Yemen Bomb

It has been a while since anyone has posted here. Late breaking news reports that there has been a suicide bombing, but more like a coordinated assualt of the US embassy in Yemen. For more information visit this cite.

New Title - Take 2

Well, I think that I will check the blog more often now that I know I am not writing to myself. But I agree with you all that a new title would be sweet. I'm down but I don't want to dictate what it should be; I think it should be a group decision. Let me know what you think and then I'll talk to Prof. Payne about what we have come up with. Also, I think we should start adding new posts. I would love to stay informed and you all had some great insights and some awesome posts. So, please, continue blogging!

New Title

I also wanted to propose a new title for our blog since we are all "graduates" of the winter 379R terrorism class. I'm open to suggestions. I personally think Terrorism and Counter-terrorism would be cool. Anyways, let me know what you all think.

The PKK and Germany

In recent news over the course of this week, it seems that several German mountain climbers from the state of Bavaria were seized and taken hostage by the PKK. According to Der Spiegel and Deutsche Welle, the PKK, which has claimed responsibility for taking the three men hostage in eastern Turkey, has been actively stepping up their terrorist activities against Germany and its citizens for their " increasingly negative polic[ies] towards the Kurd[ish]. The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization in the European Union and the United States and it has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy since 1984. Lars Holger Renne, 33, Martin Georg, 47, and Helmut Johann, 65, all from the southern German state of Bavaria, were taken hostage late Tuesday when a group of five PKK guerrillas raided a 3,200-meter camp on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. Their 10 fellow climbers were unharmed and returned to Germany late Friday.

For more on this story see article in DW-World.

Al Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction

I read an article today concerning an increase in the number of video and audio instructions released by Al Quaeda. The article discussed a new video tape that urges supporters to use WMD technology to attack the West. Many different scholars do not feel that use of a WMD is likely. There are too many incentives for terrorists groups to avoid this action, and generally not enough resources to materialize the threat. The new video has been identified as a conglomeration of different clips taken from multiple previous Al Quaeda releases. Most of the community that keeps up on this stuff feels these are the words and views of the political base of the movement and not leaders or direct participants in the organization.
Terrorist organizations are flattening. The hierarchical structure is disseminating into autonomous cells. In this atmosphere I feel that this kind of propaganda is more dangerous than if an intact hierarchical organization had published the message. Leaders of a terrorist group do not want the consequences associated with using a WMD. They want to be noticed, but they also want to exist. Even though the actual Al Quaeda organization continues to follow this kind of reasoning, the ideology they preach to produce support induces in the public a mentality of finality and an apocalyptic present. In these conditions members of the movement who are not responsible to any leader may act according their own intentions.
As has been previously outlined, most terrorist organizations do not have the assets necessary to be a realistic WMD threat. Even fewer individual terrorists have this ability. However, the incentives that keep the best developed and funded terrorist groups at bay, do not manifest themselves in the soul individual, the member of the movement without a leader. Here is where a threat could surface, even if the possibility was incredibly low.
Well this class is definitely over, and for myself, my class room days in an undergraduate Political Science course have come to a close. I am working for the local government now and working towards law school. I posted a couple of weeks ago; wondering if anyone would still contribute. I think this forum is a good way to express our views on different issues surrounding terrorism and other its role in US foreign policy. Being involved in as many ways as possible keeps me on my toes. I feel at times like an embodiment of Plato's political animal. Perhaps no one will ever read what is posted here again, but I highly doubt that. We are in Google's search base now.

Terrorism in India

It seems that India is among the most recent nations to be struck by a terrorist attack, the first in India a a while. though no group has claimed responsibility for the attack, India has presumed it to be a "foreign group" which usually means Pakistan the article hints towards this being a way to disturb the peace process between India and Pakistan, which makes sense at least to me. what is interesting to me is the assumed continued use of terrorism by groups associated with Islam, regardless of what their motives could be.

Curious

I was just curious if anyone was going to continue to contribute here just for fun.

Suicide bombing by Hamas

Here is an article about a suicide bombing in Gaza acted out by Hamas. Hamas said that it was a step forward for those who are awaiting freedom. Hamas is attacking entry points in an attempt to start a humanitarian crisis that will force international actors to put pressure on Israel.

From what I understand, Hamas is claiming that their purpose is to help the Palestinian people regain their land. If this is their goal, then why are they killing those that bring aid into areas that contain Palestinian people? Even if it forces international actors to step in, is the cost in lives equal to the benefit? Will this have any effect on how much support Hamas later gains?

Jemaah Islamiah!

I recently came across this article which announces that the Indonesian government has endorsed a court decision to outlaw JI. One thing I found interesting with this article is that it mentions that JI was not previously outlawed because the government did not recognize it as an official organization. I think that this parallels our discussion about terrorism and "war." Personally, I don't think that the ban will have any substantive effect on the JI network, and that the ruling won't be enforced or binding. Does this move simply give JI more legitimacy and power? Singapore-based terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, who we read the other week, called the verdict "a huge victory against terrorist," but it is hard for me to see how this will affect JI.

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

Here is another article concerning Jimmy Carter and his venture to speak with the leaders of Hamas. This article focuses on whether or not his visit to the Middle East will be effective and worthwhile. As of right now it has been reported that Islamist militants have reported that they would respect a peace treaty ratified by Palestine.
However, many people are skeptical about whether or not Israel and Palestine will really respect and obey this treaty.
I am still confused as to what Jimmy Carter thinks will be accomplished by going over and meeting with the Hamas leader, I don't see any logical reason for this. In my mind it will not make things any better...if anything, I see it as making the situation worse.

Loss of support

Last week, we discussed the view that the Global War on Terror has lost support because of the Bush Administration's zealousness. This article supports that assumption. It describes the current predicament which 50-year-old Sami al-Arian finds himself in. This Palestinian professor who taught computer science and legally lived in the United States has been arrested and convicted on charges that he aided the US-recognized terrorist organization "Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

Apparently al-Arian and the US government made a deal were he would plead guilty and be deported in exchange for not having to testify in additional cases. However, the government says the latter part was not part of the deal as al-Arian is reporting it to be. His situation is doubly messy because his earlier sentencing to 57 months in prison has recently been fulfilled...but the government still wants to make him testify in additional cases, so Immigration and Customs Enforcement now has custody over him since he can't really be held in prison.

But the real issue that pertains to decreased support for fighting terrorism is the result of 17 accussations about his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. For six months he stood trial for different terrorism-related crimes, but the jury acquitted him on eight counts, and it couldn't reach a consensus on the other nine. Clearly, this didn't make the Administration look good. Instead, it just fed the fire that the Bush Administration is too aggressive and overreaching in its hunting of terrorists, and that it isn't cautious enough--sometimes attempting to convict people of crimes they can't be proven to have committed.

Pakistan: A Slippery Slope.

Earlier today, British foreign secretary David Milliband renewed Britain's pledge to help Pakistan in the latter's counter terrorism efforts, and also voiced support for reconciliation with those militants who are willing to renounce terrorism.
Both these steps are a part of a state's counter terrorism strategy as suggested by Paul Pillar and Heyman respectively, namely, countries should aid other countries in their fight against terrorism. However, evaluating Pakistan's situation, it is difficult to say whether this will help the country or not.
By helping America in its War on Terror,Pakistan faced a near definite possibility of a break-up after a relentless civil war between the Kemalist sections of the Pakistani army led by General-President Parvez Mussaraf against the Jihadist factions led by more fundamentalist groups. There is a lot of support for the fundamentalists from rogue armies like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Pakistan continues to faces a dilemma: if it continues supporting the War on Terror, it will face a civil war in the near future, and if refuses to help America, there is a possibility that America will attack Pakistan in order to hunt down the Jihadists, or destroy Pakistan's nuclear plants before the Jihadists get to it.
Sometimes it is difficult to see what a country should do, I think that they should continue supporting the war on terror and "big brother" should come to their aid in case a civil war breaks out over this particular issue. What does everyone else think?

