6 Mexican cops jailed in Oregon man's death

Mexican prosecutors are taking the unusual step of jailing six policemen from the resort town of San Jose del Cabo for what they say could be 30 days or more while they investigate how and whether a vacationing Oregonian was beaten to death in officers' custody, according to U.S. officials.

Steve Royster, spokesman for the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, said Tuesday that last week's death of 38-year-old Sam Botner of Yoncalla was "a grave concern." The State Department is monitoring Mexico's investigation, he said.

Botner, a father of three who was vacationing with his wife after returning from a commercial fishing trip, reportedly suffocated on his own blood Aug. 27 in a San Jose del Cabo jail. He was arrested in a condominium parking lot that day when he reportedly got into a fight.

Botner's wife, Kym, said she believes her husband was beaten to death while handcuffed and in police custody. After viewing postmortem photos, Kym Botner said someone at the jail "just mutilated" Sam.

"His nose was totally off the side of his face," she said. "The handcuff marks were horrible." ....

Anarchists & Leftists Planned To KIDNAP RNC DELEGATES!!!

By Gateway Pundit

Anarchists, Leftists, Obama-supporters, and other thugs attacked RNC delegates earlier this week dousing them with bleach, clawing at them, and spitting on them as they were entering the Xcel Center in St. Paul. One 80 year-old delegate needed medical attention after the attack.

Click on this photo for video of the riots last night in St. Paul:

This group of delegates was also attacked by Leftist hooligans as they entered the Xcel Center on Monday. (Indymedia)
--Where are the police?

THE ANARCHISTS AND LEFTISTS WERE PLANNING TO KIDNAP RNC DELEGATES!!
WCCO reported:

Sabotaging the Xcel Energy Center or the Downtown St. Paul Airport. Leaving stalled vehicles and stretching metal chains across freeways. Even kidnapping delegates. All were tactics discussed by anarchists as ways to disrupt the Republican National Convention, according to police documents.

Groups planning to disrupt this week's convention also held an "action camp" in Minnesota this summer to teach "direct action techniques" using mock Molotov cocktails and a simulated RNC delegate vehicle that was targeted for rocks and tire-slashing, the documents say, citing information gathered by undercover investigators.

The information is contained in a search warrant application and supporting affidavit obtained by news organizations.

The documents show that for just over a year, the Ramsey County sheriff's office and other law enforcement agencies had been investigating the RNC Welcoming Committee, a self-described anarchist group. The group had been planning convention disruptions for months.

Investigators identified six leaders of the Welcoming Committee, all Minneapolis residents, who they alleged were particularly active in organizing efforts and in stockpiling materials. Five were arrested last weekend when authorities executed the search warrant.

The Alabama delegates were attacked on the highway on their way to the RNC Convention on Monday.

Previously:
BUS ATTACK IN ST. PAUL!!... Anarchists Attack RNC Busses!
Leftist Protesters Attack, Throw Poison & Spit On RNC Delegates!... 80 Year-Old Connecticut Delegate Injured!!!

Secret Raid To Kill and Capture Militants In Pakistan

By Keith Erwood

The United States is not confirming the story, however multiple news sources are indicating that a raid took place inside Pakistan to kill and or capture militants, and Al Qaeda forces in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

After the raid took place Pakistan is saying that the United States relied on bad intelligence and that only innocent civilians were killed, including woman and children. Though I myself do not belive that report.

Pakistan is also claiming we violated their territorial rights, however, I would like to dispute this claim, since Pakistan has publicly made statements that they are unable to control this part of their territory, and they have confirmed that Al Qaeda has freedom of movement in an area that has become largely like Afghanistan prior to the United States driving out the Taliban in 2001.

If they are unable to establish control over a region, how can they claim that it is their sovereign territory? So on this basis I would like to dispute that Pakistan has the right to that region, and if they do have control, then they themselves are giving shelter to terrorists.

In either case, I say it is about time we stated operating in this region and drive the terrorists out of their caves.

Though I doubt that the actions will be confirmed, I hope this leads to many more such actions.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5

Controversy Snarls Upgrade Of Terrorist Data Repository

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.

A major effort to upgrade intelligence computers that hold the government's master list of terrorist identities is embroiled in controversy about the project's management and the work of contractors hired for the job, documents and interviews show.

