FDD

The story of Nada Prouty (RWC)

On the subject  of FBI agents, a female former FBI agent who had been recruited to work in counter-terrorism as a covert CIA operations officer, has turned out to be an illegal alien who bought her US citizenship through a sham marriage and falsified other details of her background.

Nada Prouty was caught after she accessed classified files on Hezbollah, apparently looking for the names of relatives in Lebanon.

Prouty was a Lebanese citizen who came to the US in 1990 as a college student.  She then paid an American cash to marry her so she could get citizenship.

Though I’m just guessing at this, I’ll bet she was on a scholarship from the now-dead Rafik Harriri, the rich and very crooked ex-prime minister of Lebanon and remarkable toady to the Saudi Royal family, who sent thousands of Lebanese students to the US over the years.  Nobody has mentioned the name of the American man who took money to marry her but they ought to send him to the slammer, too.

Prouty, who is now 37 years old and lives in Vienna, Virginia with a second husband, became a Special Agent of the FBI in 1999, obtained a top level security clearance, and was assigned to the FBI’s Washington Field Office to investigate crimes abroad.

In June 2003, I’ll bet because of her language skills in Arabic, she joined the CIA’s Covert Operations division and may, or may not –the government hasn’t said, worked undercover.

She had both a full field background investigation with the Bureau and another with the CIA, which she passed, and she was vetted.  She also passed a lie detector test as part of her employment.

It was her attempt to access secret Hezbollah files, for which she had no professional “need to know” that tipped off CIAcounter-intelligence officers, though it took them years to build a case against her.

Prouty was also caught taking classified files home with her.

There is no known evidence that she fed secrets to foreign powers but she has pled guilty in federal court in Detroit to conspiracy, naturalization fraud and other charges.

She will likely be fined and deported to Lebanon though there is a possibility of a prison term. 

Why the government is dithering on that subject, given the seriousness of this breech, is beyond me.  We can hope they have more than an arm up their sleeve.

If you can go to prison for holding a few rocks of crack cocaine, or not paying child support, you sure ought to be able to go to prison for threatening our nation’s national security in this time of war.

Prouty has close relatives in Lebanon, including a sister and brother-in-law who were spotted attending a Hezbollah rally led by the terrorist Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, the ideological leader of Hezbollah. Her family –they are Druze-have been associated in Lebanon with extremist politics. She hs a brother-in-law in Detrroit who has been arrested in a terrorism money-laundering case.

The arrest of Prouty and her conviction raises pretty serious questions about the infiltration of two of America’s primary agencies that investigate and fight terrorism.

“It is hard to imagine a greater threat than the situation where a foreign national uses fraud to obtain citizenship and then based on that fraud, insinuates herself into a sensitive position in the US government,” said the United States Attorney in Detroit about Prouty.

The government says the “investigation is continuing.” 

Sometimes that phrase is meaningless, and just thrown out to deflect pesky questions from reporters, but in this case it well be continuing.

Prouty’s ex-husband and many of her friends were interviewed by the FBI and CIA when they did their background investigations on Prouty years ago.  On its face, it appears that some of them lied for her in their security interviews.  They ought to pay a price for that.

“Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the next Attack” (RWC)

Ron Kessler, who I quoted in my item about Fran Townsend’s resignation, has an interesting new book out.   

It’s called “Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the next Attack” and, uh, when he says “attack” he means here in the homeland.   

In his book, Kessler offers a detailed account of an FBI Special agent and the eight months the man spent, day in and day out, with Saddam Hussein.   

The agent’s name is George Piro.  He was 36 at the time.  He worked daily  trying to get confessions from Hussein in his cell at Baghdad’s airport. He had some success.   

Hussein confessed to ordering huge masses of Kurdish civilians gassed, and told  Piro that he ordered the slaughter of thousands more and had them dumped in bull-dozer created mass graves.   

Over cups of Folger’s coffee, Hussein told Piro, who speaks Arabic, that he had no love for his two sons, Uday and Qusay, both killed before his capture and both monstrous, cruel creations of a father who didn’t regret their deaths.   S

addam also admitted that he thought UN sanctions would ultimately dissipate and that he had intended then to make a nuclear bomb. 

He said his prewar weapons of mass destruction deceptions were just that, mostly a ruse, to convince Iran and the world, that he had an arsenal of heavy weapons.   