Threat level

In the last day of class we discussed what we believe the terrorist threat level to be, and a recent suicide attack has made me think more about this. This suicide attack was in Iraq at a restaurant popular among Iraqi police officers. I heard on the radio that for this specific suicide attack at the restaurant a man walked into the restaurant, yelled "God is great" and tried to detonate his vest but it failed. The man was arrested by the police. About thirty minutes later, a different man walks into the same restaurant, yelled the same thing, but this time his vest did not fail. The amazing thing to me is that at least 10 people were killed in the blast (the radio said 15...). I figure that some of those casualties were employees but who in their right mind would stay at that restaurant after someone tried to blow it up? I definitely would not stay there to finish my sandwich, and I would probably not go back to that restaurant again soon. I tried to imagine what the people there were thinking... maybe they believe that there is always a high threat for a suicide attack in their area so they figured they managed to dodge a bullet, or maybe they really don't think that the threat is that great.

To the grader - sorry, this post is half an hour late. Please grade it for the week ending April 20th.

Pakistan

Recently a report was issued on the United States' anti-terrorism plan in Pakistan. The report, compiled by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (or GAO), was a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's efforts to rid Pakistan of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorist threats since 2002. The report specifically stated that the United States has had no continuous, comprehensive plan for anti-terrorism in Pakistan. I quote, “No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, recommended by the independent 9/11 Commission, and mandated by congressional legislation.”

Immediately, democrats latched onto the reports finding to blast the government, especially the Bush administration, for having diverted precious counterterrorist resources to fight in Iraq when the could have been searching for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Pakistan (he is believed to be in hiding in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA). The White House, without much elaboration, immediately dismissed the report as being a mischaracterization on the part of the Democrats and the reporting committee as a whole. However, partisan politics aside, I wanted to opine on the report’s findings, for I disagree with some of its assessments. And again, I want to do it constructively and as objectively as possible.

Contrary to the current reports findings, I think that the United States has a comprehensive counterinsurgency and counterterror plan for Pakistan in place. I believe that we have consciously chosen to stay low key in Pakistan due to our overwhelming unpopularity amongst the people as a whole. In general, we are on good terms with the Pakistani government, for they are willing to help us in our fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. However, this good will is not harbored amongst many of the Pakistani people, especially the ones from the tribal areas and frontier territories. In other words, if we were to “invade” an area of Pakistan (like the FATA) as was proscribed by the leading critics of our current policy, the people of Pakistan may be brought down into a nasty civil war, and it is very likely that the current government may not win such a war. This is the last thing that the United States needs in its current war on terror. We do not need another failed Islamic state, especially one that has nuclear capabilities. For instance, one nightmarish scenario of a Pakistani civil war could be an Islamic faction gaining control of a nuclear facility and then launching a nuclear missile at an American base in Afghanistan or in Iraq or even at an American ally in the region; this would be devastating.

Therefore, I think it behooves the United States to continue to run its counterterror operations in Pakistan the way it has been doing it, i.e. by providing limited paramilitary support, logistics and by providing training to the Pakistani government and its military. If anyone has any better suggestions, I would love to hear them (and I am not being facetious).

Here is the Article link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080417/pl_nm/usa_pakistan_gao_dc

New anti-terrorism rules 'allow US to spy on British motorists'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/21/nspy121.xml
This is a very interesting article that I read. This article deals with the UK traffic systems and relying the information to other countries throughout the world, including the United States. The camera's take live video of cars and traffic in the Britan and the EU. These camera's then are able to record; registration, and images of the owners. This was hiden from the British parilament until just recently that the information was being allowed to be viewed by other countries. This deals with terrorism, because the information that is sent to the U.S. is placed in computer systems for there "data mining", which is used to try and predict patterns of terrorist. The article deals with are class the last week dealing with civil liberities. Is this crossing the line? Recording peoples images and sending there informations to other countries would that be a price of giving up liberities to possibly find patterns? I say yes. This is because its just camera video that people don't know they are being watched. It also can help data mining which can possibly stop a terrorist attack.
This is my last post! please let me know what everyone thinks about this article! I had a great year, I hope all of you did too!
And THank You Professor Payne for all the knowledge that you have taught me this year.
Austin Conners

lol yes i know another 1150pm sunday night post

Actual Goals vs Obtainable Ones ?

So I wanted to talk a little bit about the goals of terrorists organization and explain why I think that Pres. Carter is doing one of the worst things possible.

1. We studied about a lot of groups who had very large demands over the years. As the demands in most cases were not met they generally died off in attacks and had to attempt at finding other ways to get the attention they wanted, and in most cases just kind of died off and gave up.

2. The few that were successful became legitimate organizations or got some kind of official recognition and as a result were more successful in their claims or at least were able to air their grievances on a more acceptable platform.

3. President Carter negotiating with Hamas is going to legitimize them or ie in the minds of Americans or the media they are no longer radical terrorists groups who cant be dealt with they are more rational. The idea of helping a terrorist group become legitimate I am not against however, Carter is going to them not the other way around so.... Can they truly change in the way they need to without having an internal shift of policy and idea or is Carter going to fix it all ? I don't think and that is why I think that public figures should be very careful on how they treat criminals least they legitimize unfairly.

Agree or Disagree ?

David

Dozens killed in Iraq

Here is yet another article about car bombings in Iraq. Suicide bombings have become a very frequent and seemingly "normal" occurrence in Iraq in the last couple years, it has been a problem for many many years, but it seems to have gotten worse since the United States entered in with forces five years ago.
Would these suicide bombings be considered terrorist attacks or are they simply acts of war? We did invade their country so what is the result? Is it an actual terrorist organization that is committing these attacks or just everyday Iraqi citizens?

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_carter

The author of this article states that Jimmy Carter hopes to help negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine by serving as the spokesman for the Hamas terrorist organization. He believes that beceause Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, their cooperation is essential for peace in the region to be realized. Hamas involvement in peace talks is contrary to the wishes of the U.S. and Israeli governments because both the U.S. and Israel view Hamas as a terrorist organization that should not be negotiated with.

I had a few questions I wanted to pose to the class. Has Hamas ever been involved in any peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine? How long has Hamas been in control of the Gaza Strip, and is it likely that they will continue to hold the region. If they continue to hold the region, will their participation in peace talks become more necessary as they become more established? It seems to me that their involvement will become more important if they continue to exert influence over the Gaza strip.

Crusaders

So I came across this video that was on Hamas television Friday the 11th. In this video, a Hamas MP and cleric rants on and on about the jihadist conquest that will free the world from the hellfire that it is on the brink of. One very interesting thing about this video is that this MP clearly targets Rome. He states "very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constatinople was." He goes on to say that Rome is the Crusader capital and has been very hostile towards Islam. After Rome, this man claims, Islam will sweep over Europe in its entirety then move on two both Americas then the rest of the world. I just thought that it was interesting that another country, besides the United States, was the center of attention. I know that I mainly focus on attacks and hostility towards the United States which leads me to believe that we are always their #1 goal to take down, but the U.S. wasn't even specifically mentioned in this video.

To the grader - Unfortunately, when I was trying to post this at the last minute last night it would not work, so I did it first thing this morning. Please grade it for the week ending April 13th.

One for the road

Well, it's our last day of class, and I thought it might be fun to have one last contest for brownie points. So, goodbye to Bobby Sands, and hello to a new blog header featuring a new alleged terrorist.

