StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

Our Nation’s Unfinished Business…an opinion. As the year of 2005 comes to a close, here is only a partial list of unfinished business…

Terrorism:
The true nature of Iraq’s new democracy will show itself in the New Year.

The question/reality of whether the violence in the streets and countryside of Iraq will continue remains (meaning the insurgency), IMO, unresolved (yes, I admit that I’ve read other people’s points of view that the insurgency would dissipate following the election…remains to be seen).

Despite the often rose colored glasses outlook, it remains to be seen, in my opinion, FWIW, if there will not be civil unrest and possible divisions within the new democracy before we reach the next New Year. Anyone comparing the emergence of Iraq’s constitutional democracy with the fits and starts experienced by the infant United States in 1787 is sorrowfully mistaken, IMO of course, and is totally underestimating the impact of religious/secular/sectarian and tribal differences.

Bin Laden and Zawahiri are still at large: some people still somehow trust Pakistan (the reasons are beyond my understanding). al Qaeda’s brand of terror will survive either of them.

Zarqawi is alive, operating and spreading his brand of Islamic terror to Europe and Africa and recently, his al Qaeda in Iraq took credit for the recent missile attacks in Israel (http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/1205/zarqawi1205-9.pdf). There is no proof to the contrary. Zarqawi’s legacy of bloodshed and hatred is already established and will not disappear even when he is captured or killed.

Zarqawi Fulfills Promise, Launches Rockets at Northern Israel

This was also discussed by Steve Schippert at ThreatsWatch: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq has announced that they are the ones who executed the Wednesday katyusha rocket attacks on the Israeli towns in a statement posted on a jihahdi website that has been used in the past for al-Zarqawi statements. Israel initially blamed Hezbollah for the eastern-most attacks and the Damascus-headquartered PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command) for the western coastal attacks.

Southeast Asian terror (“hat tips” to Zachary Abuza and Andy Cochran of CTB) Southeast Asian Wrap-up

continues in places like Indonesia (where Islamist militias affiliated with Jemaah Islamiyah continue to attack…the latest being yesterday in Palu http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaillatestnews.asp?fileid=20051231100846&irec=0

where the casualties from a bomb attack outside a shop selling pork have risen to 7 deaths and 47 injured), Thailand (the insurgency in the troubled Muslim south has continued. Since January 2004, some 2004 people have been killed. In 2005, alone, 91 police were killed and 151 wounded), and in the Philippines where Abu Sayyaf has apparently abandoned kidnappings and shifted to more “traditional” acts of terrorism.

Indonesia Bombing: Jemaah Islamiyah’s Christmastime 2005 Attack? (Updated)

Steve Emerson’s Comments on Terrorism

…the lack of terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the 9/11 attacks is due to a combination of factors, including the investigative and law enforcement activities; plain luck; and the lack of terrorist infrastructure in the U.S…

The video interview is quite worth watching.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/SAE-NBC-12-30-05-TodayShow.wmv

Question: The reason we haven’t been struck in this country since 9/11- luck or are we doing everything right?

EMERSON: Both of those, A and B, and probably C and D, C being serendipity and D being the unwillingness of the terrorists to carry out attacks right now because they don’t have the infrastructure. Let me add one more thing, Matt. I think that in the set-up that you described initially, I fear we are getting away too far from the War on Terrorism. It’s not resonating in our mind. We are now having what I call the U.S. wars. We are now a ways away from the war with Al Qaeda directly and we’re immersed in this terribly acrimonious debate about the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, about the issue of secret camps, about the use of wiretaps…

Domestic Issues:

Privacy incursions like Terri Schiavo’s death, not just the issues related to the NSA surveillance remain unresolved.

The question of free speech protection will become an even louder topic in the coming year as opponents of the War in Iraq come more increasingly into the cross hairs of those who would stifle their rights to dissent. Just a “clue” to those who disagree…it is neither unpatriotic nor un-American to voice disagreement with National policy.

The question of balancing Security with Privacy will be a topic of hot debate in the second session of the 109th Congress, and probably beyond.

Thanks to the disclosure of the NSA surveillance issue, the Patriot Act is now in danger of not passing…this would be a tragic loss, IMO, to our National security (yes, Mike, I know you and I disagree on this). But not one expert that I have heard speak on the subject, not one expert I have read on the subject, believe that bin Laden etal. weren’t aware of this. IMO, the “secret” was that this was being done without warrants.

Secret Wiretaps Damaging, Worrisome

The President’s NSA Wiretaps: Unnecessary Problems in the War on Terrorism

Jack Abramoff may have reached a plea bargain agreement…his revelations will likely include some Democrats…but that is not to say that Republicans will not also be smirched by the Abramoff touch. No amount of uninformed optimism can shed light on how this will come out, who it will touch, and what changes (dramatic at that) will occur in the way our Nation’s business is conducted (What! “You” didn’t know that lobbyists play a function is our Nation’s business?)

The Budget Reduction Act has made it quite difficult for elderly Americans to receive health care and elder care…especially to the Medicaid Asset Transfer Provisions.
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/5-12-19-BudgetBillPassesHouse.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109P1rxub:e317814:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109P1rxub:e317814: (Chapter 2 – Reform of Asset Transfer Rules)…So much for compassionate treatment of elderly Americans.

Other legislative issues remain unfinished.

The absolute jarring nature of the “Polarization in America” continues…

Cracks showing in GOP coalition - Republicans torn between toeing the party line, appeasing more moderate voters.

Most unresolved remains the outcome of the 2006 midterm elections. I realize that a few people have already counted the votes, reapportioned the seats in both Houses, and started preparing to engage in the political bashing and character assassination of the next Presidential Election, but my personal suggestion is to allay that optimism. The “game” is only beginning, and the result is not currently known. What I believe is that there will be a re-emergence of the American Middle.

"Re-creating the American Middle"…has a nice ring to it as a political campaign slogan…or maybe it should be "Re-claiming the American Middle"

A friend on TMF commented in response to an excessively divisive post “Give your countrymen of both parties more credit for taking the right action in an emergency.”

All of us, and I mean all of us, remain Americans.

Have a safe New Year’s Eve and may this country emerge from the coming year more secure.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, Iraq, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Not surprising, but the War on Terror is having a positive effect in the War on Drugs.

Surprise - terror war aids drug war
One Arizona border unit sees marijuana haul triple.
As Congress and President Bush wrangle over the USA Patriot Act, the Border Security bill, and other tools of the war on terror, they may want to keep another law-enforcement group in mind - the nation’s drug-fighters.

