15 of 65: Defining the problem to be addressed is essential to designing an effective strategy. If Treasury sees the core problem as inadequate bank capital in relation to bank obligations, certain strategies to address that problem will follow. On the other hand, if Treasury sees the problem as unclear asset valuation, consumer caution, or accounting failures, other strategies would follow. Treasury has still not explained precisely what it sees as the problem.

To increase transparency and accountability to protect taxpayers, Treasury will:

- launch a new website, FinancialStability.gov, to detail where federal funds are going and whether they are succeeding in stabilizing the financial system and promoting new lending, including posting all contracts on the Internet.

FinancialStability: To address the financial crisis, the Financial Stability Plan is designed to attack our credit crisis on all fronts with our full arsenal of financial tools and the resources commensurate to the depth of the problem.

Geithner: "As costly as this effort may be, we know that the cost of a complete collapse of our financial system would be incalculable for families, for businesses and for our nation."

Yahoo: Hackers broke into the Federal Aviation Administration's computer system last week, accessing the names and Social Security numbers of 45,000 employees and retirees.

The FAA certified that the GAO finding-recommendation had been implemented:

GAO: Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator, FAA, to, in the area of information systems security management, complete the information systems security directives.

Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

Status: Implemented

Comments: FAA has issued security directives on its information systems security program, internet access points, internet services, software releases, and password administration. Additional directives are being developed and planned.

- How were the originally "closed" or "implemented" auditing findings reviewed on a periodic basis?

- Which FAA senior leadership personally reviewed the stated compliance program, and veritified (using what methods) that the "compliance program" met the requirements FAA said to GAO that it had met?

1. Where is the reconciliation table showing how the management practices have been adequately incorporated into the stress testing and periodic software security programs;

2. How many similar "industry practices" has the National Security Agency reviewed, certified as compliant; or has the NSA, as appears to be the case, put more emphasis on other areas, and let "low priority data requirements" fall through the cracks

GAO, 1997: (6) these management practices provide proven, practical methods for addressing the federal government's information management problems, maximizing benefits from technology spending, and controlling the risks of system acquisition and development efforts; (7) the challenge now is for agencies to apply this framework to their own technology efforts;

What scope of software data protection requirements are not getting filled;

What reason, after 9-11, has the NSA and other agencies developed methods to continue hiring allied nationals who are supposedly "with" the US in the "war on terror"

How many nations has the NSA decertified because of trivial reasons, thereby ensuring necessary software development efforts cannot proceed

How many people have contractors or US government personnel falsely accused to protect their jobs, only to alienate the very people who might be in the position to constructively provide assistance

GAO: Of 153 mission critical FAA systems that were remediated, 15 had foreign involvement, including Chinese, Ukranian, and Pakistani nationals.

IT examiner: This is a second instance of employee data being compromised. Waters said that earlier his union complained to the FAA and the inspector general of the Transportation Department about mailings to employees generated from information that seemed to originate in FAA files. He claims that nothing was done about it. Waters doesn't have a high opinion of the IT systems people, who, he says, "need to take a long hard look at themselves and their capabilities. This is malpractice in their world." he claims.

GAO: $2.3 billion for facilities and equipment;

AP: Tom Waters, president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3290, said FAA officials told unions representing agency employees at a briefing Monday that the second breached file with personal information contained encrypted medical information.

GAO: "(6) further, FAA has not always acted quickly to implement corrective actions for the systems that have undergone risk assessments and penetration testing; (7) FAA has established an information systems security management structure, but does not yet have a comprehensive security program in place;"

This problem of glacial problem resolution continued:

AP: "These government systems should be the best in the world and apparently they are able to be compromised," said Waters, an FAA contracts attorney. "Our information technology systems people need to take a long hard look at themselves and their capabilities. This is malpractice in their world."

GAO: "(1) FAA's agencywide computer security program has serious and pervasive problems;"

AP: Waters said FAA officials told union leaders the incident was the first of its kind at the agency. But he said his union complained about three or four years ago about an incident in which employees received anti-union mail that used names and addresses that appeared to be generated from FAA computer files.

GAO: "(9) FAA has not yet fully implemented an intrusion detection capability that will enable it to quickly detect and respond to malicious intrusions."

Lack of Confidence In FAA Management Response

Today's problem isn't narrowly the data breach, but whether, on the back of the previous questionable FAA statements, we should believe management is genuinely concerned about a trivial matter of employee data. This is the agency that moved slowly on flight security.

The Union leadership reports they filed reports about the data breaches, but were not satisfied with the responses, if any:

AP: He said the union complained to the FAA and the Transportation Department's inspector general but no action was taken.

We need to find out why, given the FAA's apparent misleading statements about this incident, what's happened between 2000-2009.

FAA Policy Compliance Problem

These statements attributed to the FAA do not appear consistent with GAO findings that the FAA was glacial in responding to auditing concerns.

