Gregory D. Lee
This week, the New York Times breathlessly reported in its New York Region section that the New York Police Department had committed a politically incorrect felony by using a film, The Third Jihad, to train its officers on the hidden agenda of many Muslims residing in the U.S. That hidden agenda is the destruction of the United States.
Apparently, the Times doesn’t realize that some Muslims in and out of this country want to harm New Yorkers and other Americans. The article says about the film: “Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.
“This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America,” a narrator intones. “A strategy to infiltrate and dominate America. … This is the war you don’t know about.”
Apparently the reporter at the Times didn’t know about it either. What is apparent is that the NYPD felt it was important to educate its officers and to give them insight into the goals of some radical Muslims residing in this country. Obviously, the NYT lacks insight because it’s blinded by political correctness.
Never mind that the FBI and NYPD have uncovered plots by radical Muslims to kill soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas, blow up Times Square, kill soldiers at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, shoot up the Pentagon and Marine Corps museum in Virginia, attack soldiers at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, set off a bomb at Ft. Hood, blow up spectators at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, and attack several sites in Tampa, Florida. These are examples of the scores of incidents perpetrated by immigrant and native-born Muslims living in this country.
The Times headline described the film as “a dark film on U.S. Muslims,” and reported that the film has been “shown to more than a thousand officers as part of training in the New York Police Department.” Can you imagine a big city police department training its officers about the perpetrators of actual and potential future terrorist attacks?
The Times reporter gleefully wrote that once “the news broke” last January that the NYPD had shown the film to its officers, a “top” police official originally denied it. However, the Times was on the case to uncover the extent of the training, and find out how many other politically incorrect conspirators it could identify. An NYPD officer said the department received the DVD documentary from the Department of Homeland Security. When the Times reporter interrogated an unnamed DHS spokesman, the official said a DHS “contractor” might have provided it because the documentary is not part of its curriculum.
Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, the relentless Times reporter discovered to his horror that 1,489 officers had viewed the film, and not just a “couple of times” by mistake, as originally stated by a unnamed NYPD official. The reporter makes it seem that anyone who views the film will catch a fatal disease so it must be reported.
Never once in the article was the accuracy of the film questioned.
Instead of reporting what radical Muslims say or write about plotting to destroy American and Western culture, the newspaper chooses to attack the NYPD, which is doing its best to prevent terrorism within the city limits.
According to The New York Times, being politically incorrect is a far greater crime than any crime a Muslim has committed or is plotting to commit.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Gregory D. Lee is a retired Supervisory Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the author of three criminal justice textbooks. While on DEA diplomatic assignment in Pakistan, he was involved in the investigation of several notable terrorism events and arrests. He recently retired after more than 39 years of active and reserve service from the U.S. Army Reserve as a Chief Warrant Officer Five Special Agent for the Criminal Investigation Division Command, better known as CID. In 2011 he completed a combat tour of duty in Afghanistan while on special assignment to the Special Operations Command Europe. His articles also appear at North Star Writers Group. Contact him at info@gregorydlee.com.
Monday, January 30, 2012
New York Times Scandalized as NYPD is Trained on Muslim Violence
Weaponizing the Passenger Plane
Sultan Knish
On September 11 the passenger jet as a weapon came crashing into the consciousness of the citizens of the country which had made international air travel viable. Muslim terrorists had viewed planes in terms of the passengers and hijacked planes to take people hostage. But at the beginning of the millennium it was no longer the people that mattered, only the use of the plane as a makeshift missile aimed at the institutions and infrastructure of the free world.
This change of tactics was a game changer because it meant the potential casualties of airplane hijackings were no longer limited to the passengers in the air who were now flying around in ICBM's with much less explosive payload, but enough to take down skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. Every passenger was no longer just a risk to other passengers, but a risk to everyone in the Empire State Building, the Sears Tower or any other clumping of people in target areas that could be hit. Jet engine aircraft had passed from military to civilian applications, but the military applications of high speed transportation now returned to dominate the civilian tourism and travel industry that had sprung up and become widely available at the cost of jet travel went down.
The most obvious military application of high speed travel is troop transportation and the Muslim world had been using the jet plane for transporting millions of settlers to Western countries. To most citizens of the free world, the military applications of this wave of settlement were not obvious. They would not become obvious until the settlers had given birth to second and third generations which became demographic and domestic terrorist threats. And even then it would remain mostly undiscussed.
With the settlement project going full swing, transforming the vehicles of Muslim demographic conquest into flying missiles was dangerous, but the use of domestic flights sidelined much of the security and the discussions that would have followed had the 9/11 hijackers hijacked flights from outside the country. The use of domestic flights by Muslim terrorists who had spent extensive time in America and Europe revealed just how comfortable the Jihad had become operating on infidel soil.
Muslim enclaves in America and Europe made it easier for terrorists entering the United States to operate and for the rise of native born Muslim terrorists. At a time when Bin Laden's role had declined, the man who eclipsed him briefly even before his death and played a role in a series of attacks against the United States was Anwar Al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, whose termination by drone is still agonized over in some liberal and libertarian circles.
September 11 went beyond previous airline hijackings which had managed to make air travel more dangerous, but not permanently so. Those hijackings had temporarily hijacked the infrastructure of air travel, but the weaponization of passenger aircraft did so permanently. The damage extended beyond international air travel and border security, it reached deep into the infrastructure of domestic air travel which Americans had come to rely on to transverse a large nation with a handicapped rail system.
