The terrorism of watchlists

By Libby

Nobody would deny that terrorism is a real and dangerous problem. That's been true for decades but we didn't worry about that here in the USA because we never saw any really huge displays nor did we suffer through the daily grind of small attacks. It was easy to be brave about it. Then 9/11 changed everything and it became all too easy to be afraid. Now, as we look at what has happened to us in the last seven years it's clear we've allowed ourselves to become terrorized by the thought of terror. The quality of our life has been severely diminished without the terrorists having to lift a finger. No where is that more apparent than in the meek acceptance of database surveillance and watchlists.

One man went into a Glen Burnie, Md., Toyota dealership to buy a car, only to be told that a name check revealed he was on a U.S. Treasury Department watchlist of suspected terrorists and drug dealers. He had to be "checked for tattoos," he said, to make sure he wasn't the suspect.

An 18-year-old found he could not open an account to accept credit card payments for his fledgling technology consulting business because his name was similar to that of a Libyan official on the watchlist.

A former U.S. Navy officer who served in the Persian Gulf and whose father was killed in the Korean War when he was a child, found himself locked out of his PayPal account because his name was similar to one on the watchlist.

The guy who couldn't buy a car was a former police officer. I'm certain there's probably hundreds of similar stories and that's just this list. We've all read about dissenters who are clearly not terrorists having been denied entry to the country and young children who can't board planes because of nofly lists, yet people are willing to buy into the idea that these lists are somehow making us safer. The crazy part is a real terrorist would no doubt find a way to avoid being flagged.

It's a dangerous world and no one can protect us from sudden death. We can't outsource our safety to a piece of paper. Ask any family whose loved one was murdered by an ex-spouse, while holding a restraining order in their hand. All these lists do is endanger us more by fostering complacency in the face of the growing infringement of the government in our private lives, ironically leaving us in a position where we're destroying our freedoms to protect them from being destroyed by phantom terrorists.

Stand Up Christian Pretend-Terrorists

By Cernig

The New York Times has an article today alleging that three speakers to an Air Force Academy conference on terrorism to tell cadets about how they used to be Islamist terrorists have turned out to be evangelist Christians lying about their pasts.

Nicole Bell at Crooks and Liars writes:

This story just reeks of propaganda and a sneaky agenda. The article mentions that these consultants were paid in part from private donations, and it would be interesting to know just who that is, because I have a feeling that would make clear the agenda working here.

Meanwhile, Steve Emerson, head of The Investigative Project on Terrorism and self-proclaimed expert, has a long and rambling diatribe about the allegations at National Review today, in which he repeatedly calls CAIR out for alleged ties to funders and supporters of terrorism but doesn't say dick about the truth or falsity of the NYT's allegations themselves. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Sharia Fearmongering

By Cernig

There's been a lot of Islamophobic mouthbreathing over the Archbishop of Canterbury's comment yesterday that Sharia Law in the UK is "unavoidable". British politicians and pundits on both sides of the pond have picked up on the bare bones of the story and fallen over each other to demand the Archbishop's resignation or to complain that this would be the "thin edge of the wedge".

But all he actually said (see the BBC's original story) was that Muslims should have the same option to choose a private court (using Sharia Law) for civil disputes as Jewish Brits do. Indeed, Williams said he was fully aware of how draconian full Sharia Law can be:

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

...Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

So why the outcry over a reasonable call for parity? Well, mostly it seems to me because Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism and politicians are appeasing such "Protocols of the Elders of Islam" rightwing conspiracy theorists as long as their Blimpoid bigotry goosesteps to a nationalistic beat.

Meanwhile, over at Pajamas Media, Roger Kimball is using King Henry II's words which were interpreted as a command to assassinate a previous Archbishop of Canterbury as a headline, then with weasel words hidden in the article takes them back - sort off:

I certainly would not wish to have the question “Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?” answered as Henry’s question was answered. But where Becket faithfully served his church and was savagely punished for it, Rowan Williams loses no opportunity to besmirch his Church and is lavishly praised for his perfidy.

There will continue to be more outrage directed at Archbishop Williams for suggesting parity of rights for Jews and Muslims than there will be at the US art critic and ideologue for sailing so close to a call for the assassination of the clerical head of the Church of England. That's your appeasement right there.

German Conservatives' Immigration Card May Backfire With Voters

By Cernig

The BBC is reporting that Bush ally Angela Merkel may have problems coming, with state elections showing how nest year's federal race may be run.

German voters are voting in two state elections, in Lower Saxony and Hesse.

Opinion polls suggest Angela Merkel's party, the conservative CDU, may lose its majority in Hesse - a politically and economically important state.

The current governor of Hesse, the CDU's Roland Koch, is running for a third term in office.

Mr Koch has provoked a storm of protest with calls for tougher sentences and the deportation of what he called "young criminal foreigners."

Mr Koch is known as the "crown prince" by conservatives.

But his campaign, which has focused on crime and immigration, has recently alienated many voters.

According to the latest opinion polls, support for the ruling conservatives has dropped, paving the way for a victory by the Social Democrats (SPD).

