Thursday, December 22, 2011

U.S. Military in the Jihadi Bull's-Eye


Clare M. Lopez
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King held the fourth of his series of Capitol Hill hearings on Islamic radicalization in early December 2011.
The 7 December hearing focused on military communities in the United States (U.S.), which King described as the most sought-after target for Islamic terrorism. King's Homeland Security Committee report, "Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to Military Communities Inside The United States," was issued the same day. It documents the startling surge in Islamic plots and strikes against military targets since 2009, which included the June 2009 attack at an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas and the November 2009 attack by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood, Texas.


More than 30 other threats and plots against U.S. military communities since 9/11 have put service members in the Islamic jihadist bull's-eye, not just at dangerous posts overseas, but "inside the wire," at home. Those communities are exceptionally vulnerable because of the Department of Defense's refusal to define or defend against the enemy threat doctrine of shariah Islam—a doctrine that makes jihad obligatory for all Muslims.   

As King's hearings and the Committee report both point out, Islamic jihadis of unknown numbers are penetrating our defenses by enlisting in the U.S. Armed Forces. Many of them have been inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born al-Qa'eda operative who was killed in Yemen in September 2011. Although he is no longer writing for Inspire, al-Qa'eda's (now-defunct) slick English language online magazine, al-Awlaki's many sermons recorded on DVD and available at myriad jihadi websites continue to urge individual Muslims to put their faith into practice through individual jihad (or fard 'ayn).

Under Islamic law (shariah), Fard 'ayn is obligatory for all Muslims everywhere in the world whenever non-Muslim (infidel) soldiers are present on Muslim land. Ordinarily, in times when the Muslim world was governed by a Caliph at the head of a Caliphate (Islamic empire), shariah required that Caliph to lead a minimum of one offensive jihad foray per year against neighboring infidel lands. But since the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, the Islamic world has been without a Caliph or Caliphate to organize these obligatory raids. In this situation, and with American troops present in so many Muslim lands, Islamic law is clear: the usual collective responsibility (or fard kifayah) to conduct jihad (which relieves every single individual of the duty) devolves to the individual Muslim. 

And that is the duty that Muslim authorities have been describing and urging on those faithful to shariah Islam, especially in recent years. Clearly, as news reports document, there has been an increase in cases of individual jihadist plots—including attempts in Times Square, at a Portland, Oregon Christmas celebration, and in the skies over Detroit, Michigan—that target American civilians, too. But jihadist infiltration of U.S. military ranks betrays a trust in an especially insidious way, both by penetrating the defensive bulwark that used to hold civilians safe from the barbarians outside the gate and also by destroying the code of camaraderie that binds the troops together. Now the enemy is "inside the wire" and threatening the homeland from within. 

Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who gunned down thirteen people at the Ft. Hood Army Readiness Processing Center on 5 November 2009, offers a good case study of a Muslim officer, who although American born and raised, still identified himself first and foremost as a Muslim, not as an American. Hasan was within weeks of a scheduled deployment to Afghanistan on that tragic day, a prospect that seems to have triggered his murderous rampage.



But this first-generation son of Palestinian immigrants from Jordan had given explicit warning of his jihadist identity years before he opened fire on his fellow troops while screaming "Allahu Akbar" at the top of his lungs. Even as he was promoted through the ranks of the Army's medical training program, Hasan not only received poor marks, but was trying to proselytize patients to his Muslim beliefs, handing out business cards marked with "SOA" (Soldier of Allah), and maintaining a long-term relationship with al-Awlaki, whom Hasan first met at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in 
Falls Church, Virginia.

Even though both his Army military superiors and the FBI were aware of Hasan's jihadist behavior, no one in the chain of command would take the professional career risk of challenging him or demanding an explanation for his threatening behavior. Not even when, in 2007, Hasan delivered a Power Point presentation to his classmates entitled, The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military. Had anyone in that or subsequent Department of Defense (DoD) audiences understood the enemy's Islamic doctrine, as their Constitutional oath of service requires, alarm bells would have gone off right then and there. Hasan's presentation, in fact, gave a factually accurate explanation of the Islamic injunction against a Muslim killing fellow Muslims without right, the doctrine of abrogation, the imperative of submission in Islam, the rewards promised to jihadis (and especially those who commit suicide in order to kill infidels), and the definitions of "defensive" and "offensive" jihad. His final Recommendations slide was chillingly prescient: it read, "Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as "Conscientious objectors" to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."  [Emphasis added.]   

Gen. George C. Casey, Army Chief of Staff, exemplified the incompetence that currently characterizes U.S. military and national security leadership with regard to the Islamic enemy when he dismissed Hasan's jihadist massacre as less important than "diversity" in the military, saying "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." The August 2010 DoD report on the Ft. Hood shootings likewise plumbed new depths of cowardice when it refused to even mention Hasan's jihadist motivations and instead classified the attacks as, essentially, a kind of workplace violence. 

