Law, Terrorism and Homeland Security
Featuring news, editorials, blog links, and other commentary related to terrorism, homeland security, military operations and associated legal developments.
A resource for terrorism experts and homeland security professionals, featuring more than 2,500 articles in a searchable archive.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law
Georgetown University Law Center has launched a new Center on National Security and the Law. Their webpage provides more details about the launch of this new center: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/alumni/events/2008/NatlSecLaunch/

-Greg McNeal
Posted by Greg McNeal on March 29, 2008 at 5:50pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Announcing the New AIDP BLog
The AIDP Blog is the official blog of the American National Section of the AIDP (L’Association Internationale de Droit Penal/The International Association of Penal Law). The AIDP Blog will provide a forum for expert debate and thought-provoking commentary on contemporary issues of comparative criminal justice, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, international criminal tribunals, human rights and counterterrorism law & policy.

Founded in Paris in 1924, the AIDP is the oldest association of specialists in penal law in the world and one of the oldest scientific associations. Since 1950, the Association has been a U.N. accredited NGO. It is also a member of the United Nations alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in New York and Vienna, which have frequently been chaired by an Association’s representative. It also cooperates with the United Nations Secretariat, ECOSOC, the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division (as it was called until 1998), the Division of Narcotic Drugs, the Center for Human Rights and other specialized United Nations institutes, such as UNSDRI (Rome), HEUNI (Helsinki), UNAFEI (Tokyo), ILANUD (San Jose), ISPAC (Milan), ASTC (Riyadh), UNAFRI (Kampala), ISISC (Siracusa). The American National Section is a subsidiary of the 3,000-member international Association. The Association, by its manifold activities, meetings, and publications, has played a significant role in the promulgation of the Torture Convention, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and other important international instruments.

We count among our experts Bloggers the former U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, a former Under Secretary General of the United Nations and Chief Prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, former U.S Department of State legal advisors, participants from the negotiation of the ICC treaty, defense attorneys from international tribunals, and former military officers with operational and advisory experience in counterterrorism and post-conflict states. All of our experts are accomplished academics with multiple books and scholarly articles, many cited by the international criminal tribunals, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Israel, and other high Courts. Our experts appear frequently in the media, and you can follow their appearances as they occur under our Expert Appearances section.

As it now enters its second centennial, the Association, larger than ever, and with growing activities, continues a tradition of scholarship and intellectual exchange in an effort to foster the humanization of society. The new AIDP Blog (http://www.aidpblog.org ) is a new and exciting part of that effort.
Please visit us and engage in the discussion.
Sincerely, the bloggers of the AIDP Blog:

Michael Scharf, Deputy Secretary-General of the AIDP and President of the AIDP American National Section

Mark Drumbl, Vice President of the AIDP American National Section

Christopher Blakesley, Vice President of the AIDP American National Section

Michael Kelly, Director of Studies, AIDP American National Section

Gregory McNeal, Director of Studies, AIDP American National Section

Dorean Koenig, Secretary, AIDP American National Section

David Crane, AIDP American National Section Executive Council member

Amos Guiora, AIDP American National Section Executive Council member

Linda Malone, AIDP American National Section Executive Council member

Michael Newton, AIDP American National Section Executive Council member

Jordan Paust, AIDP American National Section Executive Council member

David Scheffer, AIDP American National Section Executive Council member
Posted by Greg McNeal on March 21, 2007 at 6:12pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Monday, March 5, 2007

Saddam On Trial CSPAN Clips
I have uploaded clips from my CSPAN Book TV appearance. Below is a guide to when I appear on each clip, and the topics discussed.

In Clip 1
5:30 – 9:23
- Overview of our Book & the Tribunal

15:10- End
- Why conduct one of these trials
- Overview of some witness testimony
- Issues of reconciliation

In Clip 20:01- 2:54
- Saddam’s Psychological Profile
- Outbursts & Chaos in the Courtroom
- Saddam’s “A Few Good Men” moment
- Satellite Imagery Evidence

6:36-9:14
- Independence of the tribunal
- Acquittal of a defendant
- Death penalty debate
- International Human Rights standards
- Timeliness of the tribunal

13:21-15:28
Q&A
- What will Saddam’s execution mean for other trials?
- Procedural techniques to avoid execution

In Clip 30:00-1:28
- International Human Rights for Saddam, but not for average Iraqi
- Universality of Human Rights
- Outreach efforts, failures, and need for context

7:54-8:54
- Capacity issues
- Defense Office capacity
- stand-by counsel
- Former AG Clark as defense counsel

10:06-11:22
- De-B’athification

In Clip 40:41-1:53
- The direct immediate impact of the IHT

8:08-9:49
- How were tribunal rules legitimized and incorporated into Iraqi law

11:37-12:18
- Why start with Dujail case?

15:20- End
- Lessons learned, and improvements for future trials

In Clip 5
0:00-0:34
- Motion Practice

4:24 – 5:22
- Was the verdict politically timed verdict?
Posted by Greg McNeal on March 5, 2007 at 7:01pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Cheney unharmed in blast near Afghan base
"An explosion outside the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan killed at least two people Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, though the vice president was apparently not in danger, officials said.

The blast happened near the first security gate outside the base at Bagram, killing two people and wounding 12, said Kabir Ahmad, the district chief of the Bagram region.

Maj. William Mitchell said it did not appear the explosion was intended as a threat to the vice president.

"He wasn't near the site of the explosion," Mitchell said. "He was safely within the base at the time of the explosion."

Cheney, who spent the night at Bagram, ate breakfast with U.S. soldiers Tuesday morning, Mitchell said. He was expected to later meet with President Hamid Karzai after their meeting was scrapped on Monday because of bad weather that prevented him traveling to Kabul." LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on February 27, 2007 at 12:53am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Snatch-and-Grab Ops: Justifying Extraterritorial Abduction
Available now via SSRN is my co-authored piece with Brian Field: Snatch and Grab Ops: Justifying Extraterritorial Abduction forthcoming in Vol. 16, No. 2, of The University of Iowa's Journal- Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems.

Abstract:
The United States government is actively engaged in a search for individuals believed to have killed American citizens and destroyed American property. As most of these individuals live openly in foreign states hostile to the United States, achieving extradition often proves impossible. Despite repeated diplomatic efforts to secure the transfer of these terrorists to America, many continue to operate in foreign states under the protection of the host country's continued denial of the terrorist's presence within their borders.

The problem of bringing these individuals to justice is further complicated by the fact that the United States is rarely able to pinpoint their precise location. Terrorists typically reside in host countries where it is nearly impossible to find them amongst the citizens. Thus, the broad question is what tools are available to the U.S. government if it was to actually find a terrorist's location? Considering the inherent difficulty in finding that individual again, and the strong likelihood that leaving the individual to his own devices will yield further attacks on the United States, what ought the U.S. President do to preserve the peace and safety of American citizens? Specifically, are the options of the U.S. military restricted by international law trends?

This Article addresses these questions by specifically discussing whether a terror suspect who was forcibly abducted may be prosecuted by the United States despite possible territorial violations under the doctrine of male captus, bene detentus. The Article directly addresses whether territorial sovereignty can trump an effort to capture a terrorist who is planning future attacks.

