A Letter Worth Reading

Andrew C. McCarthy
May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [administration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

Do You Feel Safer Now Than You Did Four Years Ago?

I'm not sure from what source this article originated, but it sure spells out nicely how Team Obama is intent on creating a pre-9/11 mentality for the defense of our citizens against those who would do us harm.

"The Obama administration is taking steps quietly to shut down the program that qualifies commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in jetliner cockpits in order to ward off another 9/11-type attack.
The administration recently diverted $2 million from a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms safely while on duty. Instead, it is using the money to hire additional field inspectors to help discipline pilots who step out of line, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times.
A Times editorial condemned the Obama administration's action, calling it “completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots.”
Since Obama took office, the approval process for certifying pilots to carry firearms has ground to a halt, the newspaper reports. Pilots are afraid to speak out about the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, for fear of retaliation, according to the newspaper. No cases have been reported in which pilots have brandished a weapon inappropriately or otherwise abused their eligibility to carry firearms.
About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. Congress authorized the program in a 310-to-113 vote following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House, the Pentagon, or Capitol Hill.
Paul Valone, a Second Amendment advocate who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC.org), is calling for citizens to contract their congressional representatives to protest the administration’s anti-gun priorities.
Pilots are already required to pay for their own room and board during training, and use paid leave for the time they’re off the job. Every six months, the program requires them to be requalified for firearm use.
Valone writes on Examiner.com: “While bureaucrats . . . may have attempted to hamstring the program with burdensome requirements, training instructors and the Federal Air Marshals who now oversee the program routinely thank the FFDOs for their professionalism and dedication in protecting the nation’s air commerce against terrorism.”
Valone says the Obama administration is “dismantling yet another layer of defense against terrorism and defying the will of the American people.”
Since coming to power, the Obama administration has undertaken a series of moves that signal a major de-emphasis of programs enacted to keep America’s homeland safe from terrorist attack:
Obama’s choice for U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, labeled enhanced interrogation techniques as outright “torture” during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Obama banned waterboarding and ordered CIA interrogators to abide by U.S. Army Field Manual regulations.
He selected Clinton-era political operative Leon Panetta to serve as his CIA director. Panetta’s qualifications to run the agency have been questioned widely.
Obama announced that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba within one year, raising the prospect of hardened terrorists entering the U.S. criminal justice system, or worse, being released to rejoin al-Qaida.
He indicated the U.S. defense budget would be sharply reduced.
He has sent a letter to Russian leaders, apparently offering to back off on the ballistic missile defense system that would protect Europe from Iran and North Korea.
These and other Obama administration moves recently prompted former vice president Dick Cheney to charge that Obama is returning to the Clinton-era view of terrorism as a law enforcement issue.
"Now he's made some choices that in my mind raise the risk to the American people of another attack," Cheney said of Obama on CNN's "State of the Union" program.
The Washington Times points out that about 70 percent of airline pilots have military backgrounds. With airport screening less than 100 percent effective, it states, armed pilots provide a second layer of defense.
“Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots,” the newspaper editorial says."

Above All Else, Have A Plan

Since the new administration seems to be in denial about the existence of terror threats with its failure to address the issue head on, it's moves to close down Gitmo and terror interrogation sites across the globe, and it's coddling of known threats, it is critical that Americans take it upon themselves to prepare for the worst. In the end, we can only count on our own preparedness to avert potential tragedy for our families.

AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ BY EVERY AMERICAN!

Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie 'Munich' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

In a lecture in New York City, he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.

He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News, stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.

Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again, as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.

For example:

1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.

2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'

3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.

Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In Israel, security checks bags BEFORE people can even
ENTER the airport.

Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.

On an encouraging note, he believes that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.

He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'HOMEGROWN' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East. These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans
won't know/understand a thing about them.

Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.

So, what can America do to protect itself?

From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to instead, follow Israel's, Ireland's and England's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.

Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago, someone tried to steal the briefcase!

In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.

Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City, this was days, in some cases!)

He stresses the importance of having a plan that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel.

Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.

While some question Aviv's predictions and scare mongering tactics, he nonetheless shares some useful advice about American's general lack of preparedness for a terrorist attack. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.

In Obama's World, Terrorists No Longer Exist

I guess we can feel comforted that the war on terror is over. At least according to Janet Napolitano, who won't mention the "T" word (is that like the new "N" word?). Apparently denial is magic, and she can wish the bad guys away.

Of course, this is typical of liberal thinking when it comes to criminals. It is far more important to fight for the rights of the bad guys than to protect the victims of these same individuals. Obama's administration is just taking this concept to the next level, by allowing the worst of the bad guys to skate, whilst thousands of American lives hang in the balance. But hey, we're expendable for the cause, right?

This is an extremely significant article. It shows that since President Obama has stated we are not the enemy of Islam, he will not allow Napolitano to use the "T" word, the "9/11" reference, or "vulnerability". This subtle change in dialogue is supposed to make
things go away I suppose. Do you feel more comfortable or less threatened? Next thing you know, Obama will tell Homeland security not to raise the "Threat Level" or even delete the term all together.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/24/napolitano-avoids-mentioning-terrorism-remarks-congress/

Terror, Inc.

Looks like the detainees at Gitmo who will one day be released due to lack of evidence to prosecute in the US Criminal Courts will have lots of buddies with whom they can reconnect. Perhaps they can set up a Facebook group, Terror, Inc., and plan the demise of thousands of American infidels without fear of recrimination in this brave new world of O-Kumbayah.

