Art therapy rehabilitation program

This news story gives us a glimpse of things to come:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/men-believed-northwest-airlines-plot-set-free/story?id=9434065&page=1

This is what we have to look forward to:

• Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents.

But the part of this story that will bring a smile to your face and a warm feeling to your heart is here:

• American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

• Saudi officials concede its program has had its "failures" but insist that, overall, the effort has helped return potential terrorists to a meaningful life.

• One program gives the former detainees paints and crayons as part of the rehabilitation regimen.

The best part of this story is not explained in this article but I am willing to bet that the US Taxpayer is footing the bill for this “Therapy”.

The system worked

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is confident that her department is keeping us safe. Her interview today with CNN is at the following link. I encourage you to play the video and listen to what Secretary Napolitano says as this is much more interesting than reading the CNN text of the interview:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/27/airline.terror.napolitano/index.html

I think that these quotes are most important:

• “One thing that I’d like to point out is that the system worked.”
  

The only reason that we are not picking through the remains of a burning aircraft is that the detonator on the bomb malfunctioned. How can this be considered a success for the “system”.

• “Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight.”
  

Napolitano thinks that a 90 minute lapse in notifying flights in the air is a “success”. If this was part of a larger plot it would have most likely been planned as a coordinated attack. This means that the other bombers on other flights would have been attempting to detonate their explosive devices at approximately the same time.

When asked how the bomber was able to bring the explosives through security Napolitano said:

• “We are asking the same questions..”
  

Napolitano says the following:

• “He was stopped before any damage could be done”
  

This must be repeated, it is clear that the only reason he was stopped was a malfunction in the detonator.

• “He was on a tied list that has half a million names on it.”
  

So if you have ties to terrorists it is still ok to obtain a visa and fly into the USA. Napolitano implies that because the tied list has so many names it is ignored.

When asked about the fact that the bomber’s own father reported him as a terrorist to the US Embassy Napolitano says:

• “We need to ascertain who said what to whom and when.”

A Nobel gesture

Coming to a neighborhood near you soon will be some of the most dangerous criminals of modern society. You can read the details here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59E4X120091015?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

The Federal Government will move ruthless criminals dedicated to the death and destruction of the USA from a fortress prison in Cuba to prisons in our major cities. This will make Europeans happy. This is the type of nonsensical self destructive behavior that is required for us to keep the Europeans happy. In return the Europeans will show their gratitude by giving our political leaders prizes.

CIA Assassination Program

This is an interesting article discussing the recent action by CIA director Leon Panetta:


http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090715_u_s_reaction_cia_assassination_program?utm_source=SWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=090715&utm_content=readmore


The following paragraphs give an overview of this article:

• That a program existed to assassinate al Qaeda leaders should certainly come as no surprise to anyone.


• Furthermore, since 2002, the CIA has conducted scores of strikes against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the MQ-1 Predator and the larger MQ-9 Reaper. These strikes have dramatically increased over the past two years and the pace did not slacken when the Obama administration came to power in January. So far in 2009 there have been more than two dozen UAV strikes in Pakistan alone.


• During the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the United States, every major candidate, including Barack Obama, stated that they would seek to kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Obama was quite vocal in his criticism of the Bush administration for not doing more to go after al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. This means that, regardless of who is in the White House, it is U.S. policy to go after individual al Qaeda members as well as the al Qaeda organization.


• In light of these facts, it would appear that there was nothing particularly controversial about the covert assassination program itself, and the controversy that has arisen over it has more to do with the failure to report covert activities to Congress. The political uproar and the manner in which the program was canceled, however, will likely have a negative impact on CIA morale and U.S. counterterrorism efforts.


• Furthermore, there are certain parts of the world — including some countries considered to be U.S. allies — where it is very difficult for the United States to conduct counterterrorism operations at all. These difficulties have been seen in past cases where the governments have refused U.S. requests to detain terrorist suspects or have alerted the suspects to the U.S. interest in them, compromising U.S. intelligence efforts and allowing the suspects to flee.


• The fear that details of a sensitive program designed to assassinate al Qaeda operatives in foreign countries could be leaked was probably the reason for the Bush administration’s decision to withhold knowledge of the program from the U.S. Congress, even though amendments to the National Security Act of 1947 mandate the reporting of most covert intelligence programs to Congress. Given the imaginative legal guidance provided by Bush administration lawyers regarding subjects such as enhanced interrogation, it would not be surprising to find that White House lawyers focused on loopholes in the National Security Act reporting requirements.


• In April we discussed how some of the early actions of the Obama administration were having a chilling effect on U.S. counterterrorism programs and personnel. Expanding the minimum reporting requirements under the National Security Act will serve to turn the thermostat down several additional notches, as did Panetta’s overt killing of the covert program. It is one thing to quietly kill a controversial program; it is quite another to repudiate the CIA in public. In addition to damaging the already low morale at the agency, Panetta has announced in a very public manner that the United States has taken one important tool entirely out of the counterterrorism toolbox: Al Qaeda no longer has to fear the possibility of clandestine American assassination teams.

The actions of our Presidential Administration and Congress are diminishing the ability of our security agencies to pursue and eliminate terrorist threats. Congress does not need and should not be given broader oversight powers.

Leon Panetta's statement

CIA Director Leon Panetta issued this statement to CIA employees on 5/15/09:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/message-from-the-director-turning-down-the-volume.html

I am impressed by his willingness to contradict the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. These 2 paragraphs from his statement are unequivocal:

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.”

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

European cooperation

President Obama's tour of Europe has reslulted in one country (France) agreeing to accept one inmate from Guantanamo:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54812A20090509?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Germany is asking a good question, if these inmates are not dangerous why not just release them in the US?

Andrew C. McCarthy

One of my friends sent me an email concerning the following letter written to Attorney General Holder by Andrew C. McCarthy former chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Andrew McCarthy prosecuted the terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2m2xj2_1c8fhh2cj

This letter is a very detailed analysis of the current presidential administration’s policies on detaining terrorists and prosecuting justice department lawyers for giving their legal opinions. I think that it should be read in its entirety. These 2 paragraphs summarize the major points of the letter:

I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Trio cleared over 7/7 attacks

The following article outlines the difficulties created when trying terrorism suspects for criminal activity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7507842.stm

The three men were acquitted of conspiring to plot terrorist activities. The jury found that most of the evidence was circumstantial. Two of the men were convicted of lesser crimes of attending terrorist training camps. These three men were the only people indicted for the London subway bombings.

Our new commitment to treat terrorism as a crime and not an act of war may produce similar results in our federal court system.

Security Before Politics

The current controversy about prisoner interrogations has serious national security implications. These implications are explained in this essay by Porter J. Goss who was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004 and director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html

This quote is a direct contradiction to what many members of congress are currently saying:

“Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:
-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
-- We understood what the CIA was doing.
-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.
-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.”

honor killings

The following is a current news article from the BBC about the Taliban enforcing their own version of religious law in Afghanistan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7997749.stm

This type of execution is described in the following paragraph:

Extrajudicial "honor killings" have been widely carried out in Afghanistan since then by conservative families angered by a relative who has brought them shame - usually by refusing to marry a chosen partner.

When the Taliban are described as enforcing a “middle ages existence” this type of behavior is referenced as an example. Was this a common practice in Europe during the middle ages?