Top Takes on National Security - Is negotiating with an Islamist entity a good idea?

(Compiler's note: This is a must read article to prepare you for what you will observe next on the world stage.)

by Family Security Matters National Security Team

Alex Alexiev

So President Obama wants to reach out to "moderates" in the Taliban. Let's imagine for a moment that such exotic specimens actually existed and that we were able to find them and make a deal with them. What might they want from us in return for a cease fire? What they'd want is exactly what they recently got in Swat, a federal territory, where the Pakistani government recognized Taliban control of the territory and their right to impose shariah. In other words, Islamabad allowed them to accomplish what they had not been able to achieve by force of arms. Put another way, Islamabad implicitly sanctioned the Taliban's right to burn girls' schools on its sovereign territory.

But why be cynical? Surely somebody as well-intentioned as Mr. Obama should be able to find some moderate fanatics even among the Taliban - as long as he continues to speak softly and carries no stick.

- Alex Alexiev is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute Washington, D.C.

Sandra Carney

The naïveté and inexperience of this President are astounding and frightening!

He does not understand the fundamental difference between those in Iraq, brutal as they may have been and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are indoctrinated with the teachings of Mohammed. One cannot negotiate with religious fanatics.

The consequences for America's safety under this kind of leadership is bleak to say the very least!

- Sandra Carney is keenly interested in world events and fiercely protective of her adopted country, the U.S.A.

Lee Ellis

Islamic Terrorists have been trained from birth to regard negotiation as a form of weakness. They will use this time not for bargaining, but to size up their enemy's needs and plan an ambush that will hone in on those perceived weaknesses. America must always display strength; it is the only quality terrorists respect.

- Lee Ellis is a retired journalist, narrator, and formerly a Vice President with both CBS and Gannett (USA Weekend). He can be contacted at indiolee@dc.rr.com.

Paul Hollrah

Yes, negotiating with Islamist terrorists may be worth a try. Out here in Oklahoma we have a large number of people who have always insisted that it’s possible to negotiate with rattlesnakes. The idea is to simply kneel down in front of the snake, look him squarely in the eye, and say, "Now lookie here, snake! If we're gonna' occupy the same piece of real estate, we're gonna' have to open up a meaningful dialogue (I think that's the term liberals use)."

Actually, most of those people are now dead. Those who are not have noses very much like Bill Clinton's. But rattlesnakes and Islamists are not exactly the same breed of cat, so Obama should probably be encouraged to engage in a bit of personal diplomacy. When he doesn't return, we'll search for him... for a while.

- Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute.

M. Zuhdi Jasser

President Obama’s recent overture to the Taliban not only sends a dangerous message of appeasement to our sworn enemies, but it sends a lethal message of abandonment to all those who have suffered the oppression of the Taliban. He is effectively telling the Taliban that “we will work with you.” Is President Obama unable to see the evil that has been perpetrated against humanity over the years by these Islamists? How can a Presidential candidate who campaigned on a message of “change” turn around as President and completely abandon those who seek change away from the thugs and theocrats of the Taliban of Afghanistan?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Taliban can be trusted or serve as any type of viable “partner” in a negotiation of the future of Afghanistan and global security. They have in fact repeatedly proven to be sworn enemies of freedom and liberty. They will tell the Obama administration what it wants to hear in order to get American advocates for liberty out of Afghanistan and allow them to reestablish their Islamist oppressive regime in the region. Rather than empowering our anti-Islamist Muslim allies in the region who are already underfunded and outmatched, President Obama is giving our ideological allies the signal that the United States “would rather sit with your oppressors and get short term assurances of stability than sit with real agents of anti-Islamist change.” President Obama may yearn for quick solutions, but in so doing he places our long term global security in peril.

- M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist. He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org.

Jim Kouri, CPP

President Barack Obama – like most political people who never faced battle nor held a real job – is following the same pattern that led to September 11, 2001. His enthusiasm for discussion provides a sign to our enemies that the Obama Administration is weak. When his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that North Korea's pursuit of strategic nuclear weapons was 'unhelpful,' my reaction was “duh, ya think?” These people are amateurs playing at geopolitics, and our enemies know it.

- Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance.

Geoff Metcalf

"Negotiating" with extremists is epically myopic and counter intuitive. It never has , and never will, yield a benefit with extremists. Negotiating is a sign of weakness to an adversary who by definition will not compromise.

Embracing negotiation as policy in Afghanistan exceeds mere naïveté. It is a recipe for disaster...basic “scorpion and the frog” stuff.

- Geoff Metcalf, a former Green Beret and retired Army officer, is a nationally syndicated author and major market radio show host. E-mail Geoff at geoff@geoffmetcalf.com.

Adrian Morgan

A Suicidal Folly Not Worthy Of a President

Obama's suggestion to the NYT about seeking out "alienated" Islamists in Afghanistan is deeply worrying. Richard Holbrooke could never make such a venture successful. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan have never been known to compromise and should any Taliban try to talk to the West their life would be worth little. In Pakistan's tribal regions countless civilians have been beheaded by the Taliban, merely because of unfounded rumors that they "spied" for the US. A disaffected Islamist is still an Islamist, forever opposed to everything the West stands for. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, teachers are killed and schools continue to be blown up, merely because they educated girl children. The Taliban's Deobandi faith commands them to revile the rights of women and to impose brutal sharia laws (killing adulterers, or just any woman who wears make-up, beheading other women). If Obama wants to act like Neville Chamberlain, then he will cheapen the role of the U.S. presidency.

- Adrian Morgan is a British-based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He also writes for Spero News.

Maj. W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Negotiating with terrorists accomplishes five things, each of which favors the terrorists.

First, negotiations buy them time, and time is everything to a Jihadist. Second, arranged talks lend an air of legitimacy to the terrorists, which emboldens them and serves as an enabler of their recruiting efforts. Third, an expressed desire to negotiate with terrorists sends a message to all terrorists that suicide bombings and the deliberate targeting of non-combatants is an effective tool to achieve one's aims. Fourth, our reaching out to terrorists makes us appear weak and somewhat desperate in their eyes. Lastly, Jihadists deceive – in fact lie – to "infidels" as a matter of policy through the Islamic principle of al taqiyya which is justifiable according to their faith. So any attempt to negotiate with the bad guys only sets us up, whereas it is advantageous to them on every level.

- Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Joan Swirsky

It’s always a wise idea to leftists who, historically, have failed to learn that our enemies mean what they say when they threaten to annihilate us. As the Chinese now act provocatively toward the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea, Hugo Chávez steals an American oil company operating in Venezuela, an American is beheaded in Mexico and the Mexican drug wars invade the United States, Iran forges ahead with its nuclear-weapons program, North Korea rattles its nuclear sabers, emboldened terrorists murder 30 people in Baghdad with a car bomb, and Hamas fires rockets into Israel daily, President Obama extends a “negotiating” hand to the murderous, er “moderate,” Taliban, offers to give up American Missile Defense in exchange for Russia’s eternally unreliable “help” with Iran, makes overtures to terrorist-harboring Syria, offers over $20 million to Palestinians (read, Hamas) to migrate to the U.S., and suggests relaxing sanctions toward Communist Cuba, on and on and on. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad demands the U.S. apologize for 60 years of insults, Putin says yes to no missile defense but no to help with Iran, Chavez invites Obama to join the Socialist revolution, and, I imagine, the Taliban and Hamas, are – in Internet lingo – rolling on the floor laughing at the stupefying naïveté of the new American president.

- Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who can be contacted at joansharon@aol.com.

Jerome Corsi: U.S. Becoming a 'Dual Country'

By: Rick Pedraza

Jerome Corsi says he warned the nation about President Barack Obama’s socialist indoctrination when he wrote last year's New York Times best-selling book, “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.” Now, he fears, the U.S. is becoming a “dual country."

“I think it’s ongoing right now,” Corsi says. “We’re already becoming a dual country.”

The author, pundit and political scientist says that Obama is using open borders, economic integration, and the crises surrounding the financial meltdown to “advance the agenda of worldwide integration, economically on the way to political integration."

[Editor's Note: Watch Jerome Corsi discuss the coming dual nation - Go Here Now]

The goal is simple: “redistribution of income.” It’s a trait deeply rooted in Obama’s youth as a community organizer and follower of the late Chicago radical Saul Alinsky. Alinsky, Corsi says, advised radicals in the ‘60s “to cut their hair and run for office. Say whatever was necessary to get elected; listen to the grievances of the people so you can appear to be one of them.

“But when you got elected, the goal was to redistribute income,” Corsi adds. “It appears to be the only consistent theme in the early days of the Obama presidency.”

Corsi believes the U.S.A. under Obama could make an alliance with Mexico and Canada. It’s a theme he touched on in his book, “The Late, Great U.S.A.”

How will this happen? It is the intent of the Obama administration, Corsi says, to legalize the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. to make it "virtually impossible for any Republican to be elected president" again.

“President Obama said as much,” he notes. “He went on (Spanish language) Univision radio and told Spanish listeners that comprehensive immigration reform was going to be introduced by the Obama administration very soon.”

Corsi says Obama’s plan will include fast tracks set up for illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship under guest-worker programs, or “some other form of citizenship or entitlement they have by being here.

“I think the idea for Democrats on the left is that open borders imports an underclass which will vote Democratic for generations to come,” Corsi says of the administration's plan to nationalize illegal aliens. But Republicans, too, are responsible for the trend: their pro-business wing favors “cheap workers that can be used in the jobs that can’t be outsourced overseas,” Corsi says.

Corsi says the fact that 10 percent of Mexico’s population currently lives in the U.S. today is another sign of the U.S. becoming a dual country. He also notes there are 50 Mexican consulates in the U.S. to protect civil rights of Mexicans to live as Mexican national citizens, under Mexican law, within the United States.

Democrats also are seeking to gain control over the airwaves. Encouraging and promoting diversity and communication via media ownership is, essentially, accomplishing the same thing as bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Corsi argues.

“President Obama says he is not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, and that tends to put everybody asleep saying, ‘Oh, we’ve dodged a bullet,’” Corsi offers.

“But this whole idea of decentralizing radio stations -- where you would say that in any market area, no radio chain could have more than 10 percent of ownership of the radio stations -- this would be an attempt to attack syndication,” Corsi says of syndicated talk radio shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin.

“It’s an attempt to backdoor the breakup of conservative talk radio. And it will be a tragedy because commercial radio will suffer. If ‘Air America’ and Al Franken had been a commercial success, the Democrats wouldn’t need a government regulation in order to restrain the First Amendment," Corsi says..

“It’s a totally political move,” Corsi warns. “I don’t see the Democrats trying to restrain MSNBC from being totally in love with Barack Obama."

The Democrats, Corsi says, "can’t tolerate criticism. You’ve got a president with a thin skin who doesn’t like to be criticized – and he’s going to attack the First Amendment as a consequence.”

[Editor's Note: Watch Jerome Corsi discuss the coming dual nation - Go Here Now]

Drug smugglers using ultralights to cross border

TUCSON, Ariz. – Smugglers facing strengthened border defenses have turned to an old and risky tactic — using single-seat ultralight aircraft to fly marijuana loads into the country.

Officials know of at least three such attempts in recent months — all of which ended badly for the smugglers — but they don't know how many others have been made or whether any have been successful. ....

Congress halts Mexican trucks in U.S.

By Jerome R. Corsi

The $410 billion omnibus funding bill headed toward President Obama's desk for signing contains a carefully worded measure that would shut down the Bush administration demonstration project allowing 100 Mexican trucking companies to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S. in direct competition with American truckers.

The issue became rancorous over the past two years as Bush administration Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters fought off repeated efforts by Congress to confine Mexican trucks to a narrow 20-mile-wide commercial area north of the southern border.

In what appears to be a major victory for Teamster boss James Hoffa, the Obama administration worked closely with Senate Democrats, including Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to toughen up language of an amendment Dorgan successfully had inserted in the DOT fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill.

Keeping Mexican trucks south of the border appears to be a reward to organized labor for its support of Obama's presidential campaign last year.

