Man Who Interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Speaks Out

mitchellimg

Watch Megyn Kelly’s 12/15 interview James Mitchell. The interview will be continued on tonight’s Kelly File.

The CIA interrogation ‘architect’ reacts to interrogation report (part 1)

 

The CIA interrogation ‘architect’ reacts to interrogation report (part 2)

 

The CIA interrogation ‘architect’ reacts to interrogation report (part 3)

 

Day 2 Of Megyn Kelly Interviews James Mitchell Who Interrogated KSM

 

Also see:

The FBI Is Not Sabotaging the 9/11 Military Commission

20121003_gitmo_us_prison_terroristsBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

It is no secret that the Obama administration believes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 plotters should be given a civilian criminal trial in New York City, not a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The president pulled the plug on military commissions at the start of his first term (only to reinstate them later). The Justice Department announced in 2009 that KSM & Co. would be tried in Manhattan, provoking vigorous protest by the public and Congress that prompted the administration to back down. Attorney General Holder has repeatedly said the case should be in civilian court – even claiming that if the transfer to Manhattan from the military justice system had gone according to his plan, the terrorists would already be convicted and facing the death penalty.

have responded to the attorney general’s claims on other occasions (including observing how brazen it is for someone who has spent years – both in and out of government – undermining military commissions to complain about how long the commission is taking). I’ve also opined that the attorney general’s maneuvering of two al-Qaeda conspiracy cases into civilian court in Manhattan strategically benefited the defense lawyers at Gitmo: They can now argue that the government is violating fundamental fairness by trying their clients in military court while other defendants charged with the exact same conspiracy have enjoyed the enhanced due process of civilian prosecution.

But is the Justice Department trying to get the case to civilian court by willfully sabotaging the ongoing military commission?

That is the suspicion of a number of family members of those killed in the 9/11 atrocities. It has been stoked by the revelation this week that the FBI has been investigating the Gitmo defendants and their legal representatives for possible intelligence leaks – a revelation that appears to have taken the military prosecutors and the presiding judge by surprise, stoking fears that the commission trial process could be imperiled.

To cut to the chase: I continue to believe Attorney General Holder, with his boss’s approval, is angling to have the 9/11 case tried in civilian court. I do not believe, however, that the ongoing FBI investigation is part of that equation. If the case lands in civilian court, it will be either because of the aforementioned legal ammunition the Justice Department has already given the 9/11 defendants, or because the administration will have engineered a swift, unannounced transfer – Obama and Holder have learned from their earlier mistake: Don’t tell people ahead of time that you’re bringing enemy combatant-terrorists to Manhattan for trial; just do it. A transfer would be immensely unpopular, so I would not expect it to happen until after the November elections. That still leaves plenty of time, since the commission currently does not anticipate having the military trial until January 2015.

Nevertheless, the FBI’s current investigation is not part of these machinations. To be sure, the families’ suspicions are warranted: the Justice Department, of which the Bureau is part, has long trashed military commissions. The FBI, however, has ample reason to conduct the investigation that is underway. The timing is unfortunate, and investigating charged defendants and their counsel is always fraught with problems. But the Feebs are trying to solve a new case, not sabotage the military’s congressionally authorized 9/11 prosecution.

Back in January, media outlets published a manifesto authored by KSM. The manifesto had been disclosed to the defendants in pretrial discovery, after which it was leaked to the press. As is common in terrorism cases, the document was not classified, though it probably should have been. Nevertheless, it was covered by the court’s nondisclosure order. To explain: Discovery of government files is required under due-process rules, but only to enable the defendant to prepare for trial, not for publicity purposes. Consequently, in cases with national-security implications, judges routinely order that discovery be provided for trial prep only; recipients are not permitted to disclose it outside the defense team.

Obviously, someone violated the court order. That is against the law. More significantly – and this is a point being missed in much of the coverage – the leak raises concerns that sensitive information helpful to our terrorist enemies could continue to be revealed publicly if the leaking is not stopped. Remember, minimizing the disclosure of intelligence to the enemy – a huge problem under civilian due-process rules – is a big part of the rationale for having military commissions in the first place. Thus, it is appropriate for the FBI to investigate. In fact, it often happens that a judge whose nondisclosure order has been flouted will ask that the FBI investigate the leak (which can mean investigating not only defense teams but government agencies, which do more than their share of leaking).

Read more: Family Security Matters

Was missing flight MH370 jet brought down by a shoe bomber?

  • Saajid Badat tells court of plot for Malaysian pilot to blast his way into a plane’s cockpit
  • He has testified about the plan before, but it now has a new resonance
  • Badat told about the plot at trial of Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law yesterday
Saajid Badat, who was sentenced in 2005 to 13 years in jail as a co-conspirator in a notorious December 2001 plot to bomb US airliners, has testified about the Malaysian plan before

Saajid Badat, who was sentenced in 2005 to 13 years in jail as a co-conspirator in a notorious December 2001 plot to bomb US airliners, has testified about the Malaysian plan before

Daily Mail: A British man convicted of plotting an Al-Qaeda plane bombing told a New York court yesterday about a separate 2001 plan for a Malaysian pilot to blast his way into a jet’s cockpit.

Saajid Badat, who was sentenced in 2005 to 13 years in jail as a co-conspirator in a notorious December 2001 plot to bomb US airliners, has testified about the Malaysian plan before.

But his description of the apparently abandoned plot has a new resonance as investigators probe the fate of a Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared on Saturday with 239 people on board.

There has been no previous suggestion that Badat’s 2001 plot is in any way linked to the new mystery of missing flight MH370, and terrorism is just one possible line of inquiry for authorities.

Authorities have not ruled out any possible cause for the plane’s disappearance, including mechanical failure, pilot error or sabotage. Both the Boeing 777 and Malaysia Airlines have excellent safety records. Until wreckage or debris is found and examined, it will be very hard to say what happened.

In 2001, Badat and fellow Briton Richard Reid were ordered by Al-Qaeda leaders to blow two US airliners out of the sky with bombs hidden in their shoes.

But, while Reid tried and failed to detonate his bomb on a Paris to Miami flight, Badat changed his mind after returning home.

Badat told US prosecutors at the trial of Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law on Tuesday that he was given two shoe bombs, one which he took to Britain and the other which he gave to a Malaysian cell.

He believed one bomb was enough to bring down a jet, he told the trial by video link from Britain, but the bomb he gave the Malaysian was intended simply to help him breach a cockpit door.

