Sunday, February 7, 2010

The Evil Truth About Prophet Muhammad

saluteKAFIRS
July 26, 2009

This video proves that Islam's prophet Muhammad was NOT one of the best role models for people to follow like Mulims claim. He was NOT a good & righteous man, but instead he was one of the most evil men in history.

I AM A PROUD KAFIR/NON MUSLIM.

I LOVE & SALUTE ALL KAFIRS AROUND THE WORLD!

*PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION & SUPPORT THE GLOBAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW* http://www.shariapetition.com/ SHARIA LAW IS DISCRIMINATORY, CRUEL AND BARBARIC. PARTICULARLY TOWARDS WOMEN, CHILDREN & NON MUSLIMS. THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE 21st CENTURY FOR SHARIA LAW, FULL STOP.

*I ALSO RECOMMEND THIS GREAT WEBSITE, TO LEARN MORE ABOUT EVIL MUHAMMAD & HIS EVIL CULT/ISLAM.* http://www.faithfreedom.org

*WARNING! THIS SITE IS VERY GRAPHIC; http://www.truthtube.tv

If You Believe In Freedom For All & Freedom Of Speech, Then Add Me As A Friend.

If You Dont Believe In These Things, Then Do The World A Favour By Jumping Off A Cliff.

If a Person says; "Islam is a religion of peace." I say; "Tell me another JOKE."

Category: News & Politics

How jihadis Target Western Youth.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

MIDDLE EAST AND TERRORISM

By Steven Emerson

Enablers of our own destruction?

As the new year begins, al-Shabaab, a terror group fighting to overthrow the government of Somalia, has served notice that it intends to play an increasingly prominent role in international jihad. Al-Shabaab fighters declared their support for Al Qaeda in Yemen following the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253, allegedly by a terrorist linked to that group. And police in Denmark said a man charged with the attempted New Year's Day murder of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who drew a controversial 2005 cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad) was a member of al-Shabaab with "close links" to leaders of Al Qaeda in East Africa. Al Qaeda and al-Shabaab made official their alliance in September.

"It was a brave step taken by a brave Somali man; he attacked a devil who insulted our honored Prophet Mohammed," an al-Shabaab spokesman told the London Daily Telegraph. "Surely an honored Muslim brother or sister will kill that devil on the next attack."

On Monday, an al-Shabaab terrorist killed seven people and wounded 11 others during a suicide bombing at a clinic near the Mogadishu airport.

It appears that the group intends to carry on that fight with recruits from the United States. Between September 2007 and October 2009, 20 young men (all but one of Somali descent), left the Minneapolis area for Somalia to fight for al-Shabaab.

Thus far, Congress and the intelligence community have been reluctant to conclude that Americans who train with al-Shabaab could return and stage terrorist attacks in the United States or threaten American interests outside the Horn of Africa.

Perhaps the most detailed discussion of al-Shabaab recruiting efforts in the United States was a March 11, 2009 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing where Andrew Liepman of the NCTC and Philip Mudd of the FBI expressed doubt that al-Shabaab could evolve into a major threat to U.S. interests.

But Mudd, associate executive assistant director of the FBI's National Security Branch, provided one significant caveat when asked how serious a problem the group is.

"I would talk in terms of tens of people, which sounds small but it's significant, because every terrorist is somebody who can potentially throw a grenade into a shopping mall," he said. Mudd added that information about the number of American recruits for al-Shabaab is "fuzzy" because "[t]here are thousands of people - thousands - going to the Horn of Africa every month. You can go to Kenya to look at game parks, and it's hard for me to tell you if somebody's going to a game park or going to Shabaab. So I am sure that there are people out there that we're missing."

At least six Americans have been killed after going to Somalia to join al-Shabaab. One of those was Shirwa Ahmed, who left Minnesota in December 2007. Ten months later Ahmed blew himself up, apparently becoming the first American citizen to carry out a suicide bombing. Another is Jamal Bana, 20, who in July was reported killed in Somalia. He was studying engineering at two Minneapolis schools when he disappeared in November 2008. Bana's family said it learned of his fate when a photograph of his body appeared on a website. Burhan Hassan, 17, also disappeared from his Minneapolis home in the fall of 2008 and flew to Somalia to join al-Shabaab. He, too, was shot to death in June.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
At least 14 people have been charged in federal cases related to al-Shabaab recruitment in America, including attending terror training camps, fighting for - and providing support to - the group, designated a terrorist organization. The Justice Department announced the indictment of eight men alone on November 23.

Four defendants have pled guilty and await sentencing. One, Abdifatah Yusuf Isse, admitted in April to training with al-Shabaab, building a terrorist training camp and learning to fire weapons. In July, Salah Osman Ahmed pled guilty to traveling to Somalia in December 2007 to fight Ethiopians. During his time fighting alongside al-Shabaab, Ahmed built a training camp and learned how to fire an AK-47.

Court documents unsealed by federal prosecutors in Minneapolis on November 23, 2009 provide a detailed look at how al-Shabaab recruits and raises money in the United States. The documents examine the case of Burhan Ahmed, who was part of a group of four men who left the Minneapolis area in December 2007 to fight against Ethiopian forces that had invaded Somalia. He first went to Saudi Arabia to participate in the pilgrimage to Mecca, then joined the other three at an al-Shabaab safe house in Somalia.

Between December 2007 and February 2008 the men moved "from northern Somalia to an al-Shabaab training camp in southern Somalia, staying at multiple al-Shabaab houses along the way," according to a criminal complaint by FBI Special Agent Michael Cannizzaro. "The trainees were trained by, among others, Somali, Arab, and Western instructors in, among other things, small arms, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and military-style tactics. The trainees were also indoctrinated with anti-Ethiopian, anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-Western beliefs."

