed to back up Mr. de Vries's assertion when he said he was not aware of anyone being taken to Uzbekistan from Europe. "As far as I know, that never happened," he said.

How do intel agencies find leakers and spies? They pass around carefully designed misinformation to selected individuals considered likely suspects, and see what winds up exposed as a result. It's possible that after Porter Goss took over as DCI when George Tenet left, he began mole hunting in a big way. It's certain that the administration would have demanded some action on leaks, and Goss would have been of a similar mind. It appears that the story she gave Dana Priest has a lot less substance than first thought. Two separate investigations by Europe turned up nothing. They have reported on both occasions that no evidence exists to substantiate the story, either of the detention centers or of European cooperation.

McCarthy would have been a classic candidate for this kind of mole hunt. A favorite of the previous administration, having reached the National Security Council, her loss of influence in the new administration could have prompted bitterness and antagonism. The New York Times in a new report says she contributed to John Kerry's campaign, perhaps on the basis of her past work with Kerry advisors Richard Clark and Sandy Berger:

Ms. McCarthy has been a well-known figure in intelligence circles. She began her career at the agency as an analyst and then was a manager in the intelligence directorate, working at the African and Latin America desks, according to a biography by the strategic studies center. With an advanced degree from the University of Minnesota, she has taught, written a book on the Gold Coast and was director of the social science data archive at Yale University.

Public records show that Ms. McCarthy contributed $2,000 [the maximum -- CE] in 2004 to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

We may never know if the entire story about detention centers turned out to be a smoke screen intended to reveal a leak. We certainly have no evidence beyond the McCarthy leak and Priest's story. If it does turn out to be nothing more than misinformation for a leak probe, the Washington Post and the Pulitzer Committee will look very foolish indeed.

Addendum: AJ Strata is all over this story as well.

Plugging The Leak

The CIA has terminated an intelligence officer after discovering his communications with the media that resulted in leaking classified information. The agency has not identified the officer or the project from which information was leaked but characterized the disclosures as "damaging":

A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.

Citing the Privacy Act, the CIA would not provide any details about the officer's identity or assignments. It was not immediately clear if the person would face prosecution. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.

"The officer has acknowledged unauthorized discussions with the media and the unauthorized sharing of classified information," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano. "That is a violation of the secrecy agreement that everyone signs as a condition of employment with the CIA." ...

The CIA officer was not in the public affairs office, nor was he someone authorized to talk to the media. The investigation was launched in January by the CIA's security center. It was directed to look at employees who had been exposed to certain intelligence programs. In the course of the investigation, the fired officer admitted discussing classified information including information about classified operations.

This becomes the first major instance of outing a leaker within the intelligence community since Porter Goss took over at Langley with a mandate to clean house. The CIA has had several leaks during the war on terror, including a particularly damaging one that revealed CIA detention centers in Europe for interrogating captured terrorists. Not only did this cause political damage among our European allies regarding their support of our war efforts, it also apparently caused the program's termination, at least delaying the acquisition of intel from detainees that could have impacted American and Western security. Worst of all, other intel agencies had to rethink their cooperation with American agencies in light of the fact that people within them couldn't keep their mouths shut.

The Department of Justice needs to prosecute these leakers to the full extent of the law. We already have the precedent of a two-year special prosecutor who spent millions of dollars investigating a leak of minimal import that resulted from what looks like a deliberate misinformation campaign quarterbacked by the CIA's non-proliferation desk. Those within the agency that attempt to leak classified information to the press to serve their own political ends deserve a long vacation at Club Fed as a lesson to others who might consider trying their own rogue operations later.

UPDATE: MS-NBC says that the fired agent was the source for Dana Priest's story on the detention centers:

The leak pertained to stories on the CIA’s rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC. The information was allegedly provided to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, who wrote about CIA prisons in November and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for her reporting.

Sources said the CIA believes the officer had more than a dozen unauthorized contacts with Priest. Information about subjects other than the prisons may have been leaked as well.

