Wrestlemania!

Wrestlemania!House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s newfound love of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers makes a little bit more sense today. Hastert was incensed yesterday when the FBI raided the offices of Representative William Jefferson. He appears to be even angrier today – he wants the FBI to give Jefferson’s marbles back. Hastert is understandably upset at the FBI – after all, the FBI is also busy investigating Hastert.

According to ABC News:

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.

The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.

That pesky Jack Abramoff again! Apparently Hell hath no fury like a lobbyist scorned. It appears that Jack is just collecting on the $68,300 he gave Hastert:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is the  No.1 individual recipient of money from Abramoff and his clients, with a total of $68,300 contributed to his campaign committee and leadership PAC from 1998 to 2004.

Payback’s a bitch.

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments

Osama Bin Laden As Defense Attorney

 

In Case Of Emergency...

 

According to several news organizations Osama bin Laden has released an audiotape on a website claiming that Zacarias Moussaoui was not part of the 9/11 plot. According to a transcript of the tape Osama bin Laden also for the first time takes direct responsibility for the September 11 terrorist attacks. I am no bin Laden analyst and I do not play one on TV but I will go out on a limb here and postulate that the alleged bin Laden tape is not authentic. Much like the alleged Zawahiri letter to Zarqawi it draws too convenient a line between characters in this terror drama that do not necessarily play in the same sandbox.

The tape begins by playing defense lawyer to Moussaoui:

I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers – Allah have mercy upon them – with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission. [Emphasis added by me.]

This is a stunning admission by bin Laden if the tape is authentic. Not only is bin Laden claiming to have ordered the attacks, he is also claiming that he had direct operational control of the attacks in assigning who would carry out the mission.

Bin Laden the defense lawyer then wades into the weeds:

And among the things that confirm this fact is that the participants in September 11th were two groups: pilots and support teams for each pilot in order to control the aircraft. And since Zacarias Moussaoui was learning how to fly, it follows that he wasn’t component #20 from the teams which helped to control the airplanes, as your government previously claimed, and your government knows this fact with certainty. And if Moussaoui was studying aviation to become a pilot of one of the planes, then let him tell us the names of those assigned to help him control the plane. But he won’t be able to tell us their names, for a simple reason: that in fact they don’t exist. This is from one perspective, and from another perspective, the brother Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and had he known anything – however little – about the September 11th group, we would have told the brother Commander Mohamed Atta and his brothers – Allah have mercy upon them – to leave America immediately before their affair was exposed. And with this it becomes clear to even the novice investigator – not to mention the seasoned one – that there is no connection between him and the events of September 11th. [Emphasis added by me.]

Bin Laden, uncharacteristically, is making a plea for Moussaoui by trying to claim Moussaoui was ignorant. Here bin Laden makes an utterly illogical statement that after Moussaoui was arrested that he could have informed Atta. That simply makes no sense and the one making the argument appears to be quite unsophisticated.

Bin Laden then raises the other hot topic of the day, Guantanamo Bay:

And then I call to memory my brothers the prisoners in Guantanamo – may Allah free them all – and I state the fact, about which I also am certain, that all the prisoners of Guantanamo, who were captured in 2001 and the first half of 2002 and who number in the hundreds, have no connection whatsoever to the events of September 11th, and even stranger is that many of them have no connection with al-Qaida in the first place, and even more amazing is that some of them oppose al-Qaida’s methodology of calling for war with America. [Emphasis added by me.]

Up to this point al Qaeda has famously claimed responsibility for seemingly disconnected acts of terrorism. Here, by contrast, bin Laden is claiming that the Guantanamo prisoners oppose al Qaeda.

Then comes this remarkable passage:

Bush and his administration are aware of this fact, but they avoid mentioning it, for reasons not hidden to the discerning. Among these reasons is that it is necessary to create justifications for the massive spending of hundreds of billions on the Defense Department and other agencies in their war against the Mujahideen. My mentioning of these facts isn’t out of hope that Bush and his party will treat our brothers fairly in their cases, because that is something no rational person expects, but rather it is meant to expose the oppression, injustice and arbitrariness of your administration in using force and the reactions that result from that. This is from one perspective, and from another perspective, perhaps there will one day come from the Americans someone who desires justice and fairness, and that is the path to security and safety, if you are interested in it. [Emphasis added by me.]

Here bin Laden is complaining, of all things, about the American Defense budget. He then makes a plea for American’s to choose a different kind of leader.

Either bin Laden has thrown up the white flag of surrender here or this tape smells very much like the disputed Zawahiri letter to Zarqawi. If this is in fact bin Laden, it is quite clear from the tone and substance of the tape that bin Laden has lost control of al Qaeda and has been relegated to making pleas on behalf of third-rate al Qaeda wannabes. If this tape is authentic, then we have likely crippled bin Laden’s operation.