Several of the Minnesota men dropped out of the program after a week or two, but Ahmed completed the entire training course. He subsequently took part in an armed ambush of Ethiopian troops. On October 29, 2008, he died in one of a series of coordinated suicide bombings that day targeting Ethiopian, Somali government and United Nations facilities in Somalia. More than 20 people were killed. Ahmed, who drove a truck into an office of the Puntland Intelligence Service, was identified by a fingerprint on a severed finger recovered at the scene.

The criminal complaint alleges that Cabdulaahi Ahmed Faarax and Abdiweli Yassin Isse played key roles in recruiting for al-Shabaab. In explaining the case against Faarax and Isse, it quotes extensively from interviews with three "confidential witnesses" - individuals who have already pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder outside the United States in connection with supporting al-Shabaab.

Recruitment was accomplished through personal meetings held in the Minneapolis area, emphasizing the need for participation, and the resulting camaraderie. At one, held in an unidentified Minneapolis mosque, according to the complaint, the men called a co-conspirator in Somalia who "explained the need for CW #1 [confidential witness # 1] and his Minnesota-based co-conspirators to travel to Somalia and fight against the Ethiopians."

Speaking about his own work for jihad, Faarax allegedly told another witness that he "did his part for Islam" while fighting in Somalia. But during three interviews with the FBI, he denied fighting or knowing anyone who fought in Somalia. The complaint contradicts this, alleging that during a meeting in the fall of 2007, Faarax "told his co-conspirators that he experienced true brotherhood while fighting in Somalia and that travel for jihad was the best thing that they could do." Faarax also told the co-conspirators that traveling to Somalia to fight jihad would be fun and not to be afraid. Faarax also explained to his co-conspirators that they would get to shoot guns in Somalia."

Some travel to Somalia was financed by deceptively seeking funds from the community for trips to Saudi Arabia. Witnesses said they saw Isse make the claim while soliciting members of the Somali community, telling them the travel was to study the Koran in Saudi Arabia to study the Koran and not mentioning the Somali jihad.

Isse and Faarax were last seen at the U.S.-Mexico border on the morning of October 8, 2009. The pair, who were dropped off by a taxicab at the San Ysidro border crossing near San Diego, carried tickets for a flight from Tijuana to Mexico City. They crossed into Mexico and their whereabouts are unknown.

In a related case, the Justice Department announced in November that charging documents were unsealed against Mahamud Said Omar, who is accused of conspiring to provide financial support and personnel for al-Shabaab. Omar, who has been in custody in the Netherlands, allegedly gave money for young men to travel from Minneapolis to Somalia to fight with and train for al-Shabaab. He is believed to have "visited an Al-Shabaab safe- house and provided hundreds of dollars to fund the purchase of AK-47 rifles for men from Minneapolis."

The Omar indictment alleges that he "committed and caused" nine men to leave Minnesota for Somalia to fight for al-Shabaab. Of that group, "two are believed to have died in Somalia, three have returned and pled guilty to terror charges, and four are still believed to be in Somalia," Minnesota Public Radio reported.

The role of local mosques in al-Shabaab recruitment is shrouded in mystery. Some relatives of the missing men - among them Osman Ahmed of Minneapolis, whose nephew Burhan Hassan was killed in Somalia in early June - contend that the youths were radicalized at the Abubakar as-Saddique mosque in Minneapolis. They point to the fact that many of the young men who went to fight for al-Shabaab attended the mosque, among them his nephew and Shirwa Ahmed. As noted above, the criminal complaint against Isse and Faarax alleges that a jihadist recruiter called a co-conspirator in Somalia from a Minneapolis mosque, but does not name the mosque. Officials at the Abubakar mosque deny any involvement and say they oppose anyone going to Somalia to fight.

Authorities believe one al-Shabaab recruiter was Zakaria Maruf, a charismatic former Minneapolis resident who is thought to have gone to Somalia to fight for al-Shabaab and has worked as a recruiter. Maruf was indicted in August for supporting the group.

INVESTIGATING JIHADIST RECRUITMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER
Al-Shabaab recruitment appears to be growing in Canada, too. Five Somali men in their mid-20s disappeared from the Toronto area between September and November, spurring anxiety among Somali Canadians and triggering investigations by authorities. The first to leave the country was 22-year-old Ahmed Elmi, who vanished in early September. He called his parents a month later to say he was in Kismayo - a Somali city controlled by al-Shabaab. Canadian officials have expressed concern that 20 or more people may have left the country to join al-Shabaab.

"This is a potential menace," said David Harris, former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Harris told the Investigative Project on Terrorism that departures to Somalia could turn into "a developing and metastasizing threat" that could prove dangerous on both sides of the border.

"No one should take comfort from the fact that it is five or six or 20" who have gone to Somalia, he said. "It could easily be 200 or more in the near future" and "it is just a matter of time" before someone who went abroad comes back to North America in an effort to carry out an attack.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner William Elliott apparently agrees. In a speech last October, he said his agency is concerned about Canadians who travel to Somalia "to fight and then return, imbued with both extremist ideology and the skills necessary to translate that into direct action."

In a January 6 interview with Ottawa radio station CFRA, Harris noted there are "clear indications" that "there are transportation networks in America that would take kids to Somalia where they are impressed into service by al-Shabaab. There is no reason to imagine that the Ottawa community would be immune from this, and it would seem to me very much in the interest of Somali-Canadians of good faith to cooperate with the authorities."

Though there have been complaints among some Somali Canadians that the CSIS has been unfairly targeting them, Harris says investigations have been far from excessively intrusive. Canadian security services "are effectively handcuffed in doing their job" when it comes to investigating jihadist activities. Canadian intelligence has been weakened by a series of investigations into alleged human rights abuses that have had "an unbelievably chilling effect on the intelligence services." Canadian intelligence officials now have to ask themselves whether aggressively investigating potential threats is worth "spending the next five to 20 years in court" dealing with government inquiries. This situation means "the enemy has achieved a massive victory."

