Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war on terror. Show all posts
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Framing (Again)
Originally I read this in an adbusters years ago: "The cold war was World War III, the war on terror is World War IV".
I didn't think much of it at the time, in fact I thought it was stupid, because nobody else thinks that. In history books in my public education I was told that the cold war was an era of almost war with examples of the cuban missle crisis, but never actual war. I learned later that pax americana was hardly peaceful with WARS(call it what you want but if it looks like war and quacks like war...) in just about every Latin American country, and every region of the globe. If we weren't outright going to war we were selling arms to Indonesia for use in the East Timor genocide, because us small arms sales are 50% of world sales.
It reminded me of Einstein's quote that "we don't know what world war three will be fought with, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones". Apparently his metaphor was wrong, but his idea was right: War is more dangerous than its ever been.
My point is that this quote had some truth to it. It was a reaction to the war on terror, but there is a much better term which both Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt have used "Global Civil War".
The correct phrasing should be: "The cold war was World War III, and we are in the midst of World War IV which is a Global Civil war".
Is this not truth?
The cold war was a bipolar competition for sovereignty of the globe. The "low-intensity warfare" or "proxy wars" are still wars! The united states and the USSR fought a war against each other during those years. The USSR could not continue the war because their political and economic systems had to be drastically changed starting with Perestroika and Glasnost. When the USSR broke up the United States was the victor of World War III, and global hegemon. WTF is the difference between the hegemon and the sovereign? I have stated this before that the United States is the world government. The UN does not have police, the US does in the form of a military which receives the largest percentage of GDP of any nation. The US enforces its will around the globe and empirically is willing to pre-emptively strike in order to enforce that will.
As I have also stated before the global hegemon/sovereign can only maintain that position if it doles out energy supplies and has a steady cheap supply for themselves. Lets look at some(I have to say some because the list is a mile fucking long) of our "interventions"(see: "wars") since the USSR's break up. First is Saddam former scumbag and confidant of United Statesian intelligence scumbags. He rose to power and is now leading Iraq, he invades tiny kuwait. Need more historical info, Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves and Kuwait is up there.. Recently the situation has changed apparently last year Venezuela's got way higher, but back in 91 we're talking here. Back then Iraq had proven reserves of 100 billion barrels, Kuwait had 96.5, and Saudi Arabia had 260.9. THe UAE is also on the arabian peninsula and has like 98 bil. we're talking about 800 Billion worldwide proven.
So Saddam doubles his oil supply, Instead of about 12.5% hes up to 25% of world oil. Saudi Arabia is freakin' out they have shit for an army: an air force full of toys and muttawa thugs enforcing wahabbism. Mister Osama Bin Laden himself goes to the Sauds and hes like "let me bring my buddies from Afghanistan over here and we'll fuck saddam up for you." The Sauds were like "Ha! yeah your guerrilla army is going to confront Saddam's soldiers, we'll be executed within days, Ameicans said they want at him, they just need a place to park their troops, so we're letting them chill here while they take Saddam out, we'll have to make sure there are no women driving when they get here, we don't want them to think us savages." Then Bin Laden is all like Fuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!! and rage quit saudi arabia because they let infidels(Americans) in the land of the two holy shrines(saudi arabia[mecca and medina]). 20 years later: 9/11, but I digress. Saddam is sitting at 25% and all he has to do is go next door and take out a few cities because like 99% of Saudi Arabia is uninhabited('cept for nomads) and he'll be sittin on more than half of the world's proven oil supplies. Holy fucking shit, you have to go through Saddam to get a gas pump. So Sauds let the US in, US drives Saddam out of Kuwait, a regional hegemon has thusly been deterred and the US grip on energy becomes even better because they now have better relations with Saudi Arabia and fucking troops there. If the US ever really needs oil they just need to knock off a few asshole royals that the entire country('cept the muttawa) hate anyway and bam Americana Arabia, Or I guess they already decided they want to call it Syriana. This was an effort to maintain global sovereignty from a potential threat(saddam controlling 50%+ of world oil).
There are trends like this in foreign policy, countries ask the US for help and they send troops, sometimes the troops hang around for awhile.
The next major event comes with 9/11. Which was a perfect excuse to engage in the project The PNAC and many other neo-realist intelligentsia wanted: to finally go back to Iraq and just take the fucker over.
It was also the perfect excuse to engage in the project recommended by Brezenzki of the CFR and many other neo-liberal intelligentsia: to take over Afghanistan for its geopolitical value.
In an academia that pictured itself with the gods eye view of Science and Cartesian rationality, they often end up blind to the most obvious prejudices. Orientalist discourse constructed the middle east as a place of conflict that needed the managing our masculine western whiteness naturally gives us.Iraq and Afghanistan give the US a jumping off point for a land takeover of most of the middle east, specifically potential regional hegemons like Iran.
The United States has been and continues to further its position of power in the world. This position of power is admittedly based on the ability to project power(i.e. violence) across the globe quickly and effectively(i.e. kills lots of people). This is different than a state who passes laws and has the police enforce them with violence. I do not mean to say that this isn't sovereignty, just that this doesn't even remotely resemble what we refer to as "democracy". The US still has some set of universal values which can sometimes be discerned by reading the writings of corporate shills that political science supplies us with, but whether or not the universal rules are codified, as is the case in a democracy, what we can be sure of is that the US visits violence upon those who do not obey. This is a form of sovereignty. When no other country on earth has this ability or if they do have it, but not engage in it, this is evidence that the US is the sole world sovereign.
So I would like to frame history differently, I do not wish to propagandize but to use evidence to support my point, obviously if you refer to world war three or four people will not understand, but don't these labels stand up to scrutiny? Are we not in the midst of a global civil war?
P.S. Another framing I find interesting these days is the bracketing of "occupy wall street" and "arab spring", why is this not part of one global phenomenon that is a reaction to a declining economy and an increasing rich-poor gap(which can also be read as a declining middle class)?
I didn't think much of it at the time, in fact I thought it was stupid, because nobody else thinks that. In history books in my public education I was told that the cold war was an era of almost war with examples of the cuban missle crisis, but never actual war. I learned later that pax americana was hardly peaceful with WARS(call it what you want but if it looks like war and quacks like war...) in just about every Latin American country, and every region of the globe. If we weren't outright going to war we were selling arms to Indonesia for use in the East Timor genocide, because us small arms sales are 50% of world sales.
It reminded me of Einstein's quote that "we don't know what world war three will be fought with, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones". Apparently his metaphor was wrong, but his idea was right: War is more dangerous than its ever been.
My point is that this quote had some truth to it. It was a reaction to the war on terror, but there is a much better term which both Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt have used "Global Civil War".
The correct phrasing should be: "The cold war was World War III, and we are in the midst of World War IV which is a Global Civil war".
Is this not truth?
The cold war was a bipolar competition for sovereignty of the globe. The "low-intensity warfare" or "proxy wars" are still wars! The united states and the USSR fought a war against each other during those years. The USSR could not continue the war because their political and economic systems had to be drastically changed starting with Perestroika and Glasnost. When the USSR broke up the United States was the victor of World War III, and global hegemon. WTF is the difference between the hegemon and the sovereign? I have stated this before that the United States is the world government. The UN does not have police, the US does in the form of a military which receives the largest percentage of GDP of any nation. The US enforces its will around the globe and empirically is willing to pre-emptively strike in order to enforce that will.
As I have also stated before the global hegemon/sovereign can only maintain that position if it doles out energy supplies and has a steady cheap supply for themselves. Lets look at some(I have to say some because the list is a mile fucking long) of our "interventions"(see: "wars") since the USSR's break up. First is Saddam former scumbag and confidant of United Statesian intelligence scumbags. He rose to power and is now leading Iraq, he invades tiny kuwait. Need more historical info, Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves and Kuwait is up there.. Recently the situation has changed apparently last year Venezuela's got way higher, but back in 91 we're talking here. Back then Iraq had proven reserves of 100 billion barrels, Kuwait had 96.5, and Saudi Arabia had 260.9. THe UAE is also on the arabian peninsula and has like 98 bil. we're talking about 800 Billion worldwide proven.
So Saddam doubles his oil supply, Instead of about 12.5% hes up to 25% of world oil. Saudi Arabia is freakin' out they have shit for an army: an air force full of toys and muttawa thugs enforcing wahabbism. Mister Osama Bin Laden himself goes to the Sauds and hes like "let me bring my buddies from Afghanistan over here and we'll fuck saddam up for you." The Sauds were like "Ha! yeah your guerrilla army is going to confront Saddam's soldiers, we'll be executed within days, Ameicans said they want at him, they just need a place to park their troops, so we're letting them chill here while they take Saddam out, we'll have to make sure there are no women driving when they get here, we don't want them to think us savages." Then Bin Laden is all like Fuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!! and rage quit saudi arabia because they let infidels(Americans) in the land of the two holy shrines(saudi arabia[mecca and medina]). 20 years later: 9/11, but I digress. Saddam is sitting at 25% and all he has to do is go next door and take out a few cities because like 99% of Saudi Arabia is uninhabited('cept for nomads) and he'll be sittin on more than half of the world's proven oil supplies. Holy fucking shit, you have to go through Saddam to get a gas pump. So Sauds let the US in, US drives Saddam out of Kuwait, a regional hegemon has thusly been deterred and the US grip on energy becomes even better because they now have better relations with Saudi Arabia and fucking troops there. If the US ever really needs oil they just need to knock off a few asshole royals that the entire country('cept the muttawa) hate anyway and bam Americana Arabia, Or I guess they already decided they want to call it Syriana. This was an effort to maintain global sovereignty from a potential threat(saddam controlling 50%+ of world oil).
There are trends like this in foreign policy, countries ask the US for help and they send troops, sometimes the troops hang around for awhile.
The next major event comes with 9/11. Which was a perfect excuse to engage in the project The PNAC and many other neo-realist intelligentsia wanted: to finally go back to Iraq and just take the fucker over.
It was also the perfect excuse to engage in the project recommended by Brezenzki of the CFR and many other neo-liberal intelligentsia: to take over Afghanistan for its geopolitical value.
In an academia that pictured itself with the gods eye view of Science and Cartesian rationality, they often end up blind to the most obvious prejudices. Orientalist discourse constructed the middle east as a place of conflict that needed the managing our masculine western whiteness naturally gives us.Iraq and Afghanistan give the US a jumping off point for a land takeover of most of the middle east, specifically potential regional hegemons like Iran.
The United States has been and continues to further its position of power in the world. This position of power is admittedly based on the ability to project power(i.e. violence) across the globe quickly and effectively(i.e. kills lots of people). This is different than a state who passes laws and has the police enforce them with violence. I do not mean to say that this isn't sovereignty, just that this doesn't even remotely resemble what we refer to as "democracy". The US still has some set of universal values which can sometimes be discerned by reading the writings of corporate shills that political science supplies us with, but whether or not the universal rules are codified, as is the case in a democracy, what we can be sure of is that the US visits violence upon those who do not obey. This is a form of sovereignty. When no other country on earth has this ability or if they do have it, but not engage in it, this is evidence that the US is the sole world sovereign.
So I would like to frame history differently, I do not wish to propagandize but to use evidence to support my point, obviously if you refer to world war three or four people will not understand, but don't these labels stand up to scrutiny? Are we not in the midst of a global civil war?
P.S. Another framing I find interesting these days is the bracketing of "occupy wall street" and "arab spring", why is this not part of one global phenomenon that is a reaction to a declining economy and an increasing rich-poor gap(which can also be read as a declining middle class)?
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency are the same thing
This blog made me angry, this is my way too long comment, I hate "experts" They haven't read anything you can't read.
Number one: There is no difference between counter-insurgency and counter-terror. WTF, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills! Lets take out the counter and we end up with insurgency and terror(short for terrorism).
WHat is the difference between insurgency and terrorism? The definitions of both are exactly the same they just use different words. A terrorist IS an insurgent it just depends on HOW YOU WANT TO LABEL THE ONGOING CONFLICT: a civil war or a few fringe violent radicals who want regime change. An insurgency is just a larger pattern of terrorism. WTF!? is nobody else seeing this? Is it really that hard? How would "insurgency" manifest itself? violent actions against civilians or government? in order to destabilize a regime? OH SHIT! well how would "terrorism" manifest itself? VIOLENT ACTIONS AGAINST CIVILIANS OR GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO DESTABILIZE A REGIME!
How can you say, end A, but begin A(with a different label). How can you be so naive as to think the two are different and how can you be so naive as to not realize that we are in Afghanistan until we fall, just like Korea, Germany, Japan, Gitmo, Iraq, etc., etc. YOU ARE ONLY HELPING THE REGIME RE-LABEL AN UNSUSTAINABLE WAR!
Now I would like to address this next point You said: "The U.S. could "win" in Afghanistan where victory is defined as a stable, legitimate central government that can project power within its own borders."
There has NEVER been a central government that can project power to all of Afghanistan. As you claim to have some knowledge of geopolitics you should really really know this. Pakistan through the Taliban could never do it, Russia could never do it, and we will not be able to do it. You should also be aware that when you use neutral words like "project power" what you really mean is that the central government has the ability to regularly enact violence in all geographical areas within those borders. We don't need your pedantic euphemisms to efface the utopian violence you are advocating Mr. COIN expert.
Regaining hard power he says. All you "experts" on hegemony have not historicized your discourse. Let me give you a quick history lesson: Its world war I!!!!! omg a multipolar hegemonic system! Many different "poles" or world powers duking it out over vague concepts of ethnicity and economic bitterness. OMG its world war 2!!!! The vague concepts of ethnicity have become completely entrenched in nationhood and are now conflated with "race" in what will be the final act of a multipolar hegemonic system two winners will emerge. CCCP and USA. Now look! A bi-polar hegemonic system! The concept of race's imbrication with nation has been effaced by the feigned revulsion of the holocaust's eradication of the other(even though the need to fill the psychic ontology of the self through destruction of the other is still part and parcel of modernism), now we are on to ideology! Two different poles of thought police: USSR and United States, labeling their justifications for violence "Communism" and "democracy" respectively. who will win!?!?
There are a lot of ideas about the transition from bipolar to unipolar out there. The only one that matters is the narrative of energy. Without energy the lights go out no more typey typey on computer, no more lithium from bolivia for ipods, no more IPODS!!!!! No more food, no more movement, no more credit, etc. Our current historical trajectory requires immense amounts of energy or else everything crashes. In order to become the unipolar world power the USSR and USA engaged in ideological battles, proxy warfare (for ideology, energy, drugs etc.) but in the end the country that controls energy will be the unipolar hegemon. The USSR suffered internal collapse before any ultimate confrontation could take place: rumors of a travel visa causing the berlin wall to fall. THen glasnost and perestroika causing the fissures of an already troubled society to become apparent. Without the competition from the USSR it was now the USA's turn to dictate the terms of global organization. Actions like Kosovo, the first gulf war(being the iran-iraq war[which was a policy actively supported by washington's agenda:making iran and iraq batter eachother in order to make sure a regional hegemon never appeared]), the other two gulf wars, special forces deployment in Iran, destabilization campaigns in Iran. Were the efforts of the US intelligence community in destabilizing Iran insurgency or terrorism? Do you understand yet?
A stable democracy in afghanistan, point out a stable democracy in this world. Were you paying attention to the midterm elections? we are a divided country. There is no such thing as some utopian stable democracy, everybody has problems, internal contradictions, and unsustainable institutions.
Now here is where your argument goes completely off the wall: you claim war fatigue is the undergirding support for your argument!!!! WAR FATIGUE!! in this day and age? Iran and Iraq aren't even on the fucking list of issues this election, nobody gives a shit, war has become entertainment! We eradicate the other through our remote control bombers(which by the way Iran has started building [I hope you're the first one to get hit by one, for advocating terrorism through remote control aircraft in the first place you ignorant americunt]) to create a "stable"(like you say) ontology of self. There are no stable ontologies of self and no stable democracies, in fact nothing in this world is stable we re-create THE ENTIRE FUCKING THING EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY! Why should we be killing people for your utopian dream! because you re-label the violence?
