Lotfi Raissi, de Algerijn beschuldigde verkeerd van de opleiding van loodsen betrokken bij de 9/11 terroristenaanvallen in New York, zou moeten worden toegestaan om compensatie, het besliste Hof van Beroep te eisen.
M. Raissi, proef, werd gearresteerd bij zijn huis in het kader van het Akte van het Terrorisme in September 2001, 10 dagen na de Wreedheid van het Centrum van de Wereldhandel.
Hij werd bevrijd werd na zeven dagen maar re-onder een uitleveringswaarborg die op verzoek van de overheid van Verenigde Staten gearresteerd wordt uitgegeven.
Hij bleef in gevangenis voor vier-en-a-halve maanden, toen hij borgtocht ondanks bezwaren van de Dienst werd verleend van de Vervolging van de Kroon die de V.S. vertegenwoordigde. Raissi, 33, werd definitief vrijgegeven nadat geen bewijsmateriaal voor een hof werd gezet om de terrorismebeweringen te steunen.
Lord Justice die Hooper, het vonnis van het Hof van Beroep geeft, zei: De „openbare etikettering van appellant als terrorist door de autoriteiten in dit land, en in het bijzonder door CPS, over een periode van vele maanden heeft gehad en blijven hebben, zodat wordt het gezegd, een verwoestend effect op zijn leven en op zijn gezondheid. Hij is van mening dat, tenzij hij een openbare erkenning ontvangt dat hij geen terrorist is, hij zijn het levensrug niet zal kunnen samen opnieuw worden.“
Raissi was voor compensatie in Maart 2004 van toepassing onder een regeling die door het Bureau van het Huis voor mensen in werking wordt gesteld die hun vrijheid wegens een mislukking van rechtvaardigheid hadden verloren. Zijn toepassing werd verworpen door de Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Raissi nam zijn geval aan een gerechtelijk overzicht bij het Hoge Hof waar hij niet succesvol was.
Lord Justice Hooper zei: „Wij hebben zijn beroep opdracht gevend toegestaan tot dat de appellant toepassing voor compensatie naar de Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken voor herziening in het licht van dit oordeel.“ wordt teruggever*wijst
De rechter zei het beroephof, dat ook de Meester van de Broodjes, de Heer Anthony Clarke omvatte, en Dame Justice Smith, van mening was dat er een „aanzienlijk lichaam van bewijsmateriaal“ was om voor te stellen dat de politie en CPS verantwoordelijk waren voor wat de regeling als „ernstige gebreken“ beschrijft.
Het spreken buiten hof M. Raissi zei: „Ik huilde met hulp toen ik het oordeel hoorde. Ik heb altijd gezegd dat ik in Britse rechtvaardigheid geloofde en ik werd vandaag het definitief.
Surely I can expect to hear from the Home Secretary with the long-awaited apology very soon.”
Commenting on the ruling, the Ministry of Justice said: “We are considering the implications and whether or not to appeal.”
U.S. intelligence agencies are beginning to suspect that Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden is dead after all, despite a recent audio tape exhorting Al Qaida terrorists in Iraq.
Undated footage from the Internet shows Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden making statements from an unknown location. Reuters
The Al Qaida leader who was the main force behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, was last heard on an audio tape released Dec. 30. The tape mentioned Iraqis who are opposing Al Qaida, but there has been no specific time referenced from his last two messages. An earlier message in October also exhorted Al Qaida to fight in Iraq.Questions about Bin Laden are being raised by intelligence officials who say that without a specific time mark with a photo of Bin Laden, his presence cannot be confirmed and the most recent statements could have been put together from older audio.
Al Qaida operates a very sophisticated propaganda operations that includes the use of audio and videotape messages to rally followers and to recruit new jihadists.
The new analysis of Bin Laden follows the death of No. 3 Al Qaida leader Abu Laith Al Libi, who was killed last week in a CIA-led operation in Pakistan that involved an armed unmanned aerial vehicle attack.
Asked about U.S. military or intelligence involving in the terrorist killing, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters: “I’m not going to talk any more about the operational side of this, of how that in fact occurred.”
Mullen called al Libi a key figure in Al Qaida and said “elimination of someone like that is a very important outcome in terms of this long war.”
Mullen also said safe havens for Al Qaida in Pakistan remain a concern and to be able to conduct an operation in the area was “important.”
Sir David speaks to former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto about her controversial return to Pakistan, who she thinks is behind the deadly bombing of her convoy in Karachi last month, and whether she and Musharraf can forge a powersharing agreement
Bhutto said Omar Sheikh murdered Osama bin Laden In 2006, Musharraf wrote a book in which he stated that Omar Sheikh, one of the primary financers of the 9/11 attacks, may have worked for British intelligence during the 1990s.
An ex-congressman is indicted for his part in an alleged terrorist fundraising and accused of sending $130,000 to a Taliban supporter.
A US grand jury indicted ex-Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice.
It is alleged he lobbied for a charity that sent funds to al-Qaeda and Taliban supporter Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Siljander was a congressman from 1981-1987 and served one year as a US delegate to the United Nations.
The 42-count grand jury indictment alleges Siljander lied about lobbying senators on behalf of the Missouri-based Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA).
The indictment alleges the charity sent about $130,000 (£66,000) in 2003 and 2004 to accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan, that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had access to.
It says Siljander “engaged in money laundering and obstruction of a federal investigation in an effort to disguise IARA’s misuse of taxpayer money that the government had provided for humanitarian purposes”.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has long been a thorn in the US side in Afghanistan.
The US justice department says he has “vowed to engage in a holy war against the United States and international troops”.
Martin Ingram, a British agent admitted infiltration of the IRA and said that over 70% of their bombings were commanded by British Intelligence. We confronted Gerry Adams to get the info from the ‘horse’s mouth’.
There has been vast amounts of evidence uncovered that show U.S and British controlled terrorist groups through out the world that serve a purpose to the controllers. In Iraq British agents were caught dressed as Iraqis carrying out terrorism, they were dramatically broken out of jail. In Iraqi they have found sophisticated bombs matching those used by the IRA aka British Intelligence bombs.
11 September 2001. Since then we have been one of the nations at risk of Islamic attacks. More than six years have passed and, as far as we can remember, not a single person has been killed or injured in Italy as a direct result of the Jihad. This must be some sort of record. We have not seen a single possessed man wearing a turban, or a bearded fanatic involved in any robbery, bloody event or domestic burglary.
Image from the Financial Times
Some may believe that this may be simply because Italy closes an eye (looks the other way), perhaps even both eyes and allows everyone to do their own thing. And the Country allows the setting up of logistics bases that could be used as a springboard for attacks elsewhere in Europe. There may well be some truth in this belief because, here in Italy, we are free to do whatever we wish and this Country is probably the best crossroads for all the secret services of the world. Abu Omar was kidnapped in Milan by twenty-six CIA agents. However, any terrorist wishing to blow himself up in London or Madrid is able to access local support with impunity. He need not go as far as Rome or Milan. Since 2001, there have been around 8000 people assassinated in the workplace, hundreds more have died at the hands of organised crime and there have been thousands of rapes. Entire swathes of the Campania, Calabria and Sicily Regions are beyond the rule of law, with shotguns drawn. The result is that we have sent our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and cut our funding to the Country’s Police Services. All due to the Jihad.