The article concludes that it will benefit the international community to codify exactly what will warrant extraterritorial abductions and specifically how such actions may be used. Given the likelihood that the United States and other countries will increase their use of extraterritorial kidnapping, the international community should act proactively to address the issue. Until the international community does codify the specific circumstances under which extraterritorial kidnapping is permissible, the United States is justified in exercising extraterritorial abductions under universal jurisdiction, passive personality, and finally, efficient breach.

You may download the paper HERE.
Posted by Greg McNeal on February 14, 2007 at 1:59pm. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

GIs in Iraq Get Their Mats After Enduring Insult From Web-Based Company
LINK

All he asked of a Web-based mattress company was to send mats so he and his fellow GIs wouldn't have to sleep on the cold, bug-invested ground of one of the harshest posts in Iraq.

What he got, instead, was an insult, a slur aimed at every American soldier enduring the hardships of duty.

"I was appalled at the response," Sgt. Jason Hess told FOX News in an email received Tuesday afternoon from Iraq a day after his story was told. "A simple response would have been, I'm sorry but we do not ship overseas."

Hess, part of the 1st Cavalry Divison, is stationed in Taji, a former Republican Guard stronghold, and one of the toughest outposts in Iraq.

Last week, Hess emailed Discount-Mats.com to ask if he could purchase mats so he and his unit did not have to endure the constant assault from sand mites, sand flies and other disease carriers that inhabit the ground.

In his email, dated Jan. 16, 2007, he asked the company, registered to Faisal Khetani, an American Muslim of Pakistani descent:

"Do you ship to APO (military) addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for ships to APO first."

On the same day, Hess received this reply:

"SGT Hess,

We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.

Bargain Suppliers
Discount-Mats.com"

Discount-Mats.com is run out of Khetani's home in West Allis, Wis. In a telephone interview Tuesday with FOX News, Khetani said he had fired the employee who sent the email, a claim that FOX News has not been able to confirm. He also said he has received thousands of phone calls to his home and business from people protesting the email exchange.

Hess said that he has since found two mat suppliers who shipped to an APO address in Iraq.

Meanwhile, FOX News has received thousands of emails asking how to donate mats and other items to U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Rob Timmons, an Iraq veteran and a veteran outreach coordinator, recommended the following Web sites:

http://www.iava.org

www.army.mil
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 23, 2007 at 6:31pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Free National Review for Students
If you are a student, the ISI is offering free National Review subscriptions by clicking this link:

https://secure.isi.org/isi/memupdate.aspx?option=1&promo=nro&referid=W-35406-54d0

With this link, new members will get:
- A free subscription to the INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW
- One year free of NATIONAL REVIEW DIGITAL
- Plus your choice of one year free of either MODERN AGE or UNIVERSITY BOOKMAN (which are two of ISI's other journals).
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 17, 2007 at 10:21pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Friday, January 12, 2007

The Execution of Saddam Hussein
I was interviewed on the Detroit talk radio program "The Advocate." During the 40 minute interview we discussed the trial of Saddam Hussein and his execution.

The full program can be found here, my part starts at the 23 minute point.

http://www.avemarialaw.edu/news/media/audio/
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 12, 2007 at 2:52pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Explosion At U.S. Embassy In Athens
"Greek Police Say Blast Was 'Act of Terrorism'"

Authorities say streets around the United States Embassy compound in Athens have been cordoned off after an apparent explosion inside the embassy building.

State-run NET television in Greece, quoting eyewitness reports, say the noise was heard inside the main embassy building.

Officials in Greece say there are indications the apparent blast was caused by a rocket.

"This is an act of terrorism. We don't know where from. There was a shell that exploded in the toilets of the building... It was fired from street level," said Asimakis Golfis, chief of police for the Attica peninsula on which Athens is located. " LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 12, 2007 at 12:36am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Monday, January 8, 2007

CBS: US Attacks Al Qaeda In Somalia
"A U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports exclusively.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. The AC-130 gunship is capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, and sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike, but there is as yet, no confirmation of the identities.

The gunship flew from its base in Dijibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia, Martin reports, where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States.

Once they started moving, the al Qaeda operatives became easier to track, and the U.S. military started preparing for an air strike, using unmanned aerial drones to keep them under surveillance and moving the aircraft carrier Eisenhower out of the Persian Gulf toward Somalia. But when the order was given, the mission was assigned to the AC-130 gunship operated by the U.S. Special Operations command.

If the attack got the operatives it was aimed at, reports Martin, it would deal a major blow to al Qaeda in East Africa. " CONTINUED
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 8, 2007 at 6:51pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

CBS: US Attacks Al Qaeda In Somalia
"A U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports exclusively.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. The AC-130 gunship is capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, and sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike, but there is as yet, no confirmation of the identities.

The gunship flew from its base in Dijibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia, Martin reports, where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States.

Once they started moving, the al Qaeda operatives became easier to track, and the U.S. military started preparing for an air strike, using unmanned aerial drones to keep them under surveillance and moving the aircraft carrier Eisenhower out of the Persian Gulf toward Somalia. But when the order was given, the mission was assigned to the AC-130 gunship operated by the U.S. Special Operations command.

If the attack got the operatives it was aimed at, reports Martin, it would deal a major blow to al Qaeda in East Africa. " CONTINUED
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 8, 2007 at 6:51pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

No Links To Terrorism
CNN reports that DHS has stated there are "no links to terrorism."
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 8, 2007 at 9:56am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Dead birds prompt Austin downtown shutdown
Just to make you nervous:

"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Police shut down 10 blocks of businesses in the heart of downtown Austin early Monday after dozens birds were found dead.

Experts were testing for any sort of environmental contaminant or gas or chlorine leaks that might have killed off the animals, police spokeswoman Toni Chovanetz said.

There were no reports of any humans harmed, but a 10-block stretch of the main north-south route through downtown, several side streets and all buildings in the area were blocked off and expected to remain off-limits until about noon, Chovanetz said." LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 8, 2007 at 9:36am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Mysterious gas odor in NYC and Jersey City
The odor of natural gas was reported across Midtown Manhattan, prompting hundreds of calls to emergency workers.

Eyewitness News is told the smell was first reported in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and 34th Street.
Hundreds of calls poured into city emergency officials. Apparently the calls are coming from Chelsea, Battery Park west, Madison Square Park, and there are also reports of the gas smell outside of our studio on 66th and Columbus.

The smell was also reported in Downtown Jersey City.

Con Edison officials said were investing the source of the leak.

UPDATE: Jersey City Officials reported that the leak was caused by a gas main break in NYC.

UPDATE: NYPD Officials report that there is NO gas main break.
Posted by Greg McNeal on January 8, 2007 at 9:06am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

WTC tower steel rises at ground zero
I wish I could say something other than "it's about time."

"Two 25-ton steel columns — one bearing signatures of American steelworkers who helped make it — rose at ground zero Tuesday, a milestone in prolonged efforts to build the skyscraper that will replace the twin towers of the World Trade Center." LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 20, 2006 at 1:44am. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

A moral test for fighting terror
My colleague Amos Guiora has an Op-Ed in Today's Baltimore Sun regarding the Israeli Supreme Court's targeted killing decision.

Some excerpts:

The decision, the last in Mr. Barak's corpus of rulings on fighting terrorism, is the final piece in a puzzle of judicially mandated rules for how an army should conduct operational counterterrorism. Mr. Barak's Supreme Court decisions over the past 15 years reflect a realization that damage to democracy and human rights outweigh whatever operational advantages commanders can gain from judicial ambiguity. Operational success would be enhanced by a strict moral and legal code.