The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, serves as the central repository of information about more than 400,000 suspected terrorists around the world. Operating at the National Counterterrorism Center, TIDE and other systems each day deliver files of information to watch-list programs that screen people traveling into the United States, or they make data available online to intelligence analysts across the government.

Authorities said TIDE has revolutionized many national security tasks. But because it was built quickly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, it is limited and lacks many features needed by the intelligence community, documents show. Those limitations in TIDE and related systems hamper the ability of intelligence analysts to discover patterns and make connections among the growing pools of data they amass from around the world. TIDE also has suffered periodic outages of up to two hours, according to interviews with government officials and contractors involved with the project.

In 2006, authorities quietly launched Railhead, a project worth as much as $500 million over five years, to improve TIDE and eventually replace it and some related systems with technology that would significantly expand their capabilities.

After more than a year and about $100 million, the Railhead project has become the focus of criticism from some counterterrorism analysts and contractors, who have said it does not provide the search capabilities they expected and appears to be behind schedule. One lawmaker has taken up those questions and publicly asked for an investigation by the inspector general of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, saying his congressional staff has information from a contractor whistle-blower that shows the project is on the "brink of collapse," possibly threatening national security.

Officials at the counterterrorism center said in interviews that the allegations are untrue and irresponsible. They acknowledged that Railhead has suffered from some "speed bumps" common to large technology projects, including inadequate communication about what features analysts and other users need. They said that dozens of contract employees had been let go this summer, but that it was done to spend funds more wisely and on more important tasks.

The officials said the project is on track. A pilot project offering improved access and a wider array of features for TIDE Online -- the system that allows analysts to draw information from TIDE -- will be launched in coming weeks. "Have we had some hurdles? Of course we have," said Vicki Jo McBee, who took over as chief of the project in July.

"We are making progress," she said. "The users are going to be more than satisfied."

The questions about Railhead underscore growing apprehension about contract management in the intelligence community, which has spent tens of billions of dollars in the war on terror in recent years with an insufficient procurement workforce and little public oversight, according to documents and interviews.

Several unclassified reviews of intelligence spending in the past few years have said the shortage of contracting expertise in the classified world is acute.

The allegations of problems also highlight the government's persistent difficulties in conceiving and building giant computer systems, even for national security projects.

The Railhead project relies on a controversial approach to contracting that gives great authority to a "lead systems integrator" -- in this case, Boeing -- that serves in essence as a management proxy for the government. Other projects relying on lead systems integrators, such as the Coast Guard's Deepwater project, have repeatedly overshot deadlines and costs. The Department of Defense appropriations bill for 2008 sharply restricted the use of lead systems integrators because of such problems.

TIDE and related systems have become crucial tools in the war on terror. TIDE is the central "base for all-source information on international terrorist identities for the U.S. Government," according to documents from a congressional briefing in April. One system linked to TIDE, NCTC Online, has more than 5,500 users in more than 40 federal organizations and agencies.

But counterterrorism officials have made clear that TIDE and related systems need to be upgraded. Documents used in an April briefing of staff members on Capitol Hill show that the systems are poorly integrated, and difficult and costly to upgrade. "Those Information Technology capabilities, as good as they are, were not designed for the scale, robustness or integrated performance required by the NCTC mission," the briefing documents said.

The Railhead project is set up so that the government can hire contractors to upgrade the system in increments, leading to an "integrated and accessible" system that would improve the discovery of information for analysts and make access far easier.

Dozens of documents obtained by The Washington Post show that Boeing and SRI International, one of the primary contractors, and dozens of other subcontractors have sometimes struggled to fulfill a mission that from the outset was not clearly defined.

Officials at Boeing and SRI declined to answer questions.

Boeing and SRI have sometimes not cooperated, the documents show. Last summer, during the transition to Railhead from a previous contracting program, the TIDE system was operated by a sharply diminished support staff and occasionally shut down, according to interviews with people involved in the project.

Counterterrorism officials said those issues were a natural result of the transition from one contract to another and added that it did not impede the systems' effectiveness.

A recent review by SRI and subcontractors, done at the behest of government officials, turned up more than 500 instances where the system did not function as planned or as analysts expected. The systems under development, for instance, did not enable analysts examining terrorist data to see classified cables, to easily sort and filter search results or to search for non-exact matches, the June 18 document said.

