4 comments about How to Build a Nuclear Bomb: And Other Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nation Books).

1. I have read quite a lot on this subject so I almost did not buy it because I thought from a quickscan that I knew almost all this stuff and it would be too simple.

   However I certainly learnt much from it. If you are looking for a good book to state the current world situation this book will do the trick in a quite readable form.




2. A reference book which does not delve into the exhausting details of the WMD technology but presents in a clear and easy to read text all the essential information. Of course the title is somehow misleading, as the book is not a manual for nuclear bomb producers. The strong point of the book is that it is not necessary for someone to have a PhD in Physics, Bilogy or Chemistry in order to understand the working principles of WMD.



3. The book had some erroneous figures causing me to scrutinize the entirety of the information it contained. On top of this I felt it was poorly written with no closing to wrap up, typos, and instead of using a single form of currency when describing worth, Barnaby used several (e.g. Australian, the Euro, USD, Pounds, etc.) and I didn't like consulting a currency converter to make the numbers mean something to me. Overall, it was an informative but scatterbrained and, in my opinion, a useless book he wrote over the weekend to get some extra cash.
   
   By the way: who advertises with a review from the "financial times"? Give me a break.



4. Only a twisted prankster or a deluded madperson would publish a book on how to build a nuclear weapon. The author of this book however does not fit any of these two categories, and despite the title of this book, he has written a book that covers the issues and horrifying prospects behind chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The title therefore is somewhat misleading, and one should not expect to find detailed explanations on how to construct a nuclear bomb. Even a terrorist group who was interested or had the knowledge on how to do this would not share this knowledge, preferring instead to keep it to itself.
   
   The book was first targeted to a British audience, but in this new edition one finds a new preface that is directed to readers in the United States. This preface was written after the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003. and the author makes a clear and skeptical allusion to the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He is concerned with any kind of nuclear development in places like North Korea and Iran, and gives some evidence and insight into the status of their nuclear programs.
   
   In any case the author's purpose in writing the book is in his words to "contribute to informed debate" by giving some details on how weapons of mass destruction can be developed and then used. If the actual building of a nuclear bomb is very difficult, even with weapons grade material available, then perhaps the goal of anti-terrorist planning should be more in the area of chemical and biological weapons, and in strict monitoring of the location of nuclear weapons that are already built. A terrorist group interested in using nuclear weapons in their attacks on civilian populations would find it easier to steal a nuclear weapon than to develop, or perhaps purchase one from a "rogue" state that is sympathetic with their grievances.
   
   The author does not give a general definition of what he considers "terrorism" to be, but a good definition that encapsulates the intent of terrorists would be:
   
   "Terrorism is the deliberate act of killing civilians for the purpose of bringing about a particular end or goal, political or otherwise".
   
   The key part of this definition is in the real intent of killing civilians, rather than them being merely inadvertently killed when in the way of a military target. Thus the attacks on the World Trade Center were clearly terrorism, while the attack on the Pentagon was not, since the latter targeted a military installation. Palestinian suicide attacks against Israeli citizens are also acts of terrorism, as was the purposeful killing of Palestinians when their country was taken over by Zionist forces in 1949. The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden by the Allies in World War II was also clearly a terrorist act and the nuclear attacks by the United States against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were without doubt acts of terrorism if one accepts the above definition.
   
   Thus individuals from many walks of life and political ideologies practice terrorism, both with primitive weapons and more sophisticated and deadly ones. Although the author does not state it explicitly, to date only the government of the United States has practiced nuclear terrorism, but the author asks the reader to consider whether the threat of nuclear terrorism by other groups or "rogue states" is a real one or one that has been exaggerated. To inflate the threat of terrorism to bring about a particular end or goal, political or otherwise, is a dastardly act, but the possibility of this occurring must be considered alongside the real threat of terrorism. We must be able to distinguish a real threat from an exaggerated one, in order to stay focused on genuine dangers and not those that are hyped up by a particular political party or governmental agenc (a good example being the current regime in Washington).
   
