UK: Newspeak Has Arrived

A link to the following article was in my email inbox: Whitehall draws up new rules on language of terror.

Phrasebook designed to avoid blaming Muslims for extremism

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Monday February 4, 2008

A new counter-terrorism phrasebook has been drawn up within Whitehall to advise civil servants on how to talk to Muslim communities about the nature of the terror threat without implying they are specifically to blame.

Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

The official Newspeak handbook is here!

It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a "confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures". Instead it suggests that talking about the idea of shared values works much more effectively.

The guide, which has been passed to the Guardian, is produced by a Home Office research, information and communications unit which was set up last summer to counter al-Qaida propaganda and win hearts and minds.

Shared values: "You want me to convert to Islam or feel subdued, and my government wants me to be a dhimmi. See? We have a lot in common."

It shows that the government is adopting a new sophistication in its approach to counter-terrorism, based on the realisation that it must "avoid implying that specific communities are to blame" if it is to enable communities to challenge the ideas of violent extremists robustly. The new lexicon of terror surfaced briefly last month when the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, made a speech on counter-terrorism declaring violent extremism to be "anti-Islamic".

There is absolutely no connection between Islam and terrorism, people.

(Hey, stop thinking that, you racist!)

But the internal Home Office guide shows just how far a new official language, to use when talking about terrorism, is being developed. "This is not intended as a definitive list of what not to say but rather to highlight terms which risk being misunderstood and therefore prevent the effective reception of the message," says the Home Office paper. "This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them."

"This is not about political correctness...."

What's scary is that they may actually believe that!

While the leaked Whitehall papers show a new sophistication in the government's approach to talking about terrorism they reveal that their profiling of those most likely to prove vulnerable to violent extremism remains very vague.

They also reveal the crude criteria under which the communities secretary, Hazel Blears, is distributing £45m over the next three years for local communities to build resilience to violent extremism.

If it goes the way of other government programs, he's probably giving it to the mosques.

In the first year the funds will only be distributed to areas with a Muslim population of more than 4,000 based on 2001 census data. "This data is now 6-7 years old and given high population growth in Muslim communities is likely to be fairly out-of-date," says the internal Whitehall correspondence adding that each qualifying local authority will receive a fixed minimum allocation with increments dependent on the size of its Muslim population.

Ah -- a good point! The way the Muslim population is growing in the UK, you could probably just hand out the money in the streets and be giving it away to people in places where there has been high population growth in the Muslim community.

Maybe they should try that!

(Perhaps the blogger Lionheart has some suggestions on where they could hand out that money.)

The limitations of this crude population approach suggest there is only a very limited official understanding of the geography of violent extremism in Britain.

There is limited understanding not just of the geography of violent extremism in Britain.

Officials admit this approach will mean that six areas currently funded for tackling violent extremism will not meet the criteria from April. That would include, for example, Crawley which was home to three of the five men convicted over the Operation Crevice plot to bomb the Bluewater shopping centre, in Kent, and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London.

Translation: The more terrorists there are from your community, the more money your community will get from the government.

A separate joint Home Office/ Communities Department paper on the strategy to prevent people becoming or supporting violent extremists suggests a disturbingly vague description of those being targeted: "There is no single profile of those most susceptible to these factors but they are likely to be young (generally younger than 30) and male (although the number of women who support and participate in violent extremism is increasing)."

Maybe try to correlate the violence to the perps' politico-religious beliefs, and see what you come up with!

The same paper stresses that "grievances which ideologues are exploiting" to make new recruits should be addressed where they are legitimately based.

They will just find something else to screech about -- and UK society will never be perfect.

It's about killing infidels for Allah to get to those virgins, guys....

It says: "No perceived grievance can justify terrorism. But where concerns are legitimately expressed then we must be prepared to debate them.

There's a value we don't share with the terrorists!

"We are committed to better explaining existing policies, such as the UK's foreign policy, refuting claims made about them in the language of violent extremists."

Translation: We are losing, so we are going to play their game.

But it adds that where concerns are "legitimately based we must be prepared to address them."

However, it makes clear that this does not mean changes in British foreign policy but using existing programmes to tackle inequalities and unemployment of the Muslim community in Britain.

If they are going to use "existing programmes", then there won't be much change.

The "global opportunities fund" and overseas aid programmes would be used to "help address the real grievances of people in key countries overseas which can increase their susceptibility to the extremists' message".

The only way to do that is to give the "global opportunities fund" money to the SAS, and send them in to clean out Wahhabi mosques.

Hat tip to my email tipster!