Heritage Resource Bank: Slowing The Growth Of Government

The morning's second session here at the Broadmoor Hotel featured a discussion on the subject of slowing government growth and returning to limited government. Former attorney general Edwin Meese moderated the panel, which included John Caldara, John Fund, Tracie Sharp, Mark Hillman, and Greg Lindsay. The topic brought out some divergent opinions from the panelists, especially when Caldara said that limited-government conservatives should quit accommodating the GOP and start attacking them. He said that the Harriet Miers appointment proved how out of touch the Republicans have become after twelve years of majority and five years in the White House, and how going on offense can succeed in making necessary changes.

John Fund was more sanguine, noting that while conservatives might be getting pessimistic about the upcoming midterms, liberals have been positively morose about what they see is the tide of history turning against big government and socialist approaches to problems. He quipped that the Republican pessimism comes from the fact that "we send politicians to drain the swamp of Washington DC, and they decide it makes a great hot tub." One reason Fund remains more optimistic comes from the decision of the New York court to cut off automatic payment of union dues for the transit union that held an illegal strike. Fund thinks that more states will enact this as policy, requiring separate collection of dues, and that the low compliance rate (it's about 15% for the transit union right now) will bankrupt the union's use of dues for politicking.

Mark Hillman, who had been Colorado's Senate majority leader, disagrees with fighting the GOP. The key for him is to encourage primary fights for those incumbents who refuse to limit the growth of government. He wants to use the structure of the existing party to pull it back towards its philosophical roots.

I tend to agree with Hillman, although I'm not as optimistic as Fund about the state of the political balance. We need to identify Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and promote better candidates for their positions in the primaries. Settling for the Chafees of Congress just because they self-label as Republicans gets us nothing but more of the same big-spending, bureaucratic impulses that has made Katrina rebuilding such a nightmare.

Later, I'll talk more about the unions and the new transparency at the Department of Labor that will threaten their political power.

Terrorists, Inc. (Updated)

The Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority underscored its terrorist nature by placing one of the more notorious terrorists in charge of its new Islamist security forces. Jamal Abu Samhadana, whose track record includes the murder of US Marines in Gaza during a diplomatic mission, will create and command the new force:

The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority on Thursday named a guerrilla leader whose group has attacked Israel, and has been blamed for bombing a U.S. convoy, to head a new security force made up of Islamic militants.

Interior Minister Saed Siyam issued a decree appointing Jamal Abu Samhadana, head of the Popular Resistance Committees, as director general of his ministry. Abu Samhadana, a former security officer who was dismissed for refusing to report for duty during the uprising against Israel, was given the rank of colonel.

His group is responsible for many of the homemade rockets launched at Israel in recent weeks. It also is suspected by some of involvement in the attack on a U.S. Embassy convoy in Gaza that killed three Marine security guards in October 2003.

In case anyone doubted the nature of this regime, Hamas has just made it clear. They will recast the Palestinian protostate into an Islamist rogue nation, complete with Islamofascist terrorists as an arm of government oppression and aggression. The selection of Samhadana has to be seen as a deliberate slap at the West, especially the US. However, the Hamas embrace for Islamist terror confirms everything that the US has claimed about the new Palestinian government. It also provides yet another diplomatic embarrassment for Russia, if they even have the capability of experiencing shame any longer.

The US should immediately challenge Qatar and Saudi Arabia for their support of this regime and their funding of its operations. We need to make clear that those people who participated in the murder of our Marines while on a mission of peace -- remember that the diplomatic mission was to help the Palestinians in Gaza! -- will never comprise any government with which we will engage. Those Marines and their families deserve that much for their sacrifice. We should point out that nations who pay the salaries of those murderers will not be viewed as friends by the US.

Addendum: I find it interesting that the Washington Post put this report on page A16. Doesn't the creation of an Islamist terrorist force by the PA, headed by a man responsible for the murders of three Marines, justify a little more visibility than that? I do have to commend the Post for at least reporting the development; so far the LA Times couldn't be bothered, and the New York Times puts the issue of the murdered Marines below the "friction" Samhadana's appointment and the Islamist force will create with Mahmoud Abbas. Also, the NYT never quite gets around to mentioning that the force will comprise Islamist terrorists -- instead, it calls them "militants". All the news that fits our mindset, eh?