The move comes as a blow to free trade advocates in the Republican Party that have pushed hard for new ways to open the Mexican border for increased opportunities between the two countries.

"The driving public is put at risk when trucks from Mexico that don't meet U.S. standards are allowed to roam our highways," Hoffa said in a statement. "The Mexican government has not held up their end of the bargain to meet U.S. standards."

Hoffa said Mexican trucks are "unsafe and Mexican drivers are not required to meet the same criteria that American drivers must meet to earn a commercial drivers license." Hoffa said.

"It's long past time to close the border to these unguided missiles," he said.

WND reported that after the truck project begun, an examination of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration database revealed hundreds of safety violations by Mexican long-haul rigs rolling on U.S. roads under the project.

Opponents of the project have contended that Mexican trucks and truck drivers do not reliably meet U.S. standards.

As WND reported, in a contentious Senate hearing last March, Dorgan in tight questioning got Peters to admit that Mexican drivers were being designated at the border as "proficient in English" even though they could explain U.S. traffic signs only in Spanish.

In the tense hearing, Dorgan accused Peters of being "arrogant" and recklessly disregarding a congressional vote to stop the Mexican project by taking funds away.

As WND reported, opposition in the House was led by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who in September 2007 accused the Bush administration of having a "stealth plan" to allow Mexican long-haul rigs on U.S. roads.

"This administration [of President George W. Bush] is hell-bent on opening our borders," DeFazio said, "but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks."

Previously, Peters had argued the wording of the Dorgan amendment did not prohibit the Transportation Department from stopping a Mexican truck project already underway, even if the measure prohibited DOT from starting any new project.

Despite strong congressional opposition, the Department of Transportation under President Bush had announced it planned in its final months to extend the truck project for another two years – an attempt to force the incoming Obama administration to comply.

The restrictions passed in the Omnibus Funding Bill will limit Mexican trucks to a 20-mile commercial zone north of the Mexican border, except in Arizona, where the limit is 75 miles.

'Deep concern' Obama ready to talk to Hamas

JERUSALEM – There is deep concern among Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization that the U.S. government has changed its attitude toward Hamas and may be ready to end the terrorist group's isolation, a senior PA negotiator told WND.

"Three years of the siege against Hamas is ending," said the PA negotiator, speaking from Ramallah on condition his name be withheld. "There is a new policy in the Obama administration regarding Hamas. We are concerned Hamas is starting to be a legitimate player in the equation of the Mideast and the PA." ....

Terrific: Tax-subsidized ACORN mob teams up with L.A. teachers

By Michelle Malkin

As if ACORN’s shakedown artists and thugs weren’t causing enough trouble, now they’re occupying public school board meeting rooms to prevent government educators from cutting costs, firing useless teachers, and dealing with financial realities.

This is now the second “civil disobedience” campaign waged by the entitlement-mongers.

Our Community Organizer-in-Chief, who spoke so voluminously yesterday about education reform, was unavailable for comment…

Heed Wilkerson's warning

(Compiler's note: I report, you decide regarding this must read article. Click on the title to read it all.)

by Janet Porter

When I was a kid, I read about David Wilkerson who took to Gospel to the gangs of New York. I even saw the movie "The Cross and the Switchblade" that was made about him. Many know about that, but most don't know what happened in his church just eight years ago.

In the fall of 2001, Pastor David Wilkerson, of Times Square Church in New York City, was warned by God that a calamity was coming. For six weeks they felt an intense burden and enormous heaviness. A critical need for intercession was so profound that Pastor Wilkerson canceled everything on the church calendar – mission's conferences, youth events and every guest speaker.

For six weeks, there wasn't a sermon. Instead, there was intercession for our nation with weeping and repentance. They knew something was coming and that something was bad. And that something was soon. So they prayed. And prayed … and prayed.

Then Wilkerson felt God telling him something that seemed rather bizarre. He felt God telling him to make sandwiches – lots of sandwiches. What were they for? Who would eat them? That part wasn't clear, but his church did what they believed God was telling them anyway.

And on the 10th of September they stayed up all night making hundreds and hundreds of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. By morning they had about 2,000 sandwiches. At 8:46 a.m. the first plane hit the World Trade Center and Times Square Church was ready to feed and minister to rescue workers and victims of our nation's worst attack.

Making sandwiches all night is a strange thing to do. If someone told me to stay up all night making sandwiches, I'd probably tell them they were crazy. But if David Wilkerson says he's heard something from God today, I think we'd be crazy not to listen.

He now says he feels the same thing he felt leading up to the attack by radical Islam. In an "URGENT MESSAGE" dated March 7, 2009, Wilkerson said:

AN EARTH-SHATTERING CALAMITY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IT IS GOING TO BE SO FRIGHTENING, WE ARE ALL GOING TO TREMBLE – EVEN THE GODLIEST AMONG US.

.... First, I give you a practical word I received for my own direction. If possible lay in store a 30-day supply of non-perishable food, toiletries and other essentials. In major cities, grocery stores are emptied in an hour at the sign of an impending disaster.....

New center revives North America agenda

(Compiler's note: A must read item)
By Jerome R. Corsi

Arizona State University has created a new trilateral research center to advance the continuing globalist agenda to integrate the United States, Mexico and Canada into a North American configuration.

The North American Center for Transborder Studies, or NACTS, makes clear that while North American integration advocates may have backed off promoting the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America as their vehicle to create a North American Union, the globalist effort to integrate North America economically and politically continues under different names.

NACTS Director Rick Van Schoik held a press conference Feb. 10 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to appeal directly to President Obama to utilize his first foreign presidential trip, to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, "to strengthen U.S. partnerships with its neighbors on challenges ranging from border security and environmental protection."

Prominent among members of the NACTS Board of Advisors is Robert A. Pastor, who for more than a decade has called for the creation of a North American Community, which would include a central bank to manage a new currency, the amero, to replace the dollar.

In the July/August 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, Pastor wrote an article entitled "The Future of North America," in which he declared that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, is "dead" in wake of exposure from sources such as WND and CNN's Lou Dobbs.

Get "The Late Great USA" on DVD! Jerome Corsi explains the premeditated merger plan for the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Reference to the SPP appears nowhere in NACTS documents.