Afghan Government Tries to Arrest General Dostum

In Genesis, Part 11, we saw extensive reference to General Abdul Rashid Dostum (spelled "Abdur-Rashid" in the State Department cable).

We have not yet looked at General Dostum's background, and, considering there is some breaking news about him, now might be a good time to go a little more in depth.

An article appeared today, Afghanistan: Kabul Siege Underscores Warlord Threat To Rule Of Law, which I reproduce in its entirety, with comments and background information interspersed.

Afghan police have lifted a brief siege on the Kabul home of a longtime warlord and current presidential adviser, Abdul Rashid Dostum, after he and dozens of armed men allegedly beat up and kidnapped a former campaign aide, RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan reported.

The episode could bring further embarrassment over the government's association with the ethnic Uzbek strongman Dostum, who spent decades as a powerful northern warlord but was co-opted by President Hamid Karzai in 2005 to take a vaguely defined role as "Afghan Army chief command."

Dostum started out as a Communist union boss, until he formed a militia. When the Soviets invaded, his militia wound up fighting on the side of the Soviets against the mujahideen, and by the mid-1980's, he was in charge of a 20,000-man force that controlled Afghanistan's northern provinces.

He continued supporting President Najibullah's Soviet-backed regime after the Soviet withdrawal, but changed sides, and helped the mujahideen take Kabul in 1992.

He joined the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani for a while, then allied himself with the Islamist forces of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. By 1994, he was again besieging Kabul, this time against Rabbani's government. The cable reviewed in Genesis, Part 11 is dated shortly after these events, in January, 1995.

By 1996, when the Taliban had captured Herat and Kabul, Dostum realigned himself with Rabbani again, now battling against the Taliban.

The areas under his control were centered on Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan's fourth-largest city. According to Global Security:

It is claimed that he financed his army with profits from the opium trade. At the height of his power in 1997 - at the age of 43 - he controlled a kind of mini-state in northern Afghanistan.

After the Taliban captured his stronghold, he fled to Uzbekistan, Iran and, ultimately, Turkey, before returning in 2000. Allied with US-led forces in 2001, his was the second-largest component of the Northern Alliance, and he retook Mazar-i-Sharif from the Taliban.

He has been serving as Chief of Staff to the Commander-in-Chief of the Afghan Army.

See BBC Profile: General Rashid Dostum and the previously mentioned Global Security biography.

Returning now to today's news about Dostum's current problems with the government.

Moreover, comments by Dostum allies during and after the siege highlight a smoldering debate over the influence of current and former warlords whose actions undermine the rule of law and public confidence in central authorities.

The acting head of Dostum's political party expressed surprise that police would respond by surrounding Dostum's home, since he "holds a higher position" in the government than the interior minister, Zarar Ahmad Moqbel.

I guess you can only try to arrest people who are lower in rank than you are.

Maybe that's how Bush and Clinton have gotten away with so much.

Settling A Score

Reports suggested that Dostum and around 50 armed men attacked and abducted one of his former campaign managers, Akbar Bay, and one of Bay's bodyguards late on February 2.

A more detailed account was found in the forum of Afghanistan Online, to which I now link in the sidebar:

This morning I was stuck in traffic jam for hours as police had blocked most of the roads towards Wazir Akbar Khan.

Anyways, it seems now that the police chickened out and lifted the siege of Dostum's house.

Here is my analysis :

1. Akbar Bai established the Turkman Tribe council some time ago and hence announced his separation from Jonbish and political opposition to Dostum. Dostum was pissed at him and once tried to kill him but managed to burn Akbar Bai's house and beat his people.

2. Dostum had the option and power to teach Akbar Bai a lesson even in his hometown of Jowzjan. But instead he decided to attack Akbar Bai in the middle of Kabul city under the nose of Afghan government and ISAF. One has to ask why??? Aparently he wanted to signal to the government that he is not not afraid of anything and that he has enough power to create chaos in kabul, let alone the Northeran provinces. There were reports on Afghan TV, that he fearlessly stood high up at the roof of his house and was ranting at the commander of the Afghan police who was behind his door, tell them to leave or he will kill them.

3. The police cowardly left his house and told the media that this case will be sent to the Attorney General's Office. Now let's see what will Jabar Sabit (the Attorney General) will do in pursuing this case. I think once General Dostum leaves kabul to Jawzjan, no one will be able to do anything.

4. I heard some shocking informal reports of what he actually did to Akbar Bai and his family. It seems that he entered their house by force with around 50 fully armed militiamen and beat Akbar Bai's wife and son. Then he forcefully takes Akbar Bai to his own house and orders his men to rape him, reportedly using human and non-human tools (excuse the language, this is the best i could do).