The rules are the same as they ever were: The first student with a correct answer to any of the six questions listed below gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.

Questions:

1) What is a definition of terrorism from a scholar, a US government agency, or an international organization that would include this man as a terrorist?

2) What is the relationship between this man and his primary accomplice?

3) What was the weapon he used in his attacks?

4) In what way was his car modified to help him in his attacks, and where did he get the idea for this modification?

5) In what way did the police violate the instructions he left for them during the course of the investigation?

6) In what US states has he been convicted of murder?

Good luck!

In Response to Nepal: A Shot at Cooption

These are all excellent arguments and questions posed on the counter-terrorist strategy of cooption. In spite of these points, however, I would have to say that the success of the co-option method in Nepal will depend not on governmental action but on the nature of the Moist opposition group. According to Benjamin and Simon, for cooption to work and for there to be a diversification and eventual democratization of a given country, several key criteria need to be met. First, the government must extend the olive branch and accept this pariah group into the political arena. This the Nepali regime has done. Second, there must be a mutual trust between reform minded individuals in the targeted regime and moderate members of the opposition. Essentially, both parties have to agree that they are willing to abide by the rules of democracy. This is a more normative question - therefore rendering it more difficult to measure empirically - however, for the sake of my argument, I will assume that this trust has not been fully met. Regardless of this fact, I would venture to posit that part of this trust has been fulfilled since the Nepali regime is allowing the Maoists to run in the current election cycle. And lastly, since successful transitions require “reformers to trust the opposition party’s commitment to democracy” and “willingness and ability to reign in its radicals,” one must look at the ability of the opposition group to moderate itself over a long period of time. An example of this murky last point can be seen in the October elections in Pakistan in 2002. An alliance of six religious parties netted 11 percent of the vote, thus garnering the coalition: several seats in parliament, a partnership in ruling Baluchistan, unprecedented control of the North-West province and the status as the nations leading opposition party. “At first the ruling officials of the opposition party sought to demonstrate their ability to rule” rather than “in provoking the military and President Musharraf.” However, the group sought to push several of their more radical views through parliament without compromise which in turn lead to a breakdown in relations with the ruling government. This breakdown has turned into an impasse which - as of yet - has threatened to bring Pakistan down into a nasty civil war. To recapitulate, if the Maoists try and adopt the same tactics as the opposition groups in Pakistan, then they will fail and so will the method of cooption. However, if the group can continually compromise and retain the trust of the government - and vice versa - then the method of cooption might have a chance in Nepal. All of this will depend on whether or not these groups can put their differences aside and bargain with each other (for a positive example of cooption look at Sinn Fein and the IRA in the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland). In the end, only time will tell if the cooption method can work for in Nepal for only time will us if the Maoists can moderate themselves and truly stick to the rules of democracy.

President arrested on Terrorism Chargers?

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/index.php?itemid=3200
I found this article online, about Jimmy Carter bring arrested. I thought this would be a good article to share with the class since we talked about it the other day in class. In this article I read that it said the former president was arrested because he was trying to meet with members of Fatah. The suspect was a 83 year old white male. It said that the former president will be transfer to Guantanamo Bay.

[Note: President Carter is not going to Gitmo. Unconfirmed Sources is a joke news site like The Onion. --Prof. Payne]

This article was made me think of several things that came to mind. One was what happens if a president supports an opposing terrorist group? Would we do whatever we could to bring them to power? The only things that I can think of the PLO, but that was in a time when the threat of WMD's was not as large. Every other thing that I can think of deals with gurrilla (spelled wrong sorry) fighters that have overthrown governments. I aslo question if we discovered a president of another state supporting terrorism would be try and detain them and send them to Guantanamo Bay or just have them excuted? Let me know what you guys think about this article and the questions that I posed.
THanks
Austin Conners

Nepal: A Shot at Co-option

Though the Maoists in Nepal view themselves as guerilla freedom fighters, we can consider them as terrorists, given their political demands and means used to achieve them. After over a decade of bloody civil war between the monarchy and the Maoists, the government of Nepal is experimenting with the counter terrorism strategy of co-option by allowing the Maoists to participate in the current elections.

The elections held on the eve of Nepali New Year promises peace and end to war in Nepal. The latest poll results show the Maoist party as winning with an overwhelming majority of votes. I believe that the strategy of co-option usually works because it appeases the parties which are stirring conflict. It makes them feel that their demands are being recognized by the entire country and leads them to vent their frustrations through peaceful legitimate means, rather than resorting to spectacular indiscriminate attacks (armed propaganda).

My only question however, is whether the strategy of co-option will work even if the Maoists lose the elections, or would that lead to more violence in the country? Is an election victory the only way to appease rebel groups, or does co-option work irrespective of election results? Since the final results are not out, it will be interesting to see how events turn out.

Ingrid Betancourt

This economist article gives a little update on the FARC's most famous hostage: Ingrid Betancourt. Two weeks ago, the group presentation was about the FARC and they mentioned the often used tactic of kidnapping, as well as Ms. Betancourt being among the terrorist organization's hundreds of captives. This article says that Colombia's president (Uribe) has promised to release all FARC members held in state prisons once Ms. Betancourt has been released. (She is apparently in very poor health, having spent much of her years as a hostage either "held in chains or tied to a tree...some local officials suggested that she might be on a hunger strike"). France recently sent doctors to Colombia to give Ms. Betancourt needed treatment (her son says she needs a blood transfusion), and Mr. Uribe promised to temporarily disband the military in the area where Ms. Betancourt is held in order to give the French doctors a better chance at being allowed by the FARC to see and treat the prized prisoner.

Also, the current belief that the chances of securing Ms. Betancourt's release are higher than they have been in the recent past is a little ironic given the recent killing of Raul Reyes--the FARC's top hostage negotiator.

The Pope's Prayer

Here is an article about the Pope's visit to New York. I think it's interesting that, even with being recently singled out by Al Qaeda himself, he basically asks forgiveness for the 9/11 hijackers. He asks for peace and love to come into the hearts of those that suffered as a result of the hijackers' actions. What does this say about counter-terrorism? What would happen if all those fighting terrorism grew a love for the terrorists? I don't think it would change much. I don't hate the terrorists, but I most certainly do NOT agree with what they stand for and what they're doing. I think that people can grow a love instead of hatred without wishing for the counterterrorist efforts to stop. I believe that those that are trying to kill innocent people (one of our requirements of terrorism) deserve to be stopped--forcefully if needs be. It doesn't mean we hate terrorists. Some people may, but not all do. Diplomacy doesn't always work. That is why many groups have turned to terrorism. That is why we (the US) have turned to force.

The General's Testimony

I watched part of General Petraeus' testimony to the Senate committee the other day. It occurred to me, just as it seems to have occurred to all of the media sources, that the General was answering direct questions from the next President. As I thought upon this and today's reading from Pillar, I tried to determine which presidential hopeful would be able to produce the best US counter terrorism policy and if I agree with Pillar. First, Pillar forces us all to prioritize. His test proposes that a good counter terrorism policy does not hurt other foreign policy goals. Obviously Pillar does not place international terrorism as his greatest foreign policy concern.
In class Prof. Payne talked about the personal perspective that Pillar brings into his argument. He stated that Pillar, who has professional dealt with other countries, was presenting a form of counter terrorism policy that would make his life easier. This really forces all of us to decide where we put counter terrorism on our own prioritized scale. Do we believe that terrorism is the greatest challenge or trial of our generation? Do we feel that state sponsored terrorism is a larger threat then isolation? Do we believe that fighting terrorism is more important then fighting genocides, or global warming, or civil rights violations? After we determine where we put terrorism on our prioritized list, we should really look at the candidates and their votes and platforms. Perhaps we can try to determine what personal perspectives may be driving their future policy decisions. Will be a Vietnam war vet change your positions? Will a diverse heritage including a Muslim father affect policy? Will a husband's presidency or experience as a CEO of Walmart affect policy? If these and other personal perspectives do influence policy does that make the candidate more attractive?
Perhaps this post seems far removed from the class. However, I would assume that we all took this class in hopes of establishing a good understanding of terrorism and counter terrorism. I do not think that is possible unless we evaluate our readings and any current politicians and policies using the tools we have learned in class; including looking at the author of policy and their personal perspectives. Voting is also one of the easiest ways we can contribute our opinion in a national discussion of terrorism and counter terrorism policy.

