The Fix Is In: Thuggery In Bangladesh

Posted on April 18, 2007 by Mash

Overnight the new military rulers of Bangladesh took decisive steps to consolidate their hold on power. On the heels of charging the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, with murder, the military declared today that she will not be allowed into the country.

In a official press note barring Hasina from returning to Bangladesh from the United States, the megalomaniacs who have taken over what was the world’s fifth largest democracy announced:

Some reliable sources have informed the government that Awami League President Sheikh Hasina, now on a personal visit to the United States, might return to the country on April 23, 2007. It should be mentioned here that in the recent past, the law and order had been disrupted while national security and the economic climate had been jeopardized in a period of anarchy brought on by non-stop and irresponsible agitation and disorderly acts of Awami League and other political parties under her leadership. Inevitably, it all led to declaration of the state of emergency.

Besides, she has made provocative and malicious statements against the present caretaker government and law enforcement agencies at different meetings and in national and international media while staying overseas.

Under the circumstances, if Sheikh Hasina returns, she might seek to make provocative remarks like she did before, and create further hatred and confusion among the people. This might deteriorate the country’s law and order, disturb the prevailing stability and threaten public safety and economy. Also to be noted, Sheikh Hasina herself is concerned about her security and has pleaded with the government through her party for special security arrangements. For the above-mentioned reasons, the government has decided to take some cautionary steps regarding her return. However, those measures are temporary.

Immigration at air and land ports, different airlines and the other authorities concerned have been informed to that end. The foreign, civil aviation and tourism ministries, civil aviation authority and the inspector general of police too have been requested to take necessary steps.

The military also ordered the press in Bangladesh not to report on any comments made by the former Prime Minister:

The government through its Press Information Department and other agencies has instructed all newspapers not to carry any comment of Sheikh Hasina. An SMS received from an army major said: "You are requested not to telecast/print any views/comments of Sheikh Hasina from today till further order." It may be mentioned that Hasina’s comment on the government’s ban on her return was aired by BBC Bangla Service which has been heard by the radio’s audiences in Bangladesh.

Earlier in the week the military arrested the son of the immediate past Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia, on charges of graft. The very next day they released him after extracting a promise from Mrs. Zia that she would leave the country with her sons for exile in Saudi Arabia.

This latest thuggery comes after the arrest of over 150,000 people in an "anti-corruption" drive since last January. All those arrested are being held without bail and without due process under emergency powers the military government has granted itself.

Sheikh Hasina has vowed to return to Bangladesh in spite of the orders barring her entry. It remains to be seen if she will be successful.

The military strongman who has taken control of Bangladesh, Lt. General Moeen U Ahmed, is systematically purging the two most popular political parties in Bangladesh. Together these two parties enjoy overwhelming support in Bangladesh and have both held power after close elections during the past 16 years of democratic rule in Bangladesh.

The Economist weighed in earlier this week on the purge taking place in Bangladesh:

In the latest dramatic twist to the political crisis in Bangladesh, authorities have charged Sheikh Hasina Wajed, a former prime minister, with murder and have also severely restricted the movements of her arch-rival, Khaleda Zia. The moves come amid an intensifying campaign by the military-backed interim government to sideline the country’s two main political parties and their leaders. Although such efforts, combined as they are with a massive crackdown on corruption, seem likely to prove popular initially, the self-styled "caretaker" administration also appears to be entrenching itself to a degree that suggests it has designs on more permanent power. The probability of a return to outright military rule—rather than the stealth version arguably in effect already—is therefore increasing. Simultaneously, the chances of democracy being restored any time soon are declining.

…

As with all cases in which military or military-backed governments suspend democracy for the supposed good of a country, the latest purge of the political class raises all-too-evident concerns about what happens next. There is little doubt that corruption is prevalent in Bangladesh, and that rivalry between the AL and the BNP has not served the public interest. However, the implicit argument behind the current state of emergency—namely that corruption needs to be reduced before elections can be held—is flawed in that the intractability of the problem provides the interim government with a ready-made excuse to defer the restoration of democracy indefinitely. Also, there is no guarantee that the caretaker leaders and their allies will be any less corrupt than those they have replaced.