That’s because the war on terror is proving to be a boon to the war on drugs. Drug seizures are up all along the US-Mexico border. Nowhere is the trend clearer than along a desolate 118-mile patch of Arizona desert across the border from the Mexican state of Sonora.

In what is rapidly becoming one of the highest drug-trafficking and people- smuggling sectors along the border, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers there have seized 13,000 pounds of marijuana since Oct. 1, triple the amount captured in the same period last year. That year, fiscal 2005, also set a record. The reasons for the success? Better intelligence-sharing, increased manpower, and improved technology that border officials have received in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks…

Also here: Terror War Aiding Drug War

Another interesting aspect of drugs and the War on Terror comes from Robert Charles, writing on the Counterterrorism Blog, in his post where he reveals that some of the terrorists/insurgents in might actually be using heroin.  Iraq and Drugs - Opening A New Front in War on Terror Among the questions posed by Charles in his post is "What does the possible link mean operationally? Not much in terms of stopping a VBIED or mobile suicide attacker, since there is little difference between an insurgent exercising murderous irrationality and an insurgent exercising drugged-up murderous irrationality. On the other hand, implications for intelligence gathering, cross-fertilization of drug-related and insurgent-related information, increased counter-drug training for Iraqi police, greater reliance on DEA and other counter-drug experts in country, and a potential for leveraging this connection to find more bad guys could be real."

Could be nothing…could mean a serious complication. 

Related posts:
Connecting “Normal” Crimes to Homeland Security
Methamphetamine and Terrorism (Crime)
Post Taliban Afghanistan – The New Parliament   

Federal Policy, National Security Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

Following in the footsteps of the concern and "outrage" over the NSA/FISA issue, this newest leak/disclosure is sure to rankle some people (not me by the way)…FWIW, I do not think that monitoring air outside of a building should require warrants.  Last time I looked, air is public.  And also, there is nothing in any of the media reports to suggest that these are the only locations being monitored.

Thoughts on the subject from Volokh Conspiracy
More from Volokh Conspiracy
 

FBI Official Defends Radiation Monitoring
A classified radiation monitoring program, conducted without warrants, has targeted private U.S. property in an effort to prevent an al-Qaida attack, federal law enforcement officials confirmed Friday…

…U.S. News and World Report first reported the program on Friday. The magazine said the monitoring was conducted at more than 100 Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C. area — including Maryland and Virginia suburbs — and at least five other cities when threat levels had risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York and Seattle…

…nearly all of them Muslim targets identified by the FBI. Targets included mosques, homes and businesses, the magazine said…

…Ibrahim Hooper (CAIR):

(*) the program "comes as a complete shock to us and everyone in the Muslim community."

(*) "This creates the appearance that Muslims are targeted simply for being Muslims…

…"The greatest expectation of privacy is in the home," said Kmiec, a Justice Department official under former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. "As you move away from the home to a parking lot or a place of public accommodation or an office, there are a set of factors that are a balancing test for the court," he said…

FBI, without warrants, tracks radiation at Muslim sites
A classified radiation-monitoring program, conducted without warrants, has targeted private U.S. property in Seattle and other cities in an effort to prevent an al-Qaeda attack, federal law enforcement officials confirmed Friday.

While declining to provide details including the number of cities and sites monitored, the officials said the air monitoring took place since the Sept. 11 attacks and from publicly accessible areas — which they said made warrants and court orders unnecessary.

U.S. News and World Report first reported the program on Friday. The magazine said the monitoring was conducted at more than 100 Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area — including Maryland and Virginia suburbs — and at least five other cities when threat levels had risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York and Seattle…

================= OPINION

Excuse me!  "Air" is public.  If we are concerned about the possible use of a "dirty" bomb or radiological weapon by Islamic jihadists, what would be the most logical places to look?  If there is a concern about the use of a chemical or biological weapon by Islamic jihadists, where what would be the most logical places to look?  Perhaps it isn’t politically correct to say this, but it seems to me that the most logical places to look would be the places the FBI has been monitoring.  There!  I’ve said it, and I know that its not politically correct, and in fact, its profiling.  And as I said, there is no certainty that "other locations" aren’t also being monitored.

IMO, these articles in the public media are misleading their readers.  Not only that, the revelation is about air sampling (air is public).  I’m not even sure of the legalities, but if there were methods used to "peer into" a building from the outside, would it be legal?  It is when non-intrusive inspection techniques are used to detect narcotics and explosives (have been for years).

A Review of NEUTRON BASED NON-INTRUSIVE INSPECTION TECHNIQUES
Non-intrusive inspection technology - a layered defense
Non-intrusive inspection is the method

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

The maneuvering and wrangling in the House of Representatives and the Senate last week was nothing short of high drama…and it was fascinating to watch.  In my opinion, all too many people in this country take the word of the press, of what they read in their local newspaper or read on some web site without ever witnessing it first hand…you can do that you know by watching CSPAN and CSPAN2 (some people listen to music in the background when they are working…whenever something important is going on, I listen to CSPAN).

I just read an AP report posted at TMF by someone who has an obviously "tilted" opinion, describing the mood of our legislators as they left Washington DC for the Holiday break.  Considering that this AP report was apparently written before the Senate cast their final votes (I am writing this on the morning of December 24th), reflects I believe, more of the reason why some of our citizens form opinions based on faulty "facts."

But anyway…Of all of the controversial issues, the tagging on of the ANWR language to the Defense Spending bill seemingly caused the most anxiety (this infuriated senators of both parties because it would have forced lawmakers to vote for the package or be accused of withholding support for U.S. troops and storm victims.)…not that the push and pull over the Patriot Act was any less "testy."

Congress Isn’t So Merry As Christmas Nears
Capitol Hill may be decked out with festive lights and an impressive tree. But under the big dome, a sour mood has settled over a Senate stuck in session with nothing but legislative stalemates standing between lawmakers and their holiday recess…

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska): "I hope the good lord will help me keep my temper"

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska): Tossing a glance across the aisle at Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who had denounced the drilling measure, Stevens grumbled, "I asked for his apology once; I wouldn’t accept it now."

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.: "I love this man from Alaska. I do. I love him," Byrd said on the floor, even as he disparaged Stevens’ procedural moves. "I feel that my blood in my veins is with his blood.

"I love him," Byrd finished, "But I love the Senate more."

Two old warhorses at each other…high drama…(even if Sen. Byrd puts me to sleep with his repetitive pattern of speech).

