Posts Tagged ‘Terrorists’

h1

IBD: Miranda Wrongs

January 25, 2010

Miranda Wrongs

IBD: 25 Jan 2010

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair says just because the new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group failed to swing into action in the...Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair says just because the new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group failed to swing into action in the… View Enlarged Image

Homeland Security: For months, our new “High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group” has supposedly been on call. Why was it AWOL before the Christmas Day bomber was improperly read his right to remain silent?

The White House is against Bush administration-style enhanced interrogation. But is it so dominated by the quasi-constitutional mind-set of the American Civil Liberties Union that it’s really against any kind of interrogation?

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week that “we should have automatically deployed” the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), set up by President Obama last year, against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian is the suspected al-Qaida agent who allegedly tried to blow up a U.S. jet with nearly 300 passengers aboard on Dec. 25.

Read the rest of this entry ?

Advertisements
h1

CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders

January 25, 2010

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS:


Senator’s call to profile angers ‘Muslim Mafia’


CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders to explain


Posted: January 23, 2010

By Art Moore


WorldNetDaily


Sen. James Inhofe, R, Okla., at hearing Thursday

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma chapter is calling on Sen. James Inhofe, R.-Okla., to meet with Muslim leaders to discuss his statement during a congressional hearing in favor of using religion and ethnicity as factors in profiling airline passengers.

“It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects,” said CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. “Our nation’s leaders have a duty not to exacerbate the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in American society.”


Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Cartoon: Terrorist Miranda Rights

August 3, 2009

h1

China Riots Signal Democratic Deficit

July 8, 2009

REMEMBER THE GUYS OBAMA SENT TO BERMUDA? They were UIGHUR (terrorists?) who want to open a restaurant!

China Riots Signal Democratic Deficit

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 8 July 2009

Democracy: Riots exploded in China’s western Xinjiang province this week, in what authorities alternatively call criminal acts or global terrorism. In reality, it’s neither: it’s the pent-up fury of people who live without freedom.


Related Topics: East Asia & Pacific


Sunday’s riot in Urumqi, where ethnic Uighurs battled Chinese police, ended with 159 dead, 1,000 injured and 1,400 arrested, according to official sources. Unofficially, the death toll has been estimated as high as 400.

International response has been muted, but shouldn’t be. The scale of deaths and the increasing frequency of such upheavals across the country raises red flags about China’s prized “stability.”

It’s curious, but places that justify repression in the name of stability always seem to end in turmoil. Official Chinese sources offer two explanations, each containing a bit of truth, but all skirting the real issue, which is China’s growing need for democratic accountability.

Uighur women protest China’s detention of 1,400 men in Urumqi on Tuesday after Sunday’s riot. Uighurs also held sympathy protests globally.Uighur women protest China’s detention of 1,400 men in Urumqi on Tuesday after Sunday’s riot. Uighurs also held sympathy protests globally.

State media claimed the riots were a law-enforcement matter, describing Uighur ruffians coming armed and ready to rumble at last weekend’s demonstration in Urumqi. But that doesn’t quite work.

China’s other version of events contradicts the law-enforcement thesis and called it essentially the work of outside agitators.

The riots were also said to be an orchestrated effort from abroad to break up the country with terrorism. One official version holds that Uighur rioters are al-Qaida-inspired troublemakers.

There’s some truth to this, given rising Islamic fundamentalism in Xinjiang. Other versions insist the unrest was masterminded from America by exile leader Rebiya Khadeer, a 62-year-old businesswoman who leads the Uighur National Congress. Khadeer denies this, and it’s impossible to see how much influence she has, anyway.

All these explanations ignore that these riots and demonstrations are getting bigger, more frequent, and more lethal.

They’re not just in Urumqi, but in Lhasa, Tibet, and in China’s central industrial cities, with some sources estimating them at 80,000 per year now.

That signals this isn’t about the extremes of crime or terrorism, but rather the absence of democracy and accountability.