At the National Press Club, Schoik unveiled a new 28-page document entitled, "North America Next: A Report to President Obama on Building Sustainable Security and Competitiveness."

In the first of a series of eight recommendations to Obama, NACTS recommended an expansion of the Merida Initiative.

WND has reported on the Merida Initiative under which the U.S. Congress, at the strong urging of the Bush administration, allocated last December a total of $197 million of the $500 million authorized, under a $1.6 billion program.

The Merida Initiative aimed to provide U.S. military assistance in the form of training and equipment to the Mexican military to help it contain the drug cartels.

NACTS second recommendation was to "energize and expand the North American Trilateral Leaders' Summit" to provide "solutions to needs throughout North America."

Under this recommendation, NACTS neglected to address whether or not the Obama administration should continue or discontinue the operation of some 30 trilateral bureaucratic working groups organized under SPP to "integrate and harmonize" U.S. laws and regulations into North American laws and regulations across a wide range of policy issues, including border security, transportation, health, energy and the environment.

NACTS recommended the creation of a "revolving fund for infrastructures in North America" in which the three nations would pool resources to "maximize the competitiveness benefit vis-à-vis Asia and Europe and jump-start our collective economic engine."

WND reported in July 2006 that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, withdrew legislation to create a North American Investment Fund Act – a similar idea to the NACT proposal for an infrastructures fund – after WND pointed out the legislation would have put into place a key piece of Pastor's plan to create a North American Community.

In his 2001 book "Toward a North American Community," Pastor argued a North American Development Fund would advance the "North American integration" needed to produce the union as a super-regional government according to the model of the European Union.

Pastor was vice chairman of a May 2005 task force report by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Building a North American Community." Creating a North American Investment Fund was also a key recommendation of the CFR task force report.

The NACTS report also recommended the creation of an "effective trade and transportation plan with Canada and Mexico" as well as creating a common border crossing permit with a "single window" electronic form, a joint customs team and common U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian booths to prevent duplicative border procedures and expedite crossings.

NACTS also recommended creating a North American Greenhouse Gas Exchange to facilitate the type of "cap-and-trade" step toward a global tax the Obama administration has recommended.

This recommendation confirms NACTS has embraced global warming alarmism, as has the Obama administration, despite what WND reports is continued scientific debate on whether or not human emissions of greenhouse gases cause global warming and the new fear of "climate chaos" that recent unusually cold winters have caused anti-carbon fuel advocates to substitute as their new banner.

NACTS' "North America Next" document repeatedly argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has been responsible for massive continental job creation.

"Almost 40 million jobs were created n Canada, the U.S. and Mexico between 1993 and 2007, and today," the executive summary notes, without pointing out that the U.S. trade balances with both Mexico and Canada have become negative under NAFTA.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Statistics, in 1993, the year President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, the U.S. enjoyed a nearly $1.7 billion favorable balance of trade with Mexico, exporting approximately $41.6 billion and importing approximately $39.9 billion.

By 2008, the trade balance had reversed, such that the U.S. had a negative $64.4 billion trade balance in Mexico's favor, after the U.S. exported approximately $151.5 billion to Mexico and imported $215.9 billion.

With Canada, the U.S. in 1993 already had a $10.7 billion negative trade balance, which had expanded to a $74.2 billion negative by the end of last year.

What these data would suggest is that the net new jobs created under NAFTA in North America are likely being created in Mexico and Canada, not in the U.S.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. manufacturing sector has lost approximately 4 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, nearly 25 percent of the total manufacturing workforce.

Partner universities for the ASU North American Center for Transborder Studies include four Mexican universities and two in Canada.

Also included on the trilateral Board of Advisors is Stephen Blank, co-director of the North American Transportation Competitiveness Research Council.

Blank has been the driving force behind the North America Works II conference held in Kansas City, Mo., Dec. 1-2, 2006. The meeting was organized by the David Rockefeller-created Council of the Americas to discuss "North American competitiveness" and the SPP.

Pastor and Blank are joined on the NACTS board by fellow North American Forum on Integration, or NAFI, board member Christine Frechette, the founding president and executive director of NAFI.

As WND has reported, NAFI conducts an annual "North American Model Parliament" in which 100 university students from the U.S., Canada and Mexico participate in an exercise in which they simulate a North American parliamentary meeting in which the students role-play North American legislators, lobbyists and journalists.

American University continues to list Pastor as on sabbatical, but the university media relations office told WND he has returned.

The NACTS Board of Advisor lists Pastor as the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C.

Yet, WND reported last year that Pastor explained in an e-mail that he had stepped down as vice president of International Affairs at American University and as director of the Center for North American Studies in the Office of International Affairs, a program he had headed since he began at American University in 2002.

Last year, WND also confirmed that American University President Neil Kerwin had decided to shut down Pastor's Office of International affairs.

The university media relations office told WND in a phone call that there is no current phone number for the Office of International Affairs.

The number the university media relations gave WND as the phone number for the Center for North American Studies was answered as "The Elders."

WND has reported that Pastor had begun working with The Elders, a conflict-resolution group of world figures, including Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter.

A WND e-mail to The Elders asking to determine Pastor's relation with group went unanswered.

A WND phone call to Pastor was also not immediately returned.

Libya Frustrated by Payback for Abolishing WMD Programs

Libyan officials have complained recently that the United States has not delivered benefits promised for Tripoli's 2003 decision to abandon its WMD programs, the New York Times reported today.

The North African nation agreed to end chemical weapon and nuclear activities, and surrendered uranium enrichment centrifuges and other equipment and materials to the United States. In return, Libyan officials have said they expected to receive more tangible benefits than they have seen.

"[Former U.S. President George W.] Bush responded well about his appreciation and said Libya should be an example to the world, but that’s not enough -- that’s not what they talked about,” said Khaled Bazelya, of Libya’s National Economic Development Board. “You give something, you expect something in return; that’s the Arab way. The expectation here is very high, but the West is not responding. We need a quicker response.”

In particular, Libya would like access to civilian nuclear technology, conventional weapons and support for destroying its chemical stockpile....

