Gilad Shalit Prisoner Swap

Israel's deal with Palestinians to release kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, held for five years by Hamas, demonstrates the lengths the Jewish state will go to take care of its service members.

His release by the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a prisoner swap that ultimately will include the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. A total of 477 prisoners were freed Tuesday, after Shalit was returned to Israel.

Over a thousand prisoners released to free one soldier, including hundreds of terrorists who will probably kill more Israelis. Not everyone in Israel is happy.

Shalit’s father, Noam, appeared Monday before the Israeli Supreme Court, where he came face to face with relatives of victims of terrorist attacks who oppose the deal. Several relatives filed motions urging the court to annul the deal, and according to Israeli news reports, some angrily confronted the soldier’s father.

I understand how they feel. I'd have a pretty hard time supporting such a one-sided deal. According to the article, Hamas is celebrating the agreement as a great victory, for good reason. Kidnapping Shalit worked out really well for them. Plus, they now know that if they need to spring a bunch of their people from Israeli jails, they just need to kidnap another Israeli soldier.

Obama's War on Al Qaeda

With the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (along with a bonus terrorist), I once again have to give President Obama credit for taking decisive, effective action against Al Qaeda. As much as I dislike the president, and think he's an naive incompetent when it comes to foreign policy in general, I have to admit that he has pursued our war with Al Qaeda with every bit as much ferocity as his predecessor. If anything, he has expanded our global reach, and has demonstrated that there are few safe havens for terrorist enemies of the U.S. -- especially leaders like al-Awlaki.

Back in 2009 I wrote a series of posts giving my opinion on things I thought we should be doing to prosecute our war against radical Islamic terrorists. In the concluding post I said,

The U.S. needs to start instilling some terror of our own in our enemies. The current fear faced by Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region -- that they could be killed at any minute by a drone strike -- should be extended to terrorist enemies across the globe. Rather than fear arrest, every member of an Islamic terror organization, their supporters, and the radical Islamic clerics who cheer them on, should be made to live their lives waiting for a bullet in the head from a U.S.-directed assassin.

I also wrote,

there is little hope that anything I've suggested will be done by the current administration

Clearly I was wrong. The President has actually done some of what I advocated in the passage above. His establishment of drone bases gives us the means to strike at terrorists in various areas. More importantly, he has not allowed U.S. striking power to be crippled by the blind legalism of terrorist rights supporters. All the bases and drones in the world are useless without the will to send them into action. Unlike some -- including a minority on the right -- the president appears to be able to tell the difference between terrorist enemies who should be eliminated, and criminals subject to the legal system. In the case of al-Awlaki, he rightly decided that in this special case, American citizenship should not shield someone who is openly recruiting terrorists to strike America.

I'm a Republican partisan and I don't want to see Obama get re-elected. But it my opinion it is intellectually dishonest for Republicans to pretend that the president is somehow soft on terrorism, at least as it applies to operations against Al Qaeda and its affiliates worldwide. The evidence says that he isn't, and he should get credit for the things he does right, even from political opponents.

Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

We've been hunting Anwar al-Awlaki for quite some time and it appears that we finally got him. Details are unclear, but several news sources are reporting that he was killed in a drone strike. Naturally terrorist rights supporters are unhappy. I wrote about al-Awlaki and the ridiculous arguments of those claiming that he deserved "due process," a year ago in my post "Kill Anwar al-Awlaki."

Not So Secret Drone Bases

The Washington Post has a front-page story about a "ring" of supposedly secret drone bases, apparently oblivious to the fact that if they are a featured story in the paper, they are hardly all that secret anymore. These bases, a critical part of our worldwide counterterrorism efforts, have been exposed by our enemy Wikileaks, as part of its release of stolen diplomatic cables.

As I've pointed out before, Wikileaks has already done far more damage to the U.S. than most terrorists can dream of, and this is just the latest example. Al Qaeda doesn't need intelligence operatives in the U.S. conducting espionage to uncover details about U.S. counterterrorism efforts. It has Wikileaks to do it for them. The exposure of these secrets might make for interesting reading, but that damage to U.S. interests is real and significant. The Post covers the situation with Seychelles.