Terrorism without Borders

The chief of homeland security said this week that serious threats to cyberspace are on "a par with what this country tragically experienced on 9/11". This was at a technology conference in California with some of the leading professionals. This presents a interesting problem terror without borders ? It is usually very difficult to determine the source of cyber terrorist so as a result we end up with no physical targets to attack, conspirators or the people who where carrying out the terror. So in short this obviously creates some big problems for counter terrorism so ... what do we do? Do we train Internet counter terrorism teams ?

Pakistan

Here is a short little clip saying that the Prime Minister of Pakistan recently came out and said that the Pakistani government is going to make a better effort and do more to contain terrorism and extremism in Pakistan.
This is a very big step for Pakistan, having a country in the Middle East make an effort to lower the threat and occurrence of terrorism is definitely a step in the right direction. This could be a turning point, by setting an example of the ability for Middle Eastern countries to do so. I am not saying this will stop terrorism, but sometimes it only takes one person/country to take a step in the right direction for others to do the same.

Egyptian Elections and the Muslim Brotherhood

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7334191.stm

The author of this article discusses how the Muslim Brotherhood plans to boycott municpal elections in Egypt following a crackdown against the illegal yet tolerated political party. Apparently over 800 members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been jailed in recent weeks as President Mubarak's party attempts to maintain its grip of control in the country. The author states that Mubarak's National Democratic Party will be unopposed in over 90% of the seats open for contest in the upcoming elections. Groups beside the Muslim Brotherhood have complained about injustice in the government as far as fair elections are concerned. What is the motivation for the stranglehold on power? Is there a real threat that another party could seize control of the government if true democracy is able to influence elections in Egypt. Also, why has the Muslim Brotherhood been banned as a political party? Does the Muslim Brotherhood have ties to terrorism? Is the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group? Any thoughts?

Religion and Suicide Bombing

I read an interesting article that talks about a conference that just took place in Oklahoma (a hotbed of counter-terrorist thinking. Who knew?) Check out the article here

I recommend that you all check out this article, but something interesting that I got from it concerned suicide terrorism. One of the speakers, Robert Pape, of the University of Chicago, noted that most people have this idea that suicide bombing is always motivated by religion. He points out that this is not the case, and that religion is usually not the cause for suicide bombings. He states the one group which uses suicide bombings, the PKK, has Marxist and anti-religion beliefs. Another, the Tamil Tigers, do not have religious motivations. He also says that when Al-Qaeda in Iraq has used suicide bombs, it has been to slow the spread of democracy, not for any religious motivations.

I thought this was an interesting idea because I for one have considered religion a main motivation for suicide bombings, but the actual data proves otherwise.

The truth about terrorism?

http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/20838/526/
This article I read was very interesting. This article comes from the largest muslim paper out of California. I thought this would be a good artucle for the class since we have been talking about the use of the word, "terrorism". It starts out talking about since the invasion of Iraq. "The sad fact is that the so-called “war on terrorism” is failing and that terrorism is spreading around the world like a cancer and is posing more and more danger for us." Another way that this article relates to the class is the fact that we have been talking about terrorist getting nuclear weapons. Throughout this whole article Parko talks about how the great military force can do nothing. Parko idea of solving terrorism, he says that aid is the best way to prevent terrorism. Even if we just drop our military budget by 10% we could give all that aid to people in countries where terrorism threaves. By doing this Parko feels that it would create a hard time for terrorist to find people that are willing to die for there cause. I think that military force should not be cut by 10%. If we did this then I think it would make it that much harder to fight terrorist in different areas. To me I would rather fight a war on terror away from the United States then in it. I also, wanted to know what everyone thinks about this article. Having it come from the largest muslim paper in California, do you guys think that has a influne on the article. Would the muslim conection make it a reason that the article feels aid should be sent instead of bombs?
Let me know?
Thanks
Austin Conners

Problems of Profiling

A few week ago in class we discussed whether profiling would reduce the risks of terrorist attacks. This article highlights the problem associated with profiling,which is, terrorists recruit from among those that are least likely to raise suspicion. Once the terrorist organization learns about the people who are exempt from being searched, they will recruit from among them, so as to ensure a successful operation. Proving this statement right,the Al-Queda in Iraq is recruiting mentally handicapped women to carry out their operations. Being mentally impaired, these women are extremely vulnerable and easily buy into terrorist propaganda. Also there is a higher likelihood of the operation being carried out successfully because these women are less likely to be searched as they raise little to no suspension with their unusual activities.
Profiling has another drawback, Al-Queda has been recruiting hundreds of British non-Muslims to carry out their war against the west. Though most of these recruits may eventually convert to Islam, for the sake of our security, it is important that no one is profiled and everyone is searched. We may be worse off profiling and scrutinizing an Arab looking man who has nothing to do with terrorism, while letting go of an elderly Caucasian who might have direct links to a terrorist network.

More LTTE Action

Just the other day, the LTTE assassinated (by suicide bombing) a senior Sri Lankan minister. The President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, today vowed to eradicate terrorism from the country in order to end the problems that the Tamil Tigers have been causing. I wonder how much action will actually follow this statement. Why now? Was this one minister that important? The LTTE have been killing since the mid 80s and are responsible for the deaths of more than 70,000 people. I think that this statement by the president is more bark than bite. I doubt that much more will be done by the Sri Lankan government against the LTTE. What do you guys think?

How Al-Qaeda Will Perish

How Al-Qaeda Will Perish

"There really is a broad rethink sweeping the Muslim world about the practical utility -- and moral defensibility -- of terrorism, particularly since al Qaeda began targeting fellow Sunni Muslims, as it did with the 2005 suicide bombings of three hotels in Amman, Jordan. Al Qaeda knows this. Osama bin Laden is no longer quite the folk hero he was in 2001. Reports of al Qaeda's torture chambers in Iraq have also percolated through Arab consciousness, replacing, to some extent, the images of Abu Ghraib."

"[Muslims] have come to know al Qaeda as fundamentally a radical movement -- the antithesis of the traditional social order represented by the local sovereign, the religious establishment."

It appears that there is a counter al-Qaeda movement throughout the Muslim world, especially amongst the Sunni Muslims because the tactics of al-Qaeda (torture and bombing/killing of fellow Sunnis) has pushed them away from bin Laden's and al-Zawahiri's radical interpretation of Islam. It appears that the pendulum is swinging towards our favor (rather away from al-Qaeda). This can be viewed as a decline for al-Qaeda, similar to one described by Heymann. Eventually, al-Qaeda will perish.

~Greg

Suicide Videos

If you were a terrorist and were about to kill yourself what would you say ? Click here to find some good suggestions 'Plotters made suicide videos'. This came about in a court case where they are presenting evidence of the guys that are responsible for you not being able to take liquids on the airplane. The interesting information that this brings to light is what is required to convict a terrorists ? In this case the prosecution is taking place in the UK but.. .. If you were on a jury could you be open-minded about someone who was caught sneaking explosive material onto an airplane ? What should be the punishment for people like this ? Jack Bauer would probably torture them to death .... what about in real life how do we deal with these terrorists what should be the penalties for attempted terrorism ?

