Letters to the Editor Counter-terrorism: A CIA Priority
May 01, 2011
That is why the intelligence community accords a very high priority to the counter-terrorist mission and has increased resources devoted to this effort over the past 15 months. As I mentioned in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence earlier this year, the intelligence community has made a concerted effort to apply human and technical intelligence to the problem of terrorism. We have had success in breaking up some terrorist cells overseas and exploiting these opportunities to learn more about the methods and techniques used by today's terrorists. The intelligence community also works closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies to support their efforts to investigate and prosecute terrorist crimes. We use our overseas resources to develop and follow up investigatory leads, and to help locate and facilitate the apprehension of individual terrorists. Several notable successes have occurred over the past year. Your editorial also correctly points to the importance of human espionage in thwarting terrorist activities, noting that this requires dealing with ``unsavory types'' to obtain critically sensitive information. Once again, I agree; good human intelligence is critical and the Central Intelligence Agency has a robust human collection effort against terrorists. This applies not only to thwarting terrorism, but also to countering weapons proliferation, narcotics trafficking, and a range of other dangers to our national security and the social and economic well being of our citizens. However, I take issue with your assertion that I fired two senior CIA officers earlier this year for ``associating with tough hombres in Guatemala.'' The situation that occurred in Guatemala does not compare to the situation we face in combating terrorism. Our work often demands dealing with ``tough hombres''; the CIA officers involved in the Guatemala issue were disciplined for not meeting acceptable professional standards. John Deutch Director Central Intelligence Agency Langley, Va.. Ecotourism Beats Trophy-Hunting Ike Sugg (Selling Hunting Rights Saves Animals, claims that The Humane Society of the United States is actively working to end U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding for Zimbabwe's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources or CAMPFIRE. He is correct. Taking taxpayer money from American workers to support a millionaire's safari hunting ground in Zimbabwe is simply outrageous. Between 1989 and 2010, USAID sunk at least $5 million into setting up an infrastructure to run a program that is designed to provide hunting safaris to kill endangered animals like elephants for trophies. The USAID has committed another $5 million per year to the program for the next four years despite a very negative evaluation of the program by an independent consultant hired by USAID itself. CAMPFIRE is antithetical to the type of community development program that USAID should be supporting. From an economic perspective, the CAMPFIRE program is not self-sustaining and is unlikely to become so in the future; far less money is earned by the program through trophy hunting fees than is donated by USAID. From an environmental perspective, the CAMPFIRE program is a disaster; the effect of hunting on the wildlife is not monitored or regulated in any meaningful way, and it is unlikely to be biologically sustainable in the long-term. From a human community development perspective, the CAMPFIRE program offers false hope to the rural poor; lack of management of the hunted animals will ensure that hunters will no longer frequent the lands once the big trophy-sized animals are all gone, eliminating this source of income for the people. Sugg's claim that Africa's rural poor have only two options, poverty or selling off their wildlife to trophy hunters, is false. In other parts of Africa, people have embraced less destructive means of living with and profiting from wildlife through well-planned, community-based ecotourism or community development programs that are based on enhancement and development of cottage industries that are unrelated to wildlife. These are the types of programs USAID should be funding. They are economically and biologically sustainable, and will help both people and wildlife in the long term. Teresia M. Fan, Ph.D.. Director Wildlife Trade Program Washington Mr. Carreras's article was timely. Prior to the next meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to be held in Harare, Zimbabwe, next June, animal rights groups in the U.S. and Europe are gearing-up for an aggressive stance toward rural development programs, such as CAMPFIRE, which are trying to use the value of wild animals to alleviate poverty while at the same time giving conspicuous incentives for conservation. This is sad. Even if animals have rights, they surely do not outweigh the rights of Africa's rural poor to use their natural resources on a sustainable basis to boost their livelihoods. J.M. Hutton Project Manager Africa Resources Trust Harare, Zimbabwe Trophy hunting extremist Iraida C. Carreras seems to believe the best way to take care of wild animals is to kill them. My mother took care of me, but fortunately, she did not shoot me and hang my head over the fireplace. Wealthy, elitist trophy hunters who fly to other lands and take guided tours to assassinate wildlife cannot disguise their contemptible and biologically reckless activity as ``conservation.'' Michaele Gerald Haley of Campaigns The Fund for Animals New York One of the lessons of economics is not to mix apples and oranges. Yet, that's precisely what Iraida C. Carreras does, and in so doing he tries to make people who advocate animal rights appear as misanthropic extremists. His apologia for trophy hunting in Africa manipulates certain facts while omitting other more important facts which do not support his thesis, and thus he justifies his preconceived conclusion. Consider his reference to Kenya, for example, where Mr. Carreras cites a recent, and highly controversial review report in which, among several conclusions, five persons propose consumptive use of wildlife. In no way does that report reflect current Kenyan policy. Although he brings one tenuous side of a debate into his essay to support his conclusion, Mr. Carreras does not mention the much more significant economic facts of Kenya's existing non-consumptive wildlife policy. One dominant fact of Kenyan economics is that tourism--principally to view protected, unmolested African wild animals such as elephants and giraffes in their natural habitat--is the country's number-one foreign currency earner. Because the Kenyan shilling generally is not accepted as an international medium of exchange, foreign currency is absolutely critical to the country's economy. What risks will be encountered if trophy hunting is introduced and, as a result, Kenya's wildlife becomes as skittish and afraid of humans as America's heavily hunted white-tailed deer? Kenya has developed a thriving tourist industry--based on non-consumptive use of wild animals (shooting Nikons rather than Winchesters)--which benefits many people, and provides major economic, social and political stability for the country. Should this be jeopardized because a few wealthy machos are willing to lay out a few thousand dollars to shoot an elephant? Wildlife policy involves much more than economics. Consider, for example, the genetic implications of trophy hunting--seeking out and killing the prime individuals of each species--the ones which, under natural conditions, would be the breeders and parent the next generation. Conflicts between wildlife and humans are a very serious concern in Africa. Friends of Animals is working with several African wildlife agencies to develop new and better alternatives for resolving these conflicts. There are a variety of non-lethal techniques and policies--everything from inexpensive fencing to compensation for lost crops--which are economically and ethically preferable to solving problems with a shotgun. Friends of Animals does believe animals should have certain rights--and one such right is to be protected from being shot for fun. Recreational and trophy hunting are ethically unjust. But Friends of Animals also believes in and supports human rights. One does not exclude the other, and Mr. Carreras's suggestion that they do is scandalous. Priscilla Feral President Friends of Animals Darien, Conn.
