The Candidate Who Can See the Enemy, Can Defeat It

The Candidate Who Can See the Enemy, Can Defeat It

by Walid Phares

Posted: 02/01/2008

The post 9/11 era has changed the rules of engagement for national security experts and for those who can read the mind of the Jihadists, when it comes to US Presidential elections. While the principle was that the counter Terrorism community should let the voters chose their candidates and select their chief executive first, then offer the expert advice to the President later, unfortunately for that principle, things have changed.Indeed, since the attacks against New York and Washington and the engagement of the nation in the war with Jihadism since 2001, the selection of the US President can fundamentally affect the survival of the American People. Who would occupy the White House in 2009 will have to make decisions for four to eight years with cataclysmic consequences on the physical security and the freedom of 300 million citizens in this country and eventually on the free world as a whole: For the leader of the most powerful democracy in the world has to be able to know who the enemy is so that all resources are put into action. Short of this ability to be very clear and precise on the nature of the danger and the processes to address it, a next US President could cause a major disaster to this nation. American voters cannot afford to install a man or a woman who can’t identify and define the enemy. If you can’t see that enemy, you simply cannot defeat it.

In the 2004 Presidential election, the real choice was not between Parties and socio economic platforms. It was between the option of resuming the war against what was called then “Terrorism,” and the option of retreating from the confrontation. Everything else was decoration. Americans were agonizing on the direction to adopt before their numerical majority resettled President Bush in the White House. Some argued that Americans do not change Presidents during a War. I think that the country was influenced by the two afore mentioned directions and chose one over the other; but at the same time I do think though that an overwhelming majority of voters wasn’t fully informed as to the real stakes. Less than half of the country was told that the war in Iraq was wrong, and that there was no war on terror, and more than half of the country was not even told who the enemy was or what it really wanted.

The 2004 Presidential elections took place in quasi popular ignorance. The sitting — and fighting — President was reelected by basic instincts not by enlightened citizens, which if compared to the opposing agenda were a sophisticated choice.

In 2008, America is quite different and the outlook of the forthcoming confrontation is by far more dramatic. US forces are still deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Jihadists — of all types, regimes and organizations — are still committed to reverse democracy in these two countries. The war there is not over rather the greater challenges are yet to begin. Al Qaeda got beaten badly in the Sunni Triangle and in Somalia but a younger generation of Jihadists is being put into battle across the region. Not one single Sunni country will escape the rise of Salafi Terror in the next US Presidential term. Iran’s regime is speeding up its strategic armament, testing American resolve when possible; Syria is surviving its isolation and bleeding our allies in Iraq and Lebanon; Hezbollah is about to seize Lebanon; Hamas has seized Gaza; Turkey’s Islamists are reversing secularism; and Pakistan’s Jihadists are eying the nuclear missiles. But worse, three generations of Jihadists have penetrated the social and defense layers of Western Europe and the United States. In few years from now, the next President may have to witness European cities burned by urban warfare in his (or her) first term, and could be forced to arm the doom day devices for the first time in this century by the following Presidential term. These images from a not so distant future may become the reality to face the leaders we will select in the primaries and the one who will be sitting in the oval office next January. The prospects are really serious. Thus the choice of the best candidate at Party and national levels is not a matter of routine or a regular exercise of US politics.

Never as before Americans must scrutinize the agendas of their candidates and find out which platform is the best suited for what is to come, who among them can face off with the lethal enemy, shield the economy, manages the daily lives while building the vital coalitions the world has ever needed? Who can withstand the pressure, understand the nature of the enemy and bring into the decision making posts the men and women who can win the conflict. And it is from a simple reading of these platforms — as posted and published — as well as from the public speeches of the candidates that anyone among us can shop around for the best suitable of the candidates. At this point of US and world history, Party, gender, race, and social class affiliations only can’t offer the right choice for the forthcoming Presidential election. At the end it is a personal selection act for each citizen. In democracies and certainly in the United States this year one can make many choices and select the appropriate candidates:

1. Decide to withdraw unilaterally from the war and let the next generation struggle with the consequences
2. Think that if we mind our business as a nation the world as it exist today will simply comply.
3. Commit to continue the confrontation by maintaining the status quo and awaiting for things to get better by themselves
4. Engage the enemy deeper, smarter and wider and end the war faster.

All depends on how we were educated about the conflict and what is it that we consider priorities in our lives. If we were misinformed about the events that have bled this country and will bring the world into dramatic times, before they recede, we would vote for the candidates who sees no threat to America and who practice politics as if Peace is secure. But if we know where we are in the world we’re living in, we’d look at survival first before we argue about everything else. I am among those who believe — and see — that this country (and other democracies) are marked for aggression and Terror. All our concerns about economy, social justice, cultural harmony, wealth, and technological advancement are dramatically pending on the ability of the rising menace to crumble this country’s national security and all what would collapse with that fall.

Probably I am among the few who see the clouds gathering around the globe and thus have been urging leaders to act fast, decisively and early on to avoid the future Jihad –that has began already. Had what I see wasn’t there I would be fully excited — like any citizen — to argue forcefully about the crucial matters of our existence: health, environment, nutrition, scientific discoveries, animal protection, and why not space exploration. Had I not realized that all that debate was hinging on what Bin laden and Ahmedinijad were preparing, I would have been looking at a whole different roaster of Presidential candidates. But that is not the world I see ahead of us, in the immediate future.

Hence, I’ll leave the debate about the best economic and technological directions to their experts and I would postpone the social and philosophical dreams to better times. Right now and right here I am interested in who among the candidates can simply understand the tragic equation we’re in and may be able to use the resources of this nation to cross the bridge ahead of us. President Bush was elected before 9/11 neither on the grounds of avoiding the Jihadi wars nor winning them. Very few even knew that we were already at war. He was reelected on the ground of being a better choice than the defeatist political alternative. This year I suggest that Americans deserve a more daring choice. They need to see and certify that the next occupant of the White House lives on this Planet, at this age, knows that we are at war and above all knows which war we are fighting. The margin of error is too slim to allow hesitations.

By 2012 the Jihadists may recruit one million suicide bombers and could align two nuclear powers. By 2016 they would deploy 10 million suicide bombers and seize five regimes equipped with the final weapon. In the next eight years NATO’s European membership could be battling urban intifadas and US task forces lacking shelters worldwide. To avoid these prospects of apocalypse the offices on Pennsylvania Avenue must catch up with the lost opportunities as of next winter.