Badat said he travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan in December 2001 with Reid, some Malaysians and a Mauritanian family.

He described the Malaysians as ‘their own group of four to five individuals including a pilot’.

‘I gave one of my shoes to the Malaysians. I think it was to access the cockpit,’ he told the court.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-declared 9/11 plotter now held at Guantanamo Bay, helped concoct the shoe-bomb plot and spoke of having plans for the Malaysians, Badat said.

Read more at Daily Mail

Operative details al Qaeda plans to hit planes in wake of 9/11

Saajid Badat

Saajid Badat

By CNN Terrorism Analyst Paul Cruickshank:

Within weeks of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Osama bin Laden was planning follow-up operations to bring down airliners in the United States and south-east Asia, according to a convicted al Qaeda operative testifying in a terror trial in New York.

Saajid Badat was speaking via a video deposition from the United Kingdom, where he is serving a jail sentence for his role in plotting to blow up a U.S. bound aircraft in December 2001.

It’s the first time that an al Qaeda operative has provided such detail about plans to bring down airliners in the wake of 9/11.

Badat testified that a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, he met with Abu Hafs al Masri, then bin Laden’s right hand man, in the Jalalabad-Kabul area in Afghanistan.

“Abu Hafs asked me to take an explosive device onboard an airplane, a domestic airline [in the United States] and then detonate it,” Badat testified. He was then called to meet bin Laden himself.

“It was just the two of us in the room and he explained to me his justification for the mission,” said Badat.

“He said that the American economy is like a chain. If you break one link of the chain, the whole economy will be brought down. So after September 11th attacks, this operation will ruin the aviation industry and in turn the whole economy will come down,” he added.

Badat was then told to pick up two explosive shoes from an al Qaeda bomb-maker named Fathi. The explosives, he said, were concealed in the soles.

The idea was for him and Richard Reid, a British operative who came to be known as the “Shoe Bomber,” to blow up different planes simultaneously.

Reid tried to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001.

Before leaving Afghanistan in late November, Badat said he and Reid met with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

“It was as if he was giving me final orders,” Badat testified.

“He just gave us advice on how to interact with each other, how to contact each other,” he said, adding that the communication between him and Reid was to be via e-mail.

When Badat arrived in the United Kingdom in December he said he got cold feet, fearing going through with the operation and the possible implications for his family. He described how he dismantled the shoe bomb he had brought with him and stored it in his parents’ house.

On December 14, 2001, he e-mailed his Pakistani handler to tell him he was backing out.

Badat now feels he and others were manipulated by al Qaeda’s top leadership.

During his video deposition he stated he was ready to testify against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other top leaders to expose the hollowness of what he called their “bulls**t cause.”

Badat, who joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2000, was testifying at the trial in New York of Adis Medunjanin, an American of Bosnian descent charged with involvement in a plot to explode bombs on the subway in September 2009. Though the two never met, Badat met at least one al Qaeda member Medunjanin is alleged to have encountered.

**********

Badat described meeting several times in Afghanistan with Adnan Shukrijumah, an American al Qaeda operative. At the time he knew the American as “Jaffar.” Shukrijumah, he stated, never had any knowledge of the shoe bombing plot.

 Adnan Shukrijumah

Adnan Shukrijumah

U.S. authorities allege that Shukrijumah helped orchestrate the 2009 plot to attack New York subways and met Medunjanin in a camp in South Waziristan in September 2008. They say Shukrijumah has emerged as a senior operational planner for the network and is still believed to be at large in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

Read more at CNN

Also see:

KSM’s Prison Communiqués Part II: Wartime Religion of Peace Propaganda

20120506_khalid_sheikh_mohammed (1)by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

We explained in yesterday’s Ordered Liberty post that the publication of jihad heavyweight Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s communiqués, disseminated from the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, herald the return of the pre-9/11 paradigm: jihadist terror treated as a mere law-enforcement problem, not a war. Now, we turn to the propaganda aspects of KSM’s published writings, which – so far as we know at this time – include an Islamic-supremacist manifesto (published by the Huffington Post) and a lengthy letter to a social-worker pen-pal in Britain (reported on by the Guardian).

Let’s start by observing that it would have been inconceivable during, say, World War II, for the U.S. government to permit imprisoned German or Japanese enemy combatants (of which there were thousands) to enable publication of ideological propaganda from American detention facilities. It would have been nearly as inconceivable for American lawyers to argue that alien enemy combatants had a “right” to communicate with the outside world this way, or for American news outlets to publish enemy propaganda under the guise of “news” reporting. The two latter institutions have changed for the worse, and the government (very much including the courts) is bending to accommodate, rather than resisting, the Lawyer Left and the media.

For the reasons detailed in yesterday’s post, this is an alarming development. The national imperative in wartime should be victory over our enemies. We should not be at war unless we have that commitment – it is a profound betrayal of the young men and women we put in harm’s way to enable our enemies. KSM has no constitutional rights, we owe him only humane treatment, and it is ludicrous to suggest that he has a right to get his messages out to the world while he is lawfully detained as an enemy combatant.

Yet, the Obama Defense Department told Fox News that it is capable of vetting jihadist communications to ensure that their publication poses no threat. Even assuming for argument’s sake that the government has such a duty – and it does not, there should be a blanket prohibition – the claim is laughable.

As I demonstrated in yesterday’s post, the communications of imprisoned jihadists, even those that seem ostensibly harmless, increase the prestige of the inmates in the eyes of Islamic supremacists. They can be exploited by the imprisoned jihadists’ confederates for purposes of fundraising, recruitment, and calls to violence. It is not a matter of what our genius government analysts believe they can divine in the way of jihadist commands and coded messages. It is a matter of how the jihadists on the outside can use communications from imprisoned terrorists to promote anti-Americanism and jihadism.

But even putting that aside, our government is incompetent when it comes to vetting jihadist communications. It cannot be competent because it has spent the last quarter century putting its head in the sand on the matter of Islamic supremacist ideology and the nexus between Islamic scripture and jihadist violence.

Back in 2008, I wrote a book called Willful Blindness about what even then was a longstanding dysfunction. Yet, things have gotten much worse, particularly under Obama’s watch. The government has now purged information about Islamic supremacism from instruction materials used to train our military, intelligence and law-enforcement agents – effectively giving Islamist organizations and operatives (many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and red-carpet access to the administration) a veto over what our investigators and analysts may be taught about the ideology that catalyzes the threat to our nation.

