Time to Throw Da Bums Out!

(Compiler's note: This is a must read - see item)

On Saturday I (Alan Keyes) gave the keynote speech at the Pittsburgh Tea Party Event where several thousand people gathered to protest the spending frenzy in Washington, the leap into socialism and the destruction of our constitutional liberty. Ted Voron was good enough to post video of the speech on YouTube, embedded here below, in four parts.

Pirates seize Belgian ship, while NATO forces free detained pirates due to lack of legal framework for holding them

"I'll be seeing you, in all the old familiar places..."

"Pirates seize Belgian ship; NATO frees 20 hostages," by Katherine Houreld and Tom Pittman for the Associated Press, April 18: ....

Interrogation Memos Released By Obama: See The Complete Documents

Click on the above title to see the memos being discussed.

Obama's Dog and Pony Show in Mexico

by Jim Kouri

"Rather than deal with the problem of illegal aliens – many with criminal records – entering the U.S., Obama and his minions are worried about contraband being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico.” ....

Interrogation Memos Released – Is Need for ‘Transparency’ Greater than Security?

by Pam Meister

Memos detailing the Bush administration’s legal guidance for the interrogation of terror suspects were released yesterday, despite the CIA’s concern that national security may be compromised.

According to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the decision to release the memos was related to Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, which argued that officials should be held accountable for “torture” of terrorism suspects. Of course, there will be redactions, yada yada, and – wait for it – President Obama will take yet another opportunity to use his teleprompter to make a statement. (I hope he pays that teleprompter well.)

Maybe the Obama administration could just hold an Open House in Washington, similar to the open houses held at public schools each fall. However, instead of featuring students’ work for proud parents to look over, they could just spread out all of the memos from the Bush administration for anyone with an interest to look at while serving cookies and punch. Beats smuggling them out of the National Archives in your socks.

So let’s see: In less than three months in office, President Obama has apologized to the world for American arrogance; bowed down to the Saudi king; is considering dropping a key American insistence that Tehran shut down its nuclear facilities in order to get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the tea table; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has blamed Mexican drug cartel violence on Americans’ “insatiable need” for drugs; DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano now refers to terrorism as “man-caused disasters;” and the War on Terror – an incorrect moniker to begin with – is now being referenced to as an “overseas contingency operation.” Overseas contingency operation? Couldn’t they come up with anything snappier, like “American imperialist domination”?

Meanwhile, the National Security Agency has been intercepting phone calls and e-mails made by Americans at a rate that goes beyond limits set by Congress last year. Interestingly enough, news of this “’over-collection’ of domestic communications of Americans” comes during the same week we learn of a report by the DHS that warns law enforcement officials that “right wing extremists” might be recruiting and planning. It’s most likely a coincidence, but not one that inspires confidence.

Back in Bush’s day, this was called “warrantless wiretapping” and “domestic spying.” Today it’s the “over-collection of domestic communications.” And where are the civil rights protesters who salivated over Bush’s actions? What a difference an election makes.

My title asks if the need for transparency is more important than our security. Perhaps the question should be, is political expedience more important than our security?

Kentucky Fried Chicken is famous for jealously guarding the secret recipe for its “finger lickin’ good” chicken, which represents the company’s stock in trade – but to the Obama administration, our national security secrets merit less care than the Colonel’s Original Recipe chicken. Pass me a leg, mashed potatoes with gravy and one of those biscuits, please. I could use some comfort food about now.

Colonel slams Obama's release of Bush memos It's 'bad form, bad tactics, bad strategy until this war is over'

Government won't give up Haditha prosecution -- Chessani charges already dismissed, and affirmed on appeal

By Bob Unruh

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessan

A public-interest legal group says it has been notified that the U.S. government – which watched the disintegration of its case against a Marine accused by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., of murder in Haditha, Iraq – is refusing to give up.

The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., has been defending Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who saw the government's charges against him dismissed because of unlawful "command influence." The decision was affirmed on appeal.

"The way our government has treated this true American hero is outrageous," said Richard Thompson, president of the center. "After spending over 20 years in loyal service to his nation and considered one of the best combat officers in Iraq, the government is giving Jeffrey Chessani less legal consideration than it is giving the terrorists held at Guantanamo."

The group said government prosecutors filed a motion late Thursday with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals asking that the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel in favor of Chessani be reconsidered by all nine judges.

In order to continue the prosecution, and assuming the three judges don't change their decisions, the government would have to convince five of the six additional judges of the worthiness of its case.

It was on March 17 when the three-judge panel unanimously vindicated the ruling by Col. Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing all charges against Chessani on the grounds of "unlawful command influence."

In dismissing the charges against Chessani, Folsom described "unlawful command influence" as the "the mortal enemy of military justice."

Thomas More said despite the solid legal basis for the ruling, the government appealed the decision.

In seeking a reconsideration by the entire panel, government prosecutors now argue that the three-judge panel misunderstood the difference between an officer's rank and his job.

"Essentially, the government argues that a full colonel in the Marine Corps could not unlawfully influence a lieutenant colonel if they held similar billet (job) positions," the legal group said.

Thomas More now has a week to respond to the government's motion. If the review is not granted, the government still has the option to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chessani is the senior-most officer criminally charged as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described "Haditha massacre" in Iraq after Murtha publicly accused the troops of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."

A military investigation of the Nov. 19, 2005, Haditha firefight found "no indication" that the Marines had "intentionally targeted, engaged and killed noncombatants."