The government of Seychelles agreed to host U.S. drones and to keep their counterterrorism mission secret, using a cover story that they were there for anti-piracy operations. The U.S. told Seychelles that the drones would be unarmed.

During a meeting with Seychelles President James Michel on Sept. 18, 2009, American diplomats said the U.S. government “would seek discrete [sic], specific discussions . . . to gain approval” to arm the Reapers “should the desire to do so ever arise,” according to a cable summarizing the meeting. Michel concurred, but asked U.S. officials to approach him exclusively for permission “and not anyone else” in his government ... Michel’s chief deputy told a U.S. diplomat on a separate occasion that the Seychelles president “was not philosophically against” arming the drones, according to another cable. But the deputy urged the Americans “to be extremely careful in raising the issue with anyone in the Government outside of the President. Such a request would be ‘politically extremely sensitive’ and would have to be handled with ‘the utmost discreet care.’ ”

Here you see that the U.S. made a secret agreement with the president to cut out the rest of his government. In order to conduct these type of operations we need to make agreements with various countries that involve these sorts of back-door dealings, because of domestic political consideration in the states hosting our drones. How much harder will it be to obtain bases now that everyone knows that the U.S. is unable to keep even sensitive diplomatic correspondence secret, and unwilling to take necessary actions to destroy a hostile organization that is stealing and publishing those secrets? If you were the president of some other nation approached by the U.S., would you make a similar agreement, knowing that the U.S. can't keep secrets?

Tenth Anniversary of 9/11

This blog has been in existence for two previous 9/11 anniversaries. In 2009 I wrote my "Thoughts on the Anniversary of 9/11." And last year I attacked the ridiculous notion that the U.S. overreacted to 9/11 in the post, "The U.S. Did Not Overreact to 9/11." Reading back over my old posts, I think they still cover my thoughts today, on the tenth anniversary. Although I lived just twenty miles from Manhattan at the time, I was lucky enough not to lose any friends or relatives during the attack. My wife's niece, who has always been like a daughter to her, was in Manhattan for business, but escaped unharmed. Even though it was ten years ago, I still remember that day vividly, and just how traumatic and devastating it was to America. Unfortunately, as I wrote before, I think many have forgotten, despite all the remembrances.

They've forgotten the reaction and mood of the country at the time, and the horror that gripped most people as they watched the news on television. They've forgotten the complete shutdown of the civilian air transport system and the fear of follow-up attacks. They've forgotten the resolve of most Americans that this time we had to strike back hard against terrorism, instead of just launching a few cruise missiles and going about our business. And they've forgotten the strong consensus that we should stop waiting around to be attacked, and instead eliminate threats before they reached the potential to cause another 9/11.

I think what I wrote above in 2009 applies to all too many people, particularly among pundits.

Good Debunking of Various Nonsense Regarding the Norway Terrorist Incident

If you've been reading the coverage and commentary regarding the terrorist attack in Norway, there is a must-read article at the Sultan Knish blog by Daniel Greenfield called, "Debunking 6 Myths About Anders Breivik." The myths in question, all about the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, are:

1. He was a fundamentalist Christian
2. He hated Muslims
3. He was inspired by counterjihad bloggers
4. He was pro-Israel
5. He was a moderate.
6. He was a political terrorist

I think point number two is splitting hairs, but the rest of the post serves as a useful counter to much of the nonsense that is being written about this incident.

The Shameless Hypocrisy of James Fallows

Liberal hack James Fallows of the Atlantic is all upset that some people jumped to conclusions in the wake of the Norway attack, assuming that it had to be radical Muslim terrorism.

this is a sobering reminder for those who think it's too tedious to reserve judgment about horrifying events rather than instantly turning them into talking points for pre-conceived views.

But here's Fallows right after the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, pushing the leftist smear that it had something to do with right-wing rhetoric in general, and Sarah Palin in particular.

"We don't know why the killer did what he did. If he is like Sirhan, we'll never 'understand.' But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be.

