McCain Compromises Obama's Security

By Cernig

Oh yeah, America's national security would be soooo safe in John McCain's hands! This via TPM:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

... If it is true that Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, it is a very serious mistake for McCain to have disclosed it publically. Even for run-of-the-mill CODELs the military gives guidance like, "Please strongly discourage Congressional offices from issuing press releases prior to their trips which mention their intent to travel to the AOR and/or the dates of that travel or their scheduled meetings. Such releases are a serious compromise to OPSEC." If Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, I can not begin to imagine how much this is complicating the security planning for the trip.

Let's just say this - if Obama did it, he'd be pilloried as naive on security issues at the very least, if not actual treason. Yet over at the Politico they just want to say this is a minor lapse of judgement (which is code for McCain being a senile old fart again). Then again, maybe McCain's just inviting AQI to have a go at his rival. Certainly, a charge of "aiding and abetting the enemy" might stick - ignorance is no defense, after all.

Update: I see Obama went to Afghanistan first, after a brief visit to Kuwait to talk to US troops there. The obvious place to go from Kuwait is to Iraq. Want to bet the Obama campaign quickly rearranged matters after McCain's "loose lips" moment?

Comments

[JB]

"ignorance is no defense, after all."

Uh. Yes it is. To commit any crime, you must have the requisite mens rea.

And it's...um...ignorant to suggest otherwise.

[Two Dogs]

Maybe, John McCain got that information from every single news show, newspaper, blog and website in the entire world. Obviously JMM posts from a cave high atop the Himalayas and with his head stuck in a bucket, because this information has been orgasmically reported every day for over two weeks. It's like the reincarnation of the Beatles. They should call it "The Lemmings Tour."

Did McCain offer a map showing the areas of Obama's Changapotamus Tour that located the best chances for the Jooooos to kill Barry?

JMM is a retard for reading Reuters.

[Cernig]

Two Dogs, who the hell is JMM? If you're going to cut n paste your comment from blog to blog, at least change the name of the blog author, eh?

And while many sources speculated that Obama's trip would begin this week and might begin in Iraq, not one was as specific as McCain was.

JB, ignorance is no defense when giving material aide to terrorists. The White House says so. Donate to the wrong charity, for instance.

Regards, C

[JB]

"JB, ignorance is no defense when giving material aide to terrorists. The White House says so. Donate to the wrong charity, for instance.

Regards, C"

Yes, it is.

Maybe you could link the law that says all you have to do is donate money to the wrong charity, without knowing that it's doing anything wrong, without intending that your aid be used to do anything wrong.

There isn't one. Because if there was, every ACLU lawyer between here and the Kremlin would be screaming bloody murder about their freedom of association rights.

You have to know what you're doing.

[BJ Bjornson]

"ignorance is no defense, after all."
Uh. Yes it is. To commit any crime, you must have the requisite mens rea.

Mens rea is the ability to foresee the consequences of your actions. Ignorance that your actions may be illegal isn't a defense. And the language is usually worded as to what a “reasonable person” would be able to foresee as being a consequence, so for McCain to claim innocence for his violation of OpSec, he would have to prove diminished mental capacity such that he was unable to foresee what any reasonable person, particularly one with extensive military experience, would have easily been able to see as a violation.

[Steve Hynd]

JD, how's this?

The USA Patriot Act of 2001[1] and the REAL ID Act of 2005[2] created a new bar to admissibility for individuals who provide “material support” to a terrorist.[3] The Patriot Act also changed the definition of what constitutes a foreign terrorist organization, greatly increasing the number of organizations that fall under this label.[4] The new definition includes any group of two or more people who take up arms against a state, even if the group supports the aims of American foreign policy and does not appear on the government’s designated list of terrorist groups.[5]

Thousands of refugees overseas and asylum seekers in the U.S. have had their cases denied or put on indefinite hold by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because they, often under threat of death, provided “material support” in the form of goods and services to terrorist groups.[6]

Some cases where it is believed that the “material support to terrorism” rule has been applied in a manner consistent with the letter of the law but inconsistent with the humanitarian intention of the refugee and asylum laws are:

A Nepali health professional who was kidnapped by Maoist rebels and forced to provide medical aid to injured rebels, and the DHS argues that this constitutes providing material support to the rebel group.[7]
A Colombian nurse who says she was abducted by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia outside Bogota and was forced to treat one of their soldiers, and who fled the country after her life was threatened in a note to her family. Her asylum request was rejected in 2006.[8]
A fisherman from Sri Lanka who was abducted by the Tamil Tigers and forced to pay his own ransom.[9]
The refugee admissions programs for Colombia and Burma have been nearly shut down by the agencies’ application of the “material support” bar.[10]

According to some interpretations of the Patriot Act, Hmong refugees in the U.S. who fought in Laos alongside U.S. forces during the Vietnam War are former terrorists who fought against the communist Laotian government.[11] Administration officials acknowledge that the language in the laws could have an unintended effect on these fighters.[12] Thus, family members and others who provided any level of support to the Laotian fighters are also barred from admissibility by the material support rule.

Compounding the problems created by the broad definitions is that the DHS is not communicating with applicants for refugee status, asylum, or adjustment of status that the applications are being held up because of this material support rule, according to Sophia De Wit, project director of the Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries.[13]

Even though most conservatives support the general anti-terrorism thrust of the USA Patriot Act and the Real ID Act, says Gary Bauer, president of the conservative public policy group American Values, enforcement of the law has “lapsed into ludicrousy.” “The concept of material support “is being distorted, and even the definition of the term ‘terrorism’ is being turned on its ear.”[14]

Regards, C

[Steve Hynd]

And then of course there was the bit that until recently interfered with humanitarian groups ability to give aid.

NEW YORK (12/11/2007) - In yet another ruling striking down a provision of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that some portions of the act that criminalize support of blacklisted foreign organizations are unconstitutionally vague. Yesterday's ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upholds a 2005 decision by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in 2006 on behalf of humanitarian organizations including Oxfam, Operation USA, and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, all of which are concerned that the law interferes with their ability to provide humanitarian aid to desperately needy civilian populations. In the brief, the ACLU argued that sweeping provisions of the Patriot Act barring "expert advice or assistance" or "training" to groups considered terrorist organizations by the State Department prevented humanitarian groups from providing aid in war-torn areas, because in those areas it is sometimes impossible to provide aid without working with or through organizations that engage in both lawful and unlawful activity.

The ACLU charged that the law pertaining to providing "material support" to groups would allow a humanitarian organization to be prosecuted for providing support after a natural disaster, even if the organization's goals were entirely laudable and even if the donations were used only for legitimate humanitarian purposes.

Note the last line?

Regards, C

[gawfer]

Good Lord, dude,

You think he might have got it from Couric, Gibson, Williams or one of the other Main Stream Media divulgers of sensitive information?

You don't think the bad guys read the NYT or watch CNN?

Do you think the braggerts in his employ maintained confidentiality? PULEESE!

[JB]

"Mens rea is the ability to foresee the consequences of your actions. Ignorance that your actions may be illegal isn't a defense. And the language is usually worded as to what a “reasonable person” would be able to foresee as being a consequence"

No, sorry, you're wrong. Foreseeability is different than mens rea. Mens rea is level of intent. If you kill somebody, and you meant to kill them, you're guilty of murder; if you didn't mean to kill them, you're guilty of manslaughter.

[JB]

"Cernig"

Uhm. I hate to point this out, but none of those cases you cited in either of those posts involved ignorance that you were supporting terror.

And as to the immigrants in your first post, they weren't being prosecuted for crimes. And the problem wasn't calling people guilty for things they didn't intend, it was vagueness.

And yes, I noted that last line, but unfortunately, it doesn't support your argument. It says the organizations can be prosecuted. For actually working with designated terrorist organizations. The donors, however, cannot be prosecuted. And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, anyway: if they're working with terrorist organizations, then the money cannot only be used for legitimate humanitarian purposes.

AS to your second post,

[JB]

Oops. Technical problems.

Put "As to your second post" after my second paragraph, and add:

again, no ignorance here. And again, the problem was vagueness.