June 2008 - Posts
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A trial date has been set for August 13th in the case of Sami Al-Arian, who is charged with criminal contempt in a two count indictment for refusing to testify before grand juries investigating Islamic charities with suspected ties to terrorism. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said she expected a "straightforward" trial that would last one day, but Al-Arian's attorney, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, indicated that he would continue to challenge the indictment and suggested the trial may be more complicated.
The indictment charges Al-Arian with refusing to testify when called before federal grand juries Oct. 16, 2007 and March 20, 2008 despite a grant of immunity from the prosecution.
After the arraignment Turley spelled out his planned defense on his blog, writing:
In court, I informed Judge Brinkema that we believed that the indictment was invalid on its face. Among other problems, Dr. Al-Arian did not refuse to cooperate. Dr. Al-Arian had given two detailed affidavits that established that he had no knowledge of any crime by IIIT or its officers. He further offered repeatedly to take a polygraph examination to prove that he had given a truthful account and was not withholding information.
Even if that turns out to be true, Al-Arian is not charged with "failure to cooperate," but criminal contempt for refusing to testify before the grand jury, which two federal appellate courts have held he had an obligation to do.
Although Al-Arian's defense claimed today that their client was not prepared to enter a plea, Judge Brinkema proceeded to enter a plea of not guilty on Al-Arian's behalf.
Judge Brinkema agreed to consider releasing Al-Arian on bond pending trial, but deferred her ruling until she can hear from pretrial services about how best to ensure Al-Arian's supervision during his release.
For the complete article of today's events, please click here to visit the IPT's website.
In the last two months, in two seminars aimed at developing future counterterrorism policy attended by senior-level representatives from the Administration, industry (e.g. , financial institutions, tech companies, and defense-related consulting groups), and the military, the subject of "Islamic finance" (or "shariah finance," used interchangably by many) has been introduced and discussed in favorable terms. Financial institutions are especially keen on reaching new markets, and others in the audience foresee the opportunity to engage in outreach and peace-building efforts. But they should take a breath and first survey that subject more deeply before diving into it.
Last November 14, Jeffrey Imm wrote, "Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal, and Islamist Financing," in which he exposed some of the players involved in setting up "The Wall Street Journal's Islamic and Ethical Finance Conference." As Jeff wrote then, it is painfully obvious that Wall Street mavens who lust for better connections and expanded markets in the islamic world often have no clue to the backgrounds, connections, ideologies, or ultimate goals of some of the central officials and organizations involved in many "Islamic finance" or "shariah finance" vehicles. Neither does Wall Street, nor K Street in Washington for that matter, realize that shariah finance vehicles are seen by Islamists as perfect indirect mechanisms for funding the implementation of extremist shariah law and/or violent jihad. Jeff's post is as informative today as when he wrote it. Moreover, other experts are now educating Washington and Wall Street to take a close look at the inner workings of otherwise attractive Islamic/shariah finance opportunities.
What Wall Street does understand (better than K Street) is the legal and political obligations under the USA Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act. I am not advocating a wholesale boycott of any and all Islamic finance vehicles (yet), but the risks are worth throwing cold water on the idea at this point.
There are two stories today that point to ongoing problems and the future contours of the conflicts in which we will be emerged in coming years.
The first is the extensive New York Times piece on who lack of resources, bureaucratic infighting and lack of unified vision (coupled with a high tolerance for Pakistan's game-playing) has helped allow al Qaeda to regroup in the tribal regions.
Perhaps the most disturbing item in the piece, which chronicles numerous disturbing elements that show how much the inter-agency process is returning to its pre-9/11 mindset the further the memories recede, is the following:
Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.
Radical Islamist groups (as well as most radicalized groups) desperately need areas where they can gather to mutually reinforce their beliefs, weed out unbelievers and build a joint narrative that allows them to tell their stories to themselves in which they are doing the will of Allah.
Without that, members grow in doubt, drift away from the core beliefs and lessen in their ardor for the cause. Joint experiences are also vital to forging the kind of comraderie that needs to exist among groups that are prepared to kill and be killed.
To allow these camps to be reconstituted is perhaps one of the single most dangerous failures we face. My full blog is here.
Saturday's explosion of a bomb in a building in a sunni neighborhood of Tripoli (Lebanon) killing one is a reminder of the tensions running high in Lebanon.Middle East Times on how the different players involved in the Lebanese puzzle are preparing themselves for the next stage.
You can read the full article here .
Last week's heavy fighting between Sunni militants and Alawites - an offshoot of Shiism - (Syrian President Bashar Assad is an Alawite) in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli left at least nine dead and many more wounded.
One may deduct from this latest violence that the Doha agreement that allowed the election of the pro-Syrian Gen. Michel Suleiman and de facto handed Hezbollah the keys of the country, is not going down well with the Sunnis, the Druze, a large portion of the Christian community and finally some anti-Hezbollah forces within the Shiite community. In fact, they feel that once again the United States and France have sold out Lebanon to fit their geopolitical interests.
Today’s edition of the New York Times reports on the nefarious activities of a “diploma mill” that has been successfully operating for some time , amassing huge profits while conspiring with its customers to provide anyone with the money, a worthless diploma that provides the illusion of academic achievement. These diplomas undermine the integrity of our workforce and may even undermine national security. As the article notes, visas can be issued to aliens who are able to document that they have degrees that would qualify them for employment in the United States, when in fact they have no such education and may have no intention of securing the job they apply for but simply desire to enter our country for other purposes.known as SEVIS that is supposed to keep track of foreign students and exchange visitors in our country .
A report issued late Friday by the Pentagon under Congressional mandate and comments by Defense Secretary Gates indicate the fragility of the security situation in Afghanistan. The "Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan" is the first formal report ever issued by DoD on the status of the security situation there.
"The Taliban regrouped after its fall from power and have coalesced into a resilient insurgency. It now poses a challenge to the Afghan Government’s authority in some rural areas. Insurgent violence increased in 2007, most visibly in the form of asymmetric attacks as Afghan and international forces’ relentless pressure forced the insurgents to shift the majority of its effort to targeting police and civilians. More than 6,500 people died as a result of suicide attacks, roadside bombs, and combat-related violence. The 2007 ISAF and ANSF military campaign caused setbacks to the Afghan insurgency, including leadership losses and the loss of some key safe-havens in Afghanistan. Despite these setbacks, the Taliban is likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008. The Taliban will challenge the control of the Afghan government in rural areas, especially in the south and east." But the report was limited in scope to events prior to April of this year. Secretary Gates had to contradict one assertion in the report on the day before it was issued, when he admitted that
attacks in eastern Afghanistan, including Khost province, rose 40 percent from January to May .
The report also discussed the role that drug trafficking plays in the Taliban's resurgence. "The cultivation, production and trafficking of narcotics in Afghanistan is a major concern. Narcotics-related activities are fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan and, if left unchecked, threaten the long-term stability of the country and the surrounding region. Over 90 percent of the world’s opium originates in Afghanistan, and the emerging nexus between narcotics traffickers and the insurgency is clear."
The report also criticizes Pakistan's appeasement of the Taliban in its Northwest provinces, identifying cross-border infiltration and attacks as the greatest threat to Afghanistan.
"The greatest challenge to long-term security within Afghanistan is the insurgent sanctuary within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The ANSF must be able to coordinate actions with a Pakistani force that is trained and resourced to eliminate threats emanating from within Pakistan. The Pakistan Military (PAKMIL)’s clashes with Taliban members and terrorist organizations in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal areas have, in the past, contributed to a decrease in cross-border insurgent activity in Afghanistan’s eastern provinces. The U.S. is concerned about ceasefire negotiations and other agreements between the Government of Pakistan (GoP) and possible militant groups in South Waziristan and other locations in the FATA and North West Frontier Province. After similar agreements were signed in 2005 and 2006, cross-border operations by extremist groups against U.S. and NATO forces increased substantially."
You can read reports on each of these issues by Douglas Farah (including his post below), Daveed Gartenstein-Ross , Evan Kohlmann , and others on this Afghanistan archives page.
Those who are skeptical of the growing ties between drug trafficking organizations and terrorist groups-which I think will be the real war we will be fighting for many years, given the resources obtainable by drug trafficking organizations-should read the latest UN Office of Drugs and Crime report.
Among the many interesting findings is that the two areas of greatest increase in illicit production of drugs in the world are in the hands of designated terrorist groups: the Taliban in Afghanistan and the FARC in Colombia.
A third party involved in the expansion of drug production is Burma, a rogue criminal state. This bodes ill for the rest of the world.
As Antonio Maria Costa, director of the agency, told the AP:
"The explosion of narcotics in those areas is explained by their presence (the terrorist groups) and the protection they offer," Costa told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday.
"I believe that slowly these people, although politically motivated at the beginning, are becoming a kind of organized crime," he said. "Money tends to stick to fingers, and a big lump of money becomes very problematic."
The numbers should alarm policy makers and the intelligence and law enforcement communities. My full blog is here.
Talks with North Korea about removal from the terrorism list have been going on for at least eight years. North Korean officials have been seeking removal as part of the price for being more forthcoming in the nuclear disarmament negotiations over dismantling that nation’s nuclear weapons program.
Today the North Koreans provided TV images to bolster their effort by allowing U.S. television networks to cover the demolition of the cooling tower at the nuclear power plant at Yongbyon, where weapons-grade plutonium was processed.
President Bush’s announcement Thursday came after North Korea turned over a key 60 page document detailing its rogue nuclear program. Bush said the receipt of the nuclear disclosure marked the start of an "action for action" process that is meant to end with the full dismantling of the country's nuclear facilities and weapons.
The Washington Post described the handing over of the document as “one of the most substantial developments to date in the often fitful six-party talks among North Korea, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. It detailed aspects of North Korea's plutonium production and other parts of its nuclear program. “
There are still gaps in the information the U.S. is seeking, including a list of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and some Republicans quickly came out against the proposal to take North Korea off the terrorism list. Opponents include the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and John Bolton, the former Bush Administration ambassador to the United Nations. The New York Times reported today that there were divisions within the administration over the terrorism list decision, reflecting a victory by the State Department over the Defense Department and perhaps even Vice President Chaney.
Convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian has been indicted in Virginia on two counts of criminal contempt after refusing to testify before a federal grand jury despite a grant of immunity.
Al-Arian , who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide goods and services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, has argued that his plea agreement ruled out any cooperation with the government. Two appellate courts, the 4th Circuit and 11th Circuit , have rejected that argument, saying no such agreement is in the written plea and was not uttered during Al-Arian's plea hearing.
The indictment offers few details, except to give Oct. 16, 2007 and March 20, 2008 as the dates of his alleged criminal contempt. The grand jury's focus is believed to be on terror financing by the Herndon, Va.-based International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
For the full story, please click here to visit the IPT's website.
The controversy surrounding the Islamic Saudi Academy of Virginia continues to grow. Rep. Frank Wolf, the ranking Republican of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the State Department, wrote Secretary of State Rice (Acrobat file of the letter) to express his serious concern. "It is well known that Saudi Arabia promotes the radical Wahhabi interpretation of Islam within its own borders and has financed radical clerics abroad. Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Looming Tower , points out that "Saudi Arabia, which constitutes only 1 percentofthe world's Muslim population...supports 90 percent ofthe expenses of the entire faith," including "thousands of religious schools around the globe, staffed with Wahhabi imams and teachers." The ISA is funded through the Saudi government, which also funds radical madrassas along the turbulent Pakistani borders." And he sharply criticized the State Department in a handwritten note, "The State Department is not doing its duty." I recommend Steven Emerson's new article on this issue for more history of the State Department's inaction, as well as today's CQ Homeland Security story on this issue .
But the ISA is just the latest in a long line of examples of the Saudis' dissemination of Wahhabist propaganda in the United States, and Congress has already sharply criticized the Saudis for it. Almost three years ago , on November 8, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled, "Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?" to review how the Saudis spread such literature in mosques and schools throughout the United States. You can read the testimony delivered at the hearing by Steven Emerson , Nina Shea, and others at this website and you can download the full transcript from here . Note the defense of the Saudis by their designated representative at the hearing, Anthony Cordesman of CSIS.
The focus of the hearing was the January 2005 report issued by Freedom House and edited by Ms. Shea, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques," on the widespread dissemination of Wahhabist propaganda in American mosques and schools. We were the first website to publicize that study in January 2005 and continued to review and discuss its implications here and here . In March of 2005, 15 Senators wrote Secretary Rice , citing the report and urging her to persuade the Saudi government to stop the distribution of such material.
The continued use of the offensive textbooks at the ISA is indicative of the Saudis' willingness to export Wahhabism without any meaningful action by the State Department to prevent or halt it. To be taken seriously, Congress will have to demand the removal of such literature and enact that demand into law.
The NEFA Foundation
has obtained a new video from dissident members of the Izzadeen al-Qassam Brigades - the military wing of the Hamas terrorist organization in the Palestinian territories - of their recently slain comrade Rami Abu Suweirah (a.k.a. Abu Huzaifah) condemning the political leadership of Hamas for their decision to participate in democratic elections in the Palestinian territories, and for various other “violations of Shariah.” Abu Suweirah insisted, “
I… pledge my innocence before Allah from having… participat[ed] in elections, entering polytheistic councils, making visits to infidel and apostate countries, congratulating and supporting the Christians … As for their supporters, policemen, intelligence agencies, and bodyguards—to all of you, we say: we wash our hands of you, and from what you worship in place of Allah.
We wash our hands of your laws and courthouses, your methodology and constitutions. We wash our hands of your governments and courthouses, your slogans and foolish symbols. We have no faith in you, and hostility and permanent hatred have arisen between us forever .”
The video can be viewed on the NEFA Foundation website .
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute issued a report on Wednesday which noted that Jemaah Islamiyah continues to pose a "significant threat to both Australian and regional security interests." The report claimed that the group had splintered between a fanatical hardcore and a less extreme wing, but could still muster 900 militants. (Though largely semantics, there are probably thousands of hard-line militants in Indonesia belonging to overt paramilitary groups; it is doubtful that very many of them would claim any affiliation with Jemaah Islamiyah.)
The report urged the Australian and Southeast Asian governments to remain vigilant against violent radicalism. It was written by Peter Chalk, a senior policy analyst with the Rand Corporation, and former Australian Labor Party national security advisor and academic Carl Ungerer.
On June 18, I testified before the Canadian Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Ottawa about a proposed bill to deter terrorism by providing a civil right of action against perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism. Segments of that testimony follow, and you can download the entire written testimony and my oral statement before the committee:
This important legislation will significantly enhance current counter-terrorism measures now being implemented and enforced by the Government of Canada. It is a major step forward in holding the perpetuators of terrorism and those that knowingly provide them material support, including state actors, accountable in Canada and to the victims of terrorism. This legislation will also serve further to deter those considering providing support to terrorist groups. And, it gives long overdue recognition to the rights of victims of terrorism by affording them, for the first time, real legal recourse to hold those that employ and support terrorism responsible...