Apparently it was "legitimate" to pretend that the killer might have been influenced by a Sarah Palin campaign map which there's no evidence he ever saw, but not to jump to the obvious conclusion that radical Islamists might be behind a major terrorist attack. Fallows' credibility is sinking into the same territory of his fellow Atlantic writer Andrew Sullivan.

Nashiri Cole Bombing Trial

Abd al Rahim al Nashiri faces a military trial accused of bombing the U.S.S. Cole back in 2008. This case illustrates the difficulty inherent in trying to use normal legal rules -- even military court -- to deal with foreign terrorist enemies. Nashiri was waterboarded, held in a secret prison, and subjected to other harsh interrogation techniques, so naturally his lawyers say the case is "tainted." They know he isn't going free, but they argue to spare him the death penalty. Under normal legal rules the case is definitely tainted, as long as you forget that this man isn't an American citizen or a legal resident, but a foreign enemy that attacked a U.S. warship that wasn't even engaging in any warfare at the time. I give him credit for striking a military target instead of the usual preferred soft targets, but summary execution was still warranted for what he did.

Ideally Nashiri should have been quietly executed years ago, after we extracted all useful information, preferably by using rendition to send him someplace that would do it for us. But now, years later, putting him on trial is a farce.. After three years we are going to charge him with crimes and ask for the death penalty? There's no purpose to this trial. He's been sitting in jail since we captured him, and should continue to sit until he dies. The trial gives a veneer of legalism to our continued confinement of a dangerous Al Qaeda member. But it fools no one. People like me see it as unnecessary, and people who think Nashiri has rights are going to view it as a kangaroo court rubber-stamping a preordained outcome.

A Bizarre Mix of Counterterrorism & Legalism

The strange mixture of counterterrorism and legalism of the Obama administration is what jumped out at me when I read a Washington Post story about a Somali indicted on terrorism charges. Consider whether or not you'd expect these things to go together.

• The secret capture of a "terrorism suspect" in the Gulf of Aden
• Two months of daily or almost daily secret interrogations with no justice department involvement
  
• Suspect eventually advised of Miranda "rights" and "right" to legal representation
  
• Suspect flown secretly flown to New York and indicted by a federal grand jury on conspiracy charges.

Is this man an enemy or a criminal? The Obama administration doesn't know, and like most things, they want to have it both ways. They secretly capture and interrogate someone who has apparently committed no crime against the U.S., and then later go through the ridiculous farce of advising him of rights which he shouldn't even possess as a presumed hostile non-U.S. citizen. According to the article,

The nine-count indictment, ..., does not accuse Warsame of carrying out or plotting attacks against U.S. targets. It charges him with conspiracy and providing material support to two groups the United States considers terrorist organizations: al-Shabab, a militant Islamist group opposed to Somalia’s weak, U.S.-backed government, and Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Warsame is also accused of weapons offenses related to both alleged conspiracies; conspiracy to teach and demonstrate explosive-making; and receiving military training from AQAP.

This case raises many questions. How is a foreigner who assists some terrorist groups outside the U.S. somehow subject to U.S. laws and a reasonable subject of a U.S. indictment? On the one hand the Obama administration acts to neutralize someone they see as an enemy or potential enemy, but on the other it tries to cover the act with a veneer of legalism -- going so far as to manufacture an indictment. How are we able to charge people with crimes for simply being a part of some foreign terrorist group, when the person hasn't actually done anything against the U.S.? Does the existence of groups such as al-Shabab automatically cause anyone having anything to do with them to be engaged in a conspiracy under U.S. law? Why are we wasting time and money hauling some Somali to the U.S. for a trial? What purpose will this accomplish?

Terroristine

A must-read from Daniel Greenfield. Some excerpts:

There are states that support terrorists, and give safe harbor to them, but that's not good enough. We don't want another Pakistan or Iran. We're not half-assing it this time. What we want is the genuine article. Terrorists from the top down. Terrorists everywhere. A state where every branch of government and the entire country is nothing but terrorists.