Terrorism experts on both sides of the border point to Abu Mansour al-Amriki, an American al-Shabaab operative who has lived in the U.S. and Canada. Amriki, a 25-year-old native of Mobile, Alabama, was born Omar Hammami. He grew up as a Baptist before converting to Islam and becoming president of the Muslim Students Association at the University of South Alabama at the time of the September 11 attacks. "Everyone was really shocked," he told an interviewer at the time. "Even now it's difficult to believe a Muslim could have done this." Hammami warned about the possibility of misguided retribution against Muslims.

Hammami dropped out of school in 2002 and went to Toronto two years later. He stayed for a little over a year and made it to Somalia in 2005. He has since become one of al-Shabaab's top commanders and a fixture on recruiting videos like this, in which he denounces human rights and democracy for being at war with Muslim traditions such as stoning and cutting off hands.

Militant Islamists regard the West as "Al-Harb, the land of war," Harris says. "There's…a lack of respect, a profound view that we are a happy, effete civilization. And we are proving it - by allowing them to recruit, we reinforce this stereotype. We reinforce the growing impression among Somalis that the Shabaab writ runs in our backyard, not the democratic governments of the United States and Canada."

Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and considered one of the leading world authorities on Islamic extremist networks, financing and operations. He now serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the world's largest archival data and intelligence institutes on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Posted by Harry at 4:41 AM

Human Rights Watch: The World Needs More Corrupt and Politicized “International Justice”.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

MIDDLE EAST AND TERRORISM

by Noah Pollak

Predictable, of course. Clive Baldwin, a “senior legal adviser” to HRW, finds it “most embarrassing of all” that the British attorney general “gave a speech in Jerusalem on 5 January declaring that the government was ‘determined that Israel’s leaders should always be able to travel freely to the UK.’”

Can’t have that, can we?

This really isn’t about international justice, of course. It’s about the desire of many human-rights activists — today they unfortunately are almost exclusively drawn from the far Left — for more political power. Here’s how the international justice game is played:

Groups like HRW rely on fraudulent or biased testimony in Gaza and Lebanon (or Iraq) combined with creative interpretations of the “laws of war” to produce claims of war crimes; these claims are received as legitimate and trustworthy in UN bodies, among allied NGOs, and in the international press; activist lawyers use the now-laundered allegations to file universal jurisdiction lawsuits with sympathetic British judges; arrest warrants are issued. But then government officials recognize the awful reality of this politicized little merry-go-round and speak out against the practice — prompting HRW to protest that politicians are interfering in the independence of the court system. Chutzpah.

There are at least a few people left in the UK who understand the perniciousness of “universal jurisdiction.” One is MP Daniel Hannan, who wrote a terse seven-point refutation of the idea yesterday (h/t Andrew Stuttaford):

1. Territorial jurisdiction has been a remarkably successful concept. Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, it has been broadly understood that crimes are the responsibility of the state where they are committed. … Western liberals might say: “Since Karadzic won’t get justice in Serbia, he should get it at The Hague.” But an Iranian judge might apply precisely the same logic and say: “Adulterers in Western countries are going unpunished: we must kidnap them and bring them to a place where they will face consequences”. …

2. International jurisdiction breaks the link between legislators and law. Instead of legislation being passed by representatives who are, in some way, accountable to their populations, laws are generated by international jurists. …

7. The politicisation of international jurisprudence seems always to come from the same direction: a writ was served against Ariel Sharon, but not against Yasser Arafat. Augusto Pinochet was arrested, but Fidel Castro could attend international summits. Donald Rumsfeld was indicted in Europe, but not Saddam Hussein.
What you’ll always find about the international-justice hustle is that its proponents never explain how these fatal problems can be resolved. In this case, the problems, of course, are the solutions. That’s because universal jurisdiction isn’t about justice. It’s about power.

Noah Pollak
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hezbollah is not the IRA.

Friday, February 5, 2010

MIDDLE EAST AND TERRORISM.COM

by Tony Badran

Islamist groups have invited a whole set of analogies purportedly aimed at better explaining them and how best to deal with them. One such analogy that has gained currency in recent years is the oft-encountered comparison between Islamist groups and the Irish Republican Army.

The point of the comparison is to show that as the IRA was purportedly co-opted through dialogue, the same method can be applied to other armed organizations as well. Hence, the argument runs, only such a peaceful process, and not military coercion, will lead to any given group’s decision to abandon violence, and ultimately to disarm and integrate into democratic politics. Of course, forsaking violence is not a prerequisite for dialogue, and engagement is further facilitated by a nifty conceit distinguishing a group’s “military wing” from its ostensibly more moderate or pragmatic “political wing.” Indeed, the British are currently pursuing this policy with Hezbollah – and going nowhere.

The argument has just been trotted out again in a rather fantastical and factually handicapped piece by Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson on the Foreign Affairs website.

The two authors get off to a sound start, noting a major difference between the IRA and Hezbollah, namely the organic ties between the Party of God and Iran, which have no parallel in the IRA. However, when they elide that inconvenient fact and nonetheless claim that “the similarities between the two cases are no less striking than the differences,” their argument goes off the tracks.

One “similarity,” they contend, is that both Hezbollah and the IRA have “political wings.” But this is misleading, not least of all because Hezbollah rejects and ridicules the proposition that it has a “political wing” separate from a “military” one.

Even if everyone knew that the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, were separate only in name, Sinn Fein’s leaders still tried to deny any organizational links or knowledge of IRA operations. But that’s not how Hezbollah works. For instance, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times last spring, Hezbollah’s deputy secretary general, Naim Qassem, dismissed the supposed dichotomy outright. “All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership,” he said. “The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions.”

In other words, far from being ready to “shift more decisively to the political realm,” as Simon and Stevenson contend, Hezbollah sees involvement in politics as serving its broader, regional, agenda: “resistance.”