5. A tragic story, but a clever one on Dostum's part. Choosing a target and doing this in the capital, far away from his power base. Who else would now have the guts to mess with him??? Definitely not the Afghan police. or Maybe Jabar Sabit. Lets see how things unfold in this drama.

6. Another report also said that aparently Latif Pedram was together with Dostum while all this happened.

BachiKabul

Returning to Afghanistan: Kabul Siege Underscores Warlord Threat To Rule Of Law:

More than 100 police or security officers, armed with assault rifles and machine guns, later surrounded Dostum's home in the Wazir Akbar Khan neighborhood of Kabul for several hours, while other officers took up positions on the roofs of nearby houses.

Police later lifted their siege, with Interior Ministry spokesman Zmarai Bashari saying security forces were referring the incident to prosecutors "as soon as possible" for possible legal action.

Both Bay and his bodyguard were reportedly freed and hospitalized.

The fiery Dostum's northern-based supporters have been at the heart of several violent clashes in the past year, although Dostum himself has generally maintained a low public profile.

Dostum has been accused by international groups of involvement in numerous human rights abuses dating back to Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s.

Bashari suggested to Radio Free Afghanistan that Dostum was under the influence of alcohol during his armed raid on Bay's house.

"General Dostum is still an Afghan government official, and you know that," Bashari said. "This was a criminal case and the Afghan Attorney-General's Office will follow the case with details to identify the guilty or the innocent and hand it over to the law."

In the US, it is often a little more complicated than merely arresting someone.

For example, would a US President not have to be impeached and removed from office before being arrested? What about other elected officials -- Senators and Congressman? What about appointed officials -- cabinet members, for example?

It will be interesting to see what happens when Washington's scandals, such as the Sibel Edmonds case, finally break -- what will be the exact process of bringing some of these government officials to justice?

Threat To Police

Speaking at a press conference in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif, Sayyed Nourallah, the acting leader of Dostum's political faction, the National Movement (Junbesh-e Milli), expressed surprise over the standoff at Dostum's house.

"Certainly we were not expecting that from security forces -- particularly from the Interior Ministry -- to surround the house of General Dostum in Kabul," Nourallah said. "[Dostum] holds a higher position than the interior minister in the government."

A spokesman for Dostum, Mohammad Alem Sayeh, insisted there was no truth to the accusations against Dostum and warned of unrest if police tried to arrest him.

There's some truth to this warning about unrest. Dostum does still have a great many combat-experienced supporters.

Also, there is an ethnic aspect to this, as well. As another commentator on the forum explained it:

The exact situation of disintegration of Afghanistan during Najib. Today NATO and US are working to change the horse. Exactly the same thing Russian started to do. Najib did work hard do something in his last minutes of talk but all failed.

Please think of the scenario in a bigger prospect. Karzai as a head of one thug group cannot arrest another thug. This is just another step forward in the direction of disintegration. You need to celebrate or mourn the disintegration of the country on the basis of ethnicity and language.

Today the puppet thug regime publicly announces they are ready to deal and forgive all Pashtun criminals in Afghanistan including Taleban and Gulbuddin supporters in Afghanistan but they attempt to act against an Uzbek criminal.

Congratulation for such moves in the direction of disintegration. If Afghans cannot co-exist what is wrong to disintegrate?

Khaak

Returning to Afghanistan: Kabul Siege Underscores Warlord Threat To Rule Of Law:

"If General Dostum is surrounded and anyone touches even one hair on Dostum's head, they must know that seven or eight northern provinces will turn against the government," Radio Free Afghanistan quoted Sayeh as saying.

Indeed!

In May, protests staged by his supporters against a controversial governor of the northern province of Jowzjan turned violent, leaving at least 10 people dead. Around the same time, armed Dostum supporters clashed with authorities in Faryab Province, forcing Kabul to send in troops to quell the violence. Provincial authorities in Jowzjan have accused his National Movement (Junbesh-e Milli) of rearming its supporters in the north.

In the context of Dostum's most recent scrape with authorities, the attack on Bay and his entourage, Afghan National Assembly member Shukaria Barkzay warned Radio Free Afghanistan that impunity represents one of the country's greatest challenges.

"The non-implementation of the law is one of [Afghanistan's] key problems, and this culture of immunity for any politically powerful people -- whether they have legal authority or not -- leads to their impunity," Barkzay said. He stressed that the problem extends to more than "one specific group" and cited public complaints regarding "several groups."