AND

Why do we need Terroristine? Peace. There can be no peace without a terrorist state. Not a chance of it. The only way we'll ever have peace is to give the terrorists a country of their own. A country dedicated to terrorism. Only then will the Terroristinians finally give up on all the killing, and dedicate themselves to medical research, quantum physics and the arts. It hasn't happened yet to. But it's bound to.

AND

We know the Terroristinians want their own state. Every time they walk out of negotiations or end them with a round of terrorist attacks, it shows their deep and abiding passion for a state. They want it so badly they aren't willing to make a single concession for it. So committed are they to Terroristine. And who can blame them?

Credit Where It Is Due

I've been a harsh critic of President Obama. Anyone reading this blog for any length of time knows that I think he's a weak leader, clueless on foreign policy, and a big government liberal Democrat here at home. But one area where I haven't had much criticism of the president is in his handling of the war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. In fact, I've noted before that attacks on Obama as soft on terrorism are ridiculous and don't match the evidence.

Although the president has given lip service to the ideas of terrorist rights supporters, and has made some cosmetic changes to our policies, for the most part he has continued the post-9/11 war on terror measures of the Bush administration. Unlike other foreign policy actions, such as Libya, where he foolishly tied the U.S. to a UN resolution, he has not crippled U.S. war efforts against Al Qaeda. He has ignored bleating about international law when it conflicted with American interests regarding targeting terrorists. He even expanded the drone assassination program, despite opposition from his own political base. The killing of Osama bin Laden is a prime example of how the president has taken a hard-edged approach to dealing with foreign terrorists -- as long as they are at large.

Obama ordered a U.S. kill team into Pakistan, violating Pakistani sovereignty. There was no order to capture bin Laden, and bring him back for trial as if he were a criminal. Instead the president ordered his execution without any legal niceties, treating him as the enemy he was. This action was exactly the type of response to terrorist enemies that is in America's interest. It sends a clear message to other terrorist leaders, and those who harbor them. We aren't going to try to arrest you. And the borders of the place you are hiding aren't going to protect you. We are going to kill you, even if it takes ten years to find you. Regardless of what you think of President Obama, he deserves credit for taking decisive action to eliminate one of the greatest enemies of the U.S.

I might also note that this operation was carried out in secret. There were no leaks to compromise it. The administration deserves significant credit for that alone. There has been far too little secrecy lately, and secrecy is critical to effective covert action.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Get No Trial At All

It's been pretty funny watching the whining and sniveling of terrorist rights supporters upset that President Obama is going to use a military tribunal to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Most of those criticizing the decision do so with various false assertions based on false assumptions. Let's take the New York Times editorial today as an example.

How fitting it would have been to put the plot’s architect on trial a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, to force him to submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers, to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow fear of terrorism to alter our rule of law.

It would demonstrate to the world that we are stupid enough to provide a huge forum for an orgy of anti-Americanism under the guise of the so-called "rule of law." I've found as a general rule, whenever anyone makes serious use of the phrase "rule of law," the odds are that it will be preceded or followed by utter nonsense.

But, apparently, there are many who continue to cower, who view terrorists as much more fearsome than homegrown American mass murderers and the American civilian jury system as too “soft” to impose needed justice.

This assertion, and just about the entire op-ed is a typical strawman. The primary reason people oppose civilian trials for foreign terrorists is that foreign terrorists are not entitled to the protections of U.S. civil law. In my opinion, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed does not require a trial of any kind. KSM is a leader of an enemy terrorist organization with which we are still at war. He was captured back in 2003. The last I checked it is now 2011. He hasn't had a trial, and he still doesn't need one. We can hold him forever if we so choose. Al Qaeda as an organization, and its members are completely outside the law [unless they happen to be U.S. citizens, in which case they should be treated as such]. They follow no rules, haven't signed any international agreements, and there are no clear guidelines for how to deal with captured members. Rather than tying our own hands, and providing our enemies with unearned and undeserved rights, we should retain as wide a latitude as possible in dealing with foreign terrorists.