When the Senate and the House reconvene after the Holidays, it will be interesting to see if the rancor that marked the end of the session will still be there.  It would be wrong to expect that it will not.  Between the Alito hearings, the NSA/FISA issue, the continued debate over the Patriot Act and a few others, the issues facing our Senators and Representatives are weighty ones.  I hope that they all rest up and when they return, return to the "business of the people." 

But to quote Moon (from another post): "As polarized as people think Congress has been the last couple of years, I see some real tempers flaring next month."

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Seems like Representative Sensenbrenner is the pitcher here, and he has just tossed the knuckleball of all knuckleballs by passing its own version of the bill, extending the Patriot Act by one month instead of the six passed by the Senate.

This will require that both Houses debate the issues immediately upon return from recess.

Now it will get really interesting.

The House of Representatives has passed its own version of the bill, with a one month extension of the Patriot act, instead of the six months passed by the Senate. Yogi Berra had it right! It ain’t over til its over."

As posted on the CT Blog by Andy Cochran, approval came on a voice vote in a nearly empty chamber after Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the  House Judiciary Committee, refused to agree to a six-month extension the Senate had cleared several hours earlier.

House Passes One-Month Extension of Patriot Act Anti-Terror Law
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a one-month extension of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act, rejecting a six-month measure agreed to last night by the U.S. Senate. The full Senate will meet later today to consider the House legislation.

Key House Republican Balks at Patriot Act
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner threatened Thursday to block passage of legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act, Republican officials disclosed.

The Senate passed a six-month extension Wednesday night, and House approval is required by Dec. 31 to keep in place the enhanced law enforcement powers first enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Sensenbrenner’s spokesman declined comment…

IMO, this is going to get quite interesting now as Members of both Houses want to leave Washington DC and go home for the Holidays.  Apparently, a Senate vote on the measure is expected some time this evening.  Seems like some sort of compromise extension is on the horizon.  Or is this some form of a "sword fight" between the House and the Senate?

Stay tuned to CPSAN2 for more…"I just love our government and watching it work" (even when things like this happen to give people the impression that it doesn’t work all that well).  Open debate on issues, important issues at that, is what this country is all about IMO.

• Technorati homeland security, Patriot Act

Federal Policy Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

By a voice vote, the Senate approved a six month extension of the Patriot Act (the Act, and a number of its provisions, is controversial in some circles).

Senator Specter I believe took the lead in this.  Even Republican Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, one of a small group of conservative Republicans who joined with Senate Democrats in the filibuster agreed that the extension made sense because of the differences of opinion that remain.

An interesting back-and-forth occurred on TMF since the announcement last night that I think I’ll replay here since it shows, even in a microcosm, some of the polarization that exists in this country on issues like the Patriot Act.

One poster there wrote: "In my opinion, all this extension will do is allow more rabble roushing by the senators on both side as they water it down until it is useless in helping us find the terrorists."

Another poster responded to this "blanket statement": " This was approved in the Senate 100-0.  Are all the senators rabble rousers?"

My response to the stated opinion that "all this extension will do is allow more rabble roushing by the senators on both side as they water it down until it is useless in helping us find the terrorists." was (typically long):

Well, as my son used to say to me, "its my opinion and I’m entitled to it." You are therefore, clearly entitled to hold any opinion that you wish…even if I and others disagree with it.

(*) So, you consider debate on the floor of the Senate to be "rabble rousing?" This country and our form of government (much like that of the British) is based on an open debate of the issues that confront our Nation. Watch CSPAN occasionally. Generally, it is not "rabble rousing" except of course when one party attempts to assert power on the other on issues of perceived great importance. In fact, open debate is constructive to our democracy.

(*) So, you expect that the debate and ultimate result will water down the Patriot Act until it is useless? I beg to differ. The Patriot Act (also known as ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001′), and I am a known and open supporter of the Patriot Act on this board and have continued to be for some time, contains a number of controversial provisions.

Many of those provisions have never been actually used. Others by any objective eye, require either clarification (to prevent misuse) or modification. That is not "rabble rousing," it is the legislative process. I’d ask of you, "what provisions of the Patriot Act do you fear will be watered down to the point of rendering them "useless" as you put it in "finding" terrorists? IMO, among the most important provisions of the Patriot Act are those covering terrorist funding and sources of funding (including provisions against money laundering). Additional revisions to the Patriot Act include those that make trafficking in methamphetamine and other illegal narcotics an offense covered; as is the smuggling of cigarettes. I have written about, and it is known that illegal narcotics activities feed the coffers of criminal and terrorist organizations.  And such activities are also conencted to identity theft:  Meth addicts’ other habit: Online theft

Whether true or not, whether founded by fact or not, there is a public perception of abuse or potential abuse created by certain provisions of the Patriot Act. It is in those areas where debate should occur and where resolution of the issues should occur. Just because the Republican Party currently holds the majority in both Houses of Congress does not automatically mean that a "carte blanche" exists…it simply doesn’t work that way, and an intelligent, well educated and experienced lady like you should know that.

Now, given that there were insufficient votes to push the revised Patriot act through the Senate yesterday, wise Senators like Specter (a Republican) chose to take what I see as a common sense approach to the legislative process. The White House and Senator Frist were against any extension at all, and stated their objection to a three month objection. Surprise! In the end, there was a six month extension authorized that will permit sufficient time for the Senators, especially those on the Justice Committee and the Intelligence Committee to better understand the issues/concerns/objections and to explore appropirate solutions. That debate on the Senate and/or House floor(s) will not be "rabble rousing," it will be fascinating to watch, and it will be our "government in action."

What are some of the issues?  Read the DoJ newsrelease, http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58504 (and BTW, it appears that there is a closer relationship between the Patriot Act and FISA than I first recognized - that notwithstanding, the NSA involvement is only peripherally connected, IMO).

I believe that the debate that will ensue will help to ensure the Senators that the perceived or potential for abuse is less than feared by some. To an extent, I suspect that this could be one of the more important and revealing debates in our Nation’s history, especially so if both sides air their concerns, both pro and con some of the misunderstood provisions of the Patriot Act.