One contract executive involved in Railhead, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the work, asserted that the project was not properly planned and that some tasks may have to start over. The executive said Boeing and SRI did not work well together in the public's interest. Contractors assessing the project complained about the lack of cooperation from Boeing in the June 18 document.

"A request for data listed below to complete the gap analysis was requested from Boeing. The information requested below has not been provided by the LSI [lead system integrator]," the document said.

In an interview, Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of the House Science and Technology subcommittee on investigations and oversight, said those documents, provided by a whistle-blower who worked for a contractor, show the Railhead program is in trouble.

In an Aug. 21 letter, Miller asked the inspector general to investigate "the technical failure and mismanagement of one of the government's most important counterterrorism programs."

"This is a critical national security program that has been plagued by technical design and development errors, basic management blunders and poor government oversight," Miller said in a news release issued that same day.

Officials at the counterterrorism center said the staff material Miller provided in support of his request contains factual errors, including a claim that thousands of CIA cables had not been properly entered into TIDE and that the program has cost $500 million so far.

The officials acknowledged the "gap analysis" reports issued in June. But they said most of those shortcomings have been addressed in recent months and that information in those reports was taken out of context.

Despite occasional outages, the TIDE system has been available for counterterrorism work more than 99 percent of the time, and it has not missed any deadlines for supplying terrorist information to watch-list systems, one senior government official said.

Miller defended going public with his preliminary probe, saying "we conduct our business in the open."

British Ignore Jihad and Islamic Supremacism To Their Peril (Part Two of Two)

by Jeffrey Imm

Part One can be found here.

.... 8. Why Americans Must Reject British Tactics of "Counter-Radicalization" and Denial on Islamic Supremacism

In April 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff told the Daily Telegraph that he feared that the next 9/11 would come from British Jihadists. What has changed?

America has faced threats of mass-casualty terrorist attacks from British Jihadists repeatedly: the British shoe-bomber Richard Reid who attended London's Finsbury Mosque where British cleric Abu Hamza preached, the British Jihadist Dhiren Barot who hoped to attack America before the 9/11 bombers and who adopted Islam based on talks with British cleric Abu Hamza, and the August 2006 British Jihadists who sought to hijack transatlantic jets to "punish" Americans in the name of Allah. Is it only a matter of time until British Jihadists plan another attack on America?

The United Kingdom remains as great a threat to America's national security as any other nation on Earth, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This is because of the long history of British tolerance of Islamic supremacism in its country, allowing Jihadists to make it a base of operations for planned attacks in Israel, United States, and other nations.

Yet in 2008, few Americans are aware of the significant Islamic supremacist threat that remains in the United Kingdom. UK has remained "under the radar" for many Americans for years. Two days after 9/11, few Americans noticed the article in the September 13, 2001 Daily Telegraph declaring that "Britain is 'safe haven' for world terrorism," describing some in the UK "who will be celebrating" the 9/11 attacks, and acknowledging British Jihadists' links to al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.

Islamic supremacists were so convinced of the British government's so-called "covenant of security" with Islamic supremacists that Osama bin Laden sought asylum in the United Kingdom in 1995 as part of a plan to move his base of operations to the UK, while he was planning the 9/11 attacks. This "covenant of security" is repeatedly referenced by other Islamic supremacists, and has historically been part of their claims on why UK should not be attacked prior to July 7, 2005. In January 26, 2003, the Guardian/Observer report quoted a former British Special Branch officer who stated that: 'There was a deal with these guys... We told them if you don't cause us any problems, then we won't bother you.' This 2003 article was ironically titled "All eyes on Britain as terror war accelerates." In fact, this has never been the case, and most Americans remain unaware of the threat that British Islamic supremacists pose to America. In September 2003, as British Islamic supremacist group al-Muhajiroun held a rally praised 9/11 attackers as the "Magnificent 19," again most Americans were unaware of the threat. In 2004, New Statesman author Jamie Campbell stated "it has long been recognised by the British Islamists, by the British government and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt, the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur here." Yet American commentators remained focused only on Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Melanie Phillips' book Londonistan, she discusses the historical "covenant of security" between the British government and British Islamic supremacists (page 92, UK hardcover edition):

"The bargain, or 'covenant of security,' had been the dirty little secret at the heart of the British government's blind-eye policy. It had had allowed Islamist radicals free rein in London and elsewhere in Britain in a kind of unspoken 'gentlemen's agreement' that if the British authorities left them alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The British didn't care what they were up to in other countries. Abroad wasn't their concern. As long as there was no threat to Britain, the government and security establishment just didn't want to know."