Who wants brownie points?

I really hate to bid farewell to our comrade Tirofijo, mostly because the colors in the Colombian flag make a really lovely header. But all things must pass, so here we go again.

In honor of our new header graphic, I am sponsoring a little contest. Here are the rules: The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post. Good luck!

1) What is the name of the alleged terrorist depicted in this mural?

2) In what terrorist organization was this person a volunteer?

3) For what crime was this person twice incarcerated?

4) What was the highest political office to which this person was elected?

5) How did this person die?

6) What is the date of the final entry in this person's secret prison diary?

Schneier on Security

For those of you that don't know, Bruce Schneier (cryptanalyst extraodinaire) writes an article for Wired magazine called Security Matters. In this weeks article, he talks exactly about what we have been discussing in class, the difference between feeling secure, and actually being secure. It's a really interesting article that puts into perspective some of the things we've been learning, so you all should check it out.

Big Brother's watching us

We spoke in class yesterday about the Government's surveillance programs and the limits they place on listening in to phone calls etc. Here are two articles (number 1) (number 2) detailing the ACLU's issues with the surveillance that's taking place. The first article describes a secret government memo that the ACLU claims says that the government doesn't think the fourth amendment applies to terrorism suspects. However, the ACLU has not seen the memo in question since it is still classified. The second article details ACLU lawsuits over alleged information sharing between the DoD and the FBI. The ACLU argues that the DoD has the ability to collect only certain types of information (such as bank records) and that the FBI can collect other types of information (such as emails). But apparently, the ACLU argues, the two cannot share information with each other in pursuit of potential criminals. They must do it on their own.

These articles relate to our discussion in class regarding the merits and trade offs of increasing security and moving towards an intelligence state. At this point, for obvious reasons, the government does not disclose the specifics of their surveillance programs for fear that the terrorists they watch will know what's going on. However, this leads to other problems such as groups like the ACLU demanding full disclosure and fearing the worst (true or not) when they do not have all the information. This dilemma of how to go about gathering intelligence and how much information to disclose about their programs will haunt the government's efforts for the foreseeable future. I believe it is in our interests not to know what is going on to a certain extent. I propose that an independent intelligence oversight board of some sort be created with access to all the efforts and programs the government uses to gather intelligence. This board would then rule on the constitutionality and legality of any method or instance of info gathering. This group would represent the public and the public's interests. That way, the government would not be able to abuse their power and move us too close to a Stallinesque Intelligence State while at the same time allowing the government to gather intelligence without suspects knowing about their methods and preventing frivolous lawsuits and uninformed complaints by groups such as the ACLU. What do you guys think?

New Gaza show for kids

Here's a new show for kids in Gaza. In this episode, a little kid murders Bush as revenge for the death of his parents. Note that this is from the official Hamas television station. Are they really fooling anyone when they say they want peace? It's things like this that show Hamas systematically brainwashing their children into becoming killing machines. In my opinion, there's no doubt they intend on dulling their children's sense of violence in order to further the conflict.

Memri1
by luvnews

US Attorney General Says Piracy Helps Fund Terrorist Attacks

http://www.dbtechno.com/internet/2008/03/31/us-attorney-general-says-piracy-helps-fund-terrorist-attacks/

US Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed that piracy, along with counterfeiting, helps fund terrorist organizations; he made this claim in an address at the Tech Museum of Innovation at Silicon Valley. According to Mukasey, “Criminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities.” I have never pirated anything before, and I was wondering how easy it is to do so. Also, I was wondering how the class feels about Mukasey's statement. Do most people pirate entertainment or other forms of information on the internet? If so, do you think Mukasey's statement will have any effect on piracy?

Arab summit failures have many asking, Why hold them?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/30/africa/ME-GEN-Arab-Summit.php
I found this article about the Arab Summit. In this article it discusses about this year how the Arab sumbits went. The article discussed how the United States Arab allies boycotted the sumit. On 10 of the 22 Arab countries ended up going to the conference. The conference each year is suppose to unite the Arab nations. However, since at least 2002 all of the Nations have not been there or members have had arguements, boycotts and walks outs. In this year conference there was a last minute walk out by the newly governed Iraq. This is because out of the countries there, they would not pass anything to condemn terrorism. It looks like this maybe the last Arab Sumbit unless somekind of deal to work. This deals with Terrorism in a couple different reason. The first reason is that since there was no condemning of terrorism, this shows to me that some Arab nations are infavor of terrorism, i.e: Iran, Syria and Lebanon. ANother way this effects terrror is that if Arab nations can not agree to stop it, then I feel that it gives terrorist free reign to do what they want and be able to hide in countries. Also, it may allow terrorist to have state sponsorship against the United States. I think if this summit does not continue, in the end it will cause more problems for tthe U.S.
Let me know what everyone else thinks
Thanks
Austin Conners

p.s-This post was suppose to go the week of the 24-30th of March it did not go through. Please grade it for that week, Thanks

Giving People Another Option...

While reading for last Friday's class from The Age of Sacred Terror, Benjamin and Simon stated something that I thought was quite interesting. On page 409, they say, "Traditional societies the world over are reeling from the impact of globalization, which arrives wearing the face of American popular culture. Poverty is endemic in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as well as in the Middle East and North Africa. Only al-Qaeda has counterattacked with a campaign of violence that aims for total victory through annihilation of the presumed source of these evils." It seems to me that Benjamin and Simon suggest that the world is not doing enough, or really anything, to fight the poverty that is so prevalent in the mentioned places. It only seems natural that people would support al-Qaeda because they are the only organization doing anything at all. Only al-Qaeda is giving them an answer for their miserable state, so of course they are going to join and support them. So, it seems to me that if the world, not just the US, increased their attention and aid to these places and gave the people a viable alternative option to al-Qaeda and other terrorists, perhaps support would dwindle for the terrorist organizations. But again, it is difficult to determine whether or not people in these poverty-stricken areas would even accept Western help. Anyway, just a thought... feel free to share your ideas.

Alpha Anti-terror group

While researching for paper 5, I came across some interesting information that I thought I'd share with you guys. It's about Russia's elite counter-terrorism group known as the Alpha Group.

Not much is known about their history, but one notable operation was in 1985 when 4 Russian diplomats were held hostage in Beirut. The KGB identified the terrorists and the Alpha group kidnapped their families. Since Russia does not negotiate with hostages, they just sent the terrorists some severed body parts from their family members with the warning that more would be sent if the diplomats were not released. Needless to say, the terrorists released their hostages, and no Russian diplomats has been kidnapped in the Middle East for the last 20 years.

I know that we could never do that today, but you have to hand it to the Soviets, they got the job done.

Read more about the Alpha group here

United States--Sponsor of Terror?

In Sunday's New York Times there is an article discussing Venezuela's sponsorship of terrorism. The Colombian government claims to have recovered files in Ecuador connecting the Venezuelan government with the FARC. This hardly comes as a surprise to anyone. Hugo Chavez's sympathy towards the FARC is notorious. However, the United States still has not placed Venezuela on its list of State Sponsers of Terrorism. Why is this? Are the motivations purely political....or economic....or both. The United States is a consumer of Venezuelan oil. Despite the rhetoric on both sides, the countries continue to do business. Who is the biggest hypocrite. Hugo Chavez, who at every turn, calls the United States an evil empire, yet continues to sell us oil. Or the United States government, who calls Hugo Chavez a despotic dictator and continues to purchase oil from him. Which, they now in turn, is used to sponsor terrorism aboard. Though some might disagree, it would appear that the United States "War on Terror" and those who sponsor it does not begin within. Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/americas/30colombia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Fatwa in a new light.