"Government officials are taking all these decisions about public trust, while the Afghan people want justice," Barkzay said.

As the forum commentator Khaak continues in the next comment:

Governance cannot be achieved through vulgarity. Today Karzai has filled the key government posts with his thugs in the name of Pashtuns to replace Panjshiri thugs. That is not the solution to the problems Afghanistan is facing. Today even a child in Afghanistan won't be cheated.

The solution to the problem is the introduction of a national government in the context of secularism and democracy to replace the US and NATO version of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. National figures should be put in charge of affairs.

You poor guys are busy with Dostom but you remain lip tied that the puppet regime ministers were humiliated like vulgar dogs in the parliament because of their inactions toward the tragedies Afghans are facing in this cold winter.

The article concludes with some background on General Dostum:

Political Chameleon

Dostum is a former union boss in the gas and oil sector who rose to command ethnic Uzbek fighters backing communist forces after the Soviet occupation in 1979.

But his three kaleidoscopic decades as a militia leader have been marked by many short-lived -- and frequently contradictory -- alliances.

In 1997, after unsuccessfully challenging Taliban forces in the capital, Dostum was forced to flee his stronghold around Mazar-e Sharif to live abroad. He reemerged to back the U.S.-led attacks to oust the Taliban regime in 2001, returning to the area to reclaim control of large swaths of northern Afghanistan.

Dostum placed fourth among the 18 names on the presidential ballot in October 2004 with 10 percent of the vote.

The next year, Dostum was named by the Karzai administration as its "Afghan Army chief command" in a move generally regarded as an effort to avoid friction ahead of key parliamentary and provincial elections in September 2005.

A security adviser to Karzai under the former Transitional Administration, Dostum has long wielded major influence in some northern provinces and consistently chafed at central authority out of Kabul.

Genesis, Part 11

We continue our review of the rise to power of the Taliban, as seen through US Government cable traffic.

With this post, we begin a review of another series of declassified documents from the State Department.



This is a cable dated 29 Jan 95, subject: NORTHERN AFGHAN STRONGMAN GENERAL DOSTAM MEETS TALIBAN REPRESENTATIVES

1. CONFIDENTIAL -- ENTIRE TEXT.

2. [redacted] RECENTLY TOLD POLOFF OF A REPORTED MEETING BETWEEN GENERAL ABDUR-RASHID DOSTAM AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TALIBEN IN MAZAR-I-SHARIF. [redacted] SAID SEVERAL TALIBS, ACCOMPANIED BY TWO UNIDENTIFIED PAKISTANIS, CALLED ON GENERAL DOSTAM IN EARLY DECEMBER. [redacted] WHO SAID HIS GOVERNMENT HAS EXCELLENT SOURCES WITHIN THE DOSTAM CAMP, REPORTED THAT THE GIST OF THE MEETING WAS THAT DOSTAM WAS TOLD THAT THE TALIBAN HAD NO TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS IN THE NORTH AND THAT DOSTAM SHOULD NOT OPPOSED THEM. SHOULD THE RELIGIOUS STUDENTS SUCCEED IN OPENING THE KANDAHAR-KABUL ROAD, THEIR STATED INTENT WAS TO DECLARE KABUL AN OPEN CITY. IN THAT EVEN, DOSTAM WAS ASKED TO AGREE TO OPEN THE SALANG TUNNEL AND NORTHERN ROAD, AND TO ENSURE THAT HEKMATYAR DOES NOT SEIZE THE CAPITAL.

Detouring to a page on Afghanistan's mountains for some background (I fixed two typos):

Mountains dominate the landscape, forming a terrigenous skeleton, traversing the center of the country, running generally in a northeast-southwest direction. More than 49 percent of the total land area lies above 2,000 meters. Although geographers differ on the division of these mountains into systems, they agree that the Hindu Kush system, the most important, is the westernmost extension of the Pamir Mountains, the Karakorum Mountains, and the Himalayas.

[snip]

Numerous high passes (kotal) transect the mountains, forming a strategically important network for the transit of caravans. The most important mountain pass is the Kotal-e Salang (3,878 meters); it links Kabul and points south to northern Afghanistan. The completion of a tunnel within this pass in 1964 reduced travel time between Kabul and the north to a few hours. Previously access to the north through the Kotal-e Shibar (3,260 meters) took three days. The Salang Tunnel at 3363 meters and the extensive network of galleries on the approach roads were constructed with Soviet financial and technological assistance and involved drilling 1.7 miles through the heart of the Hindukush.