One deeply troubling aspect of the British government's inconsistent position on Jihad is the possibility that it may be seeking to re-establish such a "covenant of security" with Islamic supremacists once again, by focusing only on al Qaeda's threats to attack UK's homeland, while tolerating Hamas and Hezbollah meetings, fund-raising, and propaganda within UK, as well as allowing hate-mongering Islamic supremacism to continue to be taught in British mosques. It should disturb Americans that high British government officials call for talks with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It should worry Americans that the British government seeks to de-radicalize British Muslims, while it officially claims that there is no connection of Islamic supremacism to Jihad, and that the Home Office tells UK government officials that the very words "Jihad," "Islamist," are not to be used.

Furthermore, the British "counter-radicalization" tactics of seeking to have Islamic supremacists avoid violence may, in fact, simply be tactics to discourage them from violence in the United Kingdom only. British Jihadist actions in Israel, in Somalia, in Russia, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and repeated attempts to attack the United States over the past several years only reinforce what should be a reasonable suspicion on the part of American analysts, policy makers, and lawmakers, regarding the UK's primary goal of "counter-radicalization." History has shown that the United Kingdom, not Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, not Pakistan, and not Iran, could have easily been the source of the most significant Jihadist attacks on American homeland, if repeated British Jihadist attempts on America had not failed. Just two years ago, British Jihadists threatened to kill many thousands of Americans in a plot to hijack multiple transatlantic jetliners in what would have likely been an attack that would have dwarfed 9/11.

Recall the words of British Jihadists (revealed in April 2008) regarding their August 2006 transatlantic airline terrorist plot involving flights headed to Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco – (excerpts from BBC, London TimesDM, LT, DT, BBC)

British Jihadist Tanvir Hussain: "People keep on saying, you know, that we keep on targeting innocent civilians, yeah... We're not targeting innocent civilians. We're targeting economic and military targets... They're the battle grounds of today so whoever steps in these trenches, they, yeah, you haven't got us to blame...You've got to blame yourself...People are going to die. It's worth the price. For many years I dreamt of doing this but I didn't have the means. Thank God Allah accepted my duas [prayers] yeah, and provided me a means to do this... Don't mess with the Muslims... You know, I only wish I could do this again, you know come back and do this again, and just do it again and again...." (DM, BBC)

British Jihadist Arafat Waheed Khan: "We will rain upon you such a terror and destruction that you will never feel peace and security. There will be floods of martydom operations and bombs falling through your lands... I would like to thank Allah for giving me this opportunity to bless me with this Shahada [martyrdom]...I ask Allah to help the Mujahedeen everywhere in every way." (DM, BBC)

British Jihadist Ibrahim Savant: "All Muslims feel the need to dust your feet in the training camps of Jihad where men are made. Cease debate and enter the battlefields seeking paradise. Mujahedeen, for years I've desired to meet you, to walk the paths you've walked, to sacrifice what you have sacrificed. Now Allah has honoured me with an invitation to his Kingdom... All Muslims take heed, remove yourself from the grasp of the Kuffar [non-believers]" (BBC, DM)

British Jihadist Waheed Zaman: "I will pray that Allah makes us successful in our actions, may he grant us Jannah... May he raise us on the Day of Judgment to be with the prophets, martyrs and people in the right path. May Allah bless the Mujahedeen with victory upon victory wherever they may be and may he focus their aim and may he make them of the patient ones...The only solution to this current situation of the Muslims is by fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah..." (BBC, DM)

British Jihadist Umar Islam: "This is an obligation on me as a Muslim to wage Jihad against the Kuffar [non-believers]. We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our Lord and Allah loves us to die and kill in his path. Anyone who tries to deny this, then read the Koran and you will not be able to deny this because this is the words in the Koran and the words of our the messenger of Allah, prayers and peace upon him...This is revenge for the acts of the USA in the Muslim lands and their accomplices, such as the British and the Jews." (BBC, LT)

The American public only learned of the words from these British Jihadists nearly two years after the failed British Jihadist transatlantic airline plot. What else is the British government keeping secret from us on those British Jihadists who seek to kill us today?