Even going through the motions of a military trial for KSM is a gigantic waste of time. There's no question about his identity, his leadership role in Al Qaeda, and his involvement in 9/11. Even former administration spokesman Robert Gibbs talked about KSM's conviction and execution as a foregone conclusion. The U.S. isn't going to release him under any circumstances, regardless of what happens at a trial, civilian or military. He is essentially under a suspended death sentence already -- as he should be. Ideally he should already be dead. After we extracted all useful information, he should have faced summary execution. But since we didn't do that, and he's now been sitting in prison for eight years, it might be more appropriate to just let him rot.

As I've argued many times on this blog, the blind legalism of terrorist rights supporters, and their attempt to debase the rights of U.S. citizens by awarding them to foreign enemies, is far more dangerous to the U.S. than any treatment we might meet out to someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Rather than extending this post further, I'll just link to my two part post "No Rights for Hostile Aliens."

Bigotry Against White Supremacists

After the news today that Kevin William Harpham has been arrested in conjunction with a plot to detonate an explosive device along the route of a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day parade route in Spokane, I've seen quite a bit of bigotry directed at innocent white supremacists. As of now there's no evidence that Harpham was working with any sort of group. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center even points out that,

it is "extremely unlikely" the attempted bombing was carried out by a group. ..."What we see are lone wolf attacks," Potok said, possibly with one or two confederates.

The vast majority of white supremacists do not commit acts of terrorism. Sure they have an ideology that's out of the mainstream and repulsive to most Americans, but only a few of them actually resort to terrorist violence. We shouldn't jump to the conclusion that white supremacist ideology is connected to terrorism. That's horribly unfair to the majority of law-abiding white supremacists. Why should we single them out for surveillance and special attention just because of the actions of a few extremists?

Best Article I've Seen on the Peter King Hearings

Since Congressman Peter King (R-NY) announced that he wanted to hold hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims he's come under constant attack from the usual suspects, who scream "Islamophobia" whenever anyone points to any connection between radical Islamic terrorism and Islam. The Daily Caller has an excellent article about the situation called, "Radical Islamists condemn hearings into radical Islamists."

Congressman King is holding hearings on the radicalization of young American Muslims. This is considered selective prosecution if one ignores the fact that the profile being looked at by Congressman King belong to the people actually fitting that very profile.

As the article notes, since radical Muslim terrorism tends to be committed by Muslims, any investigation into it is naturally going to have to focus on the Muslim community. This sort of basic logic escapes the various useful idiots screaming about Islamophobia. The vast majority of the time you hear anyone using the made-up term of Islamophobia it's in an attempt to silence legitimate criticism of Islam and the actions of various Muslims. The Daily Caller hits the nail on the head on multiple points. The whole thing is worth reading.

UPDATE

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has another good column on this issue.

Fall of Middle Eastern Dictators Equals Victory for Al Qaeda?

That's the argument of former CIA man Michael Scheuer, who dismisses Western cheerleading and happy talk about the Middle Eastern revolutions as "self-defeating applause from the Facebook-obsessed, Twitter-addled West." He points out that along with the destroying Israel,

Since bin Laden declared war against the United States in 1996, al-Qaeda's main goals have included the destruction of the Arab world's tyrannies

The falls of these dictators, particularly in Egypt "amounts to an enormous strategic step forward for al-Qaeda," that comes with "virtually no investment of manpower or money by the terrorist network." As I've pointed out myself, the idea that these tyrannies are going to be replaced by liberal democracies is based primarily on wishful thinking.

the role of Islamist groups will become larger - and over time perhaps dominant - if only because the populations in play are almost entirely Muslim and because Islamist groups have the most effective nationwide infrastructures to replace the old guard. ... it will be easier for media-savvy Islamist groups - whether peaceful or militant - to proselytize, publish and foment without immediate threat of arrest and incarceration. ...

Scheuer also notes that large numbers of militant Islamists have now been released from prison.