   This is another good reason for reading this book, because it allows a more objective assessment of the effects of weapons of mass destruction, the degree of difficulty in their development, and the likelihood of their use by groups or countries. The author is skeptical of the chances of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, given the ability of countries that have them to obtain "dominant positions" in their regions. Most importantly, he addresses the ability of democratic societies to counter international terrorism without becoming an authoritarian regime in the process. He quotes a study that indicates that the likelihood of finding a terrorist group in a democratic society is 3.5 times the likelihood of finding one in an authoritarian regime. He does not elaborate on how these odds were calculated unfortunately.
   
   Anyone with a strong physics background has no doubt amused herself or himself at one time or another on just how they would build a nuclear bomb, if they were not currently working in nuclear weapons projects. It is natural to have such a curiosity, and this reviewer has been involved in many such conversations over lunch or in front of campfires. Without divulging classified knowledge, the author gives a brief overview of the physics and technology behind nuclear weapons in the book. The physicist reader will definitely find this part of the book interesting, even though the physics is kept at a very low level, in order to allow the book to appeal to a wider audience.

No comments about Afterwords: Stories and Reports from 9/11 and Beyond.

4 comments about Forecasting Terrorism: Indicators and Proven Analytic Techniques.

1. Forecasting Terrorism demystifies intelligence methodology and demonstrates how relatively simple and cost effective it is to implement sound, effective intelligence systems, with our current capabilities, resources, and technology.
   
   The key to preventing acts of terrorism is to identify and examine indicators of terrorist activity. As the findings of the 9/11 Commission confirm, terrorist attacks occur after years of careful planning, and these plans always leave a trail, such as movement of weapons, training, target surveillance, travel, and tests of security. Forecasting Terrorism is a methodology that plots 68 indicators of terrorist activity in web-based hypotheses matrices that are linked to raw reports, which are updated daily. It provides near-real-time assessments per location for threat, risk, and vulnerability, and provides safeguards against 38 of 42 common warning pitfalls, not the least of which are policy and politically driven intelligence decisions. By utilizing an intelligence methodology based on indicators and proven analytic techniques tied to daily-updated raw reports, we can more accurately recognize and assess terrorist activity and provide warning to prevent attacks (and unnecessary wars) and save lives.
   
   People who know my daughter and I know that in many ways we are ideologically oppossed, but running good intelligence is one example of a place where we can, and the people of our country must come together to build agreement on common ground.



2. The approach taken in this manual is firmly grounded in the positivist social science models of the 1970s and early 1980s. While useful on a tactical level, this approach neglects asking the larger questions and assumptions that tend to lead to genuine strategic surprises. For forecasting the likelihood of the use of a certain tactic (terrorism) by a known enemy, this book is fine. If you're trying to avoid strategic surprises involving this tactic or others, the approach in this book (and others of its type) won't get you there.



3. As a former intelligence analyst, I can say with confidence this is a great source full of procedures leaving little to guess work. Many forget intelligence is an art not a science. Author Sundri Khalsa has provided a framework for analysis that is far superior to some hit and miss technigues used in the past. The safeguards against common warning pitfalls is unprecedented, a key tool for all who make policy and do intelligence analysis.



4. The fictional spy, George Smiley, created by John Le Carre' once remarked that "It's such a mistake, I always feel, to put one's trust in technique." (from The Looking Glass War). In this remarkable book and CD produced by Sundri Khalsa, a good deal of trust is put into technique as a means of improving tactical threat and warning analysis.
   
   Based on the absolutely correct assumption that warning intelligence is effective only if it is accepted and acted upon by decision makers, Khalsa has developed a unique information system to produce warning intelligence, supporting evidence, and realistic risk assessment. This system is dependent on the availability of all "raw intelligence" (i.e. single source) which `raw reporting profilers' then use to build a basic information base (Terrorism Forecasting Data Base). Then `indicator specialists' review and extract data from this base to build indicator lists, evidence logs, and "Indicator Warning Narratives." This information is then used by "senior warning officers" to develop and update executive summaries of the warning narratives and to present warning intelligence to decision makers. Central to this entire operation is a very large relational data base (such as those built by Oracle) fed by the `profilers' from data extracted by them from a comprehensive Intelligence Community wide raw intelligence data base. The relational data base relies heavily on pre-programmed input and results management sub-systems which are designed to the extent possible to avoid human errors.
   