AP: The server that was accessed was not connected to the operation of the air traffic control system and there is no indication those systems have been compromised, the statement said "The FAA is moving quickly to prevent any similar incidents and has identified immediate steps as well as longer-term measures to further protect personal information," the statement said. The agency said it is providing a toll-free number for employees "who believe they may be affected by the breach."

GAO: "(4) in the area of facilities' physical security, FAA is making progress in assessing its facilities, but FAA has identified significant weaknesses, and numerous air traffic control (ATC) facilities have yet to be assessed and accredited as secure, in compliance with FAA's policy;"

4. Double Standard for US Government, Public

American citizens, if they were found to have breached any of the above requirements, could be investigated, subject to intrusive questioning, and threated with if not prosecuted.

Yet, the US government refused to prosecute personnel who attest they  have met agency requirements, but those attestations are invalid. The public should reasonably challenge the double standard between how government officials are oversee and how the American public is daily confronted.

Government Statements Given Undue Deference

One of the ideas of audits is to detect problems, and adjust. Yet, it appears there were multiple FAA certifications that things were fine, problems had been addressed, or there were not longer issues. The public has been getting dubious statements from the US government about whether they have or have not complied with minimum security requirements.

- What information have they collected on the public;
- What provisions are there to safeguard this information;
- What methods have they used to disseminate this information;
- Does the public know how incorrect information is provided to non-government institutions including credit reporting agencies, employers, or other non-security personnel
- With this many problems with DOT being incapable of "implementing" security programs (which it falsely asserted had been "implemented") why should the public believe DOT has an adequate handle on claims about how private information on US citizens (not just FAA employees) is appropriately safeguarded, or that the data security promises are being met?

A. Directives Not Implemented As Certified

GAO: Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator, FAA, to, in the area of information systems security management, complete the information systems security directives.

Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

Status: Implemented

Comments: FAA has issued security directives on its information systems security program, internet access points, internet services, software releases, and password administration. Additional directives are being developed and planned.

B. Security Management Policies Not Implemented As Certified

GAO: Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator, FAA, to, in the area of information systems security management, fully implement and enforce all security policies.

Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

Status: Implemented

Comments: FAA is implementing its information systems security policies. Specifically, it is tracking security training of all key ISS personnel, proceeding to assess, certify and accredit information systems as secure, and its computer security incident response center is operational.

---

C. Ongoing Management Review of Training Courses Inadequate Despite Certifying "Implemented"

GAO: Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator, FAA, to, in the area of information systems security management, complete efforts to develop and implement new information systems security training courses.

Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

Status: Implemented

Comments: FAA has developed a series of security training courses. These include system certification and accreditation courses and information systems security officer training. Additionally, FAA is developing new courses to be offered in 2003.

---

D. Inadequate Management Assessment of Possible Security Breaches On All Systems, Despite Certifying "Implemented"

GAO: Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator, FAA, to, in the area of service continuity, assess the effects of security breaches on all systems.

Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

Status: Implemented

Comments: FAA's Computer Security Incident Response Center now assesses reported security incidents and their impact on FAA.

---

E. Inadequate Contingency Planning To Mitigate Security Breaches, Despite Certifying "Implemented" (Unreliable Agency Public Statements)

GAO: Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator, FAA, to, in the area of service continuity, enhance existing contingency plans to address potential systems security breaches.

Agency Affected: Department of Transportation

Status: Implemented

Comments: Under FAA's information systems security policy, system-specific contingency plans are required as part of the systems certification and authorization process. FAA reports that it has certified and authorized critical air traffic control systems.

Official Policy of Not Documenting Misconduct In Email To Avoid Creating Adverse Evidence

A. Which security protocols do DOT or DHS-related security personnel have to meet, but the auditors have not discovered how contractors are engaging in illegal detentions, searches of American citizens?

Illegal Methods To Acquire Private Information For Improper Purposes

B. What information has DOT or DHS collected, what assurances were made about safeguarding that information; but how have DOT or DHS contractors actually provided that information to third parties outside US government control

US Government, HD-IC Non-Cooperation To Ensure Data Validity

C. What method does the public have to timely ensure that false information based on DHS or DOT contractors is removed from the system

Dubious Shield of Terrorism Undermines Public Support

D. To what extent are false accusations by DHS or DOT-connected personnel, contractors at the federal, state, or local level being used to pretextually start "terror related investigations" without adequate oversight

Circular Reasoning To "Justify" Illegal, Intrusive Intelligence Gathering Against American Citizens

E. To what extent are "terror-related investigations" -- which do not find any adverse information -- given additional investigative resources because the investigators "just know" that the "reason" they can't find any evidence is because the "person is hiding it"? This is circular reasoning to justify abuse of innocents at Guantanamo.

Misrepresentations To Mask Official Misconduct

- What supposed "legal compliance programs" have HD-IC asserted to the courts that they are fully meeting as a method to reduce settlement agreements, or paint the picture that an incident is an anomoly; but, in fact, there are management policies which condone false statements, false accusations against the public, or improper employee-contractor conduct during official investigations?