Muqtada Al-Sadr called for a truce between the government and his militia, six days after the government cracked down against his bases in Basra,Iraq. While he asked the government to release his supporters from prison and stop raiding their homes, he ordered his men to put down their arms and stop attacking the armed forces "because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces." In class we had discussed that a Fatwa, (a religious sanction obtained from a cleric legitimizing an attack) could count as one of the factors that made Islamic terrorism more dangerous, because people seek Fatwas from someone who shares a similar viewpoint, and some individuals (like Bin Laden) even issue Fatwas themselves, thus legitimizing their actions. However, this particular case points towards a positive usage of the Fatwa. Here it is issued to stop violence rather than escalate it. Though there have been reported instances of violence after the statement has been released, it will be interesting to see how this truce develops.

Some Counterterrorist Humor

After many years in school, I have realized that the best way for me to learn in class when someone can take a principle and turn it into a joke or make light of it somehow (i.e. being sarcastic, irreverent, satirical, etc.). For whatever reason, I can remember a principle with greater clarity and recall when it is presented in this manner. Therefore, as we are concluding our section on counterterrorist strategies and tactics, I thought I would add a hilariously satirical piece by the Daily Onion (aka the ONN) to our blog. The piece is entitled, "Organizers Fear Terrorist Attacks on Upcoming Al-Qaeda Convention," and it details the counterterrorist strategies and security measures that Al-Qaeda is going to use in order to deny, dissuade and even defend against terrorist attacks at their convention. This piece was not only downright hilarious in its mocking and satirical tone, but it also had a copious amount of real-life strategies and techniques that we have been talking about in class.

Pictured here: a delegate from Mosul triggers one of the many metal detectors brought in for the conference.

Dutch MP posts Islam film on web

Dutch MP posts Islam film on web
I found this article very interesting but the most interesting part was that of the comments at the bottom. We get a very biased point of view with American news and sometimes its interesting to see what other people have to save from different parts of the world see comments at the bottom. The article in of itself mentions how this house representative in Holland posted a right wing film associating terrorism with Islam. This reminds me of the discussion that came up in class today if we can separate Islam from terrorists then we have the help of millions of the followers of Islam to fight terrorism ? Do you think people will every be able to look at terrorism as people who have gone to far or will it always be linked to religion ?

Middle Eastern Optimism and the New Bargain

This past class we discussed the options available to the United States in the long term, to prevent religious terrorism. It seemed that at least the vocal minority, or perhaps the majority felt that the new bargain that was put forth got shot down fairly quickly. It was this fatalist attitude that I wanted to engage.

I believe with time, we can make inroads into the middle east and bring about positive democratization and secularization. Of course the task is far from an easy one, but that should not inhibit us from pursuing a long-term course there. We should provide aid, education and trade opportunities with supportive governments, and we should allow more diplomats to engage different tribes, sects and non-governmental institutions that may be supportive of terrorists or may enable them in some way.

The more engagement, the better. I know some of you are probably rolling your eyes at this point and thinking, "But it's our engagement there that has brought with it so much hostility and backlash," however, if you think that, I will not say you are incorrect, but you are missing the whole picture. What type of engagement has frustrated the populaces of the middle east? Our military and covert operations. Open diplomacy, good business and transparent missions to support education and eradicate poverty will be able to change perceptions. It will be a long process. I will not deny that. Some have been brain-washed and will never change (at least in this life), but we must try. Any one else have an optimistic view?

Changes in Iraq

I recently came upon a posting by Michael Yon. In his posting he reports on a recent happening in Iraq that is interesting. Recently, about twenty "jihadists" descended on a Nineveh village. The terrorists killed some adults and two infants, the youngest of which was 15 days old. Yon states that until recently, such attacks would coerce the village into providing a safe-haven for the terrorists (Al-Qaeda). However, this time the villagers went into their homes, grabbed their rifles, and slaughtered 19 terrorists. I have been thinking about counter-terrorist strategies and what may have caused these villagers to decide that they were not going to take it anymore. Is Al-Qaeda increasingly being denied of their constituent public (even if they have been coerced in the past to become providers of shelter)? I wonder if the U.S. has had much of an influence on these villagers or if they are just sick of being murdered and dominated by these terrorists. Whatever the cause, I believe that if more people would take the same initiative as the people in this village, it would be a lot more difficult for terrorists to gain support and operate.

P.S. If are interested in what's happening in Iraq, and if you haven't heard of Michael Yon or what he is doing, check him out, some of you may like what you see.

Hooray for brownie points

As you may have noticed, I have replaced the header graphic at the top of the blog, although I know that many of you will miss the cheerful face of our good friend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Our new friend is no less interesting, and I have some questions about him.

You know the drill, right? The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.

1) What is the organization that this man leads?

2) What is the nickname that this man's fellow militants have given him?

3) What is the name he was born with?

4) What is the name of the president who signed a peace agreement with this terrorist, giving him de facto control of a territory the size of Switzerland?

5) What was the name of the semi-independent territory from which this man was expelled by government forces, leading him to form the organization which he now heads?

6) What is the amount of the bounty placed on this man's head by the United States Department of State?

Good luck!

19 LTTE Killed

Here is some more current information on the LTTE. while fighting in the north there were 19 members of the LTTE killed and some others wounded. Through a series of small attacks and small fights in the north there were several members of this terrorist organization killed, there were also a couple of SLA soldiers killed in the attacks. My question is, when there are more casualties to the terrorist group than there is to the target is the attack really worth it...any opinions. I can't imagine how it would be beneficial to the terrorist group to attack and lose so many 'fighters' without at least an equal number of deaths on the opposing side.

LTTE

I have found the LTTE very interesting lately. Ever since coming across their website and seeing the sympathy that they try to gain from it. Here is an interesting link about how other people feel about the LTTE. Even some closely related to Tamil leaders feel that things would be better without the LTTE, this is an example of that and it also gives some interesting little details about the LTTE and the effect it has on Sri Lanka as a whole.

terrorism misidentified

In yet another example of the term "terrorism" being possibly misidentified, the government of Jordan has charged a man with terrorism for stabbing a German in Amman. You can find the article here.

I think the article is almost funny (minus the whole stabbing part), because it says that they initially did not consider the act terrorism, but after finding out that the Jordanian had a long beard and was apparently an Islamist, they changed their minds and charged him with terrorism.

It's interesting to note that motives of the attack were still unclear. They don't yet know if he is a member of a sub-state organization with a political aim, but apparently they believe he is an Islamist, and I guess that's enough to charge him with terrorism. It's possible (and likely) however that Jordan has a slightly different (read: skewed) definition of terrorism.

more of "a nasty business"

Waterboarding has come up a lot in class and I didn't really understand what it was, so I looked it up on wikipedia (where else, right?). Then I followed a link in a footnote to this site. It features a video of a reporter voluntarily being waterboarded and his discussion with a professional interrogator and two faculty members at Harvard. It reminded me of Bruce Hoffman's piece "A Nasty Business" where he talks with a counter-terrorism worker who has engaged in coercive methods of interrogation. The interrogator says that he doesn't feel good or bad about what he's done and that no one really knows what they'd do in a position like that until he or she is actually in the moment.

In this video clip, the interviewed interrogator--Mike Ritz--says he has to make decisions between saving people and punishing alleged terrorists. I found his point interesting about torture: when torture is used and innocent would-be-victims are saved as a result, people are left with two conflicting beliefs (that torture is illegal and bad, and that saving people is good) that they have to reconcile. This video furthers our discussion on Hoffman's piece about torture being horrible but sometimes having good effects. However, unsurprisingly, it doesn't resolve the issue.