In Egypt alone, the news media are reporting that at least 17,000 prisoners have been freed. Many of those released are not thieves and murderers, but Islamist firebrands that the regimes had jailed to protect their internal security ... al-Qaeda and like-minded groups are now being replenished by a steady flow of pious, veteran mujaheddin, each of whom will never forget that U.S. and other Western funds helped keep them jailed by Arab tyrants.

Scheuer's argument is much more convincing and grounded in reality than the naivete and wishful thinking that prevails across most of the political spectrum in the West. I largely agree with him particularly in the case of Egypt. He is correct that these tyrants were doing much of our dirty work for us, killing and imprisoning radical Islamists while keeing a lid tamped down on broad-based popular Islamism. Where his argument is weakest, in my opinion, is that he generalizes across multiple countries. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia are not the same, and sharply different conditions prevail. Ultimately though, his analysis is just another prediction that we will have to wait on events to confirm or falsify. Hopefully he's wrong. But I fear he will be more accurate than not.

God Isn't Great

I know I'm hardly the first person to point this out. Christopher Hitchens wrote an entire book about it. But it's worth reiterating again in the wake of yet another set of killings by a fanatical Muslim.

A gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar" opened fire on a bus carrying U.S. airmen in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and wounding two others before his gun jammed and he was subdued, officials said.

Assuming that God even existed -- a gigantic assumption -- the Islamic version, like the others, certainly doesn't appear great at all. Why does he need murderous followers screaming "God is great" all the time? If he really was great, wouldn't it be obvious? How does this type of attack demonstrate his greatness? Why is God too weak to destroy the infidels himself? Shouldn't he be able to make the entire U.S. military drop dead just by willing it to happen? It appears that he's even too weak to prevent an inopportune gun jam.

On the other hand, maybe he's really upset that radicals are perverting his religion of peace -- as some would have you believe. But it seems he's just not strong enough to do anything about that either. All these people running around killing people shouting his name and claiming he's great are giving him and his religion a bad reputation. Couldn't he at least rein them in a bit? Maybe the gun could have jammed before two people were killed and two wounded? Is that really too much to ask from a great God?

TSA Internal Security vs. Aggressive Intelligence Gathering

I haven't commented on the furor surrounding the latest TSA regulations. I no longer have to fly very often, and I don't have a problem going through the so-called naked scanners. But reading all the outrage brings me back to something I've written about before: the dynamic between offense and defense in counterterrorism.

One of the reasons I support aggressive offensive measures (which some find offensive) against terrorism, is that the alternative involves greater defensive efforts. Airport security is probably the most visible and annoying anti-terrorism defense. It's important to remember that the latest TSA regulations were put into place in the aftermath of failed terrorist plots. If you think the TSA is trampling on the rights of U.S. citizens now, imagine what is going to happen if there is a successful major terrorist attack. Counterterrorism involves a combination of offense and defense. But the more restrictions we place on our offensive efforts, most of which are conducted outside of our borders, the more we raise the chances that we will have to rely on greater defensive efforts. Defense means internal security. And internal security means infringing the rights of Americans with ever more intrusive regulations and inspections.

Those who argue in favor of giving rights to foreign terror suspects, placing all sorts of restrictions on intelligence agencies such as the CIA, and treating hostile non-state terrorists as common criminals are directly attacking the offensive side of our efforts to prevent a terror attack on the U.S. That's a great idea if you like more internal security and less freedom.

Dumbest Short Post I've Seen on the Ghailani Case

Over at the misnamed "Moderate Voice," there is a post up titled, "This Just In: Torture Still Doesn't Work. The System Still Does." Before get to the post itself, the title is an example of why I regularly post examples of torture working to extract accurate information. There are far too many ignoramuses like the author, Shaun Mullen, who not only believe that torture doesn't work but actually pretend that their uninformed belief is an established fact.

Mullen's main point is that the civilian criminal justice system worked just fine for trying a terrorist, because the government managed to get a conviction on a single count -- despite the horrible use of torture that damaged the case. As you might anticipate, this conclusion shows minimal logical reasoning ability.

