Signs of Intelligence?
By Fred Thompson
One of the things that’s got to be going through a lot of peoples’ minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.
In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.
So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university’s “concealed carry” policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on “the authorities” for protection.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled “shoe bomber” Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
Whenever I’ve seen one of those “Gun-free Zone” signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don’t mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
Last Year James Carville Authored A Strategy Document For The Elections Which Said That The Centerpiece Of Strategy For Democratic Victory In The Elections Would Be That The Democratic Party Had To Create A Defeat In Iraq. He Said The American People Must Be Made To Believe That We Are Defeated. He Made It Clear That The Democrat Party’s Worst Nightmare Was For Americans To Not Be Killed In Large Numbers, For America To Win The War. He Solidified The Democrat Party’s Alliance With Al Qaeda And Iran. For The Shortisighted Sake Of Seizing Domestic Political Power.
Does James Carville, Rahm Emmanuel, Harry Reid, Howard Dean attend the funerals of any of the U.S. Servicemen that they have killed? These people have done all they can to encourage the enemy to keep killing Americans, and to keep the Presidient from confronting Iran as he needs to. These people have murdered our children as their principal lever in a domstic political power grab.
The Democrats so, so fondly recall Walter Cronkite saying “The war is lost”, a moment considered the turning point in the Vietnam War’s dismemberment by the Leftist movement. He and Rahm and Nancy have so desperately wanted some great public figure to speak that, that they just couldn’t bear waiting any longer, and instead spoke it themselves. Harry just couldn’t wait for someone who appreared less biased to say it for the team, so one of the team captains said it himself.
This was his accidental admission of what they’ve been accused of all along: fighting for defeat at all costs. It was his clear admission that his party has no interest in America’s victory, and more importantly, no regard for the consequences of defeat.
These people have worked very hard for our and our troops’ defeat. They will fight ferociouisly for this defeat to finally happen; this defeat is their victory, and they will literally kill, and indeed, have killed, to get it.
More on Carville’s “kill the troops” memo shortly.
I guess we need to keep fighting back.
| Sex Slavery Under the Islamic Republic of Iran
Courtesy of Iranian arab-parasts, Islamic Infamy Continues in Iran Whilst Iranians’ Pride Nowhere to be Found
A measure of the success of Islamists in controlling society is the depth and totality with which they suppress the freedom and rights of women. In Iran for 27 years, the ruling Islamists have enforced humiliating rules and punishments on women and girls, enslaving them in a gender apartheid system of segregation, forced veiling, second class status, lashing and stoning to death.
Islamists have added another way to dehumanize women and girls: buying and selling them for prostitution. Exact numbers of victims are impossible to obtain, but according to an official source in Tehran, there has been a 635 percent increase in the number of teen-age girls in prostitution. The magnitude of this statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. In Tehran, there are an estimated 84,000 women and girls in prostitution, many of them are on the streets, others are in the 250 brothels that reportedly operate in the city. The trade is also international: Thousands of Iranian women and girls have been sold into sexual slavery abroad.
The head of Iran’s Interpol bureau believes that the sex-slave trade is one of the most profitable activities in Iran today. This criminal trade is not conducted outside the knowledge and participation of the ruling clerics.
Government officials themselves are involved in buying, selling and sexually abusing women and girls. Many of the girls come from impoverished rural areas. High unemployment — 28 percent for youths from 15 to 29 years of age, and 43 percent for women from 15 to 20 years of age — is a serious factor in driving restless youth to accept risky offers for work. Slave traders take advantage of any opportunity in which women and children are vulnerable. Following the recent earthquake in Bam, for example, orphaned girls have been kidnapped and taken to a known slave market in Tehran where Iranian and foreign traders meet.
Popular destinations for victims of the slave trade are the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. According to the head of the Tehran provincial judiciary, traffickers target girls between 13 and 17 (and some reports of girls as young as 8 and 10) to send to Arab countries.
One ring was discovered after an 18-year-old girl escaped from a basement where a group of girls were held before being sent to Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The number of Iranian women and girls who are deported from Persian Gulf countries indicates the magnitude of the trade. Upon their return to Iran, the Islamists blame the victims, and often physically punish and imprison them. The women are examined to determine if they have engaged in “immoral activity.” Based on the findings, officials can ban them from leaving the country again.
Yes, I know. Tens of thousands of ordinary college students are lonely, full of rage, lost and frustrated. A few percent are psychotically disturbed, and some of them can kill. Our big factory colleges are alienating. Take millions of adolescents, and at any time there are bound to be quite a few confused and seething souls walking loose. Just visit downtown in any American or European city, and you can see all the lost and disturbed living in their private hells. And no, that doesn’t excuse executing thirty-two innocents.
Still, I wonder — was Cho taught to hate? Whatever he learned in his classes — did it enable him to rage at his host country, to hate the students he envied so murderously? Was he subtly encouraged to aggrandize himself by destroying others? Was his pathology enabled by the PC university? Or to ask the question differently — was Cho ever taught to respect others, to admire the good things about his host country, and to discipline himself to build a positive life?