Thus, and unlike traditional commentators in classical US politics I am not looking at who said what and who flipped flopped when. Frankly, it doesn’t matter at this stage if it is a he or a she, of this or other race, of this or other church, and if the President is single, has a large family or has divorced twice. The stakes are much higher than the sweet but irrelevant American usual personality debate. I want to know if the candidates are strong willed, smart, educated about the world, informed about the threat, can define it, can identify it, can fight it, are not duped by their bureaucracy, cannot be influenced by foreign regimes, have the right advisors, can run an economy while commanding a war and still see the threats as they handle daily crisis and take drastic measures as the hard times are approaching. I want to know if the candidates are very specific when they inform their public about the menace. Yes, it is indeed a vital function of national security that we need to insure for the next few years, so that all other issues can be addressed thoroughly. In short I don’t want to see the fall of Constantinople being repeated on these shores in the next decade or two. Humanity will not recover from such a disaster.

And that potential hyper drama hinges on the mind and the nerves of the next President of this country. At this stage three men and a woman, all remarkable politicians, are the finalists (or so it seems) for the ultimate job. Their skills are rich, their past and present are colorful, their images are attractive to many and the dreams they inspire are equally powerful: A minority symbol, a successful woman, a war hero and a bright entrepreneur. If there was no Jihadi menace, meaning a different Planet, I would hardly be able to choose. Senator Obama would be an amazing choice to end the wounds of the past. Senator Clinton, as a woman, would break the gender taboo. Senator McCain, as a man who suffered for his country would epitomize the faithfulness of this nation. Governor Romney, the family man and the successful businessman can be the symbol of a hopeful America. As beautiful as these tales can be, my search for the best choice is not as dreamful as the descriptions the candidates inspire, unfortunately. I am looking at the scariest item on any Presidential agenda and check out if they are conscious about it: national security. Here is what I found so far.

Senators Obama and Clinton, unlike their colleagues Edwards and Kucinich (before they quit the race) acknowledge that a “war on terror” is on. Both have pledged to pursue al Qaeda relentlessly instead of blaming their country as their mates have stated. Also, Obama and Clinton, to the surprise of their critics have enlisted good counter terrorism experts as advisors. But from there on, the findings gets darker. The Senator from Illinois wants to end the campaign in Iraq abruptly, which would lead to the crumbling of the democratic experiment and a chain of disasters from Afghanistan to Lebanon opening the path for a Khomeinist Jihadi empire accessing the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean: Too many sufferings and devastating results. Obama’s campaign need to radically transform its agenda on world view so that the voices of the oppressed peoples in that part of the world, can be heard. Maybe a trip to Darfur and Beirut can help rethinking his agenda. Unfortunately the latest news from the campaign isn’t encouraging. The Senator wants to shake the hands of Dictator Assad, authoritarian Chavez, apocalyptic Ahmedinijad and perhaps even the Khartoum bullies of Sudan’s Africans. No need for further evidence: such an agenda in the next White House is anathema to the sense of human history.

Senator Clinton has a powerful political machine and happens to have enlisted top national security experts in her team. She will commit to stand by Israel and would not visit the oppressors of women in Tehran. But beyond these two red lines her foreign policy agenda (despite the knowledgeable expertise available to her) is (using ironically the words of Obama in other fields) “a bridge back to the twentieth century.” Indeed, the plan is to withdraw from Iraq without defeating the Jihadists, without containing the Iranians and without solidifying Democracy. It is an asphalted path to the Obama pull out, with some decorations and consolation prizes. A retreat from the Middle East will be paved with fabulous commitment not to let Israel down. A commitment which would lose its teeth, once the Pasdarans will be marching through Iraq and Syria and would install Armageddon’s Shahhab missiles in the hands of Hezbollah. On the Senator’s agenda there is no definition of the enemy or commitment to contain it, reverse it or defeat it. There are no policies of solidarity with oppressed peoples and there is no alliance with the democratic forces of the region. Mrs Clinton won’t befriend Ahmedinijad but it would let him — and other Islamists — crush her own gender across the continents.

But more important perhaps, from an American perspective would the crisis to expect in Homeland Security if one or the other agendas advanced by the two Senators would enter the White House. If no drastic reforms would take place within their projected policies of non confrontation of Jihadism, an army of experts, activists and lobbyists is expected to invade all levels of national security and reinstall the pre 9/11 attitudes. In short Jihadophilia would prevail, even without the knowledge or the consent of that future White House. It already happened in the 1990s and led to what we know. The reading of political genomes has no margin for error. The electoral platforms of the two Senators are enemy-definition-free. Not identifying the enemy is equal to not defining the threat. Thus, and unless the good advisors rush to fill that gap before the national election, Democratic voters will lack their chance to bring in a solid defender of the nation.

On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are struggling with a different choice, nonetheless as challenging and with long term consequences. Aside from Congressman’s Paul isolationist program which calls for striking deals with bloody dictatorships, disengaging from any containment of Jihadi threats, abandoning peoples in jeopardy, and giving free ride to penetration and infiltration within the US homeland (all clearly and unequivocally stated in the open); aside from this anomalistic agenda, all other platforms had a minimum baggage of resistance to Terror forces, each one with a different rhetoric.

McCain, Romney, Huckabee, as well as Giuliani and Thompson (before they pulled out) were all ready to engage battle with “the” enemy, pursue the so-called War on Terror and agreed on fighting al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their agendas attempted to define the threat, leaping ahead of their competitors on the other side of the aisle. Their statements and posted documents are irrefutable evidence that if they gain the White House there would neither surrender the country to domestic infiltration nor they would disengage from the confrontation overseas. On this ground alone, and unless the Democratic contenders and their final nominee change their counter Terrorism approach (which is not that likely), the final choice American voters will have to make — on national security — will be dramatically different and irreversibly full of consequences.

But at this stage of the primaries the grand choices seems to have to be made by Republicans. Indeed, in what I consider the single most important ingredient in the War with Jihadism, the identification of the threat is at the heart of the success or the failure. All four leading Republican candidates were equal in fingering what they perceived as the enemy: They called it “radical Islam” and gave it different attributes, “Islamo-fascism,” “extremist Islamism,” “Islamic terrorism,” and other similar descriptions. In that regard they are at the opposite end of their Democratic contenders. But in my analysis, after more than 25 years of study and observations of the phenomenon, and seven years after 9/11, the term “radical Islam” is not enough when a US President (or other world leaders) wants to define the danger and build strategies against it: Without delving into the deeper layers of academic research (at least not in this article), the term used outside a doctrine is too general, doesn’t pin down the actual forces acting against democracies and can be easily overturned and manipulated by skilled operatives in the War of ideas. So, the slogan of “Radical Islam” could be a linguistic indicator to the direction from where the menace is coming from, but falls short of catching the actual threat doctrine: Jihadism. Hence in my judgment those candidates who take the ideological battle lightly are not equipped as those who have done their homework fully and offered the voters, and perhaps the public, a comprehensive doctrine on counter Jihadism.