It’s bad enough to misunderstand Hezbollah, but to make the case that engagement in peaceful dialogue is what leads to moderation and disarmament is to distort the historical record regarding the IRA as well. The British did not bring the IRA “in from the cold” through peaceful talks with its “political wing.” Rather they forced them to the table after infiltrating their ranks and cultivating informers even in the top echelons of the movement. Information from these informers was secretly passed to Loyalist paramilitary forces who used it to target IRA members extra-judicially.

In the end, the IRA was cornered, unable to force a British withdrawal, and, worse, unable to even protect its community from Loyalist gangs. It was not the Brits but the IRA that initiated talks when its armed struggle had reached a stalemate.

This is hardly where Hezbollah sees itself today, neither ideologically nor operationally. Instead of finding itself cornered by its local rivals, Hezbollah has used its weapons to extract powerful political concessions, neutralize the unfavorable result of democratic elections, and impose its priorities on its adversaries and the Lebanese government.

Why is Simon and Stevenson’s article riddled with so many errors and misconceptions? Because they assume an affirmative response to a key question that they never bother tackling: Does Hezbollah want to disarm? Without addressing this question convincingly, further misconceptions are inevitable, like the authors’ proposition, unsupported by any evidence, that Hezbollah is trying to distance itself from Iran, whose Ruling Jurist (Wali al-Faqih), as Hezbollah itself declares, has final say over all important decisions. The proper answer of course is that Hezbollah does not want to disarm since it makes no sense for it to do so, neither from a pragmatic perspective nor an ideological one.

The issue here is not sloppiness, but a chronic ailment afflicting Western writing on the Middle East, as what appears to be analysis is often something else entirely. Simon (who was recently in Lebanon at the invitation of the New Opinion Group) and Stevenson are not writing about Hezbollah or Lebanon, but Washington.
In 2003 the two co-wrote an essay arguing that the example of Northern Ireland was “a strong argument” against adopting a “lenient” policy with Hamas, so why do they now argue that such treatment will work with Hezbollah? Perhaps it is because there are figures in the Obama administration who are sympathetic to a policy of engagement with Hezbollah, like the NSC staff’s counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, who has publically implied an acceptance of the “political vs. military wing” dichotomy in Hezbollah, claiming that the “political wing” allegedly denounces the violence of the “military.”

Thankfully, when it comes to Hezbollah, as evident from the State Department’s quick rejection of Brennan’s views, there is more sobriety in Washington than in the poor Foreign Affairs article, or in the British Foreign Office for that matter.

Tony Badran is a research fellow with the Center for Terrorism Research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

It's Inter-Arab Violence, Stupid!

Saturday, February 6, 2010

(Reassessment of Middle East Policy)

by Yoram Ettinger

1. An assessment of the politically-correct Western policy-making, media commentaries and conventional wisdom raises the following questions:

*Is the Palestinian issue the crux of Middle East turbulence?

*Is the Arab-Israeli conflict the core cause of anti-Western Islamic terrorism?*

*Are Arab leaders preoccupied with the Palestinian issue and with the Arab-Israeli conflict?

*Is the Arab-Israeli conflict "The Middle East Conflict"?

*How valid is the contention that, in the Middle East, on words one does not pay custom, hence the awesome gap between rhetoric and reality?!

2. An analysis of Middle East politics during the last 1,400 years documents the following:

Since the 7th century, inter-Arab and inter-Muslim conflicts in the Muslim Middle East - between North Africa and the Persian Gulf - have been the role model of state-sponsored terrorism, hate-education, inherent domestic and regional violence, endemic unpredictability, instability, volatility, fragmentation, religious and political intolerance, suppression of human rights, nepotism and treachery.

3. Aijaz Zaka Syed, the opinion editor of Dubai's "Khaleej Times," asserts (Al Aharam weekly, Jan. 20, 2010) that "more Muslims than non-Muslims have been killed in macabre attacks carried out in the name of Islam." Nearly 50 people were killed and 500 injured during the December 29, 2009 terrorist attack on a Karachi religious procession. But more than the loss of lives - "that has long become a daily mayhem" - it is the devastation wreaked on the country's biggest city that will haunt Pakistan for a long time to come. "Thousands of businesses, shops and commercial establishments were destroyed in no time, incurring losses worth billions of dollars, [in addition to] the attack on the heavily attended volleyball match in the troubled Northwest Pakistan, which killed 75 villagers and left scores maimed…"

"None of those watching the match, or attending the Karachi procession had anything to do with the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq. They had no sympathy or affiliation whatsoever with the US and the West. Then why have they been targeted?

"How does it help the cause of these so-called defenders of Islam, when they target innocent Muslims and non Muslims? This death cult is the ultimate injustice…

4. Jordanian economist, Yusuf Mansur writes ("Creative Jordan" website, July 25, 2009) that "Arabs are ruled by a cartel of authoritarian regimes, practiced in the arts of oppression. Arab unity is as elusive as ever. Inter-Arab divisions are bitter…Hardly any of the 21 Arab states can plausibly claim to be a genuine democracy. Therefore, Arab regimes rely on repression in order to stay in power…

"The political instability of the Arab world is in turn connected to another problem: the missing glue of nationhood…Egyptian diplomat, Tahsin Bashir, called the new Arab states of Middle East 'Tribes with Flags.' In countries as different as Lebanon and Iraq, ethnic, confessional or sectarian differences have thwarted programs of nation-building. That is why Iraq fell apart into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish fragments after the removal of Saddam despite decades of patriotic indoctrination. Syria could follow suit if the minority Alawi sect of the ruling Assad family were somehow to lose control of this largely Sunni country. Sudan has seen not one, but two, civil wars between its Arab-dominated centre and the non-Arab minorities in its south and west…

"Up to a million citizens of the Arab world may have perished violently since 1990… The disturbing point for the future is that none of the underlying causes of conflict enumerated above has disappeared. On the contrary, each appears to be taking on the characteristics of a chronic condition…Political and social discontent is in danger of tipping into violence – even into revolution."