How will "overextension" manifest itself n00b? lol can't we just....RECRUIT MORE! lol, elect more republicans to cut social spending send more to the military? Well we've BEEN DOING THAT FOR A LONG LONG TIME! Why does this war which is the longest in US history and STILL HAS NOT CAUSED WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT happen all of a sudden now?
China "free riding" lol what is this mancur olson? Are you aware of the joint military drills China and Russia regularly engage in? are you aware of SEATO and various other asian military, economic, and political treaties? Why would the chinese collapse the dollar? It would destroy their growth and the rest of the world's economies. There is no danger of China calling in debts it knows it can't be paid, in the same way there is no danger from a state launched nuclear missile because of mutually assured destruction. Now comes the real reason you want to get out of Afghanistan: TO REDEPLOY ELSESHWERE! To be ready for various other paranoid "red dawn" fantasies.
OH no theres more! we will use the money to PAY INTEREST ON THE DEBTS THAT WILL NEVER BE CALLED IN! rofl, this is so epically absurd.
"Only the B-52 Effect will prevent a resumption of frank civil war along ethnic lines,"
The B-52 effect is terror of what we can drop on them from above right? some kind of....terrorism? right?
"To paraphrase the line from Kaplan's Warrior Politics that changed my mind: At the end of the day, America's power to do good is strongest when American hard power is both abundant and largely held in reserve."
The quote that changed your mind is Kaplan's rehashing of the white man's burden?!!?!? When has the US ever done "Good"? When it happened was it not just serendipity that caused it while the US was pursuing its reified agenda?
We're in afghanistan to stay, if you're gonna advocate the opposite, at least strap on a nutsack and say it like you mean it none of this re-labeling equivocation bullshit.
Number one: There is no difference between counter-insurgency and counter-terror. WTF, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills! Lets take out the counter and we end up with insurgency and terror(short for terrorism).
WHat is the difference between insurgency and terrorism? The definitions of both are exactly the same they just use different words. A terrorist IS an insurgent it just depends on HOW YOU WANT TO LABEL THE ONGOING CONFLICT: a civil war or a few fringe violent radicals who want regime change. An insurgency is just a larger pattern of terrorism. WTF!? is nobody else seeing this? Is it really that hard? How would "insurgency" manifest itself? violent actions against civilians or government? in order to destabilize a regime? OH SHIT! well how would "terrorism" manifest itself? VIOLENT ACTIONS AGAINST CIVILIANS OR GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO DESTABILIZE A REGIME!
How can you say, end A, but begin A(with a different label). How can you be so naive as to think the two are different and how can you be so naive as to not realize that we are in Afghanistan until we fall, just like Korea, Germany, Japan, Gitmo, Iraq, etc., etc. YOU ARE ONLY HELPING THE REGIME RE-LABEL AN UNSUSTAINABLE WAR!
Now I would like to address this next point You said: "The U.S. could "win" in Afghanistan where victory is defined as a stable, legitimate central government that can project power within its own borders."
There has NEVER been a central government that can project power to all of Afghanistan. As you claim to have some knowledge of geopolitics you should really really know this. Pakistan through the Taliban could never do it, Russia could never do it, and we will not be able to do it. You should also be aware that when you use neutral words like "project power" what you really mean is that the central government has the ability to regularly enact violence in all geographical areas within those borders. We don't need your pedantic euphemisms to efface the utopian violence you are advocating Mr. COIN expert.
Regaining hard power he says. All you "experts" on hegemony have not historicized your discourse. Let me give you a quick history lesson: Its world war I!!!!! omg a multipolar hegemonic system! Many different "poles" or world powers duking it out over vague concepts of ethnicity and economic bitterness. OMG its world war 2!!!! The vague concepts of ethnicity have become completely entrenched in nationhood and are now conflated with "race" in what will be the final act of a multipolar hegemonic system two winners will emerge. CCCP and USA. Now look! A bi-polar hegemonic system! The concept of race's imbrication with nation has been effaced by the feigned revulsion of the holocaust's eradication of the other(even though the need to fill the psychic ontology of the self through destruction of the other is still part and parcel of modernism), now we are on to ideology! Two different poles of thought police: USSR and United States, labeling their justifications for violence "Communism" and "democracy" respectively. who will win!?!?
There are a lot of ideas about the transition from bipolar to unipolar out there. The only one that matters is the narrative of energy. Without energy the lights go out no more typey typey on computer, no more lithium from bolivia for ipods, no more IPODS!!!!! No more food, no more movement, no more credit, etc. Our current historical trajectory requires immense amounts of energy or else everything crashes. In order to become the unipolar world power the USSR and USA engaged in ideological battles, proxy warfare (for ideology, energy, drugs etc.) but in the end the country that controls energy will be the unipolar hegemon. The USSR suffered internal collapse before any ultimate confrontation could take place: rumors of a travel visa causing the berlin wall to fall. THen glasnost and perestroika causing the fissures of an already troubled society to become apparent. Without the competition from the USSR it was now the USA's turn to dictate the terms of global organization. Actions like Kosovo, the first gulf war(being the iran-iraq war[which was a policy actively supported by washington's agenda:making iran and iraq batter eachother in order to make sure a regional hegemon never appeared]), the other two gulf wars, special forces deployment in Iran, destabilization campaigns in Iran. Were the efforts of the US intelligence community in destabilizing Iran insurgency or terrorism? Do you understand yet?
A stable democracy in afghanistan, point out a stable democracy in this world. Were you paying attention to the midterm elections? we are a divided country. There is no such thing as some utopian stable democracy, everybody has problems, internal contradictions, and unsustainable institutions.
Now here is where your argument goes completely off the wall: you claim war fatigue is the undergirding support for your argument!!!! WAR FATIGUE!! in this day and age? Iran and Iraq aren't even on the fucking list of issues this election, nobody gives a shit, war has become entertainment! We eradicate the other through our remote control bombers(which by the way Iran has started building [I hope you're the first one to get hit by one, for advocating terrorism through remote control aircraft in the first place you ignorant americunt]) to create a "stable"(like you say) ontology of self. There are no stable ontologies of self and no stable democracies, in fact nothing in this world is stable we re-create THE ENTIRE FUCKING THING EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY! Why should we be killing people for your utopian dream! because you re-label the violence?
How will "overextension" manifest itself n00b? lol can't we just....RECRUIT MORE! lol, elect more republicans to cut social spending send more to the military? Well we've BEEN DOING THAT FOR A LONG LONG TIME! Why does this war which is the longest in US history and STILL HAS NOT CAUSED WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT happen all of a sudden now?
China "free riding" lol what is this mancur olson? Are you aware of the joint military drills China and Russia regularly engage in? are you aware of SEATO and various other asian military, economic, and political treaties? Why would the chinese collapse the dollar? It would destroy their growth and the rest of the world's economies. There is no danger of China calling in debts it knows it can't be paid, in the same way there is no danger from a state launched nuclear missile because of mutually assured destruction. Now comes the real reason you want to get out of Afghanistan: TO REDEPLOY ELSESHWERE! To be ready for various other paranoid "red dawn" fantasies.
OH no theres more! we will use the money to PAY INTEREST ON THE DEBTS THAT WILL NEVER BE CALLED IN! rofl, this is so epically absurd.
"Only the B-52 Effect will prevent a resumption of frank civil war along ethnic lines,"
The B-52 effect is terror of what we can drop on them from above right? some kind of....terrorism? right?
"To paraphrase the line from Kaplan's Warrior Politics that changed my mind: At the end of the day, America's power to do good is strongest when American hard power is both abundant and largely held in reserve."
The quote that changed your mind is Kaplan's rehashing of the white man's burden?!!?!? When has the US ever done "Good"? When it happened was it not just serendipity that caused it while the US was pursuing its reified agenda?
We're in afghanistan to stay, if you're gonna advocate the opposite, at least strap on a nutsack and say it like you mean it none of this re-labeling equivocation bullshit.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Habeas Corpus again
This is a draft I never finished, but I'm gonna publish it anyway without reading it over. There may be a link or piece of info that is interesting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guantanamo14-2009nov14,0,4700402.story
I would like to do something with this text: deconstruct, dissect, analyze, interpret, etc.
The first Sentence is "Setting the stage for a historic criminal trial, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Friday that the government would prosecute the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks and four others in a civilian courthouse just blocks from the scene of their alleged crimes."
The first part of the sentence argues that this is a "historic criminal trial", this is not true with a basic look at verifiable facts. When the law is broken by a person in the United States they are tried for their crimes and the decision of the individuals guilt or innocence is decided by a jury of his or her's peers.
The individuals being tried are not part of a war. I understand that the idea was packaged as a war, but just like the war on drugs and the war on poverty. It seems to just be an effective way to rally political capital, by attaching the significance and all the weight of the word "war". There was no war declared, congress passed the authorization to use military force. The AUMF authorized the executive to send the military anywhere it deemed necessary to find terrorists. OIF and OEF were not wars that were ever declared, there is no actual "war on terror", because war can only take place between two state entities. War cannot take place between two guys standing on the street. When Scarface yells "do you want to go to war?" he does not actually mean hes going to fight a conventional war, because he is not a state entity.
If these individuals have committed a crime they should be tried in a court. This is not historic the United States has prosecuted numerous "terrorist" trials. Even though the word "terrorist" is not a crime, one cannot be charged with one count of terrorism anywhere. If these individuals are responsible for 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and I bet a whole mess of further crimes then bring them to trial and convict them just like we have always done. How is this trial historic? Google FLorence ADX (I think thats what it is) its a supermax prison which is basically the real life arkham asylum. Its got every "terrorist" your friend teevee ever showed you. This trial is not historic.
The other statement I have an issue with is "self-proclaimed architect of the sept. 11 attacks". I'm not a doctor or anything, but I'm preeeeeety sure any human alive would say anyfucking thing in the world in order to stop being tortured. The paper already told you he is guilty. Do you truly believe he is guilty without seeing any of the evidence? I will only believe he is guilty after he is given a trial and I can see the information the jury saw, and decide for myself. Hes already convicted, its a media circus before its even started.
So Holder did good he brought some people to trial, but it really isn't good enough. Everyone who committed crimes in violation of United States law should be tried. But of course if john mccain had won NOBODY would have gotten a trial. So if I conclude that this decision would rest with the executive, and our choice for executive is always limited to two, then isn't this the best possible outcome we could hope for? But its still not everyone, gitmo is still up, they're going to use the archaic death penalty and make everyone a martyr. Things could be better, but at least Holder did a little.
Then the article goes to this guy "...top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration...". oh noo!! they're gonna use counterintelligence!! pew pew, spies and stuff, its like totally super secret. WTF is it, its been 8 years you dumb bastards, is there seriously still shit in there that compromises counterintelligence 8 years later? What kind of crazy deep cover shit are you doing and why does it suck so much fucking ass? What is your counterintelligence worth in balance with the U.S. constitution, fuck your counter-intelligence. Give the information to the public, don't do this bullshit.
top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: They're guilty! But the damning evidence is really super secret!
defense attorney: Secret evidence is awesome! just take his word for it, why would he lie? He doesn't have any type of legal questions surrounding his administration's treatment of prisoners.
top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: Jury, look at that guy, hes clearly a Muslim. And like I said I've got awesome evidence, its like 100% completely conclusive evidence, and I would show it to you I would...but its just this national security. Its counterintelligence, let me just give you a taste of how deep our cover goes, we have an inside man at the top rung of the ladder. I mean Bin Laden is actually our guy hes just spying on whos going to follow him after he did a big attack. That way we'd know who the next bin laden was if we created the first one, I mean thats how deep that cover is. We can't be blowing that type of cover can we?
Defense Attorney: And if we let people know who the snitches are, then nobody will trust us with their snitching needs. Then how are we supposed to tell who to torture until they confess? answer me that mr. big shot jury!
Oh they will spew propaganda!! oh no!!! fuck, grow up. The judge will do what they always do with disruptive defendants.
A few more paragraphs down the article contradicts itself. "The detainees are expected to be held at the same federal prison in New York that housed other suspected Al Qaeda operatives before trials related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa and other terrorist plots. Virtually all of those men were convicted in trials marked by heavy security and now are serving long sentences in federal prisons around the United States."
Well damn that sounds pretty similar to this trial...why the fuck is it historic, why does the text separate this trial with historic
not gonna finish his here are the 5 that aren't getting trials
The other detainees slated to appear before military commissions are Ahmed Mohammed al Darbi, Omar Khadr, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi and Noor Uthman Muhammed.
the 5 getting trials: ksm
Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali will do the same in civilian court.
I look forward to the information that will be made public by this trial. I look forward to the chance for the United States to re-affirm its values if only in a half assed way.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guantanamo14-2009nov14,0,4700402.story
I would like to do something with this text: deconstruct, dissect, analyze, interpret, etc.
The first Sentence is "Setting the stage for a historic criminal trial, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Friday that the government would prosecute the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks and four others in a civilian courthouse just blocks from the scene of their alleged crimes."
The first part of the sentence argues that this is a "historic criminal trial", this is not true with a basic look at verifiable facts. When the law is broken by a person in the United States they are tried for their crimes and the decision of the individuals guilt or innocence is decided by a jury of his or her's peers.
The individuals being tried are not part of a war. I understand that the idea was packaged as a war, but just like the war on drugs and the war on poverty. It seems to just be an effective way to rally political capital, by attaching the significance and all the weight of the word "war". There was no war declared, congress passed the authorization to use military force. The AUMF authorized the executive to send the military anywhere it deemed necessary to find terrorists. OIF and OEF were not wars that were ever declared, there is no actual "war on terror", because war can only take place between two state entities. War cannot take place between two guys standing on the street. When Scarface yells "do you want to go to war?" he does not actually mean hes going to fight a conventional war, because he is not a state entity.
If these individuals have committed a crime they should be tried in a court. This is not historic the United States has prosecuted numerous "terrorist" trials. Even though the word "terrorist" is not a crime, one cannot be charged with one count of terrorism anywhere. If these individuals are responsible for 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and I bet a whole mess of further crimes then bring them to trial and convict them just like we have always done. How is this trial historic? Google FLorence ADX (I think thats what it is) its a supermax prison which is basically the real life arkham asylum. Its got every "terrorist" your friend teevee ever showed you. This trial is not historic.
The other statement I have an issue with is "self-proclaimed architect of the sept. 11 attacks". I'm not a doctor or anything, but I'm preeeeeety sure any human alive would say anyfucking thing in the world in order to stop being tortured. The paper already told you he is guilty. Do you truly believe he is guilty without seeing any of the evidence? I will only believe he is guilty after he is given a trial and I can see the information the jury saw, and decide for myself. Hes already convicted, its a media circus before its even started.
So Holder did good he brought some people to trial, but it really isn't good enough. Everyone who committed crimes in violation of United States law should be tried. But of course if john mccain had won NOBODY would have gotten a trial. So if I conclude that this decision would rest with the executive, and our choice for executive is always limited to two, then isn't this the best possible outcome we could hope for? But its still not everyone, gitmo is still up, they're going to use the archaic death penalty and make everyone a martyr. Things could be better, but at least Holder did a little.