Before the Salang road was constructed, the most famous passes in the Western historical perceptions of Afghanistan were those leading to the Indian subcontinent. They include the Khyber Pass (1,027 meters), in Pakistan, and the Kotal-e Lataband (2,499 meters) east of Kabul, which was superseded in 1960 by a road constructed within the Kabul River's most spectacular gorge, the Tang-e Gharu. This remarkable engineering feat completed in 1960 reduced travel time between Kabul and the Pakistan border from two days to a few hours.

The roads through the Salang and Tang-e Gharu passes played critical strategic roles during the recent conflicts and were used extensively by heavy military vehicles. Consequently these roads are in very bad repair. Many bombed out bridges have been repaired, but numbers of the larger structures remain broken. Periodic closures due to conflicts in the area seriously affect the economy and well-being of many regions, for these are major routes carrying commercial trade, emergency relief and reconstruction assistance supplies destined for all parts of the country.

The Salang Tunnel "represents a major north-south connection in Afghanistan, cutting travel from 72 hours to 10 hours and saving about 300 km." From 1964, when it was opened, it was for about nine years the highest road tunnel in the world, reaching an elevation of roughly 11,100 feet.

For some more background on the Salang Tunnel, these two articles provide captivating history: Inside the Salang Tunnel and Eyewitness: Crumbling Afghan lifeline. For some short blurbs with photos, see Tunnel Provides Opportunities for Truckers and Opening the Salang Tunnel. For some pictures, see The Salang Tunnel.

This is a great photo -- a tunnel on the top of the world! This is really breathtaking scenery.

Meanwhile, knowing this little bit about the Salang Tunnel, why would it be important for the Taliban in 1995 to open it, assuming the Taliban could open the Kandahar-Kabul Road?

Returning now to our State Department cable:

3. [redacted] SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED POLOFF WITH A SIMILAR READ-OUT ON THE TALIBAN-DOSTAM MEETING IN MAZAR. THE [redacted] ADDED THAT DURING THE DOSTAM'S VISIT TO ISLAMABAD IN DECEMBER, PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS REPORTEDLY HAD TOLD DOSTAM NOT TO CONSIDER AN ALLIANCE WITH AHMED SHAH MASOOD, AND TO INSTEAD MAINTAIN HIS LINKS WITH HEKMATYAR. UNSPECIFIED SENIOR PAKISTAN OFFICIALS TOLD DOSTAM, [redacted] ALLEGED, THAT "HE NEED NOT WORRY ABOUT THE TALIBAN, BECAUSE PAKISTAN CAN TAKE CARE OF THEM." DOSTAM WAS REPORTEDLY ASKED TO AGREE, IN THE EVENT THE TALIBAN OPENED THE KANDAHAR-KABUL ROAD, TO OPEN THE NORTHERN SALANG ROAD, WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS "VITAL" TO PAKISTAN'S PLANNED CENTRAL ASIAN TRADE. IN RETURN, [redacted] CLAIMED, PAKISTAN AGREED TO CONTINUE ITS LIMITED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DOSTAM. [redacted] TOLD POLOFF JANUARY 24 THAT SOURCES IN MAZAR-I-SHARIF SHARED [redacted] GIST OF DOSTAM'S MEETINGS WITH PAKISTANI OFFICIALS IN ISLAMABAD, AND ADDED THAT DOSTAM HAD REPORTEDLY AGREED TO THE ALLEGED PAKISTANI REQUESTS.

Pakistani government officials said "He need not worry about the Taliban, because Pakistan can take care of them." And, there was a reference to the Salang Road being "'vital' to Pakistan's planned Central Asian trade."

As we surmised from the beginning -- someone in Pakistan wanted to open the road north to Central Asia, through Afghanistan, and got behind the Taliban as the most likely candidate to be able to achieve that.

Libel Terrorism Protection Act Press Release

I am quoting a press release that was forwarded to me in the email. If I am misquoting something, my apologies and someone please set the record straight. You can leave a comment for everyone to see.

Press release Contacts:

Dean G. Skelos, New York State Senate, 9th District

Tom Dunham 518-455-3171 (Sen. Skelos)

Rory I .Lancman, New York State Assembly, 25TH District

Peter Flintoft 718-820-0241 (Assm. Lancman)

FRESH MEADOWS, NY (January 14, 2008) – Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) introduced the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" ( S.6687/A.9652) on the front steps of The New York Public Library yesterday (the entire press conference is viewable here: (Part 1, Part 2).

The legislation will protect American authors and journalists from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights. Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Lancman were joined by Senator Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn), noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney, and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York author who was sued for libel in Britain by a Saudi businessman whom she identified in her book "Funding Evil – How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.

