The war on terrorism

[piqaboo]

And if they loaded the explosive in a diaper?
s_itty-s_itty bang bang

[Shapley]

[Shapley]

US Consolate Attacked In NW Pakistan, 3 Killed

[Haggis@wk]

Cleanup on gate eleven
Sometimes the answer is right under our noses:

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at airports.
Have a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you.

It would be a win-win situation for everyone and would eliminate this crap about racial profiling. This method would also obviate the need for a long and expensive trial. Justice would be swift and quick.

This elegant solution would also benefit people flying standby:

I can just see it now: You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement comes over the PA system, "Attention standby passengers, we now have a seat available on flight number...."

[Haggis@wk]

PROF. ROBERT TURNER: Civilian terror trials are the violation.

” President Obama’s deadline for closing the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay expired 102 days ago, and Attorney General Eric Holder has now admitted that at least 40 detainees will be held indefinitely, without trial. Enough, already: It’s time to rescind the order, rule out any civilian trials — and explain to the world why holding the detainees at Gitmo is the right thing to do under the Law of Armed Conflict (which subsumes what was long known as the Laws of War).”

[Trumpetmaster]

Karachi airport stops man with circuits in shoes

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... tml?hpt=T2


He says he did not know the material was in his shoes....
I find that surprising.... IMHO....

[Shapley]

Karachi airport stops man with circuits in shoes

Curious. Maybe a test run to see what can get through security. Maybe another passenger had the rest of the components, or would have, if the test run was successful.

[Trumpetmaster]

Shapley,
You could be right.
Looks like they will stop at nothing to cause destruction throughout the world.
TM

[dai bread]

You're right, they won't.

While I grizzle about American-inspired airport security, I recognise the need for it and just wish the authorities would move to full body scanners and be done with it. I'm tired of being pulled out of line and screened so that officials can swear they're not profiling.

[Haggis@wk]

If you translate this AP story literally, and they would were it under Bush, the Federal government claims it has the right to kill American citizens if they believe you may be plotting to kill another American citizen. I guess if they think you're plotting to kill an illegal immigrant, it's a hate crime, and they take out your family, as well. Where are the morality fanatics on the Left when you need them?

ASPEN, Colo. (AP) -- A top counterterrorism official on Wednesday defended the government's right to target U.S. citizens perceived as terror threats for capture or killing, citing the example of the renegade al-Qaida-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, would not say whether al-Awlaki is on a U.S. targeting list, but a senior U.S. counterterrorism official has previously confirmed that the cleric is among terror targets sought to be captured or killed.

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, Leiter justified the targeting with "all elements of U.S. national power" those plotting to kill U.S. citizens.

The remarks amounted to a rare glimpse into the secret decision-making process among top U.S. counterterror officials who oversee drone missile strikes against suspected terrorists in Pakistan and other battle zones abroad.

[jamiebk]

Hummmmmmmmm....Minority Report?

[Haggis@wk]

In his most recent Impromptus column at NRO, Jay Nordlinger begins with a discussion of Gilad Shalit. Jay contrasts Shalit's treatment by Hamas with that of Khalid Sheik Mohammed by the United States at Guantanamo. Here is Nordlinger on KSM at Guantanamo:

Michael Mukasey was attorney general from November 2007 to January 2009. He remembers visiting Guantanamo Bay in February 2008. He looked at many of the high-value detainees on video monitors. But he did not see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Mohammed wasn't in his cell. He was off having a Red Cross visit.

Mukasey did see the exercise room, adjacent to Mohammed's cell. And he noticed something interesting: Mohammed had the same elliptical machine that he, the attorney general, had back home in his Washington apartment building. Only there was this difference: Mukasey had to share his, with other residents; there was a mad scramble in the morning to get to it. Mohammed had his machine all to himself.

Bear in mind that he was the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, which killed almost 3,000 people. That he was the beheader of Daniel Pearl. And so on. I wonder how much more tenderly America's critics expect us to treat such people. "Abdominal massages," of the type Al Gore apparently requests?

KSM is contemptuous of us because he thinks we are a bunch of idiots. I'm beginning to believe he's right.

