The New Era of Irresponsibility

(Compiler's note: One also have to wonder if the terrorist in Guantanamo Bay will be able to take with them the free computers that we have provided to them?)

By Ben Johnson

Upon hearing that President Obama plans to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, the first thought that occurred to me was: where will terrorists go for their lemon chicken? One detention center librarian has said "a few [detainees] are kind of hooked on" the Harry Potter series; will Obama at least detain them long enough to finish The Deathly Hallows? For that matter, where else will these young jihadists ever enjoy access to a several thousand-volume library? How can you keep a boy in the compound once he's seen Gitmo?

Such a flippant reaction, of course, minimizes the very real consequences of The New Era of Irresponsibility. Terrorists have had no trouble retaining their foot soldiers. "Reformed" detainee Said Ali Al-Shihri is presently the deputy leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen. A total of 61 former detainees have returned to the battlefield, or 12 percent of the 510 released under the more stringent measures President Obama is discarding, which deemed them "innocent" and unlikely to threaten American interests if set free. That makes the following report from the Associated Press particularly chilling: "Former detainees...around the world welcomed President Barack Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center."

Thursday's triple-threat exective orders - closing Guantanamo Bay no later than one year from now, shuttering rendition "black sites," and binding interrogators to the Army Field Manual for high value detainees - threaten to destroy the security apparatus that has kept this nation safe for seven years. Where will the detainees be sent? What legal rights might they incur as a result? And how can we assure not a single American life is lost as a result of releasing dozens, if not hundreds, of dangerous fundamentalist warriors?

These questions are not totally lost on the Obama administration; they were simply ignored in the stampede to curry world favor. A senior White House official assessed the remaining Gitmo detainees, saying, "There's one category that we can transfer. There's one category that we can try. The third category can't be transferred, can't be tried." What will be done with these? As Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' appalling responses showed during his first press conference, he has no idea. Not to worry, Barack Obama has a solution: a government committee, likely headed by a man who believes "waterboarding is torture," which will make recommendations within six months. Typically, leaders analyze their plans ahead before acting, assess the possible consequences against the intended goals, and then decide whether they are worth pursuing. In this case, the goal of "cleaning up our image" trumped the consequences of possibly releasing the 21st and 22nd hijackers. (Ironically, Obama's actions were praised by the same Democrats who criticized President Bush for not having "a withdrawal strategy" from a war before invasion.)

On rendition, the same White House official remarked, "There are some renditions that are in fact justifiable and defensible, and there are others that have been mistakes and are not justifiable." Yet the president chose to destroy the network of permanent prisons that might be important in those "justifiable and defensible" cases.

Although Obama surrounded himself with military men for his signing photo op, those in positions of authority disagree with the spirit of his order. The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Michael McConnell, has said, "Does the [intelligence] community need interrogation techniques beyond what's in the Army Field Manual? In my opinion we do."

Objective evidence bears him out. Lt. Gen. Randall “Mark” Schmidt testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2005 that when enhanced interrogation techniques were applied to 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani, he “proved to have intimate knowledge of [terrorists’] future plans” and provided “extremely valuable intelligence.” CIA chief Michael Hayden testified last February that two of the three al-Qaeda terrorists waterboarded, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, provided the agency with one-quarter of all human intelligence it had about al-Qaeda. Maybe our armed forces can safeguard our Republic with only 75 percent of the puzzle. Maybe not.

True, Obama's executive orders hold out the possibility of exceptions in virtually every one of these situations, although no one, including the president, seems to know under what circumstances those exceptions might be invoked, if ever. The potential for loopholes can be read as a sign of moderation, or a mere nod to reality. But it is easier to maintain a state of readiness than to assume the appropriate conditions can be recreated the instant they are needed. Special permission for harsh techniques may be granted or temporary rendition sites may be located, in time - but that is not good enough if interrogators are acting against a ticking time-bomb. And as the nation tragically learned before September 11th, interrogators often do not know when they are acting against a ticking time-bomb.

At the signing ceremony Thursday, Obama said, "The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

The actual message Obama sent is that the United States now places "world opinion" above its own well-being; that the commander-in-chief of the War on Terror is willing to grant the other side tactical advantages; that the leader of the free world acts on image without thinking out the practical consequences his actions might have for his country or his soldiers. The only silver lining is the president's hypocrisy. Thursday's signing ceremony was the triumph of style over substance, of emotional masturbation over hard-headed analysis, of the politics of guilt over the duty of self-defense. It was certainly no way to inaugurate a new era of responsibility.

TV Crew Booted From UN Meeting On Freedom Of Expression

By Stable Hand

The journalist's were working on how human rights is debated at the UN. When the debate turned heated over freedom of expression and defamation of religion, they were asked to leave.

Naturally, they were booted by the Organization of Islamic Conference and the African group of states.

Dinah Lord has more on this with a sobering thought

"OMG, What if Obama decides the US should attend this farce and lift the ban on the boycott".

The Durban conference is to be held in April and US, Israel, Canada are boycotting it while Denmark, Britain and the Netherlands have threatened to boycott.

NYU's 'Dr. Doom' Roubini: Global stock markets to fall 20% more, due to China's recession

by Joseph Lazzaro

Filed under: International markets, Forecasts, Bad news, China, Indices, S and P 500, DJIA, Financial Crisis You thought New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini was simply another one of those 'liberal academics' who criticize only Republicans like former U.S. President George W. Bush, or was merely trying to attract media coverage?