We’re not dealing with semantics here, but with keys to unlock the stagnation in the current conflict. Short of having a future President who knows exactly who the enemy is, how does it think, and how to defeat it, the conflict cannot be won. There can be no guesses, no broad drawings, no general directions, no colorful slogans, and no good intentions alone. This next President has to understand the Jihadist ideology by himself (herself as well) and not rely on advisors to place descriptions in the speeches, and change them at the wish of lobbyists. This nuance in understanding the threat and in articulating the rhetoric has gigantic consequences. All strategies related to fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, in Iraq and within the West, and related to containing Khomeinist power in the region and beyond emanates from a US understanding of their ideologies, key elements of the foes global strategies. Hence when I examine the agendas of the Republican candidates and analyze their speeches I look at indicators showing the comprehension of the bigger picture. All four leaders, McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee have developed common instincts as to where it is coming from; but that is not enough. Americans need to see and know that their future President can man sophisticated rhetoric, is ready to go on the offensive, and move against the enemy before the latter jumps at American and allies targets. Being just tough and willing to strike back heavily is not anymore an acceptable threshold. We need the next President to be aware of what the other side is preparing, preempt it and do it faster than any predecessor. The next stage in this war is not about sitting in the trenches and increasing the level of troops wherever we currently are. It will be about moving swiftly and sometimes stealthily and reaching the production structure of the enemy. And to do this, our projected leaders need to identify and define the threat doctrine and design a counter doctrine, a matter the US Government has failed to achieve in the first seven years of the war.

The two leading contenders on the Republican side, McCain and Romney, both recognize that there is an enemy, are committed to defeat it, but identify it in different intensities. Senator McCain says it is “Radical Islam,” and pledges to increase the current level of involvement. On Iraq, the former Navy Pilot says he will continue to fight till there are no more enemies to fight. To me that is a trenches battlefield: We’ll pound them till they have no more trenches. Governor Romney says the enemy is Global Jihadism, and it has more than the one battlefield of Iraq. And because the Jihadists are in control of regimes, interests and omnipresent in the region and worldwide, the US counter strategies cannot and should not be limited to “entrenchment” but to counter attacks, preemptive moves and putting allies forces on the existing and new battlefields. Besides not all confrontations have to be militarily. The difference in wording between the general term “radical Islam” and the focused threat doctrine “Jihadism” says it all. One leads to concentrate one type of power in one place, regardless of what the enemy is and wants to do, and the other concept lead to pinch the foe from many places on multiple levels and decide over the ending process of the conflict.

I am sure Senator McCain can follow the same reasoning and catch up with the geopolitics of the enemy but so far Governor Romney has readied himself better in the realm of strategizing the defeat this enemy. The next stage of the war has to do with a mind battle with the Jihadists. The latter aren’t a just a bunch of Barbarians set to bloodshed. They have a very advanced strategy, projecting for decades, and they are ready to confront our next President and defeat the United States. This is why I have come to the conclusion that -based on what was provided to the public by the four leading candidates- Governor Romney has the capacity of managing the counter strategies against the Jihadists, only because he stated to the public that he sees the enemy as to who they are. And if a President can see them, he can defeat them. His Republican contender, now leading the polls, can sense them but haven’t shown them. The leading candidates on the other side are making progress in the opposite direction: One wants to end the War unilaterally and the other wants to make Peace with the oppressors. In short, if elected, Romney will try to destroy the mother ship, McCain will supply the trenches, Clinton will pull the troops back to the barracks and Obama will visit the foes’ bunkers.

Hence, as is, I have recommended Governor Romney for the Republican Primaries as first among equals while considering Senator McCain as a genuine leader. If Romney is selected I believe America may have a chance to try new strategies. If his contender is selected, we will have four or eight more years of the past seven years. On the other side, I have suggested to counter-Terrorism experts to help Democratic candidates restructure their agendas on national security in line with the reality of the enemy: For I would like to see both Parties presenting a united vision of the threat while differing on how to confront it. That would be the ideal situation America can be in and a response to the deepest will of the American public.

(PS: This analysis represents my personal views and not the views or position of any of the NGOs I am affiliated with.)

---

Dr Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America, of The war of Ideas: Jihadism against democracy and of the forthcoming book, The Confrontation. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24808

Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions

Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions on vague allegations of “subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt” and being “flagrantly Islamophobic” after Maclean’s magazine published an excerpt from his book, America Alone.The public inquisition of Steyn has triggered outrage among Canadians and Americans who value free speech, but it should not come as a surprise. Steyn’s predicament is just the latest salvo in a campaign of legal actions designed to punish and silence the voices of anyone who speaks out against Islamism, Islamic terrorism, or its sources of financing.The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), which initiated the complaint against Steyn, has previously tried unsuccessfully to sue publications it disagrees with, including Canada’s National Post. The not-for-profit organization’s president, Mohamed Elmasry, once labeled every adult Jew in Israel a legitimate target for terrorists and is in the habit of accusing his opponents of anti-Islamism — a charge that is now apparently an actionable claim in Canada. In 2006, after Elmasry publicly accused a spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress of being anti-Islamic, the spokesman reportedly resigned amidst fears for his personal safety.

The Islamist movement has two wings — one violent and one lawful — which operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published, the lawful arm is maneuvering within Western legal systems.

Islamists with financial means have launched a legal jihad, manipulating democratic court systems to suppress freedom of expression, abolish public discourse critical of Islam, and establish principles of Sharia law. The practice, called “lawfare,” is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning and undertaken as a means to intimidate and bankrupt defendants.

Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of “libel tourism” that has resulted in foreign judgments against European and now American authors mandating the destruction of American-authored literary material.

At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and other jurisdictions, by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work. With its “human rights” commissions, Canada joins the list of countries, including France and the United Kingdom, whose laws are being used to attack the free speech rights and due process protections afforded American citizens.

A MAJOR PLAYER on this front is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Egyptian who resides in Saudi Arabia. Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue more than 30 publishers and authors in British courts, including several Americans, whose written works have linked him to terrorist entities. A notable libel tourist, Mahfouz has taken advantage of the UK’s plaintiff-friendly libel laws to restrict the dissemination of written material that draws attention to Saudi-funded terrorism.

Faced with the prospect of protracted and expensive litigation, and regardless of the merit of the works, most authors and publishers targeted have issued apologies and retractions, while some have paid fines and “contributions” to Mahfouz’s charities. When Mahfouz threatened Cambridge Press with a lawsuit for publishing Alms for Jihad by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, the publisher immediately capitulated, offered a public apology to Mahfouz, pulped the unsold copies of the book, and took it out of print.