Senator Skelos, Senator Golden, Assemblyman Lancman -- these three are trying to do something to protect our freedom of speech and of the press from Libel Terrorism. Dr. Ehrenfeld is a hero, for sure, but in this case she is also the instrument -- in addition to the support and appreciation we give Dr. Ehrenfeld, we need to applaud Senator Skelos, Senator Golden and Assemblyman Lancman.

Let's cross party lines and help these three, and let's remember their efforts when they are up for re-election. This is not about political party, it is about doing the right thing, and we need to cross party lines to support those public servants who are trying to do the right thing instead of the easy thing.

In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held last month that it would not protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, as well as apologize and destroy existing copies of her books.

Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order to protect her constitutional rights, but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications sending legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from foreign defamation judgments, which contradict the U.S. First Amendment rights. "When American journalists and authors can be hauled into kangaroo courts on phony-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press, all of us are threatened and our war effort is weakened," said Lancman. "This legislation will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," said Lancman.

"but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications sending legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America"

Shockwaves throughout newsrooms! ROFL!!

Those irrelevant feel-good MSM "opinion-makers" are the ones who are supposed to be fighting this battle, and they don't even know where the hell it is!

At least Assemblyman Lancman has a clue. Way to go, Assemblyman Lancman!

"The ability to expose the truth about international terrorist activities is critically-important to the global war on terror," said Senator Skelos. "These foreign courts are trampling the First Amendment protections guaranteed to American writers and journalists by our Constitution and this legislation will ensure that they cannot infringe upon our freedom," said Senator Skelos.

Exactly. If we aren't allowed to tell the truth about it, then the terrorists win.

Keep in mind that under Islamic law, dhimmis are not allowed to have weapons; obviously, much less are they allowed to have free speech and a free press.

That's why His Worshipfulness, Financier of Holy Terror, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, is investing his time and money battling people like Dr. Ehrenfeld.

Bin Mahfouz should be investing his time and money building industry in his little Kingdom, so when their desert runs out of oil, these people will have something to sustain themselves.

Instead, the jihad rages on, and bin Mahfouz tries to trample the freedom of infidels. That's his contribution to Wahhabi hatred -- destruction of the rights of those who seek to be free, so they can feel themselves subdued as good dhimmis, and are unable to defend themselves.

Way to go, Senator Skelos!

"Under the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, writers and journalists would have foreign defamation suits declared unenforceable in New York unless the foreign law provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under our Constitution. In effect, we are giving New Yorkers a chance to have their fair day in court," said Senator Golden.

The way it should read is that such a civil suit from a foreign court is flat-out unenforceable in the United States -- or at least in New York, as these are New York legislators. If you want to collect on a libel lawsuit in territories subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then file and win your lawsuit in a U.S. court -- plain and simple.

Still, though, way to go Senator Golden!



Photo Libel Terrorism Protection Picture 1 (from left to right): Senator Martin Golden, Floyd Abrams, Assemblyman Rory Lancman, Senator Dean Skelos and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld. (Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney, is behind, in the hat.)



Photo Libel Terrorism Protection Picture 2 (from left to right): Senator Martin Golden, Assemblyman Rory Lancman, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, and Senator Dean Skelos. (BTW: That's a beautiful scarf, Dr. E! A nice, cheerful shade of blue, eye-catching but not overwhelming.)



Photo Libel Terrorism Protection Picture 3 (from left to right): front row is Senator Martin Golden, Senator Dean Skelos, Assemblyman Rory Lancman, and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld; back row is Floyd Abrams and (in the hat) Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney.

Here are the URL's so you can see the press conference:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xeHeOAOeYBA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jsiEBdDlmYw

Visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website to learn more about this bill (including how to contact these legislators) and about the case, and to make a fully tax-deductible contribution to the legal counterjihad.

UK: Polygamist Muslim Men Receive the Jizya

A major slide downhill for the United Kingdom....

Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits is reproduced here in its entirety, with my comments:

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

Just another (big) step in the wrong direction for the UK.

See Islamic Imperialism 102 and Dysfunctional Religion, Dysfunctional Families: Dysfunctional Society for some thoughts on what impact polygamy has on Islamic society.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

What do you want to bet the decision won't benefit Muslim women?

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

To say the least!

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

The important thing is that the dhimmis are supporting their Muslim overlords. Later, the Muslim men can get more demanding, and insist that the amount increase -- payable to the male head of household, of course.

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.

We saw that coming.

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

And those millions of pounds will be paid until the citizens of the UK feel themselves subdued -- it's the second part of the infamous triple choice!