- What methods exist to ensure DHS-DOT-connected contractors, security personnel, or others involved with infrastructure protection do not get the impression that they can misrepresent the details of an "incident" to distract attention from their illegal activity or security breaches?

Obstruction of Justice

- What methods does the FBI have to review whether statements from DHS-DOT-related security personnel, contractors at the federal, state, or local level are not misrepresenting the details of a "security incident"?

Methods To Detect Government, Contractor Fraud In Deteriorating Economic Conditions

- What method with the new AG and President used to ensure there is a proper balancing, outside the court, on whether to believe "accusations" by personnel who have a heightened interest in this economic crisis to deflect attention from their misconduct, maintain job security, and create problems for others?

"Terror Threat" As An Ongoing Excuse To Violate Constitution

- How many times has DHS-DOT-related contractors or security personnel used a "terror related investigation" has the pretext to confront what they believe are auditors who have detected evidence of agency misconduct, security breaches, or other questionable conduct warranting contract termination?

Official Misrepresentations To Thwart 1983 Actions

- To what extent are legal counsel adequately incorporating evidence of dubious DHS-DOT-related contractors' statements within 42 USC 1983 claims, and impeaching contractor "witnesses" who have attempted to deflect attention from their improper conduct?

Intimidation: Targeting Outside Detection of Officials Misconduct

- How often does the US government, DOT-DHS contractors, or other security personnel use "terror related investigations" as a smokescreen to target American citizens who are aware of security breaches, illegal activity, or improper contractor conduct?

Lessons from US in Iraq: Improper Deference To US Government, Contractors Over Civilians

- To what extent are DOT-DHS security contractors using "terror related investigations" as a shield to hide files, employees, or other evidence from court review or possible witness impeachment when conducting discovery DOT-DHS assaults on American constitutional rights?

- Does President Obama plan to allow DHS-DOT-related "terror related investigations" to be a shield to discovery when American citizens attempt to understand how employees have misrepresented information during official investigations to deflect attention from their misconduct, security breaches, or non-authorized disclosure of sensitive information?

If you want to productively spend your time, there's something you can do: Discuss the specific solutions which will reform the failed governance model.

The government is belatedly begging for American citizen input. This isn't leadership, but an admission the elected officials and their paid lobbyists have run out of ideas.

Their goal is to take credit for creating a wider net of blame. Yet, when it comes to their power and authority, they rush to the very governance model they ignore and exploit; and demand we rally around their incompetence.

Abuse isn't just how power is abused, but how power, when not used, allows an emerging threat to blossom into another crisis. The current governance model fails to aggressively challenge and defeat malfeasance and neglect.

Supportable Governance Effectively Manages Problems

This governance model consistently allows problems to spiral out of control. There is another way. Management means adjusting to solve problems as they emerge, not react after the crisis becomes foregone conclusions.

The current model rewards systems, professions, and careerists who have a perverted sense of loyalty and priorities. Better governance would require the power and rights of the people to be placed first; and institutionalize as Constitutional requirements basic economic governance standards including auditing, oversight, and financial regulation.

Powerful and corrupt forces have thwarted the needed reforms. The new governance model most check, confront, and, where needed, defeat these forces, not create loopholes to allow them to fester and threaten our common security.

The changes must compel the leadership to timely conduct oversight, investigate, risk mitigate risk, and steward the economy -- things lawyers explained away as quaint.  Then let the lawyers explain away a new established order which makes their defiance illegal.

There needs to be a crushing assault on the independence of the legal profession. They were "called" to rubber stamp war crimes, FISA violations, Geneva violations, and loose financial regulations. The profession failed to timely put the rule of law before their secret agreements to man.

Reform within new governance is possible. We must aggressively ensure the three branches put the Constitution first, not subordinate the Supreme Law to political favoritism and recklessness.

The new governance must compel the leadership to prudently act, deny them the discretion to do nothing about horrendous activity, and force leadership to lead.

Some suggest we muddle through, and as the economy spirals down, then we get serious about changes in governance. Why wait?

These issues indirectly relate to the President's economic advisory board and his recent executor order: We need some leadership and feedback on the bailout.

GAO (via Public Integrity): "The largest highway, transit, and safety grant programs distribute funds through formulas that are typically not linked to performance and, in many cases, have only an indirect relationship to needs. Mechanisms generally do not link programs to the federal objectives they are intended to address, in part due to the wide discretion granted to states and localities in using most federal funds. Furthermore, surface transportation programs often do not employ the best tools and approaches available, such as rigorous economic analysis for project selection and a mode-neutral approach to planning and investment."

November 2008: "The new Economic Recovery Advisory Board will be charged with offering independent, nonpartisan information, analysis, and advice to the President as he formulates and implements his plans for economic recovery."

What have they been doing since November 2008: Are there copies of their minutes available for public review;

Why is the same board going to do something different on a larger scale, but it still hasn't confronted the smaller-scale TARP vision problem?