   The core idea behind Khalsa's concept is a good one, but she has failed to take into account the basic analytic capabilities required for the analysis of a complex subject such as terrorism. The `raw reporting profilers' are the critical ingredient in her system for everything else is dependent on what they enter into the information base. She maintains that a profiler should be able to profile and enter a raw intelligence every five minutes. This discounts the need for the profilers to have the target knowledge necessary to know what is important enough to extract from a raw intelligence report for a profile or even to identify a significant piece of raw intelligence. In the same way target knowledge would enable the profilers to relate one piece of raw intelligence to another in the information base. The `indicator specialists' would require an even deeper level of target knowledge to perform their jobs. The system Khalsa is advocating will work only if the individuals operating it have considerably more capability than she seems to believe they will need.
   
   Methodology and technique are fine, but only if it is understood that it still requires dedicated and competent individuals to make them successful.

No comments about Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies, and Responses (2nd Edition).

5 comments about Militant Islam in Southeast Asia: Crucible of Terror.

1. This is a fascinating book that examines the Southeast Asian terrorist network in chilling detail. It is highly readable, yet filled with data and information. It is essential reading for all those interested in Southeast Asian terrorism,and to understand how Al Qaeda has morphed.




2. 
   I have the advantage, in reviewing this book, of having heard the author present his views in a superb illustrated briefing that held 150 government intelligence professionals glued into their seats and fixated on the author's rapid-fire compelling presentation.

   This man is a brilliant scholar who has returned to the almost lost art of combining persistent field work with foreign language open sources (both printed and oral), and thoughtful analysis.

   Across the board, from his narrative to his footnotes to his bibliography to his index, this book is as good as it gets. This is a world-class contribution to our understanding in three areas: 1) what can be known about terrorism and militant Islam from open sources of information (but is being largely ignored by the so-called professional intelligence agencies that are obsessing on secret sources and methods; 2) what governments in Southeast Asia are and are not doing about it (in many cases, abusing American naiveté or being put off by American arrogance; and 3) where militant Islam is going in this area--be afraid, be very afraid.

   If all academics were this good, we would not need spies. This book and this author represent the very best scholarship that one could ask for. The author is the Program Director for East Asian Studies and associate professor of international politics at Simmons College. Goggling him yields a fine selection of interviews and Congressional testimony.




3. This book is rubbish. Abuza uses weak secondary sources with third rate results. He does not know the relevant languages to do substantive research (Indonesian, at least) and has cobbled together a text that panders to the most paranoid of policymakers. He's part of the fear-mongering industry and his work should be read with great skepticism, if read at all.



4. This is a frustrating work. You read the glowing blurbs (none of them experts on Southeast Asia, to my knowledge) and you expect a great book. The book does not, alas deliver: it is good in some ways, not in others.
   
   At one level, the book is quite good. Abuza manages to tie together a wide variety of facts into a coherent narrative. The book reads reasonably well, although there is clear evidence of haste (e.g. misspelled names). If you knew little about Islam or Southeast Asia, you'd probably come away with the impression that this is a crackerjack book.
   
   But what if you *do* know something about Islam or Southeast Asia? Alas, here the book is irritating. Take this howler: "Because Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country, it is easier for radicals and terrorists to fit in." (p. 123). That is an absurd statement. (On the same page, Abuza opines about former PM of Malaysia Mahathir's "insecurity about being a Muslim Malay" -- who knows what he is talking about?)
   
   Abuza, to his credit, usually avoids such bizarre claims. But he resorts to a formulation all too common on "terrorism" experts: that there is something called "moderate" Islam in SEA and then radical or extremist (which he identifies with "Wahhabis" or Salafis).
   
   If you know anything about Salafis, you know that Saudi Arabia is full of them, some of them probably seeing themselves as Salafis committed the 9/11 attacks . . . BUT that the vast majority of them do not embrace terrorism! No matter. Abuza paints with a broad brush and thus smears all Salafis without explaining what, exactly, in their beliefs makes them terrorists. This is intellectually lazy. It explains nothing.
   