In more human moments, Piro said Saddam made a pass at a good looking American nurse who treated him and, Piro said, had a weakness for whisky and Cohiba cigars.   

Piro saw Hussein one last time before he was hanged. He said Hussein cried when he said goodbye. A big baby after all.

George Bush has not yet named a replacement for one of his best appointments (RWC)

Fran Townsend, whose resignation as White House counterterrorism chief was just announced and becomes effective in the new year, has been one of George Bush's best high-level appointments and her departure will be a genuine loss to the West's struggle against radical Islam.  Fran, 45, is a former federal prosecutor from New York who, despite her diminutive size -she is five feet tall, blonde, with a lovely smile and a cracker-jack sense of humor, is exceptionally tough and very intellectually able. She has gained the respect of the intelligence community over the past 42 months of her tenure, and has labored to make the community work more smoothly together, despite their natural inclination to silent, intense competition.   Fran meets with the president early every morning and plays a significant role in the highly secure live quotidian teleconferences on terrorism that include leaders from 16 different intelligence agencies including the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.   

A Vital, If Counterintuitive Point (CM)

Barry Rubin writes:

Despite thousands of claims by lots of famous people, national leaders, and respected journals, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not make radical Islamism or terrorism go away. Would you like to know why? Because even if this issue could be solved—which isn’t about to happen for reasons requiring a different article—to do so would necessitate a compromise including an end to the conflict, acceptance of Israel, and compromises by the Arab side. These steps would inflame the extremists and make any Arab rulers who accepted it vulnerable to being called traitors. It would increase instability in the Arab world, also by removing the conflict as splendid excuse and basis for mobilizing support for the current rulers. Arab politicians understand this reality; most people in the West don’t.

More here.

An Annapolis Prediction from Ralph Peters (CM)

Ralph Peters writes:

Whether the American administration is Republican or Democrat, it pressures Israel for concessions - since the Arabs won't make any. Prisoner releases precede each summit; territorial handovers come under discussion.

For their parts, Arab leaders and their representatives assume we're sufficiently honored if they just show up. We hear no end of nonsense about the great political risks they're taking, etc. We're suckers for any fat guy in a white robe with an oil can. …

If you want a sober perspective on the Annapolis dog-and-pony show, just ask yourself this: Who will leave disappointed, if nothing much results?

The Arabs won't care. They came because we got on our knees and begged.

The Israelis will just be relieved that their latest trip to the geostrategic dentist is over.

Any Russians soiling the furniture at the Naval Academy will be delighted if another American effort flops.

And the Europeans just popped in to check the "we care" box.

The only unhappy campers will be us. We set ourselves up. Again.

Oh, and even if there's some sort of agreement, only the Israelis will honor it. Grudgingly.

We're dealing with people who are fighting for their lives and homes. Our team's fighting for poll numbers. Now that's asymmetrical warfare.

By electing ourselves as the Middle East's indispensable problem-solvers, we've just put ourselves on the blame line for other people's problems. Without solving any of them.

More here.

 

Also required reading is Bernard Lewis’ op-ed on the core issue in Annapolis (CM)

Professor Lewis writes:

Here with some thoughts about tomorrow's Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist. …

If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

More here.

Annapolis Photo-Op (CM)

Bret Stephens writes:

Remember Nancy Pelosi's spring break in Damascus? Condoleezza Rice apparently does not. When the House Speaker paid Syrian strongman Bashar Assad a call back in April, President Bush denounced her for sending "mixed signals" that "lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror." Today, said sponsor of terror will take its place at the table Ms. Rice has set for the Middle Eastern conference at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Only at Foggy Bottom would Syria's last-minute decision to go to Annapolis be considered a diplomatic triumph. The meeting is supposed to inaugurate the resumption of high-level negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, with a view toward finalizing a deal on Palestinian statehood before the administration leaves office. On a deeper plane of geopolitical subtlety, it is supposed to bring Israel and the Arab world together in tacit alliance against Iran. ...

Put simply, there is nothing the U.S. can offer Mr. Assad that would seriously tempt him to alter his behavior in ways that could meaningfully advance U.S. interests or the cause of Mideast peace. Yet the fact that Ms. Rice's Syria policy is now a facsimile of Speaker Pelosi's confirms Mr. Assad's long-held view that he has nothing serious to fear from this administration.