Why should we believe the new same board (with the same mission) is going to give us better recommendations; and

Is this just repackaging another committee to present more options Congress cannot agree within the framework of a bailout plan

One Problem Behind Financial Crisis: Creating Too Much Capacity, Without Attention To Detail

The common lesson of 9-11, Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, and this financial crisis: "Oh, we'll take care of that later."

• Food

It would be worse, but not surprising, to lean the US spent time creating more transportation capacity, but didn't set aside funds for the needed roads, and missed a problem with food production or food delivery.

• Material Supply
  

Supposedly, some of the bailout money went to the auto industry because they needed money to ensure parts deliveries. It would not be surprising in this environment to learn the parts suppliers don't have the needed raw materials and support to produce much less transport the needed parts for commercial and defense requirements.

• Consumer Demand, Markets

It would also not be surprising to learn the US, as it focuses inward on this crisis, neglects the needed requirements of foreign consumers. One day we will emerge from this crisis, but we need to think about ensure the foreseeable markets are sustained, and that we maintain the needed economic ties to those consumers, whether they are domestic or international.

It does not make sense to create more capacity while the existing infrastructure maintenance requirements are not getting met: Ensuring bridges are safe with maintenance for existing infrastructure.

Preamble: " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

1. Where is there a table showing which specific GAO findings need to be incorporated into the proposed stimulus plan?

2. Where is the plan to specifically list the identified problems with the TARP management?

3. Where is the plan to ensure the lessons from the TARP management are combined with the findings of the GAO report?

4. What is the deadline to update the DOT strategic plan will be updated to reflect the financial goals and priorities of the bailout?

5. Where are the individual program status charts for each of these programs; with a one-for-one discussion of how the issues in the GAO report and the TARP lessons will be addressed by each of the identified programs?

6. When does the DOT secretary plan to publish, for public review and comment, a copy of the time-phasing of the proposed budget outlays; and a reconciliation table showing how the GAO-identified problems and TARP issues are monitored, with intermediate milestone reviews, and decision points to adjust as economic conditions deteriorate?

7. What is the plan of the DOT leadership to ensure that funds-not-expended are adequately reprogrammed internally; and discuss how the DOT funds reprogramming based on funds execution will likely affect future DOT projects. Discuss the impacts in terms of funding requirements, cost overruns, program schedule slips, and impacts to the sustainment goals and the economic stimulus:

- What are the DOT priorities, from project one down to the last
- If there are limited funds, which programs does DOT plan to cut first
- How will DOT decide whether to cut or descope a specific program
- How will the identified risk areas within each program relate to each economic goal of the stimulus package

- Economic development goals (New manpower, economic multipliers)
- Infrastructure sustainment (Percent of logistics pipeline repairs)
- Success criteria for each of those programs
- Performance relative to decision points and contract termination criteria

Would they rather hold onto everything they had, and possibly lose it all; or would they rather give up a portion of their wealth with the prospect that there would be a recovery.

- What assurances can the leadership provide that there is a plan in place to ensure we have a viable transportation system in place with a secondary or tertiary financial crisis;

- Where is there some realistic planning should the economic capacity fall by 40%;

- What are the plans to ensure minimal sustain requirements for parts, raw material, and essential logistics support requirements are getting priority;

- Which flawed planning assumptions re Katrina, 9-11, and Iraq have been resolved to ensure American citizens do not suffer the same flawed contracting, financial waste, and mismanagement;

- When will the national leadership provide a coherent table showing (a) how the planning debacles of 9-11, Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, and this financial crisis have been (b) responsibly mitigated within the US economic recovery plan?

A. How is DOT working with DOD to ensure we have the minimum logistics requirements needed to sustain high priority combat support?

B. How is DoD working with DOT to ensure basic parts requirements needed for DoD, government, and commercial requirements are getting priority: Do we need some special sustainment funds allocated through DoD that can jointly support government and backup transportation requirements?

C. What is the decision point to transition funds from new capacity to either basic maintenance requirements; and how do these decision points square with the lead time to end support for and close existing pipelines?

D. When do we need to discuss a military draft to make up for some of the manning short falls DOT has identified and could impact DOD's ability to timely deploy for foreseeable military contingencies?

E. Are we satisfied with the current economic investment for future scientists, material processors, engineers, and others required to support quality manufacturing, parts development, and methods to create emergency backup parts suppliers during a sustained economic downturn and increased DoD combat support requirements?

F. What lessons do we need to glean from the Russians about how they transferred facility operations to Siberia as the Nazis advanced into Western Russia during WWII?

G. What is the backup plan to ensure that food is not left rotting in fields because of a breakdown in the transportation system?

H. What is DoD's role in assisting farmers in preserving the food supply, ensuring its safe delivery, and providing for safe storage; should this be contracted to a delivery system which has not yet been developed?

