Our Authors « WesternDefenseStudiesInstitute

The Right Tool for the Job – The Right Person for the Job

Gerard P. Keenan

National security is a great concern for most Americans; especially with so many unqualified people appointed or nominated to critical, sensitive positions. The FEMA debacle following Hurricane Katrina immediately leaps to mind. But the one aspect of this that seems to pervade the entire Bush Administration is the seeming inability to place the most qualified people in the right positions.

The appointment of Michael Brown as head of FEMA, a man with little, if any, disaster experience, was practically a guarantee of chaos when a major disaster struck; natural or man-made.

But he is not unique. The nomination of Ms. Miers to the Supreme Court also raised concerns. While there are precedents where Justices have been appointed with no judicial background, it is a different world today than it was 40, or even 20years ago. Appointees to the Supreme Court should be required to have a minimum number of years on the bench, preferably a federal bench, before they even qualify for nomination.

I may be mistaken, but I always believed the primary function of this Court was to rule on matters of Constitutional Law – not the practice of corporate law; which seems to be the only qualification Ms. Miers possessed. I could never take any ruling on Constitutional Law, made by a corporate lawyer with no judiciary experience, very seriously at all. I doubt anyone could.

Yet this does not concern me as much as inexperienced people in positions which can seriously jeopardize our national security.

On 10 August, 2005 the Washington Post reported that FBI Director Robert Mueller had selected Gary Bald to head the FBI’s new spy agency – the National Security Service (NSS) (officially; the Executive Assistant Director, National Security Branch, pending final approval of the new organizational structure).

Mr. Bald has virtually no knowledge or experience with terrorism, and even less with Islam and Middle East. When the Post asked if he had much knowledge of Middle East culture and history, he replied, “I wish that I had it. It would be nice.” Nice? It is crucial!

Director Mueller defended his selection of Bald on the virtually anorexic argument that he had run the Baltimore field office which had a terrorism “program” and had run the DC

Sniper investigation. A program? Many colleges offer terrorism “programs”. Does this qualify graduates to head up a sensitive national security agency or department?

As for running the DC Sniper investigation, I fail to see how this, in any way, qualifies him to conduct counter-terrorism operations. This was one man and a kid. John Allen Muhammad may have been a Muslim, and certainly a murderer, but he was no Sleeper Cell leader, or even a member of one. And he was certainly not planning another 9/11. The only reason the FBI was involved at all is because Muhammad’s killing spree crossed state lines. Nothing in that entire investigation would qualify Mr. Bald to hold this position, or to conduct counter-terrorism oprations.

According to Mueller, “Running the office gave him some exposure to terrorism” and that this would “contribute to his ability to handle counterterrorism.” These statements are ludicrous and cast serious doubts on the FBI’s ability to adequately and effectively protect this country, its citizens, and its interests – at home or abroad. This is not the time for OJT in a critical position like this; especially since Director Mueller’s own comments seem to indicate that Gary Bald would receive little if any direct supervision or training.

The Post article also reported that Director Mueller, and other top officials, stated that it is leadership skill and not subject matter knowledge that is important. This comment seriously damages Director Mueller’s own credibility. In my 20 years in the Navy there were many officers and senior petty officers I could find no respect for, had no confidence in, and some I even held in contempt because they would assign tasks to people that I knew they were totally incapable of carrying out themselves.

When assigned to my first leadership position I made it a point to learn as much as possible about any task that might have to be assigned within my area of responsibility. I followed that philosophy for the next 16 years – until retirement – and in doing so I earned the respect and loyalty of nearly everyone who ever worked for me.

A true leader must instill confidence if he, or she, is to have the whole-hearted support, trust, confidence and respect of those he leads. A leader who has no idea of the challenges his people face, who simply gives orders without any knowledge or understanding of the difficulties that may be faced and no real, practical knowledge of the task itself, is no leader. Some knowledge and experience of the job is integral to good leadership skills. You can not be an effective leader otherwise. How can you be effective if you have no idea of what is involved in the first place?

Equally important is one of the cardinal rules of warfare – know your enemy. How can Mr. Bald hope to conduct effective counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda and other Islamists when he has no clue about Middle Eastern cultures or history, or of Islam? The answer is – he can not.

I have merely used Messrs. Brown and Bald, and Ms. Miers, as examples to illustrate what I see as a political chess game in Washington at the expense of our national security and which I am certain will exact a very high price in more American lives and property in the future.

For many years I, and others, have recognized the dangers of Islam. Its ultimate, often stated goal is nothing less than complete world domination.

President Bush almost got it right on 06 October, 2005 when he accused Islamic militants of seeking to “enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.” But he, like the politically-correct liberal dupes, still don’t get it. If by Islamic militants Mr. Bush meant those who use guns and bombs, then he is nearly correct – but not quite.

In and of itself Islam is a fascist, militaristic ideology. Anyone who has read the Koran would know this. But the Koran must also be compared with Adolf Hitler’s autobiography - Mein Kampf. The ideology of both are nearly identical – although Islam is far more sinister than Nazism in its methods.

It has also been brought to my attention that there were several people on the White House Homeland Security Advisory Committee at one time who understood this threat. That was nearly a year ago. Today all of those people are gone - reassigned. There is no longer anyone there with any understanding of Islam and the threat it presents to the entire western world. The primary target of this threat is, of course, the United States. No western country will survive long on its own if the United States is destroyed.

No other religion commands its followers to kill non-believers and includes specific instructions to “smite their heads” from their bodies. It also states “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.”

Muslims believe the time is near for a global caliphate, governed by one man to be chosen by Allah, to dominate the world under Islam.

Muslims do not believe in separation of church and state. By its very nature Islam is a politico-religious ideology in which church and state are one and the same and all political decisions are based on the Koran and other Islamic teachings. Under Islam only the Caliph, chosen by Allah, will have the wisdom and the blessings of Allah and the Prophet to make political decisions based on Islamic teachings and Sharia law.

This completely negates democracy in any form because an elected leader can not possibly be appointed by Allah and would make him, at the very least, a pretender or, at worst, an apostate. Under Islamic law the punishment for apostasy is death.

Islam does not recognize democracy by the western definition. It is as alien to Islam as little green men from Mars would be to us. They pay it lip service because the Koran says that lying to a non-believer is not lying at all – merely a means to an end. Islamic democracy means all Muslims are equal under Allah – not the state – except for non-Muslims who are looked upon as second-class citizens and are treated accordingly.

In the Province of Ontario the Muslim community very nearly introduced Sharia law with the help of Ontario’s misguided, liberal Premier – Dalton McGuinty. Although it failed this time, Islam is already changing the west – and our cultures and beliefs - just by its very presence. The march toward the global caliphate is well underway as western governments and liberals hide their heads in the sand of political correctness, or readjust their blinders so they can’t see what they don’t want to see. Our own values, cultures, religious celebrations and customs are being eroded and, in many cases, even being forbidden in the politically correct atmosphere of placating the sensitivities of the followers of Islam whose only goal is our complete and final subjugation, and the total destruction of all those who refuse to submit.