"Chemical Ali" Sentenced for 1992 Killings

by Sinan Salaheddin

The former Iraqi official best known as "Chemical Ali" received a 15-year prison sentence today for abetting the 1992 execution of 42 people over alleged business abuses, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 2).

Ali Hassan al-Majid has already received three death sentences, including one for his role in the massacre of tens of thousands of ethnic Iraqi Kurds under the government of his cousin Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s. The former defense minister ordered the use of chemical weapons in the campaign.

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz also received a 15-year jail term in connection with the killings of the merchants, while death sentences were handed to two of Hussein's half-brothers: former Interior Minister Watban Ibrahim al-Hassan and one-time public security chief Sabawi Ibrahim.

Three additional co-defendants received respective prison sentences of life, 15 years and six years. The Iraqi court acquitted a single defendant due to a lack of evidence.

Concerns Persist on North Korean Uranium Enrichment, U.S. Says

There are persistent concerns within the U.S. intelligence community that North Korea is seeking to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said yesterday.

Pyongyang is known to have produced enough plutonium to fuel several bombs, but in public it has consistently denied conducting uranium operations. The Bush administration's allegation on North Korean enrichment led to the collapse of the 1994 Agreed Framework, the Clinton-era deal intended to shutter the regime's nuclear weapons activities.

"Prior to [North Korea's October 2006 nuclear test] we assessed that North Korea produced enough plutonium for at least half a dozen nuclear weapons," Blair said in presenting the U.S. intelligence community's annual threat assessment to lawmakers. ....

Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

By Bob Unruh

A lawyer

lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications

to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

While the requests have been heard "in conference" by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

No explanations on the court's response to the Obama citizenship issue have been offered until now.

Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood "right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them."

She said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

"I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama's stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks," she said. "I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama's strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

"He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four," she said.

She then bought Scalia's book and waited in line to get it autographed.

"I gave him the books to sign and asked, 'Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate.' He said, 'Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others.'"

Taitz' latest effort is a case of Quo Warranto submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

The plaintiffs allege Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before Jan. 20, 2009.

"Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'"

Taitz said Americans should flood Holder's office with calls, e-mails and faxes, urging him to take action on the case.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.


• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.


• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.


• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.


• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.


• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  
  
• In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  
  
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

Biden warns of 'deteriorating' Afghan situation

BRUSSELS (AP) - U.S. Vice President Joe Biden urged NATO members Tuesday to jointly confront al-Qaida and other extremist groups in Afghanistan where he said instability threatens all of the alliance's members equally.

Biden told the allies the United States was open to talks with Taliban moderates as part of a new approach, echoing comments made by President Barack Obama over the weekend.

"It is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state," Biden said.....

American Mysteries Revealed

from Strategy Page

March 10, 2009: The United States finds itself facing the same pattern of terrorism against civilians in Afghanistan, as it had to deal with in Iraq. The Taliban, like the Sunni Arab terrorists in central Iraq, have sought to control the population (and prevent them from giving information on Taliban operations to the police or foreign troops) by threatening the locals, and their tribal leaders. As in Iraq, the threats don't always work. The Taliban then escalate to kidnapping and murdering local leaders. This eventually caused the Iraqi Sunni Arab civilians to organize themselves for defense, and formally unite with the government and foreign forces.

To make this work in Afghanistan, the foreign troops, or the government, has to organize, and in some cases arm, the civilians. There are some special problems, however. The tribal situations are different in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the more urban areas. Afghanistan is mostly rural, with lots of villages, many in isolated valleys. People are very vulnerable to a large (a hundred or so armed men) group of Taliban. To the average Afghan, these guys are foreigners. In general, Afghans don't like foreigners, especially armed foreigners making threats. As the poorest country in Asia, with the shortest lifespan (44 years), Afghans don't like to take chances. If they see no way of dealing with the Taliban (or some local warlord, or drug gang), they will hunker down and make the best of it.

The Afghan government is a bunch of foreigners as far as most Afghans are concerned. If government people come by and say, "we're the government and we're here to help you," the locals will be skeptical. U.S. Special Forces have long known that the only way to develop any kind of useful relationship with these rural Afghans is to be friendly and make yourself useful. Thus when Special Forces operate in an area, they impress the locals by speaking their language, and always bringing gifts. Medical care is very popular, since most Afghans never get a taste of modern medical care. Each Special Forces team has two medics, who know lots of medical procedures, and have plenty of medicines, that can cure a lot of ailments found among rural Afghans. The Special Forces has long since passed this wisdom on to regular combat units.

While an infantry company commander rarely speaks Dari or Puhsto (the two most common languages in Afghanistan), they know to bring medics, medicine and other gifts when making the rounds of the villages. Like the Special Forces, the infantry officers sit and drink tea with the village elders, establishing a relationship. Even if this only results in the elders saying that they are terrorized by the Taliban and cannot cooperate with the Americans (but thanks for patching up a bunch of us and leaving all the gifts), it helps establish a connection that can eventually prove useful. However, even this will often bring down the wrath of the Taliban, who consider American gifts (even medicines, food or gadgets) "sinful" and requiring that the Afghans who accepted them be punished.

What the American tactics strive to do is convince the villagers that, while the Americans are foreigners, they are the less dangerous and more useful foreigners, especially compared to the Taliban. While this sounds like a swell tactic, if often gets messed up by tribal politics. The Taliban often have some local guys who are members. They have a local agenda (more power, land or getting a wife from some powerful family), and make the most of the Taliban reinforcements (who may be recruited from clans or tribes in the province, or be men from Pakistan, or farther afield.) Villagers are sensitive to the fact that, while the Americans may be more generous, and dangerous in a fight, they will not be around as long as the local Taliban. So the Americans have to make a convincing case that the Taliban will be taken care of (killed or hauled away to some distant jail.) This is why the U.S. wants to hand out weapons to some villagers, so they have a chance of holding off the Taliban.

As cell phone service spreads, the U.S. can give out prepaid cell phones, just as they earlier gave out pre-paid satellite phones. The U.S. can get reinforcements to any part of Afghanistan quickly. This does wonders in getting villagers to provide information on who the Taliban are, and what they are up to.