The rise of Muslim populations in the West made Islamic terrorism into a domestic problem in societies under a legal and cultural mandate to eliminate any negative or discriminatory attitudes toward minorities. That attitude made profiling too dangerous a topic to discuss openly, just as the specific sources of terrorism could not be discussed except in terms of American foreign policy. The only way for those societies to cope was with broad range laws and tactics that applied to everyone.
Nanny state nations had been drifting into police states through the inevitable logic of centralized bureaucracy and urban malaise. There was a growing number of regulations that had to be enforced and immigration, economic uncertainty and industrial decline created crime problems that made entire portions of world capitols uninhabitable without increasingly systematic police tactics.
The creeping militarization and federalization of American law enforcement had kept pace with the rise of crime syndicates, rapid transportation, deadlier weapons and regulatory overreach. As civil liberties monitoring increased, the laws became broader and law enforcement discretion vanished. Combined with doses of sociology and psychology, law enforcement no longer enforced laws, it enforced attitudes. Statistical analysis allowed for broad targeting of neighborhoods and cities with crackdowns meant to change the attitudes of residents on quality of life offenses.
While this was considered a triumph for conservative politicians, it meant that law enforcement had become the billy club of the nanny state. Laws mattered less than nudging, fining and terrorizing the residents into maintaining the right attitude toward their neighborhood and their city. Systematic procedures developed by experts to be carried out by anyone with the right training were the future of law enforcement. The police officer with instincts and a feel for the neighborhood was on the way out. The future was the TSA.
That this process had worked well enough in urban areas said less about its effectiveness and more about the dysfunctional cities created by half a century of liberal regulationism. In the wake of the programs the cities had not become any better, the process of managing their residents however had vastly improved. But all the management really did was keep the lid on while the subsidies were poured in. And the most vital element was still the old fashioned cop who understood the area, while his captain was hard at work meeting with community leaders.
The TSA emerged out of this environment as another reflexive denial of the problem and applied the same solution. Broad range security procedures that applied to everyone, but this time they were overseen by people who would not have been accepted to work in any police force in the country. This was the age of the mall cop set up as the first line of national defense with the power to steal, grope and single out passengers for the most trivial of reasons. The one thing that the mall cops of the TSA were not allowed to do was profile terrorists.
Strip searching children was fine, alienating Muslims was not. Children after all were not likely to become offended and blow up buildings. Muslims were and the entire purpose of the TSA was to apply broad range security procedures that did not single out or offend Muslims.
Like most mall cops, the real purpose of the TSA was to provide the perception of security, rather than the reality. The TSA was never really meant to stop an actual terrorist and it never has. All it could hope to do was discourage them. Its real goals however were to restore confidence in air travel and reshape public attitudes to make flyers easier to manage.
The latter seems to miss the point of the crisis, but it actually is the point. Leaders who don't know how to cope with a crisis respond by limiting the freedom of action of those under them. Generals, CEO's or directors all follow the same pattern of ensuring compliance in subordinates to make the system more manageable and remove as many possible sources of chaos from the system.
Islamic terrorism has shut down the decision making process of the modern Western state by attacking their core assumptions about the future being a place of open borders, multicultural populations and international consensus. Instead rapid air travel is a threat, multicultural cities are becoming No Go Zones and the future is heading toward a clash of civilizations.
The assumptions on which they built their vision of the future are crumbling under them creating the kind of situation where good leaders reevaluate and admit their mistakes while bad leaders try to keep pushing forward in the hopes that this is only a temporary problem. A passing phase that can be resolved by reaching out to the Muslim world, encouraging their reforms and stabilizing their conflicts. Any remaining tensions would be dealt with the time honored methods of liberals, fighting discrimination and promoting positive role models, while covering up the mess by giving law enforcement broad powers over everyone.
A single major successful terrorist attack that gets by the TSA will result in major cosmetic changes for the agency, but no substantial ones. And the lack of meaningful debate over the nature of the problem that it exists to solve means that we are stuck in a debate between broad range security measures and hard line libertarians, both of whom deny that there even is a war on terror. The one thing to come out of a debate between Eric Holder and Ron Paul is that neither believes that Islamic terrorism is a problem, which means that neither of them has anything to say about a solution.
The war against us has been made possible by a leadership that is unable to identify the problem, let alone formulate a meaningful response to it. The weaponization of the passenger plane represented one aspect of how the enemy undermined and exploited our assumptions. Everything that has happened since then has been more of the same.
The jet plane brought the world closer within reach, without considering the consequences of what that growing proximity would mean.The airline hijackings, mass migration and deployment of hijacked aircraft to cause mass destruction all shifted the balance of power over global transportation away from the builder societies of the free world and toward the destroyer societies of the Muslim world.
The Revenants
Nurit Greenger
The definition of the word revenant is: a person who returns after a lengthy absence, or someone who has returned from the dead.
The origin of the word revenant is French, from present participle of revenir, meaning to return. (Participle is a word formed from a verb and used as an adjective or a noun.)
The word revenant was first known to have been used in 1818.
The Jewish Nation is a revenant nation.
The Jews have returned to the Land of Israel, after lengthy absence, several times, thus the name revenant is the most appropriate for any Jew living in the land of Israel.