Of what use is a fear of the Muslims and the mosques? The person who prays does not normally get involved in criminal activity. In an attempt to find some sort of answer to this question, I read the recent International Energy Agency Report on the future of world energy. The report’s content is summarised in a map published by the Financial Times and entitled: “The increasing importance of Middle East petroleum”.
In 1980, the quantity of petroleum extracted in non-Opec countries, such as the United States and Russia, amounted to 35.5 million barrels per day, while 28.1 million barrels were being extracted by Opec zone Countries. The forecast for the year 2030 is exactly the opposite, with petroleum production is expected to in the order of 60.3 million barrels per day in the Opec zone and 53.2 million barrels in the rest of the world. He who controls the Persian Gulf, which is where 30% of the entire global requirement will be extracted, controls the energy resources and, he who controls the energy resources also controls the entire planet. The rising demand for energy (China alone will go from their current 7 million barrels per day, to 16.5 million by 2030) will coincide with the concentration of petroleum in the Persian Gulf, overlooked by Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. All of which are Muslim States. Therefore, the more petroleum you produce, the more you are a terrorist.
McKay’s house was targeted by City of London police officers on Wednesday morning as part of their investigation into allegations of corruption in the game, although he insisted that he had done nothing wrong.
Speaking about the raid, McKay said: “It was 6am, all I could hear was people shouting ‘police’ - I got out of bed and there were police officers all over the place.
“I got ready, but I was absolutely startled and amazed they actually came up into my bedroom - I think there were around 28 [officers involved]. How on earth can an inquiry for allegedly giving a player money lead to 28 officers storming my house with my family inside. It’s incredible.
“They were looking for transfer documents and the strange thing is that twice my lawyer has contacted the police and said, ‘we’re quite happy to meet you, speak with you and show any documentation you want’.
“I don’t blame the officers themselves. Their orders were to come up here, but it was like a terrorist operation. It was like something out of a film.”
McKay was arrested on Wednesday along with Portsmouth chief executive Peter Storrie, former chairman Milan Mandaric, former player Amdy Faye and the Portsmouth manager, Harry Redknapp - who yesterday also protested his innocence.
McKay continued: “They didn’t charge me, but said it was about giving Amdy Faye money. Does that warrant 28 police officers storming your house?
“There are other things the police could be doing rather than coming up here - I could have gone down there. They see fit to do this, and it’s upset me and my family.”
McKay has no doubt that he would be cleared of any wrongdoing.
“I’m not confident, I know I will be,” he said.
“The worrying thing is, how can somebody launch an attack like this on my property through lies? That’s all it’s been.”
After his prominent involvement in the Quest inquiry conducted by Lord Stevens into alleged bungs, when he decided to publicly ‘out’ himself as one of the nine unnamed agents who were supposedly unco-operative - something he also vehemently denied - McKay felt he was being victimised.
He claimed: “A chairman of a club in the North-West about three years ago told me ‘they’re gunning for you, it’s your head they want.”
“I have been through everything - the Quest investigation, this investigation, that investigation - where is it all coming to?”
Congress Considers Methods to Disrupt Movements in the United States
Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to ‘Disrupt’ Radical Movements in the United States
From the November 25, 2007 issue
By Jessica Lee
The Indypendent, New York City
Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of “homegrown terrorism,” Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties advocates, scholars and historians.
The proposed law, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955), was passed by the House of Representative in a 404-6 vote Oct. 23. (The Senate is currently considering a companion bill, S. 1959.) The act would establish a “National Commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence” and a university-based “Center for Excellence” to “examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States” in order to develop policy for “prevention, disruption and mitigation.”
Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil liberties.
David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin’s University who studies government surveillance and harassment of dissident scholars, says the bill “is a shot over the bow of environmental activists, animal-rights activists, anti-globalization activists and scholars who are working in the Middle East who have views that
go against the administration.”
Price says some right-wing outfits such as gun clubs are also threatened because “[they] would be looked at with suspicion under the bill.”
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), which has been organizing against post-Sept. 11 legislative attacks on First Amendment rights, is critical of the bill. “When you first look at this bill, it might seem harmless because it is about the development of a commission to do a study,” explained Hope Marston, a regional organizer with BORDC.
“However, when you realize the focus of the study is ‘homegrown terrorism,’ it raises red flags,” Marston said. “When you consider that the government has wiretapped our phone calls and emails, spied on religious and political groups and has done extensive data mining of our daily records, it is worrisome of what might be done with the study. I am concerned that there appears to be an inclination to study religious and political groups to ultimately try to find subversion. This would violate our First Amendment rights to free speech and freedoms of religion and association.”
One pressing concern is definitions contained in the bill. For example, “violent radicalization” is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.”
Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center, asks, “What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this? These are broad definitions that encompass so much. … It is criminalizing thought and ideology.”
For her part, Marston takes issue with the definition of homegrown terrorism. “It is about the ‘use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence to intimidate or coerce the government.’ This is often the language that refers to political activity.”
Congressional sponsors of the bill claim it is limited in scope.
“Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) Oct. 23, who co-authored the bill. “Free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution — but violent behavior is not.”
The bill’s purpose goes beyond academic inquiry, however. In a press release dated Nov. 6, Harman stated: “the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent.” (Harman’s office refused three separate requests by The Indypendent for comment.)
Some assert this would allow law enforcement agencies to target radicals in general. Price says, “This bill is trying to bridge the gap between those with radical dissenting views and those who engage in violent acts. It’s a form of prior restraint.”
Price explains how this may work, citing an example in his home town of Olympia, Wash., where a peaceful blockade took place in early November at the Port of Olympia to prevent the shipment of war materials between the United States and Iraq. He says, “It will be these types of things that will start getting defined as terrorism, including Quakers and indigenous rights’ campaigns.”
Kamau Franklin, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), is also concerned at the targeting of peaceful protests. He says the “Commission’s broad mandate can lead to the ability to turn civil disobedience, a form of protest that is centuries old, into a terrorist act.” It’s possible, he says, “that someone who would have been charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration may soon be charged with a federal terrorist statute.”
“My biggest fear is that they [the commission] will call for some new criminal penalties and federal crimes,” says Franklin. “Activists are nervous about how the broad definitions could be used for criminalizing civil disobedience and squashing the momentum of the left.”
The bill provides a list of Congressional findings, including a failure to understand the development and promotion of “violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence,” which is argued to pose a threat to domestic security. The Internet was highlighted as a tool in “providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would cost $22 million over four years.
THE THREAT (OR LACK THEREOF)
Although the legislation is vague, a chief target appears to be Islamic militants living in the United States. Harman, in her Nov. 6 press release, says the bill is needed to combat violent radicalization and cites four cases as examples of such — all of them involving Muslim Americans allegedly engaged in terrorist activity. The bill’s language also states that proposed appointees to the National Commission should have “expertise and experience” in a long list of disciplines such as “world religions.” But the only religion named is Islam.
The bill appears to be influenced by the government-affiliated RAND Corporation, whose website includes a letter from Harman noting, “RAND … and I have worked closely for many years.” Harman, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, introduced H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007.
Two weeks prior to this, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s subcommittee. Jenkins claimed “radicalization and recruiting are taking place in the United States,” and listed a number of high-profile cases in which Muslim Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related charges.
In his testimony, Jenkins admitted convictions in these cases — in Lackawanna, N.Y., Northern Virginia, New York City, Portland, Ore., and elsewhere — relied on charges being “interpreted broadly” by the courts.