Many NATO officers don't understand the U.S. tactics, because they've never seen this sort of thing before. But the U.S. has been operating this way for centuries. The U.S. Army Special Forces codified it all and became specialists in this sort of thing back in the 1950s. It works, even if you've never seen it before.

Time running out for US troops in violent Mosul

(Compiler's note: Any bets as to where this is headed as a result of our pre-published actions?)

By LARA JAKES

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) - Grenades lie unattended next to a west Mosul bazaar. Garbage bags throughout the city are searched daily for bombs. At a sprawling sheep market, Iraqi army soldiers are careful not to kick over rocks for fear of setting off hidden explosives.

War has ebbed in most parts of Iraq, but not in Mosul, the third-largest city and al-Qaida's last stronghold in the fragile new democracy. And time is running out on the around-the-clock U.S. military patrols of Mosul. U.S. troops must vacate cities by June 30 under an agreement with the Iraqis, and President Barack Obama is ending all American combat operations after August 2010.

The Iraqi security forces are not sure they'll be ready.

"If you don't have the Americans, this is not going to be good," said an Iraqi army captain who gave his name only as Ahmed to protect his family from insurgents. "I cannot take care of it."

Even so, "some people don't like coalition forces here," Ahmed added as his soldiers joined U.S. troops at the sheep market in west Mosul last week. "Iraqi people will come together, and it will be better."

Whether they will be safe in Mosul is anyone's guess.

In poverty-stricken Mosul, a Sunni-dominated city of about 2 million where the unemployment rate has risen even higher than the many trash piles, the U.S. military has long fought to contain al-Qaida from resurging in the rest of Iraq.

Still, al-Qaida is only one of the military's worries.

On Monday, gunmen opened fire on a checkpoint in the western New Mosul neighborhood, killing two policemen and wounding one civilian.

Explosives are part of the daily cacophony in Mosul; the U.S. Army reported six bombs either found or detonated in the city last Thursday and Friday, one of which wounded an Iraqi soldier. Iraqi security forces themselves pose a threat: three American soldiers have been killed in Mosul since November by gunmen wearing Iraqi army or police uniforms.

The problems in Mosul "can put us off track and cause violence to really re-ignite in a greater way," Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, the No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq, told reporters Monday.

But the military's main military focus in Mosul is al-Qaida, where efforts to obliterate the terror group and other Sunni militants have failed over the years.

Only recently have additional troops and intelligence gatherers from both the U.S. and Iraqi governments been sent to the capital city of Ninevah province, about 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, to keep al-Qaida from spreading. About 5,000 U.S. troops and 36,000 Iraqi army and police officers currently are stationed in Mosul.

It was also only recently that U.S. officials recognized al-Qaida's ability to survive after repeated military assaults, said Lt. Col. Tom Cipolla, a 1st Calvary Division battalion commander stationed at the U.S. Army's Marez base just outside Mosul.

"I'm not sure we really understood the level of the problem here early on," Cipolla said in an interview last week. "And I'm not sure we really understood how embedded al-Qaida was becoming. ... Al-Qaida in Iraq has proved to be a very resourceful enemy, capable of regenerating at a time when we thought it didn't have that capability."

Cipolla took his post three weeks ago after his predecessor, Lt. Col. Gary Derby, was killed Feb. 5 by a suicide car bomber. "I think we understand now that it is a fight that doesn't stop. It is part of the environment here that will have to be dealt with for a very long time."

Much of the renewed assault on al-Qaida has focused on finding out where the militants are in Mosul and where they will strike next - a task the U.S. is trying to hand off to Iraqis.

In the New Mosul neighborhood, Iraqi security forces have painted their telephone numbers on building walls. Walking the streets and getting to know the community also are part of the Iraqi plan to persuade residents to call with tips about insurgents or other suspicious activity.

Iraqi army Col. Aydan al-Jibouri, Mosul's deputy command, said the number of tips has risen by at least 50 percent over the last 10 months. It's a risk for Sunnis especially, since the majority of Mosul's insurgents likely come from the same tribes.

But since most security forces in the city are from other areas in Iraq, some locals said they feel comfortable talking to officials who can't easily identify them.

"We see the national police help us," said Nabil Ali Fawzi, wearing a black fez and standing on his doorstep last week. "We see any problems in our area, we call the national police."

A few minutes later, gunfire broke out several alleys away, spooking troops and sending residents back inside their homes. The shooters, whether threatening or merely firing celebratory rounds, were never found.

Neither were the attackers who lobbed a pair of rusty Russian-made grenades on top of an Iraqi army observation post in the city's Nablus section a few days earlier. When the grenades didn't explode, the Iraqi soldiers merely threw them back down on the street, where they lay next to a local bazaar for two days until a platoon of U.S. soldiers safely detonated them at the Iraqis' request.

The grenades incident made clear that despite ongoing training and advising by U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces are nowhere near to securing Mosul by themselves. It is not uncommon, for example, for as many as two-thirds of Iraqi soldiers or policemen to be on leave from their jobs and return home at any given time since very few of them are from Mosul.

How long the U.S. will stay in the Mosul fight is unknown - even to U.S. military officials.

By the end of June, U.S. combat troops are supposed to vacate bases inside Mosul and other Iraqi cities. Although they will continue to patrol the streets from camps outside the cities, troops will no longer be living among the civilian population - a tactic that proved effective in reducing violence in Baghdad.

Under a Jan. 1 security agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave the country by the end of 2011 - including the roughly 50,000 who will be left behind after the combat troops withdraw next year. Unless the Iraqis ask for continued help, that date is nonnegotiable, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. David Perkins said Monday.

"There's no intent, nor will there be any fudging of the agreement," Perkins told reporters at a Baghdad news conference when asked about Mosul's security situation.

Cipolla thinks Iraq will ask U.S. combat forces to stay as long as al-Qaida remains a threat in Mosul. By nearly all accounts, that will take years.

"I have a hard time believing anybody will make a decision to scale back the efforts before it's actually the right time to do so, because everybody understands how dangerous al-Qaida has been in the past," Cipolla said. "Nobody wants to go back to that."