The Babylonian empire, under the ruling of Nebuchadnezzar II, conquered and occupied the Kingdom of Judea between 597-586 BC. In 586 BC, the Babylonian army, under the commandment of Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the First Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the Jews to Babylon, mostly, the middle class and above Jewish population. The exiled Jews in Babylon, the first known Diaspora, never lost their affinity for Jerusalem and their faith. According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, in 538 BC, approximately seven decades after they were expelled from their Homeland, the Jews in Babylon were allowed to return to the Land of Israel. Cyrus the Great, the ruler of the Persian Empire then, issued the Cyrus's declaration, the decree that granted the Jews the right to worship their God in Jerusalem, in some form of an autonomy. Around 50,000 Jews made the first – Aliyah - revenir, to the Land of Israel, and most of the exiled Jews chose to remain in Babylon. During the next 110 years to follow, since the decree of Cyrus the Great, Jewish deportees returned to Judea- returned to Zion. These Jews were the first Jewish revenants.
These Jewish revenants re-established the city of Jerusalem and rebuilt the Second Temple at the original site of King Solomon's First Temple, which had remained a devastated heap during the approximately 70 years of exile. Work resumed at approximately 521 BCE, under the Persian King Darius (Ezra 5) and was completed during the sixth year of his reign in 518/517 BCE. Around 19 BCE, Harod the Great renovated and expanded the Second Temple.
On 70 CE, under Titus, the Romans conquered and destroyed Jerusalem, and burned the Second Temple.
When the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. the second exile of Jews from Judea began. The Jewish people were soon to be scattered throughout the earth knows to be the Diaspora. For the next 2000 years the Jews would have no authority in their land their God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However during most of the 2000 years Second Exile there have always been some Jews living in the Land of Israel, mostly in Jerusalem. Although most of the Jewish nation was in exile from its land, the Jews in the Diaspora never forget their Jerusalem.
Aliyah- revenir of Jewish revenants is a basic tenet of the Zionism ideology. The return to the Holy Land has been a Jewish aspiration since the Babylonian exile. Sizable scale of Jewish immigration to Eretz Israel and later the State of Israel began in 1882. Aliyah- revenir of Jewish revenants to the State of Israel still takes place today when Jews arrive to love in the State of Israel from all four corners of the world.
In 1948 the nascent Jewish state, comprised of 600,000 revenants, had to fight for its survival when, on May 15, one day after the creation of the State of Israel, the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded the new Jewish state. Israel won the war but lost a portion of its land to the Arabs. The Gaza strip and Sinai remained under Egypt's control and Judea and Samaria and a part of Jerusalem – the old city – fell into the hands of Transjordan. For nineteen years Israel was missing several of her limbs, which, legally and according to International law, belong to the Jewish State.
In 1967 Israel was compelled to defend itself again from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The result of the Six Day War was that Israel gained her land back, the land the Arabs were holding to, illegally for two decades.
Jewish revenants began settling their newly gained land in Judea and Samaria and Gaza. While the State of Israel did the unthinkable and made Gaza Judenrein, a growing number of Jewish revenants are inhabiting Judea and Samaria.
Unfortunately, the Arabs are still harboring one goal in mind, which is to capture the State of Israel and destroy it. Along this ominous goal, they have been demonizing and delegitimizing the state of Israel in any method possible. The Arabs' stealth jihad against Jews gained much support from the Jewish state herself. The Jewish revenants, living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, are known to be called by Israelis and Arabs alike "settlers," which is a pejorative and dismissing term. These pioneers, who elected to inhabit the Jewish land that did not see a Jewish inhabitant for over 2000 years, are also called by the enemies of the Jews and the State of Israel, who want to see her fall, by other derogative names such as "racists," "occupiers," "bigots" and the like.
There are two sides to every story. The world chose to hear and narrate only one side of this story and simply refuses to acknowledge the other side of the story. This is therefore, the other side.
The derogative word "settler" has 'occupation' connotation attached to it. Since the French word 'revenir', means to come back after a long time to something that belongs to you, these revenants did just that, returned, after a lengthy absence, to their Biblical land of Judea and Samaria, which is a part and parcel of the Jewish state, Israel. Places which are mentioned in the Bible, such as Shilo, Israel's first Capital in the Promised Land after fleeing Egypt, and where the tabernacle first stood, are resurrected and built by Jewish revenants-pioneers. Ancient Biblical names come alive again.
The Jewish people's Land is Israel. This land was given to Abraham in an unshakeable covenant by God over 3,000 years ago. But not only according to God this land belongs to the Jews. This land was finally, legally and unanimously, returned to the Jews by the world's nations in 1922.
Since the Jewish revenants began heading for the hills of Judea and Samaria, the State of Israel has been in a state of a confusion mode.
The Israelis signed the Oslo Accords and Camp David with terrorists who had no inclination to keep and abide by any of the terms of those agreements; the Israelis disengaged from Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria and gave the Arabs reasons to demand they disengage from more parts of the Jewish land. These political moves had one goal in the mind of the Jews only, which is achieving peace under false pretence. Every time a so called "peace treaty" agreement was signed, Israel's safety was reduced. It appears that Israel is forever seeking world's approval, without finally realizing that she does not need any approval. God gave His approval to the Jews. What Israel needs is people's fortitude, the Israeli leadership recognition of what is at stake through their judgment and decision making.