China remains a communist country, with most freedoms absent. Citizens cannot express themselves to government, or even get their attention through civil means. Writing a letter to a congressman and getting a result is out of the question in China.

Redress for grievances doesn’t happen, and booting corrupt officials is out of the question. For minorities, it’s especially tough: “Uighurs get two choices: They are terrorists if they voice concerns or else good Uighurs if they assimilate,” said Alim Seytoff, spokesman for the World Uighur Congress in Washington.

That leaves the only outlet for pent-up anger in demonstrations and riots. It’s human nature, and likely to grow unless Beijing gets serious about giving citizens a voice.

The democratic deficit is growing increasingly obvious as China’s cities — even remote Urumqi — grow more prosperous and Internet communication, including Facebook and Twitter, expand.

Xinjiang is remote, but it’s no backwater. It’s part of China’s economic success story, with its vast oil and mineral resources.

All that economic prosperity logically leads to one place: Democracy. Right now, what’s happening in Urumqi is a hunger for freedom.

h1

The Jihad Cash Spigot

June 24, 2009

IBD 24 June 09

Homeland Security: Recognizing that money is the mother’s milk of terrorism, the U.S. cracked down on charitable fronts after 9/11. The new administration thinks it went too far.

In fact, it’s hinting at loosening restrictions, a move that threatens to reopen the financial pipeline between several Muslim charities and overseas terrorists that Treasury shut off after 9/11. Left-wing activists, meanwhile, are helping convince the public the charities deserve a second chance.

On the heels of President Obama’s Cairo speech, in which he suggested relaxing Treasury anti-terror “rules,” the ACLU published a well-timed report slamming those very rules.

It makes a point of noting throughout the thick report that Treasury policies “developed under the Bush administration” are undercutting Obama’s mission to reach out to Muslim countries. What’s more, they’re denying American Muslims the “right” to make donations to Islamic charities.

“U.S. terrorism financing laws and policies developed under the Bush administration are inhibiting American Muslims’ ability to freely and fully practice their religion,” the ACLU says, noting that “zakat,” or Muslim charitable giving, is a pillar of Islam.

The New York Times gave the report currency with a sympathetic story: “ACLU Report Says Anti-Terror Fight Undercuts Liberty of Muslim Donors.” It highlighted Obama’s pledge in Cairo to work “with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”

“In the United States,” the president explained, “rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligations.”

First, there are no “rules” barring Muslims from giving to charity, as he suggests. There are laws against giving material support to terrorists, and those laws were first enacted under the Clinton administration. They’ve also made it harder for jihadists to fulfill their own perverted religious obligation to murder Westerners. If it weren’t for Treasury’s crackdown on charitable fronts, they’d still be siphoning off donations for terrorist attacks.

Material-support laws have become a sore subject for Muslim groups and their allies like the ACLU because the vast majority of terror is carried out by Muslim groups — with Muslim money.

Second, the president and the ACLU imply that the right to give donations in the name of zakat is absolute. It’s not. And nothing is stopping Muslims from giving donations to legitimate charities — Muslim or non-Muslim — or through their mosques to fulfill their religious obligation.

The ACLU whines that its choices are limited now that nine major U.S. Muslim charities have been shut down. In each case, however, evidence that the charities funneled money to al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups was overwhelming.

The ACLU argues that “only one” was actually convicted. True, but it was the largest Muslim charity in America, and it funneled more than $12 million to terrorists. The Holy Land Foundation and its leaders were convicted on all 108 counts. Top leaders recently got life sentences.

Never mind that. The ACLU demands Treasury unfreeze all the Muslim charity assets it’s frozen, including Holy Land’s assets. It also wants the Justice Department to expunge the names of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim front groups from its unindicted co-conspirator list. ACLU says CAIR was “smeared,” ignoring the dozens of court exhibits linking CAIR to the radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

The ACLU’s real agenda is revealed in the section of the 165-page report where it recommends “reforms.” Turns out it also wants to deny the government key anti-terror tools, such as blacklisting individuals and groups as “specially designated global terrorists.”

