FDD

What the Military Commissions Act Really Means (AV)

John Yoo, a key architect of the Bush administration's legal response to 9/11, had a provocative op/ed in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Yoo explained that, after the Military Commissions Act 2006,

It is not the presidency that "won." Instead, it is the judiciary that lost.

Quite, for there is truth in Yoo's gloating and schadenfreude.

By passing the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and, later, the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), Congress attempted to lay out a clear legal basis for the war on terrorism. Both activated the President's war powers and, in so doing, modified the substantive rules of American law.

In a series of judicial decisions, Rasul v Bush, Hamdi v Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected these Congressional enactments Through mischief and chicanery, the Court weaseled its way around the substantive portions of the AUMF and DTA, thus forcing the administration to return, cap in hand, to the Congress for explicit authorization for every war-fighting program it wished to conduct. This, of course, is not how wars are fought, far less won.

The Military Commissions Act, as Yoo explains, ends all this. The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the Court's jurisdiction, and so, by way of corollary, Congress can strip the Court's jurisdiction when it chooses. Instead of fiddling with substantive rules of American law, the MCA recognizes that the Supreme Court cannot be trusted not to meddle, and so withdrew the Courts' jurisdiction over many aspects of the war on terrorism. Given the Court's record thus far, this was the only proper option.

Whether or not the Supreme Court accepts the MCA's reach will be discovered in subsequent cases. For the moment – and regardless of how the Court acts – this is a stunning rebuke of the Supreme Court's role in the war on terrorism from the political branches.

Crazy Mahmoud? (CM)

The Wall Street Journal editorializes:

[T]he Iranian President issued the following public warning to Europe last Friday: "We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbors of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals (Israel). . . . This is an ultimatum." …

[T]he Iranian must be thinking he can also shake the resolve of European leaders with a little fear of the Mahdi. Short of that, he might be hoping he can begin to intimidate European public opinion. Iran's ballistic missiles can already reach much of Europe, and his threat will be very real once those missiles can be armed with nuclear warheads.

The temptation in many quarters in the West is to assume that Crazy Mahmoud can't really mean what he says; he must be acting out for "domestic" political reasons. And even if he does mean what he says about wiping Israel off the map, well, Europeans and Americans don't need to worry about that. Call us conservative, or even neoconservative, but when a leader relentlessly seeking weapons of mass destruction starts issuing apocalyptic ultimatums, our instinct is to believe him.

More here.

The Caliph-Strophic Debate (WP)

October 23, 2006. Published by the History News Network as well as World Defense Review

It seems that the US is having a hard time winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims, but an equally serious problem can be observed in the intellectual circles of America where some have had a difficulty coming to terms with the terminology of the War of Ideas. If the educated elite of the United States is incapable of identifying the ideology and the strategy of the Jihadists five years after 9/11, we not only have a problem with handling the War in Iraq, but also with the future of American national security as a whole.

Phares Introducing Future Jihad at Fordham University

At the invitation of the Department of Political Science and the Program of Middle East Studies at Fordham University in New York, Professor Walid Phares, author of the book Future Jihad presented a lecture on "Future Jihad: Can it be avoided?"

Dr Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a professor of Comparative Politics was introduced by Professor John Entelis, Fordham Middle East Studies director. The lecture was well attended by students and faculty on campus.

Phares introduced his new paperback Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West, published by Palgrave, which is being released this week in the United States. Phares said "the most challenging issue in the War on Terror today is to understand the global nature of the Jihadi movement and the strategic objectives of its adherents."  Reviewing the historical development of the Jihadists, both Salafis and Khumeinsts in the 20th century, Phares described the movement as capable for long term thinking process. "The Jihadists are not a reaction to US Foreign policy as many in academic described them since the 1990s. These movements have survived WWII, the Cold War and the 1990s, so that they will have their own time in world politics."

Phares summarized his thesis on the "road to 9/11" and described his projection of Jihadism into the end of this decade. "In the international version of Future Jihad, I cover more areas of interests to the Jihadists such as Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. I try to show how global the ideology and main strategies are." Phares will be lecturing on campuses to introduce his new book and interact with students and faculty.   

Walid Phares in War Stories with Oliver North

War Stories with Oliver North, Fox News Sun., October 15, 2006

FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares joins Vice President Cheney, Former Director of the CIA and FDD Distinguished Advisor James Woolsey, Bernard Lewis and other experts in the field. In this special report Oliver North explores what every person should know about jihad. In proven "War Stories" tradition, this episode brings historical context to today's events.

To watch the video click on: Part one, Part two, Part three, Part four.