Therefore, when the media portrays the Jewish citizens of communities in Judea and Samaria, a/k/a West Bank, as fanatics and intolerant bigots, our response must be, they are simply Jewish revenants. The word "settlers" must be taken out of the lexicon and forgotten. We must end defaming the people who have made Aliyah – revenir to the land God gave the Jewish Nation. These Jewish revenants are pioneers in the land from which the Jews were illegally kept away since 1949 and it was finally returned to her Jewish owners in 1967, through a bloody war of self defense. These revenants-pioneers are principled Jews who chose to live in Judea and Samaria, along majestic aspirations and a great deal of fears of the unknown that only politics can inflict on them. (http://www.israelmuse.com/2010/08/news-videos-show-human-face-of.html)
The Other Side: The Jews of Judea and Samaria, Part 1, 2, 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDQBucm8wiU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77tWaF9qZVk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVTokJ0Ljco&feature=player_embedded
Take the H.O.R.S.E by its rein and say: These Jewish revenants have legal and [H]uman rights to live in the Land of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean land; they are not [O]ccupying any land that belongs to someone else; they are not [R]acists and there are no [S]ettlements; there are simply Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria.
Change the lexicon, change the future of the State of Israel.
Denying Islamists Federal Security Clearances
David J. Rusin
In Politics,Religion
http://pjmedia.com/blog/denying-islamists-federal-security-clearances/?print=1
Federal departments and agencies tasked with safeguarding the U.S. must first safeguard themselves against Islamist [1] infiltration [2]. Recent news items about Muslims having security clearances rejected or revoked suggest that at least some government entities are forgoing political correctness and taking this problem seriously. More need to follow suit, but the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR [3]) is determined to make life difficult for them.
The disclosures began last June when the Investigative Newsource [4] (IN), then called the Watchdog Institute, published a report [5] in the Orange County Register describing how a multiagency probe had led the Department of Defense (DoD) one year earlier to remove the secret-level clearance of Rahim Sabadia, president of Sabtech Industries [6], a California-based company that manufactures electronics and computer systems for military use. This kept his firm from completing work on a classified contract for the U.S. Navy. Apparently the Pentagon had expressed concerns about Sabadia’s “charitable contributions.” IN’s findings [5] indicate that Sabadia, through his family foundation, “is a frequent donor to Muslim and international charities.” Only one Islamic beneficiary is identified: CAIR has received upwards of a million dollars from Sabadia over the past decade. The IN researchers also note that Omar Zaki, the former executive vice president of Sabtech, has sat on CAIR’s national board. In addition, Sabadia is linked [7] to the Council of Pakistan American Affairs (COPAA [8]), which often teams up with CAIR and other Islamist groups on various initiatives [9], events [10], and letters [11], though the IN piece does not mention any financial backing of it by Sabadia.
As is typical, the government has provided few specifics about why Sabadia lost his clearance. It is conceivable that his COPAA affiliation could have been viewed as placing him too close to Pakistan [12], but the defense contractor’s generous funding of CAIR is particularly intriguing as a potential cause. Surely it should have raised red flags for the DoD, given CAIR’s well-documented radicalism [13] and its status as an unindicted co-conspirator [14] in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF [15]), whose bankrolling of Hamas resulted in 108 guilty verdicts [16]. This prompted the FBI to cut off contact [17] with CAIR. A judge later ruled [18] that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR … with Hamas.”
Hussam Ayloush, head of CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter (CAIR-LA [19]), played the victim card in response to Sabadia’s woes. “It would be very unusual if it has anything to do with CAIR,” he insisted [5], because “you’re talking about the Muslim community’s NAACP.” Denying CAIR’s connections to Hamas, Ayloush opined that “the whole situation we’re dealing with is part of an attempt to smear the American Muslim community by targeting its organizations and business leaders.”
One important aspect of the Sabtech case — and another example of how Islamists walk through doors [20] opened for them — is the role of Congressman Gary Miller [21], a Republican from California. Miller, who has collected significant campaign contributions from Sabadia and his employees, “set aside $9.6 million in defense contract earmarks exclusively for Sabtech” since 2008, according to the IN article [5]. Miller pleaded ignorance about any charitable donations that could have led to Sabadia’s clearance troubles, adding, “If Sabtech was taken off that list, shame on them.”
Yet it is unlikely that Sabadia’s massive support of CAIR would have perturbed Miller, given his own record of friendly relations with the group. Not only has Miller attended at least one CAIR-LA banquet, in 2004 [22]. He also dispatched a sugary letter [23] to the 2008 event, extolling CAIR-LA for its supposed ability to help “ensure that our great country continues to be the world’s beacon of freedom and democracy” and for “playing a vital role in the integration of the Muslim community into American society in an effort to promote patriotism and pride in their home country.” To this day, CAIR’s national website carries a quote [24] from Miller’s encomium.
The 2008 CAIR-LA banquet took place more than a year after CAIR’s designation [14] in the HLF case. Additionally, CAIR-LA is quite problematic itself, due to the radical views [25] of Ayloush, its executive director. Readers who wish to ask Miller if he stands by his earmarks for Sabtech and praise for CAIR-LA may reach his office here [26].
Another revocation of a Muslim’s security clearance — one previously spotlighted [27] by Islamist Watch [28] — emerged several months ago in a federal lawsuit [29] filed against the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA [30]). Though budget analyst Mahmoud M. Hegab’s legal complaint [31] argues that the loss of his credentials amounts to religious discrimination, the real issue appears to have been the Islamist links of his new wife, Bushra Nusairat, whom he married [32] after passing his original screening but before starting work in January 2010.