[lliam]

A month ago, it was thought impossible. Two weeks ago, it seemed merely improbable. Now the idea of another decade in Afghanistan is a distinct prospect –with the cost in money and blood still rising.

Last week, David Cameron insisted he wanted British troops home by 2015 but also admitted they could be there longer to train Afghan police and soldiers. As long as they are there, however, British men and women are in danger. The latest fatality from the region is Marine David Hart, from York. Described as "a perfect Commando" by his commanding officer, he was killed on the eve of his 24th birthday while on foot patrol in the Sangin district of Helmand Province.

Our involvement could mean another decade spent trying to remake Afghanistan and defend its people. Before you dismiss the possibility, however, ask yourselves this question: What are we doing in Afghanistan? Are we building a democracy, fighting the Taliban, trying to keep the peace or quashing terrorist plots to attack Britain? Maybe it is all of these. The most common justification cited amid this miasma of conflicting reasons is our duty to cultivate a stable and secure country. But when was Afghanistan last stable or secure?

Not when Taliban fanatics were stoning women to death in the 1990s. Not when Afghans were fighting the Soviets in the 1980s. Maybe briefly in the 1970s – until Mohammed Daoud Khan, then the president was killed along with his family in an uprising.

Afghanistan cannot be turned into anything we would recognise as a modern country. It cannot be fought or reformed into democracy.

As a state it is nothing like Iraq, where conditions have slowly improved – despite a terrible death toll – and which had infrastructure and some kind of bureaucracy, albeit one controlled by Saddam Hussein. What Afghanistan could become, however, is a safer state, with regular voting, education for all and rights for women. It is on its way to achieving all of these but clearly the last three are dependent on the first.

David Cameron, and Gordon Brown before him, both conscious of the blood price we continue to pay, have talked about bringing home the troops as soon as reasonably possible. Their wish makes perfect sense – apart from its air of unreality. Afghanistan has a discredited president in Hamid Karzai, a corrupt police force and electoral system, an inexperienced and ill-suited army, a permanent tribal system with the consequent splits and a confident and impulsive Taliban.

So the new British government, as well as the Obama administration, will have to make a public case for staying much longer in Afghanistan –which can be done – or accept that the mission aim is more likely to be one of merely limiting the chaos.

It is a tall order for two leaders who did not create this situation. Progress in Afghanistan has been slow and unsteady. It has, however, made a difference to the lives of an impoverished people.

[Haggis@wk]

Guantanamo prisoners: Please let us stay!

The Obama administration would quickly send home six Algerians held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but for one problem: The men don't want to go. Given the choice between repatriation and incarceration, the men choose Gitmo, according to their lawyers.

The detainees fear that they might be tortured or killed if they return to Algeria. Which is to say, actually tortured, something that has never happened at Gitmo, notwithstanding the global hyperventilation of the last seven or eight years. No such hyperventilation about Algeria. Or Iran. Or Egypt. Or Syria. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Libya. Or Pakistan. Or . . . well, you get it by now.

[lliam]

[Transferred from Live Music]

We aren't forcing the Amish to dress like us...maybe because they're less likely to be accused of stomping on women's rights, but still.... Again, I don't have a good solution and do see it as a problem, but I doubt outlawing burkas is the answer.

[Belgium became the first country in Europe to ban (The Burka) clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in public places].

Schmeekie, there's no comparison between the 'Amish' and ‘Muslims’ If I had an opportunity to live amongst the 'Amish' for an agreed amount of time to learn their culture I would jump at the chance, on the other hand no way would I ever think of living amongst the 'Muslims'.

Before the 7/7 bombings there didn’t seem to be many Muslim women wearing the burka just the odd one now and then. But, after 7/7 it seemed that suddenly the burka was in fashion or was this some kind of message from the extremists that Islam rules OK? And now we have that hate preacher Chaudry telling is crowd we can expect more bombings. What's wrong with my Countrymen and Women what more do they need to awaken there emotions and Vote for a party who love this England of ours and will reverse the immigration policies of these useless past governments who have sold us down the river.

