FDD: Conference mulls the hard choice between dictators and dissidents

- OPEN SOURCE

US/94; US/1; 

By David S. Jackson

The Washington Times

Thursday, December 6, 2012

It wasn't that long ago that the question posed by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' (FDD) annual national security conference — "Dictators and Dissidents: Should the West Choose Sides?" — would have seemed easier to answer.

But what happens when victory by the dissidents leads not to democracy but to totalitarian rule? Suddenly the choice between an authoritarian dictator and, say, a totalitarian clerical regime becomes not only more complicated, but also a lively topic for debate.

To be clear, the government, military and private-sector experts the FDD gathered at the Newseum in Washington were staunchly pro-democracy. Their discussions were mainly about how to secure democratic rule at a time when dissidents in Syria, Egypt, Iran and other countries seem poised to redraw the political map of the Middle East.

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey kicked off the conference with some sobering observations. Historically, he noted, the "Act One" of revolutions looks promising. "Life seems to be headed in a new and positive direction," he said.
But then comes the second act, which often brings "the first signs of violence."
"Act Three is often very ugly," he added. "Those who support totalitarianism ... come to the fore."

While the ultimate outcome in Syria and Egypt isn't clear, he said, "we need to make wise choices." Throughout its history, the U.S. "on balance has made remarkably fine choices." The problem right now, Mr. Woolsey said, is that the current totalitarian threat is rooted in "one of the world's great religions."

The extremists associated with Islamism "are our enemies," he quickly added. "Islam is not our enemy."

The former CIA chief described an extremist Islamic tract that offered guidance on the "three acceptable ways to kill a homosexual."

"We have a very long and difficult task ahead of us," Mr. Woolsey concluded.
* * * * *
Lively debate during the first panel: Islamists and Elections: Where Do They Lead?

Reuel Marc Gerecht, an outspoken former Iran specialist for the CIA, now a senior fellow at FDD, took the lead on what could be called the realist view of where democratic elections will probably lead in the Middle East. In this view, a public debate will be therapeutic, and anyway, trying to keep Islamists out is trying to block centuries of history.

But Brett Stephens, a foreign affairs columnist for The Wall Street Journal, offered a more pessimistic take: "The truth is, we're not going to have a democratic outcome in the Middle East, and we might as well prepare for the consequences."
* * * * *
Poignant comments from former Iranian political prisoner Marina Nemat during the panel on Iran's Human Rights Record brought a hush to the crowded conference room. Ms. Nemat, whose memoir "Prisoner of Tehran" described her arrest and torture as a 16-year-old in the wake of the 1979 revolution, told the audience that after the revolution, "we had hope... that Iran would become a democracy." She said she had grown up wearing short skirts and Western hair styles, and suddenly Iran's religious rulers banned everything that was "fun". She couldn't even walk down the street holding hands with her boyfriend.

She wasn't the only one who was affected, she added.

"How political can a 14-year-old get?" she asked. "If you ban fun, then a 14-year-old can get very political."


Ms. Nemat now lives and teaches in Canada. Asked if things have gotten any better in Iran since she lived there, she did not hesitate. "No, they are not." Like others on the panel, she said she was glad to see some focus on the issue of human rights, rather than Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, which gets most of the attention these days. "I'm here," she declared, "to make sure that the story of Iranian political prisoners is heard."
* * * * *
Ali Alfoneh, of the American Enterprise Institute, said the Revolutionary Guards' use of "show trials" has had a chilling effect on Iranian citizens. When they see even Mir-Hussein Mousavi, the former Iranian Prime Minister who had been a favorite of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, being put on trial, "then all regular Iranian citizens feel at risk."

Said Ms. Nemat: "I don't think any Western country can change the behavior of the Iranian regime when it comes to human rights." But she added that when the United States speaks out on behalf of human rights, it gives political prisoners hope "because news does get into the prisons."

"All I am interested in is just giving hope," she said. "If I can save just one life, then I can die in peace."