Do these individuals sound like Islamic supremacists who would be willing to direct their energies into "political" action? What has since improved in the United Kingdom, when the British government fears to even acknowledge that Islamic supremacism exists as an ideology?

In July 2008, Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) released poll results stating that 32% of British Muslim youth believe that killing for their religion is acceptable (and 15% "unsure"). In addition, support for segregationist Sharia law continues to gain acceptance among young British Muslims, and the idea of offering a separate set of Sharia laws for British Muslims has gained increasing support among British leaders and in courts. Such acceptance of segregationist positions shows the increasing acceptance of Islamic supremacism in the United Kingdom. The 2008 European Union's Europol study on terrorism found that statistically the number of "Islamist terror" arrests in the UK were greater than in all of Europe combined, with a threat of "young, radicalised British citizens."

Does this sound like British "counter-radicalization" is working? Why should Americans believe that the British government policies of "counter-radicalization" have accomplished anything? How can the British government "de-radicalize" an ideology that they are unwilling to define other than "extremism"?

This is not merely a foreign policy issue, or an academic exercise in analyzing a foreign nation's counterterrorism policy. This is a vital issue affecting Americans and the values of equality that America represents. This is a critical issue when a foreign nation's policy of denial about Islamic supremacism is being promoted to American policy makers and its military leaders. Most of all, this is a vital issue regarding the future of where our nation is headed in the very values of equality that we fought so long and so hard to achieve in America.

It is not surprising that Britons do not understand America's history. While they are allies with Americans in theaters of war, we cannot expect them to understand our values, our history, our experience. In fact, it is because we were so different from the United Kingdom that we are a United States of America, not a British colony.

We are and will continue to be a nation that despises, confronts, and does not tolerate supremacism. We are and will continue to be a nation where "all men are created equal."

Any American with a rudimentary knowledge of American history is well aware that white supremacism was confronted, not appeased, by seamstress Rosa Parks, by preacher Martin Luther King, Jr., by newspaper reporters, by baseball players, by grade school teachers, by mechanics, by musicians, by FBI agents, by American soldiers, by housewives, and by average citizens everywhere in America.

These sentinels of equality and liberty in the fight against supremacism may not have held doctorates in American history, in American political science, or American constitutional law. But they understood who and what America is about. They understood the gravity of defending the natural law and American value that "all men are created equal." They understood the historical importance of defending the courage of our convictions. They understood that without defending equality everywhere for every person, no American would enjoy freedom, no American would have security. They knew that the fight against supremacism, no matter how unpleasant, no matter how divisive, no matter how dangerous, was not someone else's job, or something that could be left to be solved at a later time. They knew it was their job, and it was their job right now.

Today, Americans face such a challenge once again with Islamic supremacism.

We could accept the counsel of "experts," who offer direction based on foreign nations with a history of appeasing and knuckling under to supremacists. We could accept guidance on "counter-radicalization" that deceives us into believing supremacists can be bargained with, negotiated into accepting a pluralistic society that values equality. We could choose to believe that tactical measures, talks, and high-tech surveillance will be enough to change those whose supremacist ideology is inimical to our values, our laws, our society, and our way of life. These are the choices that the British government, "expert" analysts, and those who aren't concerned about why Jihad happens offer us. Accepting such counsel, especially with such "expert" backing, would be the path of least resistance, and would cause us the least personal short-term sacrifice in becoming educated on the issues so that we can guide our elected representatives. Listening to the "experts" who ignore Islamic supremacism is the easy thing to do.

But is it - the American thing to do?

Is that what Americans are to be reduced to? Being led around by the nose based on the policies by the British government, who through nothing short of repeated miracles, has not resulted in the death of countless thousands of Americans through British Jihadists appeased over decades? Given the repeated attempts, plots, and threats of attacks on America by British Islamic supremacists due to UK's seemingly endless complacency, shouldn't the British government be the last people we should be listening to? Should the British government, with senior leaders who seek talks with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, be someone our government should even be talking with?

Or will America's people, the ragtag sentinels of liberty that aren't degreed in Islamic studies and foreign affairs, but who understand the values of America, who represent the variety and diversity of a egalitarian society that so many fought and died for, who simply know that our nation stands first and foremost for liberty... will they rise to the occasion once again and confront this new evil of Islamic supremacism - as forcefully and as defiantly as they did to white supremacism?