There has been significant criticism of how government officials have hyped many of these cases as mass terror attacks thwarted in the nick of time despite a lack of any actual plans or means to commit a violent act on the part of the defendants. It’s also been noted that in numerous instances the government employed informants who goaded the suspects into committing the illegal acts for which they were arrested.
In June, Jenkins was back before Harman’s subcommittee discussing the role of the National Commission. According to the Congressional Quarterly website, Jenkins said, “[Homegrown terrorism] is the principal threat that we face as a country and it will likely be the principal threat that we face for decades.” The website stated, “Unless a way of intervening in the radicalization process can be found, ‘we are condemned to stepping on cockroaches one at a time,’ he added.”
At the end of his second round of testimony, Jenkins undercut the claims that there is any real danger requiring the creation of the National Commission and Center for Excellence. He said, “Judging by the terrorist conspiracies uncovered since 9/11, violent radicalization has yielded very few recruits. Indeed, the level of terrorist activities in the United States was much higher in the 1970s that it is today.” (Repeated inquiries by The Indypendent to the RAND Corporation to interview Jenkins or other staff analysts were turned down by the media relations department, which claimed they were all unavailable for the rest of the year.)
This has the Arab-American community worried. “When you look at the creation of the Commission, it is scary, especially when people [on the national commission] will be appointed by the White House,” said Kareem Shora, executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). He pointed to the recess appointment, despite widespread criticism, of Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, who, Shora said, “propagated hate against Arabs.”
Shora is worried H.R. 1955 will unfairly target Muslims, even though he says they have been largely helpful in terrorist investigations since Sept. 11. Despite the assistance, he says civil rights abuses continue to occur, including “voluntary interviews,” the Absconder Apprehension Initiative and the Special Registration Program.
MAPPING MUSLIMS
The passage of the H.R. 1955 coincided with a furor over the Los Angeles Police Department’s plan to “map” Muslim communities in the city. Appearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security on Oct. 30, Michael Downing, the assistant commanding officer of LAPD’s Counter-terrorism/Criminal Intelligence Bureau, said the project “will lay out the geographic locations of the many different Muslim population groups around Los Angeles [and] take a deeper look at their history, demographics, language, culture, ethnic breakdown, socio-economic status and social interactions.”
Shora says, “Looking at a community based on religious affiliation alone … is unconstitutional. The ADC added in a press release that singling “out individuals for investigation, surveillance, and data collection based solely on religion … would violate equal protection and burden the free exercise of religion.”
Following the outcry, the LAPD announced Nov. 15 that it was dropping the mapping plan. Opposition came from many quarters, including scholars, because the LAPD envisioned using academics in the mapping program. It reportedly intended “to have the data assembled by the University of Southern California’s Center for Risk and Economic Analysis.” Recruiting academics for counterterrorism efforts is also at the heart of H.R. 1955, which proposes a university-based Center of Excellence.
Roberto Gonzalez, an anthropologist who co-authored a recent article with David Price criticizing the Pentagon’s use of scholars in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, says the prospect of creating a Center “is a bad idea because it is likely to compromise the intellectual integrity of the academy.” H.R. 1955 advocates for the use of “cultural anthropologists,” which concerns Price that they would “be doing secretive work for the state.”
Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the Boston-based Political Research Associates, argues the government is trying to establish a Center to get around legal prohibitions on gathering data specifically based on race and religion. He explains that there is already extensive research being done on the roots of political violence by scores of academics around the country but many of their findings do not fit into the government’s agenda. To Berlet, the proposed Center is nothing more than “a slush fund for politically connected hacks.”
TARGET ‘ANTI-GLOBALISTS’
Islamic militants are not the only threat on the government’s radar.
“A chief problem is radical forms of Islam, but we’re not only studying radical Islam,” Harman told In These Times, a Chicago-based newsmagazine. “We’re studying the phenomenon of people with radical beliefs who turn into people who would use violence.”
In 2004, the FBI named “eco-terrorism,” a broad term that includes property destruction, the top domestic threat. The July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found that “special interest groups” were also likely to cause small-scale violent attacks.
These “special interest groups” were outlined in a 2005 RAND report, “Trends in Terrorism.” One chapter was devoted to a non-Muslim “homegrown terrorist” threat — anti-globalists. “Anti-globalists directly challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world’s ecology, indigenous cultures and individual welfare,” stated the report. The report identifies rightwing movements such as neo-Nazis as threats and states there should be a focus on anarchist and radical environmental groups, citing anarchists involved in civil disobedience during the 2004 National Republican Contention in New York City and millions of dollars in property damage by the Earth Liberation Front in the last decade.
A WAR OF WORDS — A LOOK AT VIOLENCE
Observers say using vaguely defined terms is part of a historical pattern of sweeping government repression that includes the post- World War II “Red Scare” and the FBI’s counter-intellegence program, nicknamed Cointelpro. They are also concerned that H.R. 1955 will foster a legislative momentum on criminalizing a broad range of dissident voices.
Jules Boykoff, an assistant professor of politics and government at Pacific University and author of Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in the United States, said he was alarmed that “violence” was not defined. He noted the definition of “ideologically based violence” is the “means to use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.”
“It is a circular definition, what does that mean?” asked Boykoff, while reading the bill aloud. “What does violence mean? We do not need laws like this because we already have plenty of laws on the books that make it a crime to blow up or set fire to buildings. It is called arson.”
Boykoff commented that the bill used the terms “extremism” and “radicalism” interchangeably. “The word ‘radical’ shares the etymological root to the word ‘radish,’ which means to get to the root of the problem. So, if the government wants to get at the actual root of terrorism, then let’s really talk about it. We need to talk about the economic roots, the vast inequalities in wealth between the rich and poor.” Boykoff says historically the government has used “radical” as a way of dismissing groups as “extremists,” however, and uses the two words as synonyms.
Hope Marston of the BORDC is nervous about the definition of homegrown terrorism, which is “about the ‘use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence’ to intimidate or coerce the government.” She says, “The definition does not make clear what force is.”
Bron Taylor, a professor at University of Florida who studies radical religion and environmental movements, questioned the government’s interpretation of violence. He spent years as an ethnographic researcher exploring the propensity of individuals within the radical environmental movement to turn to violence, a word he says defines as harm to sentient beings, not property destruction.
“There are all sorts of things that activists do that involve little or no risk of hurting people, but their actions get labeled as violent, or even worse, as acts of terrorism,” Taylor said. “For example, if 10 activists push themselves into a congressperson’s regional office, make noise, pull out files and make a scene, is that an act of terrorism? It is quite possible that the act could scare the hell out of the secretary and office workers because they don’t know these people or what they intend to do? But is that terrorism? Some people would like to frame it that way.”
“In any political dispute, whoever succeeds in defining the terms is likely to prevail in the debate,” Taylor said. “That is why scholars and the media need to be scrupulous in the ways they use and define terms deployed by the partisans in these disputes. They should strive to come up with terms that are as descriptive, accurate and as neutral as possible.”
THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION
The legislation authorizes a 10-member National Commission (the Senate bill calls for 12 members) appointed by the President, the secretary of homeland security, congressional leaders and the chairpersons of both the Senate and House committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
After convening, the Commission is to submit reports at six-month intervals for 18 months to the President and Congress, stating its findings, conclusions, and legislative recommendations “for immediate and long-term countermeasures … to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence.”