(T)he evidence gathered in material support for terrorism cases often does not lend itself to effective courtroom use. Intelligence information is often highly classified, gathered through sensitive sources and methods, vulnerable to exclusion under hearsay and related rules of evidence, or otherwise unsuitable for use by the government in a court of law. This represents a major drawback for prosecutors charged with connecting the dots along the complex route such transactions follow, and at the same time demonstrating the subjective knowledge or intent of those initiating the transaction. And linking fungible funding to specific of acts of terrorist violence can be an overwhelming task.
Experience has shown that civil tort or tort-like litigation, even when the criminal justice system has failed, can still provide effective accountability and redress in criminal activity related cases. And the judgments obtained in such cases can also be so overwhelming as to bankrupt or otherwise put out of business those held accountable, or to convince those engaged to cease such nefarious conduct. Even those who fear not criminal prosecution, for the reasons noted above, still may well be deterred in the face of possible substantial civil, and very public, litigation against them...
Some have suggested that the legislation before you should be amended to limit the proposed exemption from sovereign immunity for terrorism-related cases, to those involving countries specifically designated by the Canadian Government as terrorism supporting countries. Those promoting such limitations cite, as an example the approach initially adopted by the United States when it amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in 1996. I understand that the Canadian system of designation is quite different from that in the United States. Nevertheless, based upon the US experience, and the drawbacks encountered, I think such a limitation here would be a mistake.
Among the most dangerous times in a counter-insurgency campaign, inherent in asymmetrical warfare, is when the insurgency is close to being defeated.
Desperate to remain relevant and to motivate its followers as the situation becomes more trying, the groups grasp for a spectacular action that will give it a new lease on life.
In both Iraq, where al Qaeda in Iraq the FARC is on the ropes, public statements by officials give hints of a premature sense of triumph.
This lesson is not lost on some, including a senior intelligence official who told the Washington Post:
"I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains "the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks."
That is not to deny significant progress has been made. Clearly AQI has suffered sharp defeats. The FARC has much of its senior leadership through death and desertion, and is clearly in its deepest crisis in decades. My full blog is here.
Last night, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors decided to ask the State Department to "investigate" the textbooks in use at the Islamic Saudi Academy of Virginia before a final decision whether to continue leasing public land to the school. Some are celebrating that decision as a "reversal" and a "victory," but it is not. Actually, the Board cynically wimped out, refusing to accept the obvious evidence already presented by an independent commission of the federal government, and punted the whole issue away from that agency to the State Department. Surely the Board knew, as any of us who have followed this issue, that State will continue to do what it has done for years on this issue - nothing.
I last posted on this issue on June 12 , in which I laid out how the ISA is a case study in homegrown radicalization, applying criteria developed by the New York Police Department , citing the new report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom , and recalling the ISA's most famous valedictorian, convicted terrorist Ahmed Omar Abu Ali. The examples cited in the report of the anti-Israeli and pro-Wahabbist textbooks in use at the school are painfully obvious: "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims)... Only through force and victory over the enemies is there security and repose. Within martyrdom in the path of God (exalted and glorified is He) is a type of noble life-force that is not diminished by fear or poverty." And recall what the USCIRF report says about the Saudis' continued deceit in hiding the textbooks from official U.S. government review:
"In every official meeting during the visit to Saudi Arabia, the Commission delegation asked Saudi interlocutors for copies of textbooks. The Saudi government’s refusal to make them available during that visit or after the Commission’s return, despite repeated requests, left the Commission with continued concerns about their content and serious questions about whether they were in fact being reformed. The Commission also sought to obtain the textbooks used at the ISA...
While neither the ISA nor the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia complied with the Commission’s requests to release the school’s books publicly, the Commission did obtain some Arabic-language books currently used in the twelfth grade and a random selection of texts currently used in middle and high school classes. The Commission’s review of these textbooks found that they did contain passages justifying violence toward, and even the killing of, apostates and so-called polytheists. The texts also include highly intolerant passages about non-Sunni Muslims, such as Shi’a, Ismailis, and Ahmadis, and non-Muslims, such as Jews and Baha’is...
However, the books reviewed by the Commission in the winter of 2007-2008 show evidence of truncation, omission, cutting and pasting, and the use of correction tape or fluid to cover over text—but not sufficient revision to remove all objectionable material, as evidenced by the passages cited above. They appear to be Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks, with some alterations but with identical wording in many sections of the texts."
I would remind the county supervisors that USCIRF was created in 1998 by
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 . So the investigation they want has already been conducted by an official agency of the U.S. government. There is nothing left to prove.
What we have here is a failure of leadership. The State Department has done nothing about these books over the past five years, and the Fairfax County supervisors know it. The county supervisors contracted for a secret, special report, have not released it to this day, and won't take obvious action. I repeat what I posted on June 12: The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors should revoke the lease and force the school to leave public property.
The ISA incubator of homegrown radicalization operates unabated. May God protect the good people of Fairfax County, because their elected supervisors apparently will not.
While the European Union just announced new sanctions against Iran, including the freezing of the assets of Bank Melli, Iran had already anticipated this move.here .
Here is an excerpt:
Not a week goes by without an Iranian minister or official visiting Dubai.
The 350,000 Iranians of Dubai compose the third largest community after the Indians and the Pakistanis. The large fortunes belong to families of Iranian origin. There are 8,200 Iranian companies today in Dubai compared to 6,500 in 2005.
Dubai has become Iran's back-up base and Iranian companies that do business abroad prefer to be based in the emirate. More than 200 flights each week link Dubai to the main Iranian cities. The port ships merchandise of all kinds to Iran, from cars to electric machinery and food.
The official trade figure between the two countries is $6 billion annually, but the smuggling amounts to an estimated additional $1.2 billion a year. Out of that $1.2 billion figure about $250 million stems from U.S. goods, supposedly banned from entering Iran.
Last week, in an unpublished summary order, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2005 conviction of Uzair Paracha in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on charges of providing material support to Al-Qaida. Paracha's defense attorneys had sought on appeal to challenge the admission of expert testimony during the trial from myself addressing various relevant aspects of the organization and structure of Al-Qaida. Summary of decision as follows:
United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuitthe court was well within its discretion in ruling that Kohlmann's methodology was sufficiently reliable and his testimony relevant to the jury's understanding of al Qaeda so as to be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).See United States v. Paracha, No. 03-cr-1197, 2006 WL 12768, at *20-22 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2006). Indeed, the court limited the government's use of the expert testimony, demonstrating that it carefully considered Kohlmann's reliability and expertise, as well as the proper scope of his testimony . Id. at 22-24."
Two reports released today continue the "more good news but remaining bad news" pattern that we've seen in the past year, since the surge in U.S. troops was fully implemented. In "Iraq Report 9: The Battle For Basra," published by the Institute for the Study of War in conjunction with The Weekly Standard , Marisa Cochrane (no relation) discusses the forces that enabled militias to control Basra, why Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki initiated "Operation Knight's Charge" to secure Basra, and the continuing dangers ahead. Here are excerpts from the report and a press release by ISW:
"By the end of the first week, the offensive reached a stalemate. In the face of Iranian-supported enemy resistance, the Iraqi Security Forces were unable to take control of the Jaysh al-Mahdi’s heavily fortified neighborhood strongholds. The intense clashes continued with neither side gaining momentum. An agreement between Muqtada al-Sadr and representatives from rival Shi’a parties, brokered in Iran by the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), seemed to calm the violence in Basra at the end of March. The next day, Iraqi Security Force reinforcements arrived in Basra and prepared for larger-scale clearing operations...
The militias and Iranian-backed fighters have suffered great losses, but not total defeat. They have likely gone underground to regroup and evade the current security crackdown. This has made the security gains tentative...
Operation Knight’s Charge illustrated the progress that the Iraqi Security Forces have made over the past year while also serving to underscore remaining challenges in their development. Most importantly, the Basra operation has strengthened the Iraqi central government and security forces vis-à-vis criminal militia elements and their Iranian sponsors. While lasting success is by no means assured and important challenges remain, the gains in Basra over the last few months are significant and palpable..."
A longer status report on Iraq, the latest in a long line by the Government Accountability Office, provides more details on the security successes brought about by the surge and continuing failures of the Iraqi government - some excerpts:
"Overall violence, as measured by enemy-initiated attacks, fell about 70 percent in Iraq, from about 180 attacks per day in June 2007 to about 50 attacks per day in February 2008. Security gains have largely resulted from (1) the increase in U.S. combat forces, (2) the creation of nongovernmental security forces such as Sons of Iraq, and (3) the Mahdi Army’s declaration of a cease fire... Average daily attacks were at higher levels in March and April before declining in May 2008. The security environment remains volatile and dangerous. The number of trained Iraqi forces has increased from 323,000 in January 2007 to 478,000 in May 2008; many units are leading counterinsurgency operations. However, the Department of Defense reported in March 2008 that the number of Iraqi units capable of performing operations without U.S. assistance has remained at about 10 percent.
The Iraqi government has enacted key legislation to return some Ba’athists to government, give amnesty to detained Iraqis, and define provincial powers. However, it has not yet enacted other important legislation for sharing oil resources or holding provincial elections. Efforts to complete the constitutional review have also stalled...
For example, although The New Way Forward stated that the Iraqi government would take responsibility for security in all 18 provinces by November 2007, only 9 of 18 provinces had transitioned to Iraqi control as of May 2008...
Between 2005 and 2007, Iraq spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its own reconstruction efforts. More specifically, Iraq’s central ministries, responsible for security and essential services, spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007—down from similarly low rates of 14 and 13 percent in the 2 prior years. Violence and sectarian strife, shortage of skilled labor, and weak procurement and budgeting systems have hampered Iraq’s efforts to spend its capital budgets.
Although oil production has improved for short periods, the May 2008 production level of about 2.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) was below the U.S. goal of 3 mbpd. The daily supply of electricity met only about half of demand in early May 2008."
On June 16, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the opinion of a three-judge panel, rendered December 28, 2007, which overturned the landmark $156 million judgment against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), other Islamic charities in the U.S., and an alleged Hamas fundraiser. The case arose out of the 1996 murder of David Boim, a 17-year-old American citizen, who was killed in a Hamas terrorist attack in the West Bank. David’s parents sued men who were directly involved in the murder; the Holy Land Foundation (HLF); the American Muslim Society, also known as the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP); the Quranic Literacy Institute (QLI); the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR); Saleh, the alleged Hamas fundraiser; and others (see this summary judgement order from the first trial for the complete list).The June 16 decision will result in a rehearing of the case by the entire court in the near future, thus giving the Boim family a second chance at the appellate level. Download the December 28 decision here and the June 16 decision here .
We discussed the impact of the December 28 decision at a January briefing for Congressional staff and other invitees. I posted this summary and the comments by Victor Comras and Jeffrey Breinholt (before he returned to active service in the Justice Department) and me. We also posted the following immediately after the December 28 appellate decision:
"Landmark Civil Terrorism Decision Overturned - Victory For Holy Land Foundation, Defeat For Terrorism Victims," my post on December 29, 2007;
"Boim Case Reversal Could Be Major Blow To Victim-of-Terrorism Litigants," Victor Comras' post on December 29, 2007; and
"Why the Boim Ruling is a Pyrrhic Victory for the Islamic Charities," Jeffrey Breinholt's post on January 2, 2008.
In its June 16 decision, the Seventh Circuit invited supplemental and amicus briefs to address the following question: "Whether a donor to an organization that, the donor knows, practices terrorism, can be liable under 18 U.S.C. §2333(a) in the absence of proof that the donor intended to advance the violent component of the recipient's activities." I would urge readers to carefully read Jeff Breinholt's Jamuary 2 post, which presages this question.
A reminder: On December 11, the Counterterrorism Foundation, along with the NEFA Foundation and International Assessment and Strategy Center, conducted a special panel, "Infiltration and Deception: The Holy Land Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood in America," on Capitol Hill. You can read the comments by participants Douglas Farah , Michael Fechter, Jeffrey Breinholt , and me at this post . The post includes links to studies which include exhibits presented in evidence at the HLF criminal trial last year, which ended in a mistrial and will be retried.
The recent assault by armed government gangs, leading to dozens of deaths and hundreds of encarcerations, has led the opposition in Zimbabwe to withdraw from the electoral process. The striking inability of Tabo Mbeki in South Africa and other sub-Saharan African nations and institutions (the Africa Union, for example) is a shameful episode that has set the continent back for decades.
But there are reasons other than human rights and the rule of law to be concerned about Zimbabwe and its meglomaniacal leader, Robert Mugabe. To discern that, one only has to look at other criminal states in the region, and their history.
As regimes such as that of Mugabe, Charles Taylor or Mobutu in Zaire (DRC) become more isolated and more desperate, the leadership turns increasingly to organized criminal activity to finance itself and stay in power. With the organized crime, one almost always gets the shadow facilitators that connect the transnational criminals to their desired source of wealth or activity.
And the shadow facilitators almost always bring in the terrorist connections, because the two groups operate through the same pipelines. A merger is almost impossible to avoid.
These shadow facilitators, like Viktor Bout, who dealt with Charles Taylor, a host of other African governments, the FARC and the Taliban, don't distinguish among their clientele. Others, like Sanjivan Ruprah, facilitate the deals across the continent.
By 1998, Taylor was hosting Russian organized crime, Ukrainian organized crime, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Israeli crime and South African organized crime. Why? Because he was able to give them things they needed-passports, aircraft registrations, safe entry and exit points etc.-in exchange for what he wanted-money to run his regime. My full blog is here.
The NEFA Foundation has posted a new edition of its TerrorWatch video cybercast, this time examining Al-Qaida's growing focus on the plight of the Palestinians and the emergence of apparent Al-Qaida cells in lawless regions of the Gaza Strip . In a January 2008 audio recording, Fatah al-Islam leader Shaker al-Absi told his followers, "“We ought to think about our brothers in the blessed land in Jerusalem and in the Gaza Strip, the heroes of Fatah al-Islam who were granted success by Allah in their first blessed operation, of whom we ask Allah… to grant them and us success… We say to them, ‘Your will play a major role in the future. You are part of one of the most important fortresses and frontlines… Our Lord has poured out patience over us and allowed us to gain a foothold… against the infidels… This battle is only the beginning, and we shall see who will be the victor.”