Refusal Keeps Terrorism Convict in Prison

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102775.html?hpid=sec-nation
I read this article on Former university professor Sami al-Arian wants to finish serving his prison sentence for a terrorism-related crime next month so that he can be deported to the Palestinian territories. In this article I read that professor Sami al-Arian was arrested for collecting money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group that is based out of Pakistan. Professor Sami al-Arian,
"was at the center of one of the nation's highest profile terrorism cases, accused of conspiracy to commit racketeering and murder and to aid a terrorist group, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in 2003. Two years later, a jury acquitted him of eight counts and deadlocked on others, but Arian pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to "make or receive funds . . . for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad" and was sentenced to 57 months in prison, which included time already served."
Professor al-Arian just wants to finish his jail time, and be deported to Pakistan. He was supposly offered a plea bargain for his testimony, and he would not be subpoena. However, the courts may hold al-Arian in jail until he testifies against Charities that are supporting terrorist. I wonder what everyone thinks about this article? Is it right to remove all right from a terrorist to protect national security? I think it is. I would rather take away rights from one person to save thousands or maybe millions.
Let me know what you think. I hope you like the article.
Austin Conners

Protecting Your Sources How Far Does it Go ?

So this video shows an interview by a reporter for NYT . This guy has trained hundreds of terrorist by his accounts and carried out attacks himself. Why isn't this guy in jail ? The reporter says they had to conceal their location in order for him to agree to the interview. I suppose a reporter would argue you have to protect your sources but... where is the limit? If I have information about a terrorist who carries out terrorist action am I obligated to pass it onto the state dept ? Or break a big story instead .. Hmmm which sounds more towards the rights of the innocent that will suffer from the attack or the people this guy trained ?

Israeli Counter Terrorism

I just read an article concerning Israel and its counter terrorism policy in its airports.  (Article)  

The Israelis are using the denial technique to stop potential attacks by racially profiling those of Arab descent.  In the U.S. this is illegal to do, but some terrorist experts say that this specific practice is the reason there hasn't been an attack/hijacking on an Israeli plane for decades, even superseding reinforcing the luggage compartments with armor, reinforced cockpits, and armed marshals.  Now there is a debate in Israel in the Supreme Court about its legality.  

In the U.S. this policy wouldn't work for a couple reasons: 1) It's illegal and is not likely to pass scrutiny, 2) Focusing on a certain race (how can people always tell the race of a person?) will eventually overlook other people that are terrorists.  The U.S. policy is to randomly check passengers which so far, with the increased security measures, seems to be effective enough.  Thoughts?

~Greg

Waterboarding

I recently learned during an ROTC briefing that U.S. military servicemembers attending SERE-C school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) are waterboarded as part of their stress-inoculation training.  I'm definitely not making a final judgement call in favor of the technique, or coercive interrogation in general.  However, I do think the fact that we somewhat-routinely waterboard our own soldiers, sailors, and airmen as part of training weakens that case that waterboarding is a form of torture, and legitimates it as an interrogation technique.

I'm interested in hearing what everyone else thinks.

SERE Training

JFK Special Warfare School webpage on SERE training.  Obviously it avoids any controversial subjects.

Article 1

Article 2

Both of these article are rather obviously trying to make a political statement, but they do highlight the relationship between SERE training and coercive interrogation.  I'm not claiming to agree with the conclusions, though.

Al-Qaeda and the Internet

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15net.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205784903-nGAiqDYmnZTfuEdmebRl/Q

The New York Times recently reported about Al-Qaeda's growing use of the internet to attract support from potential terrorists in the West, particularly young Muslims living in Europe and the United States. The author of the article discussed how Al-Qaeda has had a lot of success in gaining sympathizers in the West through various propagandist endeavors disseminated through the internet. As mentioned in class, the author highlights Al-Qaeda's use of hip-hop videos with anti-West messages to attract support. The organization has found this tool effective. It seems odd to me that Al-Qaeda would approve of hip-hop, a Western trend with sometimes questionable messages, as the mode by which their ideas are spread to young adults. Is this a double standard that the Al-Qaeda organization has, or is the use of hip-hop to gain support perpetuated by individuals not truly part of the group but rather distant supporters of Al-Qaeda? I would be interested in knowing what you all think.

Development as an Anti Terrorism tool

Last week in class we talked about the role of development in countering terrorism. Specifically we listed Global, Strategic and Tactical development. For some reason, I find development in any of these forms as lacking the potential to curb terrorism. While poverty may be a factor that promotes terrorism, it cannot be considered a cause of terrorism, because there are a lot of countries around the world which are poor but do not display any signs of terrorism.
Because most terrorists have multiple sponsors, I do not think that the aid that supports one or two of their constituencies may be an incentive for them to denounce terrorism altogether.
I further find it ironic that a terrorist group such as the Al-Queda, which is fighting the effects of globalization under a religious banner, and do not want any kind of foreign influence on their lands will accept foreign aid from the countries it is fighting.
Whether we choose to improve the GDP of particular countries, or develop certain cities regions etc, it is the terrorists we have to appease and not just their constituent public. After all, most terrorist organizations do not necessarily represent main stream demands.

al Qaeda

So I have been working on gathering information for paper #5 and I have been finding a lot of interesting little websites that have some information about Al Qaeda. A lot of it is stuff you may already know, but a lot of it was new to me so I thought I would share it here you go...
First
Second
I hope those were helpful and interesting for at least a couple of you. They are just small little sites with some basic information, but I thought it was good to know.

Debating Cost-effective Counter-terror

After reading the article posted by Chris on Sunday, I wanted to hear what others had to say specifically about the perceived lack of cost-efficient counter-terrorism.

I found the following sentence interesting: "Spending ever-more money making targets 'harder' is actually a poor choice."

It's easy to see where the authors are coming from--every time we fortify one target, we leave plenty others without defense. And there just isn't enough money to fortify everything. However, if the authors are advancing the notion that all fortification is futile, I would strongly disagree. As Schneier (or Heymann) mentioned, certain targets such as air travel merit special attention. After all, on 9/11 the control by terrorists of four airplanes killed thousands of Americans, greatly damaged the economy, and succeeded in creating mass fear and uncertainty.

It is undeniable that, "Increased counter-terrorism measures simply transfer terrorists’ attention elsewhere." But this does not always make costly counter-terror programs a failure. On the contrary, I find it reassuring that terrorists are having to turn away from their first-choice targets to secondary preferences. I think it is also fair to assume that terrorists will attack the best targets first, the next-best targets second, and so forth. As long as terrorists are having greater difficulty carrying out attacks against their preferred targets (which are most likely to kill civilians, damage property, hurt the economy and create fear), then I'd say the counter-terror measures which focus on fortifying potential targets are fulfilling their purpose.

I believe that the drastic inefficiency that appears to exist in our current counter-terror agenda is largely due to the hidden costs of fear. Part of the reason Americans are willing to submit to annoying security measures is because they feel threatened by the possibility of a terrorist attack and are willing to sacrifice for the feeling of security. I think that the question is: How much is America willing to pay to feel secure? The answer: a lot.

What do you think? Are counter-terror strategies worth the cost they impose? What role does fear play in the price of counter-terror? Is it warranted? How can counter-terror strategies be more cost-effective?