As WND reported, the case against Chessani was originally dismissed when Folsom ruled the charges were tainted because of improper closed-door meetings with investigators that gave credence to the defense's argument that Chessani was made a "political scapegoat" for the highly publicized Haditha incident.

The government had accused Chessani, who wasn't present at Haditha, of improperly investigating actions of Marines under his command and covering up details of the firefight.

The counts against Chessani were triggered following a house-to-house, room-by-room battle his enlisted Marines engaged in after they were ambushed by insurgents.

The firefight resulted in nearly two dozen Iraqi deaths, including 15 civilians caught in the crossfire, and 14 Marine casualties, including one death.

Defense lawyers have reported the insurgents deliberately attacked the Marines from hiding places, where they surrounded themselves with civilians to use as shields.

Eventually eight Marines were charged, but cases against Lance Cpls. Stephen Tatum and Justin Sharratt, Capts. Randy Stone and Lucas McConnell and Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz were dropped. First Lt. Andrew Grayson was acquitted, leaving only the Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich case pending and Lt. Col. Chessani's case in appeals.

The enlisted Marines were charged with murder and the officers accused of failing to investigate the deaths.

The case developed only after Murtha publicly accused troops of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."

Radio talk show host Michael Savage has supported Chessani and the Thomas More Law Center's work on the case.

Chinese spies may have put chips in US planes

from The Times of India

WASHINGTON: The Chinese cyber spies have penetrated so deep into the US system — ranging from its secure defence network

, banking system, electricity grid to putting spy chips into its defence planes — that it can cause serious damage to the US any time, a top US official on counter-intelligence has said.

“Chinese penetrations of unclassified DoD networks have also been widely reported. Those are more sophisticated, though hardly state of the art,” said National Counterintelligence Executive, Joel Brenner, at the Austin University Texas last week, according to a transcript made available on Wednesday.

Listing out some of the examples of Chinese cyber spy penetration, he said: “We’re also seeing counterfeit routers and chips, and some of those chips have made their way into US military fighter aircraft.. You don’t sneak counterfeit chips into another nation’s aircraft to steal data. When it’s done intentionally, it’s done to degrade systems, or to have the ability to do so at a time of one’s choosing.”

Referring to the Chinese networks penetrating the cyber grids, he said: “Do I worry about those grids, and about air traffic control systems

, water supply systems, and so on? You bet I do. America’s networks are being mapped. There has also been experience of both Chinese and criminal network operations in the networks of some of the banks”.

Pastor beaten, Tasered for defending his rights But Supreme Court grants agents exception to obeying Constitution

By Drew Zahn

An Arizona pastor – Tasered, bloodied by broken glass and sporting 11 stitches in his head – claims his injuries came from being stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint 75 miles inside the U.S. and then being battered by police for refusing to allow agents to search his vehicle.

The incident earlier this week highlights tension between constitutional rights, the issue of border security and a controversial Supreme Court ruling that grants an exceptional level of police authority near the Mexican border.

Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe claims he did nothing to deserve his eventual arrest and believes that when he refused to allow the search of his car he was simply standing up for his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect him against unreasonable search without a warrant.

Anderson further questions why the Border Patrol is allowed to stop and search cars at a checkpoint along Interstate 8, 75 miles inland of where the highway nears the Mexican border at Yuma, Ariz.

"I was in the United States! I had crossed no international border!" writes Anderson in commentary accompanying a video he made about his experience.

"I didn't have any drugs; I didn't have a human beings in my car," he claims in the video itself. "Why is this happening in the United States of America?"

Pastor Anderson's video explaining his side of the controversy and his rough treatment at the hands of police officers can be seen here:

The U.S. Border Patrol, however, explained to WND that Anderson misunderstood his constitutional rights and that because a drug-sniffing dog alerted to Anderson's rental car, the pastor was wrong not to allow the agents to search his vehicle.

Ben Vik, a supervisory Border Patrol agent for the Yuma sector, further told WND that the Supreme Court and federal law permit the Border Patrol to establish checkpoints up to 100 miles inside the U.S. and that with probable cause the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to searches of automobiles.

"The Supreme Court found that only minimal intrusion existed to motorists at reasonably located checkpoints," said Vik. "The Supreme Court found that the very brief detention of motorists at a well-marked and identified immigration checkpoint did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure."

Vik's statement, however, doesn't apply to typical law enforcement agencies, but – thanks to a controversial ruling – only to "immigration" checkpoints established by the Border Patrol.

The courts have typically ruled against "suspicion-less" stops and searches of vehicles at police checkpoints, such as the one that detained Anderson. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Indianapolis vs. Edmond that police cannot establish roadblocks staffed by dogs to randomly search automobiles for drugs.

"We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," the Supreme Court majority wrote in Indianapolis vs. Edmond. "The [Indianapolis] checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment."

The 1976 United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte decision, however, created an exception allowing the Border Patrol the unique power to establish checkpoints for seeking illegal immigrants, with the secondary purpose of finding drugs. So while Yuma-area police cannot operate a K-9, or drug-detecting dog, checkpoint without violating the Fourth Amendment, the Border Patrol can.

A second exception was also created for drunk driving checkpoints under 1990's Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, but some – including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – do not believe the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are warranted.

"I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided," Thomas wrote in an opinion on the 2000 Indianapolis vs. Edmond decision. "Indeed, I rather doubt that the framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project in Santa Cruz, Calif., told the Phoenix New Times that an immigration checkpoint is "thin justification" for sniffing random cars for drugs without a warrant.