What do we need to start now doing to prepare us for a scale of  transition we saw in Russia during WWII?

We discuss the basis for our conclusions, and provide recommendation for the National Security Council in light of these objectives and this agenda. We assume you've read this testimony and his written responses. This information may be useful for the principals listed here.

Background: The information relates to the failed DIA effort to link formerly detained Guantanamo prisoners to alleged post-release terrorism.

The NYT reported two individuals were in a video. The NYT reports there is a belief that one of the men disclosed a number matching a prisoner number at Guantanamo. 

The media has reported there is a discrepancy in the name, suggesting the name change has something to do with a different spelling, pronunciation. 

Contrasting the "Two Versions" of "the Name"

The name repoted in the video: Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Awfi

The name associated with the Guantanamo prisoner number: Mohamed Atiq Awayd al-Harbi, 333 

Explanation disclosed in the NYT report:

"The difference in names is partly due to the common Arab practice of referring to men by their kunya, an honorific, in this case Abu Hareth, derived from the name of his first son. The name Al Harbi is a tribal designation." 

1. Photo Comparison

Argument: The video is evidence. Arguably, under Geneva, the photographs taken of the "prisoner 333" are releasable to the public because they are no longer a prisoner of war. The public needs to see a certified copy of the photographs taken of the prisoner's face while in captivity. Then the public can independently compare the images the US government certifies were taken of the POW with the still images from the newly released video. 

2. Names

The names do not match exactly. al-Harbi and al-Awfi in spelling or sound. The former has a distinct "r", while the latter does not include the hard r or b sounds of the former.

The US government needs to explain why - for many years in captivity - the POW agreed to be called by the wrong name, with the mismatching sound. This difference has implications for: Tracing the names of the supposed people behind the 9-11 attacks; and the NSA monitoring done using similar linguistics. Different audible sounds mean two different pronunciations of different words are getting matched as if they are the same. This is flawed.

3. Reference to Son 

The NYT report, in part, attributes some of the change in name to a "son's name. We need to know when the son was born; the timing of the birth relative to the prisoner's timelines at Guantanamo. We also need to have independent confirmation that there is a son by this name; and there is a reasonable relationship between the supposed son and the name provided within the video. We also need an explanation why the name of the son, not the prisoner's father or other relative, was incorporated into the name.

The public needs to understand when both names were first loaded into the NSA monitoring systems; and whether the primary focus of the monitoring was foreign intelligence; or whether there was a different objective.

he disclosure of the video, names, and different spellings create a discrete point-certain when documents would co-jointly contain both names. We need to know when the Pentagon first learned of the first name; and what comparison was done with the different spellings. 

5. Speed of Disclosure

Normally, when the US government gathers intelligence, it does not quickly disclose information. The timing of the disclosure is suspect. DIA recently released discredited information suggesting more than a handful of former POWs had returned to the fight. 

The NYT report does not cite, as it should, the source of the information; nor the basis to conclude that the person in the video does or does not match the person who was photographed at Guantanamo. We haven no information about the source of the information related to who did the analysis of the name change; nor whether the explanation, even if true, stands scrutiny by competing analysts.

We have no information about the following:

- How the video was acquired

- What method, if any, was used to authenticate the video: That it correctly depicted persons

- What method, if any, was  used to establish the location the video was taken 

Part II: Detailed Comments

Article: ROBERT F. WORTH. 2 Ex-Detainees in Qaeda Video. New York Times, Sunday, January 25, 2009

This conclusion is too fantastic to believe:

NYT: "Two former Guantanamo Bay detainees now appear to have joined Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch, which released a video on Friday showing them both and identifying them by their names and Guantanamo detainee numbers."  

The basis to conclude that the person released was the same person in the video; or that the information about the leadership reasonably matches the information within the video.

It is possible that someone learned of a possible change in leadership, and assigned thatinformation to a former POW. The lack of information about the sourcing, method toauthenticate, and the basis for the conclusions raises doubts about the credibility of theconclusions, the claims, or the implied relationship between Guantanamo, the video, and actions in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. 

Mr. Blunt in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee referred to a third war: One in Iraq; a second in Afghanistan; and a third, not in a geographic region as is the case with the first two, but a fight against terrorism. Notice this video is not linking Guantanamo to Pakistan or Osama bin Ladin; nor with names in Iraq. This video appears to be a new construct: Consistent with the "third" war, beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. The timing of the video, the relationship with Blunt's disclosures, and the convoluted-unsourced explanation about the name change raises additional doubts about the authenticity of the information.

This is a dubious assertion:

NYT: American counterterrorism officials have already confirmed that Said Ali al-Shihri, 35, who was released from the American prison camp at Guantanamo in November 2007, is now the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch.

We have no information to understand the basis for the suspicion+ He is suspected of playing a role in a deadly attack on the American Embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sana, in September.  