…

The prospect of a period of extended emergency rule raises all manner of concerns, however. If reports that the authorities have arrested more than 150,000 corruption suspects are accurate, then it is fair to worry whether human rights violations are not likely to occur on a large scale. Any delay in holding elections would also be unpopular with the public, which no doubt had its fill of authoritarian rule in the 1970s and 1980s. The government recently said it would try to hold elections by the end of 2008, but this timetable looks ambitious: the reforms needed to allow elections to go ahead are likely to take at least 12 months to complete, after which monsoonal weather may prevent polling taking place until the following year.

A further concern is that the current crackdown is likely, at some stage, to lead to a backlash against the interim government as some of those who have been detained—many of whom are politically influential—are released. This may take the shape simply of efforts to reverse the policies of the current administration, but there is also a strong chance that it could result in an increase in violence. Despite the interim administration’s claims that its objectives are honourable, the draconian measures it has taken in the name of improving stability could, like those of most such regimes, have just the opposite effect.

By trying to exile the leaders of the two biggest political parties in Bangladesh, General Moeen, who just today gave himself a promotion [link is in Bengali] for his fine work, has very clearly shown his hand. The stated goal of the military takeover was to cleanse the country of corruption. Now they have abandoned all such pretenses of a corruption drive in favor of open bullying of the political parties and the crushing of Bangladeshi democracy. There can now be no doubt that this is a takedown by force of one of the few shining examples of secular democracy in a Muslim majority country. The Bangladesh military, along with their Islamist allies, have orchestrated a coup d’etat with the tacit support of the United States government.

Before the military takeover, in a speech at Dhaka University on December 17 2006, the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh, Patricia Butenis, publicly cautioned against a military takeover:

Any extra-constitutional arrangement imposed on the people of Bangladesh, such as military intervention, would not address the basic weaknesses afflicting the current political process, would likely lead to great turmoil and disappointment, and should be stoutly resisted by all defenders of democracy.

Well, I have taken up her call to "all defenders of democracy" to "stoutly resist" this military takeover. As I respond to her call, I look back to see silence from Mr. Bush and contradiction from Ambassador Butenis. Yesterday, the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star reported the following:

US Ambassador Patricia Butenis has appreciated Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed’s address to the nation, particularly for mentioning a timeframe for holding the general election, and said the US government is satisfied with the caretaker government’s performance.

…

She said the US government is observing the caretaker government’s activities positively.

…

Appreciating a number of pragmatic initiatives and actions, the US envoy said the caretaker government has attained a lot of achievements in a short time and is enjoying tremendous popular support.

Citing a survey carried out by the US Coast Guard, Butenis said the Chittagong seaport is now working properly as clockwise which is laudable.

Now, there is little doubt that the military government has put the press in Bangladesh on a short leash. So, it is possible that the Ambassador may have been misrepresented in the article. However, in the absence of any corrections from the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka or the State Department, its reasonable to assume that the Ambassador’s views have been fairly reported. The deafening silence from Washington as an Islamic country of 150 million people has its democracy gutted by the military, combined with words of encouragement from the Ambassador, can only help to embolden the Generals in Bangladesh.

So this is Mr. Bush’s freedom agenda. When a lone "journalist" named Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was arrested in Bangladesh, then under civilian rule, on charges of sedition and then released on bail, free to publish to his heart’s content, the neocons persuaded the United States government to pressure the Bangladeshi government to drop all charges against the man and cancel his upcoming trial. Bangladesh was threatened with aid cut-off if it did not buckle to American pressure. The United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution demanding that Bangladesh drop all charges against this man. The State Department highlighted this man’s cause. All because he was being given full due process by the democratically elected government of Bangladesh.

