Earlier today, Washington Examiner editorial-page editor Mark Tapscott informed me that I have been named to the Examiner Newspapers Blog Board of Contributors. As far as either Mark or I know, the Examiner has made itself a pioneer in partnering with the blogosphere in this most substantive manner. I will join other prominent bloggers to comprise a diverse group of voices from the world of citizen journalists.
My contributions will begin next week, and I hope that CQ readers will show their appreciation to the Examiner organization with their traffic.
Month: May 2006
Able Danger: Shaffer Fights Dismissal
Mark Zaid, attorney for central Able Danger figure Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, has filed a new supplemental declaration supporting the opposition of the government’s motion for dismissal of his lawsuit. The Defense Intelligence Agency has moved to dismiss due to its insistence on refusing access to his attorney to classified material. Two weeks ago, Zaid filed a motion opposing the dismissal, and this new declaration contains some interesting revelations.
Here is the text of Zaid’s latest filing:
3. Shaffer and the undersigned counsel participated in interview sessions with the defendant Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General (“DoD OIG”) on May 16, 2006, and May 24, 2006. The DoD OIG is conducting an investigation into, among other issues, the factual circumstances surrounding ABLE DANGER and also whether the defendant Defense Intelligence Agency retaliated against Shaffer. These two meetings, as well as two others that occurred in November 2005, have all been conducted at the unclassified level, particularly – apparently – in order to allow the undersigned to participate.
4. During both meetings (and even during the November 2005 sessions), but especially the interview held on May 16, 2006, there were numerous instances where the conversation began to encroach upon “out of bounds” classified areas. For all I know, the conversations actually extended at times into the classified arena. In any event, it is clear to me that the primary focus and core issues at the heart of ABLE DANGER remain classified. This is of concern to me, and I believe should concern this Court for purposes of this litigation and present Motion, on at least two levels.
5. First, I, as Shaffer’s counsel, cannot adequately or effectively provide him sound legal advice since I do not know all the facts of the operation, nor the full scope of Shaffer’s role within the operation. This was more than clear when the conversation involved specific questions and seemingly vague discussions surrounding the legality of operations that Shaffer, and/or ABLE DANGER, might or might not have engaged in. The investigator asking the questions, and Shaffer in providing answers, continually danced around the issue while at the same time ensuring it was abundantly obvious they both knew what they were addressing. The conversation became so alarming to me that I was forced to specifically note on the record that I was concerned for Shaffer’s legal well-being and could not provide either adequate or effective representation, and I advised that both this line of questioning and his answers cease. I cannot judge at this time whether Shaffer is in legal liability or not because of the veil that the Government has purposefully placed over my face while at the same time continuing to pursue matters that potentially expose Shaffer to either administrative, civil or even criminal penalties. This scenario is completely unfair and inappropriate of the defendants to place Shaffer, or anyone, in.
6. Second, it is also clear that specific individuals and organizations, due to their classified or protected nature, are not being discussed or addressed in the investigation (again being danced around during interviews), at least not with Shaffer, who obviously was a key player in most of the relevant events. On multiple occasions I have witnessed first-hand Mr. Shaffer being stopped from providing testimony or sworn information by investigators (and I know of instances involving congressional staff) based on “security classification”. I also know that Shaffer has not been asked, nor has he provided, classified inputs to the DoD OIG investigations on ABLE DANGER. This issue is of grave concern to me as it directly impacts the scope and accuracy of the DoD OIG investigation. It is one thing to protect classified capabilities and avoid discussion due to the presence of uncleared counsel, but it is entirely another to avoid specific relevant areas of inquiry simply because of alleged classification concerns. While I personally presently perceive the conduct of those handling the investigation to be fair and professional, I cannot imagine the investigation can be completed, and more importantly any accurate conclusions reached, without addressing the gaping holes Shaffer can apparently fill and desires to address. Due to the potential administrative and legal liability that Shaffer faces as a result of his participation in ABLE DANGER, it is imperative that the testimony he provides (unless perhaps under some grant of immunity) to the DoD OIG occur in the presence of counsel.
Interesting. While Zaid offers praise for the conduct of the investigators, he clearly senses that the depositions have aimed at making any court action impossible by tying too many classified threads into it. Not only does this confound any prosecution of the lawsuit, but Zaid cannot even be sure that it is deliberate, since he has little frame of reference about the issues at hand. As Zaid says, in this position he can do nothing to protect his client’s interests.
First Mate Docks
The First Mate has returned home after six days in the hospital. It almost took an act of Congress to get out of the place; she had a bronchoscopy earlier in the day and they did not like her oxygenation levels. That did not hinder her from telling them in no uncertain terms (and certain salty nautical terms as well, under her breath) that she would not stay another night in the hospital.