Separately, in the wake of the U.K. Court of Appeals decision to overturn the conviction of the "Lyrical Terrorist" Samina Malik, the NEFA Foundation has released a PowerPoint briefing, authored by NEFA Senior Analyst Josh Lefkowitz, that provides an overview of Operation Orbile, the British counterterrorism investigation that targeted Malik and Sohail Qureshi . The briefing includes more than a dozen exhibits entered into evidence in the course of those prosecutions, including email correspondence between Malik and Qureshi in which Qureshi sought information on airport security from Malik, who worked at a newsstand in Heathrow Airport: "Wat is the situation like at work? Is the checking still very harsh? or have things cooled down a bit?...Delete after read!" Qureshi, who trained at an Al-Qaida camp in Pakistan and was arrested at Heathrow on his way "to commit acts of terrorism overseas, possibly against coalition forces in Afghanistan," pled guilty to terror charges. In addition to providing Qureshi with details on airport security, Malik compiled an extensive library of jihadist material, including The Al Qaeda Manual, The Terrorists Handbook, The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook, a manual for a Dragunov Sniper Rifle, The Firearms and RPG handbook, and a document titled "How to Win hand to hand fighting." In announcing its decision not to retry Malik, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) stated, "Ms Malik was not prosecuted for her poetry. She was prosecuted for possessing documents that could provide practical assistance to terrorists." However, with the redefining of Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, some of the documents CPS "relied on in Ms Malik's trial would no longer be held capable of giving practical assistance to terrorists."
The United Nations' Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has no problem with suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" perpetrated by the United States on itself. The human rights of America's 9/11 victims are not a priority for UNHRC's Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, who engages in 9/11 conspiracy propaganda, while working for an organization headquartered in New York City funded by U.S. tax dollars. This is Richard Falk's protected freedom of speech.
Denying the role of Jihadists in the 9/11 attacks is apparently perfectly acceptable freedom of speech for the UNHRC, but criticizing Sharia law is another story.
On June 16, 2008 , UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea announced that criticism of Sharia law will not be tolerated by the UNHRC, based on the complaints and pressure by Islamist delegates to the UNHRC. In effect, the Islamist nations represented at the UNHRC have effected a Jihad against freedom of speech at the United Nations when it comes to criticizing Sharia or Islamic supremacist (aka Islamist) theocratic ideologies that threaten the freedoms and lives of innocents around the world. This again demonstrates the key imperative of control for Islamists - in this case in terms of controlling ideas, thoughts, and words of an international organization intended to promote human rights. Outgoing UNHRC Commissioner Louise Arbour subsequently raised concerns about debates on Sharia becoming "taboo" within the United Nations group, stating that it "should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression."
The UNHRC ban on debate regarding Sharia came as a result of a three minute joint statement by the Association for World Education with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to the Human Rights Council on women's rights, and the impact of Sharia law. These NGOs sought to address international issues of violence against women, specifically, stoning of women, "honor killings" of women, and female genital mutilation, as a result of Sharia law.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Arab Republic of Egypt vehemently criticized this attempted NGO message, interrupting via "16 points of order", for an hour and twenty-five minutes, per the IEHU . Jihad Watch provides a full transcript of the debate. The Egyptian UNHRC delegate claimed that silencing these NGOs was to ensure "that Islam will not be crucified in this Council," but the fact is that Islamist forces seek to silence any debate on Sharia at all - anywhere, any time.
Following several years of wrangling with Saudi Arabia over Al Haramain Islamic Foundation’s continuing international role in facilitating terrorism financing, the US Treasury Department has finally acted unilaterally to designate its whole world-wide operation, including Al Haramain's headquarter offices, structure and operations in Saudi Arabia. Previous designation actions had been directed only against certain Al Haramain branches.
The Treasury Designation states, in part:
The U.S. Department of the Treasury today designated the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHF) for having provided financial and material support to al Qaida, as well as a wide range of designated terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Today's action targets the entirety of the AHF organization, including its headquarters in Saudi Arabia. Evidence demonstrates that the AHF organization was involved in providing financial and logistical support to the al Qaida network and other terrorist organizations designated by the United States and the United Nations.
Between 2002-2004, the United States designated thirteen AHF branch offices operating in Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Comoros Islands, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Netherlands, Pakistan, Somalia, Tanzania, and the United States.
Several of these branch offices have also been designated by the United Nations 1267 Committee based on evidence of their support for al Qaida. The United States and United Nations also designated in 2004 the former leader of AHF, Aqeel Abdelaziz Al-Aqil.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia joined the United States in designating several branch offices of AHF and, due to actions by Saudi authorities, AHF has largely been precluded from operating in its own name.
Despite these efforts, AHF leadership has attempted to reconstitute the operations of the organization, and parts of the organization have continued to operate.
Al Haramain Foundation was designated today under Executive Order 13224, which targets terrorists and those providing financial, technological, or material support to terrorists or acts of terrorism. Assets held by any office of the AHF organization under U.S. jurisdiction are frozen and U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transactions with AHF.
Al Haramain was one of the first charities directly linked to Al Qaeda funding. Its activities served to raise funds for Al Qaeda and to channel funds ostensibly as charitable contributions for local social activities to Al Qaeda (and Taliban) related groups operating in Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia, Kenya, Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan and other countries. While the US expressed great concern to the Saudi Government about these activities, the Saudi's prevailed upon the United States not to seek to close down the whole Al Haramain operation. In turn, Saudi Arabia agreed to join the US in asking the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee to designate the suspect branches. The Saudi Government also promised to establish new controls and oversight of its operations, restrict its overseas operations and to replace and reform its leadership and management. But, despite these undertakings, little was in fact, done.
After removing Al Haramain's Director General Aqeel Abdulaziz Al-Aqil, and his UN designation, the Saudi's continued to allow Aqil to remain active behind-the-scenes- in so-called charity related fields, and to leave his other business interests alone. See also Doug Farah's recent posting on the continuing activities of Wael Hamza Julaidan who was designated for terrorism financing activities along with the Rabita Trust.
In January 2005, the following excerpt appeared in a Saudi Newspaper :
Kingdom Has No Plans to Close Down Charities
Abdul Wahab Bashir, Arab News
JEDDAH, 1 January 2005 � Saudi Arabia has no plans to shut down any local charities, after Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation which had its offices closed down earlier in the year, a government minister has said.
The ministry, he said, has not reported any misconduct from the part of the charity and did not receive any documented information to this effect from any side.”
Treasury Department officials have long and regularly pressed the Saudi Government to carry through on its pledges to reign in Al Haramain and other major Wahhabi (and largely Saudi-funded) charities including the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), World Muslim League (WML) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). That’s been largely the job given to US Treasury UnderSecretary Stuart Levey, who told AIPAC back in March 2005 , thatFor too long, wealthy donors and multinational charities in Saudi Arabia were underwriting terrorism of all kinds, without any meaningful controls…. We impatiently await the creation of a commission to monitor the charitable sector, and continue to insist that this commission regulate all Saudi charities, without exception of such groups as the Muslim World League and the International Islamic Relief Organization, or "IIRO." Also, in addition to the export of terrorist funds, we are extremely concerned about the export of terrorist ideologies. These teachings are as indispensable to terrorists as money, and possibly even more dangerous. We must do all we can to ensure that extremist, violent ideologies are not disseminated under the cover of religious organizations, charities, or schools.”
Unfortunately, little has changed since that time. And, this action now, on Treasury's part is long overdue. They have long had sufficiently convincing information to act against Al Haramain, but have apparently refrained from doing so with regard to Saudi Royal Family sensitivies on the issue. Does this presage a new policy? Is this meant as a warning to Saudi Arabia that we will no longer contenance such activities by Saudi-sponsored charities, and that they had better now clean up the activities of the IIRO, WML and WAMY? Isn't it curious also that this action comes on the heels of a Saudi promise to increase oil production?
When the Treasury Department acts unilaterally to designate such a group, it is usually a sign that the US has tried, and failed, to convince the UN Al Qaeda and Sanctions Committee to join in the designation, and thereby to impose a uniform chapter VII international obligation on all countries to freeze al Haramain assets and to deny its access to economic resources, ie, to put it out of business. Without such a worldwide commitment and obligation it is doubtful that the US action alone will do more than hamper al Haramain's continuing overseas operations. Nevertheless, the treasury action is an important declaration and should be followed up by diplomatic action to put as much pressure as possible on the Saudi's to close al Haramain down.
The Treasury Department's Office fo Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today several entities tied to Hezbollah and operating in Venezuela. This is the first time I can find of the U.S. government directly and publicly linking Hezbollah funding activities to Venezuela.
This is part of a larger pattern, including, as I wrote earlier, of the penetration of Hezbollah and Iran in Venezuela, with the blessing of the Chavez government.
Not long Iran began banking operations in Venezuela as well , in an effort to bypass the international sanctions in place and those that may follow in coming days.
According to the OFAC statement, one of the men designated, Ghazi Nasr al Din, is a Hezbollah fund raiser who has facilitated the travel of senior Hezbollah operatives to Venezuela to raise funds and open Hezbollah-funded social centers.
This, of course, is greatly facilitated by the direct flights now operating between Caracas and Tehran, with return stops in Damacus, Syria. The added beauty of these flights is that those who board them don't need visas, so there is no record available as to who has come or gone. And, despite being commercial flights, it if virtually impossible for a normal person to book and fly on the flights. My full blog is here.
Today, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, an Egyptian student in Tampa, Florida, entered a guilty plea in Federal Court in Tampa to one count of providing material support to terrorists. The plea stems from the case wherein he and a cohort, Youssef Megahed, who is another student at the University of South Florida (USF) and whose charges are still pending, were stopped by Sheriff’s deputies near a US Naval facility in Charleston, South Carolina. During the traffic stop, their vehicle was found to contain explosives material and jihadist training materials on Mohamed’s computer. Mohamed’s plea relates to the circumstances of that traffic stop and what he told investigators were the purpose of those training materials...namely to assist terrorist fighters in their jihad against the “invaders,” who Mohamed identified as US military personnel in Muslim lands and those who assisted them.
Mohamed now awaits sentencing and faces up to fifteen years incarceration. Pursuant to prior media reports, Mohamed came to the US on a student visa to attend USF and had been arrested for as yet detailed charges in Egypt prior to coming to the United States. Seemingly, there may be some questions concerning the student visa issuance process related Mohamed that hopefully the State Department and/or the Department of Homeland Security will one day answer.
Beyond that, Mohamed joins a growing list of Islamic terror-linked operatives who have also been connected with the University of South Florida. Those include former Professor Sami Al-Arian, who was a tenured computer engineering professor there and is now convicted of having provided support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). It includes Al-Arian’s brother-in-law Mazen Al-Najjar who was deported after a multi-year legal battle that linked him to the PIJ. Al-Najjar was a part-time professor at USF, and worked there in violation of US immigration law. It includes Ramadan Shallah, the current chief of the PIJ who Al-Arian and Al-Najjar brought to the US to ostensibly work in their PIJ front organization in Tampa. Shallah worked for a while as a professor at USF...in violation of US immigration law. Indirectly, the list includes Fawaz Damra, the convicted and deported former imam of the Parma mosque in Cleveland, Ohio who lied on his naturalization forms about his support for PIJ and other radical Islamist organizations. Damra was involved with Al-Arian and Al-Najjar with their Tampa PIJ front organization that also happened to have a formal “research” working agreement with USF. The list includes Hussam Abujubarra, the similarly (like Damra) convicted and deported computer engineering professor at the University of Central Florida (UCF) who was convicted of lying in his own immigration proceedings. Abujubarra helped Al-Arian and Al-Najjar set up that Tampa PIJ front organization with links to USF. The list includes Bashir Nafi, a notable PIJ operative who, like Shallah, Al-Arian and Al-Najjar brought to the US with visa applications to work at their Tampa PIJ front organization affiliated with USF but who, in reality, wound up working at the northern Virginia International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the very “charity” under Federal investigation wherein Al-Arian was detained for contempt for refusing to testify about in Grand Jury proceedings. Nafi was deported in1996 for visa violations and, like Shallah and Al-Najjar, remain under Federal indictment in Tampa for Federal charges, though they remain at large since they are outside the US.
From the earliest days of the Al-Arian, et al investigation, various iterations of the USF Administration have claimed they have done all they can to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities and to conduct all available internal audits and reviews to make certain the school is free from radical, terror-involved personnel and influences. University administrators are not counter-terrorism law enforcement personnel. There are, however significant and strong administrative and legal inquiry procedures that remain available to State university and education officials when it is suspected that serious subversive activity is occurring on their campuses or being committed by their faculty or students. The cases of the suspects and defendants named above spanned a period of nearly fourteen overt years. That is a long time for a university to learn some tough lessons. The question is, has USF learned those lessons and has it really done all it can to resolve what some may call a substantial problem?
If the USF Administration cannot answer that question, maybe the Florida Attorney General or the Governor can.
(See also -
MSNBC Deep Background: "Exclusive Interviews with Iraqi Insurgents" )
In an effort to help Americans better understand the evolving dynamics behind the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, I have begun conducting a series of exclusive interviews with prominent Sunni insurgent organizations. The first groups to accept my invitation were Hamas al-Iraq and the Al-Rashideen Army--arguably two of the most influential Sunni insurgent factions fighting in Iraq .
Both groups have insisted that they are part of a unified Sunni effort to force a U.S. military withdrawal that includes all major organizations “except Al-Qaida, and everyone has fought against them because we see this group as promoting a particular agenda that does not fit with the realities of Iraqi society.” When asked for an assessment of Al-Qaida's top leaders in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, a spokesman for "Hamas al-Iraq" responded, “If you mean knowing those two persons by their names only, the answer is yes as everyone else knows. However, whatever is the truth behind them or about them, we do not know. If you have any information about them, then we hope you will be able to share it with us.” Likewise, a representative from the "Al-Rashideen Army" openly mocked the repeated, insistent demands by Al-Qaida's Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri for Sunni insurgents to join under the banner of Al-Qaida: “There is a problem in Tibet for China—is it possible for me to prescribe the solutions for their problem? We are a people in this region for 6000 years before Christ, end[ing] with Islam, and we are fully capable of rolling and managing our own affairs. We do not need others to tell us what to do.”
As for Abu Omar al-Baghdadi's offer of a truce last month to other Sunni insurgent groups, the Al-Rashideen Army had this to say: “We have never heard of it, and we do not credit any audio recordings, our intelligence rather does not recognize audio recordings, [in order] to take action or make decisions.”
- Transcript of Interview with Hamas al-Iraq Transcript of Interview with the Al-Rashideen Army
The NEFA Foundation
has obtained an exclusive video-recorded interview with Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, a senior commander of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and an acknowledged deputy of notorious Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud . When asked during the interview whether the TTP would host Usama Bin Laden and fugitive Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar as guests in northwestern Pakistan, Faqir responded, "Throughout the world, a war is being fought under the leadership of Sheikh Usama and Amir al-Mumineen Mullah Mohammad Omar. The war against America and its allies has being going on under the leadership of these two personalities.
We have stated that if we were given the honor of hosting these guests, it would be a great privilege for us …
We consider them as our leaders . They are Muslim heroes. The activities of both these leaders are against the U.S. and its allies." Faqir also boasted of having personally met with both Usama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar inside Afghanistan, and confirmed that the TTP has been providing logistical support for foreign nationals traveling through Pakistan to the jihad in Afghanistan: "Traditionally, we do cooperate fully with our guests.
The tribals are providing assistance and hospitality to all those guests who are fighting against America ."
One more item of note from the interview for those specifically following CBRN issues:
Q.) "If the Mujahideen obtain nuclear weapons, how and when could the leadership justify their use?"
The NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a new communiqué from Al-Qaida’s Committee in the Islamic Maghreb claiming responsibility for several recent terrorist attacks in Algeria, including a June 8 bombing near the Beni Amrane train station which killed a French contractor working for the Razel corporation. According to the statement, “following much preparation and careful observation, the mujahideen decided to target the French delegation, despite the heavy security blanket provided by their apostate servants.” The AQIM also claimed responsibility for another recent operation of note - a twin suicide bombing attack on June 4 targeting an Algerian army outpost in Burj Kaifan. In the statement, the group explained, “After following up, making preparations, and observing it over the space of four months, the mujahideen discovered two vulnerabilities. First, the overcrowding of its main gate at closing time each Wednesday evening as the men were inspected upon leaving through the gate. The second was the gathering of these apostates at a café nearby to the barracks… Consequently, the mujahideen decided to attack these two vulnerable points with a pair of martyrdom operations.” The AQIM also directed a final message to “the crusaders and their servants from among the apostates”: “we are coming, by the will of Allah, so start digging your own graves.”
A translated copy of the communique can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website .
On June 2, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) narrowed the focus of federal money laundering laws by ruling against the government in two money laundering cases. In pursuing these and most cases, law enforcement and prosecutors regularly employ a broad and practical interpretation of the money laundering laws. In its rulings, the Court adopted a narrow and technical interpretation of the money laundering laws. The question at hand is what was the intent when Congress passed money laundering legislation, the practical or technical application of the laws?
Individuals or groups involved in criminal activity, gangs, drug trafficking organizations, ethnic organized crime groups and terrorists or terrorist groups rely on the proceeds of illicit activities to succeed. One commonality each of these groups shares is that money laundering is an essential element of their ability to operate and thrive. According to the 2007 National Money Laundering Strategy “money laundering, in its own right, is a serious threat to our national and economic security.”
There are no quantifiable statistics to measure the true scope of money laundering. In 1996, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that the aggregate size of money laundering in the world could be somewhere between two and five percent of the world’s gross national product. According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), using the IMF statistics today would indicate that money laundering ranged between U.S. Dollar (USD) $590 billion and USD $1.5 trillion.
Based on the fact that criminals and terrorists must launder funds to succeed, coupled with the staggering scope of the problem as estimated by the IMF and FATF, there is a compelling argument that if the intent of Congress in enacting money laundering legislation was not the practical interpretation of the law, it should well have been. The immediate problem we face is that both decisions favor money launderers. Congress must carefully review these decisions and take steps to amend existing laws and specifically articulate their intent supporting the practical application of the money laundering statutes. In one case this should be relatively easy to accomplish. The other case will prove to be more challenging.
In the case U.S. v. Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz, Santos was convicted for running an illegal lottery/gambling operation and money laundering. Diaz plead guilty to conspiracy to launder money. He worked as a collector for Santos. The money laundering charges in this case were based on Santos using receipts from gambling activity to pay winning bets and couriers who worked for him. In prosecuting the case, the government applied the practical application of the law and considered the “proceeds” of the operation to be “gross receipts.” The government’s position was reasonable since criminals should not be entitled to use illicit receipts to fund their operations and thereby benefit from them.
However, in a 5 - 4 decision, the Court took a technical application and interpretation. It ruled that “proceeds” under the federal money laundering statute meant “profit” and “not gross receipts or expenses.” The court opined that Congress did not specify the meaning of “proceeds” thus the statute was ambiguous and could be interpreted as either “receipts” or “profits.” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the main opinion. He stated that as a matter of dictionary definition “proceeds” could mean either “receipts” or “profits.” He stated “We interpret ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of defendants, not prosecutors.”
It is not practical or reasonable to expect law enforcement and prosecutors to identify profits above receipts in establishing money laundering charges. Receipts from specified unlawful activities should be the standard. In this case, it should be relatively easy for Congress to amend the money laundering statute to specifically state that “proceeds” are “gross receipts.”
In the case Cuellar v. U.S., Humberto Fidel Regaldo Cuellar was stopped for driving suspiciously slow near the U.S. Mexican border. His mannerisms continued to arouse suspicion. Police searched Cuellar’s car and found a concealed compartment containing $83,000. It was wrapped in Wal Mart sacks. The money smelled like marijuana. Police determined that Cuellar used a few common ruses to attempt to conceal the secreted funds. Cuellar was convicted of “attempting to transport the proceeds of unlawful activity across the border, knowing that the transportation was designed to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control of the money.”
The police in the Cuellar case acted reasonably. The prosecutors applied a broad and practical interpretation to the money laundering statutes in charging Cuellar only with “concealment” of funds and not going beyond that threshold. The fact that Cuellar concealed illicit funds in a hidden compartment of a car, that smelled like marijuana and was being transported to Mexico should have been a reasonable standard to sustain a money laundering conviction.
However, by unanimous decision, the Court applied the technical interpretation of the money laundering statute and found that the government’s position was too broad. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court’s decision. He stated that Cuellar’s conviction had to be overturned because the applicable section of the 1986 law required that Cuellar knew that the purpose - not merely the effect - of his transporting the money was to conceal or disguise its illicit nature. In essence, proving concealment by itself was not enough. The Court appeared to voice concern that the government applied the practical interpretation too broadly.
Based on the Court’s tone in the Cuellar case, it is not as likely that Congress will amend the money laundering statutes to support the government’s position and interpretation that concealment by itself should be the standard in this type of case. In light of the overwhelming flow of illicit bulk cash out of the U.S. through Mexico, especially by drug trafficking organizations, the intent of Congress regarding the money laundering laws should be to disrupt money laundering by means of bulk cash shipment. Congress should closely assess the Cuellar ruling and determine if they can craft language to amend the money laundering statutes that will satisfy both practical and technical considerations in this type of situation.
As previously noted, the 2007 National Money Laundering Strategy stated, “money laundering, in its own right, is a serious threat to our national and economic security.” Congress must empower law enforcement to take a broad and practical approach in interpreting and applying the money laundering laws. This is the best mechanism for the government in attempting to address the myriad of challenges presented by money laundering operations. When the government succeeds at disrupting the flow of illicit funds, it does so at the expense of criminal and terrorist organizations.
There were several reports, led by the Washington Post, on the rogue international smuggling network that managed to acquire blueprints for an advanced nuclear weapon.
No one knows where those blueprints were sold, or to whom. My sources in the intelligence community have suspected for several years that the network of senior Russian officials operating the criminal enterprise that Viktor Bout was a part of, had gotten ahold of at least two copies of the plans.
Given Bout's extensive contact lists with radical and criminal groups, and those of the Russian organized crime that are creeping in to many new places, including the Caribbean and Mexico, it is hard to overstate how dangerous this is.
"These advanced nuclear weapons designs may have long ago been sold off to some of the most treacherous regimes in the world," David Albright wrote in a draft report about the blueprint's discovery.
The important lesson here is that we know that the network of A.Q. Khan provided Libya and North Korea with design information for a nuclear bomb. My full blog is here.
This afternoon, the Washington Institute hosted Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the chief of Intelligence at the Department of Energy, as part of our 2008 Speaker Series, featuring senior US government counterterrorism officials. The speaker series is available here .
Mr. Mowatt-Larssen spent more than 2 decades in the CIA before assuming the DOE post, working on WMD-related issues, among many other assignments. At the Institute, he spoke about the threat of nuclear terrorism, focusing not only on al Qaeda, but also explaining how WMD-terrorism presents a broader, strategic threat.
Mr. Mowatt-Larssen offered his thoughts on how the US and its allies can most effectively confront this potentially grave threat. His full remarks are available here:
Jeffrey Imm's passionate denunciation of the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush , published here , takes vigorous exception to the principle that the federal courts should have the right to analyze the detention of persons that a U.S. executive authority has deemed to be "unlawful foreign enemy combatants."
For others, and I am among them, the principle that is being vindicated in this decision is fundamental to protecting our liberty, namely, the right of each person to have fully independent oversight of an authority's decision to hold them in prison.
The Boumediene decision rejects the ludicrous position of the Administration that the U.S. does not have sovereign control over the prisons of Guantanemo, but that Cuba does. If the U.S chooses to run a prison and hold people at a location, entirely under the control of the U.S., it is deny reality to suggest that the U.S. is not exercising "sovereignty" over those prisoners. (More importantly, it is to deny a wrongly-imprisoned person any recourse. As a former Executive branch official involved with federal law enforcement, I can state the obvious -- governments actually do make mistakes, and when mistakes are made, they even sometimes try to cover them up.) As the U.S., and no other authority, is holding them prisoner, the question boils down to whether there should be judicial review of the decision to hold the person prisoner, or if the executive should have the right to set the rules for any review of its own conduct in holding them.
In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered parting statement under the title “Rethinking the National Interest: American Realism for a New World.” The section on the Middle East includes an elusive passage that seems to acquiesce in the political inclusion of violent groups. As I argue at the Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) blog, it misses the point.
“The participation of armed groups in elections is problematic. But the lesson is not that there should not be elections. Rather, there should be standards, like the ones to which the international community has held Hamas after the fact: you can be a terrorist group or you can be a political party, but you cannot be both. As difficult as this problem is, it cannot be the case that people are denied the right to vote just because the outcome might be unpleasant to us. Although we cannot know whether politics will ultimately deradicalize violent groups, we do know that excluding them from the political process grants them power without responsibility. This is yet another challenge that the leaders and the peoples of the broader Middle East must resolve as the region turns to democratic processes and institutions to resolve differences peacefully and without repression.”
Secretary Rice’s analysis correctly points out that groups must choose between being a terrorist group and a political party if they want to be accepted by the international community as legitimate political parties. Indeed, the lesson is not that elections are bad. The lesson is that elections are not the sum total of democratic transformation; they must follow, not precede, the development of civil society; and they are the product of civil society, not the precipitant for it. Elections done right have positive transformative powers. Elections done wrong are just as powerful, but they are as likely to entrench as to transform, and are more likely to have negative rather than positive implications. The slow and not-so-sexy process of building the “democratic institutions” the Secretary refers to in passing must be prioritized over the quick-fix allure of holding elections prematurely.
In the case of Hamas, which the Secretary cites, the international community’s mistake was in only trying to force the “terrorist group or political party” choice upon Hamas after it participated in elections. Because it came after the group’s electoral victory, forcing that choice after the fact was all that much more difficult. As I argued almost a year ago in the wake of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, “The West made a critical mistake when it welcomed Hamas to participate in democratic elections without demanding that it adhere to democratic principles. The electoral laws in most Western European countries would have barred Hamas, an extremist party, from running for political office.”
As the cases of Hamas and Hezbollah have both demonstrated, radical and violent groups have been painfully successful in walking that thin line between power and responsibility, for the most part enjoying the perks of political power without being constrained by political responsibility. They do this by explaining their exceptionalism in terms of their ongoing conflict with the enemy. That is, the “resistance” comes first and all other considerations—political or otherwise—come second.
This column is another in the ongoing series on the terrorist threat to India and the surrounding region by Frank Hyland and Animesh Roul.
The near-simultaneous terrorist bombings in the “Pink City” of Jaipur, India, on May 13th - numbering perhaps as many as nine - in retrospect reverberated most loudly, perhaps, in the halls of the Indian Government. In a nation fully 40% the size of the entire continent of Australia, with a greater number of indigenous languages (approximately 23) than the number of nations on several continents, a nation comprising 28 states and seven union territories, one would think that a centralized national office would exist to deal with the single most serious threat facing India’s citizens. Simply put, that has not been the case. The existing Counter-Terrorism organizations, of course, have done their best, especially considering the budgetary and philosophical constraints that have plagued analogous CT organizations in other nations in the past, including the US.
The negative comments on India’s approach and response began the very next day, with critics observing that, since 2004, India had suffered more loss of life from terrorist attacks than Europe, Eurasia, Latin America and North America combined. Others called for the reenactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) , abolished by the then-newly elected government in 2004 on the grounds that it was draconian and that other laws already in existence and in force were quite adequate to the task. Opposition political parties such as the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), sensing an opening, quickly added their voices to the chorus, complaining loudly that the attacks the day before were a “dangerous indication” of the spread of terrorism into India’s heartland, and that the government’s “soft, weak and apathetic” policies had encouraged terrorist acts such as the Jaipur bombings.
On that same day - the day following the bombings - another observation began to emerge, this one from those involved in one way or another in India’s CT effort. The call was for the creation of a central point in the Indian Government to better coordinate the huge number of national- and state-level organizations involved in CT. As a knowledgeable retired police official then observed, India was struggling with a “structural” problem made even worse when an attack could be planned in one locale, implemented in yet another, and executed in a third location. Attempting to improve India’s ability to prevent attacks such as Jaipur, of course, raised the bar even higher for security and police officials.
Simultaneously, expressions of support for India and its CT efforts flowed in from around the world, including from France, the UK, and the US. The expressions of support, no doubt, included offers to assist India in forming and operating a centralized CT organization with an emphasis on terrorist threats and prevention.
Evidence that the swelling chorus of critics within India had at least been heard arrived, and in only four days following the bombings. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, himself, who had publicly resisted widespread calls for the reinstitution of the POTA, this time publicly issued a strong call for a central authority to deal with terrorism and other crimes. Singh’s address, somewhat surprisingly, made reference to “several states” within India which had expressed what he called reluctance to support the creation of such an agency. The Prime Minister demonstrated his assessment of the seriousness of the situation, saying that “new challenges have arisen and assumed a more menacing form.” Further, the Prime Minister agreed, there was a “systems problem,” in a clear recognition of the structural dimension others had addressed previously.
Additional calls for the creation of a centralized CT organization at the national level in India continue to the present and, notably, are apparently without much opposition. Taken in tandem with the international expressions of support and offers of assistance, it is likely that the Jaipur bombings will be viewed in retrospect as a watershed, a seachange-type of event, one that brought India into the present era in its efforts to combat “International Terrorism without Borders .”
I am sending U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy a framed copy of a photograph of the remains of the World Trade Center West building after the 9/11 attacks with a note "Don't You Know There's A War On?".
The Real Headline: "U.S. Supreme Court Doesn't Think We Are At War with Jihad"
On June 12, 2008, the majority on the Supreme Court ruled in "Boumediene v. Bush ," that habeas corpus rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution will be extended to foreign Jihadist enemy combatants currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court stating that "(Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, page 41) .
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, with Justice Souter providing a concurring opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia both filed dissenting opinions; the other two dissenting judges were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In this decision , the Supreme Court majority tells the American people to ignore that, in no time in American history have habeas corpus rights been granted to any foreign combatants, to ignore that during WWII the Supreme Court ruled that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus, to ignore that during the Civil War that habeas corpus was suspended for American citizens, to ignore that the Supreme Court ruling seeks to give foreign enemy combatants more rights than illegal aliens. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ignores the reality that the U.S. Constitution was for American demanding that "[t]he laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."(Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, page 70 ).