Not quite. Roubini's forecast has not changed since President Obama's election and inauguration, and his once-extreme forecasts have proved to be more accurate than estimates by most economists.

China to weigh on stocks

Roubini, the once obscure New York University economics professor who two years ago predicted the current global financial crisis and recession, now believes stock markets around the world will fall 20% from current levels, due to China's recession, Bloomberg News reported Friday.

Further, Roubini believes China is already in a recession despite its most recent GDP report, which showed 6.8% growth in Q4 2008 and a 9% growth rate for 2008.

"Demand is falling in China, they're over-invested in capacity and there's a global supply glut," Roubini told Bloomberg News. "It has very, very important implications."

Economist David H. Wang, a China expert, told BloggingStocks Friday China's economy has already slowed so much -- it's slowed from double-digit to single-digit growth -- that it's already in "an equivalent recession." Moreover, Wang is also concerned that China may have massaged its recent GDP data somewhat, to the upside.

"It would not be beyond the realm of possibility for China to overstate GDP growth, then come back and revise the data lower at a later date," Wang said. "And if in fact China's economy continues to slow, that would significantly decrease demand for raw materials and commodities, which would weigh on both international economies and stock markets."

Roubini's forecast for U.S. and global stocks differs with Wall Street's consensus, which sees a 29% increase in the S&P 500 from Thursday's 827.50 close, Bloomberg News reported.

Market / Economic Analysis: Again, here's hoping Roubini is wrong, and the Wall Street consensus is correct. So far, Roubini has been on the mark, with the latest bulls-eye being his securities loss prediction for banks and brokers. Further, from a technical standpoint, a Dow decline through key support in the 7,300-7,600 range would put Roubini's forecast in view -- and there's not much technical support below it.

American "intellectual" defends word "jihad"

from Dhimmi Watch

More dhimmi apologetics on behalf of the jihad. "Word jihad abused by some angry Muslims," by Mubashir Hassan for The Nation, January 24:

LAHORE - John Kiser, an American intellectual, says that word ‘jihad’ has been much abused by a tiny, but spectacularly successful minority of angry Muslims, whose success has been to pervert a good and holy word into a bad word, one that is associated in the non-Muslim world with Muslims killing people in God’s name.[...]

Question: how can a "tiny minority" of Muslims who "pervert" the word "jihad" be so successful? Why doesn't the "huge majority" of Muslims either set them straight or, at the very least, see to it that their "perverted" interpretation not become so "successful"?

In an interview with The Nation on Friday, John said that Jihad and violence were now widely viewed in the public mind as synonymous with Islam. Such thinking, he believed, fuels Western Islamophobia which, in turn, encourages various forms of aggression-verbal and otherwise-that lends credence to the jihadist argument that the West hates Islam and wants to destroy it. And that is their most potent recruiting tool, he added.

In other words, jihadis wage jihad because the West accepts the definition that jihadis give to the word "jihad"?

“This sense of threat to Muslims’ religious identity can best be understood among secular people if we think of Islam representing what flag and home represent to us,” he observed.

Top Saudi threatens U.S. over Israel

from Jihad Watch

Consider yourselves warned, infidels

"If the U.S. wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact -- especially its 'special relationship' with Saudi Arabia -- it will have to drastically revise its policies vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine." He even suggests a risk that, upon the promptings of Iran, Saudi Arabia will "lead a jihad, or holy war, against Israel."

Good ol' Prince Turki al-Faisal. Only a little over a year ago did I see this saber-rattling sheikh at the U.S. Library of Congress; of course, then he was treated -- as are all deep-pocketed Saudis -- with much pomp and grandeur.

"Saudi prince says U.S. ties at risk over Mideast," from Reuters, January 22:

LONDON (Reuters) - A member of Saudi Arabia's royal family warned U.S. President Barack Obama Friday the Middle East peace process and U.S.-Saudi ties were at risk unless Washington changed tack on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel had come close to "killing the prospect of peace" with its offensive in Gaza, Prince Turki al-Faisal wrote in an article published on the Financial Times's website.

"Unless the new U.S. administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the U.S.-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk," said Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to the United States and Britain.[...]

Former U.S. President George W. Bush's administration had left a "sickening legacy" in the Middle East, Turki wrote, singling out the Iraq war.

The Bush administration had also contributed to the "slaughter of innocents" in Gaza, said Turki, who currently holds no official government position in the world's top crude oil exporter.

"If the U.S. wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact -- especially its 'special relationship' with Saudi Arabia -- it will have to drastically revise its policies vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine," Turki wrote. He said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had written to Saudi King Abdullah last week urging Saudi Arabia to lead a "jihad," or holy war, against Israel.

This call for jihad would, if pursued, create "unprecedented chaos and bloodshed" in the region, said Turki.

"So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls, but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain," he said.

Turki urged Obama to condemn what he called "Israel's atrocities" against the Palestinians...