Then the article goes to this guy "...top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration...". oh noo!! they're gonna use counterintelligence!! pew pew, spies and stuff, its like totally super secret. WTF is it, its been 8 years you dumb bastards, is there seriously still shit in there that compromises counterintelligence 8 years later? What kind of crazy deep cover shit are you doing and why does it suck so much fucking ass? What is your counterintelligence worth in balance with the U.S. constitution, fuck your counter-intelligence. Give the information to the public, don't do this bullshit.
top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: They're guilty! But the damning evidence is really super secret!
defense attorney: Secret evidence is awesome! just take his word for it, why would he lie? He doesn't have any type of legal questions surrounding his administration's treatment of prisoners.
top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: Jury, look at that guy, hes clearly a Muslim. And like I said I've got awesome evidence, its like 100% completely conclusive evidence, and I would show it to you I would...but its just this national security. Its counterintelligence, let me just give you a taste of how deep our cover goes, we have an inside man at the top rung of the ladder. I mean Bin Laden is actually our guy hes just spying on whos going to follow him after he did a big attack. That way we'd know who the next bin laden was if we created the first one, I mean thats how deep that cover is. We can't be blowing that type of cover can we?
Defense Attorney: And if we let people know who the snitches are, then nobody will trust us with their snitching needs. Then how are we supposed to tell who to torture until they confess? answer me that mr. big shot jury!
Oh they will spew propaganda!! oh no!!! fuck, grow up. The judge will do what they always do with disruptive defendants.
A few more paragraphs down the article contradicts itself. "The detainees are expected to be held at the same federal prison in New York that housed other suspected Al Qaeda operatives before trials related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa and other terrorist plots. Virtually all of those men were convicted in trials marked by heavy security and now are serving long sentences in federal prisons around the United States."
Well damn that sounds pretty similar to this trial...why the fuck is it historic, why does the text separate this trial with historic
not gonna finish his here are the 5 that aren't getting trials
The other detainees slated to appear before military commissions are Ahmed Mohammed al Darbi, Omar Khadr, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi and Noor Uthman Muhammed.
the 5 getting trials: ksm
Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali will do the same in civilian court.
I look forward to the information that will be made public by this trial. I look forward to the chance for the United States to re-affirm its values if only in a half assed way.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Just charge them with a crime, or do not
First of all I just want to say that this the first time in my life I've been actually surprised in a good way about a sitting president. I was worried that Obama would be all talk, but instead he dove right in from day one. He set in motion progress on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, ended extraordinary rendition, ended Bush's spending freeze on overseas family planning, stopped legally sanctioned torture, and stated that Gitmo must be closed within a year.
The last thing is what I wanted to write a few paragraphs about. Most importantly why the fuck is it that we are just NOW having this debate? When we are finally going to start bandaging this wound, thats when all of a sudden the press makes the public aware of the details.
Here is a quick summary:
-Gitmo stands on a territory that the US never gave back to Cuba after driving the Spanish out in the very late 1800s. They pay a pittance in lease, which is why there can be a US military facility in a country that the US has an embargo on.
-Gitmo was chosen as the camp for captured "enemy combatants"
-Gitmo was chosen because it lay outside of any state, commonwealth, or province of the United sates. This meant that it could be argued that civilian law or even federal courts were outside their jurisdiction to regulate it. (Obviously this is fail, the federal government has jurisdiction over all military bases and BIA reservations, etc. basically everything in between)
-There is no such thing as an "enemy combatant", it is nowhere in the Geneva conventions. It was created so that the captured individuals would not be "prisoners of war" and thusly be protected under the Geneva conventions(that treaty everyone signed to prevent Naziesque atrocities from being committed in the future).
-Can't remember which legal stooge came up with this bullshit (my guess is either gonzalez, thurmond's scion, or the taft scion) but they wanted to ensure they wouldn't be prosecuted for the warcrimes they were going to commit. If these attorneys had come in to a possession of a pair of testicles at any point they could have written the exact opposite and these chickenhawks probably would have never tortured in the first place for fear of punishment. That of course assumes they weren't just told what their legal justification should say. The point is they argue that because Afghanistan is a "failed state" that makes the people captured "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war". Precedent? Fuck precedent!
-A brand new secret military tribunal process was set up to try "enemy combatants" just for the war on terror.
So now that Gitmo is going to be shut down, all of a sudden the media finds it journalism to write about what Gitmo was in the first fucking place. So now the debate is: Where will they go?
The first suggestion comes from Christopher Bond(R-Missouri) to reopen Alcatraz. Ok...so I guess the Republicans aren't still salty about their loss(sarcasm). Ok so apparently the Republicans think that incarceration in a maximum security federal prison is a terrible idea, because the prisons will become magnets for attacks! Firstly it gave me pause that any Republicans would have have concern for the lives of a prisoner. Like there would be planes flying in to supermaxs all over the country. I realized that they could be arguing it would put the guards lives at risk, which I suppose is understandable. The argument though is ridiculous, prisons are made to hold criminals, they act like this is the first time prisons have been used to house criminals. Mcveigh, Unabomber, Moussaoui, Abdel-rahman(the blind sheikh), etc are all in the ADX Florence and they haven't gone through a terrorist attack or a terrorist break out.
How about if you fucking idiots stop making shit up and creating new laws for this and that, new exceptions to why we can't possibly live like we used to, and how the post 9/11 world will destroy us all?
Have a Federal prosecutor's office evaluate the cases and decide whether or not to charge these individuals with crimes. If they have committed a crime then have a trial.
OR
Establish that they are in fact prisoners of war, and go through the maritime/military law.
Where will they go?? They're not fucking superheroes we don't need to build an Arkham Asylum here or a fucking "negative zone", just put them in a cell. Like abdel-rahman already is in a fucking cell, just like binalshibh is already in a fucking cell, and just like every other CRIMINAL that has been convicted is in a cell.
I hope Obama keeps going. This is the kind of shit that Clinton would never do for fear of being labeled liberal. Obama knows what he wants, and how to get it, I just hope that what he wants is what he has been talking about. Most importantly we need an exit strategy immediately. I hate presidents, but honestly I have to say this was good shit the past few days.
The last thing is what I wanted to write a few paragraphs about. Most importantly why the fuck is it that we are just NOW having this debate? When we are finally going to start bandaging this wound, thats when all of a sudden the press makes the public aware of the details.
Here is a quick summary:
-Gitmo stands on a territory that the US never gave back to Cuba after driving the Spanish out in the very late 1800s. They pay a pittance in lease, which is why there can be a US military facility in a country that the US has an embargo on.
-Gitmo was chosen as the camp for captured "enemy combatants"
-Gitmo was chosen because it lay outside of any state, commonwealth, or province of the United sates. This meant that it could be argued that civilian law or even federal courts were outside their jurisdiction to regulate it. (Obviously this is fail, the federal government has jurisdiction over all military bases and BIA reservations, etc. basically everything in between)
-There is no such thing as an "enemy combatant", it is nowhere in the Geneva conventions. It was created so that the captured individuals would not be "prisoners of war" and thusly be protected under the Geneva conventions(that treaty everyone signed to prevent Naziesque atrocities from being committed in the future).
-Can't remember which legal stooge came up with this bullshit (my guess is either gonzalez, thurmond's scion, or the taft scion) but they wanted to ensure they wouldn't be prosecuted for the warcrimes they were going to commit. If these attorneys had come in to a possession of a pair of testicles at any point they could have written the exact opposite and these chickenhawks probably would have never tortured in the first place for fear of punishment. That of course assumes they weren't just told what their legal justification should say. The point is they argue that because Afghanistan is a "failed state" that makes the people captured "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war". Precedent? Fuck precedent!
-A brand new secret military tribunal process was set up to try "enemy combatants" just for the war on terror.
So now that Gitmo is going to be shut down, all of a sudden the media finds it journalism to write about what Gitmo was in the first fucking place. So now the debate is: Where will they go?
The first suggestion comes from Christopher Bond(R-Missouri) to reopen Alcatraz. Ok...so I guess the Republicans aren't still salty about their loss(sarcasm). Ok so apparently the Republicans think that incarceration in a maximum security federal prison is a terrible idea, because the prisons will become magnets for attacks! Firstly it gave me pause that any Republicans would have have concern for the lives of a prisoner. Like there would be planes flying in to supermaxs all over the country. I realized that they could be arguing it would put the guards lives at risk, which I suppose is understandable. The argument though is ridiculous, prisons are made to hold criminals, they act like this is the first time prisons have been used to house criminals. Mcveigh, Unabomber, Moussaoui, Abdel-rahman(the blind sheikh), etc are all in the ADX Florence and they haven't gone through a terrorist attack or a terrorist break out.
How about if you fucking idiots stop making shit up and creating new laws for this and that, new exceptions to why we can't possibly live like we used to, and how the post 9/11 world will destroy us all?
Have a Federal prosecutor's office evaluate the cases and decide whether or not to charge these individuals with crimes. If they have committed a crime then have a trial.
OR
Establish that they are in fact prisoners of war, and go through the maritime/military law.
Where will they go?? They're not fucking superheroes we don't need to build an Arkham Asylum here or a fucking "negative zone", just put them in a cell. Like abdel-rahman already is in a fucking cell, just like binalshibh is already in a fucking cell, and just like every other CRIMINAL that has been convicted is in a cell.
I hope Obama keeps going. This is the kind of shit that Clinton would never do for fear of being labeled liberal. Obama knows what he wants, and how to get it, I just hope that what he wants is what he has been talking about. Most importantly we need an exit strategy immediately. I hate presidents, but honestly I have to say this was good shit the past few days.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Rovian Propaganda concerning Obama
I received this email from a freind who says her grandma sends her this stuff all the time. I thought I’d share this with you as well as my exasperated response.
[Begin Email]
{Identities removed}
Rather frightening!>>>>Subject: Fw: Muslim in the White House!!!>>>>Kind of scary!>>>>>>>>>>Something to think about as various ‘Party’ posturing takes>place…....................J.>>>>Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to black Muslim>Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and>White atheist, Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas.>>>>When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father>returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim as well,>moving to Jakarta with young Obama, when he was six years old.>>>>Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language Obama>spent “two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholicschool”>in Jakarta.>>>>Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.>Mitigating that information, by saying that for two years, he attendeda>Catholic school.>>>>Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who>migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama’s mother, Ann>Dunham-at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.>>>>Obama’s spin- meisters are now attempting to make it appear thatObama’s>introduction to Islam, came from his father and that influence was only>temporary, which is true. Obama Sr. returned to Kenya immediately>following the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his>son’s education. But,>>Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham’s second husband, educated his stepson Barack>Hussein Obama, as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s>Wahabbi schools.>>>> Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists,>who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world. Since it is>politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political>office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ,>to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.>>>>> PASS THIS AROUND FOLK!!!!!!!!>>I I REALLY DID LIKE THIS KID…TILL I FOUND OUT HE WENT TO MUSLIM>SCHOOL….PROBABLLY A NICE GUY ....BUT DONT THINK I WANT A MUSLIM OF>ANY KIND FOR PRESIDENT OF THE U. S. AM I PREDJUICE????????? HELL>YES…..THINK TWICE BEFORE U CONSIDER HIM…WITHOUT THAT MUSLIM>BACKGROUND HE WOULD HAVE MADE A GREAT CANDIDATE…...BACKGROUND>COUNTS….DID FOR ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS AND>CANDIDATED….....................JUST PONDER IT FOR AWHILE…..
[End Email]
.
.
.
I was quite pissed after reading this and dumped this reponse:
[Begin diatribe]
This is possibly THE most offensive thing I’ve ever read. This is backedup by NO fucking evidence, Obama is a fucking christian. And I’d like tosee the evidence that this school was first of all “wahabbi” in its’ denomination, and that it therefore MUST have procured its’ funds fromSaudi Arabia. If you want to indict barack’s background maybe you should stick
with what is TRUE and what he has admitted like the fact he was addictedto crack and a former gang banger.The fact these individuals who are PROPAGANDIZING add in the “huessein” part of his father’s name is toappeal to a United Statesian prejudice heuristic, so that we associate thisname with Ba’athist Saddam. Heussein is a VERY common name and it is often claimed that individuals named heusein are descendents of Mohammed. This
propaganda also mentions the fact barack’s mom was athiest.
One of the more offensive things in this is they bring up the fact that barack’s dad was a “black muslim”. This is purposely ambiguous. First ofall it attaches negative connotations to being black. Second of all itattempts to insinuate that Barack’s dad was some sort of “nation of Islam”adherent. Third of all Muslims are all fucking colors just like the 2nd largest religion in the world Christianity. Because the prophet’s of bothreligions have stressed the universality of their religion. This “universality”being in a lot of ways a theologicla backlash against the old testament’s“chosen people”. The sheer fact this bullshit sez he was a “black muslim” is adead giveaway that this shit is written by someone like david duke.
The following bullshit is a blatant (and not well disguised) attempt to propagandize middle-upper middle class white christians, most likely geriatrics who do not have the will, time, or energy to ascertain thefacts that contradict these prejudiced lies.
[Name Removed] if your grandma is into this shit….damn i dunno. I mean mygrandma’s a catholic, but she doesn’t vote for an oil and drug empire that had tiesto the third reich(Bushes) simply because he sez hes a christian. Youshould let your grandma know that guess what: there ARE evil people in theworld. and those people WILL lie to you if it brings them more power.
LOL this isn’t even “conspracy theory” because for a conspiracy it takes2 or more people. This is a “mind reading theory” lol, its some racist backwater christian hilljack claming that he knows a secret Barack hasnever shared with anyone, SHIT MAYBE EVEN BARACK DOESN’T KNOW THAT HE IS GOINGTO BETRAY AMERICA!!! roflmao
If you fuckers realize wahabbism is bad why not ask why our currentfucking leaders are in the pocket of the saudi royal family my fucking godreading shit like this just reminds me how fucking stuipd 90% of america is.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions, the evidence are lies, andthe conclusion has glaring holes. Why the fuck would a muslim make a bad president? Why does the fact an individual worshipped differently thenyou make then a bad muslim? The background that I think makes people bad presidents is when they come from criminal familes with businessconnections to the third reich like Prescott Bush. You want real evidence you rightwing screwheads, then look it up: “Prescott Bush” and “Nazi” and “pig iron”,the court documents are right there. See that is called EVIDENCE, itssomething you’ll never see substantiate itself when in reference to Barack’ssecret wahabbi agenda roflmao. [Name Removed] whoever sent you this shit should have ZERO credibility in your book imo. cause they ahve less than zero in mine,i’d consider the purveyor of this bullshit a willling disinfo agent, who is attempting to manipulate individuals getting them to embrace his agenda through lies and deceit. god damn this shit pisses me off. Well guesswhat this BLACK christian once said: “Judge a man not by the color of hisskin, but by his character.” His name was Martin Luther King, he was killedfor trying to unite us. This shit is a dime a dozen lies to divide us, getus to think we’re not all on the same side. whatever.
[End diatribe]
.
.
Thought I’d share that with you guys , just to let you know that we do have “enemies” in the information war. And disseminating memes IS activism.
[Begin Email]
{Identities removed}
Rather frightening!>>>>Subject: Fw: Muslim in the White House!!!>>>>Kind of scary!>>>>>>>>>>Something to think about as various ‘Party’ posturing takes>place…....................J.>>>>Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to black Muslim>Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and>White atheist, Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas.>>>>When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father>returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim as well,>moving to Jakarta with young Obama, when he was six years old.>>>>Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language Obama>spent “two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholicschool”>in Jakarta.>>>>Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.>Mitigating that information, by saying that for two years, he attendeda>Catholic school.>>>>Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who>migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama’s mother, Ann>Dunham-at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.>>>>Obama’s spin- meisters are now attempting to make it appear thatObama’s>introduction to Islam, came from his father and that influence was only>temporary, which is true. Obama Sr. returned to Kenya immediately>following the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his>son’s education. But,>>Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham’s second husband, educated his stepson Barack>Hussein Obama, as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s>Wahabbi schools.>>>> Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists,>who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world. Since it is>politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political>office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ,>to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.>>>>> PASS THIS AROUND FOLK!!!!!!!!>>I I REALLY DID LIKE THIS KID…TILL I FOUND OUT HE WENT TO MUSLIM>SCHOOL….PROBABLLY A NICE GUY ....BUT DONT THINK I WANT A MUSLIM OF>ANY KIND FOR PRESIDENT OF THE U. S. AM I PREDJUICE????????? HELL>YES…..THINK TWICE BEFORE U CONSIDER HIM…WITHOUT THAT MUSLIM>BACKGROUND HE WOULD HAVE MADE A GREAT CANDIDATE…...BACKGROUND>COUNTS….DID FOR ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS AND>CANDIDATED….....................JUST PONDER IT FOR AWHILE…..