Other goals: purging the FBI terror watch list; passing the End Racial Profiling Act drafted by Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, with help from CAIR; demanding an end to FBI raids of charities and undercover operations at mosques.

The ACLU, moreover, proposes giving charities advance notice of investigations to provide them “the opportunity to cure any issues.” Or shred documents, as Holy Land executives did. They also stored incriminating papers at off-site locations and swept their offices for FBI bugs.

The real purpose of the ACLU and its report is to dismantle, piece by piece, the terror-fighting infrastructure erected after 9/11 to protect the nation. It’s no coincidence that the flow of terrorism slowed after we choked off the flow of money and other activities.

Reopening the spigot now may win points with Muslim leaders like CAIR and placate the civil-liberties crowd.

But it’s a suicide wish.

Our Comments-

-It looks like the ACLU has been captured by Islamic radicals

-Obama’s administration doesn’t Think!


h1

Miranda Rights to Terrorists

June 19, 2009

Obama is Not the Reason War is Overlawyered

Michael Barone | IBD 17 June 09

It shouldn’t come as a complete surprise that detainees in Afghanistan are now being advised of their Miranda rights by American interrogators — that they have a right to be silent, a right to a lawyer, a right to have that lawyer paid for, etc.

This is, after all, a logical extension of Bush administration critics’ insistence that such detainees — though unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions — must be given every jot and tittle of the rights civilian Americans enjoy on American soil.

It’s nonetheless news, if only because Barack Obama on the campaign trail said that “of course” they would not get Miranda warnings. Now, “of course” seems to have been subordinated to the higher principle of “yes, we can.”

This is in line with the Obama administration’s “global justice initiative,” which elevates the role of the FBI and the Justice Department in global anti-terrorism operations.

In its pursuit of the future, the administration is going back to 1990s policies of treating terrorism as a matter of solely criminal law and not seeking to go on the offensive against those who hate our civilization and want to do us great harm.

But this is not just a matter of one administration changing the policies of its predecessor. The extension of Miranda rights is also a symptom of two larger maladies that threaten to harm the body public.

The first of these resides in the culture of military law. The Miranda rights story is based on the eyewitness testimony of Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, who actually saw such rights being administered in Afghanistan.

But Rogers has said he witnessed this as early as last July, when George W. Bush was still president, though the practice seems far more widespread now. We can’t blame it all on Obama.

Some of the blame belongs to our plethora of military lawyers. Jack Goldsmith, in his book “The Terror Presidency,” which was marketed as a critique of the Bush administration in which Goldsmith served, also lamented our “over-lawyered war.”

Never in the history of the United States,” he wrote, “had lawyers had such extraordinary influence over war policy as they did after 9/11. There are, he pointed out, 10,000 lawyers in the Pentagon. That’s probably not something Franklin Roosevelt had in mind when he ordered it built in 1942.

From what I can gather, military lawyers are less inclined to tell our military personnel what they can do than to tell them what they can’t. Even routine military initiatives must be approved by lawyers.

… they seem inclined, …to a maximalist interpretation of detainee rights.
This was a problem before Obama’s liberals entered the Justice Department, and it will be one after they leave.

The other problem is what I call the sloppy over-generosity of the American people. Except when aroused and alert, we have a tendency to be fat, dumb and happy, and to want to spread that happiness around.

So, hey, let’s give these detainees more rights than they’re entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. It’ll make us feel generous, and maybe it will make them like us.

The problem with such an attitude, which is not limited to the left end of the political spectrum, is that the Geneva Conventions are not strengthened but rather are undermined by extending their protections to people who are not entitled to them.

Geneva treats unlawful combatants — those not in uniform or in an organized military force — worse than it does uniformed soldiers because it seeks to establish a clear dividing line between soldiers and civilians, to give limited rights to the former and to protect the latter. If you shield unlawful combatants from interrogation, you create an incentive for others to fight unlawfully and so are creating greater risks for civilians.