Among the most misunderstood provision of the Patriot Act is Section 215, the National Security Letters provision, or so-called "library records" provision. The National Review (which I rarely if ever quote, and I still do not ascribe to the rhetoric of the NR) offers an interesting editorial on the subject: http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200512161719.asp …"The government cannot get a search warrant without showing a judge probable cause either that a crime has been committed or that the subject of the warrant is an agent of a foreign power (such as a terrorist organization). When people are accused or wrongfully convicted, they fully maintain their rights to confrontation and appeal; but those rights come into play only after a person has been formally accused. They have always been irrelevant while the government is conducting an investigation, even of an ordinary crime. Why should things be any different in the case of a threat to national security, which is what the Patriot Act covers?…(F)ederal prosecutors have for decades been fully empowered, in investigations of run-of-the-mill crimes like gambling and minor frauds, to issue grand-jury subpoenas, which can compel all the same evidence with absolutely no court supervision. There was no widespread abuse of these tactics prior to Patriot, just as there is no record of their being abused in the four years since Patriot sensibly extended them to national-security investigations…The Justice Department has long taken the position that Section 215 orders can be appealed. The proposed Patriot Act reauthorization not only formally creates a judicial-review process allowing a judge to modify or set aside flawed Section 215 orders or NSLs, but adds other protections as well: It loosens the nondisclosure requirements to facilitate court challenges; calls for “minimization procedures” that will limit the government’s ability to retain and disseminate the intelligence collected; and provides for monitoring by an inspector general to make certain the authorities are being used properly…"

Reading of the following NR article (again, not ascribing to the NR rhetoric, but focussing instead on the issues) was also recommended to me by an associate involved in "discussions" relating to the debate on the provisions of the extended Patriot Act: http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200512140926.asp

The often chastised as "liberal" Newsday had a recent article on the subject:  Keep Patriot Act - but repair it restores protection for citizens 

…The Patriot Act isn’t the civil-liberties-shredding abomination that its harshest critics claim. But it needs delicate fine-tuning to ensure that the privacy of ordinary people is not needlessly violated.

Your stated opinion makes "rabble rousing" sound downright horrible and detestable.  And yet, if it wasn’t for the rabble rousing of our Founding Fathers, there would be no United States. I seem to have alot more confidence in the way our government works than you do (poster). I do not hold those of the Democratic Party in as much contempt as you and others clearly do. I have alot more confidence that the Senate will work out its differences on the Patriot Act and in the end, a better and clearer Patriot Act will result.

• Technorati homeland security, Patriot Act

Federal Policy Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Of all of the utter gall!  Look at this "man."  He’s now begging for a reduced sentence.  IMO, he’s lucky that he’s alive.

Lindh asks for lighter prison sentence
American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh has asked President Bush again to reduce his 20-year prison sentence by an unspecified amount, Lindh’s attorney said Tuesday…

…"As passions have cooled, it became clearer to people that John was a young man … who was in the wrong place at the wrong time," said Lindh’s attorney, James Brosnahan of San Francisco. "Hopefully, this president or some future president will reduce his sentence…"

Any "future" President who reduces this guy’s sentence should be removed from office!  Johnny Walker-Lindh was captured in an Afghan prison, and was there (if not involved) when Mike Spann was murdered.  Johnny Taliban, in my opinion, got away with his life…and he wants mercy?

Give me a (expletive deleted) break!

Jawa doesn’t delete those expletives!

Michelle Malkin wrips into this one as well.

Johnny Walker Lindh, Johnny Taliban is not an innocent little boy caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In favor of profiling…who knows how many other "little turds" like Johnny Taliban Walker Lindh are walking the streets this morning (short of the long hair and scraggly beard, he looks like alot of other people…there may be other terrorists among us!

Johnny Lindh, captured and found in a prison in Afghanistan, an American Taliban…a terrorist, who may have gotten away with the murder of Mike Spahn.

‘He’s Got To Decide if He Wants to Live or Die Here’
Just hours before his death, CIA agent Mike Spann interviewed John Walker, the American Taliban. Here is an excerpt from that videotaped interview

From my posting history (from TMF):
‘American Taliban’ transfered to Calif. jail

John Walker Lindh, the American serving a 20-year sentence for helping the Taliban, has been transferred to a federal prison in this desert community northeast of Los Angeles.

Lindh, 21, arrived at the medium-security Federal Correctional Institution in Victorville on Saturday, under guard by federal marshals, authorities said. He had been held at a federal lockup in Virginia. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison last October after pleading guilty to supplying services to the Taliban during the war in Afghanistan and carrying explosives in commission of a felony.

Spinning Johnnie Taliban
Date: 7/18/02 1:56 PM
Now that the trial and sentencing phase of the saga of Johnny Walker Lindh (aka Abdul Hamid, or was it Suleyman al-Lindh etal) has ended with his plea bargain deal giving him two ten year sentences for turning his back on his country and joining with, and bearing arms with America’s enemy, the Taliban, I am still quite disturbed at the current "spin" that seems to be trying to portray Lindh as an "innocent" who got involved with the "wrong friends." I am even more disturbed at the sudden comparisons of Hamid to Patty Hurst. And I am even further disturbed to learn that the widow of Mike Spann with three children, the youngest being only 1 year old, is being forced by economics to go back to work at the CIA to support her family (apparently, the CIA only pays one year of salary as a death benefit).

What the Spann Family and others are saying about the sentence

Slain CIA agent’s family angry over Lindh’s deal

"I think they should have kept him in the pen until he was as old as I am now," said Spann’s 64-year-old uncle, Buddy Vickery of Longview, Texas. "It wouldn’t have bothered me if they’d given him death. Johnny Walker didn’t shoot Michael but I’m pretty sure one of his buddies did."

U.S. Congressman Ralph Hall, D-Texas
"I think the sentencing of John Lindh to 20 years was ridiculous and should have been more severe. The death penalty should have been considered since a death resulted," Hall said Wednesday. "My sympathy goes to the family and relatives of ‘Johnny’ Michael Spann who have to live with this lax decision."

U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, D-Texas, was shocked to hear of the plea bargain.
"I’m not privy to the facts presented to the courts, but from what I know about case sentencing and what I’ve seen in the press, the sentencing seems inadequate and hard to explain."

http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/466410p-3730781c.html

Lindh’s spiritual quest leads to imprisonment

Now 21, Lindh will spend 20 years in prison for aiding the Taliban as an armed combatant. A deal with prosecutors avoids a life sentence he could have faced had he been convicted at trial of more serious crimes.

"I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban last year from about August to November," he said, making an admission that was part of the plea arrangement. "During the course of doing so I carried a rifle and two grenades."