"Even if somebody has no sympathy for a marijuana user," Boyd says, "you should still be concerned that the U.S. government is saying the border is an area where the U.S. Constitution is suspended."

Senior Patrol Agent Vik assured WND that even in the checkpoints, citizens do maintain certain rights limiting officers' actions.

"Border Patrol immigration checkpoints don't give Border Patrol agents carte blanche to automatically search persons or their vehicles," Vik explained. "To conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, agents must develop an articulable probable cause to conduct a lawful search."

In Anderson's case, the pastor claims the K-9 dog made no bark or indication that his rental car was tainted with drugs, while Vik insisted to WND that the dog did alert agents to drugs, thus granting probable cause for the search.

Both Anderson and Vik confirm that no contraband was discovered on the vehicle.

As for the Tasering and other alleged rough treatment by police, Vik told WND that Anderson was extracted from his car and arrested by Arizona Department of Public Safety officers, not the Border Patrol, a statement Anderson confirms in his video.

The Arizona DPS told WND that an investigation into the officers' actions is ongoing and no comment can be made until it is complete.

Anderson spent the evening of his arrest in jail and is awaiting a formal arraignment at which he intends to plead "not guilty."

Bipartisan team stunned by 'extremism' allegations 'Veterans, families should not be viewed as a threat'

By Bob Unruh

Members of both sides of the aisle in Congress are expressing outrage and seeking an investigation into a new Department of Homeland Security report on "extremism" that targets U.S. military veterans, opponents of abortion and supporters of other conservative causes.

U.S. Rep Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., was horrified at what he described as a "shoddy, unsubstantiated" document that was delivered to law enforcement across the nation.

"I am concerned at what appears to be a shoddy, unsubstantiated, and potentially politicized work product that has been disseminated to the Intelligence Community, and law enforcement as a finished intelligence product," he wrote to DHS chief Janet Napolitano. "The report appears at best sloppy and unprofessional and at worst a representation of political bias being passed off as intelligence analysis by DHS."

According to the Washington Times, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he was "dumbfounded" that the report was, in fact, released.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans – including war veterans," Thompson told Napolitano in a letter.

"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans – whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Thompson said.

He said he was disappointed and surprised the report would be issued. And he demanded to know what types of further activities DHS had planned regarding the issue.

The federal agency's report is called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It already has generated a lawsuit by talk radio host Michael Savage.

As WND reported, a public-interest legal group submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the DHS demanding to know why it calls Americans who support the 2nd Amendment and dislike lax immigration "extremists."

Now Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is offering his criticism and demanding to know why, as ranking member of the committee, "which is responsible for authorizing funding for this office," he was not given a copy of the report but had to obtain it from open sources on the Internet.

"I would appreciate clarifications as to why this report was not provided to the committee and an understanding of what other reports DHS may be failing to provide to the committee," he wrote.

He also wanted some clarifications:

"The report purports to analyze 'rightwing extremism' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the report, 'rightwing extremists' could include groups dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration as well as those who may not agree with the new administration's 'perceived' stance on several issues including illegal immigration and restrictions on firearm ownership.

"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted administration policy – in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote.

A spokesman for the federal agency told WND today that the DHS would refuse to identify the actual authors of the report. The agency also would not comment on any procedures or actions it may take in response to the controversy over the report.

But to the Associated Press, a DHS official confirmed there were concerns by the agency's office of civil rights about some of the language in the report.

It was issued anyway, the agency said.

Napolitano earlier described the charges in the report as assessments, "not an accusation."

Hoekstra called on the ombudsman for the office of director of National Intelligence to investigate the report itself.

"Our nation's veterans and hardworking families that may be facing tough times should not be viewed as a threat and neither should citizens who oppose out-of-control federal spending and tax hikes," he wrote.

The congressman, who has sponsored a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of parents to raise their children, also was disappointed by the report's assertion without substantiation that unemployed parents may foster "rightwing extremist" beliefs in their children.

"Beyond apologizing for its obviously offensive references, the administration needs to get to the bottom of how and why a report like this was written, and put standards in place to keep it from happening again," Hoekstra said.

"I would also appreciate an explanation of the assertion, which is somehow tied to 'rightwing extremists,' that there is a 'perception' that illegal immigrants were taking away jobs from Americans in the 1990s because they were willing to work for lower wages," the congressman wrote.

"Regardless of one's view on immigration policy matters, it cannot be seriously disputed that the protection of the American workforce

is one of the driving considerations for the current structure of U.S. immigration law. For DHS, which is charged with administering the immigration laws, to apparently not understand this core principle is shocking," he added.

"When may we expect the office to start consistently producing quality intelligence products?" he wondered.

Savage teamed up with the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., to file a lawsuit against Napolitano over the report.

"It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, challenging the policy, practice, and custom of the United States Government that targets for disfavored treatment those individuals and groups that are considered to be 'rightwing extremists,'" the complaint said.

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

• Oppose restrictions on firearms
  
  
• Oppose lax immigration
  
  
• Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
  
  
• Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
  
  
• Oppose same-sex marriage
  
  
• Has paraonia of foreign regimes
  
  
• Fear Communist regimes
  
  
• Oppose one world government
  
  
• Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
  
  
• Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

The case seeks a declaration that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, a court order permanently enjoining the policy and its application

to the plaintiffs' speech and other activities, and the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

By CAM SIMPSON and GARY FIELDS

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.