However, when the current military dictators arrest 150,000 people and lock them up without trial, force one former Prime Minister into exile, threaten to bar another from entering the country, engage in wholesale torture and killings, suspend all fundamental rights and due process, trample on the secular democracy that was Bangladesh, the United States State Department does not comment at all, the White House ignores the collapse of democracy, the U.S. Ambassador encourages the thuggery, and the United States Congress couldn’t be bothered by the whole episode.

No wonder the laughter is deafening when the United States preaches democracy to the Muslim and Third Worlds.

 

Posted in Bangladesh, Foreign Policy, Human Rights | 8 Comments

Subhuman

Posted on April 18, 2007 by Mash

[Via mcjoan]

In the aftermath of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, some have revealed themselves to be subhuman.

There is this from John Derbyshire at the National Review:

As NRO’s designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn’t anyone rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness’ sake—one of them reportedly a .22.
 
 
At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren’t very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can’t hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren’t bad.
 
 
Yes, yes, I know it’s easy to say these things: but didn’t the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It’s true—none of us knows what he’d do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I’d at least take a run at the guy.
Then there is this from Nathanael Blake at Human Events:
College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that.

When Kip Kinkle opened fire in Thurston High School a few years back, he was taken down by students, led by one who was already wounded. Why didn’t that happen here?

Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.

Then there is this from Debbie Schlussel:

* The murderer has been identified by law enforcement and media reports as "a young Asian male."

* The Virginia Tech campus has a very large Muslim community, many of which are from Pakistan (per terrorism investigator Bill Warner).

* Pakis are considered "Asian."

…

Why am I speculating that the "Asian" gunman is a Pakistani Muslim? Because law enforcement and the media strangely won’t tell us more specifically who the gunman is. Why?

Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students.

And finally this from Ms. Schlussel after the Chicago Tribune reported that the shooter had the words "Ismail Ax" written in red ink on one of his arms:

Hmmm . . . Ismail–the Arabic name for Ishmael–considered the father of all Arabs and a very important figure in Islam.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, right? Doesn’t mean anything. Right.

Maybe "Ismail Ax" is the name of a friend of his. Or maybe he wanted to remind himself to buy an Ax for his friend Ismail for next Ramadan. Or I’m sure we’ll hear some other similarly absurd "explanation." We’ll see.

So, if I understand it correctly, the subhuman speculation is that the Virginia Tech students are cowards and the shooter must be connected to Islam somehow.

Mssrs. Derbyshire and Blake simply have no shame.

Ms. Schlussel embarrasses herself yet again. She goes for a two-fer on her first post, by pointing the finger at Muslims and then using the racial slur "Paki" to refer to Pakistanis. There’s a Muslim hiding under every rock in Ms. Schlussel’s hateful world.

Incidentally, the Washington Post reports that the shooter had "Ismale Ax" tattooed on his arm, not "Ismail Ax". Here’s some wild speculation for you, Ms. Schlussel. How about an anagram, how does "I Axl same" sound to you? I figure the shooter writes about being abused and writes about Guns N’ Roses songs in his plays. Axl Rose fits the bill just fine: he claims he suffered child abuse and he and Guns N’ Roses sang the song ‘Mr. Brownstone‘.

———————————-

Here in Virginia people are shaken by the massacre at Virginia Tech. Its hard to not run into a Hokie in Northern Virginia – at the workplace, in the neighborhood, everywhere. Almost everyone here either has a child studying at Virginia Tech or knows someone who has a child studying at Virginia Tech. The day after the massacre our thoughts remain with the victims – the sons and daughters of Virginia.

———————————-

Some on the blogosphere however could not help themselves. Within hours of the tragedy they had sunk to subhuman depths.

Subhuman.

 

Posted in Society | 13 Comments

A Devastating Indictment Of White House Strategery In Iraq

Posted on April 16, 2007 by Mash

Retired Marine General John J. Sheehan has turned down the job of "War Czar". Today in a Washington Post op-ed he explains why.