The resulting debacle is elucidated by the press reporting on KSM’s communiqués, which shows why information of this sort should never be published in wartime. The HuffPo story uncritically reports, for example, that KSM is now trying to persuade people to come to Islam peacefully and that forcing people to convert to Islam is against the Koran. The obvious agenda is to put KSM – the most evil mass-murderer ever to be in American custody – in a more sympathetic light, or at the very least to bleach away any nexus between Islamic principles and atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.

But KSM has not changed and neither have his beliefs – they remain as enduring as our conscious avoidance of his ideology.

In point of fact, Islamic law teaches that, before waging offensive jihad, Muslims must first invite non-believers to accept the truth of Islam. Doctrinally, this summons to Islam is a necessary precondition to waging violent jihad. There are numerous examples of bin Laden and Zawahiri (bin Laden’s deputy and now the leader of al Qaeda) issuing public statements calling on infidels to accept Islam. Under their interpretation of sharia, it is a box they are supposed to check before they start blowing things up and steering airplanes into skyscrapers.

The reporting makes much of KSM’s assertion that the Koran forbids forcible conversion to Islam. The narrative now making the rounds is that KSM “has renounced violence,” as Canada’s National Post puts it.

Even a cursory familiarity with Islamic supremacist ideology would put this specious claim to rest. It is true, in the most narrow of senses, that Islamic doctrine forbids forcible conversion: Muslims are not supposed to hold a gun to your head to force you to convert. But Islamic doctrine endorses violence for the purpose of promoting Islam, and conversion is not close to being the most significant way of promoting Islam.

Read more: Family Security Matters

See also:

KSM’s Prison Communiqués: Enemy Combatants Back to Being Criminal Defendants

ksmBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

I was invited to provide commentary Tuesday night on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News program (“The Kelly File”) regarding the all too predictable but nevertheless appalling news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — al Qaeda heavyweight, 9/11 mastermind, decapitator of Daniel Pearl, jihadist warring against America for the better part of two decades, and murderer of nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens — has been permitted to transmit propaganda out of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. The interview is posted on Megyn’s site here — I respond to contentions made by the first guest, defense lawyer and former JAG Charles Swift.

More needs to be said on this. Let’s first consider the insanity of permitting enemy combatants to communicate with the outside world while the war ensues — and though the administration rarely speaks or acts as if there is a war going on, and while the public pays it scant attention, we still have forces in harm’s way pursuant to a congressional authorization of combat operations; we are still killing and capturing enemy operatives pursuant to the laws of war, which is only permissible during wartime.

The rationale for shifting, post-9/11, from a law-enforcement counterterrorism paradigm to a war-footing prominently included the recognition that we had to regard as a military enemy, not as mere criminal defendants, the members of an international terrorist network that (a) had declared war against the U.S.; (b) was supported by rogue governments; (c) focused its jihad on American military, political, economic and civilian targets; and (d) was capable of projecting force on the scale of the 9/11 attacks. Contrary to popular wisdom, that remains a salient distinction.

Criminal defendant detainees in the civilian justice system are arrested only after being accused of crimes, and are presumed innocent of the charges. Thus, in the pretrial phase, they have an array of rights even if they are denied bail — and bail may only be denied based on risk-of-flight or convincing proof that they pose a danger to potential witnesses or the community at large. These pretrial rights include liberal opportunities to meet with counsel for trial-defense preparation, and to have contact with others in the outside world that approximates what accused people who are at liberty enjoy. (This changes if and when a defendant is found guilty at trial. Incarcerated convicts have significantly fewer rights and privileges than pretrial detainees.)

To the contrary, enemy combatant detainees do not have to be accused of prosecutable offenses in order to be lawfully detained, and they are generally denied contact with the outside world. The reason is straightforward. While the object of the civilian criminal justice system is to provide due process to the accused so that civil rights are protected and trial outcomes have integrity, the object of war is to defeat the enemy. Consequently, while we owe enemy combatants basic humane treatment, due process concerns are not a high priority. After all, the rationale for detaining enemy combatants has little or nothing to do with prosecution of a criminal case — indeed, there need be no criminal case, and in most instances there is not one. The purpose of detaining enemy combatants is to deplete the assets of the enemy and thus achieve victory more rapidly and with less bloodshed.

Moreover, even when enemy combatants have committed provable war crimes that qualify for trial by military commission, the priority in wartime remains victory for the nation. As long as the war ensues, due process for the war criminal is never the priority because prosecuting war crimes, even when the accused is a high-ranking enemy operative, is far less important than victory in the war. Due process rules governing discovery and testimony can result in the public revelation of our intelligence about the enemy, and in the use of the trial process by the enemy for propaganda purposes. Thus, war crimes trials rarely happen until after the war is over, and when they do happen during the war, great care must be taken to guard against unnecessary disclosures.

Of course, fundamental fairness requires permitting an accused war criminal enough access to counsel to prepare for trial. This, however, does not imply that the accused has constitutional rights. Most commentators get this point wrong. We permit an alien enemy combatant meaningful access to counsel because by accusing him of war crimes we have chosen to put him on trial. A trial would not meet the Anglo-American standards for a trial if the accused were not permitted a meaningful opportunity to mount whatever defense he may have. That is, our concern is with the integrity of the trial process, not with the purported “rights” of wartime enemies who have committed atrocities against Americans.

Obviously, then, an alien enemy combatant accused of war crimes is not entitled to the extensive contact with counsel afforded in the civilian justice system to Americans who are fully vested with Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. And even less is an alien enemy combatant entitled to other, more general contact with the outside world.

Read more at PJ Media

Kelly File: 9/11 Twin Tower Survivor Reacts To release Of Manisfesto Of Terrorist Mastermind:

KSM2012-thumb-500xauto-4674

 

Robert Spencer elaborates further on the invitation to convert to Islam that must precede jihad at Jihad Watch:

9/11 mastermind says Qur’an “forbids” violence to spread Islam

AFP says: “In a major departure from his previous position, Mohammed said that ‘the Holy Quran forbids us to use force as a means of converting!'” This will no doubt be trumpeted everywhere as evidence that if “extremists” only read the Qur’an that they brandish in the air alongside rifles, they would become “moderates.”

In reality, it is nothing of the kind, and doesn’t represent a “major departure” from anything KSM has said before. Islamic law forbids forced conversion, in line with the Qur’anic dictum, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). Jihad is waged not to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam, but to bring them under the rule of Islamic law, in which they must “pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29), denied basic rights that Muslims enjoy and forced to live in a state of subservience to the Muslims.