Warren Buffett: Economy Has 'Fallen Off a Cliff'

from FoxNews

Billionaire Warren Buffett said the economy has "fallen off a cliff" over the past six months and consumers have changed their habits in remarkable ways.

Buffett said Monday during a live appearance on CNBC that current economic turmoil has basically followed the worst-case scenario he envisioned.

"It's fallen off a cliff," Buffett said. "Not only has the economy slowed down a lot, but people have really changed their habits like I haven't seen."

Buffett said the changes are reflected in the results of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s subsidiaries. He said Berkshire's jewelry companies have suffered, but more people have been willing to switch to Geico to save money on car insurance.

He predicted that unemployment will likely climb a lot higher before the recession is done, but he also reiterated his optimistic long-term view: "Everything will be all right. We do have the greatest economic machine that's ever been created."

Fear and confusion have been driving consumer and investor behavior in recent months, Buffett said.

The nation's leaders need to clear up the confusion before anyone will become more confident, and he said all 535 members of Congress should stop the partisan bickering about solutions.

Buffett said he believes patriotic Republicans and Democrats will realize the nation is engaged in an economic war.

"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.

A little over a week ago, Buffett released his annual letter to shareholders describing the worst of his 44 years at the helm of Berkshire. The Omaha, Neb.-based company reported sharply lower profit because of its largely unrealized $7.5 billion investment and derivative losses.

Overall, Berkshire's 2008 profit of $4.99 billion, or $3,224 per Class A share, was down 62 percent from $13.21 billion, or $8,548 per share, in 2007.

Berkshire's fourth-quarter numbers were even worse. Buffett's company reported net income of $117 million, or $76 per share, down 96 percent from $2.95 billion, or $1,904 per share, a year earlier.

Buffett said he doesn't regret writing an editorial last fall encouraging people to buy U.S. stocks, but he joked that in hindsight he wishes he'd waited a few months to publish the piece. Since that editorial appeared on Oct. 17, the Dow Jones industrial average has fallen from 8,852.22 to close at 6,626.94 on Friday.

Buffett stands by his overall advice that over time owning stocks will be better than so-called safe investments.

"Overall, equities are going to do far better than U.S. government bonds at these prices," he said.

Buffett said he doesn't regret investing $8 billion of Berkshire's money in investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and conglomerate General Electric Co. last fall. Both companies gave Berkshire preferred shares paying 10 percent interest that Buffett said he doesn't think he could get now.

Berkshire owns a diverse mix of more than 60 companies, including insurance, furniture, carpet, jewelry, restaurants and utility businesses. And it has major investments in such companies as Wells Fargo & Co. and Coca-Cola Co.

Saudi court sentences 75-year-old woman to lashes

By MAGGIE MICHAEL

CAIRO (AP) - A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom's ultraconservative religious police and judiciary.

The woman's lawyer told The Associated Press on Monday that he would appeal the verdict against Khamisa Sawadi, who is Syrian but was married to a Saudi. The attorney, Abdel Rahman al-Lahem, said the verdict issued March 3 also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence.

He said his client, who is not serving her sentence yet, was not speaking with the media, and he declined to provide more details about the case.

The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.

Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.

The court said it based its ruling on "citizen information" and testimony from al-Anzi's father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.

"Because she said she doesn't have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed," the court verdict read.

Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam prohibits men and women who are not immediate relatives from mingling. It also bars women from driving, and the playing of music, dancing and many movies also are a concern for hard-liners who believe they violate religious and moral values.

Complaints from Saudis have been growing that the religious police and courts are overstepping their broad mandate and interfering in people's lives, and critics lambasted the handling of Sawadi's case.

"How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion?" Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a physician who also is a columnist for Al-Watan, wrote Monday. "A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests."

Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

Sawadi commonly asked her neighbors for help after her husband died, said journalist Bandar al-Ammar, who reported the story for Al-Watan. In a recent article, he wrote that he felt the need to report the case "so everybody knows to what degree we have reached."

The woman's conviction came a few weeks after King Abdullah fired the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing owners of TV networks that broadcast "immoral content." The move was seen as part of an effort to weaken the hard-line Sunni Muslim establishment.

The Patriot Act isn’t broken

(Compiler's note: This is certainly a must read article.)

By Nathan A. Sales

Remember when the USA Patriot Act was seen as a common-sense counterterrorism tool? Congress enacted the law shortly after the 9/11 attacks by large bipartisan majorities. It wasn't even close.

And for good reason: The Patriot Act made relatively modest changes to the law as it stood on Sept. 11, 2001. The act simply let terrorist- and spy-hunters use some of the same tools regular cops have had in their arsenal for decades. And it updated existing laws to make them more effective against terrorist threats.

As President Obama forges new security policies, let's hope he keeps the Patriot Act intact. The act works. According to the Justice Department, the Patriot Act helped take down Al Qaeda cells in Buffalo, N.Y. and Portland, Ore. Prosecutors used it to convict a Floridian who pled guilty to raising money for a terrorist group called Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And The act led to the conviction of a man who threatened to torch a Texas mosque.

Despite those successes, the act has become a civil libertarian bugaboo. We've all heard how the act poses a dire threat to liberty and privacy. Federal agents can search your house without ever telling you. The feds can force the phone company to reveal whom you've been calling, and they can rummage through library records to find out what books you've been reading. They can even brand you a terrorist and throw you in jail if you get in an argument with a flight attendant.

The daily reality is much less dramatic – and much less frightening.

Let's start with the flight attendants. It's been illegal to interfere with airline crews since JFK was president. The Patriot Act made it a crime to attempt or conspire to do what the law already barred.

The basic idea behind the change is prevention. We shouldn't have to wait for a passenger to take a crew member's life before we throw the book at him. We should be able to prosecute the steps he takes along the way – ignoring an order to return to his seat, pulling a box cutter from his pocket, and so on.

The Patriot Act's "sneak and peek" authority is also pretty long in the tooth. For decades, federal courts recognized special circumstances in which police may hold off on notifying a suspect that they've searched his house.

As the Supreme Court stressed in 1967, immediate notice could "provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence." The Patriot act merely codified these judicial decisions and adopted a uniform, nationwide standard.