Alfoneh joked that no Western country can ever win a negotiation with someone from the Middle East. But the conversation turned serious again when panelist Emanuele Ottolenghi of FDD said recent crackdowns in Iran were evidence that "the regime is increasingly on the defensive."

Alfoneh criticized U.S. academics — "do-gooders" — who are always calling for the U.S. to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but are silent on the issue of Iran's notorious prisons. "Where are these good people?" he asked. They have "totally forgotten Iran."

Ms. Nemat had the last word on the panel. She implored officials who believe they are dealing with "moderates" in Iran to never forget "the true nature of the regime."
"The enemy of your enemy," she said solemnly, "is not necessarily your friend."
* * * * *
** Updated **
Career diplomat Robert S. Ford, the current U.S. Ambassador to Syria, spoke about the situation in Syria. The Free Syrian Army, the main opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, has made "substantial gains," he said, and the regime no longer controls most of Syria's border with either Turkey or Iraq. "It's very clear that the regime forces are being ground down and are losing." But, he added, "they still have some fight in them."

Meanwhile, Ford noted, "extremist groups" are gaining ground in the opposition. He said there is an Al Qaeda affiliate now operating in Syria and there are groups that are cooperating with them.

Ford said there are also long-term social problems that will have to be dealt with long after the current crisis is over: About 1.5 million Syrians — out of a total population of 23 million — are internally displaced, and more than 475,000 Syrians have fled the country to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq.

As for the path forward, Ford said the U.S. still "strongly supports" a political solution, but Assad "and his clique must go... He does not have a role in this political transition." Their "days are numbered" and "the regime needs to step down now."
A question from the audience: When the ambassador said Assad's "days" were numbered, did he mean Assad has only "days" left? Ford quickly replied that he would not be pinned down to a timeline.

Another questioner asked about the Alewites, Assad's privileged Muslim minority sect. Ford said the Alewites "must understand that they have a place" in Syria... "not with special privileges, but also not with special discrimination."

He said those who have committed crimes would be held responsible, and Syrian investigators were now being trained to investigate war crimes.

Fear of genocide is "certainly present," Ford conceded, "but there does not have to be a genocide in Syria... It is incumbent on us to bolster moderates in the opposition, which is what we're trying to do."

A more critical view was offered in a subsequent panel — What's Next for Syria? — by Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syrian human rights activist and a fellow at FDD. He complained that at a time when Syrians were being "slaughtered on a daily basis," the "world offered them a six-point plan."

He blamed the Obama administration for an "absolute lack of vision" and argued that if the U.S. had intervened sooner, the situation wouldn't be so bad. As a result, he predicted, Syria would be a problem for "many years to come."

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC

CONTINUE READING Full Story HERE..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/6/conference-mulls-hard-choice-dictators-dissidents/print/

 

PIERLUIGI PAGANINI: Anonymous Reloaded. Yesterday, today, tomorrow

-Cyber-BlackSEC- OPEN SOURCE

US/1; ATTN: PA/2; IT/2; US/12

[ed.note: Please see US/1 note, below…]

by paganinip on May 4th, 2012

The word “Anonymous ” evokes the myth of the hacker in today’s society that defends freedom of expression and agrees with sensational cyber operations in the fight against censorship and government and industrial questionable policies.

If Anonymous is perceived by future generations as an attractive ideology to follow, industry and government view with concern the threat posed by the group’s operations. The recent security reports, such as that produced by Verizon, indicates the phenomenon of hacktivism as the main threat of cybercrime planet, estimating the damage done by groups like Anonymous in their frequent operations.

The majority of IT and security professionals is convinced that Anonymous and groups of hacktivists are main cyber threats able to attack their organizations impacting on their primary business. Around the 64% of the nearly 2,000 IT professionals who participated in Bit9′s 2012 Cyber Security Survey believe that their companies will be target of a cyber attack during the next six months and 61% of them chose hacktivists as the likely attackers.