This afternoon, a federal jury in Toledo, Ohio has convicted three local men--Mohammad Amawi, Marwan El-Hindi, and Wassim Mazloum--of all criminal charges filed against them, including plotting attacks against U.S. troops fighting in Iraq. The jury took less than two days to render a resounding verdict in the case, which involved one of the largest collections of terrorist propaganda ever to be seized by the FBI on U.S. soil. During the investigation of the three men—Mohammed Amawi, Marwan El-Hindi, and Wassim Mazloum—FBI agents uncovered a wealth of incriminating evidence indicating that the men were habitual users of such notorious terrorist websites as Muntada al-Ansar and Al-Ekhlaas. Evidence seized from Marwan El-Hindi included login information for an account on the Al-Ekhlaas discussion forum
which, in February 2005, was used to post a message which proclaimed to other Al-Ekhlaas users , “I am a terrorist. Please add my name to the list of wanted terrorists. I am a Palestinian Muslim from the Army of Mohammed, may Peace be Upon Him. Terrorist, Terrorist, Terrorist, Terrorist, Terrorist, Terrorist, Terrorist!”
A copy of my expert report from the Amawi/El-Hindi case is now available for download from the NEFA Foundation website . The report carefully analyzes the vast swath of terrorist propaganda seized during the investigation, and how the defendants were recorded by an FBI informant while they reviewed and endorsed individual documents.
The dustup between the U.S. and its Pakistani counterterror allies over a June 10 firefight on the Afghanistan border has stirred up new questions about Islamabad's commitment to the fight and the loyalties of its border guards.
According to Pakistan, at least 11 of its paramilitary Frontier Corps border force were killed by coalition forces firing into Pakistan from inside Afghanistan this week. That's a pretty novel charge but hardly a new complaint. What Pakistani officials typically fail to acknowledge are the countless cross-border incursions by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other militias enjoying safe havens in their country, who often fire rockets at U.S. and Afghan bases from the tribal areas on the other side of the disputed Durand Line.
To bolster U.S. claims that its forces on the Afghan side were attacked during a combat operation in Kunar province coordinated in advance with Pakistani military commanders, the U.S. military command at Bagram Airfield released an edited video of the 90-minute firefight taken by an unmanned drone (see below). A small group of people can be seen on the infrared video firing small arms and RPGs as an unidentified narrator points out that, "It is clear that there are no military structures or outposts in the area."
While the governments involved sort out who fired at whom, it’s worth noting that U.S. troops fighting along the border have long contended that the Frontier Corps - an almost exclusively Pashtun tribal militia overseen by Islamabad - has been viewed as often aiding or abetting Islamic insurgents. Pakistan defends the force by saying they have suffered hundreds of casualties fighting extremists.
One U.S. veteran involved in the border fight recently told me about an ambush in which a Special Forces operator was killed. U.S. troops following a blood trail leading to a wounded attacker found he was a Frontier Guard officer carrying a map that identified multiple U.S. "hide sites" used to maintain covert surveillance of cross-border incursions.
When I visited Camp Tillman near Lwara, Afghanistan three years ago for the New York Daily News, U.S. commanders complained bitterly about a number of incidents in which Frontier Corps troops looked the other way when Al Qaeda-led insurgents ambushed U.S. troops and never warned their American counterparts of interlopers they could plainly see from their rocky outposts.
Last April, a Washington Post reporter visited the same area and was told by one soldier: "The Frontier Corps might as well be Taliban .... They are active facilitators of infiltration."
None of this should be surprising. A 1996 State Department cable declassified last year and obtained by the National Security Archive said Islamabad had used the Frontier Corps to train and fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. "These Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat," the cable said.
NBC News has just posted a new story on its Deep Background blog by Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin examining the new U.S. effort to "smoke out" American Al-Qaida spokesman Adam Gadahn (a.k.a. Azzam al-Amriki." In the piece, Jim describes new radio spots airing on over 30 stations across Afghanistan, urging local Afghans, "Being a man means fighting for what is right, defending your family, your community, and your country. Adam Yahiye Gadahn is not a man... Born American, he betrayed not only his family and his community, but also his country. There is no way to trust someone who is willing to betray the very land they were born on."
I would draw particular attention to the comments and reaction of my colleague Claudio Franco from the NEFA Foundation , who is cited in Jim's piece:
...Franco is an enterprising journalist and senior investigator who... has spent countless months in Afghanistan reporting on local jihadists and, with the NEFA Foundation, shared video with NBC last year that he shot inside a secret, underground Taliban bomb factory. He agreed that the language in the ads is meant to play on the local concepts of honor and homeland, and that the U.S. campaign will likely be somewhat effective. “They are trying to raise doubts about his sincerity (and his worth) as a human being; they are questioning whether he’s worth being hosted and protected on the basis of the ‘Pasthunwali,’ the unwritten code that rules daily life in the [tribal] areas,” Franco said. “More in detail, what they are inferring is the following: Adam Gadahn has betrayed the country where he was born. Hence, is he worthy of attention and trust? Or is he liable to betray again?” But Franco said the U.S. effort doesn’t seem to take into consideration the power of religion. “Islam is of paramount importance in this context,” Franco said. “Adam Gadahn betrayed in the name of, and for the sake of, Islam. He found the true faith and went for it, sacrificing everything on the path of religion. Islam is stronger than anything in the tribal areas ,” Franco said, adding that many true believers will continue to protect Gadahn if they believe he betrayed his own country in the name of Islam. See also:
-
Jane's - "The Quiet American: Tracing the Whereabouts of Adam Gadahn"
-
Where's the Beef? Mystery Grows Surrounding Whereabouts of Adam Gadahn
Well, time finally ran out for Monzar al-Kassar, a weapons merchant and friend of various terrorist organizations. Today, after months of legal wrangling, he was extradited to the United States to stand trial.
Al-Kassar was arrested in a DEA operation in June 2007 The operation was then largely replicated for the arrest of Viktor Bout earlier this year.
Al-Kassar, like Bout, had many friends in high places, and had worked for different governments, including that of the United States, when he was involved in the Iran-Contra affair. His most notorious terrorist connections were with Abu Abbas, the notorious leader of the Palestine Liberation Front; Farah Aideed in Somalia; and Baathist insurgents in Iraq until last year.
As the London Observer noted:
The litany of allegations against him, even aside from his links to Abu Abbas, is jaw-dropping. Government files in various countries indicate that he was jailed in the UK on hashish charges in the 1970s, although he denies it. The official US Iran Contra report says he sold weapons to the 'Enterprise' arming the Contras. A UN report says he violated arms embargoes to Croatia and Somalia in 1992. A Swiss court froze and later released millions related to a multi-million-pound arms sale to Croatia. Documents in US court related to a Spanish inquiry indicate he has been investigated, but not prosecuted, on allegations of providing a silenced 9mm pistol used to shoot a suspected Israeli agent in 1984. He may have been involved in procuring components of a Chinese anti-ship missile for Iran, according to records cited by the Washington Post. He has been investigated in Argentina on charges of passport fraud. A report in the Library of Congress relays charges that he delivered explosives to a group headed by a known terrorist in Brazil, and that he had earlier sold arms to Iranian militias in Cyprus.
In both cases, the DEA targeted what they call "shadow facilitators," a concept and strategy that acknowledges the growing relationship between terrorist and criminal organizations. My full blog is here.
Jihadism in the 21st century has plans for all types of situations, including Mujahada (Jihadi activity) in a courtroom when needed.
This is now what the world will witness during the trials of the al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo, Cuba. Both the inmates on the inside and the Jihadi-mates on the outside were waiting for this moment to strike, politically and psychologically, using the media as their weapon. To the well-trained and -indoctrinated five standing trial, the objective is not to gain as many rights and freedoms as possible under current U.S. and international law; rather it is to resume what they began before 9/11 which they deeply wish to fulfill - as they said in their own words - using the trial as a global media opportunity.
I have published a new paper in the July 2008 issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS) titled "'Homegrown' Terrorists: Theory and Cases in the War on Terror's Newest Front." As I demonstrate in my paper, the realities of a globalized society now allow international terrorist organizations like al Qaeda to dramatically expand their potential reach by courting sympathizers in dark corners around the world and teaching them how they can best serve al Qaeda's interests—without necessarily visiting an actual military training camp or even speaking directly with al Qaeda. In fact, despite their somewhat haphazard outward appearance, homegrown terrorist cells often possess a remarkable shared connection through reliance on particular al Qaeda training manuals, audio and video recordings, and even Internet chat forums. While these young men (and, increasingly, women) may have no formal contact with any terrorist organization, they can become virtual partners of al Qaeda by carefully studying its online knowledge base and executing terrorist attacks against its enemies. Recent law enforcement investigations have uncovered a surprisingly sophisticated network of budding terrorist "entrepreneurs" lurking in a host of major cities across Europe and North America.
The paper is divided into sub-sections, in which I analyze both the methodology behind "homegrown terrorism", and actual case studies from homegrown terror networks disrupted within the past three years. It can be accessed via the Annals website .
Andrew Cochran’s excellent articles below about the Islamic Saudi Academy highlight, yet again, the linkage of religious radicalism and terrorism and, in this particular case, lineage directly to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally in the ongoing war against terrorism. Subtly buried in all this, as is often the case, we also have linkage to potential immigration law violations and these issues of religious radicalization and potential terror development. Read more about this here .
The new report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom on textbooks in use at the Islamic Saudi Academy in northern Virginia leaves little doubt that the Saudi government, which owns the school, and school officials use the school as an incubator for their special brand of Islam among the students, to the rejection of moderate interpretations of the Koran which reject hate speech, polarization, and incitement. Yesterday's USCIRF report was actually the fourth since 2003 warning that various Tawhid editions of textbooks used by the Saudis in its schools include intolerant language which should be removed (see last year's USCIRF report , which refers to the other reports).
But I can see millions of Americans rolling their eyes, wondering why it matters. It matters because the ISA textbooks and intolerant culture have acted as an incubator of homegrown terror for years, as seen in the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali.
As I reminded readers on May 20 , the 1999 valedictorian at the ISA was none other than Ahmed Omar Abu Ali , who was convicted of joining Al Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President Bush. Ali was born in Houston and raised mostly in the U.S. His family moved to Jordan for four years, and then moved to Falls Church, Virginia, when Abu Ali was 14 or 15, and his father worked at the Saudi Embassy in Washington. I know Falls Church like the back of my hand, and there is nothing in its public schools or culture which would lead any average, U.S.-born young man towards radical Islam. Ali attended ISA, excelled there, and was obviously attracted to the teachings represented in the textbooks and the culture of the school. For after first attending the University of Maryland, he left in 2000 to study Sharia law for several months at the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia. While there, he met someone who befriended him, who eventually became a coconspirator in his assassination plot. After Abu Ali returned from his studies to the U.S. in August 2000, he stayed in touch with his "friend," and Abu Ali returned to Saudi Arabia in September 2002 (pages 7-8). Then, to quote a February 2005 filing in the criminal case against him (page 4), "Between in or around September 2002 and on or about June 9, 2003, the defendant joined a clandestine al-Qaeda cell in Saudi Arabia." That was no ordinary cell - members included the Al Qaeda terrorists which planned and executed the May 12, 2003 attacks in Riyadh , killing 34, including nine Americans (page 5 of the linked document). The Saudis publicly warned, five days before the attack, that 19 persons were planning an attack inside Saudi Arabia, and named Abu Ali in that group, but the warning was too late to stop the attack. The same filing which pinpointed Abu Ali's entry into Al Qaeda gave a clue to a second coconspirator in the plot to kill President Bush (pages 4-5):
In the wake of my CTBlog post from last month , the editors at Jane's Intelligence Review (JIR) asked me to write a piece on the shadowy whereabouts of American Al-Qaida spokesman Adam Gadahn. In the piece, I have dug deeper into Gadahn's early days in Southern California -- and I also address one of the most hotly debated questions of all regarding Gadahn: his ultimate usefulness as an Al-Qaida terrorist recruiter. Excerpt below:
"...Gadahn's fiery enthusiasm and vitriol are naturally unsettling. Yet, as his role as an anchor and commentator for Al-Qaeda grew, some Western analysts have expressed scepticism over his usefulness as a terrorist recruiter. One such observer - former CIA officer Marc Sageman - has dismissed him as little more than an irritant: 'I haven't seen evidence of anyone being inspired when they see him… If he was a child, it'd be cute.' It would seem the pundits were a bit hasty in writing off Gadahn so quickly. Western analysts assumed that - through Gadahn - Al-Qaeda was seeking to reach a relatively wide, diverse audience of prospective recruits living in the West. To the contrary, Gadahn’s appeal was much more narrowly focused on people like himself - a tiny minority of marginalised social outcasts who are reasonably educated and intelligent, but are lacking in personal direction. To this group, Gadahn is no pompous clown, but an inspiring example of how anyone who is dedicated enough to the cause can reach the highest levels of Al-Qaeda. The proof of Gadahn's ideological influence over fellow outcasts - particularly English speakers with little grasp of Arabic - has become increasingly glaring. Al-Qaeda video recordings of Adam Gadahn have been seized as evidence in virtually every home-grown terrorism case investigated by law enforcement in the United Kingdom since 2006..." The complete article is available now on Jane's Intelligence Review , which I should note is available only to paid subscribers.
See also: Where's the Beef? Mystery Grows Surrounding Whereabouts of Adam Gadahn
On May 20 , I wrote about the approval by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, near Washington, DC, to continue leasing county property to the Islamic Saudi Academy, which is funded by the Saudi government. The school had been criticized for using textbooks which included virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Christian language and teachings. The supervisors approved the lease but refused to release a report, funded by the taxpaying citizens of the county, which translated the newest version of the textbooks.
Today, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has issued a press release stating that "the Commission managed to acquire and review 17 ISA textbooks in use during this school year from other, independent sources, including a congressional office. While the texts represent just a small fraction of the books used in this Saudi government school, the Commission’s review confirmed that these texts do, in fact, include some extremely troubling passages that do not conform to international human rights norms. The Commission calls once again for the full public release of all the Arabic-language textbooks used at the ISA."
The USCIRF cites examples of the problematic language: “In a twelfth-grade Tafsir (Koranic interpretation) textbook, the authors state that it is permissible for a Muslim to kill an apostate (a convert from Islam), an adulterer, or someone who has murdered a believer intentionally: “He (praised is He) prohibits killing the soul that God has forbidden (to kill) unless for just cause…” Just cause is then defined in the text as “unbelief after belief, adultery, and killing an inviolable believer intentionally."
Interestingly, the textbooks examined include a working definition of jihad - one which DHS and the NCTC would not allow American officials to use : "In these verses is a call for jihad, which is the pinnacle of Islam. In (jihad) is life for the body; thus it is one of the most important causes of outward life. Only through force and victory over the enemies is there security and repose. Within martyrdom in the path of God (exalted and glorified is He) is a type of noble life-force that is not diminished by fear or poverty. ” (Emphasis mine. )
Now we know why the county board took the $2.2 million lease payment from the Kingdom and refused to release the report - because the report would have shown that the Saudis continue to thumb their noses at concern over their textbooks.