Kamau Franklin of CCR says he finds the timing of the legislation disturbing coming a year before the presidential elections and about eight months prior to the Democratic and Republication National Conventions — both which of have increasingly been the site of large-scale protests and civil disobedience.
More disturbing are the similarities to Cointelpro, which was investigated by a U.S. Senate select committee on intelligence activities (commonly known as the Church Committee), which convened in 1975. The Church Committee found that from 1956 to 1971, “the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.”
Hope Marston says, “In the 1970s when we learned of the violation in rights that the government had been doing for 40 years, there was public outrage. Because these erosions of the Bill of Rights have happened during ‘the war on terror,’ we aren’t supposed to protest anything the government does because they are ‘protecting us.’ That feeling has made the government’s actions more dangerous.”
MONEY FOR COPS, REPRESSION FOR FREE
The Senate version of the bill finds that the domestic threats “cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.”
“That’s about joint terrorism task force making,” Franklin said. “It’s a way to create a federal slush fund so local police departments can get their hands on it. This happened in the 1960s.”
Marston agreed. “This sounds like part of the same continuum we’ve experienced in the last seven years, which is the effort to deputize local law enforcement to work with the FBI and national agencies without local accountability, as we have seen with the establishment of joint-terrorism task forces across the country,” Marston said. “On 9/11, there were only a few joint-terrorism task forces, now there are more than 100 in existence. … When you talk about working with local law enforcement to possibly spy on groups and individuals to try to find the so-called ‘needle in the haystack,’ this definitely poses a threat to local autonomy.”
Although Cointelpro was partially dismantled in the 1970s and the FBI’s power to conduct domestic intelligence curbed, many safeguards have been overturned in the last 30 years, according to David Cole and Jim Dempsey, authors of Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. Legislation such as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the 2001 USA Patriot Act “radically transformed the landscape of government power, and did so in ways that virtually guarantee repetition of some of law enforcement’s worst abuses of the past,” the authors wrote.
In the last few years, many states have passed versions of the Patriot Act, while Congress has placed further checks on civil liberties with the Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act (2006), the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006) and the Protect America Now Act (2007), which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and legalized the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.
THE BOGUS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
H.R. 1955 gives Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff the power to establish a “Center of Excellence,” a university-based research program to “bring together leading experts and researchers to conduct multidisciplinary research and education for homeland security solutions.” The Department currently has eight Centers at academic institutions across the country, strengthening what many see as a growing military-security-academic complex.
Rep. Harman, in an Oct. 23 press release, stated that, the Center would “examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism.”
“I do not have a lot of concerns with this legislation,” said Jim Dempsey, policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “Violent radicalization is an issue that deserves to be studied and understood. I am more comfortable with this bill’s approach, which is to treat the issue as a matter for broad study using largely open sources, than I would be with an approach that directed the FBI, DHS or the CIA to examine the issue,” Dempsey said. Dempsey was the assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights from 1985-1994, the former Deputy Director for the Center for National Security Studies and co-authored with David Cole, Terrorism and the Constitution.
“I do have some concern that the Commission and the Center will focus on Muslims and will contribute to a climate of apprehension,” Dempsey continued. “But I still think the bill is probably a good idea, if its concepts are in a true spirit of inquiry.”
Taylor agrees, but is leery that Washington politicians will hold power over commission and Center. “As an academic, I like the idea of creating Centers of Excellence in general because they bring together excellent scholars,” Taylor said. “But this is not something that the government should have a great deal of control over, because it is so ideologically charged. We’ve had plenty of examples of administrations, this one in particular, that likes to manipulate and downplay scientific findings that run at variance with their ideological and political objectives.”
“The bill itself, no matter how well drafted, does not guarantee a balanced outcome,” noted Dempsey. “To ensure balance, human rights activists will have to get involved in the work of the Commission and the Center.”
“If they really want to know why we have terrorism, they are going to need to explore counter-narratives,” explained Boykoff. “When the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, one narrative to explain the situation was that there is ‘an external enemy out there who hates America.’ Other narratives, such as that perhaps U.S. foreign policy might be fueling acrimonious feelings towards the U.S., were not considered. I am skeptical that the Center for Excellence would be open to these other narratives, but rather would be regurgitating the standard narrative.”
It is unclear how researchers would gather the information.
“If you are trying to understand in the broadest sense what turns people to violence in a variety of political causes, it is not something you can do easily, and it must be studied in a serious way,” said Taylor, who has began studying the radical environmental movement since 1989. “It is exceptionally hard to study these groups. They tend to be suspicious of new comers and outsiders, rightfully so. They aren’t fond of academic institutions or academics because they tend to view most of what goes on at institutions of higher education as being subservient to interests of global capital,” he said.
With his research experience, Taylor believes that it is absurd to think the Commission could produce a significant report in 18 months.
“To find out what makes people tick, you actually have to engage with them as a human being, and that is a long process that takes patience and trust building.”
Anthropologist Price is also worried. “My concern is that anthropologists would again be doing secretive work for the state. This bill is going to be interpreted so narrowly. It is calling for an ideological litmus test,” Price said. “The military believes there are ways to get around this questions legally, but ethically, it is a big deal. There are ethical codes of conduct in anthropology, sociology, psychology, in the social sciences in general, that they very basic precautions are taken.”
A LONG HISTORY OF DISSENT
For U.S. historian Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States, H.R. 1955 can be added to a long list of government policies that have been passed to target dissent in the United States.
“This is the most recent of a long series of laws passed in times of foreign policy tensions, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sent people to jail for criticizing the Adams administration,” Zinn said in an email to The Indypendent. “During World War I, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act sent close to a thousand people to jail for speaking out against the war. On the eve of World War II, the Smith Act was passed, harmless enough title, but it enabled the jailing of radicals — first Trotskyists during the war and Communist party leaders after the war, for organizing literature, etc., interpreted as “conspiring to overthrow the government by force and violence.”
“In all cases, the environment was one in which the government was involved in a war or Cold War or near-war situation and wanted to suppress criticism of its policies,” Zinn said.
Regardless, Zinn remains optimistic. “We should keep in mind that an act of repression by the state is a recognition of the potential of social movements and therefore we need to persist, through the repression, in order to bring about social change,” Zinn said. “We can learn to expect the repression, and not to be intimidated.”
Hope Marston remains hopeful. “The work we have been doing at BORDC is mobilizing people in the grassroots across the political spectrum, she said. “It is not just a Leftist effort to protect the Bill of Rights. We have worked with libertarians and republicans. We have helped get 412 resolution passed on the state and local level against the erosion of the Bill of rights.”
Editors Note: Shortly after this article went to press, the Los Angeles Police Department announced they scrapped their plan to “map the muslim community” after meeting behind closed doors with leaders in the Arab-American communities.
Firefighters in major cities are being trained to take on a new role as lookouts for terrorism, raising concerns of eroding their standing as American icons and infringing on people’s privacy.
Unlike police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel don’t need warrants to access hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings each year, putting them in a position to spot behavior that could indicate terrorist activity or planning.
But there are fears that they could lose the faith of a skeptical public by becoming the eyes of the government, looking for suspicious items such as building blueprints or bomb-making manuals or materials.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Americans have given up some of their privacy rights in an effort to prevent future strikes. The government monitors phone calls and e-mails; people who fly have their belongings searched before boarding and are limited in what they can carry; and some people have trouble traveling because their names are similar to those on terrorist watch lists.