So look out for more aggressive Syrian misbehavior in Lebanon, including the continued arming of Hezbollah; the paralysis of its political process; the assassination of anti-Syrian parliamentarians and journalists; the insertion of Sunni terrorist cells in Palestinian refugee camps, and the outright seizure of Lebanon's eastern hinterlands. Look out, too, for continued cooperation with North Korea on WMD projects: Despite Israel's September attack on an apparent nuclear facility, the AP reports that North Korean technicians are back in Syria, teaching their Arab pupils how to load chemical warheads on ballistic missiles. And don't hold your breath expecting Syria's good behavior on its Iraqi frontier to last much longer.

In the meantime, we have the Annapolis conference, and the one-day photo-op it provides Ms. Rice. In the spirit of giving credit where it's due, the least the Secretary can do is invite the Speaker to the party.

More here.

Lebanon and the Cedars Revolution under attack (WP)

Walid Phares discusses the latest on Lebanon's Presidential Elections and the Cedar's Revolution. Listen to his interview on the Right Balance Radio Show [ Link .mp3 ]

Cedars Revolution set for defeat (WP)

The Cedars Revolution is on the verge of a crushing political defeat over the next few days, and at the hands of its own politicians.

Instead of electing a strong anti-terror president, the Lebanese members of parliament are trying to cut deals with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to select a candidate who:

a) would not commit to disarming the terrorist organization, and

b) would not side with the world campaign against terrorism.

Some of these MPs are telling Lebanon's friends in Washington and Paris that "the pressure from Syria and Iran is too great and the counter-pressure from the U.S. and France is too low."

The Lebanese March 14 coalition, which was elected to parliament in 2005 after the Cedars Revolution, seems to have abandoned the policy of withstanding Syro-Iranian pressure and is now considering names of individuals who have never marched in the Cedars Revolution and who will not express the aspirations of the majority of the Lebanese people.

Why Hold an Arab-Israeli Peace Meeting Now? (CM)

Bret Stephens writes:

The short answer is that Condoleezza Rice demands one, and she has spent countless hours over eight mostly fruitless trips to the region this year trying to arrange it. But this hardly addresses the deeper mystery of why this administration has gotten itself caught in the Venus flytrap of the Arab-Israeli conflict, after vowing not to do so, and why it has done so with a degree of ineptitude that recalls the dimmer moments of the Carter administration. Maybe it's a matter of bureaucratic inertia. Or maybe it's about being seen to try. Or maybe it's the kind of fourth-quarter, fourth down Hail Mary pass that appeals to a secretary of state with a mania for football and a thin record of accomplishment. Then again, maybe it doesn't really matter.

But look on the bright side: Annapolis may yet serve us well as an object lesson in how diplomacy -- the competent kind -- just isn't done.

More here.

Back to the Future? (CM)

Danielle Pletka writes:

Early in his term, President Bush jettisoned the crown jewels of the Clinton administration’s foreign policy — the Israeli-Palestinian peace process     and the North Korea Agreed Framework. In each case, experts still disagree about whether he was right to do so. But the fact is that Bill Clinton had gone the extra mile in the Middle East and achieved nothing. And revelations that the North Koreans had been cheating on their 1994 commitment to abandon nuclear weapons made manifest the fraud underlying that “breakthrough.”

Seven years into the Bush presidency, however, what was old is new again.

More here.

Good News Is No News? (CM)

Rich Lowry writes:

The political reconciliation that is so important to Iraq’s long-term stability has yet to take place, but the first, necessary step is to get Iraqis to stop resorting to violence to resolve their differences. And whatever comes of Iraq, eliminating al-Qaeda in Iraq is a desirable goal in its own right.

More here.

British National Security Council (RWC)

On the plus side with the British, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has plans to form a National Security Council modeled on ours in America.

This is part of Brown’s overhaul of the counter-terrorism work at Whitehall, giving the Prime Minister more control over Britain’s fight against terrorism –a country that has seen deep, pervasive infiltration by radical Islam.