Just look at the stink because an American soldier allegedly kicked a Koran by accident at Gitmo. At least 10 people died in riots and protests around the world. The fact that it never happened, and the story was retracted by both Newsweek and its source, made no difference to Muslims – it simply provided a convenient excuse for further killing and destruction and for even more uninformed, deranged condemnations against the “Great Satan.”

But where are the riots and protests and the liberal talking heads on the banning of the Christian bible in nearly all Middle Eastern countries? Particularly Saudi Arabia where bibles and other non-Islamic religious symbols are not only banned, but the mere possession of them is a criminal offense punishable by death and they are confiscated and destroyed at all points of entry? Non-Islamic religious gatherings in Saudi Arabia are routinely raided and people deported or imprisoned for practicing any religion but the state religion of the extreme Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam. The mere possession of a Christian bible in Saudi Arabia carries the death penalty; though this seems to be reserved for Muslim apostates – like 23-year-old Sadeq Mallallah who was beheaded in public in Saudi Arabia in 1993 on a charge of apostasy because he owned a bible. Even other Muslims are forbidden to worship unless they worship according to the practices of Wahhabism.

Where is the indignant Muslim outrage at this? Is this the “tolerance” they claim is a tenet of Islam? And where are the liberal apologists? They are all conspicuously silent in this matter. It may be just as well; otherwise the brain-dead liberals would find a way to blame America or Israel, or both, for the criminalization of the bible throughout the Middle East.

In the liberal Hollywood backyard is a school that was recently awarded the Blue Ribbon for Excellence by the US Department of Education – The New Horizons School of Pasadena. New Horizons is funded by the Wahhabist Islamic Society of North America; the same extremist sect that is the state religion of Saudi Arabia and from which they receive their funding. The goal of Wahhabi in this country is to turn the United States into an Islamic Wahhabi state.

Islam will settle for nothing less than complete world domination, on its own terms, and will use any and all means available; including every form of deception and violence as permitted, prescribed, and commanded by the Koran.

According to the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed, there are only three choices for non-believers;

Convert or submit completely to Islam. A convert, or those who submit, are second-class citizens and are not entitled to most of the “privileges” of those born into Islam – including equality within Islam,

Slavery. Those who refuse to submit to Islam or be converted can also be sold into slavery, or;

Death. The only other option for those who refuse to convert or submit and are not sold into slavery is death.

When will the government and liberal ostriches wake up to this threat? When 105mm Howitzers are pounding the bejassus out of Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial, and other symbols of our national heritage, identity and culture like they did to the Giant Buddhas in Afghanistan five years ago?

The facts are indisputable. Islam declared war on the United States over 200 years ago – long before there were any groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Ansar al-Sunnah, etc.

Islam attacked us first. They were called the “Barbary Pirates” and that war was called “The Tripolitan War” (1801-1805).

The Barbary States of Tunis, Morocco, Algeria and Tripoli demanded, and received tribute (a polite term for “protection racket”) from every country whose merchant ships plied the Mediterranean. When the U.S. missed a few payments our ships were hijacked, cargoes confiscated, and the crews held for ransom or sold into slavery.

The attack on the USS Cole in Aden in 2000 was not the first Muslim attack on an American warship. On 31 October, 1803 the frigate USS Philadelphia, under Capt. William Bainbridge, ran aground in Tripoli harbor. Faced with overwhelming odds, Capt. Bainbridge was forced to surrender his ship and his crew of 307 men and officers. They remained captives until 1805.

Islam has been attacking us ever since.

Muslims and their liberal apologists and organizations like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and others, however, will point continuously to the perceived “injustices” Muslims “suffered” during the Crusades (1095-1291). As if Christian Europe is to blame for all the evils in the Middle East since 1095 when the Christians first “invaded” the Holy Land.

What Muslims and their liberal allies have conveniently chosen to ignore is the fact that Islam attacked the west, and Christianity, first.

Islam, far from peaceably spreading through the world as their propaganda would have us believe, spread violently and brutally. Muslim armies invaded all their neighbors – without mercy. In 732, only 100 years after the death of Mohammed, Islam had conquered Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, and all of southern Spain. Its armies destroyed the Persian Empire and invaded what was left of the Christian Byzantine Empire. By 732 a Muslim army, crossing from Morocco, was in France. They had crossed the Pyrenees and were marching on Rome before they were finally stopped at Tours by Charles Martel.

The First Crusade (1095 AD) was more than 350 years after Islam had violently conquered most of the known world; including most of Christian Spain and part of Christian France.

Of course, this minor historical fact is conveniently forgotten by Muslims and their liberal lackeys and front organizations like CAIR, the Islamic Thinkers Society, Islamic Society of North America, and others.

Islam started this war 1,400 years ago and, despite what liberals and Muslims preach, we are engaged in a war of religion and culture in which Islam has learned how to turn our western values of liberalism, tolerance, free speech, freedom of religion and other freedoms against us. They have become especially adept at manipulating the western liberal mainstream media (MSM) into presenting Islam as the victim. But maybe the American public is beginning to wake up and this is one of the reasons so many newspapers are going under, and those that are left are seeing steep declines in readership and subscriptions. Maybe Americans are not quite as gullible as the press seems to think they are.

Does Gary Bald or, for that matter, Director Mueller understand any of this? Or more to the point – have they even heard of any it?

Another concern is our “intelligence” agencies – or rather their incredible lack of it. A recent FOIA request by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) to the CIA for a copy of a compilation of published statements by Osama bin Laden between 1994 and 2004 was rejected by the agency on the grounds that their release would “compromise intelligence sources and methods” under FOIA exemption b (3) and that the information was obtained on a privileged basis, exemption b (4).

This is not only very strange, but very hard to swallow. For one thing, all of these statements were previously published in the media in the Middle East and in western countries. For another, a book is being published soon (if it hasn’t already) by Verso Publishing, edited by Bruce Lawrence, and titled “Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden”. This is a compilation of exactly the same bin Laden statements the CIA says it can not release. FAS did not request the CIA provide them with the sources of this information – just the statements of Bin Laden. Since these have been published many times in many countries, and have already been compiled into a book for mass commercial publication, what is so sensitive? This is just more “classification overkill”.

Iraq is still another concern. The job in Afghanistan was not, and is still not complete.

Right from the beginning the invasion of Iraq was ill-advised. There was no “exit strategy” – not one military or civilian official even brought it up. As the old saying goes – the generals are always fighting the last war. That is truer now than it has ever been. We went into Iraq with the same mentality as in the Gulf War in 1991 thinking we would simply topple Saddam and the Iraqi people would immediately be able to take over the reins of government and all would be well. It became immediately apparent that this was an unattainable goal. Just about everyone with any governmental experience was dead, in prison, or on the run. Those who remained were low-level civil servants who had no authority and many were, themselves, targets of personal vendettas by the relatives of their victims.