Of course the main factor exposes companies to the threat of the group is their media exposure, the participation to the policies or international public debates on new regulations. The group has demonstrated, in my opinion a great consistency in his choice of targets, offending companies that have distinguished themselves in approaching the topics so controversial that the group is interested.  No one can be considered safe, from the provider who is willing to support the new regulations such as the Cyber ​​Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) to the government agency intents on pursuing questionable international policies.
But which is the method of attack that most scares the companies?

Despite the companies afraid Anonymous and hacktivism they are most worried by the usage of malware as cyber weapon instead of the classic Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and SQL injection attacks preferred by the notorious hackers.
On this data we can make a couple of interesting reflections:

Companies are scared of hacktivism but consider its mode of attacks not so dangerous. The fear on anonymous attacks is related to the media effect of its operations that could damage the image of the business and also to attract other criminals groups on the target.

Second point, it is expected a radical change in the modus operandi of the Anonymous group because it is attracting also many hackers and professional that are interested to its operations. The skill of the hackers is increasing and the imminent risk is that a 0-day vulnerabilities could be found and exploited by the hacktivist causing extensive damage. The scenario described is not so absurd, let’s consider in fact that many operations of the groups could be shared and approved directly by government groups of hacker under coverage. In this case the power of attack of the group could be amplified. Let’s consider also that there is the high risk of infiltrations of the groups, Anonymous could be compared to a powerful cyber weapon. In that case operations could be addressed against political targets.


Many experts are sure that behind the recent attacks to China and it’s Great Firewall there is also the support of western intelligence, same scenario in Syria and in Tibet where groups of hacktivist have provided technological support to the dissidents.
Anonymous, and foreign governments, are well informed on the impact that political scandals could have on a country like China, emblematic is the case of communist party politician Bo Xilai.

[And Julian ASSANGE’s “thermo-nuclear threat” against Rupert MURDOCH and NEWS CORP. – US/1]

Xilai, the former Chongqing party chief, was removed from it engagements in his party positions last week because with his wife, Gu Kailai, are being investigated over the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood. The news has a dramatic effect on Chinese Public opinion, for this reason immediately the government has increased the monitoring of the social media to contain the diffusion of the news. 

On the other side, groups related to Anonymous have started to attack principal government web sites trying to force the censorship wall. Just for information searches for both Bo Xilai and his wife’s name were quickly blocked on Sina Weibo, and mass censorship of comments began.

What we expect from Anonymous in the future?

Nobody in technology, nor in business, could ignore the cyber threat moved by the group and must consider it in its cyber strategy. In the same time the group have to increase its  operations and their media effects choosing more striking objectives and conducing attacks able to make more and more damage. Next steps will include most advanced attack methods such as creating malware that to exploit unknown vulnerabilities.

Anonymous must be analyzed with a multidisciplinary approach, it is an amorphous creature that quickly changes and is able to adapt its behavior to the context he need to attack thanks the large and heterogeneous participation in its collective. But do not forget that “Anonymous” due its notoriety has become the perfect scape goat, government and private industry can perform cyber attacks in the name of the groups involving critical masses.

We run the serious risk of being frightened by the entity directing our efforts against the wrong image reflected in a mirror, the result of diversions or worse of an undercover action. In my opinion this is the most disturbing aspect of the story.  How to avoid this? It’s hard to say, it is impossible to hazard a forecast. Personally, if I were part of the collective, I would begin to evaluate a social opening considering that the movement is also expression of large masses.

That is the real challenge for a movement that may die due its notoriety, but consider that the outing isn’t so simple because Anonymous has no unified voice and hasn’t a real control center.

The choice could actually split the group, giving rise to crazy cells, impossible to control and very dangerous.