Lindh plea bargain beneficial to U.S. terror investigation
The plea bargain the government struck with John Walker Lindh will ensure U.S. investigators have unfettered access to the young American who fought with the Taliban as they try to learn more about the inner workings of al-Qaida…

…Lindh must serve 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to providing services to Afghanistan’s former rulers, the Taliban, and a related explosives charge. In return, the government dropped nine other counts - including more serious charges of conspiring to kill U.S. nationals - that would have carried life in prison.

…Nulty said after Monday’s hearing that it is unclear if Lindh has much useful information to offer. "We have not yet been able to talk to him," he said. "It remains to be seen how much evidence he’ll provide."

Lawyer Chutzpah Alert!

Brosnahan said he held out hope that some future president might pardon Lindh or commute his sentence.

In my opinion, any future President who pardoned or commuted this sentence should be impeached on the spot!

More Lawyer Chutzpah Alert!

The plea agreement also includes provisions guaranteeing that the U.S. government, rather than Lindh, receive profits if Lindh decides to publish his life story.

Brosnahan, who spoke frequently of the horrific conditions Lindh faced as a Taliban soldier who surrendered to the anti-Taliban northern alliance, said he did not know if Lindh had any plans to sell his story or write a book.

"If he does," Brosnahan said, "you’ll read it. I guarantee it."

NOTE:  I wrote this over three years ago!

Lindh - No Right to Association
6/18/02 5:34 PM
Judge refuses to dismiss Lindh indictment
A federal judge refused today to dismiss John Walker Lindh’s indictment, rejecting defense arguments that the American had a constitutional right to associate with the Taliban and could not get a fair trial.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III’s decision clears the way for the government to proceed with prosecuting the U.S.-born Taliban soldier on charges he conspired to murder Americans.

"The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association is not a pass to provide terrorists with resources and services," Ellis said.

The judge also turned down Lindh’s argument that he could not get a fair trial anywhere in the United States, especially in a northern Virginia courthouse located just nine miles from the scene of the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon…

[Mike Spann didn't get a fair chance at all!]

At the time, July 22, 2002, I quoted from a Findlaw Commentary (no longer clickable)

It is Time for Congress to Create a Real Federal Crime of Terrorism
It is shocking that we do not have an actual federal crime of terrorism. Instead, we currently treat terrorism as a mere factor to be determined at sentencing by a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence where even the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply.

As it currently stands, the terrorism adjustment is the ultimate end-run around the Constitution. If the government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is a terrorist, it doesn’t need to worry; it can simply opt to prove, instead, that more likely than not, the offense it can prove promoted terrorism. Given that this can occur in practically any federal criminal case, more should be required.

That end-run is significant for the defendant. The terrorism adjustment puts the defendant who receives it in prison for, at a minimum, between 17 years, 6 months and 21 years, 10 months.

Ultimately, the Lindh plea agreement illustrates that it is far past time for Congress to create an actual federal crime of terrorism - one that includes as an element the political motive at the heart of the crime. Terrorists, and only terrorists, should be charged and punished as terrorists; sentencing regulatory violators as "terrorists" defames the gravity of that offense. It’s time we treat terrorism as it should be treated: nothing less than the egregious crime that it is.

Somehow, I fear that the government didn’t go for the maximum. Maybe they couldn’t. Maybe there are facts that we all don’t know about.

But I still consider it a crime that Lindh could be out of prison in less than 20 years, while his wife and children are left with nothing but memories.

---

Frankly, I still don’t understand how Lindh was able to plea bargain himself to a 20 year sentence.  And now he wants a reduced sentence?  Oh please!  Remember Mike Spann (Honor Mike Spann ) but do not forgive Johnny Walker Lindh, Johnny Taliban!

If you’ve never visited CIA HQ and stood in front of the Wall…I have stood there and felt shivers down my spine in the presence of such bravery in the service of our country.

"IN HONOR OF THOSE MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN THE SERVICE OF THEIR COUNTRY"

• Technorati Johnny Lindh

Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

These are incomplete results. Apparently with close to 95% of the votes now counted in the Dec. 15th Iraqi election, Allawi’s secular slate is running 3rd or 4th, depending on which reports you read. The following has been gleaned from various sources, and written at 7am EST on 12/21/05.

• preliminary vote counts that suggest a strong victory by the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of Shiite Muslim religious parties…projected to win at least 120 seats;

• the Shiite list winning overwhelmingly in 10 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, including the most populous, Baghdad

• Kurdish parties swept the three northernmost provinces

• The Shiite slate appeared to be far short of winning the 184 seats necessary to avoid the need to form a coalition to control the parliament.

• Sunnis projected to win 20 of the 275 seats

• Allawi’s Iraqi National List appears to have won only 21 seats, claiming 8% of the popular vote tallied so far

• Allawi and other groups are expected to pick up more seats in the 275-member parliament once expatriate votes are tallied.

• A secular alliance headed by controversial Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, a onetime Pentagon favorite to lead Iraq, scored less than 0.5% of the vote — not enough to win a seat.

• "It looks like people preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identity"

Another source (based on fewer voting boxes counted): Election results released Tuesday, with nearly 90% of the votes counted, showed that Shi’ite Muslims, who make up about 60% of the population, won about 110 seats in the 275-member National Assembly through their United Iraqi Alliance slate. Sunnis had 33, and the Kurds had 40. Most of the remaining seats went to smaller parties.

The other day, I posted earlier opinions about the outlook for the election, Iraq Election - Plus 3 Days .  In the post I quoted Tom Friedman’s interview and his observations.

If these election results stand, it proves once again that elections are unpredictable at best.  The question of course is what will these results mean to the future of the region.

Of course, these results are not final and are subject to change. As with any election there are some with loads of "sour grapes" with one Sunni being quoted as saying about the election that "It is terrorism more than democracy." Clearly though, with nearly 70% voter turnout, a democratic Iraq has emerged and has brought about a freely elected Assembly…either way, the "people have spoken" with their votes.  What this ultimately means to Iraq, U.S. policy and to the region remains to be seen.

Iraq, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

There is an interesting debate now ongoing in America at large, in the Congress and on the Counterterrorism Blog about the Patriot Act, its various provisions, and about whether many of its provisions will be allowed to lapse at “sunset” or be extended (with of course, both the White House and Senate Leadership objecting to a temporary extension that would permit further debate – leaving, in my opinion, an all or nothing choice for the Senate as its business winds down for the year before the January recess).