"This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans," she said on NBC's Today Show.

The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI's focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau's domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.

Associated Press

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, pictured this month in Mexico, defended the assessment Thursday but apologized to veterans.

A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat." The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI's general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, "to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties."

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for the same extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment. The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, also echoed the concerns.

The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the "willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said Wednesday he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said Thursday the report was issued before an objection about one part of the document raised by the agency's civil-rights division was resolved. She called it a "breakdown of an internal process" that would be fixed.

The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation's uniformed services "in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat." The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Documents detailing the operation are unclassified, but were meant for internal distribution only.

—Evan Perez contributed to this article.

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

by Sheera Frenkel in Jerusalem

The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.

The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.

“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community.

He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.

An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.

Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.

“The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran's programme by two to four years,” he said.

A visit by President Obama to Israel in June is expected to coincide with the national elections in Iran — timing that would allow the US Administration to re-evaluate diplomatic resolutions with Iran before hearing the Israeli position.

“Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.

Among recent preparations by the airforce was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

“Sudan was practice for the Israeli forces on a long-range attack,” Ronen Bergman, the author of The Secret War with Iran, said. “They wanted to see how they handled the transfer of information, hitting a moving target ... In that sense it was a rehearsal.”

Israel has made public its intention to hold the largest-ever nationwide drill next month.

Colonel Hilik Sofer told Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that the drill would “train for a reality in which during war missiles can fall on any part of the country without warning ... We want the citizens to understand that war can happen tomorrow morning”.

Israel will conduct an exercise with US forces to test the ability of Arrow, its US-funded missile defence system. The exercise would test whether the system could intercept missiles launched at Israel.

“Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear Iran. According to Israeli Intelligence they will have the bomb within two years ... Once they have a bomb it will be too late, and Israel will have no choice to strike — with or without America,” an official from the Israeli Defence Ministry said.

Crumbling Pakistan

by Mark Noonan

When our military commanders say that the situation in Afghanistan will get worse before it gets better, here’s why:

The Asia Times highlights the greatest proximate danger from fast-breaking developments in Pakistan. The truce between the Taliban and the fracturing Pakistani government has released thousands of fighters to begin an offensive in [Afghanistan].

In addition, after striking peace deals with the Pakistani security forces, the newly formed United Front of Taliban in the Pakistani tribal areas is ready to pump at least 15,000 to 20,000 fresh fighters into Afghanistan. These are expected to start crossing the rugged - and unmanned - border in April.

Bill Roggio describes how the fight seems to have drained out of some parts of the Pakistani armed forces, who have now resorted to try and buy the Taliban off.

The military ceased operations in Swat in February 2009 after it failed to dislodge the Taliban. … Javed and the military have refused to respond to the Taliban infractions. Javeed even went out of his way to praise Mullah Fazlullah. He described Fazlullah as a “good human being,” Daily Times reported.

Javed’s [the Malakand Division Commissioner] proposal to integrate the Taliban into the security forces comes as the US Congress is debating a $20 billion aid package to Pakistan. Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar have proposed giving Pakistan a one-time $5 billion grant plus a 10 year aid package worth $15 billion. Some of this money is slated to improve the security forces in Paksitan’s Northwest Frontier Province and the Taliban-controlled tribal agencies.

As a side note and as illustration for how long this problem really has been going on, one of Winston Churchill’s first books was entitled The Malakand Field Force, describing a punitive expedition Churchill participated in back in 1897. The only difference between then and now is that the screwballs in the area can reach out and cause death and destruction in our area of the world, too. And any attempt we make to clean up the mess will be a long, drawn out and tediously difficult task.

But we must do it - we cannot permit Pakistan to disintegrate, at least not without careful control by ourselves and complete accounting of Pakistan’s nuclear program. So, what should we do?

Part of it we’re already doing - sending more troops to Afghanistan in order to prepare for battle against the greatly increased Taliban forces we’re likely to meet from Spring forward. We’re also, from what I understand, stepping up nation-building activities in order to improve Afghan government authority and control, as well as build up the Afghan national army. But sitting in Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban won’t do the trick - we’ll have to get at the source of the trouble.

As long as the government of Pakistan is working to defeat the Taliban and associated tribal forces, then we must apply ourselves, as difficult as it is, to the Pakistani government. But if, as it appears, the Pakistani government becomes unwilling or unable to assist us, we’ll have to do it on our own. And if the government of Pakistan disintegrates, then we’ll have to be ready to move into at least substantial areas of Pakistan in order to defeat our enemies and control those part of the Pakistani military arsenal which can be used by the terrorists to attack the United States and our allies.

If we fail to do our part, as necessary, then we can look forward to, at best, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan becoming a safe-haven for terrorists where they can gather forces, plot attacks and launch them against us. At worst, Pakistan will become a completely failed State, easy prey to highly organized Islamist minorities who are willing to use whatever cruelty proves necessary to assert their control - including control over Pakistan’s nuclear force. Furthermore, we must pay close attention to the needs of India in this - the Pakistani government, of itself, is a difficult enough entity to deal with, but if India faces radical Islamists in control of nuclear weapons minutes away from major Indian metropolises, India might feel - very justifiably - compelled to act.

In order to preserve our allies and secure peace, we might have to steel ourselves to a protracted and bloody campaign in south central Asia - and the big question: does Obama perceive the risks? Does he have the courage to stick it out, should it all fall apart?