UPDATE: Abbas has issued a veto in no uncertain terms:

In their sharpest power dispute yet, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday blocked Hamas' plans to set up a shadow security force, which was to be made up of militants and to be headed by the No. 2 on Israel's wanted list.

Abbas issued a presidential decree vetoing the decisions made a day earlier by Interior Minister Said Siyam of Hamas. As president, Abbas wields considerable power and has the right to approve or reject key appointments. ...

In a letter to Haniyeh on Friday, Abbas wrote that "we have learned through the media that the interior minister issued decisions violating the law. "

"All the officers, soldiers and security personnel are asked not to abide by these decisions and to consider them non-existent," Abbas said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

That may solve the surface problem, but it doesn't negate the fact that the Palestinians voted into power an Islamofascist terror operation that will use the organs of the PA to expand its holy war on Israel and the West.

Polygamy Is Rather Taxing

A band of polygamists face prosecution from the state of Utah not for their unusual marital arrangements but because they refuse to pay property taxes. In a dispute that resulted from the collapse of their commune, the individual members of the LDS separatists have refused to pay the taxes due and may lose their homes. They have responded by fortifying defenses around the houses and community:

Thousands of polygamists are engaged in a highly unusual standoff here over property taxes that could ultimately cost them their houses or thrust them into a mainstream America they fear and despise.

In one corner is a group of 8,000 or so adherents of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, an offshoot of the Mormon Church that had long paid the property taxes of its members, sometimes even rolling a wheelbarrow through meetings to collect the needed cash. ...

The church hierarchy is in chaos. Its former leader is on the run, facing criminal charges of arranging sex between a minor and an adult in a polygamous marriage, leaving the old tax-collection system in shambles. Now the property taxes for hundreds of houses — around $1.3 million — are overdue and mounting.

This is not the first time in the spotlight for this group. Their prophet, Warren Jeffs, took off with a lot of the group's money last year. He has continued to collect tithes from the people in the FLDS community in Hildale while fleeing prosecution for arranging marriages between underage girls and older members of the sect. That money could be used to pay the back taxes, but the Prophet uses it to pad his fugitive lifestyle instead.

In that sense, the entire community could be prosecuting for aiding and abetting a fugitive, but the payments get handled by cash and are difficult to trace. Jeff's brother Seth got caught muling the tithes and special assessments that the Prophet has demanded. He now faces an indictment for concealment (hiding his brother).

This could turn out very badly, and authorities will have to proceed with caution. Fringe groups such as the FLDS often stockpile weapons, both to keep their own people in line and to hold off state law enforcement if necessary. A measure of their ruthlessness can be found in their abandonment of adolescent boys in large cities, attempting to whittle down the competition for the young girls of the group. So far, no one has been charged with these crimes, but it shows that they have little regard for law or for humanity in their zeal to promote their lifestyle. If it comes down to a shooting war, they wouldn't mind sacrificing a few of those same boys if it meant buying enough time to escape. And if Utah actually tries to evict them without an overwhelming presence of the law, they might just try it.

By the way, the FLDS and Hildale serve as an inspiration for HBO's new series, Big Love. It's not a representation of this specific group, but it is an intriguing dramatization of the same components of the issue. I'd recommend it to viewers; it does not in any way glamourize polygamy. In fact, it makes it look like one gigantic pain in the rear end even to those who profess to believe in it. Bill Paxton does an excellent job in the lead role, but Harry Dean Stanton is nothing short of bone-chilling in his portrayal of the group's prophet.

Immigration Takes A Turn Towards The Law

The roundup of over 1100 illegal immigrants working for a Houston pallet supply company signals the start of a new effort by the Department of Homeland Security to focus enforcement efforts on the companies that hire illegals. The managers of IFCO face up to ten years in prison after being arrested during the roundup for defying immigration and workplace laws against hiring illegals:

The apprehension on Wednesday of more than 1,100 illegal immigrants employed by a pallet supply company based in Houston, as well as the arrest of seven of its managers, represented the start of a more aggressive federal crackdown on employers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.