In line with that, KSM and the other 9/11 plotters didn’t commit mass murder on September 11, 2001 in order to force Americans to convert to Islam, but to weaken and ultimately destroy American society and government, so that eventually Islamic law can be imposed.

AFP doesn’t know any of this, for it partakes of the same willful ignorance that blankets the mainstream media: to examine how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite and justify violence would be “Islamophobic.”

“Quran ‘forbids’ violence to spread Islam: 9/11 mastermind,” from AFP, January 15 (thanks to Block Ness):

WASHINGTON: The self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has released a manifesto claiming that the Quran forbids the use of violence to spread Islam. 

The document, published Tuesday by The Huffington Post and Britain’sChannel 4 News, marks Mohammed’s first public communication since 2009, when the US government officially accused him of terrorism.

Mohammed, the most high-profile of the five men accused over the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on US soil, has been held at the US detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2006.

In a major departure from his previous position, Mohammed said that “the Holy Quran forbids us to use force as a means of converting!”

He also tried in the 36-page document to convince his American captors, prosecutors, lawyers and members of his military tribunal to convert to Islam.

“It is my religious duty in dealing with any non-Muslims such as the people in the court (the judge, the prosecution, attorneys, etc.) to invite them to embrace Islam,” Mohammed wrote.

“I realize very well that you have heard about Islam and know much about it. But it is my own belief that Allah will ask me on the Day of Judgment why I did not invite these people to Islam?”

He is doing this in accord with Islamic teaching, but the “people in the court” should take note that if the “invitation” is refused, then comes jihad. According to a hadith, Muhammad said: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” (Sahih Muslim 4294)

Mohammed said he was “very happy” in his cell, adding: “My spirit is free even while my body is being held captive.”

Mohammed said he has been “neither sad nor distressed” in his confinement “because I have been with the Only One True God.”…

Erick Stackelbeck: Muslim Brotherhood is a Blood-Soaked, Totalitarian Death Cult

erick-stakelbeck-403x620By  :

Considering the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, Erick Stakelbeck’s new book, “The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy,” provides a fascinating lens into the Muslim Brotherhood’s history, contemporary power structures — and the level to which the journalist and national security expert believes that the Obama administration has empowered the group.

In an e-mail interview over the weekend, Stakelbeck answered some of TheBlaze’s most burning questions about the Brotherhood and why he chose to pen such a fascinating book.

Why should Americans fear the Muslim Brotherhood?

First and foremost, Americans need to understand that the Muslim Brotherhood is the granddaddy of them all when it comes to modern-day Islamic terrorist groups. Al Qaeda and Hamas are direct offshoots of the Brotherhood—and if the MB was never created in 1928 in Egypt, 9/11 would have never happened. I know that may be a stunning statement to some, but think about it. The architects of 9/11 — including Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — all belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood before they formed Al Qaeda.

As I show in the book, all of these Al Qaeda kingpins were heavily inspired and influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology of martyrdom and jihad. The Brotherhood is where they got their start. The MB is, in essence, the gateway drug to Islamic terrorism.  Every Islamic jihadist worth his suicide belt today owes a depraved debt to the Muslim Brotherhood and its leading icons like Hassan Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. To understand Islamic terrorism and the mess we’re in right now globally, you must first understand the Muslim Brotherhood.

What led you to write “The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy”?

I had become absolutely, positively fed up with the narrative being pushed by the Obama administration and the mainstream media that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “moderate” Islamist group that can be used to fight against Al Qaeda.  First of all, as discussed previously, the Muslim Brotherhood spawned Al Qaeda. Secondly, this is an inherently anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Semitic organization at its very core. Starting with its founding motto — which reads, in part, “Jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope” — the Brotherhood and its ideology and goals are fundamentally incompatible with the United States.

Brotherhood leaders openly speak of reestablishing a global Islamic caliphate, or super state, that would unite every Muslim nation economically, politically and militarily and control a good amount of the world’s oil supply as it targets Israel for elimination (with assistance on that end by the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, Hamas). They praise suicide bombings against American troops and have called for jihad against the Untied States. As I document in “The Brotherhood,” the MB even collaborated closely with the Nazis during World War II in an attempt to extend Hitler’s Final Solution to the Middle East.

It’s so bad that my book could easily be titled: “The Brotherhood: Even Worse Than You Think.” I’ve been tracking the MB closely for 12 years and even I was shocked by some of what I uncovered in my research for this book. This is not an organization we should be embracing: it is a blood-soaked, totalitarian death cult that we must defeat and discredit at every turn.

Read more at The Blaze

Al Jazeera Likely Violating Multiple U.S. Laws

imagesCA9KZ10GBy: James Simpson:

Excerpt:

Cliff Kincaid is holding a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 5th to bring these facts to public attention. Sharing the podium with him will be broadcaster Jerry Kenney, who has documented some of Al Jazeera’s alleged criminal activity. Noted Islamist fighter, Pam Geller, will also be in attendance. Pam scored a major victory against Islamic radicals in court by defending her right to post billboards highlighting Islamic terrorism at public transportation stops and other locations throughout the U.S.

Terrorist TV

A 2010 Supreme Court decision (Holder vs. The Humanitarian Law Project) holds that speech normally protected under the First Amendment can be a criminal act if directed by a terrorist organization. Al Jazeera seems to fit the bill. Kincaid and Kenney have documented Al Jazeera’s anti-American propaganda and its many terrorist connections. A few highlights:

  • The Emir of Qatar, who owns Aljazeera, recently donated 400 million dollars to Hamas, a State Department designated terrorist group.
  • Film footage of captured terrorists in Iraq shows they came to kill Americans because of Al Jazeera.
  • NBC News reporter Lisa Myers said: “Why do they go [to fight in Iraq]? Saudis captured in Iraq say it’s because of pictures on Arab television network Al-Jazeera.
  • CNN reports that a document found in bin Laden’s compound after his death referred to a meeting with the Al-Jazeera bureau chief in Pakistan.
  • The new film, “Zero Dark Thirty,” mentions that the courier who eventually led the CIA to bin Laden was located in Pakistan near an Al Jazeera office in order to get the terrorist leader’s videotapes to the channel for worldwide distribution.
  • 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed… was protected by the government of Qatar, which funds Al Jazeera.
  • Father of journalist Daniel Pearl, the journalist beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, says, “Al Jazeera is the main propaganda machine of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
  • French media openly report that Qatar is supporting the Mali terrorists
  • An Al Jazeera story, “Mali: The ‘gentle’ face of al-Qaeda,” reported that the terrorists “are playing the role of humanitarians” by providing food to local people.
  • Al Jazeera supports the radical Muslim and far-left campaign to free “Lady al Qaeda” Aafia Siddiqui, currently serving a life sentence for attempted murder and wife of 9/11 planner Ammar al-Baluchi,.
  • In the U.S., the movement to free Siddiqui includes Ramsey Clark, the Workers World Party (WWP) and the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
  • Al Jazeera reporter Tayseer Allouni, was convicted as an agent of al Qaeda.