And that answer is readily available on the websites of Cho’s English Department at Virginia Tech. This is a wonder world of PC weirdness. English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half.
Just check out their websites.
I wonder if Cho took the senior seminar by Professor Knapp, on “The self-justifying criminal in literature.” Because he certainly learned to be a self-justifying criminal. Or whether he sat in courses with Nikki Giovanni, using her famous self-glorifying book, “The Prosaic Soul of Nikki Giovanni (2003)“. Maybe he read Professor Bernice Hausman’s “Changing Sex: Transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender” — just the thing for a disoriented young male suffering from massive culture shock on the hypersexual American campus. And even more gender-bending from Professor Paul Heilker, who wrote “Textual Androgyny, the Rhetoric of the Essay, and the Politics of Identity in Composition (or The Struggle to Be a Girly-Man in a World of Gladiator Pumpitude).” Or the Lesbian love stories of Professor Matthew Vollmer. Yup, that’s just what this student needs. These trophee “art works” are all advertised on the English Department faculty websites.
Or maybe Cho was assigned Professor Lisa Norris’ prize-winning book, Toy Guns, featured on her web site. The book reviewers wrote
“All ten stories in this disturbing collection revolve around Americans’ passionate devotion to guns, gun-toting, sexually-tinged violence, and the womanly pursuit of power and dignity.” [....]
“In each wrenching story, we see an America out of control, in love with war….”
I don’t know any Americans who are in love with war, but that is the picture Cho got from his teachers. Having spent the last 14 years as a resident alien in the school system, he could know nothing else.
And then there is the big Marxist website from Professor Brizee, all in fiery red against pitch black, showing old, mass-murder-inspiring Karl flanked by two raised fists. It celebrates revolutionary violence and hate for capitalist America (which is paying for Cho’s education). “Critical Social Theory” — the euphemism for PoMo (Post Modern) Marxism — is a big part of English teaching at VT. The Marxist page links prominently to the British Socialist Worker’s Party, which is currently leading the charge for Islamic fascism through such creatures as George Galloway.
And, talking about Islamist ideas, there is Professor Carter-Tod, who wrote a report about “ ”Treatment of Arab American, Muslums and Seiks (sic) Post 911,” for the US Civil Rights Commission. The racial grievance industry is alive and growing at VT.
Post-modernism and its hatred for reason is another big theme at the VT English Department. Professor James Collier boasts about his book, Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies, But “the end of knowledge” is the beginning of ignorance.
And of course there is the “diversity” crowd, diversity being a very well-funded program at ole’ guilt-tripping VT. There’s Professor Carlos Evia, who describes himself as “…soy director de la Comisión de Igualdad y Diversidad en Virginia Tech.” Or in English, “I am also chair of the Virginia Tech Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity.” There’s “research” in “Feminist science fiction” and “The comic strip” from Professor Susan C. Allender-Hagedorn. Scratching racial and gender wounds until they bleed is a big preoccupation at VT. What’s a kid from South Korea to think?
The question I have is: Are university faculty doing their jobs? At one time college teachers were understood to have a parental role. Take a look at the hiring and promotion criteria for Eng at VT, and you see what their current values are. Acting in loco parentis, with the care, protectiveness, and alertness for trouble among young people is the last thing on their minds. They are there to do “research,” to act like fake revolutionaries, and to stir up young people to go out and revolt society. Well, somebody just did.
I’m sorry but VT English doesn’t look like a place that gives lost and angry adolescents the essential boundaries for civilized behavior. In fact, in this perversely disorienting PoMo world, the very words “civilized behavior” are ridiculed — at least until somebody starts to shoot students, and then it’s too late. A young culture-shocked adolescent can expect no firm guidance here. But we know that already.
What’s the English Department’s official frontpage reaction to the murder of thirty-two students just a few days ago? Here it is.
“We do not understand this tragedy
We know we did nothing to deserve it
But neither does a child in Africa
Dying of AIDS
Neither does the baby elephant watching his community
Be devastated for ivory
… Neither does the Mexican child looking
For fresh water
… Neither does the Appalachian infant killed
By a boulder
Because the land was destabilized”
In other words: We didn’t do nuthin.’ It ain’t our fault. It’s greedy capitalism’s fault. We don’t teach civilized behavior, the value of reason, the cultural foundations of Western thought. We teach adolescent rage, because that’s how we make a living. We do narcissistic “research” in Marxist analysis of American brutal capitalism. We’re good people. See how much we care about AIDS in Africa. Don’t blame us. We ain’t responsible.
James Lewis blogs at www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com
Making the Muslim Brotherhood a major player in Middle East politics seems to be one of the few subjects on which both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree. Neither the State Department nor the White House commented after U.S. House Majority Leader Stanley Hoyer met in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliamentarian leader, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni. Hoyer and el-Katani discussed recent developments in the Middle East, and the “Brotherhood’s vision.”