Describing the hiring of millions of illegal workers, in some cases, as a form of organized crime, Mr. Chertoff said the government would try to combat the practice with techniques similar to those used to shut down the mob.

"We target those organizations, we use intelligence to define the scope of the organization, and then we use all of the tools we have — whether it's criminal enforcement or the immigration laws — to make sure we come down as hard as possible and break the back of those organizations," Mr. Chertoff said at a news conference. ...

In the action on Wednesday, federal officials detained 1,187 illegal immigrants working in 26 states for IFCO Systems North America, a subsidiary of a company based in the Netherlands that supplies plastic containers and wood pallets used to ship a variety of goods, from fruit to computers.

Of the 1,187 detained workers, 275 have already been deported to Mexico. The rest are being processed for deportation, although many may be released on bond.

Many already have been bailed out by relatives, but over a quarter of them have been deported and the rest will likely follow. Television news, including Nightline, showed tearful reunions along with the usual "they're not breaking our laws" soundbites from the activists working on their behalf. Of course this isn't true -- they broke the law when they entered our country illegally, and they broke the law again when they took work without proper documentation. Many of them have false documentation, and if they do, they've broken the law again.

Will this arrest stop people from immigrating illegally into the US? Not at all, but that wasn't the intent of the raids that DHS staged yesterday. For the first time in a while, the government has decided to enforce the laws against the employers, and in a big way. It exposed the complicity of employers in gaining those false documents; DHS had an undercover agent fulfill their request for forged paperwork that enabled IFCO to employ these illegals. Not that paperwork mattered much to IFCO, as over half of the Social Security numbers used by its employees turned out to be either completely invalid, assigned to someone else entirely, or belonged to dead people.

IFCO, apparently, has a lot in common with Chicago elections of old.

Last year, Wal-Mart paid a fine of $11 million for its employment of illegals, but this case looks different. The managers involved in the conspiracy to defraud the DHS have been charged with felonies, and if convicted they will face serious prison time. IFCO executives have so far avoided being charged, but that may change when the attorneys for these managers start playing Let's Make A Deal. With the extent of the fraud as deep as it appears at IFCO, it would be difficult to believe that company executives did not know about the illegals, if not ordered the managers to get it done.

By cracking down on the professional class that participates in the hiring of illegals, the DHS provides a powerful disincentive for others to pursue them. It will take a lot more than one raid and a few convictions to make the point, as even Michael Chertoff acknowledges. However, if a few more executives wind up in the dock facing a few years at Club Fed, the business community will get the message and rethink their fraudulent practices.

This does not preclude any particular resolution to the status of the illegals in this country. Even without work, they have a better life here in the US than in their countries of origin. It won't push them back across the border in large numbers. The new effort will make a resolution from Congress more urgent and perhaps renew the focus on border security and enforcement, now that the DHS has finally started to act as though it wants to enforce existing laws.

Jafaari Blinks

Late word out of Iraq has Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari ending his bid for re-election to the position, paving the way for a national unity government that would signal stability to the Iraqi people:

Under intense domestic and American pressure, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari dropped his bid to retain his job on Thursday, removing a major obstacle to forming a new government during a time of rising sectarian violence.

Leaders from each of Iraq's main factions — Sunni Arab, Shiite and Kurd — called the decision a breakthrough.

"I believe that we will succeed in forming the national unity government the people are waiting for," Adnan Pachachi, the acting speaker of Parliament, said at a news conference at the Convention Center inside the fortified Green Zone.

But while Mr. Jaafari's capitulation after two months of resistance could indeed resolve the stalemate, daunting political challenges lie ahead. Leaders are battling over high-level posts, and a new government will need to revive a moribund civil sector and inspire confidence in public leadership.

Moreover, the likely candidates to replace Mr. Jaafari lack political stature, raising questions about whether they will be any more effective than he in leading a struggling government at a time of widening violence.

The candidate itself will not matter as much as the consensus that puts him into office. The leader of the Kurds has already stated that they will not oppose anyone else nominated by the Shi'ite caucus. That will probably be echoed in less dramatic terms by the Sunnis, meaning that the new PM will at least have a unified assembly as a start.