Nusairat’s past — including her leadership position [33] with the radical Students for Justice in Palestine [34] during college and her prior graduation [35] from Virginia’s Islamic Saudi Academy [36], which has a history of using violent, bigoted textbooks [37] and whose 1999 valedictorian [38] conspired with al-Qaeda to assassinate President George W. Bush — drew the NGA’s attention as it reevaluated Hegab. However, his complaint indicates that the deal breaker [39] for his clearance was Nusairat’s “current affiliation with one or more organizations which consist of groups who are organized largely around their non-United States origin.”
This passage likely refers [40] to her job with Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA [41]), the country’s most prominent Muslim charity [42]. While IRUSA collaborates with federal [43] bodies [44] on humanitarian projects, it also distributes millions of dollars [45] per year to an international partner immersed in jihad [46], Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW [47]). A NEFA Foundation analysis [48] states that IRW helped launch [49] the Union of Good [50], designated [51] by the U.S. Department of the Treasury for being a Hamas-financing coalition. In 2006, the Israeli government announced the arrest of an operative [52] of “IRW’s Gaza branch” who had “worked to transfer funds and assistance to various Hamas institutions and organizations”; on his computer were photos of “senior Nazi German officials” and Osama bin Laden. Furthermore, several IRW leaders [53] have been tied to the Muslim Brotherhood [54].
Hegab, who ultimately was placed on unpaid leave [35], may be the first to have lost a federal clearance [29] due to a spouse’s Islamist connections. The lawsuit is pending.
A third controversy involving Muslims and clearances came to light in a heavily redacted letter [55] to the DoD from Amara Chaudhry, civil rights director of CAIR’s Philadelphia office (CAIR-PA [56]). Dated November 30, 2011, it is written on behalf of a client “in response to your agency’s tentative denial of his eligibility for access to classified information based upon your concerns regarding his susceptibility to ‘foreign influence.’” A summary [57] on the CAIR-PA website describes him as “a federal employee with over three decades of service” who “was offered a merit-based promotion which required a top-level security clearance.” It states that “his recent pilgrimage to Mecca caused him to have ‘contacts with persons in places in the Middle East,’” thus sparking the rejection. CAIR-PA’s claims cannot be independently verified at this time.
At the core of the dispute is Guideline B [58] of the U.S. government’s Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, which declares that “foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest.” An important consideration is whether the foreign country in question “is known to target United States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of terrorism.”
Chaudhry uses an accompanying blog post [59] to lament that “in practice, the contacts which create such a ‘heightened risk’ are contacts in Muslim-majority countries” — no surprise, given the radicalism and terror being exported by many of them. She goes on to reason that due to their “disproportionate negative impact on American Muslims,” the provisions of Guideline B are “motivated, in whole or in part, by anti-Muslim bias and enacted with discriminatory intent.” Warning of a potential lawsuit, Chaudhry’s letter [55] demands not only that the DoD grant her client his clearance and promotion, but also that the government water down Guideline B.
Denying federal clearances based on support for suspect organizations, a spouse’s dealings with these groups, or contacts in nations of concern is nothing new; it was a common occurrence [29] during the Cold War. Without a doubt, an employee’s links to those who back the jihad should worry the U.S. government no less than did links to communist fronts half a century ago. After all, both Islamism and communism are totalitarian, utopian ideologies that seek to build their “paradises” on the ashes of Western liberal democracy — and both utilize stealth and subversion to advance their goals.
Howls of “anti-Muslim bias” cannot obscure the history of Islamist-aligned insiders abusing their posts to obtain confidential information for illegal ends. A 2008 piece [2] by Daniel Pipes collates numerous examples, including Nada Nadim Prouty [60], who as an FBI special agent searched restricted files on Hezbollah to determine whether family members had been tied to the group, and Weiss Rasool [61], a police officer in CAIR’s orbit [62] who alerted the subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation to data that had a “disruptive effect” on the case. The trend continues. Last October, Mohamed Elibiary [63], a Khomeini-honoring Islamist [64] who inexplicably serves on an advisory council for the Department of Homeland Security and had been given unique access [65] to law enforcement intelligence records, was accused of downloading materials and shopping them to the media in hopes of furthering the “Islamophobia [66]” narrative.
Despite the aforementioned positive signs at the DoD and NGA, much remains to be done to combat Islamist penetration. Confidence in the overall integrity of background checks for federal security clearances took a hit following a 2011 report [67] about investigators “submitting forms saying they conducted interviews or verified official documents when they never did”; these bureaucratic holes need to be plugged. Additionally, the Elibiary saga demonstrates that various parts of the U.S. government are still largely blind to stealth jihad and all must be more proactive in rejecting Islamists before they do damage. With CAIR-LA’s Ayloush having boasted [5] that “many of our members … end up working for the defense industry and the State Department” and columnist Daniel Greenfield having identified several Muslim defense contractors [12] with unsettling associations, redoubled efforts to weed out Islamists cannot come soon enough.
Muslims should not be excluded from holding sensitive government jobs just because they are Muslims. However, the multifaceted conflict with radical Islam and the inescapable fact that every Islamist is a Muslim first make it imperative for agencies on the front lines to jettison political correctness, realistically appraise the threat, concentrate limited resources, and apply the greatest possible scrutiny [68] to Muslim employees and partners. Eternal vigilance [69] is the price of liberty, but that vigilance is most effective when properly focused.
Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/denying-islamists-federal-security-clearances/
URLs in this post:
[1] Islamist: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/01/islamists-penetrate-western-security
[2] infiltration: http://www.danielpipes.org/5834/the-wests-islamist-infiltrators
[3] CAIR: http://discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6176
[4] Investigative Newsource: http://www.inewsource.org/
[5] report: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sabtech-303104-sabadia-miller.html
[6] Sabtech Industries: http://www.sabtech.com/
[7] linked: http://www.councilofpakistanamericanaffairs.org/garymiller.html
[8] COPAA: http://www.councilofpakistanamericanaffairs.org/
[9] initiatives: http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/MuslimsAndHomelandSecurity.html
[10] events: http://www.mpac.org/events/muslim-youth-take-up-911-i-will-challenge.php
[11] letters: http://www.muslimadvocates.org/end_profiling/over_40_muslim_south_asian_and_2.html
[12] too close to Pakistan: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/09/29/the-defense-contractors-of-islam/
[13] well-documented radicalism: http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/172
[14] unindicted co-conspirator: http://www.nysun.com/national/islamic-groups-named-in-hamas-funding-case/55778/
[15] HLF: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6181
[16] 108 guilty verdicts: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/25/nation/na-muslim-charity25
[17] cut off contact: http://www.investigativeproject.org/985/fbi-cuts-off-cair-over-hamas-questions
[18] ruled: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2340/federal-judge-agrees-cair-tied-to-hamas
[19] CAIR-LA: http://ca.cair.com/losangeles/
[20] walk through doors: http://www.islamist-watch.org/7954/the-us-government-failed-history-of-muslim
[21] Gary Miller: http://garymiller.house.gov/
[22] 2004: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/518
[23] dispatched a sugary letter: http://thehollytree.blogspot.com/2008/11/evening-at-cair-socal-banquet-november.html
[24] carries a quote: http://www.cair.com/AboutUs/WhatTheySayAboutCAIR.aspx
[25] radical views: http://www.americansagainsthate.org/cw/profiles_cw.php
[26] here: http://garymiller.house.gov/Contact/
[27] previously spotlighted: http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/11/security-clearance-pulled-due-to-wife-islamist
[28] Islamist Watch: http://www.islamist-watch.org/
[29] federal lawsuit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/worker-suing-intelligence-agency-claims-anti-muslim-bias/2011/10/31/gIQABMU0bM_blog.html
[30] NGA: https://www1.nga.mil/
[31] legal complaint: http://www.islamist-watch.org/documents/8449.pdf
[32] married: http://www.islamist-watch.org/documents/8449.pdf#page=3
[33] leadership position: http://www.islamist-watch.org/documents/8449.pdf#page=5
[34] Students for Justice in Palestine: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/sjpstand4facts25.html
[35] graduation: http://www.islamist-watch.org/documents/8449.pdf#page=4
[36] Islamic Saudi Academy: http://www.saudiacademy.net/
[37] violent, bigoted textbooks: http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2206&Itemid=1
[38] 1999 valedictorian: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1849
[39] deal breaker: http://www.islamist-watch.org/documents/8449.pdf#page=10
[40] likely refers: http://www.islamist-watch.org/documents/8449.pdf#page=11
[41] IRUSA: http://www.irusa.org/
[42] most prominent Muslim charity: http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/double-digit-growth-for-islamic-relief-usa/
[43] federal: http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2011/pr110504.html
[44] bodies: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/10/islamic-relief-usa-starts-its-first-summer-food-service-program
[45] millions of dollars: http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/islamic-relief-worldwide-islamic-relief-usa/
[46] immersed in jihad: http://www.peaceandtolerance.org/docs/irmemo.pdf
[47] IRW: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6625
[48] NEFA Foundation analysis: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefaunionofgood0109.pdf
[49] helped launch: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefaunionofgood0109.pdf#page=25
[50] Union of Good: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/sib/2_05/funds.htm
[51] designated: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1267.aspx
[52] arrest of an operative: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/British+national+arrested+for+assisting+Hamas+29-May-2006.htm
[53] IRW leaders: http://globalmbreport.org/?p=4938
[54] Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386
[55] heavily redacted letter: http://www.islamist-watch.org/documents/8973.pdf
[56] CAIR-PA: http://pa.cair.com/
[57] summary: http://pa.cair.com/civil-rights/representative-cases/
[58] Guideline B: http://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/60321.htm#b
[59] blog post: http://pa.cair.com/blog/federal-employee-denied-promotion/
[60] Nada Nadim Prouty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111302033.html
[61] Weiss Rasool: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042201994.html
[62] CAIR’s orbit: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=31352
[63] Mohamed Elibiary: http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-homeland-security-adviser-allegedly-leaked-intel-to-attack-rick-perry/
[64] Khomeini-honoring Islamist: http://bigpeace.com/pspoole/2010/10/18/homeland-securitys-muslim-advisor-mohamed-elibiary-spoke-at-conference-honoring-ayatollah-khomeini/
[65] given unique access: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/03/alleged-dhs-leaker-elibiary-the-only-adviser-given-access-to-sensitive-law-enforcement-database/
[66] Islamophobia: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/09/07/islamophobia-thought-crime-of-the-totalitarian-future/
[67] 2011 report: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/21/top-secret-clearance-checks-falsified/
[68] greatest possible scrutiny: http://www.danielpipes.org/1009/the-enemy-within-and-the-need-for-profiling
[69] Eternal vigilance: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Eternal_vigilance_is_the_price_of_liberty_%28Quotation%29
David J. Rusin
David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
"Pushing Back, Pushing Forward"
There's a good deal happening, and much to respond to. Please read this through and act. I like to think of my readers as also actors in the important fights we are fighting -- against some things, for others. Your assistance does make a difference.