This meeting took place just one day after the conclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood 5th Cairo Conference: The International Campaign Against US & Zionist Occupation, in which delegations from Hizbollah and Hamas took part. The participants cheered as Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef declared, “the devil Bush and his allies were now the ones sowing terror and aggression worldwide.”
Akef’s rant, translated from Arabic by MEMRI, blamed Bush for
“sending American youth to die by the thousands …at the expense of the poor in the U.S. and across the world.” His statement sounds similar to the claim of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that “The president’s policies have failed, and…[he] endangers our troops and hurts our national security.”
While the Democratic leadership does everything possible to demonstrate their diplomatic acumen before the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, it is less clear why the Administration is also courting this radical Muslim organization. Indeed, both the Democrats and the Administration are playing right into the Muslim Brotherhood’s hand, inadvertently supporting its propaganda offensive against the U.S.
Still more worrisome is the apparent dismissal by American political leaders on both sides of the aisle, of ongoing declarations and fatwas hostile to the U.S., issued by MB leaders since 9/11.
In his February 22 weekly address posted until recently on the MB Arabic website, ikwanpress.com, Akef claimed that the cracks in “the Western offensive against Islam,” are
“the failure the American war machine to break the rock of the Iraqi opposition, the difficulties facing the coalition forces in Afghanistan, and the military defeat of the Israeli armed forces in Lebanon and against the Palestinians.”
Akef called on the Arabs and Muslims to continue terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israel “until they withdraw completely from the Middle East.” Akef reassured his followers that “the jihad will lead to smashing Western civilization and replacing it with Islam which will dominate the world,” according to a translation by Jonathan D. Halevi, director of Orient Research Group.
As this demonstrates, the MB under Akef’s leadership follows in the path of its predecessor Mustafa Mashour, who in August 2002, stated: “we will not give up (the goal) of restoring the Muslim Caliphate.” (Asharq Al-Awsat, 9 Aug. 2002).
But none of this is reported in the mainstream media. Instead, the press, rather than objectively covering the MB’s declared mission to establish a global Caliphate, has joined the ranks of political advocates portraying the MB as “moderate” and “reformist.”
Meanwhile, Hamas, the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, busily fortifies its economic and military strength. According to recent Hamas disclosures, theirs is the largest military force in the Gaza strip, comprising 15,000 combatants. Through its rapidly growing power, Hamas is evidently laying the groundwork for full control of the PA, and the election of Khalid Mashaal as the next PA chairman, thus, solidifying the MB takeover.
Despite these alarming developments, U.S. State Department officials (under heavy Saudi pressure) continue to lean on Israel to negotiate with the inconsequential current PA chairman, Mahmoud Abbas. Moreover, the U.S. ban on financial aid to the Hamas-led PA did not prevent the international community in 2006, from sinking more than $1.2 billion- mostly U.S. funds – in aid into the corrupt, terrorist Palestinian government.
Hamas, allegedly, had no access to these funds. However, Hamas runs most PA government offices. Moreover, Hamas members on many occasions have boasted that funds and weapons given to Abbas‘ Fatah end up in their hands.
Although the U.S. says it will have nothing to do with Hamas, it has approved a $59 million package in “non-lethal” assistance (weapons and military training) to PA security forces, ostensibly controlled by Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
U.S. pressure led Israel to agree to this arrangement, despite the fact that similar provisions since the 1994 establishment of the PA, resulted in the murders of at least 1,064 Israeli civilians, and the wounding of more than 15,000. Most of these atrocities were perpetrated with weapons, training and funding supplied by the international community.
The failure to hold the PA accountable since its inception only encouraged Palestinian corruption and violence, and facilitated Hamas’ rise to power. Now, dependence on Saudi oil and investments seem to push the U.S. and the international community to accept demands to legitimize Hamas, thereby establishing MB reign over the Palestinians.
Democrats and Republicans alike are only deluding themselves in believing that negotiations with the MB and their terrorist offspring will alter their drive to establish a global Caliphate.
Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of American Center for Democracy (ACD), and a board member for the Committee on the Present Danger; Alyssa A. Lappen is a senior fellow at the ACD.
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
By Christopher Hitchens
City Journal | April 20, 2007
When I first began to plan my short biography of Thomas Jefferson, I found it difficult to research the chapter concerning the so-called Barbary Wars: an event or series of events that had seemingly receded over the lost horizon of American history. Henry Adams, in his discussion of our third president, had some boyhood reminiscences of the widespread hero-worship of naval officer Stephen Decatur, and other fragments and shards showed up in other quarries, but a sound general history of the subject was hard to come by. When I asked a professional military historian—a man with direct access to Defense Department archives—if there was any book that he could recommend, he came back with a slight shrug. But now the curious reader may choose from a freshet of writing on the subject. Added to my own shelf in the recent past have been The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World, by Frank Lambert (2005); Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror 1801–1805, by Joseph Wheelan (2003); To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, by A. B. C. Whipple (1991, republished 2001); and Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, by Joshua E. London (2005). Most recently, in his new general history, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, the Israeli scholar Michael Oren opens with a long chapter on the Barbary conflict. As some of the subtitles—and some of the dates of publication—make plain, this new interest is largely occasioned by America’s latest round of confrontation in the Middle East, or the Arab sphere or Muslim world, if you prefer those expressions.