The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror

(Compiler's note: Absolutely must read!)

The point of interrogation is intelligence, not confession.

By MICHAEL HAYDEN and MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

The Obama administration has declassified and released opinions of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) given in 2005 and earlier that analyze the legality of interrogation techniques authorized for use by the CIA. Those techniques were applied only when expressly permitted by the director, and are described in these opinions in detail, along with their limits and the safeguards applied to them.

AP

9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.

Proponents of the release have argued that the techniques have been abandoned and thus there is no point in keeping them secret any longer; that they were in any event ineffective; that their disclosure was somehow legally compelled; and that they cost us more in the coin of world opinion than they were worth. None of these claims survives scrutiny.

Soon after he was sworn in, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that suspended use of these techniques and confined not only the military but all U.S. agencies -- including the CIA -- to the interrogation limits set in the Army Field Manual. This suspension was accompanied by a commitment to further study the interrogation program, and government personnel were cautioned that they could no longer rely on earlier opinions of the OLC.

Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

Moreover, disclosure of the details of the program pre-empts the study of the president's task force and assures that the suspension imposed by the president's executive order is effectively permanent. There would be little point in the president authorizing measures whose nature and precise limits have already been disclosed in detail to those whose resolve we hope to overcome. This conflicts with the sworn promise of the current director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who testified in aid of securing Senate confirmation that if he thought he needed additional authority to conduct interrogation to get necessary information, he would seek it from the president. By allowing this disclosure, President Obama has tied not only his own hands but also the hands of any future administration faced with the prospect of attack.

Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.

Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don't work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal. This ignorant view of how interrogations are conducted is belied by both experience and common sense. If coercive interrogation had been administered to obtain confessions, one might understand the argument. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who organized the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, among others, and who has boasted of having beheaded Daniel Pearl, could eventually have felt pressed to provide a false confession. But confessions aren't the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation.

The terrorist Abu Zubaydah (sometimes derided as a low-level operative of questionable reliability, but who was in fact close to KSM and other senior al Qaeda leaders) disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which -- when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah -- helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S. Details of these successes, and the methods used to obtain them, were disclosed repeatedly in more than 30 congressional briefings and hearings beginning in 2002, and open to all members of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress beginning in September 2006. Any protestation of ignorance of those details, particularly by members of those committees, is pretense.

The techniques themselves were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA. Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in these opinions. As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations.

Nor was there any legal reason compelling such disclosure. To be sure, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of these and other memoranda, but the government until now has successfully resisted such lawsuits. Even when the government disclosed that three members of al Qaeda had been subjected to waterboarding but that the technique was no longer part of the CIA interrogation program, the court sustained the government's argument that the precise details of how it was done, including limits and safeguards, could remain classified against the possibility that some future president may authorize its use. Therefore, notwithstanding the suggestion that disclosure was somehow legally compelled, there was no legal impediment to the Justice Department making the same argument even with respect to any techniques that remained in the CIA program until last January.

There is something of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the claim that our interrogation of some unlawful combatants beyond the limits set in the Army Field Manual has disgraced us before the world. Such a claim often conflates interrogation with the sadism engaged in by some soldiers at Abu Ghraib, an incident that had nothing whatever to do with intelligence gathering. The limits of the Army Field Manual are entirely appropriate for young soldiers, for the conditions in which they operate, for the detainees they routinely question, and for the kinds of tactically relevant information they pursue. Those limits are not appropriate, however, for more experienced people in controlled circumstances with high-value detainees. Indeed, the Army Field Manual was created with awareness that there was an alternative protocol for high-value detainees.

In addition, there were those who believed that the U.S. deserved what it got on Sept. 11, 2001. Such people, and many who purport to speak for world opinion, were resourceful both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks in crafting reasons to resent America's role as a superpower. Recall also that the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the punctiliously correct trials of defendants in connection with those incidents, and the bombing of the USS Cole took place long before the advent of CIA interrogations, the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or the many other purported grievances asserted over the past eight years.

The effect of this disclosure on the morale and effectiveness of many in the intelligence community is not hard to predict. Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable. Any president who wants to apply such techniques without such a binding and durable legal opinion had better be prepared to apply them himself.

Beyond that, anyone in government who seeks an opinion from the OLC as to the propriety of any action, or who authors an opinion for the OLC, is on notice henceforth that such a request for advice, and the advice itself, is now more likely than before to be subject after the fact to public and partisan criticism. It is hard to see how that will promote candor either from those who should be encouraged to ask for advice before they act, or from those who must give it.

In his book "The Terror Presidency," Jack Goldsmith describes the phenomenon we are now experiencing, and its inevitable effect, referring to what he calls "cycles of timidity and aggression" that have weakened intelligence gathering in the past. Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity. He calls these cycles "a terrible problem for our national security." Indeed they are, and the precipitous release of these OLC opinions simply makes the problem worse.

Gen. Hayden was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009. Mr. Mukasey was attorney general of the United States from 2007 to 2009.

OPEC sees 'devastating contraction' in oil demand

OPEC again revised down its estimate for world crude demand on Wednesday, saying a "devasting contraction" in consumption would keep prices under pressure in the months ahead. .... It said "vigilant monitoring is essential" ahead of the cartel's next meeting at the end of May at which some members are expected to push for further output cuts to help support prices.....