General Sheehan writes:

What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. In my view, there are essentially three strategies in play simultaneously.

The first I call "the Woody Hayes basic ground attack," which is basically gaining one yard — or one city block — at a time. Given unconstrained time and resources, one could control the outcome in Iraq and provide the necessary security to move on to the next stage of development.

The second strategy starts with security but adds benchmarks for both the U.S. and Iraqi participants and applies time constraints that should guide them toward a desired outcome. The value of this strategy is that everyone knows the quantifiable and measurable objectives that fit within an overall strategic framework.

The third strategy takes a larger view of the region and the desired end state. Simply put, where does Iraq fit in a larger regional context? The United States has and will continue to have strategic interests in the greater Middle East well after the Iraq crisis is resolved and, as a matter of national interest, will maintain forces in the region in some form. The Iraq invasion has created a real and existential crisis for nearly all Middle Eastern countries and created divisions among our traditional European allies, making cooperation on other issues more difficult. In the case of Iran, we have allowed Tehran to develop more policy options and tools than it had a few years ago. Iran is an ideological and destabilizing threat to its neighbors and, more important, to U.S. interests.

Of the three strategies in play, the third is the most important but, unfortunately, is the least developed and articulated by this administration.

…

Activities such as the current surge operations should fit into an overall strategic framework. There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources and support for stable, Western-oriented countries. These interests will require a serious dialogue and partnership with countries that live in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. We cannot "shorthand" this issue with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined. [Emphasis added by me.]

He concludes:

It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan — and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.

This is a damning indictment of Mr. Bush’s Iraq War by a man the White House had reached out to to rescue it from the chaos in Iraq. So, next time the Administration puts forth their talking points about "victory", ask them to tell us the plan.

And then listen to the sounds of silence.

 

 

Posted in Foreign Policy, General, Iraq | 1 Comment

Bangladesh Collapses To Thunderous Applause

Posted on April 15, 2007 by Mash

 

Military on the streets of Bangladesh

 

First, let me make the statement that will ensure that I am persona non grata in Bangladesh:

"The latest in a long line of despots, General Moeen U Ahmed, has now taken effective control of Bangladesh. By doing so, this latest South Asian megalomaniac has substituted his judgment for the judgment of the people. He says he does not believe in "elective democracy". He has struck the death knell to an experiment in democracy that began over 35 years ago. The military, which had taken power once before in 1975, had been unceremoniously chased back into the barracks in 1991. But, now, with tacit American and Western support they have overthrown the world’s fifth largest democracy, however imperfect it was. The "elite" of Bangladesh, the leeches that have fed off the millions of impoverished people of the land that I love, have welcomed this military takedown of a secular Muslim majority nation. The leader of the "war on terror" never raised an eyebrow as real terror entered through the front door in Bangladesh."

There you have it. I suspect I will not visit Bangladesh any time soon after the above statement – almost certainly not until the military is chased back into the barracks and democracy returns there.

My opinion, I fear, is a minority opinion in Bangladesh, at least among the "elite" (or "civil society" as they are called in Bangladesh) who run the country’s economy. It is unclear what the majority of the people, those living in poverty think – no one has ever bothered to ask them. For background on how this slow-motion military coup in Bangladesh was orchestrated, read my posts from January here and here. At the time, when the army started its crackdown on "corruption", I wrote the following:

A State of Emergency has been declared in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has, by a quirk in its Constitution, been legally transformed into a dictatorship. A democracy of 125 million people is now at the mercy of a handful of unelected rulers and the military.

Bangladesh has given up a lot of essential liberty for a little bit of temporary security – it remains to be seen whether it deserves or will get either.

…

It remains to be seen whether democracy will return to Bangladesh any time soon. The Caretaker Government has already started to go well beyond its constitutional mandate. It currently has public support because the people are looking for solutions to the rampant corruption that has plagued the country. However, unelected governments have a logic of their own – and fairly quickly such governments’ perception of the public good becomes skewed.