Allowing an Al Jazeera propaganda mill to operate in the U.S. while our troops fight and die in the Global War on Terror is akin to having permitted Japanese radio propagandist “Tokyo Rose” or Nazi Germany’s “Lord Haw Haw” to broadcast from our shores during World War II.

Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) Violation

The State Department has identified Al Jazeera as a property of the Qatar government, adding that “[Qatar] exercised editorial and programmatic control of the channel through funding and selection of the station’s management.” As such, Al Jazeera must by law register as a foreign agent. It has not done so, nor has it disclosed its status when broadcasting, as required by FARA. Jerry Kenney submitted a complaint to the Holder Justice Department in October 2011 requesting they investigate these allegations. They responded that they would take it “under advisement,” but nothing has yet been done.

Unauthorized Control of a Broadcast TV Station

Al Jazeera is currently broadcast on 28 noncommercial television stations in the U.S. According to Kenney, Al Jazeera cannot legally own a U.S. TV station license, but “may have unlawfully taken control of some public broadcast stations through an illegal affiliate agreement that forced them to carry the Aljazeera programming.” He filed a complaint with the FCC almost two years ago, but they have done nothing. Recall that FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski is a longtime friend and Harvard classmate of President Obama. Genachowski’s ex-wife, Martha Raddatz, moderated the sole Vice Presidential debate last year. No influence there…

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

According to its website:

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.

Al Jazeera claims their purchase doesn’t require CFIUS review, but past foreign media purchases of much more benign import have come under CFIUS authority. It seems clear that Al Jazeera does fall firmly within CFIUS purview, but once again, the government has chosen inaction.

Read more at Red State

Obama to Nominate Hamas & Hezbollah Supporter as CIA Director

john-brennan-450x300By Daniel Greenfield

Just when you thought that Chuck Hagel was as bad as it was going to get, wait until you meet John Brennan. America, meet your new CIA Director.

Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organization’s longstanding terrorist support.

During his NYU speech, Brennan defended the administration’s highly unpopular move to try al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court (which the administration eventually backed away from). He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of “political, economic and social forces,” said that Islamic terrorists were not jihadists, referenced “Al-Quds” instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as “not that bad” when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism.

During a talk at the Nixon Center in May 2010, Brennan said that the administration was looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” of the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah.

Two weeks later, at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan defended the Islamic doctrines of jihad as “a holy struggle” and “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”

And Brennan has had a great track record so far. A truly spectacular track record which makes him unambiguously qualified to replace Petraeus.

a known top U.S. Hamas official had been given a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico under Brennan’s watch, several former top intelligence and defense officials again called for his resignation.

Last month, it was revealed that Brennan was implicated in a serious intelligence breach detailing an ongoing counterterrorism operation led by British and Saudi intelligence agencies that had placed an operative deep inside the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) organization. The White House leak forced the termination of the operation and the immediate withdrawal of the double agent, infuriating our foreign intelligence allies.

Just two weeks ago, internal White House documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request revealed that Brennan and other White House officials had met twice with Hollywood filmmakers preparing a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, providing them unparalleled access including the identity of a SEAL Team 6 operator and commander along with other classified information. Amazingly, these high-level White House meetings between Brennan and the Hollywood filmmakers took place just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA had publicly warned of the dangers posed by leaks surrounding the successful SEAL raid killing bin Laden.

And if you still have any more doubts, here’s John Brennan’s views on terrorism direct from that notorious right-wing fearmongering outlet, The Nation

Brennan had told me (before taking a job in the Obama administration, but while serving as Obama’s top adviser on intelligence issues) that talking to Hamas and Hezbollah is the right thing to do.

Most Dangerous Terrorist Eludes Massive Manhunt: A Federal Folly (Part III)

by Paul L. Williams:

Part  I : Eleven Years after 9/11, the Threat Remains: The Leading Al Qaeda Operative  Remains at Large

Part  II: 9/11 A Prequel? Next Attack on America in Works

As the Arab Spring transforms into a chilling autumn of anti-American riots,  the “most dangerous” al Qaeda agent on planet earth remains on the loose with  the intent of launching terrorist attacks with radiological bombs in major  cities throughout the USA.

Seven years ago, the FBI issued a BOLO (“be-on-the-look out”) with a $5  million reward for any information resulting in the arrest of Adnan el  Shukrijumah.

Despite the expenditure of nearly $50 million, the search for this elusive  terrorist has produced no results. Elaborate plots were designed to snag him in  Guyana; his photo has appeared on the front page of every leading American  newspaper; and a special office, manned by a small army of FBI agents, was set  up in Miami to uncover his whereabouts.

But Adnan el-Shukrijumah, the Brooklyn-bred jihadi, remains alive and well  and more dangerous to America’s national security than ever before.

US officials first became aware of him in the wake of  Operation  Enduring Freedom (the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan), when the names of  Jaffar al Tayyar (“Jafer the Pilot”) and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan were  discovered among the “pocket litter” of al Qaeda soldiers. [i]

In May 2002, U.S. intelligence and military officials starting asking a  pressing question to al Qaeda detainees who were being interrogated at foreign  prisons and secret CIA and military facilities abroad. “Whom,” the officials  asked, “would al Qaeda pick to lead the next big attack against U.S. targets?”  Intelligence sources told U. S. News and World Reports that several of  the detainees coughed up the same answer: “Jaffar al Tayyar.[ii]

The detainees said they had encountered “the Pilot” during al Qaeda training  exercises in Afghanistan. Intelligence officers presented photos of hundreds of  suspected al Qaeda operatives to the detainees. Several identified an individual  who bore a resemblance to Adnan el Shukrijumah.

But the resemblance was not reality, and it would take months before the FBI  and CIA teams, with their sophisticated equipment and state-of-the-art search  engines, would realize it. “We were pursuing a lead,” says one official, “that  in the end turned out to be a dead end. We found out we were after the wrong  person.[iii]

Indeed, the teams might still be searching for the wrong suspects and hitting  dead-ends, if not for the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured, quite  by accident, in Karachi, Pakistan March 1, 2003.