The ruling establishes a checklist of how the state is to proceed in these cases. Harming civilians who "take direct part in hostilities," as defined in the decision, "even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no other means which harms them less, and on the condition that innocent civilians nearby are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportional. That proportionality is determined according to a values-based test, intended to balance between the military advantage and the civilian damage."

This is the essence of checks and balances and of active judicial review, which is the hallmark of civil, democratic society. It also reflects a moral code that makes a society worth fighting for

Check out the entire piece HERE.
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 19, 2006 at 4:03am. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Monday, December 18, 2006

Bin Laden's deputy to put out message
An Islamic militant Web site announced Monday that Osama bin Laden's second-in-command would soon release a new message addressing the conflict between Muslims and infidels.

YAHOO STORY
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 18, 2006 at 4:53pm. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Available now on DVD: Saddam On Trial
My co-author Michael Scharf and I appeared on C-SPAN all last weekend, and the video is now available in DVD and VHS.

I expect that my grandma will be the only person to buy this, but if you are interested it is available here: http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=195639-1
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 16, 2006 at 12:08am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Israeli Court on Targeted Killings/Preventive Strikes

My colleague Amos Guiora was cited by the Israeli Supreme Court in Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel. The full opinion is available HERE.

Guiora's piece entitled Terrorism on Trial: Targeted Killing As Active Self-Defense appears in 36 CASE WESTERN RES. J. INT'L L. 319 available for free download HERE.

Amos is a former officer in the Israeli Defense Forces He held a number of senior command positions, including Commander of the IDF School of Military Law, Judge Advocate for the Navy and Home Front Command, and the Legal Advisor to the Gaza Strip. He was involved in many important legal and policy-making issues, including the capture of the PLO weapons ship Karine A, implementation of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, and "Safe Passage" between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

He is author of Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism (Aspen Publishers, forthcoming 2008), He writes and lectures extensively on issues such as "Legal Aspects of Counterterrorism," "Global Perspectives of Counterterrorism," "Terror Financing," "International Law and Morality in Armed Conflict," and "Educating IDF Commanders and Soldiers on International Law and Morality."

Posted by Greg McNeal on December 14, 2006 at 10:49am. 2 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Monday, December 11, 2006

Only 1,000 Votes Behind- Please Vote
We're only 1,000 votes behind in the 2006 Weblog Awards.

Please vote for The Grotian Moment here: http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/best_law_blog.php
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 11, 2006 at 10:14am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Friday, December 8, 2006

Best Law Blog-- Vote Daily
The Grotian Moment: Saddam Hussein Trial Blog which I created with my colleague Michael Scharf has been named a Finalist for Best Law Blog in the 2006 Weblog Award.

Please vote daily to support us: http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/best_law_blog.php

The Weblog Awards are the world's largest blog competition, with over 1 million votes cast in the last three years. Grotian Moment is the only international law blog in the finals of the competition. You may vote once each day during the voting period, December 7-15, 2006.
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 8, 2006 at 9:24am. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Professor Ends 23 year Association with Carter Center Over President's New Book
Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University and the Carter Center has resigned his position as a fellow at the Carter Center. He didn't pull any punches along the way, here's two excerpts:

"President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

"Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the [Carter] Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book."

Read more here, PowerlineBlog Link
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 6, 2006 at 9:04am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Politically Correct Rules of Engagement Endanger Troops
The enemy knows our ROE and uses them, an excerpt:

"...the psychology of fear has set in. Not fear of the enemy, but fear of firing a weapon. This fear can cause hesitation, and even the enemy knows the U.S. ROE and can and has taken advantage of them. Hence, there is increased danger for our troops, and they know it.

What we need are robust rules of engagement. What we have are confused Soldiers and Marines, afraid to fire their weapons." LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 6, 2006 at 7:55am. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Dutch honour soldiers who stood by at Srebrenica massacre
Off topic, but I thought very interesting:

"The leadership of Bosnia protested bitterly to the Netherlands yesterday over the awards of medals to Dutch peacekeepers who stood by and did nothing at the infamous 1995 massacre of thousands of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica.

Haris Silajdzic, a former prime minister and a member of the three-man Bosnian presidency, said he had called in the Dutch ambassador in Sarajevo to demand an explanation for the military ceremony that was conducted at a barracks in eastern Holland on Monday." GUARDIAN LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 6, 2006 at 7:49am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Monday, December 4, 2006

Dujail Judgment: Grotian Moment First Website in the World to Host English Translation
I also blog over at The Grotian Moment where we are now the first place in the world for the public to review the English Translation of the 298-page Opinion issued by the Iraqi High Tribunal in the Dujail Trial -- the first case against Saddam Hussein. The opinion is now available at: http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/dujail/opinion.asp

We got the English translation up even before the IHT's website. Pretty cool.

In the next few days, our Saddam Trial Expert panel will be posting several new essays analyzing and critiquing the Dujail Opinion. Earlier this year, the award-winning Grotian Moment Website was also the first to post the documents and exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial.

Essays from the Website appear in the first published book about the Dujail Trial, By me and my co-author Michael P. Scharf. "Saddam on Trial" is available from Amazon.com HERE.
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 4, 2006 at 3:34pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Sunday, December 3, 2006

Defining the mission
My colleague, Amos Guiora has an Editorial today discussing how we define the mission in a counterterrorism context. The piece touches on Iraq, counterterrorism policy, and the political shift in the 2006 election.

The piece begins:

"As one election cycle concludes and another begins, some critical facts cannot be forgotten: Five years after 9/11, American soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan is far from pacified and the next terrorist act is a question of when, not if.

The Democratic Party’s success in the 2006 midterm election and what it means will be widely debated.

Do the Democrats have a plan with respect to any or all of the above? Did the electorate choose to “send a message” to President Bush and the Republican leadership, or were the Democrats elected because they are perceived to have a workable plan to address the war in Iraq and terrorism?"
CONTINUED
Posted by Greg McNeal on December 3, 2006 at 2:04pm. 2 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Thursday, November 9, 2006

Saddam on Trial
My book with Michael P. Scharf, Saddam On Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi High Tribunal is now available for just $26.96 at Barnes and Noble. Direct Link to Saddam on Trial HERE.

In the last week, Case Law Professor Michael Scharf was quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, and USA Today, and appeared on two dozen national television and radio news shows (including NBC's "The Today Show", CNN, and Fox News) to discuss the Saddam Hussein Trial verdict. Click here to listen to his November 6 interview on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition": http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6441761 . Professor Scharf and Professor Greg McNeal (Assistant Director of the Law School's Institute for Global Security Law and Policy) are the co-authors of "Saddam on Trial" -- the first published book on the Saddam Trial also available directly from Carolina Academic Press here: http://www.cap-press.com/books/1625 .

Professor Scharf and I will be doing a book talk and signing at Joseph Beth book store at Legacy Village in Cleveland Ohio on the evening of November 29. The event is tentatively scheduled to be broadcast on C-SPAN's Book TV.

The Saddam on Trial description is included below.

Saddam Hussein. Derided as “the Butcher of Baghdad,” he was charged with the mostserious crimes known to mankind. On October 19, 2005, the ruthless Iraqi leader and seven of his henchmen began a legal battle of epic proportions, with their lives literally in the balance. The first of several planned trials before the Iraqi High Tribunal focused onthe destruction of the town of Dujail and the torture and murder of its inhabitants in retaliation for a 1982 failed assassination attempt.