Phares’ Op Ed in al Muharer on Zawahiri, the “Prime Minister” of al Qaeda

On October 13, 2006, the weekly pan Arab al Muharer al Arabi published an Op Ed by FDD Senior Fellow, Dr Walid Phares titled: “Dr Ayman Zawahiri, the Prime Minister of Jihad?” The article analyzes the last speech of the Number two of al Qaeda aired on al Jazeera. Phares sees an increasing trend to position Zawahiri as the chief executive of al Qaeda but also the equivalent of a “Prime Minister” of an international “Jihadi state.” The article discusses the strategic choices of the movement and its mounting attacks against moderate Arabs and Muslims in addition to the traditional incitements against the US, France, Great Britain and Western Democracies, without forgetting India but also Pakistan’s Government. Increasingly, writes Phares, “al Qaeda projects itself as the real and only Islamic power versus the rest of the world with its Muslims and non Muslims alike.   Download al_muharer.pdf

The Jihadists are fighting their regional war in Iraq (WP)

In my interview with Radio Free Iraq I said that the Jihadists are coming to Iraq to fight what they believe would threaten their ideological ambitions in their home countries. They feel if the Iraqi political process succeed, it will have an impact on the region as a whole and would encourage democracy and pluralism in the areas the Jihadists wants to plunge under their own type of regimes. Hence, an Iraqi success would become an Arab and international success for pluralism and eventually encourage revolution in other places. This is why the Terror attacks are going up. The Jihadi forces are fighting a historical battle (which they may either win or lose) in Iraq. The National Intelligence estimate saw that side of it but the debate in America sees the political consequences of that analysis.

However it is a good thing that such an estimate would compell diplomats, military, intellectuals, academics and Government people to further discuss the threat and analyze the Jihadi strategies. The real battle within the US is between those lobbies who want to obstruct the debate about Jihadism and those who want to investigate its role. The oil lobby has for long dodged the discussion about the role of the Jihadists in the War on Terror and in Iraq as well. The NIE report is a good basis for such a discussion . Listen to the interview in Arabic

We are in a state of civil war (CM)

No, not in Iraq. In France. 

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails," he said last week. "You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

More here.

Rupert Murdoch Reads Walid Phares

In the current issue of the New Yorker magazine, there is a profile of media mogul Rupert Murdoch by John Cassidy.  Cassidy notes that Murdoch’s opinions on the global conflict against Militant Islamist terrorism have been influenced by longtime FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares. Cassidy writes:

The rise of militant Islam both fascinates and terrifies Murdoch. He told me that he had been reading “Future Jihad,” a book by Walid Phares, an American political scientist of Lebanese descent, who warns that foreign jihadis and their American sympathizers are almost certainly mobilizing inside the United States. “These people intend to change civilization, and they are prepared to take a hundred years to do it,” Murdoch said.

A link to the article is here.

A link to the passage mentioning Walid is here.

Earlier this year, Massachusetts Governor and potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney cited Future Jihad as an important influence on his thinking about the terrorist threat.  More here (scroll down to the last entry).

A new international edition of Walid’s book, with an additional chapter added, will come out in November.  The title:  “Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West.”

The Continued Misunderstanding of the Salafi Jihad Threat (WP)

Published in the World Defense Review

October 9, 2006.

In an article titled "Al Qaeda finds new partner: Salafist group finds limited success in native Algeria" (The Washington Post, October 5, 2006) by Craig Whitlock, Western sources, including French and American, assert that the Salafist Group for Call and Combat (originally a local Algerian group) has become global by joining with al Qaeda.

While the article is very interesting and informative, the analysis of the International Salafi movement by Western sources and expertise shows a continuous misunderstanding of Jihadism and its strategies. For in the essence of the article there is an assertion that the Algerian Salafists were restricted to fight their Government for "local" reasons, but it was U.S. intervention in the region that "compelled" the Combat Salafists to join al Qaeda worldwide. This assertion and other little informed debates taking place in the U.S. these days are committing an analytical sin: Projecting onto the Jihadists an alien thinking, most likely because of the pressures of American politics.

Media Roundup (WP)

Walid Phares on VOA about the worldwide hunt for terrorists. In al Taqrir on future jihad. In Accuracy In Media Phares's testimony before Congress. Cited in Advocacy Corner Campus on North American campuses and current debates. In World Defense Review on the continued misunderstanding of the Salafi Jihad threat. On Zawahiri in Spain's Epoca.

Hysteria (AV)

Everyone needs to calm down.

Andrew Sullivan, a writer for Time magazine, has endorsed one of the main misconceptions about the anti-terror bill Congress passed last week. Sullivan writes, with characteristic subtlety, that the executive now "has the power to detain anyone in this country at will, designate them an "enemy combatant," and jail them indefinitely."

Umm, no.

First, by "indefinite detention", what Sullivan should have written was, "detention until the end of actual hostilities." This is the relevant legal standard. No doubt, from the vantage of 1942, World War II looked like it would last indefinitely, too, but this did not mean that the law should have defined ex ante an end to actual hostilities.

Second, Sullivan should not have said that the President can order the detention of "anyone in this country." The actual language of the bill is "alien enemy combatant." Whilst the law does give the President wide, though not unreviewable, discretion in determining if someone is an "enemy combatant", the question of whether someone is an "alien" or a "citizen" is one of fact, over which the President has no discretion. A U.S. citizen has habeas corpus rights and can not be detained indefinitely. The language of the bill only limits habeas rights for "alien enemy combatants."