Arguably the biggest mistake was the disbanding of the police and the military - removing the only law enforcement in the country and replacing it with coalition troops and “private military companies” (PMC’s) who were completely ignorant of the people, their customs, their culture, and their laws.

Retaining a large part of the police and military would have greatly aided in a smooth transition from coalition control to Iraqi civilian control in a very short time.

There is a precedent for this. After the German surrender in 1945, the Allies put Operation Blowback into operation which involved keeping much of the Wehrmacht and most of the police departments intact. Under Allied control and supervision the Germans continued policing themselves until civil authorities could be elected and security and police control turned back to the German people. This was immensely successful. Why was a similar system not put into operation in Iraq? After all, keeping most of the already trained and qualified army and police under coalition control with a gradual transfer back to the Iraqis makes much more sense than replacing these institutions entirely with foreigners – the vast majority of whom can not even speak the language, let alone have any understanding of the Iraqi culture and customs.

Now we are stuck in a quagmire because of total ignorance of the enemy; and incomplete planning.

The old adage “the right tool for the job” applies equally to people. Mistakes will be made no matter who sits in the chair. But those mistakes will be dramatically reduced if the right person is sitting in that chair.

###

A Pretty Safe Bet

Gerard P. Keenan

It seems after every disaster, whether natural, man-made, or accidental, the spin-doctors come out of the gate with statements ruling out terrorism. That terrorism was not the cause in the majority of cases is true – but this has not been true in all of them.

The thinking behind these statements is understandable and well-intentioned – no one wants mass panic. Yet I find them darkly humorous; like the statement made shortly following the recent disaster at the BP refinery in Texas.

Part of the headline from the Houston Chronicle of March 25^th illustrates this quite well – “Terrorism ruled out in blast, but may take a year to find cause”. What I

would like explained is this; if it may take a year to find the actual cause, then how can terrorism be immediately ruled out as a possible cause before an investigation is even opened? Does this mean that even the possibility of a terrorist act will be completely ignored in the investigation? What if the investigation can not turn up any other causes; leaving terrorism the only possibility left?

Less than 24 hours after the explosion, spokesmen from BP, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were already discounting reported claims of responsibility by two Islamic terrorist groups – the Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in the United States of America and the Jund al-Sham Organization (Organization of Soldiers of the Levant). The Jund al-Sham has also claimed responsibility for the suicide attack on March 19^th in Qatar that killed one and injured 12, as well as the attack in the Egyptian resort of Taba in October that killed 34 and injured over 100 (an attack that has also been claimed by at least three other Islamist groups).

It is not unusual for two or more groups to claim responsibility for the same attack. It is also not unusual for Islamist groups to claim responsibility for incidents that are, in fact, purely accidental. While some claims are obviously far-fetched, enough people will still believe them to achieve the atmosphere of fear and terror that is the goal of all terror groups.

Jund al-Sham has vowed many times to carry out attacks on oil installations, churches and Western military bases in the Middle East. Other groups have made similar threats – and many have been carried out. Is it such a stretch to consider these threats in

any investigation; if for no other reason than to officially and conclusively rule out a terror attack? I see nothing to be gained by summarily dismissing any possibility before an investigation can actually eliminate it.

It is irresponsible for federal officials to immediately dismiss any possibility at all before even the most preliminary investigation has begun. Statements like this are speculation or personal opinion or, more likely, instructions from above.

It certainly does nothing to enhance the image or credibility of our intelligence agencies, and those charged with our security, when the result of an investigation does conclude it was a terrorist attack. These agencies have already suffered some loss of credibility since 9/11. Making statements like this, only to be proven wrong later, will certainly do nothing to earn them the trust of the American people that is so necessary for them to carry out their tasks effectively.

A little more honesty would not go amiss in situations like the BP refinery explosion. Instead of dismissing the possibility of a terror attack out-of-hand, then claiming the cause is unknown while investigating for a cause other than terrorism, they should be up-front and simply state they will not know the cause until the investigation is completed.

It is a pretty safe bet that the BP explosion was not the result of terrorist action, but that is still not reason enough to simply dismiss the possibility. I prefer to trust my safety and security, and that of my family and this country, to the conclusive results of a thorough investigation – not to “a pretty safe bet.”

###

“Civil Rights” Groups and the Geneva Conventions

Gerard P. Keenan

Groups like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and others of that ilk only seem concerned about the Geneva Conventions when it suits their own left-wing, anti-American agendas.

Whenever claims of abuse are leveled at the US or it allies – whether evidence is produced or not; or even exists at all – these apologists for terrorism immediately turn to the Geneva Conventions. Yet they conveniently ignore annoying little details – like the fact that the Conventions were written with the expectation that future conflicts, like past conflicts, would be fought between nation-states. This implies combat between armies, navies and air forces. It was expected that the belligerents would have traditional military

rank structures and chains of command. And, of course, it also means there would be uniforms, officers, and enlisted men – as well as civilians and non-combatants.

But we are not fighting a traditional war. Nor is the enemy a nation-state. They do not respect borders, they come to Iraq and Afghanistan from a dozen or more countries, they are fighting for a fascist ideology, not a country, and they are certainly no respecters of human rights, women’s rights, freedom of religion, speech, press, or any other basic human rights and freedoms.

They do not wear uniforms or have any discernable military rank structure.

There is no hierarchy with which to negotiate.

Yet these “rights” groups insist we afford these terrorists all the protections of the Conventions. Where are their complaints, demands, condemnations and criticisms when yet another western civilian is taken hostage and brutally murdered on videotape which is then broadcast throughout the Middle East by their bedfellows at al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya, and al-Manar?

If they really consider themselves “civil rights” groups, and if they really are concerned that the Geneva Conventions be fully applied, then they should re-examine themselves and understand that part of the term “civil rights” is the concept of “equal rights” – for everyone, not just for criminals, terrorists and murderers.

Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of POWs, 12 August 1949, Article 3, states:

“(1)……..the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and persons, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

So let me see if I under this:

(1)(a) I don’t recall Americans being responsible for the murder and mutilation of four Americans in Iraq, burning their bodies, and hanging them from a bridge.

(1)(b) I’ve heard no reports of Americans taking hostages. But it seems as if al-Zarqawi and his band of cowards has made it their life’s work. Of course, these hostages must be innocent, unarmed civilians or an occasional armed soldier or contractor who is already too badly wounded to put up a fight.

(1)(c) Guilty as charged – guilty of what amounts to little more than a college hazing compared to what is done by Zarqawi and Co. on a daily basis to innocent men, women and children.

(1)(d) The only sentences and executions carried out have been by Islamic terrorists. Every time a hostage is executed, whether an Iraqi or a westerner, the same drivel accompanies the videotape; that this person was tried in accordance with the laws of Allah and executed as instructed in the words of the Prophet in the Koran. Maybe not those exact words, but each message contains these same general statements.

If these “rights” groups expect me, or anyone else with half a brain and a modicum of reasoning to take them seriously, they should start proving that they are, indeed, “rights” groups and apply their manifesto to the entire world – and not just to the United States. Either that, or close their doors permanently as the hypocrites they are.