Furore over Muslim terrorism claims

http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=727578
I read this article on how an academic professor made claims agains Muslims in South Africa. Prof Hussein Solomon, director of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for International Political Studies said, "South Africa was becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists." This comment has outraged Muslims in South Africa. There are death threats on his life and his family's. The Media Review Network (MRN), a Muslim media watchdog, this week demanded an apology from the academic. In this article it discusses how people in South AFrica think that there is no evidence for this remark. However, Professor Solomon states several causes and will not back down. This article deals with terrorism because for one it is calling a state a sponser of terrorist (state sponsered). Also by Professor Solomon's remarks this could work out for the terrorist, because it looks like the people are backing them up by going against PRofessor Solomon. I was wondering if anyone knew what other problems this could cause in the region now, that it has created tension, let me know what you guys think,
Thanks
Austin Conners

Counter-Terrorism Measures

I found this great article in the Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper. You can find the article here.

This article highlights a very interesting study done by the Copenhagen Consensus which studies the cost-benefit ratio of different counter-terrorism methods employed by Western gov'ts. The results show that has gov't increase security in one area or threat, terrorist organizations are adapting and attacking other targets.

The study shows that increasing the counter-terrorism budget just 25% worldwide would cost the US at least $75 billion over the next 5 years. If we overestimate the result of this and assume a 25% drop in terrorist attacks, this would only save the international economy $22 billion. The costs would be three times the expected benefits. This is only a 30 cent return for every dollar spent on counter-terrorism efforts. The article estimates that in this best case scenario, only 105 lives would be saved each year. Compare that with the 30,000 deaths on US highways annually, and it almost doesn't seem worth it.

The study proposes a solution however. If governments around the world cooperated to cut of the finances of terrorist organizations and networks, then expensive, large-scale attacks could be eliminate. This would be hard to do because some countries prefer to work autonomously, but the authors estimate that this would cost only $128 million annually (read the article to find out how they got this number). Preventing one large scale terrorist attack could save over $1 billion dollars. The returns could be several times the initial investment.

In short, the US and other Western countries need to rethink how they are investing counter-terrorism fund and seek get better returns and benefits for their money, in the form of lives saved.

Secret Captures by CIA

This article is about the secret capture of Muhammad Rahim a guy who helped Usama hide out at one point and a bunch of other nasty terrorist activity. The intresting part of the article is that the CIA had secretley detained and interrogated him back in April 2007 only now after almost a year of intergation does he get turned over to the military and guantanmo bay. So my question : We capture people for the intellegince but why not say we captured them ? Doesnt this give fuel to the counter-stratgies we have been talking about ? Why not tell everyone ?

Colombia and Scheier

In class today we talked about the irony in the Scheier piece. Scheier said the targets we try to protect from terrorism are physical, economic, and social, and yet we unwisely spend money and give up civil liberties in our attempts to combat terrorism. So we're actually in some sense attacking two of the three targets which we're trying to protect.

This week's Economist had an article about Colombia's bombing of a FARC camp just across the border in Ecuador ("On the warpath"). Scheier's point can be seen in the current situation in South America, too. Colombia--like the US--wants to protect itself physically, economically, and socially. Yet it is spending a lot in its drive to eliminate the FARC and has violated civil liberties. Surely the bomb which killed Mr. Reyes was expensive, as was the Super Tucano plane. I'm not sure what the Colombian-US deal was, but President Uribe's forces were using US intelligence (whether or not they had to pay for it, or were just given it, I'm not sure). As for civil liberties, even if those of the Colombian people were not violated, surely the territorial integrity of Ecuador was when Colombian forces bombed a FARC camp about a mile inside the country (and did not get permission from President Correa of Ecuador).

So, rights and money are still ironically being used in the fight to protect them. However, the situation in Colombia may be a bit different from that in the US. It seems that Colombia may be able to permanently cripple the FARC and is on the path to doing so, whereas the US, according to Scheier, is not getting as much security as it should be for the price it is paying.

Terrorism and WMD's

We have discussed in class the probability of terrorists obtaining and using WMDs to achieve their goals. Recently, a man posted two specific ways to cultivate anthrax on a pro Al-Qaeda public forum. According to the article, the cultivation of anthrax is not extremely difficult, and anthrax is extremely inexpensive to produce... "Production costs are low; one kilogram of anthrax bacteria costs about $50 even though a lethal dose can be as little as one millionth of a gram." The man who posted on the forum included detailed microscopic photos of the bacteria in different phases of the production. It is alarming to think that such information is readily accessible in public forums. Although making anthrax as a weapon is dangerous and somewhat complicated, it is not impossible. As the article states, the equipment and know-how to produce anthrax are not available to "most jihadis." At the end of the anthrax production post, the man concludes by saying "wait for my next detailed posting on how to build a Cessna 128 aircraft" (used for chemical dispersion in agriculture). Even though it may be difficult and improbable for terrorists to produce and use WMDs, I believe that sooner or later, WMDs, probably biological weapons, will be used in the future by terrorists. I don't think that it is just because of this post of instructions, I'm sure Al-Qaeda knew most if not all of the information in that post, but it is becoming more accessible to anyone who desires it. There are further commentaries to be read at these websites.

Peaceful Jihad

The President of Indonesia (largest Muslim population in a country), calls for an "Islamic Renaissance." Link

"Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for greater democracy and efforts to improve the plight of Muslims and spread Islamic values..."

"History tells us that Muslims in the past contributed immensely to the march of civilization through groundbreaking achievements in the sciences, as well as in arts." But Yudhoyono added that Islam was now "on the defensive."

If you look at the history of Islam you see the balancing between making Islam first in sciences and technology and this is another example of it. But there is two ways that Islamists try to make this possible: Violent or peaceful expansion. The President's view of it seems to be the best and most effective as violent expansion turns many people away.

~ Greg

Speaking of financial analysts...

...we have another contest! I have replaced the header graphic at the top of the blog, and I have a few questions to ask about the international terrorist pictured here.

Here are the contest rules: The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.

Questions:

1. Where does this man currently reside?

2. In what country was he (probably) born?

3. What coercive interrogation method has the CIA admitted using to get information from this man?

4. Where is the famous university alumni page on which he should appear?

5. What is the name of one person he has beheaded?

6. What relative of his is also a famous international terrorist?

Good luck!

Financial Analyst

In TUFP and in class we talked about financial controls in combating terrorism. Someone mentioned that his dad was a financial analyst. It sounded interesting to me so I went looking through some job descriptions on the FBI website. In the professional staff section they have a specific number for financial analysts 1160. Then I went to USAJOBS.com to find out more about this position. The FBI isn’t the only agency looking for financial analysts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Park Service, Federal Deposit and the Army all had openings. The duties describe this position as dealing with white collar crime investigating large corporations domestic and international. The analyst has to look over individual transactions, bank statements, and insurance claims. In light of the recent discoveries about Mayor Spitzer and how he got caught (suspicious money transfers) I thought this was relevant. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1) I believe that is how we have caught and froze accounts belonging to terrorist networks like al-Qaeda operating out of charities. Does anybody know why on P.93 in TUFP it says we have not frozen any funds from Syria?

Hammas and Iran

We have mentioned in class that Hezbollah is sponsored by the Iranian government. A couple of the authors we have read have described different layers of their involvement including military training and monetary contributions. A recent article in the Jerusalem Post found here describes a similar connection between Hammas, Iran and Syria. Recently in a meeting of the Shin Bet, Israeli intelligence agency, an official described this link. Later that week an unnamed Hammas leader described in greater detail the relationship.

He stated that members of Hammas were filtering into Syria, where passport restrictions are less extreme, and meeting up with Hezbollah operatives to recieve weapons training from the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Members who are rated high in the exercises are then filtered from Syria to Iran for even greater training and then sent back to Palestine. The Hammas leaders claims that at least 650 individuals have been trained in this manner, and that the organization now has 15,000 fighters.

This link between Hammas and Iran may be more of a recent development, but it indicates a dangerous direction for Israel's future, if it's enemies are combining together and sharing assets in this manner.