5. The aforementioned facts, along with current Middle East events, produce the following observations:

*The Arab/Muslim Middle East is the abode of anti-Western values, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of Israel's policies and existence.

*Western values such as freedom of expression, religion, press, market and the Internet constitute a lethal threat to Arab/Muslim regimes.

*The Arab/Muslim Middle East constitutes a potent threat to vital Western interests.

*Anti-Western terrorism is a natural derivative of inter-Arab/Muslim terrorism and values. Why would terrorism against the infidel be less savage than terrorism against fellow-Muslims?!

*A strong Jewish State enhances deterrence in face of inherent Middle East violence, extending the strategic hand of the West, bolstering relatively-moderate regimes and restraining rogue regimes.

*Agreements concluded in the Arab/Muslim Middle East cannot be more credible and durable than the policies of Arab/Muslim regimes. Why would Arab/Muslim regimes comply with agreements signed with the infidel, while they do not comply with most agreements signed with fellow-Muslims?!

*The inherent instability, and the violent unpredictability, of Arab/Muslim Middle East regimes and policies feed the fragility of Middle East agreements.

*Is it reasonable to assume that Arabs would accord the Jewish State a durable-peace, which they have not been able to accord one another?!

*The proposed Palestinian state – against the backdrop of the 50 year track record of Fatah, PLO and Hamas – would merge naturally into the violent nature of the Middle East. A Palestinian state would constitute fuel – and not water – to Middle East turbulence.

*Inter-Arab/Muslim reality – of no comprehensive inter-Arab peace since the 7th century - dictates steep security requirements for the Jewish State.

*Inter-Arab/Muslim reality dictates a thorough reassessment of Western policy toward the Middle East in general and the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue in particular.

Yoram Ettinger
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Abbas: I won't withdraw settlement freeze demand

In interview with Der Spiegel, Palestinian president says he's disappointed Obama 'backed away' from insistence on complete halt to West Bank construction prior to resumption of peace talks. 'World must not drive the Palestinians to the point of total hopelessness,' he warns

Ynet.com

"Naturally, I'm not pleased with the American's change of course. But I will not back down," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said.

In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, published Sunday, the Palestinian leader said, "I was initially very optimistic after (US President Barack) Obama won the election. His Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, kept coming to us and promised to urge the Israelis to stop settlement construction completely. Mitchell said that the negotiations would only resume after a moratorium. The American government suddenly backed away from this position in September.

Opinion

A ridiculous vision / Hagai Segal

Notion of Palestinian declaration of independence should be met with laughter

Full Story

"I still hope that he will revive the peace process. At least he has to convince the Israelis to announce a complete freeze on construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem for a few months," Abbas said.

"It isn't my job to tell the Americans how to deal with Israel. But they have options. They are, after all, the most powerful country in the world. Obama said that a Palestinian state constitutes a vital American interest. The president is under an obligation to apply all of his energy to achieving peace and the vision of a Palestinian state."

Asked by Der Spiegel whether the real reason for the current standstill is that he does not trust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," Abbas said, "What he has said so far, at any rate, leads me to question whether he really wants a solution. He has not expressly accepted the two-state solution.

"He's the one who is setting preconditions. He declares Jerusalem as the 'undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel.' He refuses to discuss the question of Palestinian refugees. And he insists that we accept Israel in advance as a Jewish state," the Palestinian president said of the Israeli premier.

In the interview, Abbas reiterated his demand that Israel stop settlement construction completely and recognize the 1967 borders prior to the resumption of peace talks.

'We were in a race against time'

According to him, these demands are not preconditions, but rather "steps that are overdue after the first phase of the international roadmap for peace.

"Unlike Israel, we have met our obligations: We have recognized Israel's right to exist, and we are combating violent Palestinian groups. The Americans, the Europeans and even the Israelis have acknowledged this," he said.

Abbas said the Palestinians negotiated "very seriously" with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"We exchanged

maps showing the locations of the borders. Then he left office. His successor Tzipi Livni lost the subsequent election. "We were in a race against time to reach a solution. But I wasn't the one who thwarted an agreement. Olmert resigned from office shortly before the finish line," he told Der SpiegeAsked whether his decision not to run again for the office of president of the Palestinian Authority constitutes an admission that he will no longer be able to make the Palestinian dream of a sovereign state a reality,

Abbas said, "That's absolutely correct. The road to a political solution is blocked. For that reason, I see no purpose in remaining president of the Palestinian Authority. "And I also have a warning for the world: Do not drive the Palestinians to the point of total hopelessness," he said.

Obama: 'Now Is the Time to Do What's Right'

Obama tries to boost beleaguered Democratic National Committee

By Michael A. Fletcher

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 7, 2010

President Obama gave a pep talk to Democrats on Saturday, assuring them that despite recent setbacks he would continue pushing his ambitious domestic agenda, including his plan to overhaul the nation's health-care system.

Speaking at the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee at the Capital Hilton in snowbound Washington, Obama drew loud applause with his pledge to see his plans through.

"Let me be clear," he said. "I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform. I'm not going to walk away from the American people. I'm not going to walk away on this challenge. I'm not going to walk away on any challenge."

Obama warned that Democrats must change how they work with Republicans, who have blocked many of Obama's initiatives and now are buoyed by the prospect of major gains in this fall's congressional elections.

Obama said Republicans must be drawn into a public debate about the best way to address the nation's long-term challenges. In the end, he said, that would result in the best policy for the American people, which in turn would be the best politics for Democrats.

"We can't solve all of our problems alone," Obama said. "So we need to extend our hands to the other side -- we've been working on it -- because if we're going to change the ways of Washington, we're going to have to change its tone."

Even as Obama urged bipartisanship, Democrats remain divided about the best way to move their stalled agenda, which includes health-care legislation, a cap-and-trade bill aimed at making clean energy economically viable, and a measure to tighten regulation of the nation's financial system.