###

Identity Theft is a Threat to National Security

Gerard P. Keenan

In the 1960s the Department of Defense decided to replace service numbers with Social Security Numbers (SSNs). After all, why issue each service member a new identification number when they already had one before entering the service?

However, 35 years ago no one foresaw the technology that would be available to just about everyone in the world today; just as no one could have foreseen the SSN becoming a de facto national ID number.

Every investigator knows that every individual’s SSN is directly linked to at least one other; a family member, business partner, etc. through mortgages, bank accounts, investments, property deeds, tax records, driver’s licenses, insurance, and the list goes on.

With the explosion of the internet in the 1990s came a new epidemic – identity theft; now the world’s fastest growing criminal enterprise. But terrorists may also be using it.

It is no secret that al-Qaeda’s goal is the destruction of the American economy. With the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have been handed a golden opportunity. Al-Qaeda does not have to look for SSNs to access the private and personal information of thousands of Americans. This poses a very serious threat to national security because they can be obtained very easily from our own troops.

Service members’ SSNs are everywhere – and in many more places than their civilian counterparts. But nowhere are they more evident than on dog tags and ID cards.

The war on terror is unlike any we have ever fought before. Yet our troops are still required to adhere to policies set during World War One and redefined during World War Two in accordance with the Geneva Conventions requiring POWs to provide name, rank, serial number, date of birth and religion; the same information that is stamped on their dog tags.

For our troops this was fine – as long as they were issued service numbers. Now, though, they only have SSNs, and this has very serious implications for them, their families, and ultimately for national security.

In March, 2003, near the end of the Iraq war, troops entered the house of a senior Iraqi army officer as they were entering Baghdad. Although the officer, and everyone else, had fled, the troops found a number of dog tags in his desk. No mention was made

of ID cards, but if the dog tags were taken from KIA/MIA, or prisoners, it is safe to assume the ID cards and other personal effects were also taken.

If this is the case, and it probably is, then some terrorist has the necessary tool to not only clean out these GI’s finances and that of his family’s, but he can also completely destroy that family, and probably many others whose SSNs are linked to the service person and his family.

Maybe the best example of this is Specialist Joseph Hudson and the other members of the 507^th Maintenance Co.

After this unit was ambushed, al-Jazeera broadcast a 10-minute video to 50 million hostile viewers showing the bodies of dead Americans in the road. It then cut to where the captured GI’s were being held – along with several dead American bodies. On each body was displayed the soldier’s dog tags, ID card and other personal effects.

The tape then cut to the interrogation of the captured soldiers. This is when Specialist Hudson, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, gave his name, rank and serial number – except it was his SSN which is now, potentially, in the hands of 50 million hostile Muslims. To compound this, just two days later, the London Times published a report, in both its print and online editions, based on the al-Jazeera video, that included Specialist Hudson’s SSN.

With over 1,600 troops killed in Iraq alone, it is very likely that more dog tags and ID cards have fallen into the hands of the enemy.

We are the only major country to use a number can be used to access all the troops’ private and personal data, by anyone in the world with a computer, as a military service number. It is well past time for the Pentagon to reassess its use of SSNs as military service numbers.

###

Military ID Theft – A Pentagon Problem That Needs to be Corrected

Gerard P. Keenan

A good portion of military ID theft is actually facilitated by the Department of Defense itself. Unlike most civilian ID thefts, though, these could have a serious impact on national security.

In the 1960s the Pentagon decided it would be more cost-effective to replace service numbers with the individual’s Social Security Number (SSN). By 1969 the Army and Air Force had made the switch, and by 1973 the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard had completed their transition.

The Pentagon thus became the first organization to use the SSN as an official personnel identifier. In the decades since, the SSN has evolved into a national ID system. Although not an “official” one, it serves the same purpose.

So how does DoD’s use of SSN’s make military personnel more vulnerable than civilians? Simple. SSN’s are used in exactly the same ways as service numbers were once used; stamped on dog tags, printed on ID cards and virtually every page of a service record, on discharge papers (DD-214s), and so on.

Until ID theft reached epidemic proportions in the 1990’s the DoD had encouraged veterans to register their DD-214’s with their county clerks. This was intended to give them instant access to their discharge papers. However, once a DD-214 is registered it immediately becomes public record – as does all the information on it; full name, SSN, Date of Birth, and other personal information that would otherwise be non-releasable under the Privacy Act.

By the late 1990’s the services began discouraging this practice and started providing veterans with instructions for removing their DD-214’s from the public record. Unfortunately, this came too late for many of them.

Hundreds of thousands of DD-214’s are still on file with county clerks all over the country. Deceased veteran’s DD-214’s are still on file because the next-of-kin doesn’t know how to remove them, if they know they’re there at all. Other veterans move away and simply forget them.

This is where the Pentagon’s policy of using SSN’s becomes a serious risk to national security.

Terrorists are very patient. It was eight years between the first WTC attack in 1993 and the second one in 2001. No one should be so naive as to think there are no terrorist sleepers living among us today.

It is not be difficult for these sleepers to find out who the veterans are in their communities and gather enough information to search the public records and obtain a certified copy of a DD-214.

This gives the terrorist enough to go to the nearest Social Security Administration (SSA) office, claim he lost his Social Security card, fill in the form, and in two weeks he will have a new, legitimate social security card. He can then obtain a legitimate birth certificate and go to DMV and obtain a driver’s license with his photo on it because he has a SSN, armed forces discharge papers, and a birth certificate that proves American citizenship.

With this he can visit any military installation, claim he lost his ID card, and apply for a new Reserve or Retiree ID card. A normal check will show everything to be accurate and he will receive a legitimate military ID card giving him access to nearly all US military and other government installations.

I don’t think I need to start listing the possible consequences if a terrorist gains “legitimate” access to military hardware and ordnance.

Preventing this would require the DoD contact every veteran since World War II. There are no guarantees they could reach them all, and no way of knowing who registered their DD-214’s or who passed away or moved, before they could be removed

from the public record. It would undoubtedly be too late to have any measurable effect anyway.

The Pentagon is in a position to correct this situation. They should simply cease using SSN’s and, until someone comes up with a better solution, return to the old service number system. Service numbers have never, in any way, been connected to any other form of identification.

We are the only major nation in the world whose military uses a “national” identification system as a military identification system.

###

Separation of Church and State?

Gerard P. Keenan

Representative John Conyers (D-MI) doesn’t seem to believe in it.

He is the sponsor of House Resolution (HR) 288 condemning religious bigotry. It contains four points – and Islam is mentioned specifically in each of them. I find it very odd, and offensive, that no other religion is mentioned for protection.

Muslims desecrate the Christian bible on a daily basis, as well as other symbols of Christianity and other religions. Where are Conyers’ protestations and Resolutions about that?

In Saudi Arabia bibles are banned. Visitors to the kingdom have all non-Muslim religious symbols confiscated upon arrival by the Saudi religious police and are then destroyed.