Those who seek denial on and appeasement to Islamic supremacism don't think so. They think Americans have better things to do than worry about such things. They seek to tell Americans, tell their elected representatives, and tell their military what they should do. They will do Americans' thinking for them.

Americans - prove them wrong. Make up your own mind. Let your American government know that, no matter what the British government does, America's government must stand up and identify the ideology of Islamic supremacism, and must develop a strategy to combat it.

Show them that in America, Islamic supremacism (or any other supremacism) will not be tolerated - violent or non-violent - and that it has no place in the land of the free, home of the brave., Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph reports):

British Jihadist Abdulla Ahmed Ali: "Expect floods of martyr operations against you and we will take our revenge and anger, ripping amongst your people and scattering your people's body parts... You call us terrorists but you can see we don't mind that if you call us terrorists 'cos we will keep on terrorizing you until you learn your lesson... We love to die in the path of Allah... On top of this is to punish and to humiliate the Kuffar [non-believer], to teach them a lesson that they will never forget. It's to tell them that we Muslim people have pride, our people of Allah, the people of Islam, we are brave. Thanks to God I swear by Allah, I have the desire since the age of 15/16 to participate in Jihad in the path of Allah. I had the desire since then for Jannah [paradise] for the Koran. I want to go to my prophet and his companions."

Aussie Special Forces in Afghanistan Lock Talibs In Dog Pens, Musulmaniacs Downunder Start Howling

By Andrew Bolt

A bad mistake - or a nasty reminder - when an Australian Muslim organistation instinctively sides with Taliban suspects over the Australian soldiers trying to hold them captive:

SUSPECTED Taliban militants arrested by Australian special forces in Afghanistan have been detained in “dog pens” in actions that have left Australian Muslim groups outraged…

The empty dog pens were used to hold overnight four suspected Taliban insurgents who were arrested in a raid by special forces soldiers on April 29….

Australia’s peak Muslim body, the Islamic High Council, expressed alarm at the practice.

“This is of concern to us whether they are Muslim or other people being confined in accommodation designed for dogs,” said council spokesman Mohamed Mehio. “This is a matter of human rights.” (remember: only Muslims are human, unbelievers are ‘the vilest of creatures..’ ed)

If the council was as noisy about the human rights of the many victims of the Taliban and waited to hear all the facts about this one-off overnight detention, I’d be less worried.

* Strangely, we didn’t hear anything from ‘our’ Muslims when this happened:

Women buried alive in Pak, MP defends act: “These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them,”

"Now some might think I’m over-reacting here, but one only need look at Europe to see where this can all lead"

By Robert Spencer

From a Frontpage Interview with Gregory Ross, Director of Communications for Clarion Fund, a group whose mission is to educate America about the jihad threat:

Ross: Look at the recent incident at the Tyson Foods plant in Tennessee. The plant, mostly comprised of Muslim immigrant workers, decided that they would like to swap our national holiday, Labor Day, for one of their own holidays. On the surface one might say, well if everyone at the plant agrees with it, but this undermines the cohesiveness that a society needs to survive. If they’d like to take a vacation day or sick day for their holiday that is one thing, but to decide to exist in a vacuum in this country, and cry foul and sue if they don’t get there way, will only lead to the disintegration of American society and it’s culture and values over time.

Now some might think I’m over-reacting here, but one only need look at Europe to see where this can all lead. In England, even members of parliament are now beginning to talk about allowing certain Muslim-only sections of England rule themselves by Sharia law, instead of English Common Law.

The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy

By George Friedman

....On Sunday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):

• First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.
• Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.
• Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.
• Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
• Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.

Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”

The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia’s behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary.

The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia’s “special interests.”

Thus, the Georgian conflict was not an isolated event — rather, Medvedev is saying that Russia is engaged in a general redefinition of the regional and global system. Locally, it would not be correct to say that Russia is trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or the Russian empire. It would be correct to say that Russia is creating a new structure of relations in the geography of its predecessors, with a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center. Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy.

.... Nevertheless, American national strategy is in crisis. The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two. Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does. It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat. But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.

We expect no immediate change in American strategic deployments — and we expect this to be regretted later. However, given U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to the Caucasus region, now would be the time to see some movement in U.S. foreign policy. If Cheney isn’t going to be talking to the Russians, he needs to be talking to the Iranians. Otherwise, he will be writing checks in the region that the U.S. is in no position to cash.