Billed by the international media as “the real trial of the century,” the televised proceedings were punctuated by gripping testimony of atrocities, controversial judicial rulings, assassinations of defense counsel, resignation of judges, scathing outbursts, allegations of mistreatment, hunger strikes, and even underwear appearances.

Was it a mistake to try Saddam in Baghdad before a panel of Iraqi judges? Was the Iraqi High Tribunal a legitimate judicial institution? Were the proceedings fundamentally fair? Did the judges react properly to the defendants’ attempts to derail the proceedings? Did the Prosecution prove its case? Did Saddam have any valid defenses? What precedents did this extraordinary trial set?

Saddam on Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi HighTribunal provides the reader with a thorough understanding of these and a host of other issues related to the Saddam Trial. The text offers a series of essays, in which leading international and criminal law experts discuss and debate more than thirty discrete questions raised by the trial. The book also includes a psychological profile of Saddam Hussein, a chronology of events related to the charges, a glossary of key legal terms, a synopsis of the charges and applicable law, a summary of the evidence and testimony, an analysis of the judgment, and English translations of the Tribunal’s Statute, Rules, and other relevant instruments.

Saddam on Trial is designed for law students, undergraduates, academics, journalists, and general readers. The book will be useful as a supplement for any law school course on International Law, International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian Law, or National Security Law. It is also suitable for undergraduate Foreign Relations, Public Policy, or Criminal Justice courses. An accompanying Teacher’s Guide contains suggested questions and answers, debates, simulations, and role play exercises designed to facilitate use of the book as a teaching tool.
Posted by Greg McNeal on November 9, 2006 at 7:17pm. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, November 1, 2006

"Great Expectations: The Struggle to Protect Populations from Catastrophic Uncertainty"
Today at 4:30pm at Case Western (also available by Webcast), Elin A. Gursky, Principal Deputy for Biodefense at ANSER will deliver the Distinguished Lecture in Global Security Law and Policy.

The talk is entitled "Great Expectations: The Struggle to Protect Populations from Catastrophic Uncertainty."
The teaser is:

Billions of dollars have been expended in the five years since 9-11 to improve preparedness and response to a spectrum of threats, often referred to as "weapons of mass destruction." Organizations have been restructured, electronic detection systems have been installed, and numerous members of a variety of workforce sectors have received training. Nonetheless, reports and congressional testimony profess a pervasive lack of preparedness, particularly in the public health and hospital venues. Dr. Gursky's lecture will discuss several key assumptions and fault lines that have forestalled significant efforts to protect the health security of populations.

MORE INFO AND WEBCAST AVAILABLE HERE
Posted by Greg McNeal on November 1, 2006 at 1:29pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Saturday, September 30, 2006

First Book about Saddam Hussein Trial Now in Print
First Book about Saddam Hussein Trial Now in Print

With the judgment in the Saddam Hussein trial to be issued in two weeks, on Oct. 16, 2006, Carolina Academic Press has just published Saddam on Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi High Tribunal -- a timely and unique book of essays that examine over fifty issues related to this historic trial. The book was written by Case School of Law professors Michael Scharf (Director, Frederick K. Cox International Law Center) and Gregory McNeal (Assistant Director, Institute for Global Security Law & Policy), who have been assisting the Iraqi High Tribunal, and features contributions by Cherif Bassiouni, David Crane, Bill Schabas, Mark Ellis, Leila Sadat, Mark Drumbl, Paul Williams, and other leading experts.

A year ago, on Oct. 19, 2005, Saddam Hussein and seven of his henchmen began a legal battle of epic proportions, with their lives literally in the balance. The first of several planned trials before the Iraqi High Tribunal focused on the destruction of the town of Dujail and the torture and murder of its inhabitants in retaliation for a 1982 failed assassination attempt. Billed by the international media as "the real trial of the century," the televised proceedings were punctuated by gripping testimony of atrocities, controversial judicial rulings, assassinations of defense counsel, resignation of judges, scathing outbursts, allegations of mistreatment, hunger strikes, and even underwear appearances.

- Was it a mistake to try Saddam in Baghdad before a panel of Iraqi judges?

- Was the Iraqi High Tribunal a legitimate judicial institution?

- Were the proceedings fundamentally fair?

- Did the judges react properly to the defendants’ attempts to derail the proceedings?

- Did the Prosecution prove its case?

- Did Saddam have any valid defenses?

- What precedents did this extraordinary trial set?

Saddam on Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi High Tribunal provides the reader with a thorough understanding of these and a host of other issues related to the Saddam Trial. The text offers a series of essays, in which leading international and criminal law experts discuss and debate more than fifty discrete questions raised by the trial. The book also includes a psychological profile of Saddam Hussein, a chronology of the trial, a glossary of key legal terms, a synopsis of the charges and applicable law, a summary of the evidence and testimony, and English translations of the Tribunal’s Statute, Rules, and other relevant instruments.
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 30, 2006 at 2:41pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

The Final Text of the Military Commissions bill
Posted here is the final text of the MC compromise bill as introduced in the House.
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 26, 2006 at 4:06pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Monday, September 25, 2006

'Jihad' auto dealer ad upsets U.S. Muslims
Oh those crazy Ohio auto dealers:

"A car commercial proclaiming a jihad on the U.S. auto market and offering "Fatwa Fridays" with free swords for the kids is offensive and should not be aired, Muslim leaders said on Sunday." LINK

update: I see that the "'The ad has has never been released, it is not out for public listening' said one employee who declined to give his name."

How long until it ends up on "You Tube"
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 25, 2006 at 5:25pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Case School of Law- Mock Congressional Hearing Regarding the NSA Wiretapping Controversy
Posted in SSRN is the transcript of Mock Congressional Hearing regarding the NSA wiretapping controversy. The panel featured Ruth Wedgewood and David Cole testifying before a Senate Committee. The debate and discussion highlighted concerns touching on privacy, FISA, and the Fourth Amendment.

The document is available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931886
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 24, 2006 at 10:33pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Full Committee Markup of H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006
Here is the Press Release for the HASC mark up of H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Chairman Duncan Hunter was on CNN this evening and said that his proposal passed 52-8.

Posted by Greg McNeal on September 13, 2006 at 9:41pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Too soon to say who attacked Syria embassy: Rice
VIA REUTERS:
"It is too early to say who might have been behind a failed attack on the U.S. Embassy in Syria, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday.

Four men shouting Islamic slogans tried to blow up the embassy in Damascus, but their car bomb failed to go off and Syrian security guards killed three of them in a shootout. The state news agency SANA said a Syrian guard was also killed.

"It's too early to tell who might have been responsible for the attack ... We will have to do the forensics," Rice told a news conference in the eastern Canadian town of Stellarton after talks with Foreign Minister Peter MacKay of Canada." LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 12, 2006 at 10:16am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Monday, September 11, 2006

Blawg Review #74
Blawg Review #74- Capturing The legal blogosphere's thoughts regarding September 11th.

Welcome to The Institute for Global Security Law and Policy, at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. We are honored to host the September 11th themed Blawg Review #74. We hope you enjoy your visit to our site, and we hope you will stop back soon. Please take the time to subscribe to our e-mail alerts and RSS feeds to your left.