Most of those initiatives have met with near-unanimous Republican opposition. And with the nation's unemployment rate at its highest level in a generation and the long-term deficit on an unsustainable course, frustrated voters have turned away from Democrats in recent elections.

Obama invoked Democratic icons from Thomas Jefferson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy to exhort Democrats to remain true to their principles

"I know we've gone through a tough year," he said. "But we've gone through tougher."

Obama issued a similar call for bipartisan cooperation in his weekly radio and Internet address, as he called on Congress to move quickly to enact a series of proposals aimed at bolstering the ability of small businesses to create new jobs.

The president said he is open to other ideas for supporting small business, but he told lawmakers not to oppose his proposals strictly for political reasons.

"My door is always open," he said. "But I urge members of both parties: Do not oppose good ideas just because it's good politics to do so. The proposals I've outlined are not Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative. They are pro-business, they are pro-growth, and they are pro-job."

Obama has spelled out a list of ideas to support small business in recent weeks, as his administration has moved more urgently to respond to the nation's 9.7 percent unemployment rate.

Despite the president's desire to move quickly, some of his proposals have been met with skepticism on Capitol Hill, where the Senate this week is expected to begin debate on small business initiatives. Many Republicans deride them as unnecessary spending, while even some Democrats are dubious about the potential success of some of the ideas.

Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, questioned Obama's plan to expand the SBA Express program -- which provides operating capital for small business -- saying that it has an unacceptably high default rate.

Sarah Palin lashes Obama at first Tea Party convention

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has spoken at the first US Tea Party convention, urging a return to conservate principles.

Speaking in Nashville, Mrs Palin called President Obama's 2011 budget "immoral" and said it would raise the US debt.

The year-old Tea Party movement includes many people who oppose Barack Obama's plans for healthcare reform and the president's stimulus package.

Mrs Palin said future generations would pay the cost if spending was not cut.

"It's easy to understand why Americans are shaking their heads when Washington has broken trust with the people that these politicians are to be serving," she told the convention.

'Drowning in debt'

When she warned that the US was "drowning in national debt, and many of us have had enough," the former governor of Alaska was rewarded with a standing ovation.

I am a big supporter of this movement. America is ready for another revolution and you are part of this

Sarah Palin

She also berated the Obama administration for focusing on adversaries of the US rather than its allies.

"We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies, and recognises the true nature of the threats that we face," Mrs Palin said.

She praised the leaderless, bottom-up approach of the Tea Party movement, saying its success had Washington politicians running scared.

"I am a big supporter of this movement," she said, and added - in a nod to the Tea Party's name, a reference to a famous protest against British colonial rule: "America is ready for another revolution and you are part of this".

Congress goal

Barely a year old, the Tea Party gained influence during the acrimonious US healthcare reform debate.

TEA PARTY

The movement takes its name from the 1773 protest against British taxation, the Boston Tea Party

American colonists rebelled against attempts by Britain to impose parliamentary taxes on them without allowing the colonists representation in the British parliament

The modern-day Tea Party is described as a grassroots movement that supports limited government and opposes high government spending

The informal movement is unified against President Barack Obama's healthcare proposals, his economic stimulus package and other aspects of his agenda

Members, gathered from state-level Tea Parties, complain that big spending to stimulate the economy is being wasted in Washington and on Wall Street while small-town America has to tighten its belt.

And the coalition of disaffected conservatives is undoubtedly growing in influence - its endorsement of Republican Scott Brown helped his election last month as Massachusetts senator, says the BBC's Madeleine Morris, attending the Nashville event.

Our correspondent says that movement's organisers have announced the formation of a political action committee, with funds of $10m, whose goal will be to get up to 20 conservative candidates into Congress in November's mid-term congressional elections.

There has been controversy over the use of paid lobbyists and PR companies at the conference and Mrs Palin's appearance fee: reported to be as much as $100,000.

Some activists have also complained about the $500 (£317) registration fee for the Nashville conference.

But in an opinion piece published on USA Today website ahead of the conference Mrs Palin said she would not benefit financially from speaking at the event.

Instead she said she was motivated only by her "goal [...] to support the grassroots activists who are fighting for responsible, limited government - and our constitution".

Saturday, February 6, 2010

SOMETHING IN THE AIR Dem panic! Anti-tea-party ads tied to Obama eligibility Campaign seeks to convince voters: 'This movement is a fad'

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A major ad campaign sweeping the Internet is revealing who is most afraid of the spirited tea-party movement this election year.

Democrat operatives – using the same suite address for an attorney

who represented the Democratic National Committee in an eligibility lawsuit against President Obama – have launched an ad campaign and website called TheTeaPartyIsOver.org to "prevent the tea party's dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction."

In the wake of Scott Brown's dramatic victory for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the energized national tea-party movement is targeting lawmakers deemed unresponsive to Americans. The anti-tea party website comes as Illinois will have its first-in-the-nation primaries Tuesday.

"Our strategy is simple. This movement is a fad," the website states. "Some of their ideas include the belief that programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialistic and should never have been created in the first place and that President Obama is a socialist."

Fed up with the condescending clowns in Congress? Send them a "pink slip!"

The group's ad, paid for and approved by the American Public Policy Committee, has appeared on numerous websites. It urges Americans to "reject the ideas of the tea party."

"Other ideas include undermining the legitimacy of the federal government in favor of a radical rightwing form of state's rights," the website continues. "We need to prevent their dangerous ideas from gaining a legislative foothold. So our strategy is to spread the truth about their dangerous ideas and prevent their policies from taking root in America."

Ads have also appeared on Facebook and Twitter, where the group asks tweeters, "Scared of the teabaggers' crazy ideas?" and encourages them to visit the website.

The American Public Policy Committee shares an identical suite address with the Alliance for North Carolina; the Patriot Majority; and Sandler, Reiff & Young PC – the law firm of Joseph Sandler, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee who filed a motion to dismiss Philip Berg's eligibility lawsuit against Obama and the DNC. Sandler is also former counsel to both MoveOn.org and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim group named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist-finance case in U.S. history.