The New York Times report stresses the importance of American pressure on Jafaari's decision. That cuts both ways; it shows that the Bush administration has worked overtime to resolve the impasse, but it also means that the Iraqi insurgents will still use that as an excuse to claim American control of a supposed puppet regime in Baghdad. However, what this appears to be is an intervention by the ever-present Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has repeatedly intervened with recalcitrant Shi'ites to push them into negotiated agreements rather than the diktats which have snarled political processes in Iraq.

In any event, Jafaari's capitulation is good news, and hopefully it will break the logjam that has left Iraq without an executive since the January elections.

Heritage Foundation Resource Bank Event

Posting has been light as I have been attending the Heritage Foundation's annual Resource Bank event. Bridgett Wagner invited me to speak on a forum about the lessons of Hurricane Katrina and its implications for big-government solutions. Joining me on the panel was Ron Utt of Heritage as moderator, Louisiana state representative Steve Scalise, and Forest Thigpen of the Mississippi Center for public policy. Steve started by reviewing in detail the ways that FEMA has mismanaged the funds allocated to long-term recovery in New Orleans. Steve promised me a copy of his presentation, and I hope to collect it tomorrow; he did a wonderful job in relating how the government procurement process has sabotaged the clean-up and rebuilding of New Orleans while the money goes everywhere but where it's needed.

I'll give you one example that I recall from my notes. After almost eight months, much of the debris left behind by the hurricane and massive flooding has still not been removed -- which must happen before rebuilding can begin. One of Steve's constituents hired a private contractor to get the job done at $15 per cubic foot, but was warned repeatedly by FEMA officials that they would not reimburse him for the work since it had not gone through proper channels. After debating the point with FEMA for a while, the Louisianan gave up and applied for removal through FEMA. Instead of spending $15 per cubic foot, FEMA paid the new contractor $35 per cubic foot. Given that New Orleans has millions of cubic feet of debris to remove, the extra $20/cf will explode the costs of the cleanup.

Oh, and one other point about this anecdote: the contractor FEMA hired subbed the job to the original contractor hired by the constituent -- who got the same $15/cf that the constituent negotiated.

In a related issue, much of the debris could be recycled, such as steel and other materials. However, to the extent that anything has been cleaned up, 100% of it is going into landfills, a diminishing resource in the hurricane areas. The contractors hired by FEMA do not get paid any money for material that cannot be documented as ending up in the landfill, where it can be measured. Also, any money that the contractor receives for the recyclable material has to be given to FEMA in full. Without any incentive to spend time separating recyclable material to salvage the raw materials that could be used in rebuilding, it's all going into the trashheap instead.

Tell me that isn't a government program.

I spoke about the ability of blogs to report the actual facts and to combat the urban legends that arise, and gave several examples of Katrina myths exploded by the blogosphere. Without accurate information, people cannot arrive at rational policy decisions, and blogs can play a critical role in providing the facts. I also spoke about Porkbusters and the lack of sympathy towards it by entrenched politicos of both parties. That got a lot of attention, and hopefully the main Porkbusters sites will see a bit more traffic in the days ahead.

The Q&A; session afterwards brought some interesting questions. One person challenged me about the inefficacy of bureaucracies, maintaining that they performed some tasks quite well, as long as it involved non-time-critical functions with clear mandates; he gave the IRS as an example. I pointed out that bureaucracies exist to stop things from happening, and in some cases that can be useful. Bureaucracies can keep people from enacting hasty policies and procedures that could do damage. More often than not, however, it snarls efforts and bloats costs while almost intending that no real work gets accomplished.

In the above example, the FEMA bureaucracy could have been bypassed and block grants given directly to the residents for clearing debris and buying their own trailers, and it would have avoided all the subcontracting and middlemen that have escalated costs beyond belief. In doing so, the money could have been misused or fraudulently obtained without the FEMA bureaucracy to stop con men from exploiting the emergency relief efforts. However, we would also have seen a lot more work for people in the area for clean-up tasks and they probably would have finished it long ago. Bureaucracies don't work for emergency response efforts, and FEMA isn't unique among government agencies either. Solving the problem requires a different model, one that puts more of the decision-making power into local hands while assisting them financially.