Shortly after the publication of Funding Evil in the United States, Mahfouz sued its author, anti-terrorism analyst and director of the American Center for Democracy, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, for alleging financial ties between wealthy Saudis, including Mahfouz, and terrorist entities such as al Qaeda. The allegations against Ehrenfeld were heard by the UK court despite the fact that neither Mahfouz nor Ehrenfeld resides in England and merely because approximately 23 copies of Funding Evil were sold online to UK buyers via Amazon.com.

Unwilling to travel to England or acknowledge the authority of English libel laws over herself and her work, Ehrenfeld lost on default and was ordered to pay heavy fines, apologize, and destroy her books — all of which she has refused to do. Instead, Ehrenfeld counter-sued Mahfouz in a New York State court seeking to have the foreign judgment declared unenforceable in the United States.

Ironically, Ehrenfeld lost her case against Mahfouz, because the New York court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the Saudi resident who, the court said, did not have sufficient connections to the state. Shortly afterwards the Association of American Publishers released a statement that criticized the ruling as a blow to intellectual freedom and “a deep disappointment for publishers and other First Amendment advocates.”

The litany of American publishers, television stations, authors, journalists, experts, activists, political figures, and citizens targeted for censorship is long and merits brief mention. There is an obvious pattern to these suits that can only be ignored at great peril. And we must expect future litigation along these lines:

* Joe Kaufman, chairman of Americans Against Hate, was served with a temporary restraining order and sued for leading a peaceful and lawful ten person protest against the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) outside an event the group sponsored at a Six Flags theme park in Texas. According to ICNA’s website, the group is dedicated to “working for the establishment of Islam in all spheres of life,” and to “reforming society at large.” The complaint included seven Dallas-area plaintiffs who had never been previously mentioned by Kaufman, nor been present at the theme park. Litigation is ongoing.

* The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) sued Andrew Whitehead, an American activist, for $1.3 million for founding and maintaining the website Anti-CAIR-net.org, on which he lists CAIR as an Islamist organization with ties to terrorist groups. After CAIR refused Whitehead’s discovery requests, seemingly afraid of what internal documents the legal process it had initiated would reveal, the lawsuit was dismissed by the court with prejudice.

* CAIR also sued Cass Ballenger for $2 million after the then-U.S. Congressman said in a 2003 interview with the Charlotte Observer that the group was a “fundraising arm for Hezbollah” that he had reported as such to the FBI and CIA. Fortunately, the judge ruled that Ballenger’s statements were made in the scope of his public duties and were protected speech.

* A Muslim police officer is suing former CIA official and counterterrorism consultant Bruce Tefft and the New York Police Department for workplace harassment merely because Tefft sent emails with relevant news stories about Islamic terrorism to a voluntary list of recipients that included police officers.

THESE SUITS REPRESENT a direct and real threat to our constitutional rights and national security. Even if the lawsuits don’t succeed, the continued use of lawfare tactics by Islamist organizations has the potential to create a detrimental chilling effect on public discourse and information concerning the war on terror.

Already, publishers have canceled books on the subject of counterterrorism and no doubt other journalists and authors have self-censored due to the looming threat of suit. For its part, CAIR announced an ambitious fundraising goal of $1 million, partly to “defend against defamatory attacks on Muslims and Islam.” One of CAIR’s staffers, Rabiah Ahmed, bragged that lawsuits are increasingly an “instrument” for it to use.

U.S. courts have not yet grasped the importance of rebuffing international attempts to restrain the free speech rights of American citizens.

This is troubling. The United States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle of the freedom to criticize religion. Islamists should not be allowed to stifle constitutionally protected speech, nor should they be allowed to subject innocent citizens who talk to other citizens about issues of national security to frivolous and costly lawsuits.

posted by captain mission at Wednesday, February 13, 2008

http://captainmission.blogspot.com/2008/02/award-winning-author-mark-steyn-has.html

Original article :

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12567

By Brooke M. Goldstein
Published 1/15/2008 1:08:45 AM

Brooke M. Goldstein is a practicing attorney, the director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the director of the Children’s Rights Institute. She is also an award-winning film producer of The Making of a Martyr, an adjuct fellow at the Hudson Institute, and the 2007 recipient of the E. Nathaniel Gates Award for Outstanding Public Advocacy.

 

Islamist ‘Trojan horse’ in Pentagon, say experts

Islamist ‘Trojan horse’ in Pentagon, say experts
FBI: Top defense advisers linked
to radical Muslim Brotherhood

---

Posted: February 1, 2008
6:05 p.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59995

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Federal authorities say a high-level Muslim Pentagon aide, who led a campaign to silence a Pentagon intelligence analyst for taking a hard line against Islam, is running an “influence operation” on behalf of U.S. Muslim groups fronting for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Hesham H. Islam (left), Muslim aide to the deputy secretary of defense, with Muslim military chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulislam (right)

Hesham H. Islam, a special assistant to deputy Defense secretary Gordon England, recently criticized Maj. Stephen Coughlin, one of the military’s leading authorities on Islamic war doctrine, for making the connection between the religion of Islam and terrorism.

After Islam lodged complaints, Coughlin’s contract with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon was not renewed.

Islam also was upset with briefings Coughlin recently prepared for the U.S. military warning that major U.S. Muslim groups were fronting for the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement based in Egypt.

Islam, who was born and raised in Egypt, is heavily involved with one of the groups – the Islamic Society of North America, which U.S. prosecutors last year named as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror-funding case.

Islam has persuaded his boss, England, to conduct various outreach with ISNA, including hosting the group’s leaders in the Pentagon and speaking at its annual convention.

Speaking during ISNA’s 2006 opening ceremonies, England proclaimed, “There is no contradiction between the peaceful religion of Islam and America’s values and principles.”

Coughlin reached the opposite conclusion in a 329-page report submitted to the National Defense Intelligence College, in which he warns that Islamic law sanctions violence. That finding, among others, has put him at odds with Islam, whom England describes as “my personal close confidante.”

“I take his advice,” England said, “and I listen to him all the time.”

WND has learned that Islam is closely associated with a Muslim military chaplain trained at a radical Islamic school that federal agents raided after 9/11 in connection with terror-financing.

As WND reported, the chaplain, Abuhena M. Saifulislam, studied Islam at the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences in Virginia.

Recently declassified FBI documents reveal its sister organization, an Islamist think tank known as the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT, is involved in a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to wage a cultural and political jihad to eventually take over America from within – most notably, through infiltration of government agencies.

Islam works closely with Saifulislam (Arabic for “sword of Islam”) on Pentagon outreach projects involving Middle Eastern embassies and the so-called Wahhabi lobby in Washington.