Sincerely,

Professor Amos N. Guiora
Director, Institute for Global Security Law and Policy

Professor Gregory S. McNeal
Assistant Director, Institute for Global Security Law and Policy

As the Editor pointed out here, we at the Institute are hosting three non-cyberspace events related to September 11th. Those events include:

- The planting of 3,000 flags in remembrance of the victims of the September11th attacks
- A keynote address by Richard Rawlins, Deputy Director of Ohio Homeland Security
- A roundtable faculty event discussing September 11th
...and of course, here in the Blogosphere: Blawg Review #74, the always on the move legal cyberspace event of the "Blawgosphere."

To accommodate our participation in Blawg Review #74 we've made our faculty roundtable a "cross-over" event where we've blogged selected comments from some of our faculty who later today will reflect on September 11th.

Professor Calvin Sharpe offers his thoughts regarding "The Effect of 9/11 On The Field of Conflict and Dispute Resolution" Further down the blog chain, Professor Michael Scharf offers his thoughts about "9/11 and the Transformation of International Law and Policy."Professor Jonathan H. Adler wraps up our selected "cross-over" blog posts with his commentary regarding "The Effect of 9/11 on Constitutional Law, Business Law & Regulation."

This week saw the addition of the National Security Advisors to the Blawgosphere. Professor Dan Solove, who's hosting Blawg Review next at Concurring Opinions states: "Welcome to the blogsophere to National Security Advisors, a national security law blog by an all-star team of Bobby Chesney (law, Wake Forest), Steve Vladeck (law, Miami), and Tung Yin (law, Iowa)."

In a busy terrorism law related week, the National Security Advisorshopped right into things, providing a summaryof the "Military Commissions Act of 2006", of particular interest to us here at The Institute for Global Security, given our exclusive relationship with the Prosecutor for the Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions. At the same time Marty Lederman at Balkinization gives us the skinny on the Army's new interrogation manual, and how the administration's proposed legislation may give a pass to the CIA.

Back at National Security Advisors Professor Chesney then follows up with a great wrap-up of posts and analysis related to Terrorism Prosecution Statistics. This too is quite an interesting post for us here at The Institute for Global Security in light of our recent announcement of a $246,807 grant to promote cooperation between U.S. and foreign prosecutors in terrorism cases. Howard Bashman of How Appealing offers some additional Prosecution related news here.

Across the Blawgosphere Ann Althouse, who is not optimistic about the nation's ability to appropriately commemorate September 11th states: "We're going to mark the 9/11 anniversary in an especially shabby way this year" going on to recommend that readers "keep the TV off for the next few days and stay away from the internet." We here think it's okay for readers to flip off the TV, but we hope you'll stay through till the end of Blawg Review #74, we know that Althouse's readers are standing by… there's at least 110 comments related to her post!

Professor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit during the last few days of August gave readers an opportunity to hear an interview with Judge Richard Posner, the piece is entitled: "The Glenn & Helen Show: Richard Posner on Terrorism and the Constitution." While Matt Barr at Socratic Rhythm provides a lengthy wrap-up of "The Intersection of Terrorism and a Free Marketplace of Ideas", discussing the Hezbollah T.V. case in detail

Skipping across the pond, the editors at Atlantic Review give us a wrap-up of the "Terrorism and Security Policy Debates in Germany and the United States" Meanwhile, over at MyShingle.com the discussion has turned to what is an appropriate contingency fee for attorneys involved in the 9/11 litigation. A timely and interesting post. Also timely are the comments and analysis of the folks at The Counterterrorism Blog, a mix of legal and policy commentary with recent analysis of Al Qaeda's videos, 9/11 and News Reporting, and the Treasury Department's legal efforts against Hezbollah and Iran's Financial Institutions.

Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracyevaluates Jonathan Rauch's assessment of the Bush Presidency, with some commentary regarding "the lack of other major attacks since 9/11." The international law scholars at Opinio Juris also take the time to talk about terrorism policy, bemoaning the administration's reticence to embrace international law, picking up on a Slate review of Judge Posner's book, and discussing how Congress can override the Supreme Court's interpretation of international law in Hamdan.

Thanks for stopping in to meet with us on this solemn day. We hope you've enjoyed our compilation of September 11th related blogging.
Please stop back soon.

Be sure to check out, Blawg Review #75 which will be hosted at Concurring Opinions. Their blog was recognized as the "best new blawg" by the Goddess of Justice and Law in last year's Blawg Review Awards.

Blawg Reviewhas information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.


Posted by Greg McNeal on September 11, 2006 at 7:51am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Friday, September 8, 2006

Commentary on “Azzam the American’s” Diatribe
The Counterterrorism Blog has some interesting analysis of "Azzam the American's" recent video:

"Following every significant (or markedly different) statement or video issued by al-Qa'ida (AQ) personalities, American media and government officials grapple with myriad concerns such as whether cryptic signals were included in the message to encourage specific attacks, whether the AQ core was simply trying to “maintain relevance,” whether it was trying to “soften its image” and play politics, etc. This overwhelmingly Western, tactical, and self-reinforcing mode of approaching global jihadi discourse distracts us from the typically strategic content of al-Qa’ida’s commentaries, and the myriad audiences to which it is directed. This is the type of mirror imaging we need to replace with more sophisticated understanding of these messages’ content. Michael Scheuer framed this argument well in a recent Jamestown’s Terrorism Focus article." CONTINUED
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 8, 2006 at 5:17pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Mr. President Keep the Momentum Going With an Iraq Speech and Ad
After an impressive speech today, the President should now make an equally strong case on Iraq. Pulling out immediately is exactly what al Qaeda wants. These quotes below are just a quick sample of what could make for a compelling TV Ad for the RNC, with images of Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri playing in the background with martyrdom video music playing, and these and other quotes superimposed over them. I'm sure some innovative blogger will be able to put this together and get it up on YouTube.com soon.

The enemy believes Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, shouldn't the President make this clear by using al Qaeda's own words against them?

THE INTRO: TEXT: Pull out of Iraq?
AUDIO AND VIDEO: quotes of prominent "pull out now proponents"

FADE TO BLACK
FADE INTO BODY


BODY:
VIDEO: Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri
AUDIO: Fatwah's and Martyrdom videos
TEXT: See below

"The American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a question of time, God willing," he said in the tape telecast on Thursday...if they withdraw they will have lost everything." -Ayman al-Zawahiri, September 10, 2004.

"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans..." -Ayman al-Zawahiri, in his letter to Zarqawi

"The truth that has been kept from you by (President) Bush, (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld is that there is no way out of Iraq without immediate withdrawal, and any delay on this means only more dead, more losses." -Ayman al-Zawahiri, August 4, 2005.

al Qaeda operatives in Iraq have perpetrated "800 martyrdom operations in three years, besides the sacrifices of the other mujahedeen, and this is what has broken the back of America in Iraq...We praise Allah that three years after the Crusader invasion of Iraq, America, Britain and their allies have achieved nothing but losses, disaster and misfortunes" - Ayman al-Zawahiri, April 29, 2006.

"I congratulate [the Islamic nation] for the victory of Islam in Iraq," reacting to the announcement of troop cuts in Iraq. -Ayman al-Zawahiri, January 06, 2006.

CONCLUSION

TEXT: Pull out of Iraq? That's exactly what they want.
IMAGE: frozen on Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri (you could throw in some Democrats, but that might be crossing the line)

NOTE: I made some minor edits after posting.
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 6, 2006 at 6:38pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Text of President Bush's September 6th War on Terrorism Address
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

The East Room
1:45 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the White House. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Gonzales, Ambassador Negroponte, General Hayden, members of the United States Congress, families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on our nation, and my fellow citizens: Thanks for coming.