MI5 is currently shadowing and bugging about 2,000 current Islamist extremist suspects. I heard that when I was in London recently and Jonathan Evans, the new director of MI 5 (who took the place of the wonderfully smart and able Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired) confirmed it in a speech the other day. At any given time, MI 5 has more than 30 "active" terrorist cells under observation.

Mo Ibrahim Prize (RWC)

Here’s a remarkable and ludicrous story.

Joaquim Chissano, the former president of Mozambique, one of the most corrupt countries in the world, has been given a multi-million dollar price for African leadership.

He was selected by a panel headed by Kofi Anan, formerly of the UN.  Also on the jury was Mary Robinson, the leftwing former president of Ireland.

The award is called the Mo Ibrahim Prize and is funded by a rich Sudanese named Mohammed Ibrahim. Its point is to promote “good governance” in Africa, a continent which could certainly use some.The award pays $5 million spread over 10 years and then $200,000 per year for life.

Regional Conference on Terrorism

Walid Phares addressed more than 700 Law Enforcement officials and personnel as well as members of the US House of Representatives at a regional conference on Terrorism in Charlotte, NC.

More here.

Vets for Freedom (RWC)

Keep your eyes open for a non-partisan group called Vets for Freedom; they’re doing good work in gathering support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the founders, and its executive director, is an impressive young fellow who I talked to last week named Pete Hegseth, a former first lieutenant with the 101st airborne in Iraq. 

A Bronze Star winner, and a Princeton graduate, Pete Hegseth follows in a classic tradition, too often ignored in media portrayals of American soldiers: the warrior as intellectual.  He can fight, he can think, he can plan. General David Petraeous is such an example as a flag officer.

Put Vets for Freedom in Google in your computer and take a look at their website and related stories.  They’re worth of support.

UK National Defense Association (RWC)

My friend Glenmore Trenear-Harvey in London has just become an officer of a worthy UK effort that relates to the issue of a common defense of the West against attacks by radical Islam, a subject that concern us all.

Whatever the differences between the US and the UK, they are small compared to what we have in common.  The British are our “cousins” and we have a special relationship with them.

The British commitment to the war in Iraq is much smaller than ours, but it is after all a tiny island country, and the British military is much overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Its military equipment is suffering badly from unanticipated over-use.

Glenmore gave me a letter from-Harvey Winston S. Churchill, the prime minister’s grandson, a distinguished public figure in his own right, and now a man himself in his 60’s, which enumerates worrisome points about the British military:

Large government cuts are planned for Royal Navy ships and aircraft.  The Royal Air Force is now suffering from an absence of “heavy lift capability.”  ELINT aircraft are bordering on un-serviceability from fatigue faults and there is a “woeful lack of helicopter’s to support the British Army.”

British soldiers have long been complaining about flimsy, unsuitable equipment being used by them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Balance (CM)

Alan Dershowitz on interrogations:

What is needed is a recognition that government officials must strike an appropriate balance between the security of America and the rights of our enemies.

More here.

Bombing Europe (CM)

In World War II, America and its allies bombed German and Japanese cities, killing tens of thousands of people. Bret Stephens asks

How can this be justified? Does it not greatly diminish Allied claims to moral superiority?

Most people would argue that it does not, even though the horror of what was done to Hamburg and the other cities dwarfs in moral scale the worst U.S. abuses in the war on terror (real or alleged), which are so frequently cited as evidence that we have debased ourselves beyond recognition. Most people would also agree that the only compelling ethical defense that can be made for the bombing campaign is that it hastened Allied victory, spared at least as many lives (on both sides) as it cost, and created the conditions for a more peaceful postwar world. In other words, the question here isn't about the intrinsic morality of the bombing. It's about whether the good that flowed from the bombing outweighed the unmistakable evil of the act itself. …

[T]he important point is that the debate fundamentally is about results. Note the difference with the current debate over waterboarding, where opponents argue that the technique is unconscionable and inadmissible under any circumstances, even in hypothetical cases where the alternative to waterboarding is terrorist attacks resulting in mass casualties among innocent civilians. According to this view, it is possible to wage war yet avoid the classic "choice of evils" dilemmas that confronted past statesmen such as Churchill and Roosevelt. Or, to put the argument more precisely, it is possible to avoid this choice if one is also prepared to pay for it in blood -- if not in one's own, than in that of kith and kin and whoever else's life must be sacrificed to keep our consciences clear.

More here.