[End Email]
.
.
.
I was quite pissed after reading this and dumped this reponse:
[Begin diatribe]
This is possibly THE most offensive thing I’ve ever read. This is backedup by NO fucking evidence, Obama is a fucking christian. And I’d like tosee the evidence that this school was first of all “wahabbi” in its’ denomination, and that it therefore MUST have procured its’ funds fromSaudi Arabia. If you want to indict barack’s background maybe you should stick
with what is TRUE and what he has admitted like the fact he was addictedto crack and a former gang banger.The fact these individuals who are PROPAGANDIZING add in the “huessein” part of his father’s name is toappeal to a United Statesian prejudice heuristic, so that we associate thisname with Ba’athist Saddam. Heussein is a VERY common name and it is often claimed that individuals named heusein are descendents of Mohammed. This
propaganda also mentions the fact barack’s mom was athiest.
One of the more offensive things in this is they bring up the fact that barack’s dad was a “black muslim”. This is purposely ambiguous. First ofall it attaches negative connotations to being black. Second of all itattempts to insinuate that Barack’s dad was some sort of “nation of Islam”adherent. Third of all Muslims are all fucking colors just like the 2nd largest religion in the world Christianity. Because the prophet’s of bothreligions have stressed the universality of their religion. This “universality”being in a lot of ways a theologicla backlash against the old testament’s“chosen people”. The sheer fact this bullshit sez he was a “black muslim” is adead giveaway that this shit is written by someone like david duke.
The following bullshit is a blatant (and not well disguised) attempt to propagandize middle-upper middle class white christians, most likely geriatrics who do not have the will, time, or energy to ascertain thefacts that contradict these prejudiced lies.
[Name Removed] if your grandma is into this shit….damn i dunno. I mean mygrandma’s a catholic, but she doesn’t vote for an oil and drug empire that had tiesto the third reich(Bushes) simply because he sez hes a christian. Youshould let your grandma know that guess what: there ARE evil people in theworld. and those people WILL lie to you if it brings them more power.
LOL this isn’t even “conspracy theory” because for a conspiracy it takes2 or more people. This is a “mind reading theory” lol, its some racist backwater christian hilljack claming that he knows a secret Barack hasnever shared with anyone, SHIT MAYBE EVEN BARACK DOESN’T KNOW THAT HE IS GOINGTO BETRAY AMERICA!!! roflmao
If you fuckers realize wahabbism is bad why not ask why our currentfucking leaders are in the pocket of the saudi royal family my fucking godreading shit like this just reminds me how fucking stuipd 90% of america is.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions, the evidence are lies, andthe conclusion has glaring holes. Why the fuck would a muslim make a bad president? Why does the fact an individual worshipped differently thenyou make then a bad muslim? The background that I think makes people bad presidents is when they come from criminal familes with businessconnections to the third reich like Prescott Bush. You want real evidence you rightwing screwheads, then look it up: “Prescott Bush” and “Nazi” and “pig iron”,the court documents are right there. See that is called EVIDENCE, itssomething you’ll never see substantiate itself when in reference to Barack’ssecret wahabbi agenda roflmao. [Name Removed] whoever sent you this shit should have ZERO credibility in your book imo. cause they ahve less than zero in mine,i’d consider the purveyor of this bullshit a willling disinfo agent, who is attempting to manipulate individuals getting them to embrace his agenda through lies and deceit. god damn this shit pisses me off. Well guesswhat this BLACK christian once said: “Judge a man not by the color of hisskin, but by his character.” His name was Martin Luther King, he was killedfor trying to unite us. This shit is a dime a dozen lies to divide us, getus to think we’re not all on the same side. whatever.
[End diatribe]
.
.
Thought I’d share that with you guys , just to let you know that we do have “enemies” in the information war. And disseminating memes IS activism.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Actual Successful US terror prosecutions since 9/11(Mostly notes)
These are all notes and comments culled from a different website I liked commenting on. What I was struck with in all this research was the charges that these individuals were actually brought to court and convicted on. Very few were given serious sentences, very few were charged with violent crimes, and in a few instances prosecutions were halted because of intelligence community secrecy(refusal to share info with prosecutors). It is my opinion that terrorism is a legal problem, not a military problem. Our current attempts to solve this legal problem militarily have led to an endless occupation of Iraq and an endless counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Which will eventually cause some sort of economic or military overstrech.
Zacarias Moussaoui – Convicted of conspiring to kill Americans as part of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The decision itself seems (in my opinion) to expand what conspiracy law traditionally covers, convicted him of conspiracy simply because he possessed foreknowledge and did not warn people. When traditional conspiracy law has required a “substantial” or “significant” step towards committing the planned crime. Currently serving a life sentence at the Administrative maximum security prison facility in Florence, Colorado.
nada
R2154583 months ago
In the twelve months immediately after 9/11, the prosecution of individuals the government classified as international terrorists surged sharply higher than in the previous year. But timely data show that five years later, in the latest available period, the total number of these prosecutions has returned to roughly what they were just before the attacks. Given the widely accepted belief that the threat of terrorism in all parts of the world is much larger today than it was six or seven years ago, the extent of the recent decline in prosecutions is unexpected.
Federal prosecutors by law and custom are authorized to decline cases that are brought to them for prosecution by the investigative agencies. And over the years the prosecutors have used this power to weed out matters that for one reason or another they felt should be dropped. For international terrorism the declination rate has been high, especially in recent years. In fact, timely data show that in the first eight months of FY 2006 the assistant U.S. Attorneys rejected slightly more than nine out of ten of the referrals. Given the assumption that the investigation of international terrorism must be the single most important target area for the FBI and other agencies, the turn-down rate is hard to understand.
The typical sentences recently imposed on individuals considered to be international terrorists are not impressive. For all those convicted as a result of cases initiated in the two years after 9/11, for example, the median sentence—half got more and half got less—was 28 days. For those referrals that came in more recently—through May 31, 2006—the median sentence was 20 days. For cases started in the two year period before the 9/11 attack, the typical sentence was much longer, 41 months.
From what is now known, it appears that well-placed undercover agents and extensive electronic surveillance can largely be credited with the recent apprehension in England of scores of suspects who authorities say were planning to blow up as many as ten airliners on their way to the United States.
These same investigative tools also appear to have been important in uncovering evidence indicating that a Pakistani charity may have been diverting funds originally contributed for earthquake relief to finance the planned terrorism attacks on the jumbo jets. In the United States, as well as England, details about investigations like these leading up to the filing of formal charges are usually not revealed, only occasionally becoming known during trial or as the result of later inquiries.
Essential though the use of secret agents and secret surveillance seems to have been in these related cases, the process now moves from what necessarily is one of the most hidden activities of any government to a much more public stage: the criminal prosecution, trial and sentencing of these suspects.
In the United States, partly because of this country’s far more expansive freedom of information laws, quite complete information is available about the actual prosecution of virtually all cases, including those related to terrorism.
This report, based on detailed data obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), mostly focuses on the use of the nation’s criminal laws in the five years after 9/11/01 against over a thousand individuals who the government had categorized as international terrorists. See sidebar “About the Data”.
Fully acknowledging that for a variety of evidentiary reasons terrorism cases are among the most difficult challenges faced by the government, the Justice Department data about the small and declining number of prosecutions and convictions and the resulting sentences for international terrorism raise a host of questions. Among them are the following.
Despite the highly publicized incidents of actual and threatened terrorism, is it possible that the public understanding about the extent of this problem is in some ways inaccurate or exaggerated?
How effective are the government’s expanding surveillance and intelligence efforts in identifying serious terrorists?
Once the suspects have been identified, how good a job do the investigators do in obtaining evidence that will result in their conviction in court?
The question of the basic competence of the Bush Administration in managing the overall response of the United States to terrorism has in recent months become a subject of debate for candidates of both parties. And the effectiveness and fairness of criminal enforcement in this area necessarily is a significant part of the whole effort. Several months ago, on June 22, the Bush Administration itself weighed into the discussion directly when the Justice Department issued what it called a “Counterterrorism White Paper.” See About the Data for a discussion of the content of the white paper.
The Big Picture
The impact of the events of 9/11/01 on the United States is hard to exaggerate.
Within months, for example, the largest single re-organization of the federal government in more than forty years was underway as the Bush Administration and Congress began shaping the Department of Homeland Security. In the same period, the government and the airline industry agreed to a new program where federal agents would begin screening all passengers for weapons and certain kinds of explosives before they boarded their planes. And under then-secret orders from President Bush, the administration initiated or expanded new surveillance programs by the National Security Agency and the Treasury Department. Meanwhile, Congress began a long struggle to adopt a new body of law intended to profoundly alter the flow of legal and illegal migrants into the U.S. That struggle continues today.
And around the world—in London and Madrid and Indonesia and Moscow—terrorists set off powerful explosive devices. In addition to directly affecting all of the living and dying in these cities, the bombings have continued to dominate the evening news broadcasts and the morning papers and the minds of hundreds of millions of people on every continent.
Given the vast world-wide reach of the media, these developments and others have properly become an intricate part of an intense political debate in the United States and in many other countries about how best to deal with these terrifying attacks.
For the federal enforcement agencies, a very extensive effort was launched. As has been previously noted, this report focuses almost entirely on people the Justice Department thought to be international terrorists. But the government has developed a bookkeeping system to track a much broader range of activities concerning several other kinds of “terrorism” as well as what it calls “anti-terrorism.” The official Justice Department definition of who is considered an anti-terrorist is elusive. Covered by this term, according to the government manual, are those who have been targeted on the grounds that charging them with any crime might “prevent or disrupt potential or actual terrorists threats.” See Justice Department Program Categories. The counts of those tracked by the Justice Department do not include military detainees—currently numbering more than 400 individuals—who have been held in the U.S. facility in Guantanamo.
Since 9/11/01 the government has classified a very large number of individuals as either a “terrorists” or “anti-terrorists.” The bulk of them, some 6,472 individuals, were referred during the two years following the 9/11 attack. Now five years since the attack, final outcomes have been determined on three out of four of these cases.
For the total set of completions, federal prosecutors decided that nearly two out of three (64%) of them were not worth prosecuting. In addition, for 9% more of the completions, a prosecution was filed but the cases were subsequently dismissed or the individuals found not guilty. Looked at from another perspective, slightly more than one out of four of the total (27%) were convicted. Considered together, this means that five years after 9/11, looking at the 6,472 individuals in the overall count who were initially referred under the terrorist or anti-terrorist programs, only about one in five have been convicted. Details for the specific terrorism and anti-terrorism categories are shown in the adjacent table.
Despite the low success rate in obtaining convictions, the large absolute number of referrals coming from the agencies (nearly 6,500 of them) has resulted in a sizable number of convictions (1,329). For this group it is instructive to consider the penalties that were imposed:
*Only 14 (one percent) received a substantial sentence—20 years or more.
Only 67 (5 percent) received sentences of five or more years.*
Of the 1,329 who were sentenced, 704 received no prison time and an additional 327 received sentences ranging from one day to less than a year. Thus, the median or typical prison sentence for them all was zero because the majority received no time at all in prison. See Figure 4 and supporting table.
Zeroing in on International Terrorism Trends
Since shortly after 9/11/01, according to the official Justice Department definition, an international terrorist is an individual suspected of having been involved in acts that are violent or otherwise dangerous to human life which appear motivated by an intent to coerce, intimidate or retaliate against a government or civilian populations. The acts, including threats or conspiracies to engage them, also must be of an international nature and impact on the U.S.
As noted above, in the first eight months of FY 2006, Justice Department EOUSA data show that federal prosecutors filed a variety of different criminal charges against 19 individuals who they had determined met this standard. In the twelve months of the previous year, FY 2005, the Department recorded 46 such prosecutions, only a fraction of the 355 it counted in the year immediately after the attacks.
For some kinds of crime, the number of prosecutions in a given area may be a better measure of official concern about a particular problem than the actual threat. And given the deep public concerns immediately after the attacks, the very large number of international terrorism prosecutions in FY 2002 is hardly surprising. Considering the numerous warning statements from President Bush and other federal officials about the continuing nature of the terrorism threat, however, the gradual decline in these cases since the FY 2002 high point and the high rate at which prosecutors are declining to prosecute terrorism cases raises questions. See earlier table.
The Overall Portrait
Examining the year-by-year changes in government actions provides valuable insights. However, convictions in any one year may reflect investigations that originated at varying points in years past. To examine the impact of 9/11, a useful approach is to collect information about all of the referrals that originated during a set time period, and then follow these cases and examine the resulting outcomes. In this case, TRAC created what is called a “cohort” of all the referrals the Justice Department categorized as international terrorism which originated in the two years following 9/11 and traced what ultimately happened to them through the end of May 2006 (the latest available data).
The findings from TRAC’s second analysis of this cohort, now followed for almost five years, are as puzzling as those emerging from the year-by-year trends. Among them are the following:
Federal investigative agencies for the whole period referred—recommended the prosecution—of 1,391 individuals who the Justice Department classified as international terrorists.
As a result, prosecutions were filed against 335 of these individuals, about one quarter of the total.
For the whole five-year period, the assistant U.S. Attorneys also declined to prosecute 748 of the international terrorist referrals—or two out of three during this five year follow-up period. When making a decision to decline, the prosecutors are required to explain why. For more than one third of the declinations, 39% of them, the assistant U.S. Attorneys said their negative decisions were caused by a lack of evidence of criminal intent, weak or insufficient evidence or because no federal offense was evident. Also baffling was the finding that an additional 24% of the referrals were declined as a result of either an agency’s request or because of “office policy.” See adjacent table. As a result of these various decisions, the government reports that 213 individuals were convicted (by trial or plea) and 123—less than one out of ten of the original referrals—were sentenced to prison. After conviction, of course, the judges settle on the actual sentences that will be imposed. In the case of this small number of international terrorists, the sentence was one day or less than a year for 91, one year to five years for 18, five years to 20 years for eight and 20 years to life for six. Ninety received no prison sentence. (As noted above, the median or typical sentence for these 213 individuals—half got more and half got less—was 28 days.)
Lead Charge in International Terrorism Cases
Thus far in this part of the report we have been focusing on the 1,391 individuals who the assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Justice Department had classified as “international terrorists” who were referred for prosecution. Under the department’s record keeping procedures, however, a person classified as a terrorist does not have to be charged with crimes that on their face seem to involve “terrorism.” Instead, the suspect can be indicted under a wide range of different laws. And in fact, in this case, the department lists about 80 specific crimes that it said were the “lead charge” for these 1,391 accused terrorists. For five of the “international terrorists,” for example, the lead charge was 42 USC 0408, a violation of the federal old age, survivors and disability insurance law. And the lead charge for another “international terrorist” was 26 USC 7203, the willful failure to file a return. Some of the lead charges seem more fitting, but are surprising in their rarity. For only one individual judged to be an international terrorist, for example, was the lead charge 18 USC 2381 (treason). And for only two others who were so categorized during the whole five year period was the lead charge 18 USC 0871 (threat against a president and successors).
Here, at the other end of the scale, are the top five lead charges for international terrorism referrals during the post-9/11 years: 18 USC 1001 (fraud/false statements—14.5%), 18 USC 2332 (terrorism, criminal penalties—14.4%), 18 USC 2339 (providing material support to terrorists—11.6%), 18 USC 0371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US—4.7%), 18 USC 3144 (release or detention of a material witness—3.3%). In addition, lead charge information is unknown for 17.7% of cases.