It's time for Congress to demand the secret report, subpoena the textbooks from the school, release all of it in a public hearing, and hold the Saudi government responsible.
After Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez brusquely told FARC to give up their decades-long fight, Doug Farah wondered aloud whether he was "cutting his losses" or whether Chavez is "immersed in some hidden game that has little or nothing to do with what he is actually saying." Maybe now we know the answer, and it's the latter. Blogger "Fausta" sent me this translation of a piece by Latin American journalist Patrica Poleo about Chavez's Do-It-Yourself program, through which he trains terrorists through the Interior Ministry, with the help of Hezbollah:
"Presently young Venezuelans are being recruited for training in Lebanon.
Tarek el Ayssami, Venezuela's vice-Minister of the Interior, along with others affiliated with Hezbollah, such as Lebanon-born Gahzi Nasserddine currently the Business Liaison at the Venezuelan embassy in Damascus, along with [his brother by surname] Ghasan Atef Salameh Nasserddine (a) Abu Ali, are in charge of recruiting young Venezuelan Arabs affiliated to the PSUV [Chavez's own Venezuelan Socialist Party], to be sent to South Lebanon for combat training in Hezbollah camps.
The purpose of the training is for preparing the youths for asymmetrical war against the United States."
Poleo provides other detials of Chavez' alleged efforts to work with Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups from the Middle East, actually naming members of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Hezbollah who are currently in Venezuela.
The Brits are finally willing to lay out some of the truths about the war in Afghanistan, truths that apply in many other parts of the world, in a pattern that we continue to see growing.
According to the Daily Telegraph, a confidential report to the prime minister concludes that the drug trade will prolong the Taliban insurgency idenfinitely:
"Growing links between the drugs trade and the insurgency in the South will provide longevity to the Taliban," the UK document says. "In the south, the drugs trade is fuelling the insurgency."
It adds: "This is compounded by government corruption. Karzai chooses to avoid rocking the boat with powerful narco figures and has not blocked their appointment as governors or other senior officials."
In turn, Mr Karzai's failure to tackle corruption and the drug lords "only increases popular disillusion," further boosting the insurgency, the paper says.
In fact, almost half (19 of 43) foreign terrorist organizations designated by the United States have clear ties to drug trafficking networks, according to law enforcement studies.
Once the initial ideological or theological obstacles have been overcome in participating in the drug trade, terrorist organizations tend to dominate the structure in short order. This is true with the FARC in Colombia, the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Hezbollah in the heroin trade when it was massively involved there in the last decade, and elsewhere.
The reason is that the terrorist/military organization usually brings muscle that the traditional organizations can't dispute, and a clandestine, compartmentalized structure suited to moving the product successfully.
In the short term, the alliances tend to work well because, as the case with the Karzai government, the government corruption due to drug traffickers erodes faith in the government, while the money the terrorist/criminal organizations accrue can be use for social services, weapons, trainers and winning hearts and minds.
In addition, the terrorist/insurgent groups lose their dependency on outside forces. They generate their own money, rather than relying on donations from Saudi Arabia, the former Soviet bloc, Venezuela etc., freeing them from the constraints that having to factor in the effect of their actions on their patrons. My full blog is here.
The Pakistan Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan or TTP) is in the process of gaining territory and power within Pakistan, as a result of numerous "peace treaties" and agreements to empower the Taliban to enforce an anti-freedom theocracy based on Sharia law in Pakistan. This is a critical American national security issue that requires revisiting the very ideologies that provide the foundation for jihadist action itself, and answering difficult questions regarding the role of Sharia law and the reliability of Islamic republics in a global war against jihad.
1. Multi-Level Threat from Pakistan Requiring Strategic Planning
The American national security challenge in the nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Pakistan includes the Taliban, but is not limited to Taliban efforts to create a Sharia mini-state. What these current efforts by the Taliban highlight is the larger, national challenges with a Sharia ideology supported by many of the Pakistani people and by members of the Pakistan government that affects their vision towards fighting Jihad and also that affects Pakistan international relations on peace and on freedom itself.
1.1. Ongoing Negotiations with Taliban towards Sharia Mini-State
Recently, there have been negotiations and agreements between the Pakistan Taliban (or tribal leaders including Taliban representatives) and Pakistan governments in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), both of which are in the northwestern area of Pakistan. Pakistan has seen 4,500 killed in terrorist attacks over the past year and a half, and the Pakistan NWFP and FATA governments view agreements with the Pakistan Taliban as the solution to end the violence and find peace in their areas.
One of the central agreements over the past month has been for Taliban-managed Sharia within the NWFP area of Swat. Most recently, on June 9, 2008, the Pakistan federal government expressed frustration with Taliban's continued jihadist activities and has threatened to nullify the Swat agreement. The Pakistan NWFP government that made this agreement with the Taliban is denouncing such comments by the Pakistan federal government, and ensuring the Taliban that their Swat agreement is still valid. Should the Pakistan federal government disregard the NWFP-Taliban agreement, the Pakistan Taliban has promised to "turn cities of settled areas into battlefields" and would "open new fronts against the government."
The issue remains unsettled within Pakistan, but this article will show the extent of the Taliban's current progress in creating Sharia courts and punishments within NWFP and FATA which may not quickly be undone, as well as the frequent nurturing and appeasement of the Taliban found within Pakistan government history that questions whether any near-term change in policy against the Taliban will have effective long-term results.
Pakistan NWFP and FATA negotiations with the Taliban have included plans for the Taliban to enforce Sharia law throughout various parts of Pakistan northwest. Should the Taliban ultimately succeed in its efforts to create a Sharia-based mini-state within Pakistan based on the NWFP and FATA northwestern regions, it would have a population equivalent to the state of Florida. It is likely that the Taliban would use such a base for further assimilation of Pakistan and for larger jihadist activity both within Pakistan and around the world. The Pakistan Taliban leader has sought the use of nuclear weapons to use against its enemies: "the Jews and the Christians." But such Taliban military activities are only one aspect of a multi-level threat from Pakistan.
1.2. The Strategic Issue of Sharia in Pakistan and America's National Security
Regardless of whether the Taliban is successful or not in its near-term efforts towards building a Sharia mini-state within Pakistan, the larger strategic issue that American political leadership must face is the massive support for "strict Sharia law" within Pakistan as an anti-freedom ideology. The Pakistan Taliban and their supporters are drawn from among the Pakistan people. While some may disavow the Taliban's terrorist tactics as "extreme," the Sharia ideology that the Taliban is fighting to enforce in Pakistan remains a shared value among the majority of Pakistanis. An assumption that such Sharia support is only from the "mad mullahs" of the Pakistan Taliban would be very mistaken.
In consistent national polls in August 2007 and January 2008 , nearly 75% of the Pakistan population stated that they seek the government to implement "strict Sharia law." Pakistan has Sharia courts in its federal government, and it must never be forgotten that Pakistan is an Islamic republic - a nuclear-armed Islamic republic, with an estimated 60 nuclear weapons . While the current the current Pakistan law for "blasphemy" has resulted in the death penalty and torture of non-Muslims, this approach towards Islamic "blasphemy" is one that the Pakistan government has repeatedly sought to export to the international community, including the United Nations , calling for an international death penalty for Islamic "blasphemy".
This widespread support of "strict Sharia law" is even seen in Pakistan government ambassadors to other nations, with the Pakistan ambassador to Denmark stating , in effect, that the Danish embassy bombing is the fault of its people, and the Pakistan ambassador to Norway stating that cartoons represent "an act of terrorism." Moreover, the Pakistan government is demanding that the European Union restrict freedom of speech and press to prevent such future "blasphemy." Such an ideological position by Western-dressed, fluent, and globe trotting Pakistan government leaders and diplomats represents a deeper challenge within Pakistan than merely the Taliban. They represent an anti-freedom ideological challenge that American national leadership refuses to even acknowledge or define, let alone address from a national security perspective.
The
NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a statement dated June 4 from Shaykh Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud, the top commander of Al-Qaida’s Committee in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), titled, “Here We Come, O’ Sister!” In his statement, Wadoud swore revenge on the governments of North Africa for a violent confrontation between local security forces and a Muslim woman in Morocco. According to Wadoud, “We have witnessed images published on several jihadi Internet websites which appear to show a deviant apostate trampling over a pure sister, along with her child, with his shoes… O’ Muslim youth of the Islamic Maghreb: we call upon you to take up arms, to prepare steeds of war, and to join hands with the mujahideen in order to cleanse the Islamic Maghreb from the stooges of the Jews and Christians who are stealing our wealth and spilling our blood. And as for those of you who are unable to reach the fronts of jihad and make preparations [for battle], you should not wait for anyone’s permission to target the Jews, the Christians, and the apostates in your own regions—for they are the cause of our pain and disasters.”
A translated copy of Wadoud's message can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website .
A surprising consensus has now been reached by the US and the EU on imposing financial sanctions against Iran, if Iran doesn't immediately take action to shut down profliferation efforts.
According to Reuters , the EU-U.S. summit in Slovenia today will announce EU support for sanctions on Iranian banks. The EU is preparing an asset and funds freeze on Iran's biggest bank, state-owned Bank Melli, already subject to U.S. sanctions, that will be deferred to assess whether Tehran responds to a new offer of incentives by major powers for it to suspend uranium enrichment. In essence, the EU will follow a dual track policy, and impose sanctions if Iran doesn't take visible steps to stop its proliferation efforts.
In response, Iran has announced it will remove funds from EU banks . Not a promising initial reaction.
Facebook, Orkut, and other online social networks, are designed to provide a way for people to maintain existing relationships and to make new relationships with others who share common interests in one tidy cyber environment. The social networks promote a sense of belonging that might not be available in the physical world. This is particularly true for members or sympathizers of Islamist groups who live in countries where participation is banned, such as in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan. Through the social networks they can join communities specific to their interests or affiliations and befriend others who share their views.
The virtual social network can also help maintain continuity of group activity in places where public demonstrations have been suspended, like Bangladesh, or in regions where Islamist group membership and support is relatively small. Even when there are not opportunities to meet publicly the social networks offer a sense of cohesion, and even provide applications for global participants to chat privately through instant messaging.
The
NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a new communiqué from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban movement) defending the recent peace accord negotiated between the Pakistani government and local Taliban forces. According to the statement, “We consider the peace accord in Pakistan as an internal affair, which pertains to that country alone—yet the occupation forces in Afghanistan and the forces hostile to Islam around the world oppose this peace accord and argue it will lead to an escalation in jihadi activities in Afghanistan. This claim is groundless and it is far from the truth… The occupying forces and their supporters are facing total defeat in Afghanistan, and therefore, they are trying to use these kind of statements and claims in order to distract the gaze of the Afghans and the rest of the world in another direction—so that the Afghan resistance will appear to be weak.”
A translated copy of the communique can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website .
What does Hugo Chavez's abrupt call for the FARC to end its war and free all its hostages mean for the Colombian rebels? And what does it mean for Chavez?
Chavez, who earlier this year repeatedly called for the world to recognize the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) as a legitimate "belligerent force" rather than a terrorist group, said the guerrillas were "out of step" with the times and that their war was "history."
In his weekly television and radio programme on Sunday, Mr Chavez urged the Farc's new leader, Alfonso Cano, to "let all these people go".
"There are old folk, women, sick people, soldiers who have been prisoners in the mountain for 10 years," he added.
Chavez's statements come at an interesting juncture: The FARC is at is weakest point in years, with three of its top seven commanders dying in the past two months, and a new leadership struggling to impose order and control on units in the field; and Chavez showing off some of the sophisticated weaponry he recently purchased from Russia and elsewhere.
This included new European-made Otomat MK2 missiles and Russian Sukhoi fighter jets. My full blog is here.
According to today's New York Times , a number of counterterrorism experts and governments have concluded that JI and other major terrorist networks in Southeast Asia have suffered significant setbacks in the past three years.
The Times article found that the major elements in combatting the terrorist groups were effective law enforcement, heightened intelligence, ongoing military operations and "an erosion of public support." The implication is that an actual strategy, implemented over an extended period in a sustained fashion, has had actual success.
From my perspective, the most important evidence of the change is the dramatically different approach undertaken in recent months by the government of Indonesia to sentence major figures in JI to extended prison terms, a change from the relative leniency shown such persons by Indonesia in the past. Meanwhile, Ibrahim also criticized the US-led war on terror, saying instead of addressing the root cause of terrorism, it has led to problems and caused more prejudice especially against Muslims.
Meanwhile, in Malaysia, while Prime Minister Badawi was addressing a conference promoting religious tolerance and the need for greater understanding between Islam and the west, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was criticizing the US-led war on terror, saying instead of addressing the root cause of terrorism, it has led to problems and caused more prejudice especially against Muslims. Ibrahim's statements included the following:
"The so-called war on terror is vague. They called the campaign in Southeast Asia including the Philippines as the second front against terrorism but where is the first front is not clearly defined," Ibrahim said, adding that the war against terrorism is flawed for its failure to address the root cause of the issue and has become a "zero-sum game." "We cannot fight fire with fire. We can only defeat terrorism through winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the people," he added.
The findings of the terrorist experts discussed by the New York Times would appear to confirm precisely the opposite of Ibrahim's thesis -- namely, that counter terrorism is NOT a zero-sum game, and that an aggressive strategy involving policing, intelligence, military activity, and political activities is actually working effectively in Southeast Asia.
The
NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a copy of an audio recording of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri released by Al-Qaida’s official As-Sahab Media Wing on June 4, titled “On the Anniversary of the Disaster - A Call to Help Our People in Gaza.” During the recording, al-Zawahiri once again called upon “the sons of the Islamic nation [to] break the chains of the treacherous regimes and the impotent authorities [surrounding Israel] and set forth to join the battle and aid the mujahideen.” Dr. al-Zawahiri directed a specific call to “my Muslim brothers in Sinai: help your brothers in Gaza. Join in their battles… and if they start to break down the wall of betrayal, join them.” Al-Zawahiri also appealed to Palestinian Muslims to “increase your martyrdom operations, your rockets, and your ambushes... Keep to your Qurans and your battle trenches, and do not abandon the mission of establishing the rule of Islamic law.”
A translation of al-Zawahiri's recording can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website .
Several interesting pieces of Information have surfaced in legal documents relating to the immigration case of Mourad El Hamyani, a permanent U.S. resident who is currently detained in New York. In February, a federal immigration judge denied the government's request to deport El Hamyani, but DHS is challenging that ruling. According to a recently released DHS document (available on the NEFA Foundation website) , El Hamyani "attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan...assisted in the planning and execution of an armed robbery...intended to fund terrorist activities...[and] hosted a terrorist, Abdelkarim Mejjati, during two trips Mejjati made to the United States."