This is official government policy under the Wahhabi theocracy. Saudi police routinely raid private gatherings of non-Muslims arresting all present for conducting non-

Muslim religious services. In September, 1993, a 23-year-old man named Sadeq Mallallah was beheaded on a charge of apostasy – for merely owning a bible. All TV programs that show Christian clergy, or any non-Islamic religious items, are censored.

In October 2004, in Riyadh, protestors for reform carrying the Koran were charged by riot police. In the ensuing melee hundreds of Korans were knocked from the hands of the protestors and trampled by the police. Apparently, respecting the Koran applies only to non-Muslims. It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to trample their own holy book into the ground; but even a rumor of disrespect for the Koran by an infidel is enough to spark rioting and killing all over the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia was the first Middle Eastern country to officially denounce the alleged desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo and demand an investigation. That investigation, of course, proved the desecration claims were false as Newsweek printed a retraction of the article on this non-existent incident, backed by the admission of their sole source that he was wrong.

Has Saudi Arabia apologized for jumping the gun on an unverified rumor that caused 17 deaths? No. Have they apologized for the thousands of arrests of non-Muslims over the years for practicing their religion? No. Have they apologized for the confiscation and destruction of hundreds of Christian bibles and religious symbols of all faiths each year? No.

Maybe Rep. Conyers can define “religious bigotry” for the rest of us who are apparently missing something. He may even be able to explain just what is meant by the separation of church and state.

The Supreme Court ordered a federal courthouse to remove the Ten Commandments from federal property because some found it offensive.

A federal court in California sided with an atheist to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Numerous schools and districts have been forced to allow Muslim girls to wear the hajib because it is an outward sign of their faith.

Therefore; it is completely acceptable for Muslims in our public schools to openly display signs of their faith – but totally unacceptable for Christians to do so.

This is not only an erosion of the separation of church and state concept, it is also showing favoritism toward one religion over all others.

It is true that a Resolution does not carry the weight of law – but it is a step in that direction.

Perhaps not very strange is that the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has fully backed Rep. Conyers’ resolution. That should guarantee Conyers’ re-election, since his Detroit-area constituency has one of the country’s largest Muslim populations.

So why would Congressman Conyers worry about little things – like CAIR being heavily funded by the Wahhabi government in Saudi Arabia, or that numerous members of it’s board of directors, executives and rank and file members have been indicted and charged with supporting and financing international Islamic terrorism, or that its

Canadian branch (CAIR-CAN) is being sued by the families and survivors of 9/11 for 1 trillion dollars for its part in supporting and funding the 9/11 hijackers.

Come on, Congressman, explain your concept of the separation of church and state?

###

The Geneva What?

Gerard P. Keenan

It seems the only time the Geneva Conventions are mentioned by civil rights groups like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and others from that mold is when it suits their purposes.

These apologists for terrorism have selective amnesia where both the spirit and the letter of the Conventions are concerned. Whenever claims of abuse, real or perceived, are leveled against the US or its allies, whether evidence is produced or not - or even exists - these organizations immediately start spouting their interpretations of the Conventions according to their own agendas. Yet they are conspicuously silent when it comes to the brutal, barbaric atrocities committed by those whose sole purpose is to

destroy our way of life; and along with it those of us who refuse to bow, convert, or be enslaved by a fascist ideology that these rights groups openly support.

They are critical of the treatment of prisoners from the war on terror in US custody. What they fail to include in their standard script is that many detainees who have been released, and subsequently returned to their countries of origin, have either been re-captured or killed during terrorist operations against US and coalition forces.

But let a couple of US troops ‘humiliate’ a couple of detainees and these groups jump all over it. This so-called humiliation, or “torture” as they label it, amounts to little more than a college fraternity hazing compared to the barbaric and vicious disregard for human life and dignity flaunted so proudly by the terrorists whose ‘rights’ are apparently more important than those of the innocent civilians they torture, butcher and mutilate.

Not once have I heard a condemnation of the brutality and barbarism of the terrorists in Iraq – most of whom are not even Iraqi and might, themselves, be called ‘foreign invaders’ – nor even a comment on the beheadings of hostages; including Iraqis.

But a few photos of American troops ‘abusing’ Iraqi prisoners and they are all over it like it was the second Holocaust. Al-Zarqawi & Co. not only kidnap innocent civilians, but subject them to weeks, even months of mental, physical and emotional torture while they revel in their victims’ anguish; wondering if each day will be their last, and knowing their end will be particularly brutal and painful and will be videotaped to gratify their killers’ depravity and blood-lust.

Kenneth Bigley, the British hostage, was shown not once, but twice, bound in heavy chains and locked in a cage he could not stand up in begging for his life before being beheaded on the third tape. Mr. Bigley was subjected to three weeks of humiliation and psychological and emotional torture before meeting a brutal end. But not a word from the so-called civil rights groups.

Except for some Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, all the other beheadings and executions were foreign and Iraqi civilians; all were unarmed.

More recently was the shooting down of a civilian helicopter near Taji. The six Americans and two Fijians who died in the crash were armed. The three Bulgarian crewmen may or may not have been armed. The pilot, Mr. Lyubomir Kostov, survived with a broken leg and managed to crawl 300 yards to find safety. He was not to be that lucky.

He was found and, after being pulled to his feet by his captors who made sure he was unarmed, was told to go. He must have believed they were letting him go; until one said something and he turned to face them. He went down as the first bullets hit him, but they kept firing as he lay on the ground until 18 bullets had been fired into him at almost point-blank range; and not one word from any of these groups about this cold-blooded violation of Convention IV of the Geneva Conventions – Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.

Quite the contrary. Instead of denouncing this flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, Human Rights Watch has demanded criminal investigations into Donald

Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Lt. Gen Ricardo Shanchez, and the former C.O. at Guantanamo Bay, Gen. Geoffrey Miller. HRW does not even want the Justice Department to conduct the investigation because they claim the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is also involved in the alleged prisoner abuse.

We should not ignore the contempt in which the Geneva Conventions are held by Islamic terrorists. The taking of hostages is, in itself, a major violation of the Conventions – as is the photographing and filming of them being humiliated and tortured; and the photographing and filming of their executions. Yet these civil rights groups do not feel this is even worthy of mention.

Maybe they should be investigated to see where their funding comes from. It is common practice, after all, for those receiving funds to protect the source of that money.

Whenever Islamic terrorists release a new video of hostages or beheadings or, like Mr. Kostov, the cold-blooded murder of innocent unarmed civilians, there seems to be a sudden upsurge in the number and volume of complaints by these rights groups against the US and its allies. This seems very much like a smoke screen to divert attention away from terrorist atrocities. The demands from the HRW for criminal investigations into Rumsfeld and the others, for example, came less than 48 hours after the murder of Mr. Kostov – yet not one word condeming his murder has come from them or any other group.

I wonder why that is?

###

USS Intrepid as a Floating Command Post

Gerard P. Keenan

Congress plans to spend $31 million in FY2005 just to lay the groundwork to turn the USS Intrepid into a permanent counter terrorism command post.