Already a crackdown on "criminals and other disruptive elements" has started…

I wonder how long before the definition of "disruptive elements" is broadened. Forgive me if I am wary of crackdowns by the military – I still recall the Pakistani army’s crackdown on "miscreants" on March 25, 1971.

History will teach us nothing.

Today the New York Times published an editorial highlighting the crisis in Bangladesh:

Promoting democracy, especially in Islamic countries, is supposed to be a major goal of President Bush’s foreign policy. But his administration has raised little protest as Bangladesh — until January the world’s fifth most populous democracy — has been transformed into its second most populous military dictatorship.

Washington is being dangerously shortsighted. Democracy can be messy, and in Bangladesh it was extraordinarily so. But military rule offers no answers to the grievances that fuel Islamic radicalism, as can be seen from nearby Pakistan (the world’s most populous military dictatorship). By stifling authentically popular mainstream parties and their leaders, military regimes often magnify the political influence of religious extremists.

This year’s democratic eclipse in Bangladesh did not follow the classic script for a military coup. A civilian caretaker has been nominally in charge since January, after troubled national elections were indefinitely postponed. Meanwhile, the generals consolidated power behind the scenes and began harassing and jailing many of the country’s top civilian political leaders.

Last week, Sheik Hasina Wazed — who served as prime minister from 1996 through 2001 — and top leaders of her 14-party alliance were charged with murder in connection with violent pre-election protests. Her longtime rival, Khaleda Zia, who both preceded and followed her in office, is now under virtual house arrest. More than 150 other senior politicians have been detained on corruption charges and the timetable for new elections keeps receding. [Emphasis added by me.]

The New York Times makes a singularly important point: that military regimes magnify the political influence of religious extremists. I would go a step further. I would say that military regimes in Islamic countries in fact collude with, and enable, religious extremists to consolidate power. Military regimes and Islamists are natural allies – they both are undemocratic and believe in rule by force. There is plenty of evidence that such collusion is not only a theoretical possibility, but has in fact been the case in recent history. It was after all, the military dictator Zia-ul-Haq, who, in 1979, instituted Sharia law in Pakistan. In Bangladesh, after the military takeover in 1975, the secular country was briefly called the "Islamic Republic of Bangladesh". It was the military in Bangladesh that allowed exiled Islamists to return to Bangladesh in 1978. Since then, the Islamists have steadily grown in strength and have worked to undermine the secular democracy in Bangladesh.

General Moeen Ahmed declared in a speech on April 2nd that he did not want "elective democracy" in Bangladesh, instead:

Bangladesh will have to construct its own brand of democracy recognizing its social, historical and cultural conditions with religion being one of several components of its national identity.

Bangladesh was formed as a secular state in direct response to the oppression of a country that wanted to rule on the basis of religious national identity, namely Islamic rule. The General wants to now reinstitute that "religious national identity" that led to the persecution of millions of Hindus and the slaughter of 3 million Bengalis. It should not be surprising to anyone that the General’s words echo those of the 1975 coup leaders in Bangladesh – a slide into Islamist rule is a characteristic of these military megalomaniacs.

Many will argue, in reading the preceding, that this military takeover is different from the previous one of 1975 – that the situation on the ground (the rampant corruption) was so bad that this step, though undemocratic, was essential to restore faith in governance. That is the "historical necessity" argument. It is a favorite one of military dictators, it was employed by Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan and by the 1975 coup leaders of Bangladesh (click here to read the August 16 1975 editorial from the Bangladesh Observer claiming the coup was a "historical necessity" ). It is an argument often used by megalomaniacs who want to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the people.

Others may still argue that this military regime, as announced by the figurehead civilian front man, in Bangladesh has promised elections in 18 months. To them, I say, the promise of elections is a standard item from the military coup playbook. To wit, read the promise of elections from a similar speech given by the military backed figurehead civilian president of Bangladesh on October 3, 1975 – that pledge resulted in the military relinquishing power 16 years later.