As I write this, I have had CSPAN2 (I wonder how many other people were actually tuned to the debate) on in the background and I heard Senator Specter talk about calling for a vote to reconsider the cloture vote so that an up or down vote could occur (obviously hoping that the vote would result in the passage of the Act and avoid the sunset provisions - also, without making any commitments, saying that as Chair of Judiciary, he’s be open to modification to the Act after the Congress reconvenes in late January). Apparently, that possibility is still open. His stated position essentially was: that there are no options left - the Senate either has to pass the final conference report on the Act or the 16 provisions will expire.

But the real debate seems to be between those who believe that the Patriot Act has evil intentions and has violated citizens’ rights, and those who believe that while the Patriot Act may not be perfect, its provisions have served to prevent any subsequent terrorist attacks on this country. Of course, coming in coincidence with the NY Times disclosure of the NSA/FISA surveillance on people in the United States (the domestic spying issue), the attendant confusion between the two unrelated issues (the Patriot Act and the NSA/FISA), many of our citizens simply do not know what to think and their opinions are once again being molded by selective reading of various media courses. I’ve written about this frequently in the past. Not only do we live in the times of the Knowledge Revolution that is being fed by access to the Internet, but as a result, we also live in times when people who previously had no informed opinions about issues of the day, now can find someone somewhere on the Internet, whether a newspaper or special interest magazine, or some obscure opinion blog that will agree with their ill-conceived opinions. Suddenly, because these people have found an Internet citing that supports their view, they believe that their view is valid. The mistaken opinions held by the general population about the Patriot Act or about the NSA/FISA issue is a perfect example.

And yet, even among people who are experts, like the contributors to the Counterterrorism Blog, there is disagreement. I find this disagreement to be quite agreeable since it has aired intelligent discourse on both sides of the argument. Very appropriately in my opinion, this debate weighs the relative values of security against terrorism and protection of civil liberties.

As expressed by Andrew Cochran, the question is where are the victims of this supposedly onerous Patriot Act?

My Challenge to Patriot Act Opponents: Show Me the Victims!

As noted by Cochran, even Democratic Senator Feinstein, a supporter of the filibuster against the Patriot Act was quoted as saying that even after seeking the litany of these abuses from the ACLU, the ACLU couldn’t describe any.

Statement by Senator Feinstein on the Patriot Act, June 9, 2005

The counter argument offered by Victor Comras, also a contributor to the CT Blog calls for

More on Balancing Security and Civil Liberty Protections

In his post, he writes, “The debate over the appropriate balance between security and civil liberty protection to which I referred in my previous posting goes well beyond the Patriot Act issues still under review in Congress. It touches on broader issues that effect our system of justice, the way we defend ourselves, and the values we keep. And, there is also the question of the precedents we set for ourselves and for others. The Patriot Act is a small, but essential part, of this critical debate.”

But in that same post, Mr. Comras also states that his concern really is “the potential for abuse that raises the concern. And if this potential can be reduced without sacrificing security shouldn’t this be done?”

Thus, the argument that some of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act (the 16 provisions) should be allowed to lapse in the “sunset.”

The other, related posts discussing this subject on the CT Blog are:

Patriot Act Facts: There is "Judicial Oversight" and No Proven "Abuse"
I’ve said in various public fora that the USA Patriot Act is the most "slandered" and most misunderstood law in America today, and that the public understands the dreaded Internal Revenue Code better that the Patriot Act.

Cochran further wrote: The NR editors, advised on this issue by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, wrote a comprehensive review and endorsement of the Act before the Senate vote, and I commend it to our readers and experts.

Among the provisions most in discussion is the subject of Section 215 orders, or National Security Letters. I therefore cite for reference:

U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet: Civil Liberties Safeguards in the USA PATRIOT ACT Conference Report
Furthermore, in my opinion, Section 215 is probably among the least understood and the most feared of the provisions of the Patriot Act.  And as far as I am aware, there have been no (or very few) executions of this provision.

Earlier, Mr. Comras wrote in his post titled It Really Is Necessary to Balance Security and Civil Liberty Protections in The War On Terrorism

As 2005 draws to a close, a great public debate has opened here and in Europe over the powers we have placed in our governments’ hands to combat terrorism. There is a growing public perception that some of these measures are being abused and that, if left unchecked, they could have a nefarious impact on our civil liberties and rights to privacy… about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures actually being used and about the need to subject such special measures to special oversight, control, and accountability…

Poster’s Notes:  I truly hope that I’ve done justice to the counter arguments posed by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Comras.  While they express somewhat opposing views, each one has meritable positions.  The fact that I agree more with Andy Cochran is not the issue here. 

It is also important, IMO, to reiterate my belief that the general American public is relatively unaware of the truth when it comes to the Patriot Act, and they are also blending the questions about the Patriot Act with the recent disclosures of domestic surveillance by the NSA under FISA.  As difficult as it may be to accept it, a large percentage of Americans are not "savvy," especially when it comes to matters like this one.  That is a sad statement on our Electorate.

More on Section 215 and the Patriot Act (IMO, probably one of the least understood provisions of the Act itself):

House votes to repeal part of USA Patriot Act
In a move that may signal a tougher battle ahead, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted Wednesday to remove the Patriot Act provision that "allows federal agents to examine people’s book-reading habits at public libraries and bookstores as part of terrorism investigations." [more]

House defies Bush, votes to repeal part of Patriot Act -  Book-reading probes would be banned

• Technorati National Security Administration, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, homeland security, USA Patriot Act

Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

There are actually some people who believe that the Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan and that Afghanistan’s new and fragile government will (also) be a Mideastern democracy.

Warlords dominate new Afghan parliament

About two-thirds of the seats in Afghanistan’s first parliament in 30 years, to meet on Monday, will be filled by warlords from years of bloody conflict but they are unlikely to form a bloc, analysts said.

Instead the diverse backgrounds of the lawmakers and the fact that one-third of all seats are held by independents will likely give US-backed President Hamid Karzai majority support, they said. “The majority of the parliamentarians are mujahedins (warlords) or linked to mujahedins,” said analyst Neik Mohammed Kabuli from the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in Kabul.

“Mujahedin leaders and parties are a majority in the parliament,” confirmed Sabrina Saqeb, 25, the youngest of the MPs to be elected to the 249-seat House of Representatives, the Wolesi Jirga…[more]

Consider that. Warlords control 2/3 of the seats, but because of age old conflicts that still keep them separate, the warlords are not likely to form any sort of consolidated bloc of power. I have always believed that Karzai would continue to rule (and in fact live) at the pleasure of the warlords.  I suspect that I mistakenly believed that the warlords would somehow consolidate their influence. What also appears likely is that the Taliban could experience a resurgence. Of course, there are those who will not believe that as a possible outcome. But to those, I ask, why not? The central government is based on the lack of cohesion of the warlords.