The list of recorded lead charge for referrals that resulted in the defendant being convicted of some crime is shorter, but still contains a range of charges. See convictions. Heading the list was 18 USC 1001 (fraud/false statements), representing over half of all convictions—56.8%. The rest of the top 4 charges against convicted terrorists were 18 USC 1028 (fraud and related activity – ID documents—5.6%), 18 USC 1546 (fraud and misuse of visas, permits—4.7%) 18 USC 2339 (providing material support for terrorists—3.8%) and 18 USC 3144 (release or detention of material witness—3.3%). Two-thirds of all convictions for terrorism involved a fraud or fraud-related lead charge.
Agency Workload
For each referral, the Justice Department also records the agency that played the lead role in the investigation that led to it. It is not surprising that considerably more than half of the 1,391 referrals for international terrorism—913, or nearly two-thirds of them—were credited to the FBI. See Figure 6 and supporting table.
With 161 referrals, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and later the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—now Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigration enforcement arms—was second. Somewhat surprisingly under the umbrella of combating international terrorists, the Social Security Administration, with 84 referrals, was third. And the 70 referrals by former Customs Service now largely CBP was the fourth most active. Fifth—with 24 referrals—was the Transportation Security Administration, now in DHS but formerly part of the Transportation Department.
But in addition to the workload, agency-by-agency outcomes for the five year period also can be examined. While the FBI led the federal government in the volume of referrals for criminal prosecution for international terrorists, federal prosecutors declined as not warranting filing charges a much higher proportion of its referrals for prosecution than referrals from most other agencies. Prosecutors filed charges on only 18 percent of FBI referrals and declined to prosecute 82 percent. More of the cases dropped by the wayside at the court stage. This means that less than one out of ten FBI cases disposed of during the five year period resulted in the defendant being convicted for any crime. The median sentence of convictions in FBI cases, although slightly higher than the overall median, was still only 6 months. See table with median prison sentences.
In contrast, it was the Social Security Administration (SSA) which racked up the highest success rate in terms of the proportion federal prosecutors decided to proceed and prosecute in court (92% prosecuted versus 8% declined), and slightly over three out of four (76%) of cases that had reached completion resulted in a conviction. Presumably, the comparatively better record of the SSA was partly related to the fact that its cases were less complex. For the 50 SSA convictions, the median sentence was one month.
The other three agencies—all now part of the Department of Homeland Security—had much less success than did the Social Security Administration when judged by either prosecution or conviction rates. Moreover, for convictions from all three DHS agencies, the median sentence was no prison time at all. This means that in over fifty percent of DHS’s convictions, the sentences were not even a single day in prison. Details for other agencies are also shown in the accompanying table.
International Terrorism Cases by Federal Judicial District
The separate offices of the United States Attorneys are vital players in the criminal enforcement of federal law. As noted above, the work of federal enforcement as a whole or within these offices can be examined in several ways. One approach is to identify all the referrals that occurred in a specific period of time and then follow the cases in the ensuing years. In this case, for example, the EOUSA data allowed the identification of every international terrorism referral recorded in each of the districts in the two years after 9/11 and the subsequent tracking of them to determine what action, if any, had been taken in regard to each as of May 2006.
The first part of this section examines international terrorism cases in this way and focuses only on the matters that were referred to the prosecutors from September 2001 to September 2003. The second section, just below, presents district-by-district counts for the full five years since 9/11 regardless of when the referral took place. This second comparison, for example, includes referrals received before 9/11/2001 but acted upon after 9/11.
When it comes to the two-year period, the top ten busiest districts are shown in Figure 7, while all districts with any activity are shown in the accompanying table.
However, one district—Eastern Virginia (Alexandria)—was by a huge margin the government’s favorite venue. In this district, located just south of the District of Columbia, the Justice Department recorded receiving somewhat more than a quarter of all referrals—297 out of the 1,322 total—that were finally classified as international terrorism.
The District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) were the next two busiest districts—in terms of the number of criminal referrals—with 82 and 80 respectively. South Carolina and the Western District of New York (Buffalo) had, respectively, 65 and 63 criminal international terrorist referrals.
Many questions are raised by this distribution. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, for example, says that:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Critics note that the heavy concentration of international terrorism referrals in Virginia East strains the principle that defendants should be brought to trial in the district and state where their crime occurred. They also argue that prosecutors favor bringing cases here because the juries in the area near the Pentagon naturally have a large proportion of active and retired military personnel and its circuit court of appeals is among the most conservation in the United States.
The data show that Virginia East did prosecute as well as convict a much higher proportion of its criminal international terrorism referrals than was true for most other parts of the country. While nationally 31% of criminal referrals were prosecuted, in Virginia East charges were filed in court on 66%. Similarly, nationally only one in five defendants were ultimately convicted, whereas nearly half (45%) resulted in guilty pleas or verdicts in Virginia East. See district-by-district performance along with convictions by district in earlier Figure 7.
In contrast, the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)—ranked second and third in terms of the volume of referrals—turned in disappointing outcomes. D.C. had not a single conviction, and in seven out of eight of the referrals the prosecutor declined to prosecute at all. Prosecutors in Manhattan declined to prosecute 83% of the time, and less than 5 percent were ultimately convicted of any crime. And of the 3 that were convicted, two received no prison time. However, even in the much higher volume (107) convictions in Virginia East, the median prison sentence—half got less, half more—was only 1 month.For the full five-year period a somewhat different picture emerges. Because of new government withholding, it is no longer possible to obtain information on referrals since September 2003. Thus, it is not possible to examine district-by-district performance in the same way as was done earlier. Prosecution, declination, and conviction counts can be examined. In terms of these indicators of activity levels, because of the wider scope of coverage which extends to cases that began before 9/11, counts are somewhat higher. However, the same districts that were active before are active in this more encompassing list. And as before, the Eastern District of Virginia far and away leads the country. See district-by-district activity table.
Link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 16:42:29
nada
R2154593 months ago
According to the United States Attorneys reporting to the EOUSA from FY 2002 through the first eight months of 2006, the government said it had prosecuted 815 individuals who it had categorized as either “international terrorists” (579) or as being involved in “terrorist financing” (236). This total is almost twice the 441 filings claimed on page 13 of the White Paper. Link
International TerrorismFederal Criminal EnforcementOctober 1, 2001 – May 31, 2006US: Prosecutions 579, Declinations 975, Convictions 314 link
.
.
Terrorist FinancingFederal Criminal EnforcementOctober 1, 2001 – May 31, 2006
US: Prosecutions 236, Declinations 676, Convictions 149 link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 16:44:06
nada
R2154623 months ago
U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moodyunequivocally stated this view at the sentencing of Sami Amin Al-Arian on May 1, 2006:
“You were on the board of directors and an officer, the secretary. Directors control theactions of an organization, even the PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]; and you were anactive leader. When Iran, the major funding source of the PIJ, became upset becausethe PIJ could not account for how it was spending its money, it was to your board ofdirectors that it went to demand changes. Iran wanted its representative to have a sayin how its money was spent. To stop that, you leaped into action.You offered to rewrite the bylaws of the organization. You proposed that all PIJ fundsbe controlled by a three-person committee, of which you would be one of the three.You made calls to fellow directors all over the world to gather support. Thiscommittee would account for Iran’s money, all to keep the money flowing.You even pleaded for donations to pay for more such operations.[Y]ou continue to lie to your friends and supporters, claiming to abhor violence andto seek only aid for widows and orphans. Your only connection to widows andorphans is that you create them, even among the Palestinians; and you create them,not by sending your children to blow themselves out of existence. No. You exhortothers to send their children. Your children attend the finest universities this countryhas to offer while you raise money to blow up the children of others.”
.
.
For example, shortly afterSeptember 11, prosecutors focused on public allegations that the 9/11 attacks wereforeshadowed by massive aberrational investment patterns in the worldwide capital markets,a phenomenon that would have indicated advance knowledge of the plot and an effort toprofit from it. Although the prosecutors ultimately found no evidence of these systemicinvestment patterns, their efforts did uncover a securities fraud plot to take strategicinvestment advantage of law enforcement information contained in FBI files. Theinvestigation of that plot resulted in the successful prosecution of Amr Elgindy and others:• Amr Elgindy, Jeffrey Royer, Troy Peters, Jonathan Dawes, Lynn Wingate,Derrick Cleveland and Robert Hansen were charged in the Eastern District of NewYork with RICO conspiracy, insider trading, and conspiracies involving securitiesfraud and obstruction of justice, among other charges, in a case involving stockmarket manipulation and obstruction of justice which began as an investigation intowhether foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks resulted in capital marketmanipulation. Two of the defendants, Cleveland and Hansen, pled guilty and testifiedagainst Elgindy and Royer. On January 24, 2005, the jury returned a verdict,convicting Elgindy of racketeering, securities fraud and extortion, and convictingRoyer of racketeering, securities fraud, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.Wingate also pled guilty and Peters awaits trial. On June 19, 2006, Elgindy wassentenced to 108 months in prison on these charges and an additional 27 consecutivemonths on a separate indictment for false statements and committing an offense whileon release.
.
.
In the Northern District of Illinois, Enaam Arnaout, Executive Director ofBenevolence International Foundation (BIF), a purported charity, used hisorganization to illicitly obtain funds from unsuspecting people to covertly support al-Qaeda, the Chechen mujahideen, and armed violence in Bosnia. He also served as achannel for people to contribute money knowingly to such groups. The Syrian-bornnaturalized citizen has been in federal custody since he was arrested April 30, 2002,on earlier perjury charges. On February 10, 2003, Arnaout pled guilty to aracketeering conspiracy, admitting that donors of BIF were misled into believing thattheir donations would support peaceful causes when in fact funds were spent tosupport violence overseas. Arnaout also admitted to providing various items tosupport fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia-Herzegovina, including boots, tents, uniforms, and an ambulance. Arnaout was sentenced to 120 months in prison.
Other examples of terrorist financing 10 cases discussed herein which resulted inconvictions include: Al-Amoudi, Infocom, and Hammoud.
.
.
The case against Sami Al-Arian represents a particularly challenging terroristfinancing case – *one of the first cases involving extensive use of FISA intercepts andclassified information* – which ultimately resulted in conviction.• On September 21, 2004, a 53-count indictment was returned, *charging Sami AminAl-Arian and eight co-defendants with using facilities in the United States, includingthe University of South Florida, to serve as the North American base for PalestinianIslamic Jihad (PIJ)*, which was designated as a Specially Designated Terrorist (SDT)in January 1995 and a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997, and providingmaterial support to the PIJ, and conspiring to murder abroad. Additional charges formoney laundering and providing material support to an FTO were subsequentlyadded. This case relied on eight years of intercepted conversations and faxes legallyobtained pursuant to orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court todemonstrate the defendants’ active involvement in PIJ’s worldwide operations.Following several months of trial which began on June 6, 2005, and lengthydeliberations, on *December 6, 2005, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on three ofthe four most serious charges against Al-Arian and Hatem Naji Fariz – RICOconspiracy, conspiracy to provide material support, and conspiracy to violate IEEPAand other various charges – and acquitted them of conspiracy to murder personsabroad and several substantive travel act, material support and money launderingcharges.* Defendants Sameeh Taha Hammoudeh and Ghassan Zayed Ballut wereacquitted of all charges.Arising from the national security investigation, Sameeh Taha Hammoudeh and hiswife, Nadia Hammoudeh, had previously been charged in a separate 15-countindictment charging tax, immigration, and mail and wire fraud offenses. On February22, 2005, both defendants pled guilty to three counts of the indictment pursuant to aplea agreement and were sentenced on June 3, 2005, to 5 years probation andrestitution of over $8,000 to the IRS. An order of removal was also entered.Hammoudeh has been removed from the United States.Hatem Naji Fariz was also charged in the Northern District of Illinois in a food stampfraud and money laundering scheme he operated in Chicago between May 1999 andDecember 2000, in connection with a grocery business he owned. Fariz defrauded theUSDA Food Stamps Program and traded cash for food stamp benefits, depositing theproceeds in his bank account. On Friday, June 16, 2006, he pled guilty to one countof wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and one count of money laundering,in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(A)(I). His sentencing is scheduled for August18, 2006. He has agreed to the forfeiture of $1,414,020.68 – the sum of the lossresulting from the fraud – to be paid in restitution to the United States.On April 14, 2006, *Sami Al-Arian pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to make orreceive contributions of funds, goods and services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, aspecially designated terrorist, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. In his guilty plea, Al-Arian admitted that, during the period of the late 1980s and early to mid-1990s, heand several of his coconspirators were associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.He further admitted that he performed various services for the PIJ in 1995* andthereafter, knowing that the PIJ had been designated as a Specially DesignatedTerrorist and that the PIJ engaged in horrific and deadly acts of violence. Suchservices included: (1) filing for immigration benefits for individuals associated withthe PIJ; (2) hiding the identities of individuals associated with the PIJ; and (3)providing assistance for an individual associated with the PIJ in a United States Courtproceeding.On May 1, 2006, *Al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison, the maximumsentence under the plea agreement. He will be deported upon completion of hissentence.* At sentencing, U.S. District Judge James Moody said:
“Dr. Al-Arian, as usual, you speak very eloquently. I find it interesting thathere in public in front of everyone you praised this country, the samecountry that in private you referred to as “the great Satan”; but that’s justevidence of how you operate in the face of your friends and neighbors.You are a master manipulator. You looked your neighbors in the eyes and As part of the Intelligence Reform 11 and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congressclarified its original intent with respect to the “knowingly provides” requirement, specifying thatthe government must prove that the defendant knew that the designated foreign terroristorganization (FTO) had been designated as such or that it engages or engaged in terrorist activity.Thus it is unnecessary to establish, as the Al-Arian court held, that in providing material support,the defendant specifically sought to promote or foster the FTO’s terrorist activities.23said you had nothing to do with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This trialexposed that as a lie. Your back-up claim is that your efforts were only toprovide charities for widows and orphans. That, too, is a lie. Theevidence was clear in this case that *you were a leader of the PalestinianIslamic Jihad*.”
The Israeli National Police provided extraordinary assistance in the investigation andprosecution of the Al-Arian case. They arranged for FBI agents and prosecutors tointerview approximately 150 Israeli citizens in Israel, providing critical culturalliaison and translation assistance. In addition, the Israeli National Police coordinatedthe production of voluminous discovery materials, including documentationconcerning the violent attacks alleged in the indictment. During trial, Israeli NationalPolice officers escorted witnesses from Israel for testimony at trial. The IsraeliMinistry of Justice and various intelligence and military agencies also assisted U.S.investigators.As stated above, this was a complex case, and we failed to convince the jury of theweight of the evidence on the charges. *In the future, we will need to look atstreamlining such complex cases as much as possible. Because of the complexity ofthe case, the instructions to the jury to govern their deliberations were very important,and the court’s legal instructions relative to the racketeering charge were arguablyconfusing.* In addition, the government respectfully disagreed with the court’s rulingrelating to specific intent as to IEEPA and § 2339B.11 This ruling was contrary to therulings of other courts and to later, explicit Congressional enactment. We continue toexamine lessons learned from this prosecution. Ultimately, however, Al-Arian pledto a terrorism conspiracy rather than face a retrial, admitted his criminal conduct withrespect to a designated foreign terrorist organization, will serve 57 months in prison,and will be removed from the United States.