In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley’s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by “corsair” raiders in a single night?
Some of this activity was hostage trading and ransom farming rather than the more labor-intensive horror of the Atlantic trade and the Middle Passage, but it exerted a huge effect on the imagination of the time—and probably on no one more than on Thomas Jefferson. Peering at the paragraph denouncing the American slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, later excised, I noticed for the first time that it sarcastically condemned “the Christian King of Great Britain” for engaging in “this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers.” The allusion to Barbary practice seemed inescapable.
One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.
One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”
Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)
Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.
It seems likely that Jefferson decided from that moment on that he would make war upon the Barbary kingdoms as soon as he commanded American forces. His two least favorite institutions—enthroned monarchy and state-sponsored religion—were embodied in one target, and it may even be that his famous ambivalences about slavery were resolved somewhat when he saw it practiced by the Muslims.
However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which says nothing about an army, does explicitly provide for a navy.
Thus, Lambert may be limiting himself in viewing the Barbary conflict primarily through the lens of free trade. Questions of nation-building, of regime change, of “mission creep,” of congressional versus presidential authority to make war, of negotiation versus confrontation, of “entangling alliances,” and of the “clash of civilizations”—all arose in the first overseas war that the United States ever fought. The “nation-building” that occurred, however, took place not overseas but in the 13 colonies, welded by warfare into something more like a republic.
There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”
The cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence of the Barbary states, however, would decide things. The level of tribute demanded began to reach 10 percent of the American national budget, with no guarantee that greed would not increase that percentage, while from the dungeons of Algiers and Tripoli came appalling reports of the mistreatment of captured men and women. Gradually, and to the accompaniment of some of the worst patriotic verse ever written, public opinion began to harden in favor of war. From Jefferson’s perspective, it was a good thing that this mood shift took place during the Adams administration, when he was out of office and temporarily “retired” to Monticello. He could thus criticize federal centralization of power, from a distance, even as he watched the construction of a fleet—and the forging of a permanent Marine Corps—that he could one day use for his own ends.
At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.
Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.
Once again, Barbary obstinacy tipped the scale. Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, declared war on the United States in May 1801, in pursuit of his demand for more revenue. This earned him a heavy bombardment of Tripoli and the crippling of one of his most important ships. But the force of example was plainly not sufficient. In the altered mood that prevailed after the encouraging start in Tripoli, Congress passed an enabling act in February 1802 that, in its provision for a permanent Mediterranean presence and its language about the “Tripolitan Corsairs,” amounted to a declaration of war. The Barbary regimes continued to underestimate their new enemy, with Morocco declaring war in its turn and the others increasing their blackmail.
A complete disaster—Tripoli’s capture of the new U.S. frigate Philadelphia—became a sort of triumph, thanks to Edward Preble and Stephen Decatur, who mounted a daring raid on Tripoli’s harbor and blew up the captured ship, while inflicting heavy damage on the city’s defenses. Now there were names—Preble and Decatur—for newspapers back home to trumpet as heroes. Nor did their courage draw notice only in America. Admiral Lord Nelson himself called the raid “the most bold and daring act of the age,” and Pope Pius VII declared that the United States “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.” (In his nostalgia for Lepanto, perhaps, His Holiness was evidently unaware that the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 had attempted to formalize the dues that America would pay for access to the Mediterranean, stated in its preamble that the United States had no quarrel with the Muslim religion and was in no sense a Christian country. Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.)
Watching all this with a jaundiced eye was the American consul in Tunis, William Eaton. For him, behavior modification was not a sufficient policy; regime change was needed. And he had a candidate. On acceding to the throne in Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli had secured his position by murdering one brother and exiling another. Eaton befriended this exiled brother, Hamid, and argued that he should become the American nominee for Tripoli’s crown. This proposal wasn’t received with enthusiasm in Washington, but Eaton pursued it with commendable zeal. He exhibited the downside that often goes with such quixotic bravery: railing against treasury secretary Albert Gallatin as a “cowardly Jew,” for example, and alluding to President Jefferson with contempt. He ended up a supporter of Aaron Burr’s freebooting secessionist conspiracy.