“He’s a Muslim brother,” an FBI official said of Islam. “He’s a bad actor. He’s well-positioned to be where he is, and that doesn’t do us any good.”

He also said Saifulislam is “definitely Muslim Brotherhood,” while noting that Islam “is a lot smoother than Saifulislam,” who as a chaplain at Gitmo lobbied for special meals and other privileges for al-Qaida detainees.

The official hastened to add that, at this point, belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood is not criminal, and neither Defense Department employee is the subject of a formal counterterrorism or counterespionage investigation. Both men have refused interviews, and the Pentagon had no comment.

However, the FBI official warned that the Muslim aides are part of a conspiracy by Muslim Brotherhood fronts to run “influence operations” against the U.S. government.

“Their M.O. is to make nice for the very purpose of penetrating us,” he said, “and we just roll over for them, at least at the top levels.”

He says England, who also recently dedicated an Islamic prayer center at Quantico on the advice of Saifulislam, is blind to the threat.

“England doesn’t know it’s an influence operation that’s been laid at his door,” he said. “His lack of awareness is irresponsible.”

A senior U.S. official who has met with England says he was not even aware that a convicted terrorist and al-Qaida fund-raiser created the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplains corps.

Adurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader and founder of the American Muslim Council, placed Muslim chaplains throughout the military. He is now in jail on charges of terrorism. However, most of the chaplains he trained and sponsored are still in their current positions.

“The Islamic chaplains who serve were trained by a known terrorist,” said terrorism expert Steve Emerson.

Emerson says Islam, like Alamoudi, has invited “subversive” elements into U.S. military headquarters.

“Hesham Islam is an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators,” he said.

Emerson said a “Trojan horse” of subversives and potential spies have penetrated deep inside the Pentagon, and they are now bearing fruit with the ouster of Coughlin. Sources say Islam has high security clearance.

A former Pentagon colleague of Coughlin described Islam as a “gatekeeper,” who at a minimum, is blocking candid discussion of the religious nature of the threat posed by Muslim terrorists. Such action, William Gawthrop says, thwarts the U.S. war effort, because it denies military brass and rank-and-file the information they need to effectively fight the Islamist enemy.

“We still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by (the Muslim prophet) Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered,” Gawthrop told WND.

He says Coughlin was trying to bridge that gap before being pushed out.

Supporters of the respected contractor say Islam had a direct hand in his firing. They say that on Jan. 3 Coughlin was told his contract, which ends in March, would not be renewed because his message had become too “politically hot.”

They say that in a meeting late last year between Coughlin and a member of England’s staff, which Islam unexpectedly attended, Islam asked Coughlin to “soften his message” regarding Islamic war doctrine. Coughlin refused.

Islam was heard referring to Coughlin as a “Christian zealot with a poison pen.” The conflict resulted in his contract being terminated.

A well-placed Pentagon insider described it differently, however. Islam and Coughlin were present at the briefing, but there was no direct confrontation between the two. It was not until Hesham returned to England’s office suite that he remarked that Coughlin had a “poison pen.”

“He clearly doesn’t like him,” the source told WND.

Also, Coughlin was let go in part because his contract was up, and at $440,000, it was too steep to justify renewing, the insider says. And though he had written a 329-page thesis on the subject, he was not effective at briefing the J-2 intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs.

“He’s brilliant, and he knows his stuff, but he couldn’t teach it,” the source said. “It went over everybody’s head.”

Still, England has not properly vetted his long-time aide, Islam. “Gordon is so trusting of this guy because he’s worked for him for so long,” the same official said. “But he’s got questionable contacts, and he (England) needs to have his antennae up.”

Japan: The deployment dilemma

Image: ISN

After a halt in operations, Japanese ships are resuming the Indian Ocean refueling of ships for the war in Afghanistan, but the government had to bulldoze its way through parliament to win the battle.

By Axel Berkofsky for ISN Security Watch (24/01/08)

After a three-month interruption, Japanese supply ships are sailing back to the Indian Ocean, refueling other countries’ warships fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Authorized by the country’s so-called “anti-terror” law implemented to provide logistical support for coalition forces operating in Afghanistan, Japan had refueled US and UK warships ships since November 2001.

However, late last year, it had to order the navy to sail back home after failing to secure the necessary majority in both chambers of the parliament to extend the law and the mission.

The political opposition led by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and its maverick leader Ichiro Ozawa hold a two-thirds majority in the parliament’s Upper House and blocked the extension of the anti-terror law for as long as possible and permissible in under the constitution.

This however came to an end in mid-January when after months of parliamentary debates and controversies, Japan’s coalition government led by the Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP) and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda ran out of patience and rammed the revised anti-terror bill through parliament.

After the bill was voted down by opposition in the Upper House plenary session on 12 January, the government resubmitted it later that same day to the Lower House, where the ruling LDP/New Komeito coalition hold the required majority to turn a bill into a law. Thus, they overturned a veto in the Upper House.

This is the first time in half a century that a Japanese government has resorted to such tactics – deemed drastic measure by Japanese standards. Still, Fukuda had offered the DPJ and its leader Ichiro Ozawa much before he decided to dispatch troops without the opposition’s blessing: A watered-down version of the previous anti-terror law and even a deal to establish a grand coalition between his party and the DPJ.

But Ozawa would have none of this, and instead, continued to refer to Japan’s mission in the Indian Ocean as “unconstitutional” and in violation of the country’s pacifist constitution. However, he has yet to explain convincingly how and where exactly that is the case; even those who oppose the law and the mission itself widely agree that “unconstitutional” is not an attribute suitable to describe what the Japanese navy is doing in the Indian Ocean.

Rat in the kitchen?

While Japan’s Defense Ministry lost no time, immediately ordering a destroyer and a tanker to leave their ports on Thursday and Friday, respectively, to resume their mission against the will of the opposition and at least 50 percent of the Japanese public, the liberal daily newspaper Asahi Shimbun smells a rat.

Hammering a law through parliament without a majority in both chambers, the paper complained in a recent editorial, should be reserved for “state emergencies only and not for overseas deployment of the military.”

Gerald Curtis, Burgess Professor of Political Science at Columbia University in New York, disagrees, calling it instead “a political judgment, not a constitutional issue.”

“I see no problem with what Fukuda has done. The constitution gives the right to the lower house to pass legislation rejected by the upper house with a two-thirds vote,” he tells ISN Security Watch.

Maybe, but the Asahi has more issues with the imminent deployment of the Japanese military in the Indian Ocean, fearing that “civilian control of the military is in jeopardy.”

Unlike the previous anti-terror law, the daily opines, the new law does not require the parliament to approve a basic plan for the SDF’s actual activities abroad.