We have no information about how "counter terrorism officials" (whoever they are)"confirmed" that the person released matches the person in the video. If this confirmationis real, then there should be photographic evidence supporting this assertion. However,we have seen that the images of "Osama bin Ladin" do not match, raising doubts about why we should believe similar assertions about whether people in one location are the same in other locations. They may be, but "confirmed" intelligence reports have defied reason on tracing whether the video images of "Osama bin Ladin" were of the same person.  Adding to the problem is the failure of the FBI to link bin Ladin to the 9-11 attacks. Yet, this quickly, the intelligence community has done what the FBI could not do: Link al Queda to a struggle which the FBI has not been able to do re 9-11.

We would like more open discussion about this apparent contradiction:

What reasons did the US give for conducting combat operations in Afghanistan if, as the FBI says, there is no link between bin Ladin and the 9-11 attacks? Are there reasons still valid in support of Mr. Blunt's assertion that the "second" war is in Afghanistan. If bin Ladin, as the FBI concludes, has no relationship with 9-11, then who or what are the US really fighting in Afghanistan: Merely the people who took up arms because they had no direct connection to 9-11?

This gives us clues about the speed of the video release, and fantastic ability of the world community to translate, dissect, and reach conclusions: A skill the US intelligence community has not well demonstrated 

NYT: In the video released Friday,  

We have no adequate information to justify belief that the person in the video was, in fact, the same person detained:

NYT: Mr. Shihri sits alongside a man identified as Abu Hareth Muhammad al-Awfi, who appears with a script at the bottom of the screen giving his Guantanamo identification number, 333. That number corresponds to a man known in Pentagon documents as Mohamed Atiq Awayd al-Harbi, who was also released to Saudi Arabia in November 2007.

This explanation is not satisfactory:

NYT: The difference in names is partly due to the common Arab practice of referring to men by their kunya, an honorific, in this case Abu Hareth, derived from the name of his first son. The name Al Harbi is a tribal designation.

We need more information about why the distinct "r" sounds are explained away. Also, the NYT says that the "difference" in names is "partly" due to some factors. This suggests that there were other factors which analysts have concluded, but not agreed. Please disclose publicly the other reasons provided for the difference; and let the public discuss whether these reasons stand scrutiny, or attempt to -- as it appears -- start with the (incorrect) assumption that the tape is valid, and attempt to create an explanation accounting for an error (possibly) proving the tape is a forgery.

This information shows the prisoners were not engaged in "jihad" during their detention:

NYT: Both men passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for jihadists after their release from Guantanamo. That program has been seen as a model, and the Saudi government had previously said that none of its graduates had returned to terrorism.  

The NYT report refers to a "rehabilitation" program. Whether this program was or was not successful is less important than discussing what measures, if any, the US will take to "rehabilitate" the current Guantanamo prisoners. Let's suppose, for the sake of conversation, that these prisoners were not rehabilitated. We would hope the President review these prisoners, and outline a "rehabilitation" plan for the current prisoners; and discuss what will be done -- before more prisoners are released after Guantanamo supposedly shuts down in 2010 -- to apply the lessons of this apparent failure, and ensure there is no problem once the prisoners are released. 

We also do not have enough information about the prisoners' case files, what evidence the US government had, and why they were released. Indeed, if they were being "rehabilitated" there should be some matching information in the US and Saudi files about what the persons were supposedly doing. However, there is no reference in the original information indicating what the now-released-prisoners were supposedly doing warranting their capture. This diversion was, in part, the basis to conclude the DIA disclosures were invalid.

We need to hear more about this supposed prisoner held at Guantanamo; what information the US had in the file (if any); and whether there is a logical link between: (a) what the prisoner supposedly was doing before capture; (b) what the Prisoner disclosed during detention; (c) what the video supposedly says the prisoner is now doing; and (d) what the Saudis learned during the rehabilitation program.

It defies reason to believe the US had enough information to detain this person; but not enough to continue detention; but the prisoner is now doing things that are of concern; yet the Saudis were convinced that he was not a threat. The preceding statement would ask that this person can magically change their outward appearance to justify detention, but that the US could not find this information, and the US despite control of the prisoner could not establish additional information during detention to justify the original decision to detain; yet, that the Saudis were fooled during a period of close monitoring.  

We doubt there is a reasonable link between the activity the prisoner was supposedly doing before capture and what he now says he is going to do. He didn't have enough to warrant continued detention; but enough to warrant capture; but the Saudis missed it; and yet, out of the blue, despite observations, he's now in a senior position of leadership despite the US and Saudis not linking his pre-detention conduct with activity that would warrant detention, nor with risk factors that would raise doubts about his prospects of success during the "rehabilitation." This defies reason.  

This assertion smacks of disingenuous "concern" about Israel; and fails to explain why the prisoner is "warning" anyone about a program that failed to detect him:

In the video released Friday, Mr. Awfi warns fellow prisoners about the Saudi program and threatens attacks against Saudi Arabia. He also speaks angrily about the Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza.