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.

I wonder why they didn't announce it publicly?

Surely they weren't ashamed of their efforts to be more inclusive and tolerant?

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Polygamy is also now punishable by forcing the offending Muslim male to receive free government money, proportional to the number of extra wives he has!

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

I wonder if there is any requirement for quality of time spent, or just for quantity?

For example, if the husband spends twenty minutes beating one wife, and twenty minutes sexually assaulting another, is the requirement met? Both kinds of conduct can be justified with Islamic texts!

A DWP spokesman claimed that the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain had fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which "generally prevents a man from bringing a second or subsequent wife with him to this country if another woman is already living as his wife in the UK".

The immigration rate for guys with multiple wives has been going down.

What do you want to bet that statistic turns around now?

While a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.

And there is now greater incentive to do so!

In fact, now there is an incentive to bring in women to whom the man is not married -- he might be able to find a way to claim them and get more money!

In addition, officials have identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.

So, he could have his four Islamic wives, but only have one of them recognized under British law.

"Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."

I wonder what dhimmi put that clause in?

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."

To say the least!

Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial.

They should be proud of that! That puts the UK Government at the front of the line groveling before their new overlords!

An excerpt from The Jizyah Tax (one typo cleaned up):

Differences of taxation demonstrate distinctions in citizenship. As a symbol of subjection, it signifies that the state is not really the common property of all its permanent residents, but only the Muslims. The non-Muslims are conquered outsiders. It demonstrates their inferior condition. It also punishes them for their disbelief in Islam. Islamic law makes it very clear that the Jizyah is punitive in character. Further, it is levied with humiliation. Hence, it is in no way comparable to Western tax systems. Even progressive taxation is not a 'punishment' for economic success, nor is any tax specifically humiliating in character.

This illustrates that essentially, in an Islamic State, the non-Muslims are in a worse situation than prisoners out on parole, since they are still being punished – they are not considered 'good, law-abiding citizens' however exemplary their conduct, but rather criminals given day-leave. Their crime is their faith.

[snip]

Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could the situation of non-Muslims under Islamic law be seen as one conferring equal citizenship, whatever Muslim apologists claim. Similarly, only a leap of fantasy could ever believe that such a situation is one that non-Muslims would welcome. The honour, dignity, equality and even the lives of non-Muslims are by no means guaranteed under Islamic law. The Jizyah tax in particular demonstrates the constitutional inferiority and humiliation such a legal arrangement confers.

And paying your Muslim overlords to break your society's laws certainly meets the requirement in my opinion.

This begins a new label: Britain.

"Ta!" for now, chaps!

________________
Feb 3 update:

A commentator sent me an email with the following statement:

BTW if you'll forgive a hint about style, as you're starting a 'British' section, we Brits don't take kindly to being sneered at - especially when we're in the wrong!

I'm not sneering at you! I'm laughing at you!! There's a difference.

Your government is almost as bad as ours.

No wonder we started a revolution!

Phoenix, Part 8

An article that appeared late in 2001, reproduced here in its entirety:

FBI ignored attack warning
Flight instructor told agency of terror suspect's plan
Philip Shenon, New York Times

Saturday, December 22, 2001

(12-22) 04:00 PST Washington -- An instructor at a Minnesota flight school warned the FBI in August of his suspicion that a student who was later identified as a part of Osama bin Laden's terror network might be planning to use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon, a member of Congress and other officials said yesterday.

The officials, who were briefed by the school, said the instructor warned the FBI in urgent tones about the terrorist threat posed by the student, Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui, a French citizen of Morrocan descent, was indicted last week on charges of conspiring in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Rep. James L. Oberstar of Minnesota, who received the briefing and is the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, said the instructor called the bureau several times to find someone in authority who seemed willing to act on the information.

Oberstar said the instructor's warnings could not have been more blunt. The representative said, "He told them, 'Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?"'

Oberstar described the instructor as "an American hero" whose actions resulted in Moussaoui's arrest and might have prevented another suicide hijacking.

Congressional officials said the account by the school, the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, outside Minneapolis, raised new questions about why the FBI and other agencies did not prevent the hijackings.

Officials said the Arizona branch of the school alerted the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this year after finding that a student spoke little English. The Saudi student, Hani Hanjour, has been described as being at the controls of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

The instructor in Minnesota has not been identified. But congressional officials said he was a former military pilot who grew suspicious after encounters in which Moussaoui was belligerent and evasive about his background and because he was so adamant about learning to fly a 747 jumbo jet despite his clear incompetence as a pilot.