His actions in 1805, however, belong in the annals of derring-do, almost warranting the frequent comparison made with T. E. Lawrence’s exploits in Arabia. With a small detachment of marines, headed by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, and a force of irregulars inevitably described by historians as “motley,” Eaton crossed the desert from Egypt and came at Tripoli—as Lawrence had come at Aqaba—from the land and not from the sea. The attack proved a total surprise. The city of Darna surrendered its far larger garrison, and Karamanli’s forces were heavily engaged, when news came that Jefferson and Karamanli had reached an understanding that could end the war. The terms weren’t too shabby, involving the release of the Philadelphia’s crew and a final settlement of the tribute question. And Jefferson took care to stress that Eaton had played a part in bringing it about.
This graciousness did not prevent Eaton from denouncing the deal as a sellout. The caravan moved on, though, as the other Barbary states gradually followed Tripoli’s lead and came to terms. Remember, too, that this was the year of the Battle of Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was not the only European to notice that a new power had arrived in Mediterranean waters. Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):
In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,
Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d
By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.
Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave
And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.
The song was part of the bad-verse epidemic. But brushed up and revised a little for the War of 1812, and set to the same music, it has enjoyed considerable success since. So has the Marine Corps anthem, which begins: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” It’s no exaggeration to describe the psychological fallout of this first war as formative of the still-inchoate American character.
There is of course another connection between 1805 and 1812. Renewed hostilities with Britain on the high seas and on the American mainland, which did not terminate until the Battle of New Orleans, might have ended less conclusively had the United States not developed a battle-hardened naval force in the long attrition on the North African coast.
The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.” (The expression “the United States is” did not come into usage until after Gettysburg.)
Oren notes that the stupendous expense of this long series of wars was a partial vindication of John Adams’s warning. However, there are less quantifiable factors to consider. The most obvious is commerce. American trade in the Mediterranean increased enormously in the years after the settlement with Algiers, and America’s ability to extend its trade and project its forces into other areas, such as the Caribbean and South America, was greatly enhanced. Then we should attend to what Linda Colley says on the subject of slavery. Campaigns against the seizure of hostages by Muslim powers, and their exploitation as forced labor, fired up many a church congregation in Britain and America and fueled many a press campaign. But even the dullest soul could regard the continued triangular Atlantic slave trade between Africa, England, and the Americas and perceive the double standard at work. Thus, the struggle against Barbary may have helped to force some of the early shoots of abolitionism.
Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.
And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling, whose poem “Dane-Geld” is a finer effort than anything managed by Francis Scott Key:
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbor and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
Kipling runs briskly through the stages of humiliation undergone by any power that falls for this appeasement, and concludes:
It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
“[I]f they don’t trust the security, this is their problem, not our problem.
- Omar Shahin, teleconference about imam lawsuitOn November 20, 2006, when six imams were removed from a plane headed for
Phoenix, Arizona, little was known about them. All that could be determined was that they were Muslim and that they were acting in a way that was deemed suspicious – the two things at an airport that sound the loudest alarms in our post-9/11 world. Who they were and why they were in
Minnesota were things yet to be determined. However, knowing what we know today, given the venue that they were coming from, given at least some of their extremist pasts, given whom they ally themselves with, and given the fiasco that took place at the airport and its carefully produced aftermath with a known terror front, it’s safe to say that it was probably a mistake to allow them to board the plane to begin with.
Omar Shahin and NAIF
The North American Imams Federation (NAIF) held its 2006 annual conference in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Attending the three-day event were one newly elected Congressman – Keith Ellison – and a surplus of Islamist radicals masquerading as holy men. They included Siraj Wahhaj, an individual whose name is found on the U.S. Attorney’s list of “unindicted co-conspirators” of the 1993
Center attack, and Mazen Mokhtar, an Al-Qaeda web designer that has used the internet to proclaim his support for Hamas and suicide bombings. In fact, all three of the aforementioned are pictured on the same page of the NAIF conference program, side-by-side one another.
The President of NAIF (and one of the removed imams) is Omar Shahin. Before NAIF’s founding in 2004, Shahin was the imam and President of the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT), a mosque that represented one of Al-Qaeda’s main hubs in
America, prior to the ‘93 attack. One of Shahin’s predecessors at the mosque was Wael Hamza Julaidan, a former colleague of Osama bin Laden and bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. Shahin, himself, has admitted to once supporting bin Laden.
Throughout his time with and after leaving ICT, Shahin was involved in terror financing organizations. He was the Arizona Coordinator for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a Hamas charity whose funds were frozen by the
U.S. government soon after 9/11. Under his leadership, thousands of dollars were raised for HLF through ICT. As well, Shahin was a representative for KindHearts, another Hamas charity that was shut down by the
U.S. (February 2006). In both cases, Shahin walked free.