From the AP:

170 Al Qaeda Suspects Released in Yemen
Sunday, February 08, 2009

SAN'A, Yemen — Yemen released 170 men it had arrested on suspicion of having ties to Al Qaeda, security officials said Sunday, two weeks after the terror group announced that Yemen had become the base of its activities for the whole Arabian peninsula.

The announcement also comes as government forces say they are poised to sweep through the northern city of Marib to combat an entrenched Al Qaeda presence that includes both Yemenis and Saudis.

The officials who announced the release spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not allowed to speak to the press.

The men were freed Friday and Saturday after signing pledges not to engage in terrorism — a strategy the Yemeni government has often used with those suspected of fighting in militant causes abroad. Local tribal leaders are also expected to guarantee the good behavior of the released.

The practice stems in part from the powerful role played by the tribes across the rugged Yemeni countryside as well as the comparative weakness of the central government.

In the past, such releases have raised concern in the United States and increased its reluctance to release Yemeni detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Yemen has said it expects most of the 100 remaining Yemenis at Guantanamo to be sent home after President Barack Obama ordered the prison shut within a year.

Elements of al-Qaida have long found a haven in Yemen's remote hinterland. Last month, Saudi Al Qaeda fugitives in Yemen and their Yemeni associates announced in an Internet video that they were joining forces to form a single group.

On Saturday, Saudi Arabia issued a list of 85 most wanted living abroad that included two Yemenis. Many of the Saudis on the list are suspected of hiding out in Yemen as well.

Expect the Unexpected

Eight years ago, George W. Bush was sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States of America. The economy was in recession and things were relatively peaceful abroad, except for the recent bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. Bush's focus was inward; address the recession, Social Security and Medicare, education, taxes, and inject more faith based initiatives and policies into government.

In the blink of an eye, that all changed. On a beautiful late summer day, the defining issue of his Presidency quite unexpectedly became one of foreign policy: the War on Terror and subsequently, Iraq. He and his team flew by the seat of their pants. They made some big mistakes, but they learned from them, and made changes. To Bush's credit, untold numbers of possible terror plots have been thwarted, and America has not been attacked since. He is regularly lambasted in the media for being a war-mongerer and even criminal with tactics used in dealing with terrorists. But what would those same people say if we had been attacked again, even regularly, if he had failed to get tough? Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember the fear, the feeling of vulnerability and of having no control, wondering where and when and what the next attack may bring? That awful nightmare has abated, but if terrorists had continued to attack us every few years, can you imagine the collective feelings of despair, anxiety, and outrage that would define the citizens of this country? Our attitudes about the economic crisis would pale in comparison.

And so Barack Obama will soon be sworn in as the 44th President. He comes in with full knowledge of the economic and foreign policy challenges, along with the ever present threat of new attacks on US soil. Whether he and his team can face these issues effectively remains to be seen. In spite of these huge challenges, there is one thing he can hang his hat on; the defining issue of his Presidency will most likely be something that comes out of the blue, something he never anticipated.

So from where will the threat emerge? A solar flare or nuclear bomb exploded overhead that disrupts the power grid? Another unforeseen economic threat? A naturally occuring epidemic? An event in a relatively unknown country which spurs on a widespread global conflict? Or possibly something of his own doing?
Whatever it may be, like Bush before him, it will be Obama's capacity to learn and lead on the fly that will decide our fates.

Gird Your Loins

At a time in our history when the country is confronted with increasing global unrest and hostility, Obama has gone ahead and nominated former Clinton Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, as Director of the CIA. With little actual intel experience, albeit lots of administrative skills, where will Panetta's appointment leave the US?

Let's see. Panetta was around during the 90's when the Clinton adminstration dropped the ball in combatting growing extremist operations, allowing Al Queda to flourish and ultimately carry out it's most heinous attacks on US soil. Since then, with a reshuffling of the CIA, most experts agree that current CIA Director Hayden has increased morale at the beleagured agency. Fortunately he will leave it in much better shape than he found it.

We've got terrorists in Afghanstan and in an increasingly dangerous Pakistan, Iran going nuclear, Russia once again boldly rearing it's head, and the crazy Dear Leader still in charge of nuclear North Korea. Our intel services are going to be vital to our survival and they will be stretched thin, as our enemies span the globe, and are licking their chops at the prospect of the new, inexperienced, President-elect coming into office at a time when the US is on it's knees economically. While focus needs to be on the economy at home, we cannot for a minute take our eyes off of the enemies abroad. Not the best time to pick someone with no experience on the ground to direct intelligence operations, particularly since Obama himself demonstrates such naivete in his world views. As Joe Biden warned us, we'd better gird our loins.

Batten Down the Hatches

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Why is Joe Biden preparing us for the worst, an international incident that will perhaps make our current financial crisis seem like a mild cold? Because he knows that Obama is viewed as soft by rogue nations and terrorist groups, who will capitalize on his inexperience and poor judgement. Are we so blind (or ignorant) as a country, to elect this man, who even his own VP nominee recognizes will invite an international incident, and just expect to take it on the chin?

And what does he mean by his comment that Obama will make an unpopular decision? That remark is almost as scary as the thought that we will be a big fat target under an Obama administration. Will he reinstate the draft? Will he increase taxes on everyone (sorry to you 95%who thought you were getting a nice check in the mail)? Someone needs to ask Biden what he means, and what he knows. Because when a Vice Presidential running mate tells the electorate to batten down the hatches, a storm is coming, this is no longer just a debate about economic policy. It's a debate about our very survival.