   The use of terror is a TACTIC. It is a tactic used by weak non-state groups of all sorts of backgrounds. What we really need to know is why, at this particular time in history, a tiny percentage of Salafis have decided that it is the tactic to use.
   
   One last point: Abuza seems to like "moderate" Muslims. WEll, almost all Indonesians are Muslims. Some of these so-called moderates (e.g. NU, the military leadership) engaged in the killings of 1965-66 that left about 500,000 civilians dead. Some of these "moderates" killed East Timorese (over 100,000). But just as I would never use this as proof that "moderate" Muslims are bloodthirsty thugs BECAUSE OF THEIR ISLAM, so I don't think that individuals are terrorists because of their
   Islam. Islam contributes a world view, and many Salafis are rigid and uncompromising in their beliefs. . . one might want to argue that Salafis are more *predisposed* to the use of terror . . . but Abuza does not even make that more nuanced argument.
   
   My advice: read this book for the story of the different networks of terrorists in SEA. Take some of its claims with a grain of salt: after all, who really respects the Philippine intelligence services, who provide some data to Abuza. But discount Abuza's explanations on Islam.



5. I acquired this book, "Militant Islam in Southeast Asia," in order to do some background research for a novel I am writing. My book is a long-term project with no projected publication date as yet. It is a rather ambitious undertaking - a retelling of "The Odyssey" set as an Al Qaeda terrorist story that takes place partly in Indonesia! So, in preparation for an eventual fact finding trip to Indonesia, I have been doing some reading about terrorism and Southeast Asia.
   
   Zachary Abuza is on the faculty in the Political Science and International Relations Department at Simmons College in Boston. He has traveled extensively in researching this book, which has received enthusiastic praise from many quarters.
   
   W. Scott Thompson of Tuft's University's legendary Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy had this to say about Abuza's work:
   
   "Showing an astonishing persistence in tying together the threads of the terrorist threat, Abuza has come up with a dazzling display of Al-Qaida at work. It is rare that a book comes out with so deep and thoughtful analysis of a contemporary subject - this may well become the standard reference on everything happening in the Southeast Asian theater of the world terror crisis."
   
   Barnett, in "The Pentagon's New Map," and in his recent "Blueprint for Action," makes it clear that Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia, will play a pivotal role over the next several decades in impacting the balance of power among the leaders of what Barnett calls "the Core" and the "New Core." Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in the world, and will play a significant part in determining the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. Therefore, Abuza's seminal work becomes a very helpful tool in understanding how terrorism in general - and Al-Qaeda in particular - may serve as a crucial factor in determining how the relationship between the West and the worldwide Muslim may evolve.
   
   Using painstakingly well-documented and footnoted research, Abuza traces the growing influence of Al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia - from Afghanistan and the jihad against the Soviets to the bombing in Bali and beyond. His basic premise follows a logical chain of events. Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, many zealous Southeast Asians who had fought as mujahadin returned to Asia to use their skills and battlefield experiences to bring the passion of jihad to several local struggles to establish autonomous Muslim states through Southeast Asia. These struggles included the secessionist movements in Mindanao, East Timor, Sulawesi and the Malukus and Aceh - among others. Once the U.S. attacked Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and neutralize the command and control of Bin-Laden's team, Al-Qaeda was forced to flee from its lair in Afghanistan and scatter among a handful of safe havens - many in Southeast Asia. At first, these safe havens - Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand - were used as a convenient "back offices" for Al-Qaeda to conduct training, money-laundering, weapons acquisition and coalition building. Al-Qaeda also funded and co-opted many local insurgents and gave them a vision of taking part in a global jihad against the "savage intervention of the American Crusade Armed Forces and their allies [who are involved] in the Muslim cleansing scheme. . . as a `harsh reprimand' to Jews and Christians led by American heathens in oppressing and tainting the Islamic holy land, where the Revelation of the Prophets descended." (Pages 166-167).
   
   Eventually, the terrorists took advantage of lax security and political dissent in these nations to launch terrorist attacks on soft targets within these host nations - the bombing in Bali being the most spectacular and deadly among these incidents.
   
   For anyone who wants to develop a more comprehensive understanding of where Al-Qaeda is heading in its long-term strategy and short-term tactics, this book as a valuable resource.
   