Moussaoui, 33, was arrested in August on immigration charges. But despite the urging of the school and federal agents in Minnesota and despite a warning from the French that Moussaoui was linked to Muslim extremists, FBI headquarters resisted opening a broader investigation until after Sept. 11. Last week, he became the first person indicted for involvement in the events of Sept. 11, charged with conspiring with bin Laden and al Qaeda. Moussaoui faces the death penalty.

Some federal law enforcement agents said they believed that Moussaoui was intended to be the 20th hijacker.

This article appeared on page A - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Rep. James L. Oberstar of Minnesota ... said the instructor called the bureau several times to find someone in authority who seemed willing to act on the information.

President George W. Bush in NSPD-1, quoted in Phoenix, Part 7:

The NSC shall meet at my direction. When I am absent from a meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may preside. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall be responsible, at my direction and in consultation with the other regular attendees of the NSC, for determining the agenda, ensuring that necessary papers are prepared, and recording NSC actions and Presidential decisions.

Oberstar said the instructor's warnings could not have been more blunt. The representative said, "He told them, 'Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?"'

Then-Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Condoleeza Rice to the Press in May, 2002, as quoted in Phoenix, Part 2 and Phoenix, Part 7:

I don't think anybody could have predicted that these same people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, taken another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.

Phoenix, Part 7

We pick up where we left off in Part 6.

First, we examine the text of NSPD-1

The White House
Washington

February 13, 2001

[snip]

This document is the first in a series of National Security Presidential Directives. National Security Presidential Directives shall replace both Presidential Decision Directives and Presidential Review Directives as an instrument for communicating presidential decisions about the national security policies of the United States.

National security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe. National security also depends on America's opportunity to prosper in the world economy. The National Security Act of 1947, as amended, established the National Security Council to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. That remains its purpose. The NSC shall advise and assist me in integrating all aspects of national security policy as it affects the United States - domestic, foreign, military, intelligence, and economics (in conjunction with the National Economic Council (NEC)). The National Security Council system is a process to coordinate executive departments and agencies in the effective development and implementation of those national security policies.

[snip]

The NSC shall meet at my direction. When I am absent from a meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may preside. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall be responsible, at my direction and in consultation with the other regular attendees of the NSC, for determining the agenda, ensuring that necessary papers are prepared, and recording NSC actions and Presidential decisions.

Very shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush modified the way the National Security Council conducted business. In addition to specifying that the NSC should meet at his discretion, he made the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs -- his National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice -- responsible for determining the agenda.

With that in mind, we continue reviewing declassified documents from the summer of 2001. These documents were declassified during the Moussaoui trial, and can be found archived in federal court records. As I present images of these documents, they have a defense exhibit number, and it is by that number that they can be located at the link.

In Defense Exhibit 538F, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was quoted in the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activies Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 report (the "JICI Report", December 20, 2002) as having testified:

I don't recall being presented with any specific threat information about an attack of this nature [the use of aircraft as weapons] or any alert highlighting this threat or indicating it was any more likely than any other.

Well, okay; he didn't recall.

But then we have the testimony of then-Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz:

I don't recall any warning of the possibility of a mass casualty attack using civilian airliners or any information that would have led us to contemplate the possibility of our shooting down a civilian airliner.

Okay, again: somebody didn't recall.

Then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated in a May, 2002, press briefing:

I don't think anybody could have predicted that these same people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, taken another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.

But, of course, that wasn't true, was it?

As we went on to show reviewing Defense Exhibit 538F in Part 2, the intelligence community had in the previous seven years been aware of at least twelve such plots, including one specifically targeting the World Trade Center!

In fact, in Part 5, we saw how in the summer of 2001 the FBI was interested in warning the Secret Service, presumably because of the danger of a kamikaze-style attack by Al Qaeda, given that a guy connected with Al Qaeda was trying to learn how to fly a 747, even though this guy was not a pilot.

So, in the final days of August, 2001, the following information was being briefed at high-level meetings in Washington, D.C.:



















They had at least since February of that year, when Bush put Rice in charge of the meetings of the NSC, to hear about these other plots by Islamic terrorists to crash hijacked planes into targets.

And, as we see here, a man associated with Islamic extremists and Osama bin Laden was learning how to fly 747's, even though he had no corresponding background in aviation -- and this fact was being briefed in Washington in the days preceding 9/11.

But somehow, we are expected to believe, this information was not making it to the National Security Council.

Well, who was setting the agenda for the NSC's meetings? And, this person was doing so at the discretion of whom?

The answers, of course, are: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, doing so at the discretion of President George W. Bush.