In Afghanistan, Taliban turning to the drug trade

The threatening tracts were pinned on mosque doors and shop windows, the village elder said. Signed ”The Taliban," their message was simple.

”They said, ‘Cultivate the poppy or we will come and kill you,’ " said Haji Nazarullah, an elder in Khanishin, a village on the fringe of Afghanistan’s lawless southern desert. ”A lot of people are very scared."

According to farmers, elders, and senior police officials, the Taliban, which condemned the opium trade as ”un-Islamic" while in power, has allied with drug smugglers in the southwestern province of Helmand.

The threats are part of a worrying slide in security just months before US forces are due to hand control of the southern region to a 6,000-strong, British-led NATO force. The villagers and police say militants have distributed ominous ”night letters" ordering increased poppy cultivation in remote villages that are far beyond the fragile authority of the Kabul government. Poppy is the plant from which opium and, eventually, heroin are produced.

The apparent move into the drug business marks a dramatic turnaround by the Taliban, which almost entirely eradicated production in Afghanistan just before their ouster by US forces in 2001.

According to Haji Ismael, assistant police commissioner in Khanishin, the Taliban has turned to drugs for two reasons. ”They want to make money. And they want to weaken this government," he said…

…There are growing fears of a foreign hand in the bloodshed. Suicide bombings were rare in Afghanistan until recently, stoking suspicions that the resurgent Taliban is being trained, financed, or led by foreign militants. Last Sunday, Al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahri, issued a videotaped message praising Taliban leader Mullah Omar for his victories against ”crusaders and apostates…"

Mullah Abdul Salam Rocketi , a Taliban commander turned parliamentarian for restive Zabul Province, said he suspected Pakistani intelligence and Arab financiers — possibly linked to Al Qaeda — were behind the surging unrest…[more]

All of the optimism aside, there is still no telling how the experiment in democracy in Afghanistan will work out. As for Iraq, its way too early to tell.

Afghanistan - Winning and Losing

• Technorati Afghanistan

Current Affairs, International Issues, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

I continue to feel good (if not elated) by the 70% turnout for the Iraqi election, and want to believe that it shows that Iraq will be able to move ahead, and not stay mired in the violence that kept it in chaos before the vote.

The other day Tom Friedman was interviewed and made the following observations:

"You know I’m with you, we’re pulling for Ayad Allawi. It’s not so much the guy Don, it’s, what you want to watch for is this, what you want to hope for I think at least is that the Shiite alliance, and nobody gets more than 50 percent of the seats so that they have to form a coalition government and the best outcome is if there were a really large Sunni turn out.

If there were a large Shiite turn out, but a lot of the Shiites don’t vote for the head of religious parties but vote for Allawi instead who is an secular Shiite and then of course the Kurds will get their vote and you put the three together and what that will result in is that there will have to be a coalition government in which the secular parties and the religious parties will have to strike a bargain. And that’s about the best that we can hope for.

Then what you really have to look for Don, once they form the government, it’s going to take, no one knows how long, but it could take up to a couple months to do all the wrangling around this. Once they’ve done that, then the real question is will they go back to the Constitution, reopen it, work out the issues that really were alienating the Sunnis, find some kind of equitable compromise and then march forward.

If you see those things happen, then there’s a chance that this can come to a decent outcome. If you don’t see those things happen, that is if you see a kind of religious majority taking over with no interest in rewriting the Constitution then I would say it’s game over. But I think I’ve said this to you before as well, and pardon me for getting old but, I think we are in the window of, we are in the end game here. In the next six months it’s going to be clear whether we have partners in Iraq for anything even remotely resembling the vision that the President had when he went in. If we do, my guess is the violence will diminish gradually and I think the public will be willing to see it through a little further. If we don’t then I think the bottom’s going to fall out."

Now, whether or not you agree with Friedman (or end up rejecting what he said because he was interviewed by Don Imus on MSNBC), the points he raised, I believe were quite important.  With all of the voter turnout, for whom did these 10+ million people vote?

Bill Roggio, writing from Iraq, seems to be confirming that Iraqi Sunnis may well have voted in favor of Allawi, for unity and also made some other interesting observations.

al-Qaeda’s Democracy Problem
Sunnis may have voted for a secular Shiite candidate

…reported Sunnis voted overwhelmingly for Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite candidate. Another U.S. source well in tune with the populace in Anbar province reported the same information. If this information is accurate, not only are Sunnis voting (their turnout is predicted at about 80%), but they are voting for a Shiite candidate. And there are calls across the board, from Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders to create a government “to promote national unity.”

It is also very worth reading Roggio’s article Election Day on the Euphrates -  Democracy vs. Zarqawi. 
Barwana, once part of Zarqawi’s self-declared "Islamic Republic of Iraq," was thus the scene of al Qaeda’s greatest nightmare: Muslims exercising a constitutional right to choose their own destiny. The other Sunni towns and cities along the Euphrates River and in the Sunni Triangle have chosen as well.

If this is indeed the case, then the outlook for the future of Iraq is quite bright!

This post written on Sunday evening, December 18…Iraqi election plus 3 days.

• Technorati Iraq

Iraq, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Seems hard to believe, but it may well be true.

British intelligence ruled supposed London bombers not a threat: report
Two of the four presumed suicide bombers who killed 52 commuters in the July 7 London attacks were scrutinized by British intelligence last year but were not considered a threat, a newspaper reports…

…The newspaper said the decision by MI5 to disregard two of the men who would later become bombers was based on the assessment that they were not on the intelligence "radar" and only had an indirect link — via an associate of the gang under investigation — to the main targets…

…The disclosure that a second of the four bombers had come to the attention of MI5 is likely to increase pressure for a public inquiry into the London attacks and any failures in intelligence, the newspaper added…

Revealed: MI5 ruled London bombers were not a threat

Two of the four suicide bombers who killed 52 people in the July 7 attacks were scrutinised by MI5 last year but were not considered to be a threat, The Independent has learnt.