The American Civil Liberties Union says using firefighters to gather intelligence is another step in that direction. Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now national security policy counsel to the ACLU, said the concept is dangerously close to the Bush administration’s 2002 proposal to have workers with access to private homes — such as postal carriers and telephone repairmen — report suspicious behavior to the FBI.
“Americans universally abhorred that idea,” German said.
The Homeland Security Department is testing a program with the New York City fire department to share intelligence information so firefighters are better prepared when they respond to emergency calls. Homeland Security also trains the New York City fire service in how to identify material or behavior that may indicate terrorist activities. If it’s successful, the government intends to expand the program to other major metropolitan areas.
As part of the program, which started last December, Homeland Security gave secret clearances to nine New York fire chiefs, according to reports obtained by The Associated Press.
“They’re really doing technical inspections, and if perchance they find something like, you know, a bunch of RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) rounds in somebody’s basement, I think it’s a no-brainer,” said Jack Tomarchio, a senior official in Homeland Security’s intelligence division. “The police ought to know about that; the fire service ought to know about that; and potentially maybe somebody in the intelligence community should know about that.”
Even before the federal program began, New York firefighters and inspectors had been training to recognize materials and behavior the government identifies as “signs of planning and support for terrorism.”
When going to private residences, for example, they are told to be alert for a person who is hostile, uncooperative or expressing hate or discontent with the United States; unusual chemicals or other materials that seem out of place; ammunition, firearms or weapons boxes; surveillance equipment; still and video cameras; night-vision goggles; maps, photos, blueprints; police manuals, training manuals, flight manuals; and little or no furniture other than a bed or mattress.
The trial program with Homeland Security opens a clear information-sharing channel — which did not exist before — between the fire service and Homeland Security’s intelligence division.
“We’re there to help people, and by discovering these type of events, we’re helping people,” said New York City Fire Chief Salvatore Cassano. “There are many things that firefighters do that other law enforcement or other agents aren’t able to do.” He added, “A normal person that doesn’t have this training wouldn’t be looking for it.”
Cassano would not discuss specifics, but he did say that some terrorism-related information has been passed along to law enforcement since firefighters and officers began the training three years ago. “They’ve had some hits,” Cassano said. “It’s working.”
Separately, the fire services in Washington, D.C., Phoenix and Atlanta have also been receiving terrorism-related intelligence training. Los Angeles County provides intelligence training so firefighters and inspectors can spot dangerous chemicals or other materials that could be used in bombs. And the fire service is also represented in at least 13 state and regional intelligence “fusion” centers across the country — where local, state and federal agencies share information about terrorism and other crimes.
In Washington, the fire service made its first foray into the intelligence world about two years ago, and now D.C. Fire/EMS has access to the same terrorism-related intelligence as the police, said Larry Schultz, an assistant fire chief in charge of operations.
D.C. firefighters and EMS providers are in 170,000 homes and businesses each year on routine calls, Schultz said.
“So we see things and observe things that may be useful to law enforcement,” he said. “We can walk into your house. We don’t need a search warrant.” If an ambulance team shows up at a house and sees detailed maps of the District’s public transit system on the wall, that’s something the EMS provider would pass along, he said.
“It’s the evolution of the fire service,” said Bob Khan, the fire chief in Phoenix, which has created an information-sharing arrangement between the fire service and law enforcement through terrorism liaison officers.
Because firefighters are on the front lines, the fire service needs to know about intelligence that could somehow affect what they do, said Gregory Cade, who as head of the U.S. Fire Administration is the nation’s top fire chief.
If, for example, Washington is hosting an International Monetary Fund meeting where there will be a large group of protesters and a truckload of gasoline has been stolen in Baltimore, firefighters need to know about intelligence from overseas that terrorists are trying to make explosive devices out of gasoline, Schultz said.
“Getting appropriate, actionable intelligence is important for a fire chief in deciding what to do and how to allocate resources and to know what’s going on,” Cade said. “No one is expecting us to be the analyst person who is sitting down, trying to connect all of this stuff together and determining, ‘Oh, yes, this looks like a terrorist plot.’ ”
But Cade said that until recently, there’s been no mechanism for fire departments to share what they learn with law enforcement and intelligence analysts who could use it.
“If in the conduct of doing their jobs they come across evidence of a crime, of course they should report that to the police,” said the ACLU’s German. “But you don’t want them being intelligence agents.”
It’s of particular concern for communities already under law enforcement scrutiny. “Do we want them to fear the fire department as well as the police?” German asked.
The Detroit metropolitan area, which has one of the largest concentrations of Arab Americans in the country, does not conduct this type of intelligence training, nor does it plan to. “That’s a touchy area,” said Detroit’s deputy fire commissioner, Seth Doyle. Detroit firefighters do receive training about hazardous materials, but not the details that New York and D.C. firefighters are now on the lookout for.
A structural diagram of the Ambassador Bridge, which links Detroit to Canada, materials and literature to make a bomb and a bomb prototype are things firefighters should pay attention to, Doyle said. But the bridge diagram by itself might not be enough. “I don’t want our folks to be put in a position where they’re reporting something that creates a situation where there was really no real problem in the first place,” Doyle said.
Jeff Zack, a spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters, said the union does not know enough about the training programs to say whether it’s a good idea for the country, but the union is concerned that the training be done properly and that this new development does not take away people’s rights.
Advocates of the fire service’s intelligence role say privacy will not be violated. Homeland Security said if its program with New York is expanded across the country, civil rights and civil liberties training would be included.
Terror crackdown: Passengers forced to answer 53 questions BEFORE they travel
By JAMES SLACKTravellers face price hikes and confusion after the Government unveiled plans to take up to 53 pieces of information from anyone entering or leaving Britain.
For every journey, security officials will want credit card details, holiday contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights.
The e-borders system will monitor every passenger travelling into or out of the country
The information, taken when a ticket is bought, will be shared among police, customs, immigration and the security services for at least 24 hours before a journey is due to take place.
Anybody about whom the authorities are dubious can be turned away when they arrive at the airport or station with their baggage.
Those with outstanding court fines, such as a speeding penalty, could also be barred from leaving the country, even if they pose no security risk.
The information required under the “e-borders” system was revealed as Gordon Brown announced plans to tighten security at shopping centres, airports and ports.
This could mean additional screening of baggage and passenger searches, with resulting delays for travellers.
The e-borders scheme is expected to cost at least £1.2billion over the next decade.
Travel companies, which will run up a bill of £20million a year compiling the information, will pass on the cost to customers via ticket prices, and the Government is considering introducing its own charge on travellers to recoup costs.
Critics warned of mayhem at ports and airports when the system is introduced, beginning in earnest from mid-2009.
By 2014 every one of the predicted 305million passenger journeys in and out of the UK will be logged, with details stored about the passenger on every trip.
The scheme will apply to every way of leaving the country, whether by ferry, plane, or small aircraft. It would apply to a family having a day out in France by Eurotunnel, and even to a yachtsman leaving British waters during the day and returning to shore.
The measure applies equally to UK residents going abroad and foreigners travelling here.
The information will be stored for as long as the authorities believe it is useful, allowing them to build a complete picture of where a person has been over their lifetime, how they paid and the contact numbers of who they stayed with.