The President cannot, under anti-terror legislation, detain an American citizen indefinitely. For Sullivan to suggest otherwise, as he has, is reckless and feeds into the worst paranoias of the anti-war carrot juice drinkers.

Ready to talk (RC)

The majority of Palestinians favor using the tactics of Hezbollah against Israel, says the Associated Press from Jerusalem.

AP cites a poll conducted jointly by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah.

Of course, Hezbollah fired almost 4,000 rockets at Israel and its civilian population during the recent war. 

The same poll, however, showed that even more Palestinians support the cease-fire with Israel. 

The poll also found that a majority of Israelis favor talks with the Palestinian government, even if it is lead by the Islamic Hamas. 

Israel, the U.S. and Europe are boycotting the Hamas’ government, citing Hamas, as a terror group. Hamas’ suicide bombers have killed hundreds of Israelis.

Gaza City has seen much recent violence as gun battles between Hamas’ militiamen and Fatah have broken out. Fatah dominates the Palestinian security forces although the Ministry of the interior’s 3,000 armed men are Hamas-led.   

Civilians ran for cover as Hamas broke up an anti-government rally by force of arms. A half-dozen people were killed and more than 100 wounded in a couple of days of clashes.  In retaliation, Fatah torched  the Palestinian Cabinet building on the West Bank.

The poll of Palestinians showed that 63 percent favored launching rockets at Israeli cities and killing civilians, while 35 percent were opposed. 75 percent favored abducting Israeli soldiers.  23 percent were opposed. 

Hama’s terrorists captured a soldier in a cross-border raid at the end of June, setting off the Israeli military offensive in Gaza. Three weeks later, Hezbollah triggered a war by capturing two Israeli soldiers in Israel, over the Lebanese border.

The poll also found that 77 percent of Palestinians favor a cease-fire with Israel.

74 percent believe that armed action is not enough — they must reach a political agreement with Israel. 

Despite the recent violence, the poll found an increasing number of Israelis prepared to talk to a Palestinian government with a Hamas element. 

67 percent favor talks with a unity government with the more moderate Fatah alongside Hamas. 56 percent backed talks with a Hamas-led government.

Afghanistan (RC)

There have been more deadly bombings in Afghanistan. There was one about a week ago that killed 20 people. Afghanistan is seeing more powerful bombs more frequently and there are signs that bombers are being carefully selected and trained. 

As foreign correspondent Carlotta Gall pointed out in a story in the Washington Post from Kandahar, this was a sign of the increasing size and power of suicide attacks and roadside bombings by insurgents.

There was an even worse attack near the governor’s office in the city of Lashkar Gah, which is in the southern Helmand Province.  It happened at a security checkpoint when a suicide bomber set off the explosives strapped to his chest and killed 18 people, including a preponderance of policemen and soldiers, and maimed dozens of other folks who had lined up to sign-in for a Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.

Barely Coping (CM)

Rich Lowry writes that the key insight of Bob Woodward’s new book concerns “how the U.S. government has arrived at such a middling, uninspired campaign in Iraq — just enough not to win and just enough not to lose. … We have been barely coping because we have never made a decision to go all-out, partly due to the restraining influence of Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Oddly, given the way he has become a hate-figure for Democrats, it is Rumsfeld who is perhaps closest to the Democrats’ preferred Iraq strategy as any other major figure in the Bush administration. … Bush’s stalwartness in the Iraq War never quite seems to be matched by the means he applies on the ground. His administration has been riven by debilitating divisions on Iraq for too long.”

More here.

On the latest video address by Dr Zawahiri, the "Prime Minister" of Jihadism..(WP)

In its latest video, As Sahhab TV production featured “Prime Minister” Dr Ayman Zawahiri addressing the Umma on matters of Jihad and aqida (doctrine). Or at least this was the image the sophisticated field-studio wanted to project to the viewers. A very relax chief executive of al Qaeda, reviewing the various files on the “Caliphate agenda” of the month, responding to the infidel world leaders and providing an update of the various battlefields around the globe. “He seems very relax, in some cave-castle, said Druze leader Walid Jumblat on al Jazeera few weeks ago when asked about the al Qaeda leader. Indeed, for someone on the run, he looked well seated and secure, even though one technical mistake could change that whole situation. The setting is not the essence of the video tape released today to the Salafis web site, but still, it is part of the whole package delivered to the “customers” on many continents.

Walid Phares Media Roundup (WP)

Walid Phares on VOA about the worldwide hunt for terrorists. In New York Post comments on Iran and Syria; Ahmadinejad in United Nations; State of affairs in Iraq and other issues.  In Family Security Matters, on U.S. homeland security:is it penetrated and threatened? In the American Chronicle Phares is quoted on the conflict in Darfur. On CTV Canada Phares, talks about the video obtained by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper showing two of the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attack laughing and joking together more than 18 months before the attacks. For video click here