Link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 17:04:34
nada
R2154663 months ago
As a result of the severe penalties facing defendants in the criminal justice system –penalties which have been increased by the USA PATRIOT Act – defendants who plead tosuch charges often cooperate and provide intelligence to the government that can lead to thedetection of other terrorism-related activity. This not only leads to disruption of terroristrelatedactivity and further criminal prosecutions; it also provides valuable information fornational security officials so that we learn terrorists’ tradecraft and methods. Some examplesof our leveraging substantial criminal convictions and penalties to obtain cooperationinclude:14• *Abdurahman Muhammad al-Amoudi, a naturalized U.S. citizen and founder of the American Muslim Council, was stopped in England in August 2003 en route to Syriawith $340,000 in U.S. currency in his suitcase.* At the time, he claimed that the Libyan government had paid him the funds for helping to lift U.S. sanctions, and that he planned to deposit the money in a Saudi bank and bring it back to the United Statesin smaller increments to avoid detection by authorities. Al-Amoudi admittedtraveling to Libya several times over the last few years, which in itself violated U.S.law. For these trips, he used a false Yemeni passport and a visa obtained through theLibyan Embassy in Canada. In September 2003, he was arrested as he re-entered theU.S. at Dulles Airport. On July 30, 2004, Al-Amoudi pled guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to violating sanctions on trade with Libya, naturalization fraud,and corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the IRS. As part of the plea, Al-Amoudi stipulated to his involvement in a Libyan plot to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and to the applicability of the terrorism enhancement under the U.S.Sentencing Guidelines. He has been debriefed on several occasions in connectionwith a number of ongoing investigations. He has cooperated against other defendantsboth here and abroad, including providing significant assistance to the UnitedKingdom. He was sentenced on October 15, 2004, to 23 years in prison.• John Walker Lindh cooperated after pleading guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to supporting the Taliban, in violation of the International EmergencyEconomic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. § 1705(b)), and carrying an explosiveduring the commission of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2)), in exchange for a 20-yearprison sentence. Lindh was apprehended in Afghanistan, armed and engaged onbehalf of the Taliban. He had traveled to Pakistan and then crossed into Afghanistan,where he trained with the Taliban and took up arms on their behalf despite the factthat the United States had declared a national emergency with regard to the Talibanbased on a finding by the President that “[t]he Taliban continues to allow territoryunder its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations forUsama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization who have committed and threaten tocontinue to commit acts of violence against the United States and its nationals.”Lindh admitted that by supplying services to and fighting in support of the Taliban, heprovided protection and sanctuary to al Qaeda, a designated foreign terroristorganization. Lindh cooperated and provided information about training camps andfighting in Afghanistan in 2001.
.
.
.
link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 17:13:11
nada
R2154723 months ago
In the two years since 9/11/01, federal investigators recommended the prosecution of more than 6,400 individuals who the government concluded had either committed terrorist acts or who were targeted on the grounds that charging them with some crime might “prevent or disrupt potential or actual terrorist threats.”
Out of those 6,400, 2,001 have become prosecutions.
Out of the 879 convicted for either committing terrorist acts or were engaged in conspiracy to commit terrorist acts only 5 have been sentenced to more than 20 years.
Out of that same 879 only 23 people convicted of terrorism were given sentences between 5 and 20 years.
In total out of the 879 successful terrorist prosecutions only 28 were sentenced to more than 5 years in prison. LINK
I can name 3 of the people who got 20 years:
John Walker Lindh, al-Amoudi, and Moussaoui.
Post Modified: 09/15/06 17:14:44
nada
R2154773 months ago
These statistics seem dubious though. Not the white paper doc, but TRAC’s data. For example:
International Terrorism Criminal Referrals by Federal Judicial District New Jersey. Referrals-16; Convictions-1;Median Prison Sentence-804 months From This
and this excerpt from a newspaper article dated 4/6/06:“Four teenagers accused of plotting to kill about 25 people in a lunch-period massacre at Winslow Township High School were charged today with terrorism, a crime no one has ever been convicted of in New Jersey.”Link
This article goes on to quote:
“State judiciary spokeswoman Winnie Comfort said no one in New Jersey has been convicted of terrorism, a charge lawmakers created four years ago in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Under the statute, people convicted of the crime in adult court must be sentenced to at least 30 years in prison and are not eligible for parole for 30 years.”
These stats show an individual sentenced to 804 months or 67 years, yet the state judiciary spokeswoman clearly states that no one has been convicted. So it must have been a conviction that happened in the last 3 months of 2001 or the first 4 months of 2002.
These statistics are all dubious at this point. There is no distinction of exactly what the convictions and charges are for or if the heavy sentences reflect multiple counts or serious terrorism related convictions. In this Department of Justice document entitled: “Department of Justice Examples of Terrorism Convictions Since Sept. 11, 2001” Link
It states: “Hamant Lakhani (District of New Jersey) – British national Hemant Lakhani was convicted by a federal jury on charges of attempting to sell shoulder-fired missiles to what he thought was a terrorist group intent on shooting down U.S. airliners. Lakhani was sentenced to 47 years in prison.”
But this article states: “A BRITISH businessman was yesterday found guilty of attempting to provide material support to terrorists in the United States.
Hemant Lakhani, 69, from north London, was also convicted of illegal weapons brokering, two counts of money laundering and for importing merchandise into the US using false statements.
Lakhani turned to look at his wife, Kusum, in disbelief as the verdict was announced. He faces 25 years in jail.
The jury at New Jersey District Court in Newark returned its verdict after about eight hours.”
Attempting to provide material support.
Does that equate to a terrorism conviction?
This was not considered a terrorist conviction by TRAC’s statistics.
Zacarias Moussaoui – Convicted of conspiring to kill Americans as part of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The decision itself seems (in my opinion) to expand what conspiracy law traditionally covers, convicted him of conspiracy simply because he possessed foreknowledge and did not warn people. When traditional conspiracy law has required a “substantial” or “significant” step towards committing the planned crime. Currently serving a life sentence at the Administrative maximum security prison facility in Florence, Colorado.
nada
R2154583 months ago
In the twelve months immediately after 9/11, the prosecution of individuals the government classified as international terrorists surged sharply higher than in the previous year. But timely data show that five years later, in the latest available period, the total number of these prosecutions has returned to roughly what they were just before the attacks. Given the widely accepted belief that the threat of terrorism in all parts of the world is much larger today than it was six or seven years ago, the extent of the recent decline in prosecutions is unexpected.
Federal prosecutors by law and custom are authorized to decline cases that are brought to them for prosecution by the investigative agencies. And over the years the prosecutors have used this power to weed out matters that for one reason or another they felt should be dropped. For international terrorism the declination rate has been high, especially in recent years. In fact, timely data show that in the first eight months of FY 2006 the assistant U.S. Attorneys rejected slightly more than nine out of ten of the referrals. Given the assumption that the investigation of international terrorism must be the single most important target area for the FBI and other agencies, the turn-down rate is hard to understand.
The typical sentences recently imposed on individuals considered to be international terrorists are not impressive. For all those convicted as a result of cases initiated in the two years after 9/11, for example, the median sentence—half got more and half got less—was 28 days. For those referrals that came in more recently—through May 31, 2006—the median sentence was 20 days. For cases started in the two year period before the 9/11 attack, the typical sentence was much longer, 41 months.
From what is now known, it appears that well-placed undercover agents and extensive electronic surveillance can largely be credited with the recent apprehension in England of scores of suspects who authorities say were planning to blow up as many as ten airliners on their way to the United States.
These same investigative tools also appear to have been important in uncovering evidence indicating that a Pakistani charity may have been diverting funds originally contributed for earthquake relief to finance the planned terrorism attacks on the jumbo jets. In the United States, as well as England, details about investigations like these leading up to the filing of formal charges are usually not revealed, only occasionally becoming known during trial or as the result of later inquiries.
Essential though the use of secret agents and secret surveillance seems to have been in these related cases, the process now moves from what necessarily is one of the most hidden activities of any government to a much more public stage: the criminal prosecution, trial and sentencing of these suspects.
In the United States, partly because of this country’s far more expansive freedom of information laws, quite complete information is available about the actual prosecution of virtually all cases, including those related to terrorism.
This report, based on detailed data obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), mostly focuses on the use of the nation’s criminal laws in the five years after 9/11/01 against over a thousand individuals who the government had categorized as international terrorists. See sidebar “About the Data”.
Fully acknowledging that for a variety of evidentiary reasons terrorism cases are among the most difficult challenges faced by the government, the Justice Department data about the small and declining number of prosecutions and convictions and the resulting sentences for international terrorism raise a host of questions. Among them are the following.
Despite the highly publicized incidents of actual and threatened terrorism, is it possible that the public understanding about the extent of this problem is in some ways inaccurate or exaggerated?
How effective are the government’s expanding surveillance and intelligence efforts in identifying serious terrorists?
Once the suspects have been identified, how good a job do the investigators do in obtaining evidence that will result in their conviction in court?
The question of the basic competence of the Bush Administration in managing the overall response of the United States to terrorism has in recent months become a subject of debate for candidates of both parties. And the effectiveness and fairness of criminal enforcement in this area necessarily is a significant part of the whole effort. Several months ago, on June 22, the Bush Administration itself weighed into the discussion directly when the Justice Department issued what it called a “Counterterrorism White Paper.” See About the Data for a discussion of the content of the white paper.
The Big Picture
The impact of the events of 9/11/01 on the United States is hard to exaggerate.
Within months, for example, the largest single re-organization of the federal government in more than forty years was underway as the Bush Administration and Congress began shaping the Department of Homeland Security. In the same period, the government and the airline industry agreed to a new program where federal agents would begin screening all passengers for weapons and certain kinds of explosives before they boarded their planes. And under then-secret orders from President Bush, the administration initiated or expanded new surveillance programs by the National Security Agency and the Treasury Department. Meanwhile, Congress began a long struggle to adopt a new body of law intended to profoundly alter the flow of legal and illegal migrants into the U.S. That struggle continues today.
And around the world—in London and Madrid and Indonesia and Moscow—terrorists set off powerful explosive devices. In addition to directly affecting all of the living and dying in these cities, the bombings have continued to dominate the evening news broadcasts and the morning papers and the minds of hundreds of millions of people on every continent.
Given the vast world-wide reach of the media, these developments and others have properly become an intricate part of an intense political debate in the United States and in many other countries about how best to deal with these terrifying attacks.
For the federal enforcement agencies, a very extensive effort was launched. As has been previously noted, this report focuses almost entirely on people the Justice Department thought to be international terrorists. But the government has developed a bookkeeping system to track a much broader range of activities concerning several other kinds of “terrorism” as well as what it calls “anti-terrorism.” The official Justice Department definition of who is considered an anti-terrorist is elusive. Covered by this term, according to the government manual, are those who have been targeted on the grounds that charging them with any crime might “prevent or disrupt potential or actual terrorists threats.” See Justice Department Program Categories. The counts of those tracked by the Justice Department do not include military detainees—currently numbering more than 400 individuals—who have been held in the U.S. facility in Guantanamo.
Since 9/11/01 the government has classified a very large number of individuals as either a “terrorists” or “anti-terrorists.” The bulk of them, some 6,472 individuals, were referred during the two years following the 9/11 attack. Now five years since the attack, final outcomes have been determined on three out of four of these cases.
For the total set of completions, federal prosecutors decided that nearly two out of three (64%) of them were not worth prosecuting. In addition, for 9% more of the completions, a prosecution was filed but the cases were subsequently dismissed or the individuals found not guilty. Looked at from another perspective, slightly more than one out of four of the total (27%) were convicted. Considered together, this means that five years after 9/11, looking at the 6,472 individuals in the overall count who were initially referred under the terrorist or anti-terrorist programs, only about one in five have been convicted. Details for the specific terrorism and anti-terrorism categories are shown in the adjacent table.
Despite the low success rate in obtaining convictions, the large absolute number of referrals coming from the agencies (nearly 6,500 of them) has resulted in a sizable number of convictions (1,329). For this group it is instructive to consider the penalties that were imposed:
*Only 14 (one percent) received a substantial sentence—20 years or more.
Only 67 (5 percent) received sentences of five or more years.*
Of the 1,329 who were sentenced, 704 received no prison time and an additional 327 received sentences ranging from one day to less than a year. Thus, the median or typical prison sentence for them all was zero because the majority received no time at all in prison. See Figure 4 and supporting table.
Zeroing in on International Terrorism Trends
Since shortly after 9/11/01, according to the official Justice Department definition, an international terrorist is an individual suspected of having been involved in acts that are violent or otherwise dangerous to human life which appear motivated by an intent to coerce, intimidate or retaliate against a government or civilian populations. The acts, including threats or conspiracies to engage them, also must be of an international nature and impact on the U.S.
As noted above, in the first eight months of FY 2006, Justice Department EOUSA data show that federal prosecutors filed a variety of different criminal charges against 19 individuals who they had determined met this standard. In the twelve months of the previous year, FY 2005, the Department recorded 46 such prosecutions, only a fraction of the 355 it counted in the year immediately after the attacks.
For some kinds of crime, the number of prosecutions in a given area may be a better measure of official concern about a particular problem than the actual threat. And given the deep public concerns immediately after the attacks, the very large number of international terrorism prosecutions in FY 2002 is hardly surprising. Considering the numerous warning statements from President Bush and other federal officials about the continuing nature of the terrorism threat, however, the gradual decline in these cases since the FY 2002 high point and the high rate at which prosecutors are declining to prosecute terrorism cases raises questions. See earlier table.
The Overall Portrait
Examining the year-by-year changes in government actions provides valuable insights. However, convictions in any one year may reflect investigations that originated at varying points in years past. To examine the impact of 9/11, a useful approach is to collect information about all of the referrals that originated during a set time period, and then follow these cases and examine the resulting outcomes. In this case, TRAC created what is called a “cohort” of all the referrals the Justice Department categorized as international terrorism which originated in the two years following 9/11 and traced what ultimately happened to them through the end of May 2006 (the latest available data).
The findings from TRAC’s second analysis of this cohort, now followed for almost five years, are as puzzling as those emerging from the year-by-year trends. Among them are the following:
Federal investigative agencies for the whole period referred—recommended the prosecution—of 1,391 individuals who the Justice Department classified as international terrorists.
As a result, prosecutions were filed against 335 of these individuals, about one quarter of the total.
For the whole five-year period, the assistant U.S. Attorneys also declined to prosecute 748 of the international terrorist referrals—or two out of three during this five year follow-up period. When making a decision to decline, the prosecutors are required to explain why. For more than one third of the declinations, 39% of them, the assistant U.S. Attorneys said their negative decisions were caused by a lack of evidence of criminal intent, weak or insufficient evidence or because no federal offense was evident. Also baffling was the finding that an additional 24% of the referrals were declined as a result of either an agency’s request or because of “office policy.” See adjacent table. As a result of these various decisions, the government reports that 213 individuals were convicted (by trial or plea) and 123—less than one out of ten of the original referrals—were sentenced to prison. After conviction, of course, the judges settle on the actual sentences that will be imposed. In the case of this small number of international terrorists, the sentence was one day or less than a year for 91, one year to five years for 18, five years to 20 years for eight and 20 years to life for six. Ninety received no prison sentence. (As noted above, the median or typical sentence for these 213 individuals—half got more and half got less—was 28 days.)
Lead Charge in International Terrorism Cases
Thus far in this part of the report we have been focusing on the 1,391 individuals who the assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Justice Department had classified as “international terrorists” who were referred for prosecution. Under the department’s record keeping procedures, however, a person classified as a terrorist does not have to be charged with crimes that on their face seem to involve “terrorism.” Instead, the suspect can be indicted under a wide range of different laws. And in fact, in this case, the department lists about 80 specific crimes that it said were the “lead charge” for these 1,391 accused terrorists. For five of the “international terrorists,” for example, the lead charge was 42 USC 0408, a violation of the federal old age, survivors and disability insurance law. And the lead charge for another “international terrorist” was 26 USC 7203, the willful failure to file a return. Some of the lead charges seem more fitting, but are surprising in their rarity. For only one individual judged to be an international terrorist, for example, was the lead charge 18 USC 2381 (treason). And for only two others who were so categorized during the whole five year period was the lead charge 18 USC 0871 (threat against a president and successors).