As ICT’s imam, Shahin has used his pulpit to target Jews and Christians, even with death. During his October 4, 2002 sermon, he stated, “Allah almighty has described his servants with a precise description in order for us to follow in their footsteps. Allah Almighty started by saying ‘the slaves of (Allah) Most Gracious’ as an indication to their real loyalty… What an honor for any one to be called by Allah ‘the slaves of (Allah) Most Gracious.’ Allah has dignified those alone among all humanity. Because of them, Allah will also dignify the whole Islamic Nation. Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him said: ‘you will keep on fighting with the Jews until the fight reaches the east of Jordan river then the stones and trees will say: oh Muslim, oh (servant) slaves of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him…’”
During his December 20, 2002 sermon, he stated, “We should invite them [Christians] to investigate the religion of Islam especially nowadays we should give them the right information about Islam. And now let us open our hearts to what our great prophet said: Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said: You would tread the same path that was trodden by those before you span by span and cubit by cubit (inch by inch and step by step) so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah’s Messenger, do you mean the Jews and the Christians (by your words)? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?”
Another of the flying imams is Marwan Sadeddin, the Coordinator of the Imams Council of Arizona. Soon after the incident, Sadeddin discussed the matter of being ejected from the plane, on KFYI-Phoenix. When the host of the show confronted him about Omar Shahin’s involvement with Hamas-related charities, he responded by defending Hamas. He stated, “Hamas has nothing to do with [the]
United States. Talk about Al-Qaeda only, because this is [sic] where they hit
America. Hamas never said, ‘We are against
America.’ They extend their hand many times to
America consider[s] it – the foreign policy of
America consider[s] Hamas – as a terrorist. That’s their business.” Just as recently as December of 2006, Hamas has threatened attacks on the U.S.
NAIF has a Board of Trustees comprised of seven individuals, including Shahin. One of them is Siraj Wahhaj (mentioned earlier). Another is Mohamad Mwafak Algalaieni, the imam of the Grand Blanc Islamic Center, located in Grand Blanc,
Michigan. In December of 2001, Algalaieni showed up in support of terror charity head Rabih Haddad, at Haddad’s INS hearing. Haddad was deported, after having been arrested for his leadership role in the Global Relief Foundation (GRF), an organization that was shut down by the
U.S. government for raising millions of dollars for Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
A third trustee is Johari Abdul-Malik, the imam of Dar Al-Hijrah, located in
Falls Church, Virginia. On his radio show, in September of 2004, discussing the impact of 9/11 on the Muslim community, Abdul-Malik took the opportunity to laud one of his congregants, Ismael Selim Elbarasse, who had just been arrested for videotaping structural parts of
Bridge. Elbarasse, who has been described as a “high-ranking Hamas operative,” held a joint bank account with Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook for the purpose of financing the terror group. Another congregant, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, in March of 2006, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for providing material support to Al-Qaeda, whilst plotting to assassinate President Bush. About the charges against Abu Ali, Abdul-Malik stated, “Our whole community is under siege.”
In addition to a Board of Trustees, NAIF has an Executive Committee. One of the committeemen is Ashrafuzzaman Khan, the former Secretary General (President, Amir) of the Islamic Circle of North America (see below). Prior to coming to the States, Khan was located in
Bangladesh – then
Eastern Pakistan. To this day, he stands accused of being a death squad leader for Al-Badr, the Muslim Brotherhood of Pakistan’s (Jamaat-e-Islami’s) former paramilitary wing, during the 1971 massacre that led to
Bangladesh’s independence, personally responsible for the murders of numerous individuals.
On the NAIF website, one finds many pictures from past events. Two of the pictures contain Ibrahim Dremali, the imam of the Islamic Center of Des Moines (
Iowa). Shortly before 9/11, Dremali was the contact for a group that was telling its followers to provide material support to a website that was raising funds and recruiting fighters for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda related groups. At an October 2000 rally, amidst burning Israeli flags and shouts of “Zionist blood will wet the sand,” Dremali told a crowd “not to be sad for those who were martyred and to not be afraid to die for what they believe in.”
Three of the pictures contain Wagdy Ghoneim, who, in January of 1999, was denied entrance into
Canada for being a member of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and who, in January of 2005, was deported from the
United States. In a November 2006 essay, Ghoneim stated, “We must all equip ourselves, and be prepared for jihad at any moment… and to constantly renew the intention [for jihad]… We must all strive in praying that Allah – the Exalted and Majestic – have revenge on the damned Jews and to weaken them, them and their allies, helpers, and those who aid them…”
One more pic contains Zulfiqar Ali Shah, the Imam of the Islamic Center of Milwaukee. Prior to it being shut down, Shah was the South Asian Director of KindHearts. In June of 2001, he is quoted as saying, “If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib (The Prophet’s city of
Medina), where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad (SAW). That’s the pinnacle of their motives.”
According to its website, “NAIF seeks establishing relationships with Islamic organizations (IOs) that are licensed to operate in
North America.” The site states that this relationship is “collaborative, complementary, and cooperative.” These “partner organizations” include:
CAIR and the Choreography
The last organization mentioned, CAIR, and another group, the Muslim American Society (MAS), have played large roles in the saga of the six flying imams. MAS, which led a “pray-in” for the imams at
Airport on November 27, was created as a Muslim Brotherhood activist organization in June of 1993.