On the morning of September the 11th, 2001, our nation awoke to a nightmare attack. Nineteen men, armed with box cutters, took control of airplanes and turned them into missiles. They used them to kill nearly 3,000 innocent people. We watched the Twin Towers collapse before our eyes -- and it became instantly clear that we'd entered a new world, and a dangerous new war.

The attacks of September the 11th horrified our nation. And amid the grief came new fears and urgent questions: Who had attacked us? What did they want? And what else were they planning? Americans saw the destruction the terrorists had caused in New York, and Washington, and Pennsylvania, and they wondered if there were other terrorist cells in our midst poised to strike; they wondered if there was a second wave of attacks still to come.

With the Twin Towers and the Pentagon still smoldering, our country on edge, and a stream of intelligence coming in about potential new attacks, my administration faced immediate challenges: We had to respond to the attack on our country. We had to wage an unprecedented war against an enemy unlike any we had fought before. We had to find the terrorists hiding in America and across the world, before they were able to strike our country again. So in the early days and weeks after 9/11, I directed our government's senior national security officials to do everything in their power, within our laws, to prevent another attack.

Nearly five years have passed since these -- those initial days of shock and sadness -- and we are thankful that the terrorists have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil. This is not for the lack of desire or determination on the part of the enemy. As the recently foiled plot in London shows, the terrorists are still active, and they're still trying to strike America, and they're still trying to kill our people. One reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because of the hard work of thousands of dedicated men and women in our government, who have toiled day and night, along with our allies, to stop the enemy from carrying out their plans. And we are grateful for these hardworking citizens of ours.

Another reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because our government has changed its policies -- and given our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel the tools they need to fight this enemy and protect our people and preserve our freedoms.

The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation, they defend no territory, and they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders, or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society; they send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations; they live quietly among their victims; they conspire in secret, and then they strike without warning. In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists, themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are underway. This intelligence -- this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information. To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and, when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America, and on the battlefields around the world.

After the 9/11 attacks, our coalition launched operations across the world to remove terrorist safe havens, and capture or kill terrorist operatives and leaders. Working with our allies, we've captured and detained thousands of terrorists and enemy fighters in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other fronts of this war on terror. These enemy -- these are enemy combatants, who were waging war on our nation. We have a right under the laws of war, and we have an obligation to the American people, to detain these enemies and stop them from rejoining the battle.

Most of the enemy combatants we capture are held in Afghanistan or in Iraq, where they're questioned by our military personnel. Many are released after questioning, or turned over to local authorities -- if we determine that they do not pose a continuing threat and no longer have significant intelligence value. Others remain in American custody near the battlefield, to ensure that they don't return to the fight.

In some cases, we determine that individuals we have captured pose a significant threat, or may have intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks. Many are al Qaeda operatives or Taliban fighters trying to conceal their identities, and they withhold information that could save American lives. In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly [sic], questioned by experts, and -- when appropriate -- prosecuted for terrorist acts.

Some of these individuals are taken to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo. These aren't common criminals, or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield -- we have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo. Those held at Guantanamo include suspected bomb makers, terrorist trainers, recruiters and facilitators, and potential suicide bombers. They are in our custody so they cannot murder our people. One detainee held at Guantanamo told a questioner questioning him -- he said this: "I'll never forget your face. I will kill you, your brothers, your mother, and sisters."

In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. This group includes individuals believed to be the key architects of the September the 11th attacks, and attacks on the USS Cole, an operative involved in the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and individuals involved in other attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians across the world. These are dangerous men with unparalleled knowledge about terrorist networks and their plans for new attacks. The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know.

Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged. Doing so would provide our enemies with information they could use to take retribution against our allies and harm our country. I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks -- here in the United States and across the world. Today, I'm going to share with you some of the examples provided by our intelligence community of how this program has saved lives; why it remains vital to the security of the United States, and our friends and allies; and why it deserves the support of the United States Congress and the American people.

Within months of September the 11th, 2001, we captured a man known as Abu Zubaydah. We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained, and that he helped smuggle al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country. Zubaydah was severely wounded during the firefight that brought him into custody -- and he survived only because of the medical care arranged by the CIA.

After he recovered, Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. He declared his hatred of America. During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information -- and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the "nominal" information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and used the alias "Muktar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM. Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the U.S., and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained -- one while traveling to the United States.



We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.

Based on that information, Zubair was captured in June of 2003, and he soon provided information that helped lead to the capture of Hambali. After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a "J-I" cell, and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda. Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and, in turn, led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian "J-I" operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States -- probably [sic] using airplanes.

During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans. For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States, and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows.

KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest. In fact, we did not know about Yazid's role in al Qaeda's anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.

These are some of the plots that have been stopped because of the information of this vital program. Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti -- they were going to use an explosive laden water tanker. They helped stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.

We're getting vital information necessary to do our jobs, and that's to protect the American people and our allies.

Information from the terrorists in this program has helped us to identify individuals that al Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations, many of whom we had never heard about before. They include terrorists who were set to case targets inside the United States, including financial buildings in major cities on the East Coast. Information from terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al Qaeda member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies since this program began. By providing everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding, this program has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they were able to kill.

This program has also played a critical role in helping us understand the enemy we face in this war. Terrorists in this program have painted a picture of al Qaeda's structure and financing, and communications and logistics. They identified al Qaeda's travel routes and safe havens, and explained how al Qaeda's senior leadership communicates with its operatives in places like Iraq. They provided information that allows us -- that has allowed us to make sense of documents and computer records that we have seized in terrorist raids. They've identified voices in recordings of intercepted calls, and helped us understand the meaning of potentially critical terrorist communications.

The information we get from these detainees is corroborated by intelligence, and we've received -- that we've received from other sources -- and together this intelligence has helped us connect the dots and stop attacks before they occur. Information from the terrorists questioned in this program helped unravel plots and terrorist cells in Europe and in other places. It's helped our allies protect their people from deadly enemies. This program has been, and remains, one of the most vital tools in our war against the terrorists. It is invaluable to America and to our allies. Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By giving us information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives.

This program has been subject to multiple legal reviews by the Department of Justice and CIA lawyers; they've determined it complied with our laws. This program has received strict oversight by the CIA's Inspector General. A small number of key leaders from both political parties on Capitol Hill were briefed about this program. All those involved in the questioning of the terrorists are carefully chosen and they're screened from a pool of experienced CIA officers. Those selected to conduct the most sensitive questioning had to complete more than 250 additional hours of specialized training before they are allowed to have contact with a captured terrorist.

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.

The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorists at any given time -- and once we've determined that the terrorists held by the CIA have little or no additional intelligence value, many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments. Others have been accused of terrible crimes against the American people, and we have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice. So we intend to prosecute these men, as appropriate, for their crimes.

Soon after the war on terror began, I authorized a system of military commissions to try foreign terrorists accused of war crimes. Military commissions have been used by Presidents from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt to prosecute war criminals, because the rules for trying enemy combatants in a time of conflict must be different from those for trying common criminals or members of our own military. One of the first suspected terrorists to be put on trial by military commission was one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards -- a man named Hamdan. His lawyers challenged the legality of the military commission system. It took more than two years for this case to make its way through the courts. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the military commissions we had designed, but this past June, the Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Supreme Court determined that military commissions are an appropriate venue for trying terrorists, but ruled that military commissions needed to be explicitly authorized by the United States Congress.