Police still need a warrant before conducting a search, and they can't decide to delay notice by themselves. On both counts, a judge has to give the go ahead first. Plus, cops ordinarily have to tell the suspect about the search within 30 days.

Then there's the much-maligned "libraries" provision. In garden-variety criminal cases, grand juries are able to subpoena all kinds of documents from banks, phone companies, gas stations, and other businesses. The Patriot Act established a similar tool for terrorism investigations. And the terrorism rules are actually more protective of civil liberties.

Federal prosecutors can issue grand jury subpoenas basically unilaterally, but the Patriot Act requires the FBI to get a court order first. Also, the act expressly protects First Amendment rights – a topic about which the grand jury rules are conspicuously silent.

It's true that the Patriot Act conceivably could be applied to libraries and bookstores. But that's a lot less alarming than it might sound. Grand juries issued subpoenas to a half-dozen libraries in the Unabomber investigation. And a grand jury in New York demanded library records during the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation. If subpoenas are good enough for domestic criminals, they ought to be good enough for foreign terrorists.

That's not to say The Patriot Act is perfect. As with any law, there's always a risk of abuse.

In March 2007, an internal Justice Department audit found that the FBI had misused its power under the Patriot Act to gain access to terrorism suspects' telephone records. And newspapers have reported that relatively minor in-flight disturbances have led to passengers facing federal charges of interfering with flight crew. Abuses like these are not to be taken lightly.

But the solution is not to neuter the Patriot Act. The act remains a vital weapon in the struggle against global terrorism.

Perhaps the best way to ensure that the act remains faithful to fundamental American values is to insist on greater transparency and oversight: More hearings on Capitol Hill; more audits; and, above all, more disclosures to the public.

Policymakers in the new administration and in Congress – and ordinary Americans like us – should keep tabs on counterterrorism agents to see that they don't abuse the powers they've been given. But we also need to make sure agents keep the tools they need to get the job done. Al Qaeda hasn't given up and neither should we.

Nathan A. Sales is a law professor at George Mason University. He previously served at the Department of Justice (where he helped write the Patriot Act) and the Department of Homeland Security.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Yadlin: 'Iran crossed nuclear tech threshold'

(Compiler's note: Must read)

By HERB KEINON

In a chilling indication that Iran's arms program is advancing steadily, Israel acknowledged for the first time that Teheran had mastered the technology to make a nuclear bomb on the same day that the Iranians announced they

Publish Post

had successfully tested a new air-to-surface missile.

Yadlin: Iran has crossed the technological nuclear threshold

Iran has "crossed the technological threshold," and its attainment of nuclear military capability is now a matter of "incorporating the goal of producing an atomic bomb into its strategy," OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet on Sunday.

"Iran is continuing to amass hundreds of kilograms of low-enriched uranium, and it hopes to exploit the dialogue with the West and Washington to advance toward the production of an atomic bomb," he said.

Yadlin said the Islamic republic hoped to use the expected dialogue with the Obama administration to buy time to procure the amount of high-enriched uranium needed to build a bomb.

RELATED

• 'Israel seriously considering Iran military op'
• Analysis: How much time is left?

"Iran's plan for the continuation of its nuclear program while simultaneously holding talks with the new administration in Washington is being received with caution in the Middle East," the intelligence chief said. "The moderates are worried that this approach will come at their expense and will be used by the radical axis to continue to carry out terror activities and rearm. In contrast, those in the radical axis are saying that despite the change in the Americans' stance, they will continue to act against them."

Yadlin's assessment brought him into line with a similar assessment made last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Teheran had enough fissile material to build a bomb now.

But in an indication of just how subjective the question of Iran's progress toward a bomb has become, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates took issue with Mullen, saying the Iranians were not "close to a weapon at this point."

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency also said last week that it had been mistaken in earlier reports and now had evidence that Iran had enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

Yadlin's rather dramatic statement was not made in public, but was part of the security briefing he gave at Sunday's cabinet meeting. One government official said that the point of releasing the information now seemed to be to impress upon the international community the urgency of the matter.

"He wanted to ring the alarm bells, to make it clear that everyone understood that Iran was continuing with its enrichment," the official said.

The official pointed out that Yadlin had used the phrase "mastered the technology" in regards to Iran, not that it had reached a "point of no return."

Israel made a decision a few years ago not to talk anymore about a "point of no return," since that implied that Iran could not be stopped - an impression the Iranians were keen on making, but which Israel did not want to play into, the official said.

Even though the Iranians have apparently mastered the technology for creating a nuclear weapon, it has still not done so and is probably still a couple of years away from that, he said. Consequently, Teheran could still be stopped.

The Iranians were clearly overcoming certain technological issues, and it was a matter of time before they would be able to enrich the uranium needed for a weapon, the official said.

"The idea behind Yadlin's statement was to shake people up, to show that the Iranians were still making progress," the official speculated.

Two weeks ago, Iran's nuclear chief, Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, announced that 6,000 centrifuges were now operating at the enrichment facility in Natanz. He said Teheran hoped to install more than 50,000 centrifuges there over the next five years.

With the amount of centrifuges it is using in the enrichment process, Iran could add about 100 kg. of uranium to its stockpile each month, or even more, considering that it is setting up additional ready-to-go centrifuges every day.

Even 100 kg. would give it an estimated low-enriched uranium stockpile of just over 1,100 kg. - the minimum experts believe is required to yield the 25 kg. of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium needed to build a bomb. But unless the Iranians have a nuclear facility that is completely hidden from the world's view, the international community would know when Teheran began to create the high-grade uranium needed for a nuclear weapon, because it would have to kick the IAEA inspectors out of the country to do so.

Reuters, meanwhile, quoted Iran's Fars News Agency on Sunday as saying the Islamic republic had test-fired a new air-to-surface missile, in the country's latest display of military power. According to the report, the missile - produced domestically and with a range of 110 km. - was designed for use by military aircraft against naval targets.

"Now these jet fighters have acquired a new capability in confronting threats," Reuters quoted the semi-official news agency as saying.

The missile has a far shorter range than the surface-to-surface Shihab and is believed to be meant to disrupt sea traffic in the strategic Straits of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's oil must travel.