In light of the recent court proceedings involving El-Hamyani, the NEFA Foundation is releasing a 2007 Sawt al-Jihad ("Voice of Jihad") interview with Karim el-Mejjatti . When asked by Sawt al-Jihad about "the most famous commanders" he fought under, Mejjati responds, "I will not forget my brothers Ibn Shaykh al-Liby and Abu Zubaydah al-Falastini who supervised me during my military training and taught me about glory. I will not forget my Muslim brother Shaykh Abu Qatada al-Falastini who taught me my ideology. I will not forget my brother al-Mukhtar al-Baluchi (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) who revived our spirit of sacrifice for this religion and who was in charge of me in Pakistan."
Last Sunday, the paramilitary Islamic Defender’s Front (Front Pembela Islam, or FPI) led a brazen attack against a gathering to promote religious tolerance at Jakarta’s National Monument. Dozens were wounded, including critical injuries inflicted to a leading human rights advocate.
The background to the attack is as follows. For the past few months, several conservative Muslim groups across Indonesia have been demanding that the government ban the Ahmadiyah sect. This sect was founded in the late nineteenth century by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, an Indian of Persian ethnic origins who largely based his teachings on Islam, but claimed that there were prophets after Mohammad. He also professed that Jesus Christ survived crucifixion and later died in the Kashmir.
In the main, the Ahmadiyah creed is exceedingly peaceful. In addition, Ahmadiyah practitioners have been in Indonesia for decades and have not stirred any controversy until very recently. Last weekend’s gathering was sponsored by Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which is Indonesia’s largest Muslim grassroots organization. NU strongly supports religious co-existence, and not surprisingly has taken a soft line toward Ahmadiyah.
All of which has infuriated hard-liners in the FPI. The FPI itself has a council of leaders at the national level, though it is actually a loose coalition of groups that are largely autonomous at the provincial level. For much of the year, its Jakarta chapter is renowned for organizing mobs for street demonstrations, only some of which touch on religious issues. But it is during the Ramadhan fasting month that it is most notorious for conducting raids against restaurants, billiard halls, and other nightspots.
Now one week after the attack in downtown Jakarta, the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has responded with several half-measures. Thus far eight FPI members have been detained, with an ongoing manhunt for at least one other high-profile figure. But the authorities have thus far resisted calls to force the disbandment of the FPI.
Cynics have noted that even if the government does disband the FPI, the effects will only be fleeting. This is because there are any number of similar paramilitary groups that will absorb its members. And whether they go by FPI or some other name, the group’s brand of intimidation is likely to be in greater demand ahead of next year’s general elections.
The
NEFA Foundation has released a new dossier I have authored examining the role of Shaykh Mustafa Abu al-Yazid (a.k.a. “Shaykh Saeed”), appointed in May 2007 as “the overall head of al-Qaida Organization in Afghanistan.” According to Al-Qaida’s official As-Sahab Media Wing, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid personally “took part in founding al-Qaida in 1989, and is a member of the Shura council of Qaida al-Jihad.” Considered quite close to Al-Qaida Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Yazid has likewise been implicated by other Al-Qaida members in sworn testimony as playing a critical role in the financing and coordination of Al-Qaida’s international terrorist operations. Allegedly, al-Yazid even assisted in financing the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
The dossier can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website .
A newswire story today sounds the alarm on a probable Israeli incursion into Gaza to address repeated Hamas terrorist attacks into Israel. "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday raised the spectre of a full-scale military operation in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip despite Egyptian attempts to mediate a truce. 'According to the information as it is now, the pendulum is much closer to tough military action,' Olmert told journalists on arrival in Israel following a three-day trip to the United States.'" The article includes statistics on the continued cross-border warfare. "At least 491 people, nearly all Palestinians and mostly Gaza militants, have been killed since Israeli-Palestinian peace talks resumed in November, according to an AFP count. The Israeli military said on Friday that Palestinians fired more than 2,300 rockets and mortar bombs at Israel in the past six months." The article predicts the move will come "within days."
None of this is news to the Bush Administration or Congress. They've already been briefed that the incursion is inevitable and top leaders from both parties will support it. The Egyptian government, which fears a Hamas-led Gaza as much as Israel does, has tried to mediate. But Hamas showers Israel with rocket fire, continues arms smuggling through tunnels built between individual houses inside and outside of Gaza, and won't release Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, kidnapped in 2006.
The sooner the better.
This was co-authored by counterterrorism researcher Timothy Thompson, who followed the Haq trial closely.
The facts were never in dispute at his trial in Seattle, Washington: Naveed Haq, 32, killed one woman, wounded five others, and kidnapped a teenage girl at gunpoint on July 28, 2006 in his shooting rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle . The jury’s task was always to determine Haq’s level of legal culpability in light of his chronic mental illness. Prosecutors, in fact, explicitly cited Haq’s mental instability in taking the death penalty off the table on the most serious charge of aggravated first-degree murder. If convicted of that charge, Haq faced a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.
Haq’s attorneys argued that Haq believed he was on a mission from God, sent to take action to influence the course of wars in Iraq and Lebanon. Haq took the telephone to speak with 911 emergency operators during the rampage and ranted at length about his dissatisfaction with Jews, Israel and the persecution of Muslims. Haq told the operator, "I want these Jews to get out." The defense introduced evidence that Haq took numerous psychotropic medications, nearly all with serious side effects, and behaved bizarrely on many occasions in the years previous to the shootings.
King County Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas declared a mistrial yesterday when the jury reported it was hopelessly deadlocked on 14 of 15 counts after eight days of deliberation. This followed repeated requests from the jury for the Judge to give "further instruction on the definition and criteria for insanity" under Washington State law. Attorneys for both sides agreed that Judge Kallas could only repeat her previous instructions. The King County Prosecutor immediately told reporters that his office plans to retry Haq this year .
Counterterrorism experts have watched the Haq trial closely. Intriguing to them is the way both prosecutors and defense attorneys skirted Naveed Haq’s Pakistani origin and Muslim faith. Prosecutors maintained that the state need only prove that Haq acted with premeditation in the shootings and that his actions constituted a hate crime based on the victims' Jewish religion or ethnicity; whether or not the root cause of the premeditation or hate was his Islamic background was completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Haq's defense attorney introduced evidence that Haq had converted to Christianity and attended Christian services , and framed this as clear evidence that Haq’s action were the result of insanity rather than Islam.
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION, Cuba - A military court at this remote U.S. outpost is in the process of a grinding hearing in which five Sept. 11 plotters are being charged with murdering 2,973 Americans. It’s the first time Al Qaeda “military commander” Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, facilitator Ramzi Binalshibh, USS Cole mastermind Walid Ba Attash, and money men Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa al-Hawsawi have been seen publicly since their individual captures.
I was in the courtroom for a tour last night and sat in the courtroom observation gallery this morning with about 30 other civilians, who were the first people outside the U.S. government to lay eyes on the defendants since the CIA took custody of them years ago. It was damned chilling to see Mohamed, known as KSM, laughing and holding a thugs’ reunion in the courtroom.
I have posted an early report at the New York Daily News’ website , along with Mouth of the Potomac Blog posts about KSM’s first portrait in five years , the bizarre and eerie experience of sitting in his chair in the courtroom last night, and the admission by a top general that it was “a mistake” to not invite a pool of 9/11 victims’ family members to attend the historic hearing in the politically controversial military commissions.
Is Wael Julaidan, founder of al Qaeda and one of only two Saudis ever designated as terrorist financiers by the Saudi regime and supposedly out of circulation, back in the public spotlight? It would seem so.
According to the English language Saudi paper, the the Arab News Julaidan was a featured speaker at a recent conference hosted by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The article was first noted and commented on by the Global MB Report (registration required).
There are no other known leaders of Julaidan's stature that my most knowledgeable sources say share that name, or would be noted with such prominence, so the likelihood that it is the same Julaidan that is designated by the UN, the US and Saudi Arabia, is very high.
This would mean, in essence, that one of the very few actions the Saudis claimed to have taken against the financiers and sympathizers of al Qaeda, was a bogus as almost every other step the Kingdom has claimed to have taken.
The WAMY conference was a big deal, that Julaidan's appearance there was a high-profile event, where he was listed on the program as a "major speaker." So no one tried to sneak anything by anyone. My full blog is here.
This evening, the Al-Fajr Media Center has circulated copies of an communique signed by senior Al-Qaida commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid claiming responsibility for Monday's suicide bomb attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad. According to the statement, "in the context of our jihad against the assault on our Islamic nation by the Crusaders, the Jews, and all the other tyrannical enemies of Islam, and in defense of our religion and the blood of Muslims, their land, and honor... In retaliation against the infidels from the so-called state of Denmark who published insulting cartoons of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and who refused to apologize for the publication... One of the courageous men from Al-Qaida executed a martyrdom operation on the morning of June 2, 2008 targeting the Danish embassy in Islamabad, where they were ensconced behind their fortresses which they thought were safe from the retaliation of almighty Allah." In the statement, Al-Qaida also promised to "soon publish more information, Allah willing, about the brother martyr responsible for the operation, may Allah have mercy on him."
Developing...
In an article published in the Washington Post on Friday May 30, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden is quoted as portraying al Qaeda movement as
"essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
The article said Hayden asserts that
"Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents." More importantly, the article quotes the chief intelligence declaring a "near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq; near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia; significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam."
These powerful declarations prompted a series of reactions and debates both in political and counter terrorism circles, causing loud media discussions. The main but simple question of interest to the public, and subsequently to voters in the US and other Democracies, is this:
Is al Qaeda being defeated?
However more complex questions arise from the CIA Director's statements, which if answered accurately would leave the main assertion still unclear. Following are few of these strategic questions:
If al Qaeda is being defeated, who is defeating it? Is it the US and the West, the Arab and Muslim moderates, or other Jihadists? If Usama Bin Laden is being challenged by his own members, ex members or non al Qaeda Jihadists, how can that be determined as a defeat and to whom?
Would a coup inside al Qaeda be of interest to Washington if the new team is as Jihadist but not as "Bin Ladenist"? Or is it the US-centered interests that are at play? Meaning the inability of al Qaeda under Bin laden and Zawahiri to strike at America or target American troops and presence overseas, including in Iraq?
Is it Bin laden's discredit, al-Qaeda's weakening or Jihadism's defeat that is the broadest strategic goal to attain? Even farther in questioning, is it al Qaeda'Takfiri method or it the global Jihadist ideology that is receding? The matter is not that simple, as one can conclude. So how can we measure an al Qaeda defeat in the middle of a War still raging around the world? I propose the following parameters.
The Colombian daily El Tiempo reports that Mono Jojoy, the top FARC military commander has a severe form of diabetes. (A picture from El Tiempo is posted below.) Head of the “Eastern Bloc” Mono Jojoy is generally believed to be the organization’s top military leader. With 4000 fighters the Eastern Bloc is one of the stronger FARC Blocs. It borders Venezuela and is heavily engaged in the drug trade. Mono Jojoy represents the military wing, as opposed to the new chief Alfonso Cano who represents the political wing. There has
If Mono Jojoy were ill, that would provide an alternate explanation for, or at least another factor in, the leadership transitions.
Read the full post here.
The
NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated two new statements from an emerging Sunni insurgent faction calling itself “the Iraqi Martyrs Brigades.” In its initial statement of purpose, the IMB indicated that its fighters were being guided both by Muslim Shariah law and “contemporary laws… Our clerics have previously agreed that fighting the enemies who are attacking Muslim countries—by any means necessary—is a duty in and of itself. International contemporary laws maintain the same view as well. Defending yourself against an oppressor is merely common sense for the popular masses.” The IMB also acknowledged that its formation had largely come about because “
some of the [jihad] factions deviated from our general guiding principles .” This prompted a flood of users on the extremist Al-Hesbah Internet discussion forum to dismiss the IMB as merely a generic “resistance” organization with no interest in “raising the banner of monotheism and the righteous path—may Allah correct their path.” Other users simply referred to the IMB’s citation of “contemporary laws” as “inappropriate.”
In response, the IMB issued a second communiqué addressed “to the beloved brothers who have posted messages on the Al-Hesbah Internet forum” in order to “clarify matters which you are ignorant of regarding the IMB.” The group insisted, “regarding the issue of contemporary laws… it is obvious that we are all part of a shared human civilization which has many universal values. So, we have cited these laws in order to cater to various levels of understand and intelligence present among various different people… These same principles championed by [the West] also are opposed to the concept of occupation.” The IMB also repeated its earlier warning that the Iraqi jihad has “lost its true essence ."
Translations of the two statements from the IMB can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website .
Christopher Paul of Columbus, Ohio, pleaded guilty today to conspiring with others to use a weapon of mass destruction, namely explosive devices, against targets in Europe and the United States. Paul is the last of three Ohio men charged with terrorist activities after the FBI opened an investigation over five years ago. Iyman Faris pleaded guilty in May, 2003, in the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge (see Evan Kohlmann's July 2007 postEvan's August 2007 post
The statement of facts released by the Justice Department reveals that Paul is probably the earliest known "American Al Qaeda," having joined the group in the early 1990s. He was clearly committed to Al Qaeda's goals and assisted Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Germany until he was arrested last year. Some excerpts:
"In the early 1990s, defendant traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan to join the mujahadeen. Upon his arrival in Pakistan, defendant stayed at the Beit Ul Ansar guest house, located in Peshawar, Pakistan. Beit Ul Ansar was a guest house affiliated with al Qaeda. While at Beit Ul Ansar, defendant went to Afghanistan and received initial training at an al Qaeda training camp. The training included, but was not limited to, map reading, climbing, use of assault rifles, grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, small unit tactics, and hand-to-hand combat. Successfully completing his initial training defendant joined al Qaeda and then stayed at Beit ur Salam guesthouse, which was exclusively for al Qaeda members. Distinguishing himself to al Qaeda, defendant was selected for and obtained advanced training in rappelling, military history, and explosives and explosive devices. Upon joining al Qaeda and having received their training, the defendant fought with other mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
Over time and through his association with al Qaeda, the defendant became an individual dedicated to committing jihad, including causing the death of human beings and the destruction of property and furthering the objectives of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic fundamentalists.
From 1993 through 1995 defendant, using various passports and aliases, returned to the Balkans area in Europe and fought jihad in conflict zones such as Bosnia establishing further contacts with the radical Islamic fundamentalist movement and creating a master list of contact numbers for senior al-Qaeda leadership and other radical Islamic fundamentalists and operatives world-wide. On this master list, investigators also found listings of component parts for bombs/detonation devices. Defendant’s master list of terrorist contacts and bomb-making information was seized by the Columbus JTTF in a search warrant at defendant’s residence.
Well, from my sources in Thailand and elsewhere it seems that Viktor Bout, weapons merchant extraordinaire, is worth quite a bit to the Russians.
Bout, in prison in Thailand awaiting extradition to the United State, may not make it back, despite having a long history of providing weapons to terrorists, criminals and some of the world's most vicious thugs, such as Charles Taylor, Laurent Kabila, the Taliban, the FARC and hosts of others.
The reason he may not make it back is that the Russians are far more afraid of his standing trial than was originally anticipated. After several diplomatic efforts to get Bout out of prison and back to Russia, the Russian government, or at least its military establishment, has decided to let some money and hardware do the talking.
