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