Here, at the other end of the scale, are the top five lead charges for international terrorism referrals during the post-9/11 years: 18 USC 1001 (fraud/false statements—14.5%), 18 USC 2332 (terrorism, criminal penalties—14.4%), 18 USC 2339 (providing material support to terrorists—11.6%), 18 USC 0371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US—4.7%), 18 USC 3144 (release or detention of a material witness—3.3%). In addition, lead charge information is unknown for 17.7% of cases.
The list of recorded lead charge for referrals that resulted in the defendant being convicted of some crime is shorter, but still contains a range of charges. See convictions. Heading the list was 18 USC 1001 (fraud/false statements), representing over half of all convictions—56.8%. The rest of the top 4 charges against convicted terrorists were 18 USC 1028 (fraud and related activity – ID documents—5.6%), 18 USC 1546 (fraud and misuse of visas, permits—4.7%) 18 USC 2339 (providing material support for terrorists—3.8%) and 18 USC 3144 (release or detention of material witness—3.3%). Two-thirds of all convictions for terrorism involved a fraud or fraud-related lead charge.
Agency Workload
For each referral, the Justice Department also records the agency that played the lead role in the investigation that led to it. It is not surprising that considerably more than half of the 1,391 referrals for international terrorism—913, or nearly two-thirds of them—were credited to the FBI. See Figure 6 and supporting table.
With 161 referrals, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and later the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—now Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigration enforcement arms—was second. Somewhat surprisingly under the umbrella of combating international terrorists, the Social Security Administration, with 84 referrals, was third. And the 70 referrals by former Customs Service now largely CBP was the fourth most active. Fifth—with 24 referrals—was the Transportation Security Administration, now in DHS but formerly part of the Transportation Department.
But in addition to the workload, agency-by-agency outcomes for the five year period also can be examined. While the FBI led the federal government in the volume of referrals for criminal prosecution for international terrorists, federal prosecutors declined as not warranting filing charges a much higher proportion of its referrals for prosecution than referrals from most other agencies. Prosecutors filed charges on only 18 percent of FBI referrals and declined to prosecute 82 percent. More of the cases dropped by the wayside at the court stage. This means that less than one out of ten FBI cases disposed of during the five year period resulted in the defendant being convicted for any crime. The median sentence of convictions in FBI cases, although slightly higher than the overall median, was still only 6 months. See table with median prison sentences.
In contrast, it was the Social Security Administration (SSA) which racked up the highest success rate in terms of the proportion federal prosecutors decided to proceed and prosecute in court (92% prosecuted versus 8% declined), and slightly over three out of four (76%) of cases that had reached completion resulted in a conviction. Presumably, the comparatively better record of the SSA was partly related to the fact that its cases were less complex. For the 50 SSA convictions, the median sentence was one month.
The other three agencies—all now part of the Department of Homeland Security—had much less success than did the Social Security Administration when judged by either prosecution or conviction rates. Moreover, for convictions from all three DHS agencies, the median sentence was no prison time at all. This means that in over fifty percent of DHS’s convictions, the sentences were not even a single day in prison. Details for other agencies are also shown in the accompanying table.
International Terrorism Cases by Federal Judicial District
The separate offices of the United States Attorneys are vital players in the criminal enforcement of federal law. As noted above, the work of federal enforcement as a whole or within these offices can be examined in several ways. One approach is to identify all the referrals that occurred in a specific period of time and then follow the cases in the ensuing years. In this case, for example, the EOUSA data allowed the identification of every international terrorism referral recorded in each of the districts in the two years after 9/11 and the subsequent tracking of them to determine what action, if any, had been taken in regard to each as of May 2006.
The first part of this section examines international terrorism cases in this way and focuses only on the matters that were referred to the prosecutors from September 2001 to September 2003. The second section, just below, presents district-by-district counts for the full five years since 9/11 regardless of when the referral took place. This second comparison, for example, includes referrals received before 9/11/2001 but acted upon after 9/11.
When it comes to the two-year period, the top ten busiest districts are shown in Figure 7, while all districts with any activity are shown in the accompanying table.
However, one district—Eastern Virginia (Alexandria)—was by a huge margin the government’s favorite venue. In this district, located just south of the District of Columbia, the Justice Department recorded receiving somewhat more than a quarter of all referrals—297 out of the 1,322 total—that were finally classified as international terrorism.
The District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) were the next two busiest districts—in terms of the number of criminal referrals—with 82 and 80 respectively. South Carolina and the Western District of New York (Buffalo) had, respectively, 65 and 63 criminal international terrorist referrals.
Many questions are raised by this distribution. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, for example, says that:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Critics note that the heavy concentration of international terrorism referrals in Virginia East strains the principle that defendants should be brought to trial in the district and state where their crime occurred. They also argue that prosecutors favor bringing cases here because the juries in the area near the Pentagon naturally have a large proportion of active and retired military personnel and its circuit court of appeals is among the most conservation in the United States.
The data show that Virginia East did prosecute as well as convict a much higher proportion of its criminal international terrorism referrals than was true for most other parts of the country. While nationally 31% of criminal referrals were prosecuted, in Virginia East charges were filed in court on 66%. Similarly, nationally only one in five defendants were ultimately convicted, whereas nearly half (45%) resulted in guilty pleas or verdicts in Virginia East. See district-by-district performance along with convictions by district in earlier Figure 7.
In contrast, the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)—ranked second and third in terms of the volume of referrals—turned in disappointing outcomes. D.C. had not a single conviction, and in seven out of eight of the referrals the prosecutor declined to prosecute at all. Prosecutors in Manhattan declined to prosecute 83% of the time, and less than 5 percent were ultimately convicted of any crime. And of the 3 that were convicted, two received no prison time. However, even in the much higher volume (107) convictions in Virginia East, the median prison sentence—half got less, half more—was only 1 month.For the full five-year period a somewhat different picture emerges. Because of new government withholding, it is no longer possible to obtain information on referrals since September 2003. Thus, it is not possible to examine district-by-district performance in the same way as was done earlier. Prosecution, declination, and conviction counts can be examined. In terms of these indicators of activity levels, because of the wider scope of coverage which extends to cases that began before 9/11, counts are somewhat higher. However, the same districts that were active before are active in this more encompassing list. And as before, the Eastern District of Virginia far and away leads the country. See district-by-district activity table.
Link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 16:42:29
nada
R2154593 months ago
According to the United States Attorneys reporting to the EOUSA from FY 2002 through the first eight months of 2006, the government said it had prosecuted 815 individuals who it had categorized as either “international terrorists” (579) or as being involved in “terrorist financing” (236). This total is almost twice the 441 filings claimed on page 13 of the White Paper. Link
International TerrorismFederal Criminal EnforcementOctober 1, 2001 – May 31, 2006US: Prosecutions 579, Declinations 975, Convictions 314 link
.
.
Terrorist FinancingFederal Criminal EnforcementOctober 1, 2001 – May 31, 2006
US: Prosecutions 236, Declinations 676, Convictions 149 link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 16:44:06
nada
R2154623 months ago
U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moodyunequivocally stated this view at the sentencing of Sami Amin Al-Arian on May 1, 2006:
“You were on the board of directors and an officer, the secretary. Directors control theactions of an organization, even the PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]; and you were anactive leader. When Iran, the major funding source of the PIJ, became upset becausethe PIJ could not account for how it was spending its money, it was to your board ofdirectors that it went to demand changes. Iran wanted its representative to have a sayin how its money was spent. To stop that, you leaped into action.You offered to rewrite the bylaws of the organization. You proposed that all PIJ fundsbe controlled by a three-person committee, of which you would be one of the three.You made calls to fellow directors all over the world to gather support. Thiscommittee would account for Iran’s money, all to keep the money flowing.You even pleaded for donations to pay for more such operations.[Y]ou continue to lie to your friends and supporters, claiming to abhor violence andto seek only aid for widows and orphans. Your only connection to widows andorphans is that you create them, even among the Palestinians; and you create them,not by sending your children to blow themselves out of existence. No. You exhortothers to send their children. Your children attend the finest universities this countryhas to offer while you raise money to blow up the children of others.”
.
.
For example, shortly afterSeptember 11, prosecutors focused on public allegations that the 9/11 attacks wereforeshadowed by massive aberrational investment patterns in the worldwide capital markets,a phenomenon that would have indicated advance knowledge of the plot and an effort toprofit from it. Although the prosecutors ultimately found no evidence of these systemicinvestment patterns, their efforts did uncover a securities fraud plot to take strategicinvestment advantage of law enforcement information contained in FBI files. Theinvestigation of that plot resulted in the successful prosecution of Amr Elgindy and others:• Amr Elgindy, Jeffrey Royer, Troy Peters, Jonathan Dawes, Lynn Wingate,Derrick Cleveland and Robert Hansen were charged in the Eastern District of NewYork with RICO conspiracy, insider trading, and conspiracies involving securitiesfraud and obstruction of justice, among other charges, in a case involving stockmarket manipulation and obstruction of justice which began as an investigation intowhether foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks resulted in capital marketmanipulation. Two of the defendants, Cleveland and Hansen, pled guilty and testifiedagainst Elgindy and Royer. On January 24, 2005, the jury returned a verdict,convicting Elgindy of racketeering, securities fraud and extortion, and convictingRoyer of racketeering, securities fraud, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.Wingate also pled guilty and Peters awaits trial. On June 19, 2006, Elgindy wassentenced to 108 months in prison on these charges and an additional 27 consecutivemonths on a separate indictment for false statements and committing an offense whileon release.
.
.
In the Northern District of Illinois, Enaam Arnaout, Executive Director ofBenevolence International Foundation (BIF), a purported charity, used hisorganization to illicitly obtain funds from unsuspecting people to covertly support al-Qaeda, the Chechen mujahideen, and armed violence in Bosnia. He also served as achannel for people to contribute money knowingly to such groups. The Syrian-bornnaturalized citizen has been in federal custody since he was arrested April 30, 2002,on earlier perjury charges. On February 10, 2003, Arnaout pled guilty to aracketeering conspiracy, admitting that donors of BIF were misled into believing thattheir donations would support peaceful causes when in fact funds were spent tosupport violence overseas. Arnaout also admitted to providing various items tosupport fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia-Herzegovina, including boots, tents, uniforms, and an ambulance. Arnaout was sentenced to 120 months in prison.
Other examples of terrorist financing 10 cases discussed herein which resulted inconvictions include: Al-Amoudi, Infocom, and Hammoud.
.
.
The case against Sami Al-Arian represents a particularly challenging terroristfinancing case – *one of the first cases involving extensive use of FISA intercepts andclassified information* – which ultimately resulted in conviction.• On September 21, 2004, a 53-count indictment was returned, *charging Sami AminAl-Arian and eight co-defendants with using facilities in the United States, includingthe University of South Florida, to serve as the North American base for PalestinianIslamic Jihad (PIJ)*, which was designated as a Specially Designated Terrorist (SDT)in January 1995 and a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997, and providingmaterial support to the PIJ, and conspiring to murder abroad. Additional charges formoney laundering and providing material support to an FTO were subsequentlyadded. This case relied on eight years of intercepted conversations and faxes legallyobtained pursuant to orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court todemonstrate the defendants’ active involvement in PIJ’s worldwide operations.Following several months of trial which began on June 6, 2005, and lengthydeliberations, on *December 6, 2005, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on three ofthe four most serious charges against Al-Arian and Hatem Naji Fariz – RICOconspiracy, conspiracy to provide material support, and conspiracy to violate IEEPAand other various charges – and acquitted them of conspiracy to murder personsabroad and several substantive travel act, material support and money launderingcharges.* Defendants Sameeh Taha Hammoudeh and Ghassan Zayed Ballut wereacquitted of all charges.Arising from the national security investigation, Sameeh Taha Hammoudeh and hiswife, Nadia Hammoudeh, had previously been charged in a separate 15-countindictment charging tax, immigration, and mail and wire fraud offenses. On February22, 2005, both defendants pled guilty to three counts of the indictment pursuant to aplea agreement and were sentenced on June 3, 2005, to 5 years probation andrestitution of over $8,000 to the IRS. An order of removal was also entered.Hammoudeh has been removed from the United States.Hatem Naji Fariz was also charged in the Northern District of Illinois in a food stampfraud and money laundering scheme he operated in Chicago between May 1999 andDecember 2000, in connection with a grocery business he owned. Fariz defrauded theUSDA Food Stamps Program and traded cash for food stamp benefits, depositing theproceeds in his bank account. On Friday, June 16, 2006, he pled guilty to one countof wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and one count of money laundering,in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(A)(I). His sentencing is scheduled for August18, 2006. He has agreed to the forfeiture of $1,414,020.68 – the sum of the lossresulting from the fraud – to be paid in restitution to the United States.On April 14, 2006, *Sami Al-Arian pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to make orreceive contributions of funds, goods and services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, aspecially designated terrorist, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. In his guilty plea, Al-Arian admitted that, during the period of the late 1980s and early to mid-1990s, heand several of his coconspirators were associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.He further admitted that he performed various services for the PIJ in 1995* andthereafter, knowing that the PIJ had been designated as a Specially DesignatedTerrorist and that the PIJ engaged in horrific and deadly acts of violence. Suchservices included: (1) filing for immigration benefits for individuals associated withthe PIJ; (2) hiding the identities of individuals associated with the PIJ; and (3)providing assistance for an individual associated with the PIJ in a United States Courtproceeding.On May 1, 2006, *Al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison, the maximumsentence under the plea agreement. He will be deported upon completion of hissentence.* At sentencing, U.S. District Judge James Moody said:
“Dr. Al-Arian, as usual, you speak very eloquently. I find it interesting thathere in public in front of everyone you praised this country, the samecountry that in private you referred to as “the great Satan”; but that’s justevidence of how you operate in the face of your friends and neighbors.You are a master manipulator. You looked your neighbors in the eyes and As part of the Intelligence Reform 11 and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congressclarified its original intent with respect to the “knowingly provides” requirement, specifying thatthe government must prove that the defendant knew that the designated foreign terroristorganization (FTO) had been designated as such or that it engages or engaged in terrorist activity.Thus it is unnecessary to establish, as the Al-Arian court held, that in providing material support,the defendant specifically sought to promote or foster the FTO’s terrorist activities.23said you had nothing to do with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This trialexposed that as a lie. Your back-up claim is that your efforts were only toprovide charities for widows and orphans. That, too, is a lie. Theevidence was clear in this case that *you were a leader of the PalestinianIslamic Jihad*.”
The Israeli National Police provided extraordinary assistance in the investigation andprosecution of the Al-Arian case. They arranged for FBI agents and prosecutors tointerview approximately 150 Israeli citizens in Israel, providing critical culturalliaison and translation assistance. In addition, the Israeli National Police coordinatedthe production of voluminous discovery materials, including documentationconcerning the violent attacks alleged in the indictment. During trial, Israeli NationalPolice officers escorted witnesses from Israel for testimony at trial. The IsraeliMinistry of Justice and various intelligence and military agencies also assisted U.S.investigators.As stated above, this was a complex case, and we failed to convince the jury of theweight of the evidence on the charges. *In the future, we will need to look atstreamlining such complex cases as much as possible. Because of the complexity ofthe case, the instructions to the jury to govern their deliberations were very important,and the court’s legal instructions relative to the racketeering charge were arguablyconfusing.* In addition, the government respectfully disagreed with the court’s rulingrelating to specific intent as to IEEPA and § 2339B.11 This ruling was contrary to therulings of other courts and to later, explicit Congressional enactment. We continue toexamine lessons learned from this prosecution. Ultimately, however, Al-Arian pledto a terrorism conspiracy rather than face a retrial, admitted his criminal conduct withrespect to a designated foreign terrorist organization, will serve 57 months in prison,and will be removed from the United States.