“The move to dispatch without an approved basic plan is a step backwards, and something clearly went wrong with the original mission in terms of civilian control and the incorrect reporting of fuel oil figures inside the Ministry of Defense,” Christopher W Hughes, associate professor at the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, agrees.

He told ISN Security Watch: “Something untoward happened in terms of how the US used its fuel oil supplies.” He pointed to recent (now largely confirmed) reports that the US has, with Tokyo’s knowledge, used the fuel for combat missions in Iraq instead.

Others are less interested in such details.

Fukuda only did what political leaders do in “normal countries” when national security is at stake, argues Brad Glosserman, executive director at the Pacific Forum CSIS in Honolulu.

“I think Fukuda was tired of explaining this level of detail and subjecting such items to opposition for opposition’s sake when issues of national interest are at stake. This may be a departure from practice as usual in Japan, but the key point is Japan’s usual practices are abnormal,” he tells ISN Security Watch.

Either way, refueling ships in the Indian Ocean far away from where the fighting takes place in Afghanistan is largely symbolic, but still a fairly big deal for Japan, which for more than a decade has been announcing its ambitions to become “normal” and more like other powers in terms of contributing to international military missions.

“The MSDF [Maritime Self Defense Forces] mission as a ‘floating gasoline stand’ will be welcomed by the coalition in operational terms, as it gives them access to free fuel, and the US will be especially please with this. The mission’s significance is, of course, predominantly symbolic as it is very restrictive in scope, but the most important thing for Japan is to fly the flag in order to bolster the international coalition’s efforts,” Hughes says.

“A very sweet deal for Japan,” confirms Michito Tsuruoka from King’s College in London. “The mission in the Indian Ocean is a very ‘cost-effective’ one. It does not cost a lot and is relatively safe, but is still appreciated very much in the international community.”

Tsuruoka adds: “The departure of Japanese ships last November certainly made the whole operation a bit less efficient. For example, Pakistani ships had to interrupt their operations temporarily and sail back to their ports for refueling when Japan abandoned its mission late last year.”

Sure enough, Washington did its part to make sure that Tokyo made the “right” decision, giving the usual on-the-record “advice amongst friends and allies” and exerting more straightforward and less diplomatic pressure off the record.

“Fukuda’s government was under a lot of US pressure to re-deploy the ships,” Hughes affirms, “and even if he was always somewhat doubtful about the importance of the mission in military terms and the whole US war on terror, he perceived passing the bill as very important to US-Japan relations. This was also impressed upon him by a personal meeting with US President Bush.”

Gerald Curtis agrees that US pressure played a role in the redeployment, but does not think it was the main reason this time.

“Fukuda probably was more concerned that not passing the legislation would make him look impotent in face of the DPJ’s opposition,” he says, arguing that Fukuda had to push the law through parliament or end up as lame duck for the rest of his possibly short-lived tenure.

Washington offering foreign and security policy “advice” has over the last years and indeed decades regularly sped up Japan’s foreign and security policymaking process – and that advice has not always been diplomatic.

Back in 2003, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld infamously reminded Japan’s (and South Korean) political leaders that the absence of Japanese financial support and troops in post-war Iraq might lead to a decreased US willingness to defend Japan in the case of a North Korean missile attack. At the time, Tokyo (and Seoul) took the US “advice,” became obedient allies and subsequently dispatched troop contingents to Iraq, providing infrastructure and medical aid in the country’s south.

Japan’s deployment future

Should the government should still be in power later this year – and that is currently far form certain, as the requests for fresh Lower House elections become louder by the day – it already has more plans regarding the regular deployment of Japanese military to global hotspots.

For years, the ruling LDP has been flirting with the introduction of a permanent law to allow overseas deployments of armed forces – which could be win-win deal for the ruling LDP and the opposition, thinks Hughes:

“There is a general consensus between the LDP and DPJ that passing individual time bound bills for each JSDF [mission] dispatch is not only cumbersome for the speed of troop deployment and Japan’s international contribution, but is also domestically a political headache in terms of Diet time and stretching the constitution.”

As usual, however, the devil will be in the details, and we can expect the controversy surrounding such a law to continue, Hughes fears.

“The DPJ sees such a law as a means to make much more specific the constitutional legitimacy for dispatch and as a means to push Japan closer to the UN and non-US-centered security cooperation. The LDP, on the other hand, sees it as a means to greater military cooperation internationally and especially with the US if it can create a bill with sufficiently loose constitutional interpretations,” he says.

For now, however, Japan’s resumed mission is limited to refueling ships not directly involved in hostilities in Afghanistan – a restriction aimed at securing the support of a public wary of violating the spirit of Japan’s pacifist constitution whose Article 9 prohibits the country from engaging in warfare and indeed maintaining armed forces in the first place.

Neither the traditionally conservative pro-defense newspapers nor the liberal and left-leaning ones identify public support for such efforts as exceeding 40 percent their respective recent opinion polls.

Even if the Japanese electorate’s level of political participation is traditionally rather low, policymakers are nevertheless somehow obliged to at least pretend that public opinion matters when the deployment of soldiers is on the agenda.

In that sense, Japan is already a very “normal” country.

---

Dr Axel Berkofsky is Adjunct Professor at the University of Milan and Advisor on Asian affairs at the Brussels-based European Policy Centre (EPC) The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18565

New ‘centres of privilege’ opposed: Expansion of UNSC

New ‘centres of privilege’ opposed: Expansion of UNSC

 

By Baqir Sajjad Syed

ISLAMABAD, Jan 23: Pakistan on Wednesday stopped short of denunciating Britain’s renewed support for India’s bid for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and reiterated its opposition to the ‘creation of new centres of privilege’ on the pretext of UNSC expansion.

At his weekly press briefing, Foreign Office spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said: “We support just and equitable reform that corresponds to the interests of all, not just a few member states. We support equal and non-discriminatory approach for all regional groups with regard to their representation on the council.”

He said Pakistan had noted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s statement on the last day of his trip to India, in which he had said that the UK backed India’s permanent membership.

OIC MEETING: He said executive committee of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) would meet later this week or early next week on Iran’s request to discuss the issue of Israeli blockade of Gaza.

The OIC body comprises Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uganda, Malaysia, Qatar, Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Palestine and the OIC’s secretary-general.

Condemning Israeli actions, Mr Sadiq said they constituted a flagrant breach of international norms and humanitarian laws.

This situation, he feared, could lead to an escalation of tension in the region.

Pakistan, he said, called upon the international community to ensure an urgent and complete lifting of Israeli blockade of Gaza and the resumption of fuel, food and other humanitarian supplies to the Palestinian people.