The Home Office, which yesterday signed a contract with U.S. company Raytheon Systems to run the computer system, said e-borders would help to keep terrorists and illegal immigrants out of the country.
For the first time since embarkation controls were scrapped in 1998, they will also have a more accurate picture of who is in the UK at any one time.
The personal information stored about every journey could prove vital in detecting a planned atrocity, officials insist.
But the majority - around 60 per cent - of the journeys logged will be made by Britons, mostly going on family holidays or business trips.
Ministers are also considering the creation of a list of “disruptive” passengers, so that authorities know in advance of any potential troublemaker, such as an abusive drunk.
David Marshall of the Association of British Travel Agents said: “We are staggered at the projected costs.
“It could also act as a disincentive to people wanting to travel, and we are sure that is not what the Government intends.”
Phil Booth, of the NO2ID group, warned travellers would pay a “stealth tax” on travel to pay for the scheme.
He added: “This is a huge and utterly ridiculous quantity of personal information. This type of profiling will throw up many distressing errors and problems for innocent people.
“We have already seen planes turned around mid-flight because a passenger’s surname matches that of somebody on a watch list.
“When the Government talks about e-borders, it gives the impression it is about keeping bad people out. In fact, it is a huge grab of personal information, and another move towards the database state.”
A pilot of the “e-borders” technology, known as Project Semaphore, has already screened 29million passengers.
Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: “Successful trials of the new system have already led to more than 1,000 criminals being caught and more than 15,000 people of concern being checked out by immigration, customs or the police.”
But Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, said: “The Government must not use legitimate fears or dangers to crop vast amounts of private information without proper safeguards.”
John Tincey, of the Immigration Service Union, said: “The question is are there going to be the staff to respond to the information that is produced?
“In reality people could be missed. Potential terrorists could be coming through if there are not enough staff to check them.”
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: “While e-borders could be a useful tool to secure our borders it will not be up and running for at least another seven years.
“And given the Government’s woeful record on delivering IT based projects, it may well be over budget and over time.
“In the meantime our borders remain porous. The Government should take practical measures to secure our borders, such as answering our call to establish a dedicated UK border police force.”
• Restrictions on hand luggage carried on to passenger planes will be lifted from January.
“Starting with several airports in the New Year, we will work with airport operators to ensure all UK airports are in a position to allow passengers to fly with more than one item of hand luggage,” Gordon Brown said.
The single bag rule was introduced in August last year after police said they foiled a plot to blow up U.S.-bound airliners.
It caused chaos at Heathrow Airport and drew complaints from airlines. Restrictions on carrying liquids are expected to continue.
Mr Brown said security would have to be tight at airports
Security will be stepped up at railway stations, airports and ports as part of government attempts to tackle terrorism, Gordon Brown has announced.There will be new security barriers, vehicle exclusion zones and blast resistant buildings, but air passengers will be allowed more luggage from 2008.
Rail travellers at large stations will also face having their bags screened.
The PM’s statement came amid confusion over his security minister’s views on detention limits for terror suspects.
In his wide-ranging Commons statement on national security, Mr Brown said that the failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow Airport in June showed the need to ensure young people are not “radicalised” by extremists.
He outlined the creation of a new unit bringing together police and security intelligence to look not only at the “inner circle” of extremists but also at those at risk of falling under their influence.
The bulk of the statement covered security at public places such as transport hubs, which had been the subject of a review by ex-Admiral and current security minister Lord West.
Mr Brown said improved security would be installed at the country’s 250 busiest railway stations, as well as airports, ports and more than 100 other sensitive locations.
“Additional screening” of baggage and passenger searches were planned at some large railway stations and other “sensitive locations”, he said.
Guidance would be sent to thousands of cinemas, theatres, restaurants, hotels, sporting venues and commercial centres, as well as all hospitals, schools and places of worship to advise them on how to keep visitors safe against terrorism.
Ministers would work with architects and planners to encourage them to “design-in” better security measures in new buildings, such as blast resistant material, safe areas and traffic control measures.
Companies responsible for crowded places would be given updated advice on how they could improve resilience against attack, he said. About 160 counter-terrorism advisers will train civilian staff to watch out for suspect activity, ensure premises have adequate emergency facilities and make best use of their CCTV footage.
Improved facilities to screen baggage would allow airports to seek approval from 7 January to let passengers take more than one item of hand luggage on flights.
However, size restrictions on liquids and cabin luggage would remain.
The security budget, currently £2.5bn this year, will rise to £3.5bn in 2011, he said and the security service will double in size from 2001, when it had less than 2,000 staff - to more than 4,000.
He said tougher measures to deal with convicted terrorists would be included in the upcoming Counter Terrorism Bill and a new unit will be set up in the Charity Commission, to make sure charities are not exploited by extremists.
Talks on “repatriation arrangements” for terrorism suspects, already agreed with Jordan, Lebanon and Algeria, were underway with “a number of additional countries,” he said.
The prime minister also outlined measures to counter the influence of radical fundamentalists in Britain’s schools, universities, mosques, youth clubs and prisons, as well as on the internet.
Strong relationships
He said a new forum of head teachers would be convened to find ways to protect pupils from extremist propaganda.
“There is no greater priority than the safety and security of our people and building the strongest possible relationships across all faiths and communities,” Mr Brown told MPs.
He also said a review of the use of intercept evidence in court cases - currently banned - would report back in January and he believed there was a “consensus” on allowing terrorist suspects to be questioned after they are charged.
Consultation with parties and communities was beginning on the controversial issue of holding terrorism suspects beyond 28 days without charge - which is opposed by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Brown, whose security minister Lord West had earlier had to backtrack after saying he was not convinced about extending the 28 day limit, said he believed it was possible to get a cross-party consensus.
Community confidence
In his response, Tory leader David Cameron said there had been “a number of good ideas”, and said the terrorist threat was now of “a completely different order” to that faced in the past.
But he said: “As a nation we need the hard-nosed defence of our liberties.”
Introducing post-charge questioning and using intercept evidence should relieve the need to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28-days, he argued.
And acting Lib Dem leader Vincent Cable said: “Our main concern remains the issue of pre-charge detention.
“This is not a separate issue from the issue about which you spoke at length, which is the issue of confidence in the minority communities, because this is an issue of great concern to them.
“There already is a substantial degree of consensus - that we should not proceed beyond the present 28 days.”
Kach’s U.S. Representatives Continue to Solicit Funds for Banned Terrorist Group
By The DC Investigative Journalism Collective
Michael Guzofsky, a.k.a. Yekutiel Ben Ya’acov, maintains the Web site for the bannedVoice of Judea, which the State Department has designated a foreign terrorist organization (Staff photo P. Pasquini).
ACCORDING TO Israeli Army Radio, the banned right-wing terrorist group Kach is petitioning Israel’s High Court of Justice to reinstate its status as a legal political party, thereby allowing its members to run for the Knesset. This follows on the heels of a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals denying Kach’s request to have its 2003 redesignation as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) overturned (see Jan./Feb. 2007 Washington Report, p. 19). Kach apparently is betting that, if Israel revokes its terrorist designation, the U.S. will soon follow suit.
Ironically, while Kach’s eventual legal status may in fact be determined in Israel, the bulk of its support continues to flow from the United States. Kach’s U.S. supporters, in fact, are the lifeline that keeps the movement an active threat to any future peace between Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Kach and Kahane Chai were first listed as distinct terrorist organizations in 1995, when President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12947, entitled “Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process.” (The list also named Hezbollah, the Egyptian Islamic Gamaat Islamiyya, led by Sheikh Abdul Rahman, and several Palestinian “rejectionist” groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [PFLP] and Hamas.)