This was made public in the Congress Daily PM on 09 December 2004. Now terrorists have a new stationary target that, if hit, will severely cripple counter terrorism efforts in the whole Metropolitan area.

Sitting at the pier the Intrepid is vulnerable to at least three separate methods of attack.

One, obviously, is an aerial attack like 9/11. Since Intrepid presents a small target only a small plane packed with explosives would be needed to completely take out the ship and the pier – and much of the surrounding area. Loss of life would be high. There would also be the total loss of counter terrorism capabilities for much of the NY Metro area leaving the way open for small, follow-on attacks by small groups and/or individual suicide bombers around the area while there is total confusion.

Many will say this could never happen; but no one believed the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon could ever happen, either.

The second vulnerability is from shore side. It is simple to pack a car, van, or small truck with explosives and crash through the barriers. Then crash the vehicle into the new 100,000 square foot office and communications center on the pier and detonate it. While not as lethal as an aerial attack, it would still result in considerable loss of life and disruption of counter terrorism capabilities.

There is also the second vehicle bomb option of driving straight at the carrier, hitting it amidships, and detonating the bomb “on the fly”. If enough explosives are

packed into a large enough vehicle, the result would be devastating. With a large enough breach in her hull Intrepid would begin to sink almost immediately, tearing herself loose from her moorings as well as all her shore hook-ups – landlines, electrical power, communications, water and fuel lines, etc.

The water pouring through the breach would drown anyone who survived the blast.

The ship will be filled with computers, countless electronic devices, and probably a number of back-up generators that would kick in as soon as the electrical connections to shore are severed. With this back-up power running, and tons of water pouring in, fires would quickly break out and spread rapidly. In about 30-60 minutes the ship would be sitting on the bottom and everything above the water line would be in flames. Loss of life would be considerable and command, control and coordination would be completely shut down.

Casualties will be much higher than they would otherwise be because the ship will be manned almost entirely civilians – the vast majority of whom will have no naval experience at all and, therefore, will know nothing about water-tight doors, shipboard firefighting, damage control parties, or any of the other skills necessary for survival at sea aboard a burning, sinking ship.

The third vehicle option is to use two vehicle bombs simultaneously against both the office and communications building and the ship.

Then there is the third vulnerability – one that has been in the news quite a bit lately. This is an attack by sea. It is no secret that Al-Qaeda has a “navy” – a fleet of a dozen or more tankers, most of which no one seems to be able to locate.

One of these tankers filled with oil and rigged with explosives could very easily take out the Intrepid and everything around it – including the pier and the new office and communications building.

Recent government and private reports have all indicated that our nation’s sea ports are more vulnerable than most any other target in the country.

In an article on 26 December 2004 in the Daily Press, Coast Guard and Navy officials said that a 60,000 ton tanker moving up the Norfolk ship channel would need only three minutes to veer off course and crash into one of the carriers at Norfolk Naval Station. The Hudson River is not much wider than the Norfolk Channel and a tanker would not need more than five minutes to accomplish the same thing.

NYPD and Coast Guard patrol craft are lightly armed. Against a 60,000 ton tanker it would be like our troops in the Battle of the Bulge trying to stop divisions of Panzers with M-1 rifles – valiant but futile.

If a boarding party does get aboard, the terrorists could easily detonate the tanker immediately. They are on a suicide mission to start with, after all, so there is nothing to prevent them from going to “Paradise” a little early – especially if they feel threatened or the target is not attainable.

Even if the boarding party is lucky enough to reach the bridge and kill everyone on it before they can detonate, stopping one of those behemoths is not an easy task once they are underway. To maximize impact the terrorists would have increased speed once they changed course and, in all likelihood, there will be a second means of detonation that would detonate on contact.

So how do we protect the Intrepid and its civilian personnel while maintaining command, control and communications? Simple. So simple it is not surprising that Congress has not considered it or, if it has, has simply rejected it out of hand.

Make the Intrepid seaworthy. Not up to Navy combat standards – just to the same standards as any merchant or cruise ship. After all, it will not going into combat, will not

be re-commissioned back into the fleet, and it will not even have to leave US territorial waters.

The cost for refit and upgrade would undoubtedly be much less than the final cost of rebuilding and repairing Pier 86 (a good part of which has already been condemned by the city and put off limits to visitors), building the new buildings and purchasing and installing all the latest sophisticated communications and electronics equipment. Leases for landlines, the cost of electricity from shore and the cost of water from the city will add still more to ongoing costs. The $31 million Congress has authorized is only to lay the groundwork for this project – completion will run into many millions more and could take several years.

Making the Intrepid seaworthy would take less time could reduce the final cost by millions.

Command and control could also be maintained from just a few miles offshore. Only a small Navy crew would be needed to sail and maintain the ship while she conducts her operations and missions uninterrupted.

With today’s latest technology Intrepid can carry out her missions regardless of location. In deference to the civilians that would make up all of the operational personnel

and most of the support personnel, Intrepid would not have to remain at sea more than a few days at a time. She could also sail up and down the East Coast, pulling into different ports for a few days at a time. This would in no way affect its operations or mission, but would make it more difficult for terrorists to locate her. Intrepid’s time at sea, in port in NYC, and visits to other ports would be staggered so as not to set any kind of pattern – further increasing the difficulty in locating her.

Only those who need to know would have knowledge of the ship’s location at any given time. It would not even have to sail the coast. It could simply cruise off NY for a few days, then return to port for a few days. It could be refueled and resupplied at sea from Navy tankers and supply ships.

A squadron of three or four helicopters could also be assigned for emergencies, medevacs, personnel transfers, etc.

This scenario would provide increased security in many ways.

It would greatly reduce the possibility of vehicle bombs because the ship would not be sitting at a pier 24/7. It would reduce the possibility of an aerial attack for the same reason, and to attack it at sea the terrorists would have to find it first. Additional security, in the event a small plane does get lucky enough to locate her, could be provided by a

couple of SAM batteries on board; or even a helo gun ship or two. Being hit by a tanker would also be extremely unlikely because it will not be a sitting target and, at sea, she would again have to be found first.

The benefits of vastly increased security and the ability to provide and maintain command and control during another 9/11, or natural disaster, can not be overstated.

The drawbacks, of course, are mainly political. The various agencies of the federal, state and city governments that would be accommodated on Intrepid would undoubtedly be locked in a battle to determine who has operational control of her.

The main drawback to this scheme, though, is the inevitable opposition from the private owners of the Sea-air-Space Museum. This is a major hurdle that must be overcome before anything else can be done

The idea of a sea-going command post is viable, cost-effective, and very doable. If the Intrepid hurdle can not be surmounted, it would be worth looking into the possible use of one of the more recently decommissioned carriers, like the Saratoga, Forrestal, America, et. al. They are all conventionally powered, are at least twice the size of the Intrepid, and faster, and are still seaworthy; and they can also navigate the East River.

###

Why Do We Treat Terrorists Like Criminals?

Gerard P. Keenan

Terrorists are not criminals; so why do we continue treating them as if they are?