IRS Workers Stealing Your Cash! Look Who's Cashing in Your Check to the Government

ABC News Uncovers History of Contract Workers, IRS Employees Stealing Taxpayer Checks and Cash

Strength, Respect and Influence – The Foundation of Foreign Policy

by William R. Hawkins

Weakness is not respected. It invites attack. Does President Barack Obama understand the importance of respect built on strength as the foundations for alliances? ....

UK Group Defines Jihad as ‘Armed Resistance’

from The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report

In an announcement for presentation on the UK government’s proposed counter-terrorism strategy, the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) has defined the concept of “Jihad” as “armed resistance.” According to the announcement: must read

According to a report in the Guardian, the government – as part of its Contest 2 counter-terrorism strategy – is considering proposals that would classify British Muslims as being extremists if:

-They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

-They promote Sharia law.

-They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

-They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

-They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan

Is this another failed strategy that will further alienate thousands of law abiding Muslims? Or is it about time the government was bold enough to implement such measures to tackle extreme ‘Islamist ideologues’?

As discussed in a previous post, an important part of global Muslim Brotherhood rhetorical strategy is to deceive the public about the nature of Jihad. As that post noted:

2. DECEPTION- In order to defend Islam (Islamism) from charges that it is inherently violent/terroristic, the Brotherhood deceives the public about the nature of Jihad. This is necessary because Jihad plays an important role for Islamism and the Brotherhood and if the connection between Islam and violence is to be denied, Jihad must be explained away. Again, the Brotherhood represents the “Jihadism” of the Islamists as opposed to the “classical Jihad” of Islam but since that distinction is also lost on the public, the Brotherhood defends Jihad. It does so usually in one of two ways, sometimes employing both deceptions. First, the Brotherhood claims that Jihad has little or no connection to violence and warfare (i.e. there is no “Holy War”), and is instead akin to various forms of inner struggle or self-improvement. Second, the Brotherhood suggests that Jihad is a form of “freedom fighting”, even comparing Jihad to the American Revolution. Lately, there has been a suggestion that Jihad should be replaced with the term “Hirabah” which, if successful, would represent a victory for the Brotherhood deception strategy.

What makes this unusual forthright statement defining Jihad as armed conflict relevant is that the scheduled IFE presentation will be given by Dr. Daud Abdullah, deputy director-general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), following revelations that he signed a statement of religious scholar, clerics, and senior Hamas leaders that called for a “third Jihadist front” centred on Gaza. Dr. Abdullah subsequently faced calls for his resignation by members of the UK government and it would seem that in defense of his participation in the statement calling for Jihad, the IFE has deviated from the usual denials that Jihad does not necessarily mean armed action. Instead, the focus would appear to be on the justification for that action.

Both the MCB and the IFE are tied to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

Somalia Operations – Lessons Learned

America’s brush with the recent surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia offers some valuable lessons – if we are prepared to learn from them. ....

The Energy Crisis is an Artificial One, Created by Bad Policies.

'Cap and Trade' would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American.

For the past 30 years, America has grown increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of energy, sending American dollars to countries that are hostile to American interests and leaving us vulnerable to wild fluctuations in energy prices

. ....

Captured Somali pirate to face trial in NY

The captured Somali pirate who held a merchant ship captain hostage will be brought to New York to face trial, a U.S. official said Thursday.

The suspect, identified as Abduhl Wal-i-Musi, was taken aboard a U.S. Navy ship shortly before Navy SEAL snipers killed the three remaining pirates holding Capt. Richard Phillips hostage on a lifeboat launched from his cargo vessel, the Maersk Alabama. ....

Obama consulted widely on interogation memos

(Compiler's note: A must read and carefully consider for yourself what has just been done to this nation.)

By MIKE ALLEN

White House senior adviser David Axelrod says President Barack Obama spent about a month pondering whether to release Bush-era memos about CIA interrogation techniques, and considered it “a weighty decision.”

“He thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely, because there were two principles at stake,” Axelrod said . “One is … the sanctity of covert operations … and keeping faith with the people who do them, and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency.”

The president consulted officials from the Justice Department, the CIA, the director of National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department, according to his adviser.

“It was a weighty decision,” Axelrod said. “As with so many issues, there are competing points of view that flow from very genuine interests and concerns that are to be respected. And then the president has to synthesize all of it and make a decision that’s in the broad national interest. He’s been thinking about this for four weeks, really.”

A former top official in the administration of President George W. Bush called the publication of the memos “unbelievable.”

“It's damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama's action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are,” the official said. “We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary. … Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again — even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake."

“I don't believe Obama would intentionally endanger the nation, so it must be that he thinks either 1. the previous administration, including the CIA professionals who have defended this program, is lying about its importance and effectiveness, or 2. he believes we are no longer really at war and no longer face the kind of grave threat to our national security this program has protected against.”

Obama did not act on an arbitrary timeline. There was a deadline in a court case with the ACLU on Thursday. It had been extended, but the ACLU was not going to agree to another.

US Lawmaker: Bring Back Private Pirate Hunters

A US lawmaker known for broadsides at US foreign policy says Somali piracy has an age-old solution: “Letters of marque” empowering private citizens to chase the seaborne scoundrels from the oceans. .... a handful of conservative theorists say it's time that the US Congress used the technique, pioneered by European powers in the 18th Century as a way to wage naval warfare on the cheap. ....

"I think if every potential pirate knew that this would be the case, they would have second thoughts, because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions," said the Texas lawmaker.

The US Constitution explicitly allows Congress to issue such letters, in effect giving private parties a license to fight hostile seaborne forces like pirates, in theory without fear of being branded pirates themselves. ....