PRESIDENT’S EUROPE VISIT: Mr Sadiq said President Pervez Musharraf’s visit was for promoting better understanding with political and economic partners and to remove misunderstandings and misperceptions about the situation in Pakistan and to inform European leaders, media and the Pakistani community abroad about political developments in the country.

He said that although President Musharraf had not been invited for the visits, it was a “working tour arranged through diplomatic channels”.

Even his appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee and the South Asian Delegation of the European Parliament had been on Pakistan’s request.

ANTI-TERROR OPERATIONS: Mr Sadiq said President Musharraf was still in-charge of anti-terror operations.

“President Musharraf, as the head of state and the government, is in-charge of the country and the Chief of Army Staff Gen Kayani is part of that government,” he said.

http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/24/top14.htm

Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material

Published December 2007

The International Atomic Energy Agency released this document, a reference manual on nuclear trafficking and detecting, preventing, and responding to nuclear terrorism.

The report states, “This publication is intended for individuals and organizations that may be called upon to deal with the detection of and response to criminal or unauthorized acts involving nuclear or other radioactive material. However, it should also be useful for legislators, law enforcement agencies, government officials, technical experts, lawyers, diplomats and users of nuclear technology.”

Essential Documents are vital primary sources underpinning the foreign policy debate.

Report

• Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/pub1309_web.pdf

COMBATING ILLICIT TRAFFICKING

IN NUCLEAR AND OTHER

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

http://www.iaea.org

Papers Paint New Portrait of Iraq’s Foreign Insurgents

Papers Paint New Portrait of Iraq‘s Foreign Insurgents

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 21, 2008; A01

Muhammad Ayn-al-Nas, a 26-year-old Moroccan, started his journey in Casablanca. After flying to Turkey and then to Damascus, he reached his destination in a small Iraqi border town on Jan. 31, 2007. He was an economics student back home, he told the al-Qaeda clerk who interviewed him on arrival. Asked what sort of work he hoped to do in Iraq, Nas replied: “Martyr.”

Algerian Watsef Mussab, 29, who arrived in Iraq via Saudi Arabia and Syria, said he had come for combat. He complained that the Syrian smugglers who brought him to the border took his money, but he contributed what he had left to the insurgent cause — a watch, a ring and an MP3 player.

Hanni al-Sagheer, a computer technician from Yemen and aspiring suicide volunteer, gave the clerk his home telephone number and also that of his brother.

Their stories are among the individual records of 606 foreign fighters who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. The cache of documents was discovered last fall by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar.

Some include pictures — bearded men in a turban or kaffiyeh, some smiling and some scowling — in addition to names and aliases, home countries, birthdays and dates of entry into Iraq. Many list their occupations at home, whether plumber, laborer, policeman, lawyer, soldier or teacher. There is a “massage specialist,” a “weapons merchant,” a few “unemployed” and many students.

The youngest was 16 when he crossed into Iraq; the oldest was 54. Most expressed interest in a suicide mission.

The records are “one of the deepest reservoirs of information we’ve ever obtained of the network going into Iraq,” according to a U.S. official closely familiar with intelligence on the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Analyzed and made public last month by the Army’s Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, the documents have led the U.S. military in Iraq to reassess some of its earlier assumptions about the insurgent group and those who carry out most of the suicide missions that are its signature method of attack.

Suicide attacks by the Sunni group against Shiite targets sparked the sectarian violence that swept Iraq in 2006 and the first half of last year. Al-Qaeda in Iraq carried out more than 4,500 attacks against civilians in 2007, killing 3,870 and wounding nearly 18,000, the military announced yesterday.

Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed.

Although there is no way of knowing how many of the total entrants the 606 recorded individuals represent, officials said Sinjar was a primary entrance point. Its importance increased as Iraq‘s Anbar province — farther south and bordering Saudi Arabia and Jordan — became more difficult for foreigners to cross.

“We also adjusted our analysis [to say that] more North Africans were foreign terrorists than previously assessed,” said Col. Steven A. Boylan, spokesman for Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share — 19 percent — came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African.

Petraeus has said that the number of foreign fighters traveling through Syria to Iraq has dropped by as much as half since the summer, to as few as 50 each month. Military officials describe the Sunni insurgents as on the run. But based on the Sinjar documents, Boylan said, the military has concluded that its baseline of foreign entrees, beginning in August 2006, was about 10 percent too low.

The State Department‘s counterterrorism chief, retired Army Lt. Gen. Dell L. Dailey, has referred to the Sinjar documents in ongoing conversations with Arab and North African governments about their efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters going to Iraq.

The West Point center’s analysis notes that the home towns and regions listed by many fighters correlate with areas of high insurgent activity in the Arab world. More than half the Libyans came from in or around the coastal cities of Darnah and Benghazi. Both are long associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which in November officially affiliated itself with the global al-Qaeda network headed by Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Libyans traveled through Egypt on their way to Syria, and further analysis is being done on places of origin and travel routes.

The records are also a bonanza for the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, which maintains the nation’s massive database on individuals with a “foreign terrorist nexus.” Russ Travers, the NCTC’s deputy director, declined to discuss specific data but said that “there is no question that the more information we get, the more we can pull the thread on who is connected to whom.”

Beyond their importance in understanding the big picture, the documents — now posted in Arabic and English on the Combating Terrorism Center‘s Web site — provide a riveting portrait of the people behind the numbers, and a window into the personnel practices of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“These documents tell us more about AQI than they do about Iraq,” said Brian Fishman, an associate at the West Point center and co-author of its Sinjar analysis. “When you’ve got hundreds . . . entering the country with different skill sets and different intentions, you have to build a bureaucracy to use your resources efficiently.

“I think we made a mistake in assuming that al-Qaeda, because it’s a terrorist organization, doesn’t need to organize itself the way other large organizations do. They have a human resources problem; they have to manage people.”

Al-Qaeda has a track record of good documentation, he said, adding that “Osama bin Laden was a businessman before he was a terrorist.”

Fishman offered an example from among the many captured al-Qaeda documents in the center’s database — an employment contract between the group and terrorist recruits in Afghanistan in the late 1990s. In addition to a definition of the organization, religious duties and a loyalty pledge, it includes a list of official “company” holidays and salary grades.

Married fighters were to be allotted time off every three weeks and round-trip tickets to their country of origin every two years, although al-Qaeda retained the right to deny vacation dates “in certain cases.” Vacation requests were to be submitted 2 1/2 months in advance. Married fighters received higher salaries than bachelors — including a bonus for every newborn — but unmarried fighters were entitled to more vacation time.