US Marines ready to deploy up to 20,000 troops to Afghanistan

Iran in scramble for fresh uranium supplies

by Robin Pagnamenta, Michael Evans and Tony Halpin in Moscow -- Additional reporting by James Bone in New York, James Hider in Jerusalem and Jonathan Clayton in Johannesburg

Western powers believe that Iran is running short of the raw material required to manufacture nuclear weapons, triggering an international race to prevent it from importing more, The Times has learnt.

Diplomatic sources believe that Iran’s stockpile of yellow cake uranium, produced from uranium ore, is close to running out and could be exhausted within months. Countries including Britain, the US, France and Germany have started intensive diplomatic efforts to dissuade major uranium producers from selling to Iran.

Before Christmas, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent out a confidential request for its diplomats in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Brazil, all major uranium producers, to lobby governments not to sell uranium products, specifically yellow cake, to Iran.

Iran’s stock of yellow cake, acquired from South Africa in the 1970s under the Shah’s original civil nuclear power programme, has almost run out. Iran is developing its own uranium mines, but does not have enough ore to support a sustained nuclear programme.

It was shortly before Christmas that diplomats at Britain’s sleek new embassy on Kosmonavtov Street in the Kazakh capital of Astana received a confidential and urgent request. Iran, officials back in Whitehall advised, was believed to be close to running out of its stockpiles of yellow cake — a powdered form of uranium ore.

There were concerns that Tehran could be seeking fresh supplies to support its nuclear programme at a critical juncture — just months before intelligence experts expected it to have accumulated enough enriched material for a bomb. British officials were to urge Kazakhstan, one of the world’s biggest producers, to ignore any possible approaches to obtain imports.

The request, news of which emerged after an international investigation by The Times, was part of a drive by six countries — Britain, the US, France, Germany, Australia and Canada — to choke off supplies of uranium to Iran. It is a move that, while unlikely to cripple any effort to develop a bomb, would blunt its ambitions and help to contain the threat, authoritative sources said.

Kazakhstan, with 15 per cent of the world’s deposits, is an increasingly important player in the global uranium trade and has set a target this year to become the world’s largest producer.

Uzbekistan, where British officials are involved in a similar lobbying exercise, also has large deposits and was a leading supplier for weapons-grade material during Soviet times.

While there is no direct evidence that Iran has actively sought to buy uranium from either country, Western intelligence sources view them as one of a number of potential weak spots in the supply chain.

Others include the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where uranium for the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 was mined and where there have been persistent rumours of illegal exports to countries including Iran. Getting to the truth about such claims is notoriously difficult. Reports by British Intelligence of an attempt by Saddam Hussein to acquire substantial quantities of yellow cake from Niger in West Africa for a clandestine nuclear bomb project turned out to be fabricated. That did not stop President Bush referring to them, in March 2003, as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

But the very real international effort to choke off supplies of yellow cake to Iran, which also included British lobbying of Brazil, reflect mounting concern that 2009 is likely to be a pivotal year for Iran’s nuclear programme.

It also vividly illustrates the urgency surrounding the biggest foreign policy challenge facing President Obama. The journey from innocent uranium ore to weapons-grade nuclear fuel is complex and requires sophisticated technology, but the Iranians are acquiring the expertise, which is why Western countries, and Israel, are so concerned at the prospect of having to confront a nuclear-armed Iran.

To reach weapons-grade uranium-235, Iran would have to produce a highly enriched fuel, and that requires thousands of centrifuges. It is estimated that 200kg of yellow cake could produce 1kg of weapons-grade (94 per cent enriched) uranium. About 20kg of highly enriched uranium are required for one bomb.

Iran, which has always claimed that its nuclear programme is peaceful, acquired several thousand tonnes of yellow cake from South Africa during the mid-1970s shortly after the Shah initiated the country’s original push for civil nuclear power. Tehran also has two small uranium mines but they are costly to run, yield only small quantities of ore and are suffering from problems with purity.

Last May, a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggested that around 70 per cent of Iran’s available yellow cake had been converted to uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas at a conversion plant in the city of Esfahan.

David Albright, founder of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said that Iran now had enough of this gasified uranium, stored in canisters weighing 10-14 tonnes each, to produce as many as 35 bombs, but it may run out of yellow cake to keep feeding the plant by the end of the year.

Beside the gas conversion facility, Iran also needs yellow cake to convert into pellets for fuel rods to run its Arak heavy water reactor. It also apparently wants large quantities of yellow cake to turn into low-enriched uranium for its new Russian-built reactor at Bushehr, in case Moscow reneges on a deal to supply nuclear fuel.

However, Tehran’s relative shortage of uranium exposes puzzling questions about its claims to be pursuing a purely peaceful civil nuclear energy programme. It would need far larger quantities of yellow cake than it can produce from its own small mines to have sufficient fuel for a civil nuclear power programme.

“You need 200 tonnes per year just for one 1,000 megawatt power station,” an IAEA source said. Iran has said that it wants to build 20 reactors, but the agency believes that the Iranians managed to process only 21 tonnes of uranium at a production centre at Bandar Abbas in southern Iran in one year, and plan to handle 50 tonnes a year from a new facility at Ardakan in the centre of the country, which is due to open later this year.

Moreover, Russia has an agreement with Iran to supply the prefabricated fuel that it needs for a civil nuclear power station it is building at Bushehr. The international community also offered in 2006 to supply the fuel rods and assemblies needed for a civil nuclear programme. Yet Iran insists on pursuing the development of its own facilities to mine and process uranium on its own — at vastly higher cost than it would pay for the fuel on the international market.