[lliam]

I like what this guy say's, ( Congressman Ron Paul ) alas he didn't seem to get the support he needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9sVMDXs ... _embedded#!

[lliam]

Thousands of people could be in line for compensation if they were illegally stopped and searched by police using controversial counter-terrorism legislation.
An urgent review is under way after officials discovered 14 forces including North Yorkshire Police failed to get the correct authorisation for operations that allowed them to stop members of the public without reason.

They found 40 operations dating back to 2001 where police who were granted powers to use section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 had no legal basis after they applied for an invalid timescale or were not countersigned quickly enough.

Home Secretary Theresa May was said to be "very angry" about the astonishing blunders and her Cabinet colleague Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones said she was "extremely concerned".

The coalition Government has already ordered a wide-ranging review of counter-terrorism legislation and pledged to introduce safeguards to prevent misuse of invasive powers.

Earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that indiscriminate section 44 searches were illegal but they remained in place while the Government sought permission to appeal.

Campaigners, who have already highlighted how the powers are often used against demonstrators and photographers, said the "dangerous and undemocratic law" must be dumped immediately.

Police sources said preparations for losing section 44 stop and search powers were well advanced despite their argument that they helped make Britain a "hostile environment" for terrorists.

"The Government is already committed to undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation which will include the use of stop and search powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 The discovery came after the Metropolitan Police, which is responsible for about nine out of 10 section 44 searches, began to investigate a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Officials found former Home Secretary David Blunkett had not signed an authorisation form for an April 2004 operation in which 840 people were stopped within the 48-hour deadline.

This sparked an internal Home Office review which uncovered a further 36 cases of dodgy authorisations, including 35 occasions when forces asked for a search window in excess of the maximum 28 days.

Asked whether the force now faced a flood of legal actions, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "It is a matter for individuals to seek legal advice in relation to this issue."

Stop and search can play an important part in keeping our communities safe from terrorism but should always be used in a proportionate way, recognising the critical need to retain local confidence.

"Where mistakes have been made in the application of these powers, it is vital that we learn from them."

A civil liberties organisation Liberty, said: "We are grateful to the Government for making these blunders public but they merely highlight the ongoing dangers of secret stop and search authorisations.

"This is one of many objections to a power that has been found unlawful in the Court of Human Rights and has been more of a hindrance than a help to anti-terror policing."

A campaigning organisation Big Brother Watch, said: "Section 44 stop and search is a dangerous and undemocratic law that has been used to invade the privacy of law-abiding people.

"The European Court has ruled its use illegal and this latest revelation proves that the police have been abusing the intrusive powers that it provides.

"There can be no fudge: if the coalition Government is serious about protecting privacy, it must halt the use of Section 44 authorisations immediately."


'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York Sept 11/2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in London, and in downtown Manhattan, and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11 and 7/7.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank:

I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, believe me!! You guessed it ...

I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!

If you don't agree, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:

‘some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. Our soldiers don't have that problem.'

I have another quote that I would like to add,

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The British Soldier.

3. The Canadian Soldier.

4. The US Soldier, and

5. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.

[Trumpetmaster]

Church 'praying' about plan to burn Quran, pastor says after warning

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39032043/ns ... ntral_asia

[Haggis@wk]

Church 'praying' about plan to burn Quran, pastor says after warning

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39032043/ns ... ntral_asia

If burning some Korans at a small inconsequential church in Florida puts our troops in harms way (actually that should be "in greater harms way", they already are targets) then it is time to admit that Islam is completely incompatible with Western thought and the US constitution; time to react accordingly

[Shapley]

If burning some Korans at a small inconsequential church in Florida puts our troops in harms way (actually that should be "in greater harms way", they already are targets) then it is time to admit that Islam is completely incompatible with Western thought and the US constitution; time to react accordingly

That's kind of what I was thinking. I don't favour burning the Quran, and I think it's a provacative act designed to inflame. But, so is burning the U.S. Flag, Burning the Bible, Shouting 'baby killer' at soldiers, protesting at funerals, and countless other provacative acts that we recognize as legal and valid protest.

Do we let threats and intimidation carry the day, or do we value our freedom. I'm on the side of freedom.