Category Archives: Terrorism

And The Silent Conspirators in the Case Of Major Nidal Malik Hasan Are …

Islam, Jihad, Justice, Military, Multiculturalism, Terrorism

…The top brass of the US military, of course.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, “the Jihadi who committed fratricide at Fort Hood,” was promoted at every step of the way by “the wise monkeys of the military,” who chose “to see no evil, hear no evil, and most certainly speak no evil of Holy Hasan.”

Hasan was convicted, Friday, of murdering 13 people and maiming 32 on that United States Army post.

Hasan’s conduct, as was observed in “Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program,” was reviewed and dismissed the December prior to the attack by “no less than two Joint Terrorism Task Forces,” which determined that “Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s extensive correspondence with the infamous radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi” was but “an innocent exchange.”

Honest Hasan took every opportunity to inform his colleagues and classmates that he was a Muslim first, an American and an officer second, and that Islamic law usurped the Constitution. That minor tidbit failed to rattle the military.

During his secure career as a psychiatrist in the Army Medical Corps, Major Nidal, as he was known, openly proselytize for his faith. Preaching Islam to already traumatized patients did not hinder his rise through the ranks.

Since the Army was indifferent to Hasan’s place of worship ? “a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a ‘spiritual adviser’ to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001” ? it should come as no surprise that the FBI was equally unexercised about the man’s internet postings back in May of this year. On the Scribd.com website, user name “NidalHasan” compared “the actions of an American soldier who threw himself on a grenade in Iraq with those of Islamist suicide bombers.”

Hasan’s poor powers of reasoning ? the analogy doesn’t work! ? did not arise in a vacuum. Those “abilities” were hothoused in the military’s Jihadi-hospitable hospitals. Before unleashing Hasan at Fort Hood, his higher-ups had him practice his anti-kafir “craft” on damaged soldiers in the venerated VA system, the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, to be precise. A mother whose son was left to the mercies of the Major described him as scary, inappropriate and without empathy.

Instructed to “make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program,” Hasan came up with this: “The Koranic World View As It Relates To Muslims In The U.S. Military.” The Washington Post tells of how the man “stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Would that his supervisors had at least failed this incompetent for his curricular creativity. As witnesses now crawling out of the woodwork attest, the products of the Major’s lazy, one-track mind drew no more than “really upset looks.” Substandard professional performance would get one purged from the private sector. It did nothing to undermine Hasan’s employment status, rank, six-figure income, and secret security clearance in the military.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s calling card advertized his commitment. Besides typos, the card features the SoA acronym which stands for “Soldiers of Allah.” Perhaps his superiors thought Hasan was a fan of a Muslim rap group that goes by that moniker.

If you doubt that psychiatry is quackery, read on. In mulling over Hasan’s devotional zeal, Army psychiatrists concluded that while he might be delusional, he was not dangerous. As an antidote to his preoccupation with Islam, Hasan was prescribed, wait for this, a course of lectures on Islam, the Middle East and terrorism.

The Diversity Doxology is clearly instantiated in the umpteenth iteration of the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Duly, the Army’s voodooists accepted Hasan’s “areas of interest” as merely “different.” Difference, as you know, is to be cherished.

From YouTube footage we glean that the military minded not a bit that Hasan breezed about the base in his Jihadi jumpsuit. The wise monkeys of the military saw no evil, heard no evil, and most certainly spoke no evil of Holy Hasan. A Muslim driven by devotion ? a potential murderer to the men around him; a martyr to his ilk ? Hasan was being Hasan.

As an extension of government, I submit to you that so too was the military being true to itself. When Republicans and conservatives cavil about the gargantuan growth of government, they target the state’s welfare apparatus and spare its war machine. Unbeknown to these factions, the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small.

Conservatives can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.

For all its faults and infractions, it is inconceivable that Blackwater Worldwide would, as a matter of policy, expose its warriors to a man like Major Nidal. No private security firm would subordinate the safety of its prized assets to the missions of left-liberalism.

Leave that to Lieutenant General Robert W. Cone, commander of III Corps at Fort Hood.

Manacled by multiculturalism, Cone was, moreover, careful to keep his grunts defenseless. “As a matter of practice, we don’t carry weapons here, this is our home,” he bragged about the “no-guns” policies on base. It remained for the victims at Fort Hood to wait for civilian police officers to rescue them from a lone gunman.

For 13 of the fragged men and women it was too late.