She’s resting comfortably at home now. Tomorrow I get lessons in how to start a home IV for her treatment over the next couple of weeks. Hopefully, I will not incur her wrath from my service …
Let’s Get Ready To Rumble
Democrats who have busied themselves painting corruption as an exclusively Republican affair have hit a number of obstacles to that message — Reps. William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan prominent among them. Now the Democrats have to add their own leadership — again — as the Senate Minority Leader has been exposed as taking favors from a notoriously corrupt industry while he intervened on their behalf:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.
Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada’s agency feared might usurp its authority.
He defended the gifts, saying that they would never influence his position on the bill and he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. “Anyone from Nevada would say I’m glad he is there taking care of the state’s number one businesses,” he said. “I love the fights anyways, so it wasn’t like being punished,” added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.
Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts — particularly on multiple occasions — when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions. …
Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.
In a further blow to efforts to paint corruption as Republican, two GOP Senators also attended fights with Harry Reid. John McCain insisted on paying for his tickets at the retail value ($1400) while Reid’s fellow Nevadan, John Ensign, recused himself from participating in Reid’s pending legislation.
This follows on Reid’s four interventions on behalf of clients of Jack Abramoff, actions which closely coincided with large donations from the tribes Abramoff represented. Reid, some will recall, also accepted campaign assistance from a former aide, Edward Ayoob, after Abramoff hired Ayoob to work as a lobbyist. These revelations get little play from the media (the AP mentions both in this story) and none from Democratic partisans who headline almost everything they can about Jack Abramoff, even though they have been known for a year. They excuse this and a number of other Abramoff recipients by rationalizing that Abramoff donated more money personally to Republicans, even though he directed his clients to donate tens of thousands of dollars to Senators Reid and Tom Daschle, Reps. Patrick Kennedy and Dick Gephardt, and at least in the case of Reid in conjunction with specific interventions on their behalf.
Now Reid has been caught taking favors on behalf of an industry with an embarrassing past and a not-much-improved present. I enjoy boxing, but no one who has watched the sport believes that its alphabet soup of associations play straight, nor does the judging always raise its credibility above the level of professional wrestling. Reid’s instinct to regulate the sport has a rational basis, even if it would be unlikely to improve anything more than boxer safety. Accepting several thousands of dollars worth of tickets while actively pursuing legislation that would impact this industry is such an obvious ethical violation that Reid’s protestations of overreaction are insulting to the intelligence of the voters.
I wrote last year that Democrats would regret their attempts to turn corruption into a partisan campaign issue. That problem relates to power, not party, and corruption affects enough of both parties to require a bipartisan effort to truly contain and end it. Neither party seems willing to commit to such reform, and as long as Democrats continue to screech at corrupt Republicans while excusing the likes of Reid, Kennedy, Jefferson, and Mollohan, then nothing will ever change.
Canada: The Terrorists Among Us
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has informed Parliament that many veterans of al-Qaeda’s initial war against the Soviet Union live in Canadian cities, and that some have trained since then in terrorist camps:
Canada’s spy agency says potential terrorists already reside in Canadian cities.
The deputy director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said Monday that there are many people currently living in Canada who fought with al-Qaeda during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
And Jack Hooper says those same people have since trained in al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.
The testimony to the Canadian Senate came during hearings on the nation’s mission in Afghanistan and how it could affect their domestic security, and that answer does not give much confidence in the status quo. The Globe & Mail did not give any more specifics about Hooper’s testimony, nor did it even report whether Hooper had more discrete data on the threat.
This information comes at an interesting time for the US. We have debated for months about our overall immigration policy, but mostly have focused on the Mexican border. We have two long and mostly unguarded borders that need more attention in time of war, especially against the kind of enemies we face. The key difference between the two is that our northern partner takes border security much more seriously than our southern partner. Ottawa also has no policy encouraging and enabling swarms of migrants to cross the border in order to relieve political pressure at home.
Nevertheless, we need to remain engaged with Canada on security issues, and this should remind everyone why.
Ahmadinejad: Send The Jews Back
The German magazine Der Spiegel has published its interview with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and it should disturb anyone who reads it fully. The interview reveals Ahmadinejad as a man obsessed with Jews, and one intent on provoking German resentment over its post-war humiliation to split the West on Israel:
Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?
SPIEGEL: That’s just not the case. All peoples mourn the victims claimed by the Second World War, Germans and Russians and Poles and others as well. Yet, we as Germans cannot absolve ourselves of a special guilt, namely for the systematic murder of the Jews. But perhaps we should now move on to the next subject.
Ahmadinejad: No, I have a question for you. What kind of a role did today’s youth play in World War II?
SPIEGEL: None.
Ahmadinejad: Why should they have feelings of guilt toward Zionists? Why should the costs of the Zionists be paid out of their pockets? If people committed crimes in the past, then they would have to have been tried 60 years ago. End of story! Why must the German people be humiliated today because a group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course of history?