Of course, as Obama said, it is ridiculous to administer Miranda warnings to unlawful combatant detainees in Afghanistan. And it seems obvious that if we revert to treating terrorism as a matter for primarily criminal law, we risk opening ourselves to another Sept. 11-type attack,… the problem is our military establishment and ourselves.

h1

Gitmo Terrorists moved to BERMUDA!

June 16, 2009

comment: GITMOre Terrorists out of Gitmo. T

A Fast One On An Ally

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Diplomacy: Should the U.S. scrap its special relationship with the U.K. to fulfill an ill-considered campaign vow? That’s the trade-off the Obama administration made by secretly foisting terrorists onto Bermuda. It’s wrong.


Read More: Europe & Central Asia


The British Foreign Office had a right to be angry at the U.S. transfer of four Uighur terrorists from Guantanamo detention to the U.K. colony of Bermuda without its knowledge.

After all, Britain is a sovereign state and, like any nation, has a right to know who’s on its territory. Instead, it got treated like some banana republic. It didn’t learn of the move until after the four Gitmo detainees were set to land on the island.

Britain is our top ally, having a long-term “special relationship” that has been carefully built over 200 years. Seen in this context, the U.S. move is unprecedented and will likely cost the U.S. more than just Britain’s trust.

Any nation pondering an alliance with the U.S. will think twice after seeing how the U.S. treats its best allies when it’s in a pinch.

The root of this pickle is the Obama administration’s ill-considered campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo detention camp, in a bid to win far-left voters unconcerned about terrorism.

If not for that promise, there’d be no such pickle. The president could make an honest reassessment of the promise in light of the absent alternatives but hasn’t.

Instead, he’s now strong-arming an ally against its own interests, something sure to create resentment.

The four Uighurs now sampling the good life on Bermuda are wanted back in China for terrorism. Britain will now get heat from China — and possibly retribution — for a problem it didn’t cause.

No doubt, an angry China could reduce its cooperation with the West in the global war on terror. As China sizes up the West’s tough words about fighting terrorism, it sees a spectacle of Uighurs living high on the hog in “free” cottages, splashing around in blue Bermuda waters, savoring butter-pecan ice cream, going bowling, talking of opening a restaurant and looking forward to their new British passports. It’s the wrong message to send to other terrorists.

Obama’s creation of this situation shows considerable contempt for Britain, and seems part of an escalating pattern of slights.

It started around the time a State Department official said there was no special relationship with Britain, and Britain was just one of 180 nations the U.S. has relations with — a view which, by the way, was first propounded publicly in 2006 by a State Department official now accused of being a Cuban spy.

It then spread to insults directed at Prime Minister Gordon Brown, everything from not holding a joint press conference during Brown’s visit to the U.S., to a cheap and useless range of personal gifts. Foisting terrorists onto Britain takes it to a whole new level.

Sure the Obama administration says it’s just trying to shut down Gitmo and has justified its failure to inform the Brits as an effort to protect them from China’s wrath. Well, it hasn’t.

And as far as diplomatic moves go, it wasn’t worth it if the result is that the Britons will question whether they can ever trust us again.

It’s far more likely to raise bells of recognition that Obama seems willing to throw an ally over the side for political advantage at home.

After all, during his campaign, Obama sent an adviser to secretly assure the Canadians he didn’t mean it when he blasted Canada over free trade in public. Instead of affirming Canada’s long-standing friendly ties with the U.S., he used our closest hemispheric ally as a whipping boy. The Canadians didn’t put up with this and made sure that word of double-dealing got out.

It’s likely the British will get wise to this pattern of slights rooted in selfish political expediency and ask if it’s worth it to have this alliance. They’ll ask if America really wants a special alliance with Britain, and adjust their calculations accordingly.

What do you bet that they SUE us?