~~~~~~~~~~
I begin with a link to my latest article on Front Page Magazine, "Answering Obama's Israel Lies."
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/27/answering-obamas-israel-lies/
It exposes the distortions and half-truths that have been put out in a campaign video purporting to show what a good friend to Israel Obama is. Please, circulate broadly.
Here's the link to the original video, in case you haven't seen it. It's making the rounds big time and must be responded to in a serious fashion, for it's so easy to be taken in if you don't know the facts. When you DO know the facts, the response to this is some combination of rage and deep disgust.
https://my.barackobama.com/page/share/america-and-israel?source=20120120_da&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=20120120_da&email=fallets%40bellsouth.net&zip=33446&firstname=&lastname=Fallet
(My thanks to Debbie B.) very significant vote is coming up in the Knesset this week. The issues are complex and YOUR COOPERATION HERE IS EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT.
You've heard about this legislation from me previously: Proposed by MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi), it would forbid the dismantling of communities of more than 20 families in Judea and Samaria without properly filed documentation that the land was Arab-owned. This would negate the vague, unsubstantiated claims of land being "Arab" that are currently filed in court by Peace Now.
What is more, this legislation stipulates that if the documentation of Arab ownership is filed after a specified period of time (four years, as I understand it), the community still wouldn't be taken down and instead the Arab land owner would be provided with monetary compensation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minister Netanyahu -- at the behest of Minister Benny Begin, who is attempting to negotiate a "deal" with the residents of Migron and wants them to feel squeezed -- has secured a negative vote on this legislation in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. Nothing prevents the promoters of a piece of legislation from bringing it to the Knesset without the approval of the committee -- it is simply that without this endorsement it is less likely to pass in the Knesset.
An appeal has been filed -- requesting a re-vote in the committee -- by Minister of Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein (Likud) and Minister of Science Daniel Hershkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi) -- but there has been no response to this. There is reason to believe the original vote would overturned if there were a second vote.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now MK Oren has decided to bring this proposed law before the Knesset -- possibly by Wednesday.
And here's where you have to pay attention to understand the situation and its serious implications:
Coalition discipline will not be invoked, so that members of the Knesset will be free to follow their conscience on this important matter rather than having to vote a party line.
HOWEVER, since the Ministerial Committee voted against the legislation, ministers are expected to also vote against it in the Knesset. They can, if they choose, vote for the legislation, but then, according to the rules, Netanyahu can fire them. He is not obligated to fire them, he is simply at liberty to do so.
Needless to say, Netanyahu is applying pressure, and making noises about firing those who do not toe the line.
~~~~~~~~~~
This has an unpleasant echo of Gush Katif, when then PM Sharon applied every sort of strong-arm technique possible to keep his ministers in line so they'd vote as he wished. We cannot let this happen again. Sharon betrayed his mandate when he behaved this way, and Netanyahu is now playing matters in a similar fashion. I've cut him slack with regard to many issues. But I cut him none here.
~~~~~~~~~~
In my last posting, I asked you to write to the Likud ministers in support of Migron. Now I ask you to write again, to these ministers and those of Shas and Yisrael Beitenu as well:
Say that you understand that legislation that would save Migron and other communities in Judea and Samaria is about to come before the Knesset. It would release Israel from the strangle-hold of Peace Now and prevent Jewish communities from being destroyed.
Remind them that the mandate given to the coalition by the voters was nationalist and that they would be betraying this mandate if they voted against this legislation.
Tell them that, even more importantly, if they vote against it they would be taking a position that is not in the best interests of the State of Israel.
Let them know that you see it as imperative that they vote their conscience on this matter. It is not acceptable for them to place job security ahead of what is best for Israel. In any event there is no guarantee that the prime minister will fire any ministers, and less likely if many ministers stand together to do what is right.
Voters and those who support the parties are very tired of political game playing. The ministers must know that they are being watched and that support in the future will depend on their readiness to do the right thing now.
~~~~~~~~~~
Do NOT send a group message; the message to each minister should be separate. But there is no reason to be intimidated by the fact that there are several names on the list that follows.
There is a way to make it easy for yourself: Compose a message that says "Dear Minister," followed by text of that message. Copy that message and salutation. Then, in turn, click on each minister's e-mail address, paste in the greeting and message, and hit send.
LIKUD:
Minister of Improvement of Government Services Michael Eitan
meitan@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Environmental Protection Gilad Erdan
gerdan@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Welfare Moshe Kahlon
mcachlon@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Transportation Yisrael Katz
yiskatz@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Culture Limor Livnat
llivnat@knesset.gov.il (a previous typo in this address has been corrected)
Minister Yosi Peled
ypeled@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Education Gideon Saar
gsaar@knesset.gov.il
Minister of the Development of the Negev Silvan Shalom
sshalom@knesset.gov.il
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz
ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon
myaalon@knesset.gov.il
SHAS:
Minister of Internal Affairs Eli Yishai
eyishay@knesset.gov.il
Minister Meshulam Nahari
mnahari@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Religious Affairs Yakov Margi
ymargi@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Housing Ariel Atias
aatias@knesset.gov.il
YISRAEL BEITENU:
Minister of Tourism Stas Misezhnikov
smiseznikov@knesset.gov.il
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
aliberman@knesset.gov.il
Minister of Immigrant Absorption Sofa Landver
slandver@knesset.gov.il
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon
dayalon@knesset.gov.il
~~~~~~~~~~
If Gush Katif infuriated you or pained you, if you want to be part of a democratic process that protects Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, if the idea of their having to turn over their land to Arabs distresses you, please! take the time to do this.