Shahzad Tanweer, 22, who detonated a rucksack bomb on the Tube train at Aldgate, is believed to have been indirectly linked to an alleged plot to build a bomb in 2004. It has already been established that the suspected mastermind, Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, had been known to security services…

The unanswered questions

By Nigel Morris

* THE POLICE RESPONSE

Why was the terror alert downgraded before the beginning of July? The July 7 attacks, and the failed bombings a fortnight later, took MI5 and the security agencies completely by surprise. The level of the security alertin London was lowered in June as confidence grew that terror networks did not have the ability to organise a major attack. Was Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, guilty of complacency by insisting before the explosions that the capital’s security was "the envy of the policing world"?

* THE BOMBERS

Why did the security services lose track of Mohammad Sidique Khan? Khan, who set off the Edgware Road bomb and is believed to have masterminded the attacks, had been investigated by MI5 after he was recorded speaking to a terrorist involved in a failed bomb plot last year.

He was cleared after investigators concluded he had only the most peripheral involvement with al-Qa’ida associates.

Was a vital piece of intelligence about Khan, who is believed to have made contact with terrorists overseas, overlooked? Was there a fifth bomber? More explosives were found inside a rucksack in the car left by the bombers at Luton station, suggesting a fifth man could have been involved. Have police resolved this question? And if there is a fifth man, is he still at large?

* THE SECOND ATTACK

Were the July 7 bombers linked to the alleged July 21 attackers? And could a third cell still be at large?

Circumstantial connections have been established between them, leading Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, to conclude that it would be "very surprising" if they were not linked. If there was a connection, does it mean there is a wider loose network of terrorists lying low plotting their next outrage?

Official: Al-Zarqawi caught, released

Authorities didn’t realize prisoner was terrorist mastermind

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 5:44 p.m. EST (22:44 GMT)

Iraqi security forces caught the most wanted man in the country last year, but released him because they didn’t know who he was, the Iraqi deputy minister of interior said Thursday…

…Thursday’s news tops a list of reports of missed opportunities to capture the 39-year-old terrorist mastermind. An official said the military receives frequent reports of al-Zarqawi sightings, all of which are investigated…

…The Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi was almost captured in February, too, after troops received a tip that he was heading to a meeting in Ramadi, said Pentagon officials speaking on condition of anonymity…

Zarqawi captured - but al-Qaeda ‘master of disguises’ freed

THE most wanted man in Iraq was apparently arrested by the country’s security forces more than a year ago but allowed to go free because no-one realised who he was.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is said to have been picked up in the Fallujah area last year and held for three or four hours before being released.

The report was confirmed by Iraq’s deputy interior minister.

Zarqawi, who frequently changes his appearance, has been blamed for masterminding the bloody insurgency in the country and groups associated with him have been behind some of the most high-profile atrocities, including the kidnapping and execution of the British hostages Ken Bigley and Margaret Hassan last year.

There is no suggestion that the insurgency would collapse without his leadership, but the failure to hold on to him once he was in custody is a huge embarrassment to the Iraqi government, given the hundreds who have since died at the hands of his bombers…[more]

My question:  With all of our intelligence resources, how does this happen?  And why is bin Laden still at large?

Sorry if this seems like a change in tune to anyone who has been reading this blog, but sometimes, these questions need to be asked…and answered.

• Technorati al-Zarqawi , MI5

International Issues Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Much debated, and long awaited, the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved the construction of a security fence along the U.S.’s southern border with Mexico.

Somehow, this goes counter to a study/report from a few months ago that talked about the Task Force on the Future of North America Proposes Roadmap to Security To cope with North America’s vulnerability to terrorist and criminal threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home…

Task Force on the Future of North America

http://www.cfr.org/pub8104/press_release/task_force_urges_measures_to_strengthen_north_american_competitiveness_expand_trade_ensure_border_security.php

Task Force Urges Measures to Strengthen North American Competitiveness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security

Building a North American Community Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America
…WHAT WE FACE Our countries face three common challenges: Shared security threats. Over the last decade, terrorist and criminal activity has underscored North America’s vulnerability. All of the 9/11 terrorists succeeded in entering the United States directly from outside North America, but the 1999 arrest of a person trying to cross the Canadian-U.S. border as part of a plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport shows that terrorists may also try to gain access to the United States through Canada and Mexico. This person was found to have cased Canadian targets as well, and al-Qaeda has publicly listed Canada as one of its prime targets along with the United States…[more]

US House votes in favor of Mexico border fence proposal
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/12/16/afx2396676.html
… The 260-159 voice vote on an amendment to a bill on illegal immigration ‘mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border…

In many ways, the building of this fence is what my personal opinion about "closing the border" has meant.  But this proposal will not be without controversy.

Mexico assails US border fence immigration bill
http://www.boston.com on the subject: http://tinyurl.com/dnkt8
…The House of Representatives voted 260-159 late Thursday to require the high-tech fencing along parts of the U.S. border, while seemingly moving away from a White House plan for immigration reform that includes a guest worker program and is backed by Mexico.

Mexican presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said Mexico would keep pushing for a comprehensive immigration reform that expands temporary worker programs.

"An immigration reform that only contemplates security does not resolve the bilateral migration issue," he said.

"Our compatriots in the United States make an enormous contribution to the U.S. economy," he said.

The House was poised to vote on Friday on a bill that Republican backers say will strengthen border security and staunch the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States by forcing employers to check employees’ status.

It also was expected to decide whether to allow a vote on including guest worker language in the bill, in the face of stiff opposition from lawmakers who argue that such a program would reward illegal immigration.

Each year, more than 1 million undocumented migrants try to slip across the mountains and deserts along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border in search of work in the United States. At least 464 died making the journey this year, many from dehydration…[more]

Border fence bashed  as ‘bunch ofbaloney’
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA1217.01A.border_fence.21db3546.html

…A House proposal that would build 700 miles of fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border was criticized Friday in South Texas as ineffective and, in simpler terms, "a bunch of baloney."

There was no mincing of words with some elected border officials, who said the bill would be a waste of taxpayer’s money to the tune of $2.2 billion…[more]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA121705.01A.immigration_bill.223a9124.html
http://customwire.ap.org on the subject: http://tinyurl.com/d5d2s

The House legislation, billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes such measures as enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers. It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.

But it put off consideration of a guest worker program, which President Bush and many in Congress say must be part of a lasting solution to the illegal immigrant crisis.

The vote was 239-182, with opposition coming from Democrats and some Republicans upset by the exclusion of the guest worker issue and other Republicans wanting tougher border control measures…[more]

Southern Border politicians say, ""Even if it should pass the House, we’re confident it would be killed in the Senate." 

• Technorati border wall

Federal Policy, Opinions