A message left with TheTeaPartyIsOver.org was not returned.

According to IRS records, the American Public Policy Committee is located at 300 M Street SE, Suite 1102, Washington, D.C., 20003.

According to IRS records, the American Public Policy Committee is located at 300 M Street SE, Suite 1102, Washington, D.C., 20003. The group is an independent political organization under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The following is a Google Maps image of the building where the suite is located.

Image of 300 M Street SE, Washington, D.C.

The committee lists Craig Varoga and George Rakis as directors. As of Jan 28, 2010, Steve Bouchard has been listed as director as well.

The following are brief biographies for each of the American Public Policy Committee's directors:

Craig Varoga – Independent Strategies political strategist and campaign manager for former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's campaign for president. He ran the state-research program for the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election and is a former communications director for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. He is founder of the Patriot Majority and its affiliates: Patriot Majority West, Patriot Majority Midwest, Patriot Majority New Mexico and Patriot Majority for a Strong America. Patriot Majority and Patriot Majority West are the major 2010 contributors to the American Public Policy Committee. Varoga was a guest at a White House event in July 2009.

George Rakis – Political strategist who works for Independent Strategies. He served as political director of Democratic Governor's Association from 2005 to 2006. He was campaign director for the Michigan Democratic Party. In 2004, Rakis became the regional political director for the Democratic National Committee.

Steve Bouchard – Political strategist who runs Bouchard Strategies and has worked for Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.; Gov. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.; former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb.; and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. Bouchard served as senior political adviser Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., ran Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in South Carolina and also worked as a campaign manager for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection/Repower America campaign

SOMETHING IN THE AIR

Dem panic! Anti-tea-party ads tied to Obama eligibility

Campaign seeks to convince voters: 'This movement is a fad'

Posted: February 01, 2010
8:39 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A major ad campaign sweeping the Internet is revealing who is most afraid of the spirited tea-party movement this election year.

Democrat operatives – using the same suite address for an attorney

Fed up with the condescending clowns in Congress? Send them a "pink slip!"

The group's ad, paid for and approved by the American Public Policy Committee, has appeared on numerous websites. It urges Americans to "reject the ideas of the tea party."

Ads have also appeared on Facebook and Twitter, where the group asks tweeters, "Scared of the teabaggers' crazy ideas?" and encourages them to visit the website.

A message left with TheTeaPartyIsOver.org was not returned.

According to IRS records, the American Public Policy Committee is located at 300 M Street SE, Suite 1102, Washington, D.C., 20003.

The following is a Google Maps image of the building where the suite is located.

Image of 300 M Street SE, Washington, D.C.

The committee lists Craig Varoga and George Rakis as directors. As of Jan 28, 2010, Steve Bouchard has been listed as director as well.

The following are brief biographies for each of the American Public Policy Committee's directors:

(Story continues below)

TheTeaPartyIsOver.org specifically attacks Randy Hultgren, a Republican Illinois state senator and candidate for U.S. Congress from the 14th District; Arie Friedman, former military pilot and combat veteran of Desert Storm running for U.S. Congress in Illinois' 10th District; and David McAloon, television producer and business consultant running for U.S. Congress in Illinois' 11th District. It provides telephone numbers and tells visitors to call Hultgren, Friedman and McAloon and tell then to "reject the dangerous ideas of the Tea Party."

Anti-tea party ad urges Americans to "reject the ideas of the tea party"

With Illinois' primaries tomorrow, some say the state's primaries will be an early ballot test of the tea-party movement. Polls show Illinois voters say they are dissatisfied with the direction of the state and the country.

"Illinois is next," Pat Brady, chairman of the state Republican Party, told the New York Times. "The political environment is worse here for Democrats than it was in Massachusetts."

President Obama's old Senate seat, the Illinois governorship and several House seats are targets this election year.

TheTeaPartyIsOver.org has connections to numerous unions, including the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, a major public-employee and health-care union.

In 2008, AFSCME publicly endorsed Obama, spent $50 million for "voter education" on his behalf and mobilized more than 40,000 volunteers to campaign for him.

The top two financial backers of the American Public Policy Committee this year are Varoga's Patriot Majority West and Patriot Majority, predominantly funded by unions.

According to records, during the 2008 election cycle, AFSCME donated $5.8 million and SEIU gave $770,000 to Patriot Majority. Change to Win gave $500,000 and Teamsters Union donated an additional $250,000. United Food & Commercial Workers Union contributed $125,000, and the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO donated $6,500 to the organization. In 2009, the group received $270,250 from SEIU.

WND reported when SEIU members appeared at national town-hall meetings in droves last year to support the administration's health-care plans. Obama specifically called on some SEIU members who asked him non-compromising questions.

WND also reported when Obama boasted of his track record of working with the Illinois-based SEIU, helping it "build more and more power" promising to "paint the nation purple with SEIU." He credited the SEIU with helping get elected to the U.S. Senate.

"SEIU, I'm glad you're with me," he declared. "Let's together change the country."

This 'Messiah' Isn't Delivering Peace ... Obama

This 'Messiah' Isn't Delivering Peace

by David Limbaugh (more by this author)

Posted 02/06/2010 ET

President Barack Obama's delusional perspective on fiscal issues is only surpassed by his surreal approach to the war on terror, which he doesn't even consistently recognize as a war. The ideological extremism of his policies is only surpassed by his flailing incompetence in administering them.

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly denounced President George W. Bush's "unilateralist" and "imperialistic" foreign policy.

Obama carefully cultivated an image as a domestic and global healer who could leverage his personal background to rise above internal and foreign bickering and address the root causes of this conflict en route to a peaceful resolution. Frighteningly enough, he obviously believed his own hype.