Der Speigel notes in a separate piece that Ahmadinejad’s remarks will give new energy to the anti-Semitic neo-Nazi groups currently on the fringe of German politics. Financial Times Deutschland gave mild criticism DS for carrying such potent propaganda on behalf of Ahmadinejad while noting that “an open society should know its enemies”. After reading the entire interview, I see nothing to criticize on that score. The DS interviewer continually challenges Ahmadinejad’s answers regarding Holocaust denial. (Less worthy of praise is the interviewer’s repeated assertion that America has lost the war in Iraq; with Saddam gone and a freely elected representative government in place, DS should have included its criteria for success.)
The prospects did not improve when DS changed the topic, with some resistance from Ahmadinejad, to nuclear weapons. When DS asked the Iranian president bluntly whether Iran desired nuclear weapons, he changed the subject:
SPIEGEL: The key question is: Do you want nuclear weapons for your country?
Ahmadinejad: Allow me to encourage a discussion on the following question: How long do you think the world can be governed by the rhetoric of a handful of Western powers? Whenever they hold something against someone, they start spreading propaganda and lies, defamation and blackmail. How much longer can that go on?
SPIEGEL: We’re here to find out the truth. The head of state of a neighboring country, for example, told SPIEGEL: “They are very keen on building the bomb.” Is that true?
Ahmadinejad: You see, we conduct our discussions with you and the European governments on an entirely different, higher level. In our view, the legal system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable. One-hundred and thirty-nine countries, including us, are members of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) in Vienna. Both the statutes of IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as all security agreements grant the member countries the right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. That is the legitimate legal right of any people. Beyond this, however, IAEA was also established to promote the disarmament of those powers that already possessed nuclear weapons. And now look at what’s happening today: Iran has had an excellent cooperation with IAEA. We have had more than 2,000 inspections of our plants, and the inspectors have obtained more than 1,000 pages of documentation from us. Their cameras are installed in our nuclear centers. IAEA has emphasized in all its reports that there are no indications of any irregularities in Iran. That is one side of this matter.
In fewer words, Ahmadinejad refuses to answer the question. One would think that he would take the opportunity to categorically deny his pursuit of nuclear weapons. Instead, he tries to launch into a debate on global politics and the tyranny of the Western democracies. The only topic he truly embraces with DS is Holocaust denial and the removal of Jews in Israel to Europe, towards which he manipulates the DS interviewer in the last third of the piece.
Ahmadinjad is obsessed with Israel and the Jews. Der Speigel does us a service in demonstrating this, and people had better start taking it seriously. He means to prepare the world for some kind of action against them, and this attempt at a charm offensive in Germany was no accident.
Saddam’s Kelo
The trial of Saddam Hussein resumed last night, and Saddam and his co-defendants continued presenting their defense witnesses. The new strategy for the defense is to transform the seizure and destruction of farms and orchards in Dujail not as an attempt at genocide, but instead as an economic redevelopment plan:
Witnesses for two Saddam Hussein co-defendants accused of taking part in a 1982 massacre of 148 people from Dujayl described the men as fair and merciful, and dismissed destruction of the village’s fields and orchards as an economic redevelopment project.
Defense witnesses denied that the defendants, former spy chief Barzan Ibrahim Hasan and Awad Hamed Bandar, former head of Hussein’s Revolutionary Court, took part in the massacre — even as they acknowledged that they had little direct information about the Dujayl incident.
Prosecutors say the two defendants led a retaliatory purge against the predominantly Shiite Muslim residents of Dujayl after an assassination attempt on Hussein during a visit there.
The witnesses failed to impress, on many levels. They could not remember key details of the supposed project, nor could they identify the people who ran it. None of them could substantiate how they came across this information, most of which was hearsay. However, a couple of them made sure to announce their fealty to Saddam Hussein, toadying up to the former dictator by offering greetings to his family. One of them announced during his testimony that “I would die for you! I would die for you, president!”
Credibility, one must presume, was not high on the list of qualifications for defense witnesses.
This does give a peek into the twisted mindset of a brutal dictatorship. In the culture Saddam imposed, where 148 people (including children) could be executed in reprisal for one attempted assassination, the genocidal act of destroying the means of subsistence for an entire community might look like economic development. At least, if the dictator calls it that, few people would have dared to disagree after seeing what happened in Dujail …. which was the entire point of the exercise.
Prayers For CBS Crew Killed, Injured In Bombing
CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier received severe wounds and two of her crew died yesterday in a car bombing in Baghdad. The Washington Post reports that Dozier is expected to live:
A car bomb explosion in central Baghdad Monday killed two CBS News crew members, an Iraqi interpreter and a U.S. soldier, and severely wounded the news team’s correspondent, in one of a string of attacks that killed dozens of people in Iraq over the course of the day.