Finally, it is my contention that the current corruption of the political culture in Bangladesh is in large part a legacy of the military takeover of Bangladesh in 1975. A military takeover, far from "fixing" a democracy, corrupts it further. It does so by setting a precedent that the rule of law can be subverted in service of the "national interest". This license to ignore the rule of law is the essential ingredient of any form of government corruption. When the military decides to "fix" things, it corrupts the system further. It sets a precedent that laws can and should be ignored when there is a "historical necessity". That is an invitation, not only to corruption, but to autocratic and dictatorial rule.

So, while "civil society" in Bangladesh cheers this military takeover, and while President Bush is busy ignoring a real threat to stability in the 8th most populous country in the world, democracy and human rights collapse in the world’s 5th most populous democracy.

UPDATE (4/15/2007 11:00 PM):

Cross posts:

 

Posted in Bangladesh, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Society | 23 Comments

Missing White House E-mail Forensics

Posted on April 12, 2007 by Mash

The Delete Button

It’s always a shame when you lose a few e-mails. In the high-tech world, the "dog ate my homework" excuse does not quite work. To lose an e-mail you have to work hard to destroy the evidence. So, I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, to hear that the White House has lost some e-mails!

According to the Los Angeles Times some key emails concerning the US Attorney scandal may have been lost by the White House:

The White House said today that it may have lost what could amount to thousands of messages sent through a private e-mail system used by political guru Karl Rove and at least 50 other top officials, an admission that stirred anger and dismay among congressional investigators.

The e-mails were considered potentially critical evidence in congressional inquiries launched by Democrats into the role partisan politics may have played in such policy decisions as the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

The White House said an effort was underway to see whether the messages could be recovered from the computer system, which was operated and paid for by the Republican National Committee as part of an effort to separate political communications from those dealing with official business.

"The White House has not done a good enough job overseeing staff using political e-mail accounts to assure compliance with the Presidential Records Act," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said in an unusual late-afternoon teleconference with reporters.

As a result, Stanzel said, "we may not have preserved all e-mails that deal with White House business."

Most unfortunate. Surely the missing emails must be recoverable? right?:

The e-mails were sent through a communications system created in conjunction with Republicans early in the Bush administration. Rove and others were given special laptop computers and other communications devices to use instead of the government communications system when dealing with political matters.

The parallel system was designed to avoid running afoul of the Hatch Act, which prohibits using government resources for partisan purposes, White House officials have said.

But evidence has emerged that system users sometimes failed to maintain such separation and used the private system when communicating about government business.

Special laptops. Other communications devices. I have a few questions:

  • Were Rove and company using their special laptops on the White House LAN? If so, what is the White House policy on connecting non-government computers to the White House LAN? Is that considered a breach of security?
  • If the "special laptops" were using the White House LAN, then emails sent and/or received by those laptops would have had to go through the White House firewall before going out to the internet. Shouldn’t someone look at the firewall logs to determine how many emails were sent out and/or received from these laptops and to which IP addresses? Does the White House firewall log all content that passes through it? If so, someone should retrieve the emails from the firewall logs.
  • If these special laptops did not plug into the White House LAN, did Rove and company use a wireless public network (like Verizon Wireless) from inside the White House to send/receive official White House communications to outside parties? Is that considered a breach of security in the White House?
  • Were any of the emails sent from these special laptops, through gwb43.com, internal White House communications between White House staffers? If so, has internal White House deliberations been compromised by the communications being sent out over the public internet?
  • Does the email server at gwb43.com do regular backups? If so, someone should pull the backup tapes from the relevant time period to retrieve the "deleted" emails.

So many questions. I am sure the crack staff at the White House and the RNC will be able to answer these questions and retrieve these "lost" emails. Because as everyone knows, it really is very difficult to "delete" things these days. There’s almost always a copy lying around somewhere – in some mail server, on some backup tape, in some firewall log, etc.. That DELETE button on the computer doesn’t do what some may think it does.

Posted in Politics | 5 Comments