Any move by the Iranians to buy stocks of uranium from other countries could be interpreted two ways: either as an investment for what they claim is a genuine civil nuclear power programme or as an insurance policy for a future successful weapons project.

Iran is subject to a comprehensive safeguards agreement under which IAEA inspectors are meant to make checks to ensure that Tehran is not trying to divert nuclear material for a civil power programme to a military one. The agreement, however, covers only named installations that do not include the mines, and there remain a series of unanswered questions which have raised serious concerns about Iran’s motives. UN Security Council Resolution 1737 prohibits countries from supplying any items “which could contribute to Iran’s enrichment-related . . . activities”. Few, if any, of the big producers would want to take the risk of doing business with Iran.

However, the frantic efforts to make sure that producing countries hold the line highlight the growing challenge of containing the uranium trade at a time when it is expanding briskly. Governments around the world are looking to nuclear energy as an answer to concerns about energy.

Mining operations are already carried out in nearly 20 countries including Canada, Australia, Russia Namibia, Ukraine, China and Pakistan and in the past year alone new mines have been proposed in a string of countries from Zambia to Uruguay and Jordan to Sudan.

Monitoring this trade is a challenge in itself but there are also growing fears over the danger of nuclear smuggling. The US sent experts last year to help Georgia to install radiation detection equipment at border points when the work was interrupted by the war over South Ossetia. The project was given added urgency by a sting operation in Georgia in 2006, when a Russian man was arrested trying to sell 100g of highly enriched uranium. He claimed to have access to another 4kg. Georgia and the US signed an agreement in 2007 to combat nuclear smuggling. Neighbouring Armenia, which has a land border with Iran, signed a similar agreement with the US last year. But it is the possibility that uranium could be smuggled out of Africa, specifically Congo (DRC), that is keeping Western officials awake at night.

In 2005, Iran tried to smuggle some Uranium 238 by ship from Congo to Bandar Abbas, but this was foiled by Tanzanian customs officials.

Peter Rickwood, an IAEA official, said: “Nobody is quite sure how much of that stuff is being exported. There have been persistent rumours about uranium coming out of the DRC and going to North Korea or Iran. Yes, we are concerned about that.”

Clinton Foundation's secret donor

(Compiler's note: H'mmmmm -- ever wonder why some of our politicians are spending millions and millions of dollars for a job that pays approx. $176k per year. Read on .... for a little insight. One could think that money that "follows these people around" is not being given -- especially from foreign entities -- without future expectations or could it be considered payment for past events?)

by Jim McElhatton

Former President Bill Clinton's foundation, despite identifying more than 200,000 of its donors in recent weeks, will not say who paid it windfall prices for stock in a struggling Internet firm with links to the Chinese government.

The William J. Clinton Foundation has identified donors and promised unusual transparency in order to reassure critics who fear the foundation could become the object of largesse from foreign interests seeking to influence his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, a former Democratic senator from New York, was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday as President Obama's secretary of state and assumed her formal duties with a State Department ceremony Thursday.

See related story: Mitchell, Holbrooke get global hot spots

However, Mrs. Clinton's office and the foundation have declined to answer questions about a lucrative 2006 stock transaction, details of which were reported by The Washington Times in March 2008.

Bill Clinton

The Accoona Corp. donated between $250,001 and $500,000 to Mr. Clinton's charity after he spoke at the company's launch in New York in 2004, according to donor information released by the foundation in December. The foundation sold its Accoona stock for $700,000 two years later, according to the charity's tax return for 2006.

Despite what the tax return suggests, Accoona struggled mightily to turn a profit.

See related story: Obama pick urges some secrecy

In 2007, Accoona filed a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission reporting more than $60 million in losses during three years. In the same prospectus, it listed the China Daily Information Corp., a subsidiary of China Daily, the official English-language newspaper of the Chinese government, as an official partner and 6.9 percent owner of the company.

Last year, the company's management posted a note on the Accoona Web site saying it no longer would be active, citing "an overwhelmingly competitive search market." Its Jersey City phone number has a busy signal. However, it was later announced that Accoona had been acquired by a Denmark-based business-to-business search engine.

Icelandic government becomes first to be brought down by the credit crunch

The government of Iceland today became the first to be effectively brought down by the credit crunch.

After several nights of rioting over the financial crisis, Prime Minister Geir Haarde, surrendered to increasing pressure and called a general election for May.

A poll would not normally be held until 2011. ....