However, given the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the American difficulties in Iraq, the tone of this message seems hopelessly out of place. Why would bin Laden remove the ambiguity of his role in 9/11 just to defend Moussaoui? The payoff for him is not worth the loss of mystique. Most Americans have already concluded that Moussaoui is a crackpot who was a terrorist wannabe. There was no need for bin Laden to reiterate that point – doing so makes him look naive and desperate. Perhaps he is desperate, and if so, that is a good thing that all civilized people should take some satisfaction in knowing. But, more likely, this tape is a fabrication judging by its tone and its content. Our intelligence agencies have not yet confirmed its authenticity. I look forward to hearing the judgment of our intelligence analysts and I look forward to being wrong on this one.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Media, Politics, Terrorism | 4 Comments

Mirza Tahir Hussain’s Execution Postponed

Mirza Tahir Hussain

This a followup to my previous post on the imminent execution of Mirza Tahir Hussain. I just read this on The Times of London web site:

President Musharraf of Pakistan has postponed indefinitely the execution of Mirza Tahir Hussain, 36, a British-Pakistani. He has spent 18 years in prison, despite being acquitted by the High Court a decade ago, and was to be executed on June 1. “The President has postponed the execution on compassionate grounds to allow Mr Hussain’s family to negotiate with the family of the victim,” an official said. Meanwhile, a court sentenced four men to death and three others to life in prison for a suicide attack on Shaukat Aziz, the Prime Minister, in 2004. [Emphasis added by me.]

This is the only report I have found so far. I am looking to get confirmation from other sources and will post as soon as I find out.

However, if this report is accurate, this is great news indeed.

UPDATE (May 23, 2006 6:26 PM): The BBC is also reporting that Mr. Hussain’s execution has been stayed:

A Leeds man on death row in Pakistan has been spared after the president called off next week’s execution.

The Pakistan High Commission in London said Hussain had been granted an indefinite stay of execution on Monday.

Under Islamic law, the families of the dead taxi driver and Hussain must reach agreement on how the case is to be settled, usually by some form of compensation.

Speaking from Islamabad on Tuesday, Hussain’s brother Amjad told the BBC: "The Pakistan High Commissioner phoned me last night to tell me we have an indefinite stay of execution."

 UPDATE (May 24, 2006 10:15 AM): AFP,  Reuters and The Times of London are now reporting that the stay of execution is only for a month.  According to the AFP report:

The president has granted a one-month extension on the application of the family," foreign office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told AFP. It will take effect from June 1, when an earlier month-long stay of execution was due to run out.

"This is basically if the victim’s family and the accused can work out something during that period," she said.

But Amjad Hussain told the BBC that the Pakistan High Commissioner telephoned him on Monday night to say that Mirza had received an "indefinite" postponement of the death sentence.

"This is great news, but it is only a step in the right direction," he was quoted as saying. "It is not the end of the road because I will not give up this campaign until my brother is freed and allowed to come back to his family in England."

A spokesman for the Pakistani High Commission in London also said earlier that the postponement was indefinite.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Human Rights | 20 Comments

Congressional Republicans Discover The Constitution

The Constitution of the United StatesYesterday I read the news that the FBI has videotape of Congressman William Jefferson (D- La.) taking bribes. I am sure you will agree with me that taking bribes is probably not the smartest or most legal thing for a Congressman to do. This morning I wake up to the news that members of Congress from both parties are furious, absolutely furious, over this latest bribery scandal.

I was getting ready to write Congress to thank them for their newfound zero tolerance policy toward criminal behavior until I actually read a little more about why Congress is so upset. Apparently Congress is upset that the FBI raided the Congressional offices of Representative Jefferson. Apparently the Executive branch has overreached and is challenging the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution. Lions, Tiger, and Bears, Oh My!

Congressmen and Senators are tripping over each other to get to the microphone and denounce the Bush Administration for endangering the Constitution.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert is outraged and ready to wrestle:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wants an investigation:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he is "very concerned" about the incident and that Senate and House counsels will review it.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was a little less outraged and more circumspect:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich however saw the end of the Republic:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Why are Republicans so outraged about the President of the United States overstepping his Constitutional bounds? Shouldn’t they be jumping up and down and rejoicing that finally a Democrat has literally been caught red handed? Perhaps they fear the Police State is now about to turn on them?

Where were these same Republicans when this Administration played games with the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution? Where were these same Republicans when this Administration wildly abused the President’s Article II powers? Where were these Republicans when this Administration asserted its right to violate the Constitutional protections of American citizens?

Could it be that the Unitary Executive does not taste nearly as sweet when it hits close to home? Perhaps the members of Congress are now a little concerned that the Executive branch might be tapping their phones or reading their email. It is a joke that these Republicans are now screaming about the Constitution when they have remained silent for so long as it has been trampled in the name of National Security.

I say to Senator Frist, Speaker Hastert and the rest of the Constitutionally challenged Republicans that the entire Constitution matters – not just the part that protects Congress from the Executive branch. Outrage about the "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution should be equally matched by outrage about the tearing down of the Bill of Rights. If Congress wants the American people to defend their Congress then Congress needs to do its job of defending the American people. Otherwise go whine about this in your Cloakrooms and at the House Gymnasium.

Posted in Constitution, Politics | 7 Comments

How Much Is An Innocent Life Worth?