Professor Hajo Funke, a political scientist, says the conservatives' anti-foreigner campaign may have backfired.

"If Roland Koch wins, it will have effects not only for this election, but for the next state elections and the next federal elections," he told the BBC.

"Because then you will have a different CDU, with more foreign hatred, with more national conservative elements - in the party, and in the strategy."

Parallels with the US are obvious, where hardline conservatives are absolutely determined that the Democratic nomination contest be framed as race-based and that the coming presidential fight be framed as who will best keep the brown people from America's door.

Let's all remember one thing that's been proven time and again over decades. It doesn't matter what party sign they hang around their neck - if they're banging on about race wars and fear of foreigners, they're conservatives.

Laying Down With Dogs

By Cernig

I've been deriving some quiet amusement from the way in which Islamophobic American rightwing bloggers have been under fire over the last couple of weeks from their kissing-cousins at Europe's neo-nazi groups. Having spent so long telling Europeans that they should beware the Islamic menace - something these groups rightly took as code for "hate the brown people" - people like Little Green Footballs, Jawa report and Jihad Watch are under fire from European Belang-ites and BNPers. After pointing out that the neo-nazis' attendant anti-semitism is too rich even for their Muslim-hating blood, the U.S. wingnuts are now being called "leftists" and worse. The potential irony of the situation is too rich. What's a Zion-supporting white supremacist to do?

I wonder what Islamophobe guru Mark Steyn would say about it all?

Michael Chertoff Wets His Pants Again

By Cernig

Homeland Security chief Michael "the gremlin" Chertoff was most scared of European terrorists before he was most scared of homegrown terrorists, and now he's most scared of terrorists from Europe again - all inside two months.

At the beginning of December he said that America should concentrate on screening incoming travellers from Europe because it didn't have the homegrown terror threat Europe did. Then by mid-December he had decided that "There's probably a greater risk in terms of likelihood from a homegrown attack than from a massive international attack."

Now it's mid-January and he's flip-flopped again:

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said he is "increasingly worried" over terrorist threats to the United States originating from Europe.

"I have to say the biggest threat comes from overseas and one of the places we are increasingly worried about is Europe," Chertoff told the BBC Wednesday.

This from the man who, last Summer, famously hyped the terror threat based on nothing more than his "gut feeling" but when very gently pressed said the region that most scared him was South Asia.

Do you think he sleeps with a nightlight in case the Osama in the closet comes to get him?

Obama Could Force GOP To Defend War Policies

By Cernig

I see Michael O'Hanlon, the war hawk who likes to pretend he isn't, is having a go at Obama in today's Wall Street Journal because Obama won't respect his authoritay!

Matt has a good point when he says that Obama's diserspect for the VSP's who got so very much utterly wrong is a feature rather than a bug. He adds:

From the standpoint of foreign policy doctrine, this has been a frustrating primary to watch. The candidates have debated the main issues of domestic policy at a high level of detail, despite (or perhaps because of) everyone agreeing that they share the same basic approach. On national security issues, it's always been far less obvious how big or small the disgareements really are. And yet, few broad issues have really been mooted and everyone's quite vague. Instead of hearing thing straightforwardly, we're left in the position of trying to assess the contenders' likely conduct by judging the shadows. But this shadow definitely points in Obama's favor.

It's true that the race has been about personalities rather than policies - so far. But Captain Ed notes that the GOP are worried enough about Obama to be circulating emails pointing to O'Hanlon's op-ed to the usual talking heads. he goes on to spout the party line that "the country is at war" blah blah and "needs experience" blah blah. (Like Bush had any foreign policy experience.) Yet the GOP frontrunners own policies and experience all point to them being Bush clones - with Bush policies on Iraq permanent basing, crappy diplomacy, sabre rattling against Iran and ignoring the elephant in the room that is Pakistan.

In other words, while everyone has been saying that the coming election won't be about the War on Brown People Terror and Mission: Iraqi Occupation Forever... Obama as the Dem nominee might force the GOP to make that exactly what the election is all about. In all its dirty and inglorious detail and with room aplenty to put bigoted and warmongering Republican feet in mouths. Which is fine by me.

Oh, you EuroLeaders, you must choose!

by shamanic

Here's a crazy dude: Scott Ott, who seems to want to mask his lunacy by using a very tiny font, warns the leaders of Europe that after Benazir Bhutto, the caliphate is coming for them!

Interestingly (and for no apparent reason), he reels off a short list of European countries, but fails to mention the one where a leader actually was killed for his views on limiting Muslim immigration: Holland, where in 2002, Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by -- well, here's where the narrative caves a bit -- a Dutchman who didn't want to see the "weak parts" of society demonized for political points.

It probably also doesn't help the TownHall.com narrative that Fortuyn was openly and proudly gay.

And that Holland ended up adopting most of his immigration policy proposals after his death.

Ah, but you EuroLeaders, your democracy will not stand! The rising tide of Muslim bullets to the necks of blah blah blah. Whatever. This guy's way off his rocker.