The John Murtha Jihadist Correctional Facility

(Compiler's note: As of the time of this posting here is some interesting insight into the "local" opinion on the matter as shown on the Johnstown The Tribune-Democrat. http://www.tribdem.com/

Do you support U.S. Rep. John Murtha's proposal to bring Guantanamo prisoners here to his district?
Yes.	22.06%
No.	75.93%
I don't know.	2.01%
349 votes counted

While looking at the electronic version of the Johnstown, PA paper, I found another interesting article written by By SHAWN PIATEK regarding another local "Murtha linked company" ....Kuchera Industries and Kuchera Defense Systems of Windber were raided on Thursday by agents from three federal agencies as part of an ongoing investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

A source close to the investigation told The Tribune-Democrat that the federal probe is focused on the actions of the companies’ corporate officers. The source said the investigation is looking into corporate funds allegedly used for unapproved purposes. .... Additionally, the office of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, addressed multiple media reports during the past 24 hours drawing links between the congressman and Kuchera. Spokesman Matt Mazonkey said Murtha’s office has not been contacted by any of the agencies investigating Kuchera. .... http://www.tribdem.com/local/local_story_023124205.html

by Michelle Malkin

Get this: King of Pork John Murtha, the 19-term Democratic congressman from western Pennsylvania, now wants to welcome a flood of Guantanamo Bay jihadists into his district. I don't want to hear a single word of protestation from the constituents who put this money-grubbing, security-undermining fool back into office. As you vote, so shall you reap.

Murtha audaciously expressed his hope to house Gitmo detainees after President Barack Obama circulated his draft executive order to shut the facility down by the end of the year. "Sure, I'd take 'em," Murtha glibly retorted. "They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo." Murtha blustered that there was "no reason not to put 'em in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."

Before we unpack all that ignorant nonsense, let us pause to illuminate Murtha's motives. He is driven neither by a warped sense of patriotic duty nor by misguided human rights compassion for al-Qaida foot soldiers. No, what fuels him is unabashed greed and a lifelong edifice complex. The money-grubbing Murtha, you see, just can't wait to snatch up federal tax dollars to build a new maximum security prison for the Gitmo gang -- no doubt with his name and face plastered all over it. Welcome to the John Murtha Jihadist Correctional Facility.

Forget about the increased risk Murtha would subject his district to by volunteering it as a highly visible terror target. Forget about the disgusting affront this pork grab poses to the families of those who died on United Flight 93 -- which 9/11 terrorists crashed in Shanksville, Pa., represented by none other than Murtha at the time. There's a shining prison on a hill to be built, and Murtha will sell out his neighbors' safety to make sure it's built on his hill.

Murtha's got logs to roll and wheels to grease. National security is an impediment, not an imperative. Would you expect anything less from the shameless politician caught on tape in the 1980s Abscam congressional bribery scandal mulling payoffs from FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks? ("How much money we talking about," Murtha asked one of the bagmen. "You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't.")

Murtha's contempt for the people he serves should surprise no one. This is the man who called his own voters "rednecks" and who has refused to back down from his smears of the exonerated Marines who served in Haditha, Iraq, as "cold-blooded" murderers. This is the man who denies that we are combating al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq. This is the man who lives in a fantasy world where re-deploying American soldiers to Okinawa is a viable defense plan.

Murtha can't see any reason for keeping Gitmo detainees from flooding our regular prisons and preventing them from exploiting our civilian court system, because he is willfully blind and stone stupid.

John Murtha, meet Lynne Stewart. She's the disgraced lawyer convicted last year of abetting her terrorist client -- 1993 World Trade Center bombing/NY landmark bombing mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman. Stewart helped smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence from the imprisoned sheik to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.

While Rahman's court-appointed translator conveyed the message during prison visits, Stewart made "covering noises," including shaking a water jar and tapping on the table. A draft fatwa was discovered in Stewart's office; she also signaled Rahman's wishes to his jihadist organization in an interview with Reuters news service. The publication of those comments ushered in a new wave of bombing attacks by Rahman's previously dormant terrorist outfit. The left-wing radical Stewart remains unrepentant and clings to her belief that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an "armed struggle."

Now, imagine a traitorous bleeding-heart Stewart assigned to each and every one of the 250-odd Gitmo detainees. Imagine the risk of similar jailhouse collaborations to innocent men, women and children at home and abroad. Imagine the three-ring, O.J.-like circuses these trials will bring to your backyards. It's easy if you try.

Prosecuting suspected terrorists like petty thieves or drug dealers is fraught with peril. The Democrats have learned nothing from the failed law enforcement strategies of the feckless Clinton era. Confiscated al-Qaida training manuals have revealed that recruits are instructed in how to manipulate the Western legal system if they are captured.

Affording accused al-Qaida operatives the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial threatens to compromise classified information necessary to prosecute future terrorist trials. Other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment -- the right to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify, the right to an attorney -- can interfere with interrogations of captured suspected al-Qaida agents. And while the lives of those directly involved in, say, a mob trial might be endangered, the entire nation may be at risk if we allow suspected members of a terrorist network to engage in the discovery process and in privileged communications with attorney-abettors.

Who will be accountable when these prosecutions run amok? When convicted jihadists wreak bloody havoc from behind bars? And when Gitmo recidivists wage war anew once released?

John Murtha doesn't give a damn. Do you?

U.S. Army War College Publishes Apologia for Hamas

Steve Emerson

The U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) published a monograph last month by Sherifa Zuhur entitled, "Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics," a fairly bland heading that only hints at its deeply disturbing content. This monograph is more accurately described as an apologia for Hamas, a violent Islamist organization dedicated to Jihad and the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas was first designated by the United States (U.S.) government as a terrorist organization in 1995 by a presidential executive order and then again as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997. Hamas has remained on the FTO list ever since. The essay also consistently demonizes Israel and its legitimate defense of national sovereignty under international law.