Paul Douglas, a cameraman, and James Brolan, a sound man, died in the blast, CBS News said in a statement. Both men were British citizens based in London. Kimberly Dozier, an American correspondent who has covered the war in Iraq for nearly three years, was taken to a Baghdad hospital for surgery. The network said she was listed in critical condition and that doctors were “cautiously optimistic” about her prognosis.
Critics of the media often complain that they engage in “balcony journalism”, reporting from hotel rooms while posing on a balcony for better visuals. This shows that some American journalists put more on the line in Baghdad than just a room service tip. We should all offer our prayers and hopes for a complete recovery for Dozier and our gratitude for risking her life to report on a dangerous area of Iraq.
Decoration Day
Our national holiday of Memorial Day began as Decoration Day, proclaimed by General John Logan in 1868 to honor the dead of both sides of the Civil War. It later changed names, but the purpose of the day remains a recognition of the last full measure of devotion on the part of America’s true heroes.
Today, CQ thanks and honors all of those who have fallen in our country’s service, and the families they left behind. In honor of all of them, I present you the story of SFC Paul Smith, a recent Medal of Honor recipient.
The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to
Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith
United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:
Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.
UPDATE: I changed “winner” to “recipient”, thanks to the CQ reader and military officer who wished to remain anonymous.
Times: 20 Terrorist Plots Active In Britain
The Times of London reports that MI-5 and the police have found themselves stretched to the limit from a score of active terrorist bomb plots. The Home Secretary has told the nation that so many Islamist conspiracies are afoot that the security agencies have no time to participate in an inquiry regarding the Tube bombings last year:
TWENTY “major conspiracies” by Islamist terrorists in Britain have been uncovered by the security services, John Reid, the home secretary, has disclosed. …
Reid revealed the existence of the plots — far more than have previously been reported — at a meeting with some of the victims’ relatives and survivors of the attacks last week.
He failed to give further details but the claim appears to fit in with briefings by MI5 which suggest that as many as 1,200 potential terrorist suspects may now be in the UK.
One of the operations is thought to have been the target of raids by hundreds of police officers last week. Anti-terrorist police believe they may have thwarted a wave of suicide bomb attacks on British and US forces in Iraq.
The police arrested eight men during the armed raids. The men, all from Libya, were being held on suspicion of encouraging and financing Al-Qaeda operations abroad.
British police and MI-5 believe they have foiled at least three al-Qaeda plots since the July 7 bombings that killed 54 Londoners. Three more plots have already been uncovered and suspected terrorists charged. Taking the one plot from last week’s raids off the list, and that leaves 13 active conspiracies to engage terrorist attacks in the UK, presumably each separate from the other. Small wonder that MI-5 has no time to appear in an inquiry on a plot long since discharged.
AQ and its affiliates have not stopped probing Western defenses. The UK has a particular vulnerability, especially in London, where radical Islamists have long congregated. Europe’s proximity to the Middle East made it a preferred destination for such groups, especially once they got the boot in their home countries. Islamists use Western openness and freedom to gather and organize their assault on both concepts, and our staunch allies will find themselves in the thick of that problem for a generation or more. We have fewer openly radical Muslim organizations in the US, but then again, it doesn’t take many to generate a real threat to security, as we saw on 9/11. It only took 19 men to kill 3,000 people in less than an hour.
The problem for Western nations will eventually focus on immigration, although not exactly the immigration issues Americans have debated for the last few months. We may have to start making our doorways much narrower for immigrants hailing from Islamist autocracies, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, and others. Until they have a democracy in place which allows their political factions representational power, we can continue to expect these nations to export terror, even if unwittingly. They exploit radical Islamists to distract people from their oppression, and eject Islamists as soon as that gambit fails. Those people then go where they can organize like-minded radicals in the easiest manner possible.
It sounds harsh to bar the door, and it would be regrettable. However, in order to keep a free society within our borders, it will be necessary to close the borders down to a much larger degree than we have. Otherwise, we will face the same problem that Britain now has: too many Islamist plots and not enough resources to stop them. If we experience another 9/11, the pressure we put on our government to stop the terrorists will likely force them to assume even greater power, making us more prisoner than freeman in order to distinguish between friend and foe. Hysterics screech that that day has already come, but it has not. It will, however, as long as we allow people from Islamist nations to freely traverse our borders.
It is much more efficient to keep potential terrorists out of the US than it is to find them once they’ve arrived. The former solution puts no burden on American citizens, while the latter will eventually create a police state where we all must carry papers to identify ourselves in internal transit and account for our every action to the state. By closing our doors to those who hail from Islamist autocracies, we will eventually force them to create their own democracies rather than escape to ours, and terrorists looking to infiltrate our country will have to try a little harder to succeed than simply appllying for a visa.