THE PLOT REVEALED

After days of interrogation, coupled with severe sleep deprivation, Mohammed  told U.S. officials that bin Laden was planning to create a “nuclear hell storm”  in America.[iv] Unlike other attacks, the terrorist chief said, the chain of  command for the nuclear attack answered directly to bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and  a mysterious scientist called “Dr. X.” Mohammed later admitted that “Dr. X” was  Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani father of the Islamic bomb and the  godfather of modern nuclear proliferation. He further confessed that the field  commander for this operation was a naturalized American citizen whom he also  referred to as Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan and “Jafer al Tayyar” (“Jafer the  Pilot”).[v] Both names are aliases of Adnan el Shukrijumah.

Khalid Mohammed went on to say that Adnan represents a “single-cell” – – a  lone agent capable of launching a solo nuclear or radiological attack on a major  American city. The news of such a cell reportedly startled U.   S. officials who  assumed that al Qaeda cells contained several members who were supported by  broad logistical back-up crews.[vi]

In March 21, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert  Mueller issued an urgent alert for Shukrijumah, and several of his al-Qaeda  associates, including Amer el-Maati, Abderraouf Jdey, and Aafia Siddiqui, who  received a biology degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and penned  a doctoral thesis on neurological science at Brandeis  University.[vi]

Siddiqui, a native of Pakistan, looms of importance in the search. She worked  closely with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a “fixer,” the central al-Qaeda operative  who supplied money and logistical support to Adnan and his associates in  southern Florida. The money, as it turns out, came from the Saudi embassy.[viii]

‘DEMANDING, RUDE, AND OBNOXIOUS’

Several days after the BOLO was issued, Adnan and Jdey were spotted at a  Denny’s restaurant in Avon,  Colo., where one ordered a chicken sandwich and a  salad.  Samuel Mac, the restaurant manager, described them as “demanding,  rude and obnoxious.[ix] They told Mac they were from Iran and were driving from  New York to the West Coast. Upon calling the FBI headquarters in Washington,  D.C., Mac said the agent who answered the telephone said he had to call the  bureau’s Denver office and declined to take down any information. When Mac  called the Denver office of the FBI, he said he was shuttled to voice mail  because “all the agents were busy.”[x] It was five hours before a seemingly  uninterested agent called the restaurant manager. This agent, according to Mac,  took a few notes and said she would pass the information along to the field  agents who were handling the case.[xi]

This promise represented the full extent of the government’s interest in the  sighting, even though Shukrijumah had been labeled “the next Muhammad Atta by  FBI Director Robert Mueller. The federal and state law enforcement officials  failed to interview the restaurant workers and the patrons, purportedly even  those who were willing to verify the presence of the terrorists in the  restaurant. No forensic evidence was obtained from the scene by any law  enforcement officials – – not even the utensils that had been used by the  suspects.

When contacted by The Denver Post, Monique Kelso, spokeswoman for  the Denver bureau, said the office had received at least a dozen calls as a  result of the BOLO. The calls, Kelo said, were all taken seriously. She added,  “We follow up on every lead.”[xii]

THE WAZIRISTAN SUMMIT

Following the federal botch-up in Colorado, the diminutive Shukrijumah  resurfaced at a terrorist summit in the lawless Waziristan Province of Pakistan  in April 2004. The summit has been described by the FBI as a “pivotal planning  session” in much the same manner as a 2000 meeting was held in Kuala Lumpur for  the 9-11 attacks. Attending the summit were Abu Issa al Hindi, a Pakistani  technician whose company contained plans for staging attacks at financial  institutions in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., and Mohammed Babar,  who has been charged with buying materials to build bombs for attacks in Great  Britain. [xiii] Babar is an American citizen and resident of Queens, New York,  where he was a leading member of the Islamic Thinkers Society, a group that  burned the American flag during a demonstration before the Israeli consulate in  2006 and held up placards stating: “The mushroom cloud is on its way.”[xiv]

Read more: Family Security Matters

“Getting Over 9/11″

By Mark Tapson:

Eleven years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American economic might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. And for years, when the anniversary of that day rolls around, progressives and their Islamic allies have been rolling their eyes and urging Americans to “get over it.”

They’re weary of being bummed out by reminders of 9/11. They wish we’d forgive and forget that it happened. Stop bringing it up and “harshing their buzz.” Move on, move forward. Some of those people simply don’t grasp that we must not forget because we are still at war with the enemy that attacked us that morning; the rest are very much aware that we are still at war, and they want us to forget because they are siding with that enemy.

It may seem impossible for many to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it once seemed impossible to believe that our government could erase words like “jihad” and “Islamist” from our national security lexicon, preventing us from even naming or describing the enemy; or that our government could deem a terror attack on our own soil to be “workplace violence” and whitewash it of its Islamic motivation; or that an American President could announce that one of his duties was to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”; or that he could proclaim us one of the world’s largest Muslim countries.

President Obama signed a proclamation last week designating Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012 National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. “Those who attacked us sought to deprive our Nation of the very ideals for which we stand,” the proclamation states. He is referring to al Qaeda, but the Muslim Brotherhood too seeks to deprive us of our ideals. The Brotherhood seeks the end of a free, capitalist, democratic America no less than al Qaeda does. And yet the President has literally invited them into our White House and has supported them in Egypt throughout the Arab Spring, including a $1 billion aid package to the new Egyptian regime.

So September 7-9 are National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. What about 9/11 itself? In a quiet, seemingly innocuous gesture three years ago, President Obama designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” But the “Remembrance” part seems to be an afterthought, because the idea was to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change… in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of those seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that was the point: Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali (and one of the writers behind the Soros-funded “Fear, Inc.” report that smeared anti-jihadists as Islamophobic bigots) wrote in the Huffington Post at that time that “we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.”

Why? Because in order for Islamists and the radical left to advance their agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting America as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, let the victims slip from our memories, ignore that we are still at war with an enemy that danced in the streets to celebrate the attacks, and turn a blind eye to the fact that our civilization is under assault by a subversive stealth jihad.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. Greening your neighborhood? What does “green” have to do with 9/11? Only that it’s the color of Islam. Education? Fine – educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and the continuing threats of stealth jihad and “creeping sharia.” Environment and community renewal? Great – beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes on 9/11. It sends a simple message to the enemy and their useful idiots that you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11′s victims, and that you will never let their deaths be erased from history.