In light of Blunt's comments about the "third war", what is unusual is that the US has a video of someone no longer referencing US actions in either Iraq or Afghanistan; but is conveniently moving the focus from Iraq and Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia and Israel. This, again, fits too conveniently in the "third war".

We have no information about the "warning" about the program in Saudi Arabia:

Did the "former prisoner" hope to warn people in Saudi Arabia only; or a message to the entire world: What specific "warning" did the prisoner hope to provide -- that the "rehabilitation" program as ineffective? Then no "warning" is needed. If the program was defective, as the intelligence community would have us believe, then the "former prisoner" should have done the opposite: Publicly stated that the program was effective to mislead the government officials, ensure they with a program that "allowed someone like him" to get released; but privately planned to do the opposite and continue attacks.

This language has yet to be authenticated as original Arabic speech:

NYT: Mr. Shihri also speaks in the video, saying "by God, our imprisonment only increased our perseverance in the principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for."  

We doubt the validity of the statement at the end. "Our imprisonment only increased our perseverance" is a phrase that is too concise, and does not sound as through it is a valid translation of a similar notion of "jihad" from the Moslem world. We would like to know more about the source of the translation; and how the translation squares with other mis-translations on similar concepts, but from a different country: Iran. 

Indeed, if the US detention system was true, then we should have had some evidence the prisoner -- before being released from Guantanamo -- should have documented some evidence that the prisoner was persevering. The prisoner should have put that "perseverance" into action while being detained. Yet, we're asked to believe he did nothing while in detention; did not resist to a level warranting his continued detention; fooled the Saudis during the "rehabilitation"; but can only satisfy himself by disclosing his "concern" in a video. That defies reason.

Someone who was genuinely "resolved" to confront injustice, would have engaged in activity during detention that would have warranted their continued detention. Yet, we're asked to believe this prisoner's file had no information warranting continued detention; there was nothing about his pre-detention activity in the file; and he's magically "resolved" to do something. We have no information about what he supposedly did before the detention; nor about how his current statements reconcile with what was insufficient to warrant continued detention.

He's implicitly admitting that he failed -- when he had the chance -- to confront the guards at Guantanamo; and there is no record of him having confronted the "injustice" while in US hands which should have, if they were real, "justified" his continued detention, not release. He has no credibility with the supposed audience he (supposedly) hopes to motivate. The more reasonable conclusion is that the intended audience is not anyone in the Moslem world, but the people reviewing the intelligence files and assessments about this information: Members of Congress, Senior Administration Officials, and those one-step beyond the immediate intelligence analysis. 

Part III: Judgments

We judge the following: 

- The analysts commenting on the tape are looking for reasons to explain-away a contradiction, not, as they should, use the contradiction to examine the authenticity of the video. This contradiction is important and the explanation provided is not adequate.

- The President and Vice President are being misled about the information related to this prisoner's original activity, detention activity, basis for release, and the prisoner's monitoring during the Saudi rehabilitation program

- The supposed post-rehabilitation statements are not designed to motivate Moslems to resist, but the statements are designed for a western audience

- The translation and original comments are not from an Arabic speaker, but comments from someone in the public affairs community attempting to spin a threat+ - The prisoner's comments are adverse to their interests: They implicitly argued that they did not struggle, when they were under US control, to justify their continued detention

- The timing of the release is consistent with the problems DIA has with its statements on recidivism

- The information is consistent not with a change in foreign opposition, but the new framing from Mr. Blunt. The video does not explain how the prisoner changed their focus from a geographic region in either Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iraq, to a new focus in Saudi Arabia or Israel.

- The explanations for the name change are not adequate, and have not explained why the prisoner did not use the same name during detention as he now discloses

- The US government has not adequately explained the why the photographs of this prisoner should be given attention using the same methods which cannot explain why images of "Osama bin Ladin" have inexplicably changed

- The video is designed to raise doubts about the policies in the US and Saudi Arabia related to prisoner release+ - The disclosed statements about what the prisoner is saying are not consistent with the pre-release behavior warranting (a) release from US detention; and (b) successful release from the Saudi rehabilitation program. 

Part IV: Conclusions 

The video is a forgery. The speed of the video disclosure, translation, and analysis suggests the video production company and the "intelligence analysts" are one in the same. 

The video is black propaganda. The video is evidence that there are personnel hoping to mislead the United States and US President on the current threat. 

The video is designed to undermine support for the US President's decision to close Guantanamo. The United States intelligence analysts and intelligence policy makers have not adequately explained how people who were released because of lack of evidence were not detected during pre-release reviews in the US or at the monitoring program in Saudi Arabia.

The video is intended for a western audience. This video is not a reasonable basis to believe that Moslems will be motivated to spread their attacks in Saudi Arabia. This threat existed before this video was released.  

The video was originally conceived in a non-Arabic production house. The references to Israel are not designed to communicate new information, but to add credibility to what appears to be a fabricated video. 