Grunts are not the only Americans who’ll soon be at the mercy of a dhimmi, DC-dominated, Jihadi protection program.Hasan was a medicine man ? a “healer” ? in a system governed by codified laws of non-discrimination and political correctness. Rest assured that B. Hussein’s hulking healthcare ministry will hot-house more such Jihad-prone practitioners.

If you doubt that military top dogs should have been in the dock with Hasan, read “Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program.”

Hasan was “convicted Friday in the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, a shocking assault against American troops at home by one of their own who said he opened fire on fellow soldiers to protect Muslim insurgents abroad,” reports the bewildered Associated Press.

A jury of 13 high-ranking military officers reached a unanimous guilty verdict on all charges — 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder — in about seven hours. Hasan is now eligible for the death penalty.

Surveillance Societies Condition Helplessness, Anxiety and Compliance.

Constitution, Individual Rights, Internet, Justice, Law, Liberty, Regulation, Technology, Terrorism, The State

“It’s slow and subtle,” writes Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez, “but surveillance societies inexorably train us for helplessness, anxiety and compliance. Maybe they’ll never look at your call logs, read your emails or listen in on your intimate conversations. You’ll just live with the knowledge that they always could — and if you ever had anything worth hiding, there would be nowhere left to hide it.”

An superb piece by Sanchez, which I’ve followed, below, with a Sanchez segment on Stossel:

Some of the potentially sensitive facts those records expose becomes obvious after giving it some thought: Who has called a substance abuse counselor, a suicide hotline, a divorce lawyeror an abortion provider? What websites do you read daily? What porn turns you on? What religious and political groups are you a member of?

Some are less obvious. Because your cellphone’s “routing information” typically includes information about the nearest cell tower, those records are also a kind of virtual map showing where you spend your time — and, when aggregated with others, who you like to spend it with.

It’s precisely this kind of analysis the NSA is likely interested in doing to help “fingerprint” either specific suspects or the general profile of a terror suspect. Link that information to other data sets being collected, like credit card bills, and you can even deduce when a woman is pregnant before her own family knows. Think of big data analysis as a statistical Sherlock Holmes, capable of making surprising inferences from seemingly insignificant details and patterns.

But fine, so what if a bunch of strangers in a room in Fort Meade could, in principle, discover these things about you? There’s no reason to think they’re digging for that kind of stuff, and even if they did, it’d be like learning there are naked photos of you circulating in a Mongolian village: A little creepy, maybe, but unlikely to have a concrete effect on your life.

Assuming you don’t match a profile that gets you flagged for more intensive surveillance, that’s probably right — as long as they’re only using that vast, rich database to look for specific terror or espionage suspects. If they change their minds about the rules governing access to the database or how it’s put to use, of course, we’re unlikely to ever know; we didn’t know what the rules were before the leak either.

That’s one problem with bulk collection of data. The information often sticks around indefinitely, while the rules only stick around until someone decides to change them. The IRS is all fired up to use big data to hunt for tax cheats, and in principle, the NSA can disseminate evidence of some crime. Sooner or later, other agencies may start to wonder why such a juicy data set is going to waste.

But the average person is unlikely to pique the NSA’s interest, even when those sweeping surveillance powers are abused for purposes ranging beyond terrorism. It probably won’t affect you personally or directly.

However, that seems like an awfully narrow way to think about the importance of privacy. Folks don’t usually say (aloud, anyway), “I’m white, why should I care about racism?” or, “My political and religious views are too mainstream to ever be restricted, so why should I care about the First Amendment?”

READ ON.

And watch (no transcripts, of course) Stossel, as Sanchez explains that “most cellphone carriers have the capability to install remote spyware on your cell phone,” in addition to the dozens of [other] ways we can [and are being] tracked.

Change Your Constitution, Says Another British Redcoat

Britain, English, Founding Fathers, GUNS, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Terrorism

He looks about 12-years old and is already retired. Where could he possible have worked? In the military, of course, where you are put out to pasture decades before individuals in the private sector (read the real economy) can retire. His name is Lt. Col. Michael Kay, formerly an adviser to the British Ministry of Defense. Lt. Col. Kay is here to tell Americans that, because the amorphous terrorist threat against us is “unconventional”—the National Security Agency has to take unconventional means to counter this undefined, unconventional threat.

Magnanimously, Kay concedes his host’s point about the NSA’s trampling of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in particular. But hey, what do the Brits know about a constitution—they’ve already trashed their ancient, unwritten, venerated freedoms which inspired the fathers of this nation. Kay, of course, makes his living stoking fear.