The extent of al-Qaeda in Iraq‘s ties to the wider al-Qaeda network has long been a subject of debate within the U.S. intelligence community and military. Although its membership is overwhelmingly Iraqi, it has been led by foreigners with direct ties to al-Qaeda central, which has been based in Pakistan since being driven from Afghanistan in 2001.

Some of the early Sinjar documents carry the seal of the Mujaheddin Shura Council, an umbrella organization for Sunni insurgent organizations in Iraq created in January 2006 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a bin Laden associate who was then leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Most of the later records are imprinted with the insignia of the Islamic State of Iraq, declared in October 2006 after Zarqawi’s death. Those documents provide far more comprehensive information.

There is no indication of individual motives, but recruits were asked how they had made initial contact with travel “coordinators.” Responses ranged from friends and family members to someone “in the mosque” or “a brother who came back from Iraq.”

Although answers to many questions were left blank, most recruits said they carried identification — a passport, birth certificate or driver’s license. Some helpfully noted that their documents were “clean” or “not burnt,” indicating they did not appear on any watch list. Contributions to the insurgency, including funds that totaled several thousand dollars in some cases, were duly recorded.

Based on information solicited in the longer Islamic State of Iraq forms, the Syrian role in the traffic appeared more that of entrepreneur than ideological partner and seemed to be a source of concern and suspicion for al-Qaeda in Iraq. Entrants were asked for names and descriptions of Syrians they had come into contact with, and were asked how they were treated. Many responded that the Syrians had demanded exorbitant sums of money, often exactly the amount the entrants were carrying.

Many of the forms include telephone numbers. According to Fishman, “we called a lot of them and they didn’t work” or “just rang and rang.” But a Swedish newspaper noticed on the center’s Web site that one man, a Tunisian who gave only an alias, listed his country of residence as Sweden and supplied a telephone number in the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby. A government registry indicated that he was married, with two children.

When a reporter from Svenska Dagbladet called the number, the newspaper reported early this month, a man who identified himself as a cousin said that Abu Mua’az was not there. He, his wife and older brother, the man said, “were currently overseas and unavailable.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002609_pf.html

Terror suspect planned Madrid bombings: report

Arrested In Quebec

Stewart Bell And Graeme Hamilton, National Post  Published: Tuesday, January 22, 2008

A suspected Basque separatist arrested in Canada last year planned two car bombings while serving in an ETA cell that terrorized Madrid for 21 months, a federal immigration report says.

Ivan Apaolaza Sancho, 36, “participated in the development of two attempted car bombings” that targeted Spanish justice officials, says the Citizenship and Immigration Canada document.

Bothassassinationattempts failed but the report says during Mr. Sancho’s months with ETA’s Commando Madrid cell “several terrorist attacks were committed” and the group collected information on future targets.

The RCMP arrested Mr. Sancho near Quebec City last June, alleging he is a wanted foreign terrorist and has lived in British Columbia for almost six years under the false name Jose Perales-Herrera.

Canadian immigration authorities are now attempting to deport him to Spain, where he is wanted for attempted assassination, auto theft, membership in an armed group and possession of explosives and arms.

ETA has killed more than 800 people and carried out 1,600 bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and other attacks as part of its long-running fight for an independent homeland for Spain‘s Basque minority.

In Montreal on Friday, Mr. Sancho’s legal team lost a bid to stop his deportation proceedings on the grounds that Canadian authorities had produced no evidence he was a member of ETA.

Lawyer William Sloan had asked to see copies of a fingerprint belonging to Mr. Sancho that Spanish authorities say was found inside an ETA safe house northwest of Madrid in 2001.

He also sought other documentary evidence the Spaniards claim to have. The material was never produced at Mr. Sancho’s hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Louis Dube, the IRB member hearing the case, told a hearing on Friday that he is satisfied he has received enough evidence to decide the case on its merits.

Mr. Sloan said he intends to put the Spanish government on trial when the hearing resumes on Feb. 29. “They cheat. They lie. They torture. They assassinate,” Mr. Sloan said of the Spanish authorities.

“So you cannot take their word for it when they say that someone is a member of the ETA. They have to show something else. If they claim to have evidence, let’s see it. If they won’t show it, it’s because they don’t have it.”

Following a request by the National Post, the IRB released most of the government’s file on Mr. Sancho. It consists largely of background material on ETA, but included in the dossier is Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s “referral” report detailing why he is considered a member of a terrorist group and a person who has engaged in terrorism.

The report says between May and September, 1999, Mr. Sancho lived in an apartment in France with five other members of ETA and underwent firearms and explosives training.

At the instruction of ETA, he returned to Spain and lived at an apartment in Salamanca that served as a meeting place for planning attacks, as well as a storage cache for munitions, arms and explosives, the report says.

While at the Salamanca apartment, Mr. Sancho planned the assassinations of Paulino Martin Martin and Blanca Rodriguez Garcia, a superior court prosecutor, it says. The cell committed many attacks between Jan. 21, 2000, and October, 2001, the report says.

Spain issued an international arrest warrant for Mr. Sancho on Dec. 3, 2001, but by then he had fled to Canada. He lived at an apartment in Vancouver with his girlfriend and got a job as a carpenter at an antique reproduction company, while she worked as a house cleaner.

While living in B.C., he befriended another alleged ETA member, Victor Bilbao, wanted in Spain for the attempted assassination of a Basque newspaper manager. He also met a wanted Spanish terrorist named Mario Ines Torres, better known as Lolo the Gypsy singer.

Despite being wanted, all three men lived freely for years in B.C. until 2006, when Mr. Torres fled to avoid a deportation hearing. Last June, Mr. Bilbao was arrested in Vancouver and Mr. Sancho was picked up days later in Quebec.

sbell@nationalpost.com

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=253881

US: NKorea stays on terror list

US: NKorea stays on terror list

Wed Jan 23, 1:49 PM ET

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration said Wednesday it is too early to remove North Korea from a U.S. terrorism blacklist, a major demand by Pyongyang in international nuclear disarmament negotiations

On Tuesday, Dell Dailey, the State Department’s counterterror chief, told reporters that North Korea appears to have complied with the criteria needed to be removed from the list.

But White House press secretary Dana Perino, asked Wednesday if the administration was about to remove the North from the list, said: “No. Right now where we are is waiting on the North Koreans to provide a complete and accurate declaration of their nuclear activities.”

The United States maintains that removing the North from the U.S. terrorism list is linked to North Korean progress on meeting commitments under a six-nation nuclear deal to disarm. The North missed an end-of-2007 deadline to provide the list declaring all its nuclear programs.

North Korea accused the United States on Tuesday of failing to meet its commitments and blamed Washington for the slow progress in nuclear talks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_nkorea;_ylt=AnWfHryA0lUrSgPdYANNvD2s0NUE