How do things stand on this 9/11, eleven years later? Among other highlights, we captured 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a SEAL team took out bin Laden (no thanks to the resistance of Obama, despite all the crowing about his “gutsy” choice to green-light the mission). To his credit, Obama has green-lit drones that continue to take out key al Qaeda terrorists, such as the traitorous Anwar al-Awlaki. We have foiled dozens of attempted terrorist attacks on our own soil. All to the good.

Now for the bad. We have a president who embraces the Muslim Brotherhood. His Secretary of State is actively facilitating the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s goal to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Our Dept. of Homeland Security has to be waterboarded before it will even mention the word “Islam.” We are dumping the problem of a nuclear Iran on our erstwhile ally Israel. We have a military leadership that would consider a lack of diversity to be the most tragic result of the Ft. Hood shooting. We are throwing our troops in Afghanistan under the bus in a chimeric effort to win the hearts and minds of people who have neither. Our news and entertainment media collude with the Brotherhood front group CAIR to perpetuate the victimhood myth that Muslim-Americans have suffered a terrible backlash ever since 9/11. This is a recipe for cultural suicide.

But perhaps the 9/11 complainers are onto something. Maybe Americans should get over 9/11. Here’s how I recommend we do that. The best way this country can “get over” 9/11 and honor the memory of the dead and their families is to crush Islamic fundamentalism out of existence, the way we crushed Japanese imperialism and Nazism. Lay waste to the ideology that threatens the fundamental values that America and the West hold dear. Stamp out threats to our freedoms, to human rights, to our hard-won civilization. When we have eradicated sharia law and its proponents from the face of the earth, then Americans can truly and freely “get over” 9/11. Until then, the unholy alliance of progressives and Islamists should be forewarned that true Americans will never forgive, never forget.

Published at Front Page

The Still Unnamed Enemy

By Daniel Greenfield:

As the sun sets over Manhattan, the cladding on the crown of the Chrysler building bursts into a reddish flame that quickly dies out. Lights wink on across the panorama of office buildings and condominiums to the north of the island. In the south there is an island within the island, a space of darkness hardly filled by the naked structure of the new Freedom Tower. Out of that darkness two beams of blue light rise into the sky.

September 11 is a broken moment in American history. Unlike December 7, 1941, there can be no closure for it. It is a loose end dangling in the sky. Time has passed and the tides of the river that flows both ways have washed against the banks of the lower western end of the island built out of earth lifted from the foundations of the World Trade Center. And still the day hangs in the air like moths within the blue light. A question waiting for an answer.

Obama has already delivered his usual speech pimping September 11 as a National Day of Service and turning a solemn memorial into an opportunity for some of his allied non-profits to score free grief labor. The National Day of Service spiel comes packaged with the usual exemption for Islamic culpability from Islamic terror.

“I have always said that America is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates,” Obama declared, “and we will never be at war with Islam.” But that really isn’t up to him. What the left never seems to understand is that war doesn’t have to be mutual. No matter what you do or what defeatist foreign policy you adopt, the enemy still gets a vote. And the enemies of this country have voted with their bombs and bodies.

The left resisted calling it a “war,” describing the murder of 3,000 people as a criminal matter. Obama even attempted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the attacks, in a civilian court in downtown Manhattan. But then Obama embraced the war and rebranded Rumsfeld’s Special Forces and drones operations as his own innovative technocratic “smart” war.

The smart war doesn’t look too smart in Afghanistan where American forces are dying because they lack air and artillery support. It doesn’t look all that smart when the Afghan soldiers that we are training to replace us are killing Americans at a steadily rising rate. These deaths are at odds with the image of the smart war that Obama has cultivated, where drones operated from thousands of miles away target terrorist leaders and then fly away.

We are at war with the unnamable and when you war with what cannot be named, then you are at war with yourself—your own fears and doubts, your own neighbors and co-workers, and above all else your own country. Every nameless war is a civil war and everyone fights in it without even knowing it. It is a war that can never end because it never began. It officially does not exist and unofficially cannot be won.

The unnamable is what killed 3,000 Americans on a warm September morning and it is still killing Americans in Afghanistan. It is plotting to set off bombs right now, because we cannot name it and even trying to watch out for it without naming it has gotten the NYPD in trouble.

The unnamable, in Rumsfeld’s terms, is not an “unknown unknown”; it is a “known unknown.” We know exactly what we dare not name and that is why we dare not name it for fear that naming it will give it life.

In Afghanistan, Obama squandered the lives of thousands of American soldiers on the long odds of winning the hearts and minds of the natives. Implicit in the crippling of American military might was the understanding that the ranks of our enemies could be refilled from the Muslim population of any given village. This has also been the argument used against profiling in airports, that to designate Muslims as the potential enemy would mean transforming them into the actual enemy, an admission that our politically correct tactics are being carried out on the assumption that any Muslim is just one bad airport experience away from turning terrorist.

“We will never be at war with Islam,” Obama insists, but who is this message really for? If it’s there for Americans, then why did he also feel the need to also say it in Cairo before the murderous rogues of the Muslim Brotherhood? Many Americans are convinced that we are not at war with Islam, but rather few Muslims are. The difference is in our contrasting allegiances.

For Muslims, an attack on one Muslim by one infidel is an attack on all Muslims by all infidels. For Americans, an attack by one group of Muslims is not an attack by all Muslims. And for those on the left, there isn’t even the group solidarity with the victims of the attacks, but rather with the perpetrators who appear to share their desire to grind the American empire into dust.

Read more at Front Page

 

 

Join Our Protest of the Chicago Caliphate Conference

by Ryan Mauro

An Islamic extremist group called Hizb ut-Tahrir that opposes democracy and supports violent jihad, including the killing of U.S. soldiers, is coming to Rolling Meadows, Illinois on June 17. The conference, titled “Revolution: Liberation by Revelation–Muslims Marching Toward Victory” is about how Muslims must help resurrect the Caliphate and institute Sharia-based governance.

The event is to be held at the Meadows Club at 2950 W. Golf Rd from noon to 4:00 PM EST. If you wish to express your opinion to the Meadows Club, the business can be contacted at info@themeadowsclub.com or called at 847-640-3200. In 2010, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s annual conference at the Chicago Marriott Oak Brook hotel was canceled after the venue dropped the group’s reservation.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HUT) was founded in 1953 in East Jerusalem when it was under the control of Jordan. It was begun by a former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood named Sheikh Muhammad Taqiuddin al-Nabhani. He also worked with with Haj Amin al-Husseini, a cleric who is most famous for his close alliance with Hitler. HUT came to the U.S. in the early 1990s under a front called “Walnut,” or the Islamic Cultural Workshop. HUT now operates openly in the U.S.