The U.S. Army War College is an official educational facility of the Department of Defense, and is accredited by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The mission of the Carlisle, Pennsylvania-based War College is to prepare its students for strategic leadership positions in the U.S. military and senior levels of civilian policymaking. American taxpayers fund the War College and its Strategic Studies Institute.

According to the monograph's forward (written by SSI Director Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.), "Hamas and Israel" provides "an orientation to HAMAS and its base" that demonstrates how "efforts….to separate HAMAS from its popular support and network of social and charitable organizations…have not been effective in destroying the organization, nor in eradicating the will to resist among a fairly large segment of the Palestinian population."[1] The pronounced bias in support of Hamas and against the State of Israel that suffuses this monograph shows in the absence of any explanation for why Hamas would continue to be engaged in resistance of any sort through the end of 2008, much less incessant rocket attacks aimed at Israeli civilian population centers, more than three years after Israel withdrew completely from Gaza. Instead, key recommendations include the need for "Israel and the United States…to abandon their policies of non-negotiation and non-communication with HAMAS."[2] Additionally, according to Zuhur, Israel needs to "abandon the aspects of its new defensive strategy which are calculated to thwart peace efforts,"[3] by "[d]ismantling the settlements in the West Bank"[4] and recognizing what Zuhur calls "Hamas' political and strategic development"[5] instead of villainizing the group. She claims that "Israel could not tolerate Palestinian Arabs' resistance of their [sic] authority on the legal basis of denial of self-determination"[6] and slips in a stab at what she terms "Israel's rejection of all comprehensive peace offers by the Arabs."[7] Statements like these betray the actual purpose of this monograph: to criticize Israel for exercising its sovereign right to self-defense while giving Hamas a free pass for terrorist assaults that deliberately target Israel's civilian population. It should be noted that this monograph was published the very week that Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008.

American dedication to free speech should not extend to using taxpayer money to pay for a paean to Islamist terrorism, backed by shoddy research and written at what is supposed to be this nation's premier U.S. Army institute for national security research and analysis. Unfortunately, there is precedent at SSI for this genre of terrorist apologia. Sherifa Zuhur, an American citizen who is Research Professor of Islamic and Regional Studies at SSI, is the same author who penned an April 2008 SSI monograph, "Precision in the Global War on Terror: Inciting Muslims Through the War of Ideas."

That monograph takes the form of a Glossary of Terms, from A to Z, which Zuhur uses to identify "a trend of pathologizing beliefs and practices that are at the core of Islam."[8] Her definitions invariably deny any link between Islam and terrorism and claim that the violence of the suicide bomber is "not a manifestation of belief nor a natural outcome of Islamism or ‘fundamentalism,' but rather a tactic, labeled with the religious principle of Jihad, that is intended to build an ethos, a camaraderie, and dependency on others engaging in violence."[9]

Zuhur overlooks the Hamas charter, a theological covenant with Allah, which takes the motto of its parent organization, The Muslim Brotherhood, as its own:

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed,

the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way,

and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire

Article Seven of the covenant justifies its anti-Semitic mission to obliterate Israel with the notorious hadith authenticated by the two most authoritative hadith scholars in Islam, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight

The Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones,

And each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah,

there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…

Had Zuhur included something more than false, dismissive references to the Hamas Covenant in her latest monograph, she may have had a much harder time excoriating Israel for its "…stance towards the democratically-elected Palestinian government headed by HAMAS [which] has been a major obstacle to substantive peacemaking."[10] Zuhur describes the charter as "defunct" and claims that Hamas leadership no longer "cites or refers to" it while generally playing down its aggressive anti-Israel elements.[11] Yet, as recently as 2007, the Hamas leadership issued an official statement to defend itself against criticism from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two. "We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine,"[12] according to the statement. This statement not only clearly reaffirms Hamas' commitment to the destruction of Israel, but notably as well underscores the theological character of the Hamas Covenant, which declares "promises we made to God."

Tellingly, Zuhur's monographs lack citations from recognized Islamic authorities, legal texts, or scriptures. Such quotations would refute her premise that the violent intolerance intrinsic to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Shari'a is not based explicitly in Islamic doctrine.

She also neglects to cite key references in her attempt to portray the Brotherhood as an organization "committed to global change for many decades"[13] that has "restricted its activities to Muslim education and social support."[14] Here, she conveniently ignores the self-described mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., which was revealed in a Brotherhood document first introduced into evidence at the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial:

Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: …The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands…"[15] (emphasis added)

Zuhur's protestations on behalf of Hamas' "charitable social services"[16] make a false distinction between those affiliated with al-Qaeda (acknowledged as violent) and those connected to Hamas, which has "carefully separated political and military wings."[17] Similarly, she claims that "Hamas shares an acceptance of the scientific rational traditions of the West along with moderate Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood."[18] In the rush to publish, Zuhur must have missed reports that the Hamas parliament voted in December 2008 to legalize Shari'a hudud punishments like amputation, flogging, and crucifixion.[19]

In publishing these two monographs by Sherifa Zuhur, the U.S. Army War College exposes itself to serious questions about its advocacy and promotion of views it knows or should have known are deeply inimical to U.S. national security interests. These two publications are each described on their title pages as "a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101."[20] But their author shills for a foreign terrorist organization. She attacks Israel, a friend and ally of the U.S. and an outpost of liberal democracy in the Middle East, which has been forced to fight Jihadist efforts to destroy it for the entire 60 years of its existence. It is fine to present students with varying perspectives on a conflict, but when taxpayer money is used, a higher standard should be demanded. Congress should investigate why the U.S. Army is funding papers supporting Hamas.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and heads the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

[1] Zuhur, Sherifa, "Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics," Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, December 2008. (pg. v)

[2] Ibid, pg. 63

[3] Ibid, pg. 18.