The King hearings, by contrast, fearlessly took on Islamic jihadist penetration of the U.S. military and featuredtestimony from Daris Long, the father of slain Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, killed when Carlos Bledsoe (aka Abdulhakim Muhammad) opened fire outside a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office in June 2009. Long took the Obama administration to task for treating his son's murder as a "drive-by shooting" and the Ft. Hood killings as merely "work-place violence." At earlier appearances, Bledsoe's father also has spoken movingly about losing his son to Islamic jihad, describing how he turned his back on the family's cultural roots and traditional Baptist faith. He, too, blames official U.S. "political correctness" for failing to identify and root out those imams and mosques whose seditious preaching and jihadist literature lead young Americans astray right here at home.

Individual jihad is a Muslim duty. The only way that obligation can be lifted is if or when an Islamic Caliphate arises again to organize the ummah (Muslim community) in official raids against the infidel enemy. Given events sweeping the Middle East, the notion of a new Caliphate actually is not so far-fetched as U.S. national security or military leadership would portray. If Americans want to be warned of what's to come next from the international Islamic Awakening, it will be more instructive by far to listen to the acknowledged leaders of the jihad movement: the Rachid Ghannouchis, Mustafa Abdul-Jalils, and Yousef al-Qaradawis, than to most American national leadership at the moment (Rep. Peter King and like-minded congressional colleagues excepted). At least these jihadis speak candidly about shariah Islam, a new Caliphate, and their intent to see them both ultimately in force in the United States of America. 

Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund, is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues.



Christopher Hitchens Slammed Vatican in Final Interview

'THE TOTALITARIAN, TO ME, IS THE ENEMY,' HE TOLD DAWKINS

http://

(NEWSER) – With barely two months left to live, Christopher Hitchens gave one last interview, to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins, taking the opportunity to bash the Catholic Church and totalitarianism. In the New Statesman interview, Hitchens' harshest words were for the Catholic Church, saying that every fascist government in Europe in the 1930s was really an "extreme-right Catholic party." "Almost all of those regimes were in place with the help of the Vatican and with understandings from the Holy See," railed Hitchens.

Hitchens, who died last week at the age of 62, said his biggest fight was against totalitarianism, whether it be on the left or right. "The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy," he said, "the one that's absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes—and the origins of that are theocratic, obviously." And, of course, to the end, Hitchens made no apologies for the vigor of his opinions. "Stridency is the least you should muster," he said. 

Why can't HC judges move into Type VIII bungalows, let us know: Court to Centre

Utkarsh Anand

Date: December 21, 2011

A few judges of the Delhi High Court may soon join those at the new
power address in the Capital.

Asserting the entitlement of judges to Type VIII bungalows, bigger in
size than their present Type VII accommodation and allotted to Cabinet
ministers and very senior government officials, the High Court has asked
the Urban Development Ministry to obtain instructions on why shouldn't
judges be allotted these houses in accordance with rules.

In response, the Ministry has informed the court that it has stayed
fresh allotment of Type VIII bungalows, which were constructed recently
in New Moti Bagh.

The division bench of Justices Pradeep Nandarajog and S P Garg was also
informed by the Central government counsel that the issue was under
"active consideration" of Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath and that
there would "certainly" be a decision within 30 days.

The issue came to fore after an application was moved before a bench
headed by Acting Chief Justice A K Sikri. It was urged that there were
certain vacant bungalows available for accommodation in New Moti Bagh
and these could be allotted to judges.

At this, Justice Sikri asked the government's counsel to take
instructions on allotment of the new Type VIII bungalows in New Moti
Bagh Complex to High Court judges.

"We are informed that the judges of this court are allotted Type VII
bungalows, even when Type VIII bungalows are now constructed and
available for allotment. As per the entitlement, judges of the High
Court are entitled to Type VIII bungalows. It is for this reason we have
asked the respondents to take instructions in this regard," Justice
Sikri said.

Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the bench headed by Justice
Nandarajog who also asked the counsel "to obtain instructions as to the
willingness to make available Type VIII houses in New Moti Bagh for
residence of judges of the Delhi High Court".
On being informed that there were six Type VIII houses that were yet to
be allotted, the judge "hoped and expected" that the Central government
will not precipitate the issue, and not effect any further allotment
till the next date of hearing.

On the last date of hearing, B V Niren, counsel for the Centre, produced
a letter addressed to him by Munish Kumar Garg, Director of Estates.
According to the communication, the government had agreed to maintain
status quo over allotment of Type VIII bungalows in New Moti Bagh.

"The letter further noted that the matter is under active consideration
of the Minister of Urban Development. Learned counsel states that a
decision would certainly be taken within the next 30 days," the court
noted.

Asking the Ministry to get back with its final decision within a
deadline, the court posted the matter for hearing in February 2012.



Add to Google