Zeyno Baran, an expert on Islamist groups, calls HUT a “conveyor belt for terrorists.” Multiple members have been radicalized by its preaching, which gives Muslims every reason to become violent, and gone on to commit terrorism. Examples include Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

What makes the Meadows Club’s hosting of HUT especially outrageous is the fact that HUT is outwardly anti-American and jihadist. The promotional video for the conference features a clip of a protester in the Middle East declaring, “We are here to say that we want to reestablish an Islamic state with Sharia as the “only source of legislation.” This is followed by a clip of an Egyptian cleric preaching, “Oh Muslims! Rise up to aid and support the call for Khilafah [Caliphate] even if it is at the expense of your lives.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir says that it is non-violent, but the reality is more complicated. It does not engage in violent jihad as an organization but that doesn’t mean that it opposes violent jihad by its members on their own accord or by other groups. Its website explains:

“So whenever the disbelieving enemies attack an Islamic country it becomes compulsory on its Muslim citizens to repel the enemy. The Hizb ut-Tahrir in that country are part of the Muslims and it is obligatory upon them.to fight the enemy and repel them. Wherever there is a Muslim amir who declares jihad.the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir will respond in their capacity as Muslims in the country where the general call to arms was proclaimed.”

HUT’s Facebook page links to an article by “Hizb-ut-Tahrir Publications” about jihad. It opens with Quran 9:29: “Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day.until they pay the Jizya [a special tax for non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” Non-Islamist Muslims may have a passive interpretation of this passage’s meaning, but Hizb ut-Tahrir’s threatening interpretation is clear.

The author of the article fondly recalls the “days when the Islamic Ummah [the Muslim community] was an ummah of jihad” and how “the Jihad of the Muslims imprinted in the minds of the Europeans the notion that the army of Islam is invincible.” The power of the Muslim world has fallen because Muslims “relinquished jihad.”

The group has called for killing U.S. soldiers specifically. In January 2010, it accused the “U.S. crusaders” of massacring Afghan children and stated that it must “be answered by sharp swords of Muslim united armies under true Muslim leaders.” The invitation to an HUT conference in Denmark in January 2011 mentioned “the duty of armed resistance of the Muslims in Afghanistan and its environs. We consider this resistance as fully legitimate.” HUT has also published materials supporting jihad against U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq.

After the bombings in London in 2005, a top HUT official was asked to condemn them. His response was that he’d “condemn what happened in London only after there is a promise from Western leaders to condemn what they have done in Falluja and other parts of Iraq and in Afghanistan.” Its Facebook page has promoted an anti-democracy lecture by Anwar al-Awlaki, the Al-Qaeda leader who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

The vilest rhetoric is directed at Israel and Jews as a whole. A HUT document reads, “if the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel or for the Jews in it.” A HUT spokesman in Denmark distributed a leaflet that instructed Muslims to “kill them all [Jews], wherever you find them” and endorsed suicide bombings against Israel as acts of “martyrdom.”

After the Turkish flotilla incident in 2010, HUT’s branch in the U.S. supported violent retaliation. “There is no solution except to mobilize armies, gathering the capable soldiers and fight the Jews.” It criticized Pakistan and Iran for not attacking Israel. “O you possessors of the missiles that you boast can blow ‘Israel’ off the map, so where are you now, O Pakistan and Iran’s rulers?” it asked.

The Pakistani branch of HUT told the country’s military must “prepare nuclear bombs and other weapons for Jihad.fight under this command to annihilate Israel.” The Bangladeshi branch saidMuslims must “eradicate Israel and purify the earth of Jewish filth.”

HUT also supports violent jihad against India. In July 2011, the Pakistani HUT believes “The only way Kashmir can be liberated is through organized jihad under a state that mobilizes the armies.” Its journal from December 19995 said “Muslims need swords, not candles” in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. HUT leaders have also been videotaped endorsing jihad in Chechnya and Kashmir.

The group is openly hostile to Western secularism and democracy. It does not even pretend to believe in the system. A speaker during its last conference in the U.S. admitted that HUT would dismiss the Constitution entirely and replace it with Sharia Law. One past edition of its publication compared the Founding Fathers to “tyrant dictators.”

Read more at Stop Radical Islam

 

 

 

 

 

Excruciating Beginning to Trial of 9/11 Plotters

By Rick Moran at Frontpage:

It was supposed to be a routine arraignment — a reading of the charges and entering of pleas by the defendants.

But the hearing before the military commission charged with trying the 5 major 9/11 plotters for crimes ranging from nearly 3,000 counts of murder to terrorism quickly bogged down and became a circus. A legal proceeding that was expected to last about 2 hours became a 13 hour marathon when defense attorneys used a variety of delaying tactics that bordered on the surreal at times, while the defendants ignored the presiding judge, Col. James Pohl, and refused to enter pleas as a protest against what they believe is an “unfair” system. Their pleas were deferred until a later date.

The arraignment, broadcast on closed circuit TV to 4 other military bases, was witnessed by members of the press, military officials, human rights advocates, and six family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. Some family members who spoke to the press after the arraignment were outraged at the cavalier attitude toward the hearing by the terrorists. The untried system of military commissions will no doubt slow the legal process down even more, as defense attorneys explore the limits of their client’s rights. President Obama and Congress amended the system in 2009 and gave the defendants more legal rights while denying some evidence from being presented that was obtained from the prisoners via “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Human rights groups still say the proceedings are unfair and wish the trials to take place in civilian court.

The five accused included the boastful mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Ramzi Binalshibh, who allegedly scouted flights schools; Waleed bin Attash, who allegedly ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and researched flight simulators; Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who allegedly supplied Western clothing and credit cards, as well as acting as a conduit for money to the hijackers; and Mohammed’s nephew, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who also helped with financing the operation. The crimes committed by the 5 are outlined in an 87-page indictment that includes charges such as “conspiracy, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft, and terrorism.”

It became clear that one of the tactics of defense lawyers — both civilian and military — was to put the entire concept of military commissions on trial. In pursuit of this goal, they have filed hundreds of motions challenging every conceivable aspect of the proceedings, leading Col. Pohl to put back the start of the trial until May, 2013.

Read more…