What about those root causes? Well, Obama's entire approach to the war (he seems to prefer "law enforcement issue") is driven by his belief that Muslim extremists didn't become terrorists because of their ideology but because we have mistreated them. He thinks we have goaded potential terrorists into becoming terrorists and given existing terrorists further cause to hate us. "Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause," he said. "Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained."

Well, he was going to turn all that around with euphemisms ("man-caused disaster," "overseas contingency operations"), a flurry of lofty rhetoric (his world apology tour), a few symbolic steps (closing Gitmo) and certain policy reversals (Mirandizing terrorists and trying enemy combatants in civilian courts).

The result -- his posture of relaxation and retreat -- has been an unmitigated disaster. He went out of his way to avoid identifying the Fort Hood jihadist as a terrorist; he admonished us not to jump to any conclusions about the Christmas underwear bomber; he promised to close Gitmo with no plan to relocate the prisoners; he moved the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to ground zero with utterly no consideration for the local or national security implications involved; and his Justice Department allowed the Christmas bomber to lawyer up after only 50 minutes of interrogation.

After the public outcry over his reckless and foolish policies, he's backtracking like an indecisive neophyte, sort of like the time when he endlessly vacillated over whether to crank up our operations in Afghanistan.

He just can't seem to grasp that the real world involves more than street organizing, speechmaking, symbolic gestures and his grand appearance on the world stage as a veritable messiah. His miscalculations are disturbingly naive.

Remember his interview on Al-Arabiya, in January 2009, when he assured the Muslim world that things would be much different under his regime? He said that if we would "listen (and) set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years ... there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs." Is it me, or did he sound as if he was patronizing all Muslims as potential terrorists there?

By "preconceptions" Obama seemed to be suggesting that the Bush administration had been promoting the idea that all of Islam was our enemy and the religion had contributed nothing constructive to the world.

Indeed, Obama agreed when his interviewer said, "President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad." Obama responded: "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name. ... The language we use has to be a language of respect. ... My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

But maybe it was a preconception-ridden Obama who hadn't been listening to Bush's statements on Islam and the war. Perhaps Obama ought to treat Mr. Bush's words with more respect, such as in not flagrantly misquoting him.

Time and time again, President Bush hailed Islam as a peaceful religion and made clear that the United States was not at war with Islam, only with the extremists who distort the religion. He also said, "America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam, which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity and morality."

Shouldn't Obama have gotten a clue that sweet-talking the Muslim world -- or promising to close Gitmo (which President Bush also did, regrettably) -- doesn't deter terrorists.

In fact, the verdict on Obama's messianic approach is already in. Despite his overtures, his own CIA director, Leon Panetta, just testified that al-Qaeda is growing and gearing for an attack in the United States in the next three to six months.

No worries. If it happens, he can blame Bush for that, too.

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party, Absolute Power and Persecu

Keeping Khalid Sheik Mohammed Out of Civilian Courts

by Rep. Frank Wolf (more by this author)

Posted 02/05/2010 ET

Earlier this week, I introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4556, with Senator Lindsey Graham to prohibit the use of Department of Justice funds for a civilian trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators in the U.S. However, it would still allow for a military commission at Guantanamo Bay or on a secure military base inside the U.S. This is a reasonable approach that allows the administration to try these murderous terrorists in an appropriate military commission.

Although our approach should be common sense, last November Attorney General Eric Holder unilaterally announced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four co-conspirators would be tried in the heart of New York City in a civilian trial. The attorney general did not consult with any local leaders, including New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly or Mayor Michael Bloomberg. If he had, he would have better understood the dangers and cost of this approach.

First, the security implications of holding such a trial in the heart of New York City, or any urban center, expose the areas to an unnecessary security threat. These detainees would not be transferred to a “supermax” facility, as the administration has implied, but to a less secure, local jail for years during this trial. This is the same local jail where Mahmud Salim, charged with participating in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa, stabbed prison guard Louis Pepe in an escape attempt. Despite efforts to secure the jail and the courthouse, the continued danger of holding a high-profile terrorist in New York City for an extended period seems ill conceived in light of recent terrorist plots against American citizens.

Upon reviewing the costs and security concerns from the New York City Police Department last week, Mayor Bloomberg stated, “It would be great if the federal government could find a site that didn't cost a billion dollars, which using downtown [New York City] will. [The trial] is going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people.” Shortly thereafter, most local, state, and congressional leaders from the New York region withdrew their support and encouraged the attorney general to reverse this decision.

In light of this collapsing support from local leaders for the trial, I am concerned that the Obama Administration is now “venue shopping” for a new city to hold this trial. According to press reports, the attorney general is now reviewing alternate sites in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, among other places. This approach is no less dangerous, costly and disruptive to other communities under consideration than it was for New York City.

Late last fall, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations legislation that would have prohibited funding for this and other civilian trials in the U.S.. As ranking Republican on the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds the Justice Department, I have fought administration efforts over the last year to transfer and even release Guantanamo Bay detainees into the U.S. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated on a party-line vote as members tried to wrap up their end-of-year votes before the Christmas break. The vote attracted little attention from the national media, which was singularly focused on the outcome of the Senate health care bill.

However, following the failed Christmas Day airliner attack and the administration’s mismanagement of the interrogation of alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, new questions were raised about the plans for the a New York City trial. Around the same time, it became known that the security costs for the trial would well exceed $250 million per year and could reach an estimated price tag of $1 billion or more. The election of Senator-elect Scott Brown in Massachusetts further prompted New York’s political leadership to reevaluate their support for this increasingly unpopular and unnecessary trial.

The legislation Sen. Graham and I have introduced provides an opportunity for members of Congress to send a clear message to the attorney general that urban, civilian courthouses are not the appropriate venues for terrorism trials. I will also offer this legislation as an amendment to appropriations legislation that comes before my committee this year to continue to let the attorney general know that this plan is too much of a threat to public safety and security.

Mr. Wolf, a Republican, represents the 10th District of Virginia in the U. S. House of Representatives.