This is HumanityWhat is an acceptable ratio of death between the enemy and an innocent civilian? Is it 4 to 1? Is it 2 to 1? Are you willing to kill one innocent life to be able to kill 4 of the enemy? Are you willing to kill one innocent life to kill 2 of the enemy? How far are you willing to go to defend freedom? Would you offer your own life so that 2 or maybe 4 of the enemy may be killed? I want to know.

Today in Afghanistan the United States military launched air strikes in the village of Azizi in Kandahar that killed 60 suspected Taliban militants and 16 innocent civilians. One report puts the estimated number of civilians killed as high as 35. The lower number puts the ratio of Taliban to civilians killed at 4 to 1.

The Associated Press quotes eyewitnesses as saying the suspected Taliban militants ran into peoples’ homes to seek shelter from US bombing of their positions in a nearby madrassa:

Many of the wounded sought treatment at Kandahar city’s Mirwaise Hospital. One man with blood smeared over his clothes and turban said insurgents had been hiding in an Islamic religious school, or madrassa, in the village after fierce fighting in recent days.

"Helicopters bombed the madrassa and some of the Taliban ran from there and into people’s homes. Then those homes were bombed," said Haji Ikhlaf, 40. "I saw 35 to 40 dead Taliban and around 50 dead or wounded civilians."

Another survivor from the village, Zurmina Bibi, who was cradling her wounded 8-month-old baby, said about 10 people were killed in her home, including three or four children.

"There were dead people everywhere," she said, crying.

Reuters quotes the Governor of Kandahar, Khalid Assadullah, as follows:

Khalid said the 16 civilians had been killed in air strikes after Taliban took up positions in their houses.

"The Taliban used people’s houses as their trenches. They were killed in the bombardment," he said.

Some of wounded civilians were brought to Kandahar’s main hospital.

A wounded boy, Daad Mohammad, said all seven members of his family were killed.

"They are all dead," he told Reuters from his hospital bed.

MSNBC quotes the Governor of Kandahar:

"These sort of accidents happen during fighting, especially when the Taliban are hiding in homes," he told reporters. "I urge people not to give shelter to the Taliban."

The Associated Press quotes a US military spokesman:

U.S. military spokesman Col. Tom Collins said the coalition forces targeted a Taliban compound and "we’re certain we hit the right target."

"It’s common that the enemy fights in close to civilians as a means to protect its own forces," he added.

The latest fighting is part of the heavy fighting that has broken out in recent weeks as a result of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Despite 4 years of American military dominance and American reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, the Taliban have not been defeated. In fact, the Taliban are increasingly seen as the protectors of Afghanistan against foreign occupation. Jim Maceda of NBC News reported just last week:

The Taliban’s comeback is not only on the battlefield, but, increasingly, in the hearts and minds of Afghans. Why?

Analysts say the democratic values embodied by Afghan President Hamid Karzai haven’t caught on.

"In a lot of parts of the country, nothing really has changed from a few years ago," says Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch.

Despite some $12 billion in aid and the loss of more than 220 U.S. soldiers, many Afghan men in the street want the Taliban back.

Increasingly, the Taliban is seen here as a protector of Islamic values against the invasion of Western ways.

Kabul is now dotted with luxury hotels and malls, and Afghans say they like their higher salaries, but not the crime and prostitution that are also on the rise.

"We need the Taliban," one Afghan man says. "Otherwise Westerners and foreigners will corrupt our religion."

The battle with the Taliban in Afghanistan is more about hearts and minds than military engagements. In that battle we are losing, perhaps we have already lost. We have installed ruthless warlords as Governors in provinces all over Afghanistan. We cannot engage in the same heavy handed tactics as these thugs. They may not value human life but we must. Every time we bomb a village and kill innocent civilians, we are creating more enemies. The people of Afghanistan do not have the luxury of choosing between a grand idea of Liberty and the darkness of the Taliban. From their perspective the choice boils down to who will keep them safe. If the Americans will indiscriminately bomb their villages to try to kill a few Taliban, the choice for the Afghan man or a woman becomes rather clear. When an errant American bomb destroys an Afghan family, the surviving members will not be worshipping Americans as their saviors. They will instead look to the Taliban to offer them protection. This very need for protection is what led to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the mid 1990s. Hearts and minds are won by offering security and stability not by offering Democracy at the point of the gun.

The United States, with every civilian death, is creating more ill will toward itself in Afghanistan. As in Iraq, liberation has been morphing into heavy-handed occupation. Afghan nationalism that demands American withdrawal will be the result of this spin toward failure. In this environment the Taliban will find fertile ground to preach their brand of hate by offering, once again, security at the expense of liberty. The legacy of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is becoming clear. The United States is creating the very extremism it tried to defeat when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, the extremism was created as a consequence of American actions. In the case of Afghanistan, the extremism that crept into the shadows during the initial invasion has been given fertile soil as a result of American actions.

There must be a better way to fight extremism without creating more death and hate. Surely a 4-to-1 or 2-to-1 ratio of extremists to innocent civilians is not an acceptable mathematical formula for success in the War on Terror. Innocent life has value far greater than the term "collateral damage" suggests. So I ask again, how much is an innocent life worth?

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Human Rights | 23 Comments