[4] Ibid, pg. 65

[5] Ibid, pg. x

[6] Ibid, pg. 1

[7] Ibid, pg. 14

[8] Zuhur, Sherifa, "Precision in the Global War on Terror: Inciting Muslims Through the War of Ideas," Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, April 2008. From the Forward, pg. v.

[9] Ibid, pg. 110

[10] Zuhur, "Hamas and Israel," pg.1

[11] Ibid, pg. 30-31

[12] Al-Mughrabi, Nidal, "Hamas says still seeks Israel's destruction," Reuters, March 12, 2007.

[13] Zuhur, "Hamas and Israel," pg. 63

[14] Ibid, pg. 91

[15]From ‘On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America' (5/22/1991); entered into evidence at the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, TX. While this federal prosecution ended indecisively, Zuhur would have known before "Hamas and Israel" was published in late December 2008 that on November 24, 2008, a unanimous jury conviction on 108 counts was returned in the retrial against five former Holy Land Foundation officials for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

[16] Zuhur, "Hamas and Israel," pg.18; also "Precision in the Global War on Terror," pg. 114, where she protests that "…with the War on Terror came an attack on many Islamic charitable associations, both those somehow linked to al-Qa'ida and to organizations that most Muslims regard as nationalist and more moderate like Hamas.

[17] Ibid ("Hamas and Israel"), pg. 39

[18] Ibid, pg. 60

[19] "Hamas Sanctions Sharia Law," CBNNews.com, December 24, 2008. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/507872.aspx

[20] Zuhur, "Hamas and Israel," from the bottom of the monograph's title page

Illegal Aliens Akin to Burglars in the Night

by Michael Cutler

When individuals enter our nation with out undergoing the mandated inspections process that this effort to avoid the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors, it is not the equivalent of a motorist who fails to pay a toll before crossing a toll bridge – it is comparable to someone breaking into a home in the dead of night.

While the majority of illegal aliens who run our nation's borders are simply seeking to attempt to get a job, a significant percentage of those illegal aliens may well be intent on violating other laws in the United States. Some may be fugitives from justice in their own country or in another country. Others may have already been deported from our country for having committed felonies and are seeking to return to the United States covertly to continue their criminal "careers" here.

This article from the CBP website chronicles how 11 criminal aliens where apprehended as they joined other would-be illegal aliens, while this article deals with a United States citizen who was identified as being the subject of an outstanding criminal warrant when she sought to enter the United States through the inspections process.

When advocates for open borders make light of the presence of illegal aliens in our country, it is important to remember that the inspections process – which illegal aliens often avoid – is designed to protect our nation and our citizens from the potential harm that such aliens may pose to our nation.

At the very least, an illegal alien who seek unlawful employment, does harm to our nation's already weakened economy. This is not a "victimless crime."

Here is something for you to consider when pondering the impact of illegal aliens who work in the United States. In fact, this also applies to foreign workers who succeed in obtaining "temporary" work visas: When an American citizen or resident alien receives a paycheck, he is likely to spend, save or invest that money in the United States. This is how our economy is supposed to grow – moving money through the economy, providing economic opportunities for our citizens, our lawful immigrants and our nation.

Foreign workers have a different goal for their earnings. They are intent on sending that money back to their families in their home countries. Each and every year, tense of billions of dollars are wired or otherwise sent from the United States to other countries. Last year, it was estimated that more than $40 billion was wired from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean by aliens – most of who are believed to have been living and working in the United States illegally. Additional money was otherwise sent to Latin America and the Caribbean. Still more money was sent, in one way or another, to Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere by foreigners working in the United States.

Meanwhile, our nation's "leaders" talk about providing approximately a $1,000 "economic stimulus" check to American families to stimulate the economy. This is not the sort of money that will keep a family facing foreclosure from losing their house. These Americans need steady employment with a paycheck that will enable them to be economically self-sufficient.

This requires that our nation finally secure its borders from the entry of illegal aliens. It means that the emphasis must be on making the economic success of the citizens of our nation the priority of our government. With all of the talk about the need to do things differently, I hope that the issues on the list of President Obama's "change we can believe in" will reflect the way our nation used to do business: aliens who might displace – or harm – American workers were kept out of the United States.

Back in 1997, I gave testimony at a Senate subcommittee hearing entitled “Visa Fraud and Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.” The impetus for the hearing was an attack on the CIA by a Pakistani national, and the first World Trade Center

bombing, both having taken place in 1993. Then-committee chairman Lamar Smith, who is now the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, had invited me to testify at that hearing and asked me a question I recall to this day: if there was an issue that I could identify as a former immigration inspector, as a former immigration examiner and as an INS senior special agent (my position at the time of that hearing).

I told him that there was a very serious problem with imposters, and that we needed to use biometrics – whether they be fingerprints or some other sort of bio metric identifier – that could quickly help INS personnel to identify an individual that they encountered.

