Taliban Activities in Kabul

This Economist article discusses the January 14th suicide bombing of an Afghani hotel. The bombing was notable because it exemplifies a recent shift in Taliban targets to include expatriates living in Kabul. This supports Bruce Hoffman's definition of terrorism: "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear..." (see Inside Terrorism, p. 40). Because defining terrorism has been a central part of readings, class discussions, and papers, it's important that we recognize the role of fear as a goal of terrorism. Surely the Taliban wants to stir fear in Kabul's foreigners (many of whom are Westerners and byproducts of globalization...which, as discussed in class on Friday, is often severely disliked), otherwise they would not have shifted their violence to include these expatriates, who had thought their hotel to be secure. Why do terrorists want the power to make others afraid? Because enough fear can cripple those who are currently stronger than them. (Remember Paul Pillar defined terrorism as "the quintessential weapon of the weak against the strong" on p. 1 of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy.) Fear may be used to chain supporters or to chase away potential targets.

Spreading of Afgan Violence Into Pakistan

In the New York Times for Friday, January 18th, it contained an article about the spread of violence from the Taliban and Al Qaeda into Pakistan. I thought this was particularly an interesting article because of the change of strategy of many of the Taliban. Obviously the Taliban have an ultimate goal of regaining control of Afghanistan, but many of them are taking refuge in parts of Pakistan. In the town of Peshawar they are especially having difficulties with the Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents. There appears to be an attempt to overtake the town by the insurgents and according to many involved in the fight, the insurgents are doing quite well. The people are starting to lose their faith in the government and the police fear for their safety. It appears that the insurgents could very well take this territory for their own. I thought that was kind of interesting because I was not aware of too many areas where the insurgents really held land other than small tribal areas outside of this town. It would be interesting to see how the fight evolves from there. I also wonder, what really would be the significance and result if the insurgents did take a town like Peshawar? Especially since Pakistan is not a region that American forces have been fighting the insurgents.

Counterterrorism Calender

*Please do not count this as a graded post*
I know you've all been waiting for this, but the time has finally come. The National Counterterrorism Center has just released the 2008 Counterterrorism Calender. It includes all sorts of interesting information on terrorism, from profiles of the most-wanted terrorists in the world, to terrorist logos, how to spot a fake passport, and something titled "TNT Equivalents for Various Explosives and Fuel-Air Mixtures".
Here it is in pdf form. FYI, it's like 24 mb, so make sure you have a strong internet connection.

Habeas Corpus and Detainees...

Reading the Padilla article brought me to searching the net for more on the Detainees' Appeal to repeal the Detainee Treatment act.

Here is the interesting article about the rights of the detainees in Gitmo as they currently stand. It seems the detainees suddenly really like the western world, they embrace the constitution and all of its intricacies, claiming they have a right to Habeas Corpus. How can someone go from working to topple the government of the US and then whole heartedly expect that the US would give them any rights let alone the same rights as a citizen.

The founding fathers had a clear understanding that treason would be treated as a death penalty offense and in regards to those who participated in British attacks on Americans, or were caught sharing intel with the British would be killed with a simple trial requiring that the evidence be presented and judgment passed. I do think the trials are taking longer than necessary to complete, but the persons still being held are the ones which a legitimate threat has been found, not the other 4000 we have released without harm.

I am obviously a constructionist in this matter but when dealing with traitors why should we grant them the rights they so willingly gave up when plotting attacks against us? Doesn't being a citizen come with any special rights? (ie bill of rights, for the people of the US, not the people against it)

Padilla's Sentencing

I have to say I am oh so fond of how caring our judges are to terrorist conspirators and how concerned we all are over their "treatment." It seems that we are quick to forget that these conspirators sought to kill, maim, destroy Americans and our interests. Regardless of their status as a citizen or not, upon committing treason and such acts, in my mind you have in large part forfeited your generally applicable constitutional rights. I do not condone detention of innocents and people who have no formal charges brought against them, but then again I am not for indefinite appeals and abuse of our legal system by terrorists and criminals. A "Quick and speedy trial" is not just the government's duty to ensure, but is also a responsibility of the accused. So often I see our system abused by those who have informal connections with other governments, private interest groups or other wealthy backers. Justice is not blind in this country. We have become a country full of people who sell our justice for a price, and sometimes it doesn't even cost that much, and our judges just coddle criminals because they have their own agenda, which is a far cry from the oath which they are supposed to uphold. See article on Padilla's sentencing.

Iraqis Stepping it Up

I read this this morning, and a few things struck me as particularly interesting. First was the young age of the bomber, 13 or 14! I did not know that terrorist groups recruited kids that young. Second, and more profound in my view, is that the local people condemned the act, even burning the house of the family of the bomber. In the 6th paragraph, they quote one of the locals as saying "We will not permit anyone with this ideology to stay in our village." I'm wondering if this viewpoint, an open and violent rejection of radical Islam, is more widespread than reported in the media. Certainly it would help the United States if the locals also took it upon themselves to eradicate radical Islam as they do not benefit from terrorism any more than the US does. I think that they media portrays the Iraqis as not liking the American presence, but I also believe that, as shown in this article and a documentary I recently watched in another class (Frontline: The Insurgency), that Iraqis need the help of the US to fight the terrorist. Iraq would be in a catastrophic state if we weren't there and if we leave too soon. (Yet one more reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton: "I will get the troops out within 60 days of taking the presidency." Yeah right.) However, I do believe that the Iraqis need to start taking more responsibility in their government. The US can not be their crutch. And as this article shows, the Iraqis are sick of terrorism too and are taking matters of destroying terrorism into their own hands, which can only be beneficial for the US.

Sympathizers Seek Answers From al-Qaida

http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012100817_3.html

Apparently al-Qaida opened a website for a limited period of time in which sympathizers could ask questions of the organization. A broad range of questions were asked concerning al-Qaida's intentions and strategies for future attacks. Many sympathizers wanted to know why further attacks had not been made against the U.S., and those claiming to be part of al-Qaida asked for direction for future attacks. The Associated Press isn't certain that the site is legitimate, and they don't know if the claimed sympathizers are actually members of al-Qaida. No answers to the hundreds of questions posed to al-Qaida have been answered. I don't know what to make of the site. It seems a bit hokey. Any comments?

Terrorism mis-defined

Like my last post, I found another article that describes a recent event in which I believe the term "terrorism" was incorrectly applied. You can find the article here

Besides some perhaps suspicious activity, the government of Kenya has no reason to believe that these individuals are involved in terrorist organizations.

I guess it's possible, and likely, that the government of Kenya has a different definition of terrorism then the US gov't does, but I don't see how this suspicious activity (and it is suspicious) can be identified as terrorism so quickly.

Lankan President lauds Indian policy on terrorism

Hey guys I read this article on Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse and his interaction with India. He said, Colombo was having regular interaction with New Delhi on the developments related to ethnic conflict in the island nation. It looks like Rajapakse is working with India to fight terrorism. I was wondering if anyone knows what terrorism groups are in the region. Or if anyone knows the United States views on this. I hope you like the article and it brings some good feedback.
Thanks
austin
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200801201412.htm