So today, I'm sending Congress legislation to specifically authorize the creation of military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes. My administration has been working with members of both parties in the House and Senate on this legislation. We put forward a bill that ensures these commissions are established in a way that protects our national security, and ensures a full and fair trial for those accused. The procedures in the bill I am sending to Congress today reflect the reality that we are a nation at war, and that it's essential for us to use all reliable evidence to bring these people to justice.

We're now approaching the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks -- and the families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice. Some of the families are with us today -- they should have to wait no longer. So I'm announcing today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) They are being held in the custody of the Department of Defense. As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice. (Applause.)

We'll also seek to prosecute those believed to be responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, and an operative believed to be involved in the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. With these prosecutions, we will send a clear message to those who kill Americans: No longer -- how long it takes, we will find you and we will bring you to justice. (Applause.)

These men will be held in a high-security facility at Guantanamo. The International Committee of the Red Cross is being advised of their detention, and will have the opportunity to meet with them. Those charged with crimes will be given access to attorneys who will help them prepare their defense -- and they will be presumed innocent. While at Guantanamo, they will have access to the same food, clothing, medical care, and opportunities for worship as other detainees. They will be questioned subject to the new U.S. Army Field Manual, which the Department of Defense is issuing today. And they will continue to be treated with the humanity that they denied others.

As we move forward with the prosecutions, we will continue to urge nations across the world to take back their nationals at Guantanamo who will not be prosecuted by our military commissions. America has no interest in being the world's jailer. But one of the reasons we have not been able to close Guantanamo is that many countries have refused to take back their nationals held at the facility. Other countries have not provided adequate assurances that their nationals will not be mistreated -- or they will not return to the battlefield, as more than a dozen people released from Guantanamo already have. We will continue working to transfer individuals held at Guantanamo, and ask other countries to work with us in this process. And we will move toward the day when we can eventually close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

I know Americans have heard conflicting information about Guantanamo. Let me give you some facts. Of the thousands of terrorists captured across the world, only about 770 have ever been sent to Guantanamo. Of these, about 315 have been returned to other countries so far -- and about 455 remain in our custody. They are provided the same quality of medical care as the American service members who guard them. The International Committee of the Red Cross has the opportunity to meet privately with all who are held there. The facility has been visited by government officials from more than 30 countries, and delegations from international organizations, as well. After the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe came to visit, one of its delegation members called Guantanamo "a model prison" where people are treated better than in prisons in his own country. Our troops can take great pride in the work they do at Guantanamo Bay -- and so can the American people.

As we prosecute suspected terrorist leaders and operatives who have now been transferred to Guantanamo, we'll continue searching for those who have stepped forward to take their places. This nation is going to stay on the offense to protect the American people. We will continue to bring the world's most dangerous terrorists to justice -- and we will continue working to collect the vital intelligence we need to protect our country. The current transfers mean that there are now no terrorists in the CIA program. But as more high-ranking terrorists are captured, the need to obtain intelligence from them will remain critical -- and having a CIA program for questioning terrorists will continue to be crucial to getting life-saving information.

Some may ask: Why are you acknowledging this program now? There are two reasons why I'm making these limited disclosures today. First, we have largely completed our questioning of the men -- and to start the process for bringing them to trial, we must bring them into the open. Second, the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the Court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as "Common Article Three" applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act -- simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.

This is unacceptable. Our military and intelligence personnel go face to face with the world's most dangerous men every day. They have risked their lives to capture some of the most brutal terrorists on Earth. And they have worked day and night to find out what the terrorists know so we can stop new attacks. America owes our brave men and women some things in return. We owe them their thanks for saving lives and keeping America safe. And we owe them clear rules, so they can continue to do their jobs and protect our people.

So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.

The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted -- but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority. (Applause.)

As we work with Congress to pass a good bill, we will also consult with congressional leaders on how to ensure that the CIA program goes forward in a way that follows the law, that meets the national security needs of our country, and protects the brave men and women we ask to obtain information that will save innocent lives. For the sake of our security, Congress needs to act, and update our laws to meet the threats of this new era. And I know they will.

We're engaged in a global struggle -- and the entire civilized world has a stake in its outcome. America is a nation of law. And as I work with Congress to strengthen and clarify our laws here at home, I will continue to work with members of the international community who have been our partners in this struggle. I've spoken with leaders of foreign governments, and worked with them to address their concerns about Guantanamo and our detention policies. I'll continue to work with the international community to construct a common foundation to defend our nations and protect our freedoms.

Free nations have faced new enemies and adjusted to new threats before -- and we have prevailed. Like the struggles of the last century, today's war on terror is, above all, a struggle for freedom and liberty. The adversaries are different, but the stakes in this war are the same: We're fighting for our way of life, and our ability to live in freedom. We're fighting for the cause of humanity, against those who seek to impose the darkness of tyranny and terror upon the entire world. And we're fighting for a peaceful future for our children and our grandchildren.

May God bless you all. (Applause.)

END 2:22 P.M. EDT
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 6, 2006 at 5:20pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Administration Proposal Still Allows for Exclusion of Defendant
The Administration's new Military Commission proposal still allows for the exclusion of the defendant from selected proceedings to protect classified information, a bone of contention for many critics and a point which will surely be hotly debated.

My colleague Michael Scharf, testified before the House Armed Services Committee last month regarding how International Tribunals handle the requirement that a defendant be present to challenge the evidence against him. His testimony is available here.

Below I have pasted the specific provisions dealing with exclusion of accused for the protection of classified information:


“(e) LIMITED EXCLUSION OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—

(1) The military judge may, subject to the provisions of this subsec-
tion, permit the admission in a military commission under this chapter of classified information outside the presence of the accused.

(2) The military judge shall not exclude the accused from any portion of the proceeding except upon a specific finding that extraordinary circumstances exist such that

(A) the exclusion of the accused
i) is necessary to protect classified information the disclosure of which to the accused could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; or
(ii) is necessary to ensure the physical safety of individuals;
(iii) is necessary to prevent disruption of the proceedings by the accused; and

(B) the exclusion of the accused
(i) is no broader than necessary; and
(ii) will not deprive the accused of a full and fair trial.

(3)
(A) A finding under paragraph (2) may be 20
based upon a presentation, including an ex parte or in 21
camera presentation, by either trial counsel or defense 22
counsel. 23

(B) Before trial counsel may make a presentation 24
described in subparagraph (A) requesting the admission of classified evidence outside the presence of the accused, the head of the executive or military department or governmental agency which has control over the matter (after personal consideration by that officer) shall certify in writing to the military judge that“
(i) the disclosure of such classified information to the accused could reasonably be expected to prejudice the national security; and
(ii) such evidence has been declassified to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national security.

(4)
(A) No evidence shall be admitted if the accused is not present for its admission or the evidence is not otherwise provided to the accused, unless the evidence is classified information and the military judge makes a specific finding that
(i) consideration of the evidence by the commission, without the presence of the accused, is warranted; and
(ii) admission of an unclassified summary or redacted version of that evidence would not be an adequate substitute and, in the case of testimony, alternative methods to obscure the identity of the witness are not adequate; and
(iii) admission of the evidence would not deprive the accused of a full and fair trial.