I'll post more about this tomorrow. Posting will be light until Saturday, but I will still have a few items for CQ readers.

The Difference Between Anonymity And Deception

The Los Angeles Times columnist and blogger Michael Hiltzik has been suspended from his latter role after he admitted posting comments at other blog sites under names other than his own. Hiltzik has used more than one persona to defend himself from criticism at Patterico's Pontifications, the blog that regularly critiques the LA Times and its reporters. Patrick wrote that he suspected Hiltzik of using the varying identities to create an impression of a larger support for his work than truly existed:

In an early post on his L.A. Times-sponsored Golden State blog, Times columnist Michael Hiltzik was criticized by a couple of commenters calling themselves “Chad” and “Booker.” These commenters left juvenile comments mocking Hiltzik for explaining blogs to his readers. A commenter named “Mikekoshi” rose to Hiltzik’s defense, scolding the commenters for criticizing Hiltzik’s column ...

If Mikekoshi sounds a lot like Michael Hiltzik, that’s no coincidence. Because “Mikekoshi” is, in fact, Michael Hiltzik.

Since at least 2004, Hiltzik has left comments on the Internet under an invented pseudonym, at times explicitly pretending to be someone other than Michael Hiltzik. Actually, as we shall see below, the evidence is overwhelming that he has used more than one pseudonym. Hiltzik and his pseudonymous selves have echoed each other’s arguments, praised one another, and mocked each other’s enemies. All the while, Hiltzik’s readers have been unaware that (at a minimum) the acid-tongued “Mikekoshi,” who pops up from time to time at Hiltzik’s favorite blogs (including his own) defending Hiltzik and his newspaper, is in fact Hiltzik himself.

Hiltzik offered this defense in his penultimate posting at the Golden State Blog:

The right-wing blogger Patterico has apparently worked himself into a four-star ragegasm (Tbogg’s inimitable coinage) at the notion of anonymous or pseudonymous postings on his website by me. This is amusing, because most of the comments posted on his website are anonymous or pseudonymous. "Patterico" is itself a pseudonym for an Assistant Los Angeles District Attorney named Patrick Frey. Anonymity for commenters is a feature of his blog, as it is of mine. It’s a feature that he can withdraw from his public any time he wishes. He has chosen to do that in one case only, and we might properly ask why. The answer is that he’s ticked off that someone would disagree with him.

Set alight by my recent post tweaking Hugh Hewitt for his numbskulled method of analyzing newspaper economics and newspaper circulation, two subjects about which Hewitt claims omniscience and knows nothing, Frey evidently pored through the IP addresses of comments on his blog to discover that sometimes I commented under my own name, and sometimes under a pseudonym. ...

He seems to think that pseudonymous posting is deceptive, though he can’t articulate why that should be, given the abundance of pseudonyms and anonymity on his own blog starting with the name on the banner.

Anonymity in itself isn't deceptive, and Patterico would agree. I tried it for a while, but then included my name in e-mails, and so my anonymity didn't last long. Most of us do so just to keep our politics out of our professional lives; it doesn't amount to deception, just caution, as the recent contretemps with Bill Hobbs demonstrated. If Hiltzik wanted to comment anonymously, under one consistent pseudonym, no one would really care.

However -- and this is where Hiltzik gets intellectually dishonest -- he used multiple pseudonyms in order to set up phony interactions between comments that he had written himself. For CQ readers, think if Monkyboy, Vinceman, and Bayam all turned out to be the same person. (They're not, and this is only a hypothetical and no disrespect is intended.) Considering that they often disagree with my posts and other commenters and sometimes reference each other's arguments, it creates a phony concordance when in reality it would be the same person posting over and over again. It's dishonest, and it certainly appears intended for rhetorical intimidation.

Is that a journalistic/blogospheric mortal sin, on par with plagiarism? Of course not. But it does reveal the person to be somewhat dishonest, and also very immature. Who needs to make up imaginary friends on the Internet? It's not a blogofelony, but it's pretty pathetic.