Much of the crucial evidence against the U.S. embassy bomber had been thrown out because it was coerced through torture, a salient fact lost of Liz Cheney and other Bush Torture Regime apologists

How clueless do you have to be to even write this passage? First of all, there was no such thing as a "Bush Torture Regime," except in the minds of anti-American propagandists, Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers and their enablers. But more importantly, those opposing the use of civilian courts do so exactly because they oppose giving the rights of American citizens, including applying civilian evidentiary rules, to foreign enemies of the U.S. The fact that a known terrorist might have escaped conviction because evidence had to be excluded, strongly supports the arguments of those who oppose granting civilian trials to those for whom they were never intended, and who do not deserve the rights of American citizens. But Mullen is apparently just too clueless to grasp that concept.

Senator Lindsay Graham spoke for the torch-and-pitchfork brigade in bemoaning the Ghailani trial

“We put our nation at risk by criminalizing the war,” he said without a hint of irony.

That's because what he said wasn't at all ironic unless you choose to deliberately misinterpret his words. Pretending that foreign enemies of the U.S. are the same as common criminals, giving them the rights of U.S. citizens, and trying them in civilian court does indeed put our nation at risk. It creates the very real possibility that we will either have to let a known terrorist walk free, or utilize some sort of extra-legal procedures to keep an acquitted individual confined. For some reason that possibility doesn't seem to bother terrorist rights supporters.

The irony, of course is that the justice system isn’t broken, as the Grahams and Cheneys believe. Rather, the trial is proof that it works.

This is a strawman and a particularly dumb one at that. No one is claiming that the American legal system is broken. The argument is that the civilian legal system is not an appropriate venue for dealing with foreign terrorists. This trial proves nothing one way or the other. But the fact that the government was able to get a conviction on only a single count, is evidence that using the civilian court system might not be such a great idea. Just because we got lucky this time, and didn't have an acquittal based on thrown-out evidence, doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

The Juan Williams Political Correctness Firing

I was going to write more about this incident, but Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic, someone I often disagree with, has the best piece I've seen about it. As he calls it, "Juan Williams Fired by NPR For No Particular Reason." Williams made the fatal mistake of admitting that he gets nervous seeing Muslims on a plane, and that's essentially what got him fired. Here's Goldberg.

The first quotation reflects the views, I'm guessing, of the vast majority of people who fly in this country (and in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world, as well). With some regularity, Muslim men associated with radical Islamist organizations have been trying to kill American civilians, here and abroad. A group of 19 Muslim men succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in their mission nine years ago. The majority of Muslims abhor terrorism, and Muslims are the disproportionate victims of Muslim terror, but the essential truth remains that most of the world's spectacular terrorism today -- thwarted and achieved -- is committed by Muslims. Juan Williams misunderstands one crucial fact: Muslim terrorists who are attempting to commit acts of terror seldom if ever dress in "Muslim garb"; they dress, for obvious tactical reasons, in a manner meant to help them blend in with surroundings. So Williams is wrong, I think, to be particularly suspicious of traditionally-dressed Muslims. But is he wrong to worry about Islamist terrorism? Of course not.

Fear and nervousness as a reaction to seeing something are not the same as cool rational analysis. The reason many people instinctively associate Muslims with terrorism is not bigotry, it's because of the numerous terrorist acts and attempted acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. But Juan Williams should have known better than to dare admit that he shares this reaction to Muslims on a plane. When you work for a liberal outfit that puts a premium on political correctness you know that you have to censor yourself.  Free speech is not valued on the left at all, unless it is speech they agree with. Daring to offend groups the left panders to, which definitely includes Muslims, simply cannot be permitted.

Spreading a False Religion

I just saw a news story that caught my attention. It's only a snippet so the actual situation is unclear. An Australian citizen, Safaa Al Awadi, took part in some sort of religious debate on television. Whatever happened caused him to be arrested by Egyptian authorities, who accused him of being a terrorist and "spreading a false religion."

This is pure speculation, but I wonder if he was advocating violence/terrorism in the name of Islam, and that's what the "false religion" charge is all about. If so, he'll probably be sorry that he attracted the attention of the Egyptian state.