Link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 17:04:34
nada
R2154663 months ago
As a result of the severe penalties facing defendants in the criminal justice system –penalties which have been increased by the USA PATRIOT Act – defendants who plead tosuch charges often cooperate and provide intelligence to the government that can lead to thedetection of other terrorism-related activity. This not only leads to disruption of terroristrelatedactivity and further criminal prosecutions; it also provides valuable information fornational security officials so that we learn terrorists’ tradecraft and methods. Some examplesof our leveraging substantial criminal convictions and penalties to obtain cooperationinclude:14• *Abdurahman Muhammad al-Amoudi, a naturalized U.S. citizen and founder of the American Muslim Council, was stopped in England in August 2003 en route to Syriawith $340,000 in U.S. currency in his suitcase.* At the time, he claimed that the Libyan government had paid him the funds for helping to lift U.S. sanctions, and that he planned to deposit the money in a Saudi bank and bring it back to the United Statesin smaller increments to avoid detection by authorities. Al-Amoudi admittedtraveling to Libya several times over the last few years, which in itself violated U.S.law. For these trips, he used a false Yemeni passport and a visa obtained through theLibyan Embassy in Canada. In September 2003, he was arrested as he re-entered theU.S. at Dulles Airport. On July 30, 2004, Al-Amoudi pled guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to violating sanctions on trade with Libya, naturalization fraud,and corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the IRS. As part of the plea, Al-Amoudi stipulated to his involvement in a Libyan plot to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and to the applicability of the terrorism enhancement under the U.S.Sentencing Guidelines. He has been debriefed on several occasions in connectionwith a number of ongoing investigations. He has cooperated against other defendantsboth here and abroad, including providing significant assistance to the UnitedKingdom. He was sentenced on October 15, 2004, to 23 years in prison.• John Walker Lindh cooperated after pleading guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to supporting the Taliban, in violation of the International EmergencyEconomic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. § 1705(b)), and carrying an explosiveduring the commission of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2)), in exchange for a 20-yearprison sentence. Lindh was apprehended in Afghanistan, armed and engaged onbehalf of the Taliban. He had traveled to Pakistan and then crossed into Afghanistan,where he trained with the Taliban and took up arms on their behalf despite the factthat the United States had declared a national emergency with regard to the Talibanbased on a finding by the President that “[t]he Taliban continues to allow territoryunder its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations forUsama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization who have committed and threaten tocontinue to commit acts of violence against the United States and its nationals.”Lindh admitted that by supplying services to and fighting in support of the Taliban, heprovided protection and sanctuary to al Qaeda, a designated foreign terroristorganization. Lindh cooperated and provided information about training camps andfighting in Afghanistan in 2001.
.
.
.
link
Post Modified: 09/15/06 17:13:11
nada
R2154723 months ago
In the two years since 9/11/01, federal investigators recommended the prosecution of more than 6,400 individuals who the government concluded had either committed terrorist acts or who were targeted on the grounds that charging them with some crime might “prevent or disrupt potential or actual terrorist threats.”
Out of those 6,400, 2,001 have become prosecutions.
Out of the 879 convicted for either committing terrorist acts or were engaged in conspiracy to commit terrorist acts only 5 have been sentenced to more than 20 years.
Out of that same 879 only 23 people convicted of terrorism were given sentences between 5 and 20 years.
In total out of the 879 successful terrorist prosecutions only 28 were sentenced to more than 5 years in prison. LINK
I can name 3 of the people who got 20 years:
John Walker Lindh, al-Amoudi, and Moussaoui.
Post Modified: 09/15/06 17:14:44
nada
R2154773 months ago
These statistics seem dubious though. Not the white paper doc, but TRAC’s data. For example:
International Terrorism Criminal Referrals by Federal Judicial District New Jersey. Referrals-16; Convictions-1;Median Prison Sentence-804 months From This
and this excerpt from a newspaper article dated 4/6/06:“Four teenagers accused of plotting to kill about 25 people in a lunch-period massacre at Winslow Township High School were charged today with terrorism, a crime no one has ever been convicted of in New Jersey.”Link
This article goes on to quote:
“State judiciary spokeswoman Winnie Comfort said no one in New Jersey has been convicted of terrorism, a charge lawmakers created four years ago in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Under the statute, people convicted of the crime in adult court must be sentenced to at least 30 years in prison and are not eligible for parole for 30 years.”
These stats show an individual sentenced to 804 months or 67 years, yet the state judiciary spokeswoman clearly states that no one has been convicted. So it must have been a conviction that happened in the last 3 months of 2001 or the first 4 months of 2002.
These statistics are all dubious at this point. There is no distinction of exactly what the convictions and charges are for or if the heavy sentences reflect multiple counts or serious terrorism related convictions. In this Department of Justice document entitled: “Department of Justice Examples of Terrorism Convictions Since Sept. 11, 2001” Link
It states: “Hamant Lakhani (District of New Jersey) – British national Hemant Lakhani was convicted by a federal jury on charges of attempting to sell shoulder-fired missiles to what he thought was a terrorist group intent on shooting down U.S. airliners. Lakhani was sentenced to 47 years in prison.”
But this article states: “A BRITISH businessman was yesterday found guilty of attempting to provide material support to terrorists in the United States.
Hemant Lakhani, 69, from north London, was also convicted of illegal weapons brokering, two counts of money laundering and for importing merchandise into the US using false statements.
Lakhani turned to look at his wife, Kusum, in disbelief as the verdict was announced. He faces 25 years in jail.
The jury at New Jersey District Court in Newark returned its verdict after about eight hours.”
Attempting to provide material support.
Does that equate to a terrorism conviction?
This was not considered a terrorist conviction by TRAC’s statistics.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
The Al-Qainadian Threat
The war on terror is not over we are far from safe. The war that “will not end in our lifetimes” has a new front. First we were attacked from the sky by a CIA asset in Afghanistan. Then we were attacked from within our own country by “the gays”. Next we were being attacked from the south by immigrants that have darker skin than the immigrants we are used to.
This time though they’ve gone too far. Cornered like rats, tear-wrists to tha left o’ us and tear-wrists to tha right. We have to fight back. The United States has been under attack for too long. This is a post 9-11 world! Don’t you understand what that means?
The Qainadians are going to invade from the north!
Well its time we redoubled our efforts in the war on terror. I know I know your faith in the leadership may have shaken when the unitary executive himself declared that we probably can’t win , but I think we can pull it off.
Call me an idealist, but I think it is completely feasible to destroy terrorism entirely.
Am I the only one?
Heres a quick question: As a leader(or a follower) is it smart to embark on a war you will not win?What would Sun-Tzu say?Well the criteria for victory is quite drawn out in Sun-Tzu’s opinion
Ok what would he say about a “war that will not end in our lifetimes”?‘2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is longin coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor willbe damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust yourstrength. 3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources ofthe State will not be equal to the strain. 4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftainswill spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man,however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that mustensue. 5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays’
But wait, Sun-Tzu was talking about war and war is only engaged in by state entities. The “war on terror” is first and foremost not a war, wars are two state’s militarys fighting eachother. War is such a terrible event and human catastrophe that we assume the war will only be fought if one side is the aggressor and the other side is defending itself. If no one is the aggressor…...how do wars start?
We must know the answer to this question, before we can understand the “war” on “terror”.
The aggression against the United States in the Gulf of Tonkin justified ratcheting up our engagement in Vietnam.
My life is the most important thing in history. I’m sure you feel the same way or we wouldn’t be both paralyzed with fear, right?
Are you afraid of being the one jumping out of the burning building?As the pavement approaches a pre-cognition flashback trip kicks in.
You can see a few months down the line everyone in mourning then the “moments of silence for firefighters were interrupted by cell phones”, the sleepers checked their voice mail and holy shit they were waaaaay behind schedule.
You could see a few weeks after that when everyone forgot about you and instead started to simultaneously praise the “leaders” and cursing Immanuel Goldstein.
You could see when the hate became so powerful that Immanuel no longer mattered and the United States was no longer a Democratic-Republic.
Instead while everyone was ignoring the atrocity or oversimplifying the atrocity with hate.While the papers told us we were unified: the ideology that “the greatest generation” achieved victory over in WWII crept in to the “New World”.
Do they need to be listed? The clamp down? Are you raving about it? Or are you ignoring it as best you can, hoping that it will just go away?Is there anyone still out there who thinks they weren’t duped?
I know its hard, you don’t want to think they could pull one over on you, but the longer you wait the harder the cognitive dissonance will be to overcome.
I want our politicians to get out in the public. I want our politicians to handle the war on terror.
I want them to attempt to fix it or admit it is a complete clusterfuck and bring the IED catchers home.
If this was a War on Terror; rather than a “war on terror” or a “war” on “terror”; we would have invaded Spain, Britain, and now Canada to eradicate the Al-Qaeda threat in each of those places.
I know this stupid fucking pointless rant won’t do shit and will fall on deaf ears and even motherfuckers who agree with me will find some stupid shit to harp on and splinter in to ever more specific separate distinctions of “freedom”.
Tell us some fucking information please! Stop sucking the fucking administrations collective nuts and ask questions you fucking “journalists”!
For starters why don’t you ask what the fuck Al-Qaeda is?
Or maybe write something, FUCK ANYTHING WRITE FUCKING ANYTHING about osama bin laden, write fucking EN-EEE-THING about al qaeda.
Its our fucking enemy right!!!!
WELL TELL US WHAT THE FUCK IT IS!!!!
WHY THE FUCK AM I A CONSPIRACY THEORIST FOR WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK AL QAIDA IS!?
WHY ARE YOU READING THIS AND NOT GIVING A SHIT EVEN THOUGH YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IT IS EITHER!!???WELL HOW ABOUT UHH…TERRORISM? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THAT IS EVEN? WELL GO AHEAD DEFINE IT FOR ME
SERIOUSLY WHOEVER IS READING THIS: DEFINE “TERRORISM”and
fuck it
all i’m saying is we need to eradicate the al-qainadian threat, canadians are out to get us. The government of Canada(which is technically Britain)should be given 5 days to transport all people who follow al-qaida ideology out of canada to the US, or else face carpet bombing and land takeover.
threat to freedom this and that, blah blah
don’t ask fucking questions you stupid fucking automatons, read about britney spear’s new wasted genetic material, better check to see if you have properly basked in the reflective glory of ‘your’ sports team, and for fucks sake don’t miss a chance to go purchase the latest in fashionable consumption.
just get in. the. FUCKING. OVEN!
GET IN THE FUCKING OVEN, WHY ARE YOU WAITING!!!??? IS THERE ANY POINT IN WAITING, JUST GET IN THE FUCKING OVEN!!!!!
IF YOU CAN’T DEFINE AL-QAIDA OR TERRORISM AND THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T DEFINE AL-QAIDA OR TERRORISM, THEN GUESS WHAT AS FAR AS YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT KNOW…....
we’re all al-qaida
Whatever you do though, for god’s sake don’t ask a single fucking question, its exactly what the terrorists want you to do.
This time though they’ve gone too far. Cornered like rats, tear-wrists to tha left o’ us and tear-wrists to tha right. We have to fight back. The United States has been under attack for too long. This is a post 9-11 world! Don’t you understand what that means?
The Qainadians are going to invade from the north!
Well its time we redoubled our efforts in the war on terror. I know I know your faith in the leadership may have shaken when the unitary executive himself declared that we probably can’t win , but I think we can pull it off.
Call me an idealist, but I think it is completely feasible to destroy terrorism entirely.
Am I the only one?
Heres a quick question: As a leader(or a follower) is it smart to embark on a war you will not win?What would Sun-Tzu say?Well the criteria for victory is quite drawn out in Sun-Tzu’s opinion
Ok what would he say about a “war that will not end in our lifetimes”?‘2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is longin coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor willbe damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust yourstrength. 3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources ofthe State will not be equal to the strain. 4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftainswill spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man,however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that mustensue. 5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays’
But wait, Sun-Tzu was talking about war and war is only engaged in by state entities. The “war on terror” is first and foremost not a war, wars are two state’s militarys fighting eachother. War is such a terrible event and human catastrophe that we assume the war will only be fought if one side is the aggressor and the other side is defending itself. If no one is the aggressor…...how do wars start?
We must know the answer to this question, before we can understand the “war” on “terror”.
The aggression against the United States in the Gulf of Tonkin justified ratcheting up our engagement in Vietnam.
My life is the most important thing in history. I’m sure you feel the same way or we wouldn’t be both paralyzed with fear, right?
Are you afraid of being the one jumping out of the burning building?As the pavement approaches a pre-cognition flashback trip kicks in.
You can see a few months down the line everyone in mourning then the “moments of silence for firefighters were interrupted by cell phones”, the sleepers checked their voice mail and holy shit they were waaaaay behind schedule.
You could see a few weeks after that when everyone forgot about you and instead started to simultaneously praise the “leaders” and cursing Immanuel Goldstein.
You could see when the hate became so powerful that Immanuel no longer mattered and the United States was no longer a Democratic-Republic.
Instead while everyone was ignoring the atrocity or oversimplifying the atrocity with hate.While the papers told us we were unified: the ideology that “the greatest generation” achieved victory over in WWII crept in to the “New World”.
Do they need to be listed? The clamp down? Are you raving about it? Or are you ignoring it as best you can, hoping that it will just go away?Is there anyone still out there who thinks they weren’t duped?
I know its hard, you don’t want to think they could pull one over on you, but the longer you wait the harder the cognitive dissonance will be to overcome.
I want our politicians to get out in the public. I want our politicians to handle the war on terror.
I want them to attempt to fix it or admit it is a complete clusterfuck and bring the IED catchers home.
If this was a War on Terror; rather than a “war on terror” or a “war” on “terror”; we would have invaded Spain, Britain, and now Canada to eradicate the Al-Qaeda threat in each of those places.
I know this stupid fucking pointless rant won’t do shit and will fall on deaf ears and even motherfuckers who agree with me will find some stupid shit to harp on and splinter in to ever more specific separate distinctions of “freedom”.
Tell us some fucking information please! Stop sucking the fucking administrations collective nuts and ask questions you fucking “journalists”!
For starters why don’t you ask what the fuck Al-Qaeda is?
Or maybe write something, FUCK ANYTHING WRITE FUCKING ANYTHING about osama bin laden, write fucking EN-EEE-THING about al qaeda.
Its our fucking enemy right!!!!
WELL TELL US WHAT THE FUCK IT IS!!!!
WHY THE FUCK AM I A CONSPIRACY THEORIST FOR WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK AL QAIDA IS!?
WHY ARE YOU READING THIS AND NOT GIVING A SHIT EVEN THOUGH YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IT IS EITHER!!???WELL HOW ABOUT UHH…TERRORISM? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THAT IS EVEN? WELL GO AHEAD DEFINE IT FOR ME
SERIOUSLY WHOEVER IS READING THIS: DEFINE “TERRORISM”and
fuck it
all i’m saying is we need to eradicate the al-qainadian threat, canadians are out to get us. The government of Canada(which is technically Britain)should be given 5 days to transport all people who follow al-qaida ideology out of canada to the US, or else face carpet bombing and land takeover.
threat to freedom this and that, blah blah
don’t ask fucking questions you stupid fucking automatons, read about britney spear’s new wasted genetic material, better check to see if you have properly basked in the reflective glory of ‘your’ sports team, and for fucks sake don’t miss a chance to go purchase the latest in fashionable consumption.
just get in. the. FUCKING. OVEN!
GET IN THE FUCKING OVEN, WHY ARE YOU WAITING!!!??? IS THERE ANY POINT IN WAITING, JUST GET IN THE FUCKING OVEN!!!!!
IF YOU CAN’T DEFINE AL-QAIDA OR TERRORISM AND THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T DEFINE AL-QAIDA OR TERRORISM, THEN GUESS WHAT AS FAR AS YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT KNOW…....
we’re all al-qaida
Whatever you do though, for god’s sake don’t ask a single fucking question, its exactly what the terrorists want you to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)