Piers Morgan is another Briton who, from his perch at CNN, suborns treason against Americans by preaching against their natural right to defend life and property.

The backdrop: The Washington Post’s revelation—a mere formality really—that the president’s protestations to the contrary, “The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.”

MORE.

‘When People With Guns Meet You At The Airport’

Homeland Security, Intelligence, Journalism, Literature, Media, Technology, Terrorism, The State, Uncategorized

The New York Times is playing catch-up. It is running an in-depth feature about Laura Poitras, the heroic woman who “helped snowden spill his secrets.” The article is by investigative reporter Peter Maass, who has done work for the NYT, but is not a insider. A subplot in the Snowden case, of course, is how corrupt US media was usurped and sidelined by necessity.

Here’s an excerpted from “How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets”:

This past January, Laura Poitras received a curious e-mail from an anonymous stranger requesting her public encryption key. For almost two years, Poitras had been working on a documentary about surveillance, and she occasionally received queries from strangers. She replied to this one and sent her public key — allowing him or her to send an encrypted e-mail that only Poitras could open, with her private key — but she didn’t think much would come of it.

The stranger responded with instructions for creating an even more secure system to protect their exchanges. Promising sensitive information, the stranger told Poitras to select long pass phrases that could withstand a brute-force attack by networked computers. “Assume that your adversary is capable of a trillion guesses per second,” the stranger wrote.

Before long, Poitras received an encrypted message that outlined a number of secret surveillance programs run by the government. She had heard of one of them but not the others. After describing each program, the stranger wrote some version of the phrase, “This I can prove.”

Seconds after she decrypted and read the e-mail, Poitras disconnected from the Internet and removed the message from her computer. “I thought, O.K., if this is true, my life just changed,” she told me last month. “It was staggering, what he claimed to know and be able to provide. I just knew that I had to change everything.”

Poitras remained wary of whoever it was she was communicating with. She worried especially that a government agent might be trying to trick her into disclosing information about the people she interviewed for her documentary, including Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks. “I called him out,” Poitras recalled. “I said either you have this information and you are taking huge risks or you are trying to entrap me and the people I know, or you’re crazy.”

The answers were reassuring but not definitive. Poitras did not know the stranger’s name, sex, age or employer (C.I.A.? N.S.A.? Pentagon?). In early June, she finally got the answers. Along with her reporting partner, Glenn Greenwald, a former lawyer and a columnist for The Guardian, Poitras flew to Hong Kong and met the N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, who gave them thousands of classified documents, setting off a major controversy over the extent and legality of government surveillance. Poitras was right that, among other things, her life would never be the same.

Greenwald lives and works in a house surrounded by tropical foliage in a remote area of Rio de Janeiro. He shares the home with his Brazilian partner and their 10 dogs and one cat, and the place has the feel of a low-key fraternity that has been dropped down in the jungle. The kitchen clock is off by hours, but no one notices; dishes tend to pile up in the sink; the living room contains a table and a couch and a large TV, an Xbox console and a box of poker chips and not much else. The refrigerator is not always filled with fresh vegetables. A family of monkeys occasionally raids the banana trees in the backyard and engages in shrieking battles with the dogs.

Greenwald does most of his work on a shaded porch, usually dressed in a T-shirt, surfer shorts and flip-flops. Over the four days I spent there, he was in perpetual motion, speaking on the phone in Portuguese and English, rushing out the door to be interviewed in the city below, answering calls and e-mails from people seeking information about Snowden, tweeting to his 225,000 followers (and conducting intense arguments with a number of them), then sitting down to write more N.S.A. articles for The Guardian, all while pleading with his dogs to stay quiet. During one especially fever-pitched moment, he hollered, “Shut up, everyone,” but they didn’t seem to care.

Amid the chaos, Poitras, an intense-looking woman of 49, sat in a spare bedroom or at the table in the living room, working in concentrated silence in front of her multiple computers. Once in a while she would walk over to the porch to talk with Greenwald about the article he was working on, or he would sometimes stop what he was doing to look at the latest version of a new video she was editing about Snowden. They would talk intensely — Greenwald far louder and more rapid-fire than Poitras — and occasionally break out laughing at some shared joke or absurd memory. The Snowden story, they both said, was a battle they were waging together, a fight against powers of surveillance that they both believe are a threat to fundamental American liberties.

READ ON.