(B) If the accused is excluded from a portion of the proceeding, the accused shall be provided with a redacted transcript of the proceeding and, to the extent practicable, an unclassified summary of any evidence introduced. Under no circumstances shall such a summary or redacted transcript compromise the interests warranting the exclusion of the accused under this subsection.

(5)
(A) Military defense counsel shall be present and able to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to all evidence admitted under subparagraph (4).

(B) Civilian defense counsel shall be permitted to be present and to participate in all trial proceedings, and shall be given access to evidence admitted under subparagraph (4), provided that civilian defense counsel has obtained the necessary security clearances and that such presence and access are consistent with regulations that the Secretary may prescribe to protect classified information.

(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel who receives classified information admitted pursuant to subparagraph (4) shall not be obligated to, and may not, disclose that evidence to the accused.
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 6, 2006 at 4:26pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Text of Administration MC Proposal
The administration's proposal is available here: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 6, 2006 at 3:17pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Bush to unveil new plan for Guantanamo detainees
Shortly the President will announce his proposed legislation for revamping the Military Commissions process. As part of the announcement, he will also announce the transfer of about a dozen high profile detainees to DoD custody. It's unclear whether they will be sent to Guantanamo, although that is likely. Among those detainees is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, as well as senior AQ member Ramzi Binalshibh. I predict this will precipitously alter the debate over Guantanamo detainees, particularly in the case of KSM, as it will be difficult for opponents to rail against a process which is putting such senior AQ members, one of whom was responsible for 9-11, in jail.

Her's the CNN story:

" President Bush is set to offer legislation Wednesday to change the law to allow military tribunals to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In the third of a series of speeches on the war on terrorism, he'll discuss this summer's U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down his administration's plan for military tribunals for "enemy combatants," according to White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Afterward, Bush will send the proposed legislation to Capitol Hill.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, began circulating draft legislation two weeks ago. Key players met with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, on Tuesday night to discuss the matter.

While specifics are sketchy on what form the bill will take, a Warner spokesman said lawmakers have been working "cooperatively" with the administration on the version, "even though they have somewhat different views."" link
Posted by Greg McNeal on September 6, 2006 at 1:06pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest
VIA JUDICIAL WATCH: (HAT TIP TO HOW APPEALING)

A Judicial Watch Press Release, available here states: "...Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements."

One has to wonder if those who were making ethics complaints about Justice (then Judge) Alito's involvement in the Vanguard fund --complaints which were fully debunked (for example (here) and (here))-- will be similarly outraged by Judge Diggs Taylor's conduct should the Judicial Watch allegations prove true.

Here is just a sampling of those who railed against Justice Alito over Vanguard.

Think Progress: "Alito: $500K Investment Isn’t A Conflict Of Interest"

Ted Kennedy: More Answers Needed from Judge Alito on Vanguard Case

Deborah Rhode opined on NPR that Alito’s sitting on the case was “a violation of judicial ethics 101.”

Daily Kos encouraging readers to send a letter which stated: "Justice Alito doesn't deserve to be rewarded with an appointment to the Supreme Court for lying to the Senate. Nor does he deserve to be rewarded with that appointment for his repeated violations of the laws and ethical codes that govern the conduct of federal judges."

Keith Olbermann: "Keith Olbermann hyped "new questions now concerning the judicial ethics of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito" because of alleged conflicts of interest, including the judge's participation in court cases involving Vanguard and Smith Barney, companies through which Alito owned mutual funds and stocks. Olbermann expressed his view that "it would seem to me these are throat cutters" and that "he shouldn't be on a federal court after this anymore." and John Turley (being interviewed on the same program): "a judge is supposed to recuse himself when there's an appearance of a conflict," while he also conceded that "it's not that Judge Alito doesn't have an argument here. It's a technical one."

MoveOn.org stating that Alito's explanations "strain credulity"



Posted by Greg McNeal on August 23, 2006 at 12:39am. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Saturday, August 19, 2006

German Suitcase Bombs Were Primed to Go Off, Kill (Update2)
VIA BLOOMBERG:"Two suitcases containing bottles of gasoline, propane gas and a detonating device that were found abandoned in German regional trains last month were bombs primed to go off and kill a ``high number'' of people, police said.

``We're accusing as yet unknown suspects of having tried to ignite unconventional flammable and explosive devices on July 31, 2006, in the cities of Dortmund and Koblenz with the aim of killing a high number of people,'' Federal Prosecutor Rainer Griesbaum said at a press conference in Wiesbaden, Germany, today. The perpetrators are suspected of being members of a ``domestic terrorist organization,'' Griesbaum said.

A suitcase found abandoned on a regional train from Aachen to Hamm in western Germany was turned in by the train's conductor in Dortmund. It contained a propane gas bottle, three bottles filled with gasoline and a detonating device, the Federal Prosecutor's Office said Aug. 1. On the same day another piece of luggage was found on another regional train from Moenchengladbach to Koblenz about 75 miles to the South. It too contained a propane gas bottle.

* * * * *

Lebanon Connection

The July 31 attempt ``is likely to have a terrorist background,'' Zierke said. Investigators found pieces of paper with Arabic letters and telephone numbers from Lebanon in clothes which were in the suitcases to pad the gas bottles, he said. They also found starch bags from Lebanon which were sold in a store in or around Essen, a city in North-Rhine Westphalia. " LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on August 19, 2006 at 12:04pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Friday, August 11, 2006

U.S. warns of attacks in India
AP STORY VIA THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNTE:
"The U.S. Embassy in India's capital warned Friday that foreign militants, possibly Al Qaeda members, may be planning to carry out bombings in two major Indian cities in the coming days.

An e-mail sent to American citizens registered with the embassy said New Delhi, the capital, and Mumbai, the country's financial and entertainment hub, were the targets of the alleged plot, and that the attacks were believed to be planned around India's Independence Day, which falls on Aug. 15.

The embassy confirmed that it had sent the e-mail, and the chief secretary of India's Maharshtra state, where Mumbai is located, confirmed that authorities had intelligence about a possible terror plot." LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on August 11, 2006 at 4:56am. 0 Comments 1 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Symbolic Targets
VIA MSNBC:
"Terrorists remain keenly interested in spectacular attacks, says an intelligence expert, who also praises authorities for thwarting the latest alleged plot.

As the investigation into a purported plot to blow up U.S. airliners leaving London continues, a British security expert sees positive signs for the West’s battle against terrorism. Alex Standish, editor of Jane’s Intelligence Digest, has long studied the inner workings of terrorists groups across the globe. A former BBC journalist, Standish spoke about the latest plot and the what clues authorities will be looking for with NEWSWEEK’s Ginanne Brownell." LINK
Posted by Greg McNeal on August 10, 2006 at 4:49pm. 0 Comments 1 Trackbacks Rate this post:

Bojinka Bomb Plot
For those of you looking for the bomb plot that today's arrests are reminiscent of, this Wiki entry is a good summary. It also has extensive links outside of Wiki for those of us who are Wiki-skittish on reliability grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka
Posted by Greg McNeal on August 10, 2006 at 4:30pm. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks Rate this post:

CNN Confirms 2 Martrydom Tapes Found
CNN Confirms that 2 martyrdom tapes were found in relation to arrested suspects.

CNN also confirms that 2 of the suspects (not necc. same as the martyrdom tape suspects) travelled to Pakistan and had money wired to them from Pakistan.

Related Posts (on one page):