   Al

3 comments about Che Guevara on Global Justice.

1. If you want to get your feet wet in the waters of comunist ideals, this is a good book to start with.



2. Humanistic Socialism. When you read this book, you can really see the flexibility, a far cry and major difference from the scientific Hegelian materialism of Marx, the dogmatism of Luxemburg and the authoritarianism of Lenin. The difference is a socialism, which emphasizes the need to listen to and work with the people in a democratic means, rejecting the exploitation found in authoritarian and bureaucracy found in the former Soviet and European socialism.
   
   Of course this socialism is also against the neo-liberal free market fundamentalism in the framework of the capitalistic economy dominated by the strong players who take advantage over the weak, under the same rules applied for all under the misleading terminology of "free trade."
   
   In this system of humanistic socialism, che speaks of the flexibility of state control, which in turn, acts in accordance between the state and the masses or proletariat, which includes compromises as to private ownership in certain cases, as in the many farmers, and in creating a societal structure devoid of exploitation, one based on the principles of socialism in an equalitarian, fair and just society where all are entered into the economic privileges which are available. There are of course limitations, however much is due not to the system itself but to the U.S. blockade against Cuba in obtaining raw materials, oil and other necessary items for people to survive and have any degree of prosperity.
   
   The esteem in the whole thing is Guevara and Castro's efforts in this regard, rejecting all dogmatic and Hegelian formulas which create bureaucratic nightmares as witnessed in Soviet communism and the Eastern European block, which subsequently failed and is no more. Unfortunately, the results of such a fall are U.S. imperialism on the rise and on a much more dangerous level to the world community of autonomous and independent existence.
   
   Now in response to the claim against socialism, (Von Mises) that socialism cannot perform economic planning from lack of a free market, Guerra speaks of a planning of fixed prices and trade agreements prior to the trading itself. The trading of goods for goods and services is also endorsed.
   
   The only question that really hangs in the balance is that while humanistic socialism is flexible, fights exploitation, fights bureaucracy and so forth, it is still state control. And like a monarchy, the kingdom is ideal when the king works for the common interest of the proletariat, but when his successor replaces him or her, the balance of power can be radically altered to the point of Leninist and Stalinist authoritarian proportions. And so it is, the humanistic socialism practiced by Castro hangs in the fragility of his successors and/or the successors of the present leaders in the government. Over all, I find Che's political philosophy in this book very well to both read and consider. There is no question in the issues raised of both the fight of super power imperialism and the need for an equalitarian, non-exploitive government and society.
   
   However my above question on socialism strongly argues against this fragility. For what Che's socialism espouses is really democracy, unlike the capitalistic representative forms. And this difference entails both education and self education where all citizens become active participants in government, where the culture itself is self-governing, removed from economic alienations. So in this sense, the succession of leaders would not alter the social and cultural fabric of the democratic individualization found in socialistic practice.



3. Che Guevara on Global Justice was a Christmas Gift for my son from his Amazon wish list. He read it on a 6 hour plane flight and wanted more.

3 comments about Finding Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and the First Amendment in an Age of Terrorism.

1. Saturday Night:
   I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
   I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
   1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
   On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
   2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
   3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
   4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
   5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
   6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.



2. Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.
   
   The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.
   
   The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.
   
   This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.



3. ....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...
   
   Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.
   
   This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!

No comments about Art That Kills: A Panoramic Portrait of Aesthetic Terrorism 1984-2001.

5 comments about Suspension.

1. "Suspension" by Richard Crabbe is gripping story of the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, life in NYC post-Civil War, and wartime passions that still smoldered and threatened to destroy the marvel as it was unveiled. The book provides a fascinating, human look at the diverse people who populated the emerging City at the time.
   Richard Crabbe is deft with history, social perspective, emotional exchange, human frailty, terroristic motive, engineering and intrigue. He brings characters from another era to life in a thoroughly enjoyable journey from beginning to end.



2. "Suspension" is an intelligent, elegantly written historical thriller with interesting, fully realized characters (yes, even the madam-with-a-heart-of-gold seems fresh on these pages). The New York setting is wonderfully portrayed. Although the middle seemed to sag a bit under the weight of police department politics, I had trouble putting the book down once I reached the last half. Highly recommended!