Believe it or not, back then, in 1997, there was no quick way to determine the identity of people the INS arrested. We had occasionally used the resources of the DEA and the FBI to quickly identify individuals we arrested, but we did this on a very sporadic basis and often found that the electronic fingerprint system enabled us to identify all sorts of fugitives, yet the INS had no such capability back then. This was another example of why I often used to say that the INS was the agency that refused to take itself seriously.

I was certainly gratified that within about a year, the INS made its first tentative forays into electronic fingerprinting, although initially they did not use all ten fingers and the system was not, at first, linked to other criminal databases. Today of course, ICE and CBP have this vital technological capability and it is extremely effective.

The point is that no matter the challenge, with a bit of ingenuity and determination, nothing is impossible. We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era. The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the balance.

Ideals of Our Founding Fathers

by John Armor

Thank you Mr. President, for this interview. We’re both lawyers and students of history. I look forward to your comments on the “ideals of our Founding Fathers” you referenced in your Inaugural Address.

Which Founders are you particularly thinking of?

Washington

, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin? That’s a superlative group.

Yes, of course, we must exclude that slavery matter. Both Washington and Jefferson, until they died, held slaves.

Did you know that one of your four men founded a secret society that anonymously published a pamphlet by Thomas Paine favoring abolition?

Yes, it was Franklin. If he’d come out in public and said that, would he ever again hold high public office?

Right. You can’t get too far ahead of your times. What would we have lost, without Franklin’s services?

Yes, wed have lost the American Revolution without Franklin’s treaty with the French. That gave us the French fleet and marines at Yorktown. But there’s another huge loss.

Give up? We would have lost the Constitution, as well. Franklin’s advice for wise compromise was essential. Plus he was the only Founder who really understood “intellectual property rights.”

When you referred to “markets that have unmatched power to generate wealth and expand freedom” did you think of the Copyright and Patent Clause?

I thought so, but did you know that Franklin created that clause? Did you realize that Clause led directly to Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Alfred Hitchcock, Count Basie, Patsy Cline, and Oprah Winfrey, among many, many others?

No, you’re right. Most people don’t consider the consequences of the ideals of the Founders.

Thank you for using a Tom Paine quote. Please tell the listeners more about that event.

Yes, they no longer teach students, in high school or college, that George Washington’s troops were about to end their enlistments, which were only for six months. So, Washington made an all-or-nothing gamble on Christmas in 1776 and took his remaining 3,000 able-bodied troops across the Delaware, at night, in a snowstorm, to attack the Hessians at Trenton.

Did you deliberately avoid the opening quote from Paine’s American Crisis, because it’s been overused? “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his nation. But he that serves it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

Understandable. Showing some variety in your speech.

Among all the Framers, who was the most important?

Jefferson for his intellect? Madison for the Constitution? Yet, all things considered, you choose George Washington for his leadership in all ways?

I think most citizens who think about the Founders at all, would agree.

Let’s pursue an event in General Washington’s leadership of the American Revolution. Do you recall the fate of British Major John Andre?

Right. He was the British agent for Benedict Arnold’s intended betrayal of the garrison at West Point. Andre was captured behind American lines, in civilian clothes, with incriminating documents in his boot.

What happened to him?

Right. General Washington had him hanged. Under what authority?

Yes, he was a spy. But American generals cannot go around the world, point at any civilian, say “He’s a spy,” and have him killed, can they?

Yes, there does have to be “some kind of trial.” Andre got a “drumhead” trial before General Washington. We call those military tribunals today.

They were conducted under the Law of War, which is centuries older than the United States, and was adopted into U.S. military law in 1789.

Were you aware of that?

I thought not.

That process was approved by a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1942 Quirin case. Did you know that?

Do you have your Blackberry handy? I’ll bet you have Internet access on that thing, don’t you?

Search for Ex Parte Quirin in 1942. It’s a quick read, just 26 pages.

So, by shutting down the military tribunals at Guantanamo, aren’t you attacking, rather than defending, both the ideals of the Founders and the Constitution that they wrote?

Mr. President?

Mr. President?

Well, if you say the interview’s over, it’s over.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Planned Parenthood: Force doctors to do abortions

Experts for the Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society are gearing up to defend three laws that allow medical professionals to follow their conscience and not participate in abortions.

"Medical professionals should not be forced to perform abortions against their conscience," said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with the CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

"Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and their pro-abortion allies are seeking to punish pro-life medical professionals for their beliefs," Mattox said. "Far from arguing for 'choice,' these lawsuits seek to compel health care workers to perform abortions or face dire consequences."

The public-interest legal groups have filed motions to intervene in three separate lawsuits that seek to invalidate a federal law protecting medical professionals from discrimination because they refuse to participate in abortions. ....

More Moscow Murder

Two critics of Vladimir Putin take bullets in the head.

Pakistan: Toll from U.S. strikes reaches 22

(Compiler's note: Should this title read that "Obama kills our enemy without a trial?")

Alleged U.S. spy planes attack militant areas in first attacks of Obama era

..... Friday's attacks were the first since the inauguration of President Barack Obama, and suggest that he will allow U.S. forces to continue targeting al-Qaida and Taliban operatives inside Pakistan's lawless tribal belt. ....