Almost all of my commenters from all sides remain anonymous, and their anonymity is a choice they have made for their own reasons, probably very good ones. Pseudonyms have a long and glorious tradition in literature and journalism, and they provide certain rational benefits to honest people. What Hiltzik did is to abuse that tradition, and for that the Los Angeles Times has rightly suspended him. They should make that permanent and have one of their other columnists take over the site.

UPDATE: Fixed my mispelling of Hiltzik and a bad HTML tag, as well as cleaned up a grammatical error.

The Saddam Files: Why Make IEDs In 2000?

Joseph Shahda has translated yet another interesting document from the captured Iraqi files, although this one prompts more questions than it provides answers. The memo dictates goals for the year 2000 that involve the development and improvement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have been the mainstay of the insurgencies in Iraq after the fall of Saddam (via Power Line):

In the Name of God the Most Merciful the Most Compassionate The Presidency of the Republic The Intelligence Apparatus Mr: The Respected Director

Subject: Projects of a Plan

Below are projects of the plan for the year 2000 and according to the budget suggested for it in the spending budget of the year 2000 and as follow:

1. Prepare an armored brief case to protect the VIPs 180 days.

2. Study on the Epoxy used currently in preparing the IEDs and the possibility of finding another type that will not affect the explosive.

3. Studies and researches of the materials that increase the intensity of the explosive.

4. Prepare theoretical and applied lessons on the popular explosives 120 days.

5. Training of the Arab Fedayeens- within the plan of the year 2000.

Establish tournaments specialized in the explosives 30 days.

Please review and your command with regards.

SignatureÂ…

Khaled Ibrahim Ismail
Senior Chemist
22/11/99

Nothing in this memo speaks to WMD, at least not explicitly, nor of any notable breach of the cease-fire agreements or UNSC resolutions. It does raise some questions. Why would the Iraqi military have spent so much time and effort in IED development in 2000? After all, the Americans had not attacked Iraq in force since 1991. Almost exactly one year prior to the memo from this senior chemist in the IIS, Bill Clinton had retaliated for the expulsion of the UN inspectors by firing a fusillade of missiles at Baghdad, but no hint of an invasion or even a sustained military effort had come from the US since the Gulf War.

IEDs have no military use; the shells used for their construction have much better effect if fired normally at an enemy. And yet, not only do we have Iraqi intelligence investigating these explosive devices, this memo even proposes "tournaments", presumably for competing designs. It also mentions "Arab fedayeens", a term that Americans might remember from the irregular Ba'athist forces called the Saddam Fedayeen which formed the core of the native insurgency as Baghdad fell. (They also preyed upon the regular Iraqi Army to prevent desertions and surrenders during the conflict.) In this context, "Arab fedayeen" obviously refers to non-native forces, and irregulars rather than soldiers from another allied country -- in other words, Arab terrorists.

Given all of this information, it seems clear that Iraq had planned to train and equip Arab terrorists on the manufacture and use of IEDs. They intended on doing research on making these terrorist weapons even deadlier and more effective, and they wanted it all done before the end of 2000. They may not have realized their own need for the technology in 1999, but they certainly considered the program so urgent at that time that they pushed to get it completed within a year.

It looks like those ties between Saddam and terrorism keep getting stronger every day.

UPDATE and BUMP: Some have questioned the translation for IED and the significance of the term "Arab fedayeen". Joseph Shahda responded through a CQ commenter:

From jveritas | 04/20/2006 5:18:45 AM PDT new

Thanks for the update.

The Iraqi used the word "IBWAT" which mean "EXPLOSIVE DEVICES" used in cars, roads, and other places. That is what we call IED. Moreover the Synopsis posed by the Pentagon website for the particular document used the word IED, unfortunately the Pentagon translator did not include or missed in his/her synopsis the important part of this memo, which is the "Training of Arab Feedayeens" by the Iraqi Intelligence, i.e. the training of non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists.

If they wanted to train Iraqi Army soldiers in the construction and use of IEDs, why would they refer to them as "Arab fedayeen" in a secret memo? They would have referred to them by their unit designation or their deployment, or in the case of the Saddam Fedayeen, by that specific name.