According to an officer in the police report concerning the November 20 affair, both he and a U.S. Federal Air Marshal “agreed the seating configuration, the request for seatbelt extensions, the prior praying and utterances about Allah and the U.S. in the gate area and the seating configuration chosen among the traveling group was suspicious.” [A U.S. Airways official added that three of the six only had one-way tickets and no checked luggage.] The officer then states that an FBI Agent “requested we detain the six passengers until he could arrive and interview the six individuals on their suspicious behavior.” The report later goes on to say that the imams were escorted off the plane and detained for further investigation. The removal took place sometime after 5:30 p.m.
After the removal, the magnified role of CAIR took form. According to a spokesperson for the airport:
In Shahin’s own words: “Since minute one of this incident, I then contacted Ibrahim Hooper and brother Nihad Awad, and we arranged everything…. [W]e already coordinate with them everything, and we update each other every once [in] a while, every two hours, three hours. And everything is being coordinated with CAIR and with MAS. Even today, I asked MAS-Arizona chapter, please, whatever you want to do, just let brother Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper know about it before you [do]. That’s what we are doing, and we are going to do that in the future. Inshallah.”
In addition, within days, Congressman Keith Ellison asked for a meeting with executives from U.S. Airways and the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and Congressman John Conyers drafted a House resolution giving Muslims special civil-rights protections.
Now, the imams have filed a legal complaint against US Airways and MAC, and they are looking to sue individual passengers from the flight, those who alerted authorities, as well. The lawyer for the imams is Omar Mohammedi, the President of CAIR-New York, who is currently representing the Al-Qaeda-linked World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), in a 9/11 lawsuit for the murders of 3000 people, in which CAIR is also named a defendant.
While there is no mention of it in the NAIF program, CAIR is said to have participated at the NAIF conference. As well, pictures of CAIR’s National Executive Director, Nihad Awad, speaking at previous NAIF events are found on the NAIF website.
All of the above leads towards the question: Has all of this been pre-planned – some grand scheme to make those in society hesitant about reporting activity which they deem to be suspect in nature?
Considering the fact that all of those concerned, in some way, shape or form, have been involved in extremist pursuits, the answer may very well be yes. Of course, if that is the case, that makes those that spoke out and those that took action unwilling partners to an unsuspected crime. Regardless of the answer, though, the fact that these imams are radicals, in itself, suggests that they should not have been permitted on the plane and, instead, should have been placed on a “no-fly” list. It is measures, such as this, that need to be taken, in order to ensure that our nation is protected from those that wish to destroy us from within… and above.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
The Trans-Atlantic Terror Divide
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 20, 2007
“Let me be very clear,” CIA Director Michael Hayden told ambassadors from the European Union last month over lunch at the German embassy. “My countrymen, my government, my Agency and I believe that we are a nation at war. We are in a state of armed conflict with al Qa’ida and its affiliates. We believe that this conflict with al Qa’ida is global in its scope. We also believe that a precondition for our winning this conflict is to take the fight to the enemy wherever he may be.”
General Hayden’s frank and detailed presentation to the Europeans was aimed at defusing tensions created in part by a European Parliamentary “temporary committee” investigating the CIA’s program of “extraordinary renditions” of terrorist suspects.
It was also aimed at rebuking those Europeans demagogues, such as French president Jacques Chirac, who have accused President Bush of single-handedly creating trans-Atlantic tensions, inciting the Muslim world, and violating the Geneva conventions and international standards of human rights.
“Let me advise you to please NOT assume that the current American approach to the Global War on Terrorism is the product of just one administration or just this president,” Hayden warned.
The CIA Director revealed that contrary to popular speculation – by the European Parliament’s own commission, as well as the
U.S. press – “fewer than 100 people have been detained at CIA’s facilities.”
The exposure of the CIA’s so-called “secret prisons” and especially the complicity of European governments in facilitating the capture of al Qaeda suspects, prompted the European Parliament to establish its temporary commission in January 2006.
Last June, the lead investigator for the commission – Italian leftist Claudio Fava – released a huge data dump on the press, exposing the involvement of twenty-one companies and one bank in what soon became known as “Air CIA,” the network of private aircraft used to convoy prisoners.
He also released flight logs, tail numbers, and other information on the CIA aircraft being run by covert proprietaries – shell companies set up at great expense to disguise CIA involvement. It was a massive breach of U.S. covert operations, that had the impact of shutting down the whole system of capturing and detaining suspected terrorists in
Fava is pleased with his accomplishments. At a hearing in Washington this week hosted by Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Bill Delahunt, he and his colleagues hectored the Bush administration about “human rights” and “torture” and the “rule of law.” But not once during the entire two-hour hearing did he or any of the Europeans pause to say “thank-you,
America,” for helping to keep their citizens safe.
That was a point not lost on California Republican, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who railed against the “anti-American vitriol” of the European report.