The video is part of a non-Arabic sales strategy timed with the US government budgeting cycle, just prior to the release of the President's budget and Committees' spring budget markups. The video is designed to expand the current "two wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan; to lay the foundation for the (still mismanaged) global confrontation against terrorism. Someone appears to view their defense appropriations are at risk with the financial bailout. Once the President finds who really created this video, their funding line should be substantially reduced, and transferred to a competing appropriation that will support justifiable policy.

Part V: Recommendations:

We encourage the President to seek through the National Security Council other views on this issue:

- What method was independently used to authenticate this video

- Who are the specific analysts who provided the information about the "reasons" for the change in name

- What study was there of the lighting of the video to establish what technical background the personnel creating this video had

- What comparison did the White House staff immediately adjacent to the President do of the images taken of the prisoner at Guantanamo; and a comparison with the now disclosed images in the video

- Why are the same analysts from the intelligence community -- who cannot admit that the "images of bin Ladin" have mysteriously changed -- taken seriously on tracing images between this prisoner's detention and the images now disclosed?

- Who has discussed whether the US might have placed within the prisoner pool undercover American agents designed to "penetrate" an illusory cell?

- What is the explanation for why the "r" and "b" were never included within the prisoners' file; why the prisoner files do not show other disparities between what the prisoner said and their "desired" name; and how does this relate to the NSA targeting protocols used during monitoring of Arabic speakers?

- When was the prisoner's son born; and how does this birth, if it occurred, relate to the disparity between the (a) name used at Guantanamo; (b) other names used; (c) changes or alterations in the Guantanamo files; and (c) the final name now used

- Who did a review of the prisoner's file at Guantanamo?

- Is there a reasonable relationship between what the prisoner supposedly did prior to original capture (supposedly warranting detention); with (a) what the guards at Guantanamo documented; (b) the subsequent files on the prisoner's concerns; (c) the criteria to review the risks of recidivism; and (d) what the Saudis concluded was appropriate for this prisoner; and (e) what the prisoner is now doing.

- Does anyone see that there are far too many hurdles for this Prisoner to have walked through, not get detected, yet he's asking us to believe that he should be taken seriously as part of the "fight" against Saudis; yet, he's not demonstrated -- during detention -- that he was actively confronting his captors or those in charge of the rehabilitation program?

- Does anyone see that this prisoner has too many convenient factors: Just enough to get detained; not enough to have continued detention; was able to slip through his handlers in Said Arabia, but now he's suddenly upset and going to do something about it. This defies reason. We should have seen something long ago, especially something that should match his original capture. Yet, we don't. Conveniently under the radar, then within 24 hours, we have a translation of a video. Far too convenient, especially for someone that had passed through many gates, and was "not of sufficient concern" to warrant continued detention. 

Not ready: "Check back after the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to see how and where your tax dollars are spent." [Emphasis added]

We don't need to throw money at more consumers or pet projects. Once the money is spent, there will be no additioanl money to sustain the real requirements to sustain a recovery: A method to sustain operating cashflows. Falling operating cashflows isn't relevant when the existing cash levels far exceed the debts and the debt repayment obligations. The current approach focuses on throwing water on the fire, not in ensuring we construct the house in the right place.

The President focuses on whether we are or are not monitoring an incorrect list of priorities:

President Obama: "I know that some are skeptical about the size and scale of this recovery plan. I understand that skepticism, which is why this recovery plan must and will include unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my Administration accountable for these results."

Let the banks and those who gambled go into bankruptcy. The real concern should not be with those who faciliated the gambling, but those who provide the most important national resource: Food. If the banks "cannot fail," then there should be good reasons -- not excuses -- for creating the current priority list. There is a priority list, right?

One error is to punish borrowers who have assets, cash, or securities which can service loans. The current approach appears to take a broad brush to all borrowers, regardless their fundamentals: The ability to service loans, even in the worst conditions. Those who can service loans should not be punished by reducing their access to capital or loans.

Farmers borrow money from any supplier of capital. The issue isn't whether the farmers have a problem -- they don't, because they have a product they can sell to service the loans. The question is whether the US leadership will, as they should, let the banks -- which are insolvent or have lost in the gambling -- go by the wayside because they cannot be trusted to responsiblty supply capital.

Capital Supply Problem Overshadowing Higher Solvent Capital Demand

Who cares about the suppliers of capital. The issue is whether the most important users of capital -- the farmers, producing food -- can continue with the most important job: Sustaining the food supply.

Why aren't we creating a lending system that will ensure the highest priority -- the food supply -- is getting the highest priority in accessing capital? Let the gamblers argue they should have a higher priority for food.

We need to focus on the real priorities for capital access -- not the supply of capital, but supporting those who have the most important and sustainable demand for capital: Food production. The answer isn't to increase the ability for people to access capital; but to ensure the prioritized demand for capital is given the support it needs.

We need a debate on which demands for capital should be given the greatest-to-least priority. Then we can discuss whether the US government should or should not support those requirements.