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Janet Napolitano Over Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism Policy

(Compiler's note: This is a must read article. The Department of Homeland Security published a report last week warning that military veterans pose a threat to America. It is a sad commentary on our politically correct government that Muslim Arabs cannot be profiled as potential extremists while our own veterans are. Click here for additional editorial opinion.)

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of the political beliefs. Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “The Obama Administration1 has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

• Opposes restrictions on firearms
• Opposes lax immigration
• Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
• Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
• Opposes same-sex marriage
• Has paranoia of foreign regimes
• Fear of Communist regimes
• Opposes one world government
• Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
• Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
• . . . and the list goes on

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.

Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Georgetown University Hid Religious Symbols at White House Request

Georgetown University hides Christian inscription for president's address after White House requests all religious symbols, signs be removed from view.

CIA Employees Won't Be Tried for Waterboarding

Even as they exposed new details of the interrogation program, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, offered the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time

Click here for additional information

Former CIA Chief Hayden Criticizes Release of Memos Detailing Interrogation Techniques

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden says release of the memos will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.

Coast-to-coast tea parties put lawmakers on notice

Taxpayers descend upon politicians in numbers far beyond expectations ....

Navies to guard undersea cable from Somali pirates

NAIROBI, April 16 (Reuters) - Foreign navies have agreed to protect a vessel installing an undersea high-speed Internet cable from pirates off the coast of Somalia, a Kenyan minister said on Thursday. ....

'We want them registered'

.... The few guns left at crime scenes rarely - if ever - are registered to the perpetrator. If they are registered at all, it is to someone else, whose piece was stolen. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi might think, those who use guns to commit major crimes such as robbing and killing are unlikely to respect her request to file paperwork so the government can catalog the tools of their trade....

Shariah bankers: West ready for faith-based alternative

(Compiler's note: Ever heard the expression "Money Talks"? Search -- upper left-hand corner of this page -- "sharia" for additional information.

Why is it that Great Britain is now faced with Islamic extremism every where they turn? They have 12 Shariah courts, publicly-funded Shariah Islamic education, welfare benefits for up to four wives for every Muslim man, honor killings, children falling off school rosters and suspected of being forced into child marriages, raging domestic violence and spousal abuse, and "no-go" zones where even British police are afraid to enter for fear of Islamist violence.

Britain’s policy of “outreach” to the Islamic community has failed to accomplish what it hoped to accomplish. A critical aspect of this “outreach” has been Britain’s embrace of shariah finance. As Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared in 2006, London was going to be the Islamic Banking Capital of the World. Why? Money. And he got it.

At the June 13, 2006 Islamic Finance Trade Conference in London, Brown revealed,

"Today British banks are pioneering Islamic banking - London now has more banks supplying services under Islamic principles than any other Western financial centre."

Because so many top business leaders, university professors, government officials, and religious leaders in Great Britain have bought into the fiction that Shariah Banking is just a harmless religious requirement for Islamic investment, there are few there in positions of leadership left to fight against Shariah. The re-thinking of some of the British policy regarding the connection between Islamist doctrine and terrorism, can such a shift actually occur with Britain so beholden to Shariah finance and its money?

For those of you who have seen Joy Brighton's video about Shariah finance, you know that one of the leading "Shariah finance scholars" himself, Sheik Qawadari, describes Shariah Banking as "Jihad with Money." You know the story of what Shariah Banking is, its connection to the Shariah Law of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Taliban, and you know its creation as a tool of political Islam to control global economics is not being told.

You also know that Shariah is already here in the U.S., thanks to the acceptance of Shariah finance by institutions such as Citibank, HSBC, UBS and AIG, and the lack of oversight by the SEC and U.S. Treasury Department. As the headline in the Washington Times article below asks, is the West ready for this? Actually, the better question to ask is this: Does the West understand that the embrace of Shariah finance is the eventual embrace of brutal and oppressive Shariah law?)


By Simon Roughneen

SINGAPORE | Backers of Shariah-compliant finance see an opportunity for expansion amid the global economic downturn, and some Western banks are welcoming this growing source of new business.

"Islamic bankers should do some missionary work in the Western world to promote the concept of Shariah banking, for which many in the West are more than ready now," Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said at the World Islamic Economic Forum last month in Jakarta.

Such statements have given rise to fears that Shariah finance is a stalking horse for hidden political or religious aims. Shariah finance is an extension of Islamic law, pushing a faith-based alternative to Western banking.

Key Islamists who advise Shariah financial houses have called for full Shariah law to be adopted in Western countries and, in some cases, have made statements supporting terrorist groups.

Shariah finance means institutions and norms that fit with Islamic law. Fully compliant Islamic financial institutions are prohibited from interest payments and require transactions to be backed by tangible assets.

Speculation and hedge funds are off limits — ditto for anything connected to porn, gambling, alcohol or pork. Shariah finance targets Muslims who want to avoid what are deemed "un-Islamic" Western banks or financial practices, and appeals to clients' faith as well as their bottom line.

The practice has its detractors.

"A shift from present global economic practices [in which many Muslims participate] to Shariah-based practice" would mean "an unacceptable intrusion into Western culture," said Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.

Mr. Schwartz said the sector is arguably un-Islamic by contradicting the traditional Islamic teaching that "Muslims living in non-Muslim societies must accept the laws and customs of the countries to which they immigrate."