“If you doubt our motives, you’re welcome to,” Rohrabacher said. “I know there’s a lot of people that hate
America. But when the pressure’s on, quite frankly, we have known all along that at times
America has to go it alone, and people will try to find fault with us rather than trying to at least understand our morality.”
Rohrabacher wasn’t the only one to criticize the European Parliament’s report. In late February, John Bellinger, legal advisor to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, called it “unbalanced, inaccurate, and unfair.”
In his presentation to the EU ambassadors, which is reported here in detail for the first time, Gen. Hayden provided the first official glimpse inside the rendition program.
From its inception in the spring of 2002, “this has been a very targeted and selective program,” he said. “It is applied only to the most dangerous terrorists and those who are believed to have the most valuable information – including information about imminent threats.”
Of the fewer than 100 terrorists detained by the CIA, “significantly less than half have ever undergone what the President described as ‘alternative procedures,’” Hayden said. “Some believe that physical pressures or specially authorized procedures constitute the whole or major part of the interrogation process… This is simply not true.”
For each terrorist, the CIA puts together a “comprehensive interrogation plan” that is “approved in detail, for each detainee, by a very senior CIA official.” Since 2004, that official has been the CIA director himself.
And contrary to urban legends of rogue operators, CIA interrogators “do not freelance,” Hayden said. Once the detainees “no longer have intelligence value, they are turned over to the Department of Defense to be held as unlawful enemy combatants; returned to their country of origin; or entered into a legal process to be held accountable for their crimes.”
Perhaps most surprising to the Europeans was Hayden’s description of the extensive legal review undertaken by CIA lawyers before each and every rendition.
“We might not resemble the open society we protect in light of our secrecy, but we certain do in terms of our respect for the rule of law,” he said. “That is why renditions routinely are carried out with the knowledge, consent – and often with the assistance – of the country where the terrorist is located.”
The complicity of the European governments, and their own lack of transparency, was one of the factors that motivated the European parliamentary investigation, said Baroness Sarah Ludford,
“What did European governments know and turn a blind eye to?” she said at a press conference the next day. “European governments haven’t told us nearly as much as we would like to hear.”
For Claudio Fava, the Italian socialist, the
United States had no right to “abduct” terrorist suspects in
Europe or to transport them using private aircraft or to detain and interrogate them in secret.
“Our question,” he said, “is why these people who are threats to the
United States were not brought to trial in the
United States with all the guarantees of
U.S. and international laws?”
The Europeans – just as their idols in the
Clinton administration – believe that terrorism is a manageable threat that is best treated by lawyers and indictments. Whatever we do, they want us to keep it gentle enough so that jihadi Muslims will not take it as an attack on Islam.
The Bush administration, on the contrary, believes that terrorism is not an ordinary crime that can be punished after the fact. September 11 taught them – as it should have taught us all – that there are circumstances when decisive preventive action against potential threats becomes the duty of government.
The Europeans – and the Left in
America – believe the renditions program should be abandoned because of occasional “mistakes”– cases of mistaken identity of faulty investigation. Courts in
Germany are now prosecuting former CIA officers for their involvement in legal, cleared operations that went wrong.
And yet, as the “father” of the rendition program, former CIA officer Michael Scheuer told Congress on Tuesday, “Not one single al-Qaeda leader has ever been rendered on the basis of any CIA officer’s “hunch” or “guess” or “caprice.” These are scurrilous accusations that became fashionable after the Washington Post’s correspondent Dana Priest revealed information that damaged
U.S. national security and, as result, won a journalism prize for abetting
Scheuer estimated that of just under 100 renditions, just three involved mistakes. “And if they’re not Americans,” he added, “I really don’t care.”
That was too much for Delahunt, the Massachussets Democrat chairing the hearing. “That’s very interesting,” he said finally.
“I never got paid, sir, to be a citizen of the world,” Scheuer replied. “Maybe you do… I get paid to protect my countrymen.”
Scheuer’s edgy testimony is worth reading in full. So are his exchanges with committee Democrats Rep. Jerrold Nadler of
New York and Rep. Ed Markey of Massachussetts, who joined the Europeans in arguing that the
United States government and our intelligence agencies should step back from extraordinary measures to protect this country and its citizens.
General Hayden rejected that caution, and said he “had a duty to play aggressively ‘on the line.’”
He reminded the Europeans of what he had told a U.S. Senator, who had asked him about respect for civil liberties. “I finished by telling the Senator that I would always play in fair territory but that he could expect to see chalk dust on my cleats,” Hayden said.
Inside the CIA, visitors can see a sign with a stark reminder, he told the EU ambassadors.
“Today’s date is September 12, 2001. We make no apologies for this attitude, for our legal definition of the conflict, or… for our actions.”
Are we at war, or not? That is the basic question dividing the Europeans from the
United States, but also dividing
America itself as the President continues to struggle with Congress over funding for
U.S. troops in
Iraq and the activities of our intelligence agencies.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.