On Oct. 5, 2001—less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.—Secretary of State Colin Powell redesignated Kach and Kahane Chai as a “single organization” using various aliases [see box on facing page]. In 2003 the State Department included the name “Kahane” on its list of aliases of Kach/Kahane Chai. “The principal U.S. members of Kahane Chai/KACH [sic],” it found, “have consistently attempted to evade legal responsibility for their illegal activities by using different names for the organizations.”
Having determined that Kach/Kahane Chai has “a substantial connection with the United States,” the State Department “provided Kahane Chai representatives in the United States with advance notification of possible redesignation.”
According to the State Department’s administrative record—which never would have been released were it not for Kach’s 2003 appeal—letters of notification were sent by certified mail to Michael R. Guzofsky, Jacob Guzofsky, Richard Zim, Eric Greenberg and Fern Sidman. In addition to return receipts bearing the signatures of Michael Guzofsky, Greenberg and Sidman, the State Department received the following reply from attorney Kenneth Klein: “I am representing a United States citizen who is a representative of Kach, an advocacy organization existing in the United States.”
Apparently the fact that Kach had been designated an FTO some eight years earlier was not a concern to Klein.
Zionist Jihadis
While it is the State Department which compiles the list of FTOs, the law is actually enforced by other federal agencies—Justice, in the case of criminal complaints, and Treasury, in the case of financial sanctions. Judging from publicly available U.S. government records, however, Kach/Kahane Chai has managed to maintain an extremely low profile for a designated FTO existing in the United States. To date there have been no indictments or criminal prosecutions against members or supporters of Kach/Kahane Chai.
In its 2001 “Terrorist Assets Report” to Congress, the Treasury Department stated that it had frozen over $1 million belonging to al-Qaeda, over $6 million of Hamas funds, over $17,000 of Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s, and precisely $200 belonging to Kahane Chai. In 2002, Kahane Chai’s frozen assets increased by a single dollar, to $201. That is the extent of blocked Kach/Kahane Chai assets as reported through 2005.
Treasury Department spokesperson Molly Millerwise points out that, in addition to the amounts of funds frozen, terrorist designations “shut down channels used by terrorist groups to raise, move, and store money, they put the world on notice about a group, individual or entity that poses a threat to security, and they make it harder, costlier, and riskier for terrorists to carry out their activities.”
In the case of Kach/Kahane Chai, however, the repercussions seem to be minimal at best. According to a 2002 CIA Foreign Broadcast Information Service report, one of the aliases for Kach and Kahane Chai, “kahane.org,” lists the aforementioned Michael Guzofsky as its billing contact. Another Kach alias and designated FTO closely associated in recent years with Guzofsky—who himself goes by various aliases, including Yekutiel Ben Ya’acov—is the “Jewish Legion,” or Judean Legion or, in Hebrew, Gedud Haivri.
According to the Department of State’s unclassified 2003 summary of the administrative record presenting the case for the group’s continued designation as an FTO, “Kahane Chai has solicited individuals for membership in a terrorist organization or to engage in terrorist activity…Kahane Chai, through its Web site http://www.kahane.org, has solicited individuals for membership in its group and has maintained the capabilities to engage in a terrorist activity by recruiting for its paramilitary wing, the Jewish Legion, which offers training in deadly hand-to-hand combat, firearms and guard dogs.”
Israeli police investigated the Jewish Legion in 2004 for “setting up unauthorized roadblocks in which its members randomly select Palestinian vehicles for inspection.” According to a Jerusalem Post report, the group—based in Tapuach, a settlement located at a strategic junction near Nablus, in the heart of the West Bank—claimed that “it has extended activities outside the settlement boundaries where its armed members search Palestinian vehicles, ambulances and U.N. vehicles.”
Israeli police subsequently raided and shut down Jewish Legion offices in Tapuach for being a front for Kach/Kahane Chai.
Testimonials to Terrorists
A series of testimonials by Israeli officials praising the Jewish Legion was posted on the Yahoo! Group “Stand By Israel” by moderator David Gross. One such testament is from Brig. Gen. Harel Konfo, Shomron Regional Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander: “Good things must be said of a project that helps secure the Tapuach area.” That the Jewish Legion has actively worked in conjunction with the IDF is reflected in a posted message from a settler representative from the regional council noting that “The (J.L.) kennel has helped the IDF and yishuvim security teams.”
The above quotes were taken verbatim from the Jewish Legion Web site, <www.defendisrael.net>. Gross also includes on the group’s homepage a scan of an October 2003 article from his local Long Beach, NY newspaper documenting an award he received for his support for the Jewish Legion in Tapuach.
Like the Kahanists in the Palestinian population center of Hebron, south of Jerusalem, Tapuach’s extremist settlers are provided 24-hour protection by the Israel Defense Forces. According to “thumper0608,” an IDF officer posting on “Stand By Israel,” the Kahanist group is “well meaning and strongly Zionistic in their own way”—a way that just happens to encourage murdering Arab civilians (see “Tags” on the Voice of Judea YouTube page pictured opposite).
Apparently, however, there are some lines that even Israeli settler paramilitaries are not allowed to cross. On Feb. 4, 2007, a blogger calling himself “Ya’aqov Ben-Yehudah” posted an article on the Internet titled “Naveh’s Crimes.” It included the reproduction of a sort of “wanted” sign in Hebrew posted around the occupied West Bank. As presented in the English translation, the individual in question is Yair Naveh, IDF “general of the central command” in the occupied West Bank, who is “wanted” for such alleged crimes as “expulsion” of Israeli settlers, “pogrom” in the conflict with settlers in Amona, as well as “incitement” and “silent expulsion” for signing restraining orders against settler youth attacking Palestinians during the annual olive harvest.
In its 2006 closing brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the State Department described this sort of intimidation as “terrorist activity.” According to the brief, “Kahane Chai has engaged in terrorist activity by threatening and conspiring to carry out assassinations…Kahane Chai has threatened to harm Israeli Security officials involved in investigating Kahane Chai members.”
“Charitable” Organizations
On March 30, 2006—three years after the State Department listed the Jewish Legion as an alias of Kach—Americans and Israelis Strength and Honor (AISH) published an appeal for $5,000 to buy a Toyota truck for Israel’s Best Friend (IBF)—one of several recent reincarnations of the Tapuach-based Jewish Legion. According to the appeal, “AISH works closely with Israel’s Best Friend, a non-profit organization dedicated to providing guard dogs for those who need them in Israel. Our president, Ed Banyai, is on their board.”
The following day, Ya’aqov Ben-Yehudah, poster of “Naveh’s Crimes,” posted an appeal on Stand By Israel entitled “urgent appeal help IBF stop terror in Israel please forward.” Seeking a $10,000 donation, this appeal concluded: “Your 501c3 tax deductible contributions can be sent to Americans and Israelis Strength and Honor—AISH, 6839 Woodridge Drive, Norfolk, VA 23518.”
A search of Guidestar.org, which lists IRS charitable organizations, yielded no results for either “AISH” or “Israel’s Best Friend.”