Depending on the measurements used, the Shariah finance sector manages assets of $700 billion to $800 billion, according to the Islamic Financial Services Board, an industry body. Standard and Poor's estimates that the sector could reach $4 trillion before long.

Shariah banks make up a small fraction of the global banking sector, and they may have suffered less than Western counterparts by being sheltered from the subprime crisis.

However, as Duncan McKenzie, director of economics at International Financial Services London (IFSL), told The Washington Times: "Islamic finance is one model but is by no means a panacea. The Islamic finance industry faces a number of challenges, including the need to standardize interpretation of Shariah law, harmonize tax and regulation of the industry, and develop the skills base."

Christopher Holton, vice president of the Center for Security Policy and director of its Shariah Risk Due Diligence Project, told The Times: "It is a myth that Islamic finance has provided a hedge against crisis. The FTSE Islamic Index has fallen 41 percent, and the all-world index 44 percent, similar losses over the past six months."

Shariah finance remains dominated by banking, but the sector is diversifying. A growing proportion — up to 20 percent according to some estimates — is taken up by sukuk, which is a Shariah-compliant bond issuance. Malaysia is a dominant base for this particular service. Bonds can play a key role in helping countries deal with the global economic crisis, but the global sukuk market has fallen for two years in a row, in step with the global downturn.

Despite the varying prohibitions, some Shariah banks find creative ways to make the equivalent of market interest rates by other means, such as by pegging debtor repayment rates to his or her future profits, or when a bank offers a "hibah," or gift to those who open an account — in essence a way of attracting new customers in lieu of interest accruals on savings.

Shariah finance likely will grow in coming years, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates being followed by Indonesia, Turkey, Singapore and some Western countries as viable locations for expansion.

The IFSL recently published a detailed report on the sector highlighting how "the U.K. is getting ahead of the game, in Europe at least, in facilitating this sector" — as noted by Emile Abu-Shakra, media relations manager at British bank Lloyds TSB.

Lloyds stole a march on the competition by greasing the wheels for Shariah-compliant bank-to-bank transactions, and now Britain has a bigger Shariah finance sector than Egypt or Pakistan.

In total, 22 financial institutions offer Shariah-compliant services in Britain, compared with nine in the United States. However the American financial sector is eager to source and provide new products — among them Shariah finance.

American International Group Inc.'s December pledge to bring Islamic home insurance to the United States was met with a written rebuke by Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican, and Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, who warned that opaque charitable transfers made by Shariah finance advisers could end up funding terrorists.

Mr. Holton said some Islamic financial institutions have been implicated directly in bankrolling terrorists. "From 1988 to 2001, when it was designated a terrorist entity by the United States and the United Nations, Bank al Taqwa [registered in the Bahamas] transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others," he said.

An elite cadre of scholars dominates the advisory boards of Shariah institutions, and these same thinkers are often called by Western institutions who want to develop Shariah-compliant products. However some, such as Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, are banned from entry into Britain and the United States for making statements supporting Islamist terrorism, while another, Mufti Taqi Usmani, who has advised the Wall Street Islamic index, has promoted extension of full Shariah law into Western countries.

Most troubling, perhaps, is the appearance of Bank Melli of Iran at the top of a listing of the world's top 500 Islamic financial institutions, published by the Banker in November 2008 and reproduced in the IFSC report. Bank Melli is under U.S. and EU sanctions for facilitating Tehran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah and funding Iran's uranium enrichment program. In total, Iran has six of the 10 biggest Shariah-compliant institutions and double the Shariah assets of any other country.

FEMA Releases Guide to Emergency Planning

by Mickey McCarter

Guide serves as resource for state, local govts. to create, enact plans

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Tuesday released a key comprehensive preparedness guide to fulfill a White House order to develop a national integrated planning system.

FEMA developed the preparedness guide, titled "Developing and Maintaining State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Government Emergency Plans," to satisfy a requirement under Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 8 to provide a basis for public and private sector emergency response planning.

FEMA published the guide to extend the Integrated Planning System (IPS) to state and local emergency planning. The guide walks state and local emergency planners through the process of developing a plan--from forming a planning team at the beginning of the process, through writing and maintaining a plan, to executing a completed plan.

"Over the past five years, many communities developed multi-hazard mitigation plans, addressing many of the same hazards as their emergency operations plan," the guide read. "In fact, the hazard identification and risk assessment sections of these plans should be the same (while mitigation plans are only required to address natural hazards, communities are encouraged to address man-made and technological hazards as well). Communities are encouraged to coordinate their mitigation and emergency management planning efforts to reduce duplication of effort."

The guide ties together the concepts from the National Preparedness Guidelines, National Incident Management System, National Response Framework, National Strategy for Information Sharing, and National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). It also makes use of recommendations from a 2005 Nationwide Plan Review.

A team of officials from state, local and tribal governments from around the United States developed the guide working with FEMA, the agency said. It is the first in a series of publications from the FEMA National Preparedness Directive's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) Initiative, which will produce future guides on special needs planning, emergency response for pets, interfacing fusion centers with emergency operations centers, and specific hazard situations.

Somali pirates vow to hunt down, kill Americans

MOMBASA, Kenya (AP) - Somali pirates vowed to hunt down American ships and kill their sailors and French forces detained 11 other brigands in a high-seas raid as tensions ratcheted up Wednesday off Africa's volatile eastern coast.

Pirates fired grenades and automatic weapons at an American freighter loaded with food aid but the ship escaped and was heading to Kenya under U.S. Navy guard.....