Pierluigi Paganini

http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/4935/cyber-crime/anonymous-reloaded-yesterday-today-tomorrow.html?goback=.gde_1765567_member_112723912

[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

 

Judith Miller and Douglas Schoen--STORM CLOUDS GATHER OVER MIDDLE EAST

- OPEN SOURCE  US/1; ATTN:  

  Member CONTRIBUTION

While the U.S. has been debating the debt ceiling, storm clouds have gathered

 by Judith Miller and Douglas Schoen

New York Daily News
August 3, 2011

http://www.judithmiller.com/10046/mideast-storm-clouds

While America has been busy playing games with the nation's and the world's financial stability by threatening to default on its debt, the Middle East has been exploding.

It's time to explore how the once-hopeful Arab Spring has turned ominous.

Syria. In an obscene repetition of history, President Bashar Assad ordered his military and security forces to attack unarmed civilian protesters in Hama and other restive cities and towns on Sunday, killing at least 100 people - a sickening reprise of his father's slaughter of between 10,000 and 30,000 residents of Hama who rose up against his repressive rule 29 years ago. The world shrugged back then as Hafez Assad imposed a new dictum for governing the region through fear and intimidation - "Hama Rules," as columnist Tom Friedman called them.

Those rules are apparently returning, albeit on a smaller scale. In addition to the 1,600 total dead, one global activist group says nearly 3,000 people - one an hour - have "disappeared" since the crackdown began in March.

Turkey. In neighboring Turkey, normally a bastion of stability, there's also fresh unrest. The top leaders of the country's military resigned last Friday. Some commentators called the resignations a victory for civilian over military rule - but it is the Turkish Army that has guaranteed stability and secularism in Turkey ever since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the modern Turkish Republic more than 80 years ago and began transforming the former Ottoman Empire into a modern, Westernized and secular nation-state. The last straw for the army was apparently the arrest by the Islamic government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan of more than 40 top generals on what the military's defenders call the flimsiest of charges.

Libya. In the oil-rich North African dictatorship, where the Obama administration has demanded that Col. Moammar Khadafy step down but let NATO lead the West's support effort, rival factions of rebel fighters conducted an eight-hour gun battle against one another over the weekend in Benghazi. The ruling rebel body, the Transitional National Council, was unable to explain coherently why and how a top rebel general was murdered, or why the rebels were using their newly purchased arms against one another rather than against Khadafy.

Egypt. This is where the Arab Spring took off - and it, too, is showing troubling signs of sliding backward. Tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters and other Islamists rallied in Tahrir Square last Friday, flaunting their numerical strength and political muscle and demanding the creation of an Islamic government. Meanwhile, Egypt's terrified ruling armed forces council is proceeding with plans this week to conduct a "speedy" trial of the ailing, former President Hosni Mubarak.

Iran. The regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has apparently developed new technologies to enrich even more uranium, another indication it seems determined to continue developing a nuclear bomb, all the while denying such intentions. Plus, the U.S. government is warning of an Iran-Al Qaeda alliance - a very worrying development, no matter how weakened Al Qaeda may be after Osama Bin Laden's death.

Iraq. Even as the U.S. continues to wind down its military engagement in Iraq, Iranian weapons and training have resulted in the deadliest weeks in recent memory, while newly minted Pentagon chief Leon Panetta pleads with Baghdad to make a "damn" decision about whether it wants at least some American forces scheduled to leave the country at year's end to stay.

And where is President Obama while what passes for his strategies in the region are shredded by such developments and the Mideast drifts dangerously away from American interests? He has been mostly silent. Oh, yes, he managed to condemn the Syrian slaughter in Hama as "horrifying." But he did not demand that Assad leave power. His administration has also remained silent about what seems destined to be a show trial of the former Egyptian president, who kept the peace with Israel and supported America's war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

A distracted American President, a lack of coherence in his foreign policy and a constellation of forces taking advantage of our nation's weakness are posing profound threats to our interests and security.

Miller is a City Journal contributing editor. Schoen, a pollster and strategist, is author of "The Power of the Vote."

[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]