In a June 10, 2006 post to the MySpace group “jews4life,” “Moreh” included a link to the Jewish Legion (Gedud Haivry) Web site (<www.defendisrael.net>) and described the life of a Legionaire:
“You buy your own ticket and got to show up in Tapuach, Samaria, ‘West Bank.’ To be accepted as a Legionaire, got to be mentally fit. Tests are tough. Life is hard, Food is bad. Bed is hard. Good thing, you won’t use bed much.”
And volunteering is simple. The Web site <www.kahane.org> lists a Brooklyn phone number—(718) 874-2057—which conveniently rings in Tapuach.
Among those who have responded to the recruitment effort is Eden Natan-Zada, who left his IDF unit for Tapuach and opened fire on a bus full of Israeli Arab citizens during the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, killing four people. Another new IDF recruit, American-born Israel Reinman, went missing in the West Bank, entered a mosque on June 5, 2006 and shot it up before fatally turning his military-issued weapon on himself. Police found Kahanist literature in his apartment. After emigrating to Tapuach from North Carolina, “Jeffrey Seath/Shmuel Zatam, a recent oleh hadash” (as described on kahane.org) was arrested for attempting to smuggle a sniper rifle and thousands of cartridges—as well as, according to one report, a crossbow. He told police of his dream of “hunting Arabs.”
Visitors to Tapuach also have included an “Americans for a Safe Israel” delegation led by founder Herb Zweiborn, who received a hands-on tour of the group’s programs there by Michael Guzofsky and David Haivry of Revava, a Kahanist group focused on seizing the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif. The two Americans now live in Tapuach.
The “defendisrael” Web site includes a detailed application form for volunteers, with fields for military, self-defense and criminal background. The site also offers a link for a secure credit card donation and a link for donating via PayPal, the ubiquitous Ebay-owned Internet payment service.
According to Treasury spokesperson Millerwise, “ongoing fund-raising in the United States by designated parties is something we would take extremely seriously.” Its system of terrorist designations, she maintains, has made it “harder, costlier, and riskier for terrorists to carry out their activities.”
Unless, apparently, contributions are made via Paypal.
ARMS manufacturers are making record profits from the war on terrorism and unprecedented spending on weapons programs.
The massive earnings have drawn condemnation from Australian defence experts, who say expensive weapons such as jet fighters, warships and satellites are not the way to combat terrorism.
The world’s biggest arms maker, Lockheed Martin in the US, maker of fighter jets including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which Australia is buying, announced last week it had increased third-quarter profits by 22 per cent to $US11.1 billion ($12.1 billion).
Northrop Grumman, maker of aircraft carriers, submarines and bombers, increased profits 62 per cent to $US489 million.
At General Dynamics, maker of the Abrams tank, which Australia has just bought, profits climbed 24 per cent to $US544 million.
Britain’s BAE said its profits were up 27 per cent to £657 million ($1.23 billion).
In Australia profits for the Government-owned naval ship and submarine builder ASC rose 60 per cent last year to $30 million. The company was set up to build the Collins class submarines and is involved in the $8 billion air warfare destroyer project.
Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, said the big-ticket weapons were designed to contain China, not combat terrorism.
“They don’t admit to it. They sell it to the people as a response to terrorism, but that is not what they are doing,” Professor White said.
Professor White said Australia’s multibillion-dollar defence purchases such as the Abrams tanks, warships, and Globemaster transport planes would be part of any US military operation in the Middle East or against China.
Professor Kevin Clements, director of the Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Queensland, said the war on terrorism was a front to keep up arms spending to maintain the US’s ability to fight a wars on three fronts - Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service violated the constitutional rights of a citizen and strayed beyond its security mandate into the realm of law enforcement, says a federal watchdog.
In its annual report tabled late yesterday, the Security Intelligence Review Committee said Canada’s spy agency “arbitrarily detained” Mohammed Mansour Jabarah in contravention of the Charter of Rights.
Jabarah, a Canadian citizen, is an admitted Al Qaeda member and leader of a terrorist cell that plotted to bomb the American and Israeli embassies in Singapore and Manila. He was apprehended in Oman in March 2002 after the plan was derailed.
“Jabarah is a terrorist but also a Canadian citizen, and no matter how despicable his actions, the Charter conferred on him certain fundamental rights,” the review committee says in the report to Parliament.
CSIS officials travelled to Oman and arranged for Jabarah’s return to Canada and subsequent transfer to the United States on a government-owned aircraft, since he apparently could not be charged with a crime under Canadian law.
He pleaded guilty in the U.S. to a number of terrorism-related offences. Jabarah has not been sentenced and remains behind bars.
The review committee, which reports to Parliament, examined CSIS’s investigation against service operational policy and procedures, ministerial direction and applicable Canadian law, including the CSIS Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The committee also obtained legal advice from Gerard LaForest, a former Supreme Court justice and Charter expert.
The report found Jabarah’s decisions, made without the benefit of any independent legal advice, resulted in his self-incrimination and surrender to U.S. authorities.
“SIRC’s review raised questions regarding CSIS’s contention that Jabarah’s decisions were made freely and voluntarily.”
The committee said a court would also have considered various factors, including: Jabarah’s age, his emotional state, whether his fear of the alternatives influenced his return to Canada from Oman, the length of time he spent in the company of CSIS officials while in Canada, and the circumstances surrounding his decision to surrender himself to a foreign jurisdiction.
A CSIS official told the committee Jabarah was not “read his rights” because CSIS isn’t a police service. “This response, subsequently confirmed in writing by the service, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the application of the Charter to government representatives carrying out their official duties.”
The committee found Jabarah could not be prosecuted for any crime in Canada, since his terrorist activities pre-dated Canada’s Anti-terrorism Act. Therefore neither CSIS nor the police had any right to detain him. Based on these and other circumstances, the committee concluded Jabarah was “arbitrarily detained” by CSIS in violation of the Charter.
In addition, his rights to silence, to legal counsel and to remain in Canada were breached, the report says.
The review committee also concluded CSIS “strayed from its security intelligence mandate into the area of law enforcement.”
CSIS did not immediately respond to the report.
A spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said the government fully accepts the review committee’s findings.
The US terrorist watch list includes more than 755,000 names and continues to grow, the US Government Accountability Office said Wednesday.
The list exploded from fewer than 20 entries before the September 11, 2001 attacks to more than 150,000 just a few months later, after the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) was created in December 2003 to keep tabs on terrorist suspects, according to the GAO, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress.
Including known pseudonyms of suspects, the list’s 755,000 names as of May 2007 represents, in fact, around 300,000 people, according to TSC estimates.
Tasked with gathering data on individuals “known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of or related to terrorism,” the TSC gets its information from Federal Bureau of Investigation intelligence and passes it on chiefly to immigration authorities.
Since 2003, the list has been used around 53,000 times to single out individuals for possible arrest or to prevent them from entering the country, the GAO said.
More often, however, people whose names are included on the list for reasons of caution are merely questioned and released, and left to face the same annoyance each time they enter the country, GAO said.
Despite the precautionary zeal, there have been mistakes, it said, adding that many suspects have been stopped by immigration authorities on arrival at US airports when their entries in the TSC list should have prevented them from boarding their planes in the first place.
Describing the list as “quicksand” that traps innocent people for the sake of security, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called on the US Congress to step in.
“How much safer are we when the government turns so many innocent people into suspects?,” ACLU senior legislative counsel Timothy Sparapani said in a statement.
Discussion
Recent Articles & Archives 