Our laws and justice system are designed to fight crime. From the petty criminal to organized crime bosses, they know what to expect if they are caught and brought to trial. Most of them accept this as a cost of doing business.

Terrorists are also familiar with western laws and criminal justice systems, and they know how to use them to their advantage.

In most western countries there is no death penalty. A terrorist may get life, but he knows he will probably be out in a few years on appeal, good conduct, or some other phoney reason.

Terrorists also know how to manipulate our justice systems. The Al-Qaeda training manual contains specific instructions on this; and we see them being carried out

everyday. Detainees claim torture, desecration of the Koran, violations of their civil rights, humiliation, ad infinitum.

Slick defense lawyers then raise ‘reasonable doubt’ and the terrorist ends up back on the streets to kill and maim again. This has already happened with many of those released from Guantanamo Bay.

What also seems to have escaped the attention of the legal system is that a conviction is probably just what the terrorist wants.

These are people who think nothing of blowing themselves up in the hope of taking at least one infidel with them. They seek death and martyrdom. If they are prepared to do this, why would they balk at a couple of years in prison? And why would they actually welcome prison time? The answer is very simple - to recruit and convert the disaffected in our prisons.

Many newspapers have reported on the rise in converts to Islam in U.S. prisons as well as in prisons in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Philippines, and other countries. This does not paint a rosy picture for the future. Converting and recruiting criminals is a first step in the formation of a fifth column and the establishment of sleepers. Once released or paroled, these criminals then seek to convert and recruit others and will use their criminal networks to aid the global Jihad being waged by bin-Laden and his henchmen.

Criminals tend to act in the selfish interests of personal and/or financial gain. Doing time behind bars severely limits this capacity, so they prefer to avoid arrest and trial.

Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, are not out for personal or financial gain. Their loyalty is to their cause. Their goal is the complete destruction of western civilization – especially the United States – and the establishment of a global caliphate based on the Koran and Sharia law. Prison is the perfect environment for conversion and recruitment.

No terrorist has ever shown sincere remorse for his actions, nor have any been “rehabilitated.” Imprisoning these people among common criminals, gang-bangers and members of organized crime families is playing right into their hands. Many of these are hardened criminals with no love or respect for the law and would be only too willing to be recruited – if not actually converted.

Affording terrorists the same rights under the Constitution and laws of this country as Americans is a very big mistake that will come back to bite us in the butt.

Most Islamic terrorists are not US citizens and have no visible means of support. This means that when they come to trial, the American taxpayer foots the bill for their defense. Given bin-Ladin’s and al-Qaeda’s stated goal of undermining and destroying the American economy, the more terrorists brought to trial, the more tax dollars are spent for their defense. This money has to come from somewhere – and that means taxes.

We must pass new laws to deal exclusively with terrorism that should include the death penalty, and no right of appeal for terrorist acts resulting in loss of life.

###

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center asked to condemn Islamophobic comments

Thursday, December 09, 2004 12:27 pm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Speaker at group’s event said Qur’an promotes terror, called Islam “immoderate,” “totalitarian”
(Ottawa, Canada - 9/12/2004) - The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) today called on the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center (FSWC) to publicly condemn recent Islamophobic comments made by an invited keynote speaker at a conference sponsored by the group and held at the University of Toronto.

At the FSWC event, Bruce Tefft, a former official with the CIA and counter-terrorism and intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department, reportedly stated:

“Islamic terrorism is based on Islam as revealed through the Qu’ran.”

“To pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Sept. 11 is to willfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events.”

“There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totalitarian construct.”

For the press release on the event, see:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2004/15/c3271.html
For media coverage, see: http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=5056

In a statement issued today, CAIR-CAN wrote:

“Mr. Tefft’s comments were hateful, Islamophobic and have no place within a civilized Canadian discourse. Characterizing Islam as synonymous with terrorism can only lead to the demonization and marginalization of Canadian Muslims.

“It is appalling that Mr. Tefft made such statements in a public forum organized by an organization that prides itself on “fostering tolerance and understanding” and has as its goals the fighting of “bigotry, racial hatred, and ethnic intolerance.”

“We are calling on the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to immediately condemn Mr. Tefft’s statements and to issue an apology to Canadian Muslims.

“We would also hope that both the University of Toronto and fellow speakers and panelists repudiate Mr. Tefft’s comments in the strongest possible terms.”

Recently, the United Nations held a conference to deal with Islamaphobia entitled “Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding.”

-END-

Contact: Abdurahman Salman at 613-254-9704; Cell: 613-795-2012

http://www.caircan.ca/itn_more.php?id=1288_0_2_0_C

Democracy and Islamic Law Don’t Mix, Iraqi Official Says
By David Thibault
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
April 10, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Despite President Bush’s insistence that the Iraqi “people want there to be a democracy,” a pro-American member of Iraq’s new parliament claims there is “no relationship between Islam and democracy.”

Islamic or “sharia” law has “nothing to do with democracy or human rights,” according to Iyad Jamal Al-Din, and mixing Islam and democracy “is like mixing Marxists and capitalists.” Al-Din escaped Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime in 1979 but returned and was elected to the Iraqi Parliament last Dec. 15. He addressed an April 6 luncheon sponsored by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Al-Din is an outspoken supporter of the U.S. military’s presence in Iraq but is critical of the new Iraqi Constitution, which he complained still relies too heavily on religious principles. Al-Din favors a secularized form of government.

Iraqi Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds face a deadline of next month in establishing a unity government, but already, there is talk that the deadline may have to be extended.

While claiming to be “convinced we are making progress [in Iraq],” President Bush is urging quick action on the formation of that unity government. I do urge the folks on the ground to get that unity government in place so the Iraqi people have confidence in their future,” Bush said in Wheeling, W.Va., last week.

Ibrahim al-Jafari, Iraq’s interim prime minister, declared recently that “we have to protect democracy in Iraq and it is democracy which should decide who leads Iraq. We have to respect our Iraqi people.”

The U.S. is opposed to al-Jafari remaining in his post, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told NBC News last week that she also was “confident because I know that in the hearts of every human being … there beats a desire for the human dignity that comes with liberty, with democracy, with the ability to say what you think and worship as you please and to educate your boys and your girls.”

But there are many skeptics, including Bruce Tefft, a former CIA employee and Middle East expert who currently serves as the director of threat assessment for CRA, a firm assisting federal, state and local officials to prevent terrorism and manage emergencies.

“There’s no way you can impose western culture and democracy and Judeo-Christian ethics on a Muslim community to start with,” Tefft told Cybercast News Service. “The best that you can hope for is that they’ve got somebody in there that’s not a radical nut like the president of Iran, or Saddam Hussein, or something like that.”

Tefft said some Iraqi Shi’ites are cooperating with the U.S. in order to hasten the withdrawal of American military forces. But the cooperation is “not because they believe in democracy, because they don’t,” he said. Democracy is “anti-Islam,” Tefft added.