My sources tell me the Russian ambassador in Thailand has met several times with the Thai prime minister, and has offered sweet heart deals on weapons systems, including fighter jets, in exchange for Bout.
In addition, the Russians are offering sweet heart gas and oil deals to sweeten the pot, which is a significant offer given the current market price of these fuels.
The question is, why would Bout be so valuable to the Russians, and what is it that they fear he could or would say in a court?
The most obvious answer is that he is deeply in bed and protected by the Russian military establishment and its intelligence services. My full blog is here.
I just wrote an article for the Middle East Times on how Ahmadinejad's past history makes it even more relevant to believe his threats.The Croissant (subscriptions available for a small fee).
To read the whole article, please click here .
Taubmann unveils many unknown facts about the current Iranian president: for instance, his mother's name is Sayeed Khanom, which indicates that she is a descendant of the Prophet; but his father's pedigree is much less glorious. His name was originally Sabarian, which is most certainly an Arabic name (an insult for most Iranians).
Interestingly his father whose first name was Ahmad changed his family name to Ahmadinejad, which could translate in "of the race of the prophet" since Ahmad was one of the multiple names used by the prophet.
At the early age of seven, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had a revelation in the person of Ayatollah Khomeini.
So, unsurprisingly, in 1979, at the onset of the Islamic Revolution, he became a member of the radical Office for Strengthening Unity (OSU) that was established by Ayatollah Beheshti (a key Khomeini collaborator) to fight off the Mujahedeen e-Khalq group.
While reports on Ahmadinejad's presence among the captors of the U.S. embassy in Tehran remain so far somewhat unconfirmed, what is almost sure is that Ahmadinejad had a hand in the planning of the operation. He also allegedly suggested storming the Soviet embassy at the same time as the United States.
On May 19, U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman called on Google to remove to remove Internet videos produced by terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda from its YouTube subsidiary. "Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training," the Senator said in his letter. "YouTube also, unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to maintain an active, pervasive, and amplified voice, despite military setbacks or successful operations by the law enforcement and intelligence communities." Google responded : "(W)e examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines."
But Google didn't remove all terrorist-sponsored videos, as Sen. Lieberman noted in another statement on May 20. "Furthermore, Google continues to allow the posting of videos by organizations the State Department has designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. No matter what their content, videos produced by terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, that are committed to attacking America and killing Americans, should not be tolerated." Google defended its actions as measures in support of free speech and the right of free expression: "While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds."
BUT WAIT - now we find out that Google blocked a single clip from being seen by YouTube users in Thailand because it "ran afoul of a law against insulting the 80-year-old monarch" of Thailand. Moreover, Google regularly censors its content offered in other countries, including in China, as a result of demands by host governments. "Google's ambassadors, a collection of lobbyists and lawyers, are traveling the globe to gauge what governments will tolerate -- and showing a readiness to bend America's cherished belief in free expression."
So Google claims to "encourage free speech," then censors its content outside the U.S., but won't remove terrorist-produced videos visible worldwide which could incite terrorist attacks? That is the very definition of hypocrisy. Google has no justification for not removing all the videos as demanded by Sen. Lieberman.
Someday the victims of a terrorist attack and their lawyers will find out that Google let the attacking group which killed their loved ones post its videos on YouTube, and they will sue Google for millions for providing material support and encouragement to the killers. I want to see Google try to defend that in front of a jury of Americans.
In the next days a major battle in the War of Ideas will be unfolding worldwide and particularly through the international media. We are now witnessing a massive campaign by Hezbollah's strategic communication machine (as our Western jargon likes to describe it) to frame the outcome of the battle for Lebanon, significantly lost by the United States, the West and the forces of Democracies in the region. The main issue at hand in the Iranian funded war room is not about convincing the international community and the Arab and Muslim world that Hezbollah has defeated its opponents in that small but strategically located republic, but that an overwhelming majority of Lebanese are now firmly standing behind Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in his vision for the future of the Eastern Mediterranean and probably the Greater Middle East.
The propaganda machine, living off Khomeinist Petrodollars, enlists not only the traditional Hezbollah outlets such as al Manar but also a network of friends in the multi-layered world of the foreign press and active pens in a plethora of news rooms around the world. The power of the Iranian Oil lobbies is almost as influential as the power of the Wahabi Petro pressures group. We'll come back to revisit this world later.
In his more than significant speech today, secretary general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah uncovered the bulk of his agenda for Lebanon, the region and perhaps his international open alignment with Tehran's ambitions. This speech, delivered after the invasion of West Beirut and southern Mount Lebanon and collapse of the Seniora Government is indeed a declaration of victory. Usually, Hezbollah's commander produces these benchmark-speeches when a new era is already underway. The first lesson thus is that the Tehran-backed militia in Lebanon has already scored its victory on the ground, in the institutions and diplomatically. What the political architects of the "axis" are working on as we write is a push to present the situation in Lebanon as marching towards stability and reconciliation. This is not unusual to "coups" aftermath. The winners always try to set the agenda of the debate and later on their pens will try to rewrite history. But one has to admit that Western public is hardly absorbing the too many sudden Lebanon-related events that took place over the last few weeks. Strategic realities were that Hezbollah and its allies overran Beirut and crumbled the foundations of the democratically elected Government of Fuad Seniora; the Lebanese Army headed by the now President of Lebanon, General Michel Sleiman did not confront Hezbollah then nor after; the March 14 coalition backing the Government couldn't resist Hezbollah without the protection by the Lebanese Army or a Western intervention; both needed moves didn't happen; hence the March 14 accepted to participate in conference in Doha to cut a deal with Hezbollah under the auspices of the Qatar regime, a friend of all, including more importantly of Tehran and Syria.
Now the reader can understand the rest of the story. In Qatar, it wasn't a national reconciliation that took place, but a crushing defeat to the March 14 coalition, which - rightly or wrongly - felt abandoned by Washington and by Arab moderates. Details will be reviewed later. The Qatari regime brokered a deal, saving the face of the anti-Syrian politicians and providing them with enough oxygen for a year or so. But the lion's share was granted to the Syro-Iranian forces in Lebanon. Hezbollah emerged as the main real power in Lebanon, with a veto power inside the Government, eleven ministers, the sanctity of its Iranian weapons and enough legitimacy to shield it from being disarmed at any time under UNSCR 1559. If this is not a astounding victory, I don't know how to describe it accurately.
I had an article in the Summer 2008 edition of The Washington Quarterly on Iran sanctions. In the piece, I look the development of the US government's Iran strategy, evaluate its effectiveness, and make recommendations for how to improve the current approach.
Here is an excerpt of the article:
For most of 2007, concerns about Iran grew louder. This situation changed dramatically in December, with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities. The NIE, which assessed that Iran had ceased its covert weapons program in 2003, was widely interpreted to indicate that Iran was no longer a threat. As a result, questions were raised whether U.S.-led efforts to ratchet up financial pressure against Tehran, through both UN sanctions and unilateral measures, remained either necessary or viable.
In reality, even if Iran no longer has an active covert nuclear weapons program, there would still be plenty of reason to worry. As Iran has publicly trumpeted, it continues to move forward on its uranium-enrichment activities. The fissile material generated through enrichment could rapidly be turned into a nuclear bomb should Iran choose to resume its weaponization program. Iran's enrichment activities also remain in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.
Although the U.S.-led campaign to increase the financial pressure has not yet achieved its overarching goals, the NIE gives cause for optimism that Iran might actually modify its behavior on its entire nuclear program in the face of the right mix of carrots and sticks. As global financial institutions have scaled back their Iranian business, there are indications that a debate is starting to take place about the wisdom of the nuclear program within Iran. . . .
To read the rest of the article, click here .
The
NEFA Foundation has obtained a new interview published by the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) with “Abdul Gaffar al-Almani”—better known as “Eric B.”, a 20-year old German convert to Islam from Neuenkirchen in Saarland who traveled to Pakistan in 2007 and joined the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU). According to “Abdul Gaffar”, as long as European governments continue to participate in the NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, “Germany—along with every other nation taking part in the occupation [of Afghanistan]—should expect attacks by Muslims. The one who goes searching for war will surely find it.” He further boasted that the IJU has recently “assembled a group of recruits who are ready to conduct martyrdom operations.” Separately during his interview, “Abdul Gaffar” also indicated that the IJU is currently suffering from a serious financial crisis, acknowledging, “Truthfully, we have a shortage of money, but generous Allah is supplying us with all of our necessities.”
The interview can be accessed via the NEFA Foundation website .
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the government in two money laundering cases. In one case the Supreme Court overturned the money laundering conviction of Humberto Cuellar, who was convicted following his arrest in 2004, in Texas, while driving toward Mexico with $83,000 in cash hidden beneath the floor of his car. Police believed the money came from drug trafficking. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled the government failed to introduce evidence that the reason drug smugglers move money to Mexico is to conceal or disguise a listed attribute of the funds. In the other case, the Supreme Court overturned the money laundering conviction of Efrain Santos, who ran an illegal lottery in northwest Indiana. Santos was convicted of money laundering based on the payments he made to winners of the lottery and his employees. The Supreme Court ruled this was not enough to sustain a conviction and prosecutors had to show Santos laundered money he made from the criminal business.
I have not had the opportunity to review the findings in either case as yet. My concern is the rulings in these cases will have an extreme adverse impact on the government's ability to bring money laundering charges in future cases. Certainly the narrower focus will make it more challenging.
This is an issue Congress should look at closely. Law enforcement has limited resources to bring to bear on money laundering cases. If the standard of proof necessary to sustain convictions is elevated to extremely specific levels, the government will be forced to be more selective in the cases brought forward. The simple translation, criminals and terrorist financiers who rely on laundering funds to sustain their operations will be the winners at the expense of our economy and national security. Not a good outcome.
Under current conditions, the NATO-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan cannot be won. The most graphic reason is described in New York Times article on the reality of the Taliban control in Tribal Territories.
While the Pakistani army goes for show, flying journalists in for a brief visit to demonstrate how the Taliban is in retreat, the Taliban goes for a far different tactic.
Baitullah Mehsud, the head of Pakistani Taliban, called a news conference in the same area, drove up in a new Toyota SUV full of security carrying new AK-47 assault rifles, and holds court, unmolested, for an extended period of time.
Mehsud was not bashful about acknowledging his role in combating U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and promised to intensify those attacks. Articulating the standard _jihadi-Islamist_ view, he stated that "Islam does not recognize boundaries. There can be no deal with the United States."
(For a detailed look at recent developments, see the NEFA Foundation's paper on the region, which can be found here. ) My
Posted
Monday, June 02, 2008 8:43 AM
from
Counterterrorism Blog |
In the wake of today's massive car bomb attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad, I think it is appropriate to revisit particular comments made by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri during his most recent public Q&A session (an English transcript is available exclusively on the NEFA Foundation website ):
Q.) “In 2004, you threatened Norway and other countries because of their aid to America in her war against you, and because of their forces being present in Afghanistan and fighting against you. Don’t you think that these kinds of threats against Norway and Europe will only increase the pressure on Muslims living here, most of who came seeking a peaceful life and to flee the autocracy of the majority of regimes in the Middle East? Furthermore, why are the Scandinavian countries, such as Norway and Denmark, considered as targets by Al-Qaida Organization?”Denmark has done her utmost to demonstrate her hostility towards the Muslims by repeatedly dishonoring our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him salvation. I admonish and incite every Muslim who is able to do so to cause damage to Denmark in order to show your support for our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him salvation, and to defend his esteemed honor. We prefer to live underground [i.e. dead] rather than accepting the limited response of boycotting Danish dairy products and goods. Denmark keeps on dishonoring the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him salvation, even though these criminals are unable to attack the Jews or raise any doubts about the Nazi Holocaust, even though it was the result of a Christian war… As for Muslims living in the West, they are forbidden to live permanently under the laws of the infidels unless it is a necessity. They ought to participate in the individual duty [of jihad] in order to defend the lands of Islam against those who are assaulting them.”
Today's edition of the New York Times includes a column from its Public Editor Clark Hoyt regarding a recent Op-Ed published in the Times written by Edward Luttwak and titled "President Apostate?" In his original piece, Mr. Luttwak argued that under Islamic Shariah law "as it is universally understood,” were Barack Obama to be elected president, he would be spurned by countries in the Muslim world as an "apostate" who had converted to Christianity. Luttwak went as far as to argue that Obama's act of apostasy would be considered by Muslims to be "the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit." He might, according to Luttwak, even face possible capital punishment were he to visit the Muslim world. In his reply, I believe the NYT's Mr. Hoyt adroitly responded to the arguments raised by Luttwak . Hoyt interviewed at least five Islamic scholars before issuing his response, though I sincerely doubt that it takes an expert in Islam to realize Luttwak's arguments are offensive and ridiculous.
Nor are Luttwak and the Times alone in wading into this regrettable issue. On May 19, the Christian Science Monitor posted a remarkably similar editorial by Shireen Burki . To her credit, Burki went even farther than Luttwak, rather grotesquely asserting that "Osama bin Laden must be chuckling in his safe house" because American voters were poised to "give Al Qaeda the ultimate propaganda tool: President Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim apostate... Obama is bin Laden's dream candidate." In her piece, Burki failed to quote a single contemporary Muslim scholar, terrorist organization, or any other factual source. Perhaps that is because no-one of any consequence in the Muslim world would tend to agree with her.
Indeed, what is probably most depressing about those who are advancing these arguments is that they don't appear to have ever bothered to speak with anyone in or associated with Al-Qaida--or any similar movement. They don't seem to have conducted any form of original research to poll opinions or discussions in the Muslim world, or more narrowly in the extremist community. They are simply trumpeting their own misconceptions about the Islamic world, which reflect a very dim understanding of Islam and Muslims, nevermind Barack Obama. Those who are actually paying close attention to terrorist organizations know all too well that what Al-Qaida sympathizers are most angered at is not the prospect of an "apostate Muslim" being elected as the U.S. President. To the contrary, they are being re-energized by the hateful and Islamophobic attacks on Obama that they have seen broadcast in Western media and the blogosphere. Ironically, they could care less whether these attacks are about Obama or not--in their mind, they see them as thinly-veiled bigoted attacks on Islam and Muslims. On May 15, a user on the notorious Al-Hesbah extremist forum traded one such narrative, bitterly describing to other Islamic militants how other American politicians "stupidly" could not tell the difference between "Obama" and "Osama."
Thus, the real terrorism-related problem here is how to deal with the long-term political fallout stemming from the ignorant and highly-polarized American portrayals of Islam unleashed during the context of the U.S. election, which are now inevitably being manipulated by Al-Qaida as propaganda fodder to recruit new sympathizers and terrorists. Even setting aside its obvious partisan bias, this form of reckless and irresponsible "scholarship" has no rightful place in the Christian Science Monitor nor, as Clark Hoyt rightly noted, on the New York Times Op-Ed page.