3. I picked this book up out of curiosity and never expected it to strike as close to home as it did. Mr. Crabbe is an author who obviously knows his subject - history - and has the ability to tell his story as well as Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum. I found his style to be a little heavy-going at times but I think that is because it reflected the literary style of the time period which was the setting for his story. The thrill of the chase, the escapes from peril, the deductive reasoning employed by the hero and much more made this an enjoyable reading experience. However, the parallel between this story set in Post-Civil War New York and current American and world events is chilling. The plot was conceived several years ago but it could very well have been taken from recent headlines describing the attempt by terrorists to destroy the most important American landmark of its day. A very important aspect of the book was the insight into the terrorists' plotting and motivation and their depiction as human beings with a cause. In the end you know why they did what the did and while you gain understanding of them you also know they have to be stopped because what they want is wrong.



4. Excellent historical novel with strong characters and superb atmosphere. Beautifully crafted story telling and a wonderful sense of time and place. If you enjoy Caleb Carr, you will love this book. This author has written a memorable novel with realistic characters, suspense, and obvious research. Very highly recommended.



5. "Suspension," the debut novel of Richard Crabbe, tells two riveting parallel stories -- one of revenge, and the other a powerfully-addictive detective story. Both are set in the vividly described New York City, captivated by the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge.
   
   Crabbe takes the unusual step of opening his novel with a sensitive depiction of his main villain, Thaddeus Sangree, former officer in the Army of the Confederacy. Sangree is haunted by the death at Gettysburg of his beloved, idealized brother, Franklin (and based on how Franklin died, nobody could blame Sangree for carrying a grudge). This experience has instilled in Sangree a conviction that the Civil War hasn't really ended, and he must get revenge against the man he holds responsible for Franklin's death - Union Colonel Washington Roebling.
   
   Roebling just happens to be the chief engineer and driving force behind the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, having taken over for his father after his death at the Bridge. Crabbe masterfully captures how important the Brooklyn Bridge was as a symbol in 1883 -- a statement of the power of Industrial America (i.e., the Northern version of success, not the Southern), and a gesture of healing and bridging gaps to bring a nation together. Roebling has invested so much of himself into the Bridge that he has been reduced to a shell of a man -- he spent so much time in the caissons (the underwater chambers where the foundations of the Bridge were built) that the "bends" -- which were unknown at the time -- prevent him from any strenuous work. Rather than just kill Roebling, Sangree and his band of saboteurs want to bring down the Bridge itself. What better revenge could former Confederates wreak on Roebling than to destroy his life's work?
   
   Loose lips force Sangree and cohorts to kill bridge-worker Terrence Bucklin, and this brings NYC Detective Tom Braddock onto the scene. Braddock, a detective's detective (i.e., he'll crack your skull if that's what it takes to get your tale, but only as a last resort, and he'll sure feel bad about it), pursues Bucklin's murderers with a doggedness that is truly inspiring. While there is plenty of action in "Suspension," Crabbe shows the less-glamorous side of detective work, as well - perhaps as an author he relates to the adage that the detective's best asset is "an iron butt," due to all the book-work that has to be done.
   
   As Braddock gets closer to his marks, Crabbe brings New York City to life -- particularly the tenements -- through vivid descriptions and clever attention to detail. Only an author steeped in New York City could offer such precise details as the varying odors emerging from various parts of the industrial city, and Crabbe also gives us a few street urchins for local color and humor.
   
   I particularly enjoyed reading "Suspension" after reading David McCullough's magnificent history of the building of the Bridge -- one of America's great achievements. This gave me the background to appreciate the aspects of the building that Crabbe was necessarily only able to hint at or make peripheral to the story -- the rampant corruption, the key role played by Washington Roebling's wife Emily in the building of the Bridge, and most importantly, the sheer weight the Bridge possessed in New York City life during the time.
   
   "Suspension" is one heck of a novel, and the fact that it is Crabbe's first is just plain amazing.

No comments about The Triumph of the Martyrs: A Reporter's Journey into Occupied Iraq.