“No Muslim is in favor of anything the U.S. is going to do, except we did conveniently remove Saddam Hussein, who was a nuisance to them and a burden to them and an enemy to them,” Tefft said. However, “that didn’t make [Muslims] our friends.”

Tefft believes it was wise to topple Saddam’s regime because following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, “Iraq no longer had the capability to support international terrorism or continue its WMD development programs.” However, he said, the American mission should have ended with regime change.

“Where Bush fell down was when he went into nation building,” Tefft said. It was “the State Department and Washington bureaucracy that kind of sucked him into it.”

Last October, Al-Din decried the “bloodthirsty interpretation” of Islam by radical Muslims in Iraq. In a separate media appearance a few months earlier, Al-Din criticized “the terrified and self-defeated Arab states [that] fear the establishment of a democratic regime in Iraq.”

Those Arab states, he said, “would prefer a stupid and reckless dictator like Saddam to a democratic regime in Iraq, because the epidemic of democracy and the winds of freedom will reach them, whether they like it or not.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200604/SPE20060410a.html

The Canadian Jewish News – December 16, 2004

Ex-CIA official says:
Islamic terror based on Quran

By Sheldon Kirshner

A former top official of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency paints a menacing picture of the relationship between Islam and terrorism.

“Islamic terrorism is based on Islam as revealed through the Qu’ran,” keynote speaker Bruce Tefft claimed in a panel discussion at the University of Toronto on jihad and global terrorism. The session, held late last month, was sponsored by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Speakers Action Group.

Tefft, a founder of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center and now an advisor to the New York Police Department’s intelligence and counter-terrorism divisions, said that without Islam, the long-term strategy of Al Qaeda and its followers make little sense.

Linking Osama bin Laden to the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, Tefft said: “To pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Sept. 11 is to willfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events.”

In a harsh indictment of Islam – the world’s fastest growing religion and the second-largest faith after Christianity – Tefft said that while there may be moderate Muslims, Islam itself is immoderate.

And, he added, “There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totalitarian construct.”

According to Tefft, the Qu’ran enjoins Muslims to believe that the whole world should be governed by the principles of Islam, an expansionist religion that has historically grown through conquest.

All infidels are to be converted, enslaved or killed, he said, drawing on the knowledge of Bernard Lewis, a Jewish historian who has written books about Islam and Islamic history.

Tefft, whose career at the CIA spanned 21 years, argued that Islam was a religion of peace and tolerance in its formative phase, but has since grown intolerant of non-Muslims.

Islam cannot be reformed because its teachings, as revealed through the Qu’ran, are regarded as the word of God, and to be a Muslim, a believer must accept the Qu’ran on a literal basis, Tefft said.

He said Islam views Judaism and Christianity as failed religions and itself as the only true religion.

Islamic terrorists are animated by passionate anti-Western convictions, Tefft argued. They blindly sacrifice their lives for the chance of going to paradise and enjoying the charms of 72 virgins.

To them, the United States is the epitome of evil, because its constitution separates church and state.

Tefft said Al Qaeda’s 700-page training manual covers all aspects of terrorism, from surveillance to assassinations, and is drawn from U.S., Russian and Iranian manuals . “They’ve compiled the best of the best.”

Of the 6,000 or more mosques in North America, 80 per cent are radical in orientation and devoted to spreading an intolerant Wahabi strain of Islam. They are funded by Saudi Arabia, he said……

http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=5056

http://www.archives2004.ghazali.net/html/ex-_cia_official.html

Speakers Action Group and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center present “Global Terrorism”: Inside the Mind of the Jihadist

TORONTO, Nov. 15 /CNW/ - Global Terrorism: Inside the Mind of the Jihadist features dynamic keynote speaker, Dr. Bruce Tefft, prestigious panelists David Harris, John Thompson, Tom Kaye, Leo Adler and Moderator Marni Soupcoff. This timely and critical discussion will explore the nature and impact of the Jihadist and how it relates to Canada. Presented by the Speakers Action Group and Friends of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, this town hall meeting will be held on Thursday, November 25, 2004 at 7:00 pm at the Isabel Bader Theatre located at 93 Charles St. (corner Queen’s Park Crescent across from the ROM). Seating is on a first-come, first-serve basis. Free admission. Dr. Bruce Tefft is a counter-terrorism and intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department (NYPD), as well as a Senior Associate with Orion Scientific Systems and a former counter-terrorism expert for the Directorate of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Dr. Tefft has over 29 years of experience in the field and is an articulate and experienced speaker in the field of counterterrorism. David B. Harris, President, INSIGNIS Strategic Research formerly served as Chief of Strategic Planning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). His specialties are in intelligence, counterterrorism and international affairs. He is a sought-out lecturer and commentator in Canada and abroad. John Thompson is President of the prestigious Mackenzie Institute which conducts research and provides commentary on matters pertaining to organized violence and political instability. He has written a comprehensive book on this topic titled, Other People’s Wars: A review of Overseas Terrorism in Canada. Chief of Police in Owen Sound, Tom Kaye, is Immediate Past President of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. He is a member of the Executive Board of Governance for the Central Intelligence Service for Ontario and has undergone specialized antiterrorism training in both the United States and Israel. Director of National Affairs of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, Leo Adler is a prominent criminal lawyer in Toronto. Adler’s formidable expertise and knowledge of Canada’s legal system regarding terrorism will provide a unique outlook to the forum. Moderator and lawyer, Marni Soupcoff, is a writer and member of the Editorial Board for the National Post and a writer for the American Enterprise Institute. The Speakers Action Group is a non-profit organization made up of committed, concerned volunteers of different faiths who wish to promote greater understanding among Canadians of events occurring in the Middle East with Israel and her neighbours. Headed by co-founders Shirley Anne Haber and Joan O’Callaghan, the Speakers Action Group has a roster of over 50 speakers. With expertise on a variety of topics, the speakers are available, at no charge, to address group gatherings, functions and seminars. To make arrangements for a speaker, contact Joan O’Callaghan at ejoan@sympatico.ca or Shirley Anne Haber at fax No. 416-225-3599. Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies is a Canadian

    human rights organization dedicated to fostering tolerance and     understanding through community involvement, educational outreach and     social action. With over 40,000 members of all faiths, it confronts     important contemporary issues including racism, antisemitism, terrorism     and genocide. Friends is affiliated with the world-wide, Los Angeles-     based Simon Wiesenthal Center, an accredited Non-Government Organization     with status at international agencies including the United Nations,     UNESCO, OSCE and the Council of Europe, with offices in New York, Miami,     Paris, Jerusalem, Buenos Aries and Toronto. At 95, Simon Wiesenthal still     works from his Vienna office.       For further information: please contact: Speakers Action Group, Susan  Kendal, (905) 707-8602, susan.kendal@sympatico.ca; or Friends of Simon  Wiesenthal Center For Holocaust Studies, David Eisenstadt,                 (416) 696-9900 x36, deisenstadt@tcgpr.com

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2004/15/c3271.html

Islamic terror based on Qu’ran: ex-CIA official

By SHELDON KIRSHNER
Staff Reporter