Numbers count a great deal. Send this to others who are likely to also respond.
Thank you. More will follow tomorrow.
~~~~~~~~~~
In closing, a note of clarification, very broadly, for those who are outside of Israel and perhaps confused by our system: Parties receive mandates (seats) in the Knesset according to the percentage of votes they secured in the previous election. If one party does not have sufficient seats (i.e., more than 60) to constitute a majority of the Knesset, then a coalition is formed; this always happens. Once the coalition is in place, there are ministerial positions allocated to the various parties in the coalition. With very rare exceptions, the ministers are chosen from the ranks of those within the parties who have been elected to the Knesset. Those who are ministers sit in the Cabinet and constitute the government, but they are still members of the Knesset.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene at akushner@netvision.net.il
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
David J. Rusin
PJ Media
http://www.meforum.org/3161/islamists-security-clearance
Federal departments and agencies tasked with safeguarding the U.S. must first safeguard themselves against Islamist infiltration. Recent news items about Muslims having security clearances rejected or revoked suggest that at least some government entities are forgoing political correctness and taking this problem seriously. More need to follow suit, but the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is determined to make life difficult for them.
The disclosures began last June when the Investigative Newsource (IN), then called the Watchdog Institute, published a report in the Orange County Register describing how a multiagency probe had led the Department of Defense (DoD) one year earlier to remove the secret-level clearance of Rahim Sabadia, president of Sabtech Industries, a California-based company that manufactures electronics and computer systems for military use. This kept his firm from completing work on a classified contract for the U.S. Navy. Apparently the Pentagon had expressed concerns about Sabadia's "charitable contributions."
IN's findings indicate that Sabadia, through his family foundation, "is a frequent donor to Muslim and international charities." Only one Islamic beneficiary is identified: CAIR has received upwards of a million dollars from Sabadia over the past decade. The IN researchers also note that Omar Zaki, the former executive vice president of Sabtech, has sat on CAIR's national board. In addition, Sabadia is linked to the Council of Pakistan American Affairs (COPAA), which often teams up with CAIR and other Islamist groups on various initiatives, events, and letters, though the IN piece does not mention any financial backing of it by Sabadia. As is typical, the government has provided few specifics about why Sabadia lost his clearance. It is conceivable that his COPAA affiliation could have been viewed as placing him too close to Pakistan, but the defense contractor's generous funding of CAIR is particularly intriguing as a potential cause. Surely it should have raised red flags for the DoD, given CAIR's well-documented radicalism and its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), whose bankrolling of Hamas resulted in 108 guilty verdicts. This prompted the FBI to cut off contact with CAIR. A judge later ruled that "the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR … with Hamas."
Hussam Ayloush, head of CAIR's Los Angeles chapter (CAIR-LA), played the victim card in response to Sabadia's woes. "It would be very unusual if it has anything to do with CAIR," he insisted, because "you're talking about the Muslim community's NAACP." Denying CAIR's connections to Hamas, Ayloush opined that "the whole situation we're dealing with is part of an attempt to smear the American Muslim community by targeting its organizations and business leaders."
One important aspect of the Sabtech case — and another example of how Islamists walk through doors opened for them — is the role of Congressman Gary Miller, a Republican from California. Miller, who has collected significant campaign contributions from Sabadia and his employees, "set aside $9.6 million in defense contract earmarks exclusively for Sabtech" since 2008, according to the IN article. Miller pleaded ignorance about any charitable donations that could have led to Sabadia's clearance troubles, adding, "If Sabtech was taken off that list, shame on them."
Yet it is unlikely that Sabadia's massive support of CAIR would have perturbed Miller, given his own record of friendly relations with the group. Not only has Miller attended at least one CAIR-LA banquet, in 2004. He also dispatched a sugary letter to the 2008 event, extolling CAIR-LA for its supposed ability to help "ensure that our great country continues to be the world's beacon of freedom and democracy" and for "playing a vital role in the integration of the Muslim community into American society in an effort to promote patriotism and pride in their home country." To this day, CAIR's national website carries a quote from Miller's encomium.
The 2008 CAIR-LA banquet took place more than a year after CAIR's designation in the HLF case. Additionally, CAIR-LA is quite problematic itself, due to the radical views of Ayloush, its executive director. Readers who wish to ask Miller if he stands by his earmarks for Sabtech and praise for CAIR-LA may reach his office here.
Another revocation of a Muslim's security clearance — one previously spotlighted by Islamist Watch — emerged several months ago in a federal lawsuit filed against the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Though budget analyst Mahmoud M. Hegab's legal complaint argues that the loss of his credentials amounts to religious discrimination, the real issue appears to have been the Islamist links of his new wife, Bushra Nusairat, whom he married after passing his original screening but before starting work in January 2010.
Nusairat's past — including her leadership position with the radical Students for Justice in Palestine during college and her prior graduation from Virginia's Islamic Saudi Academy, which has a history of using violent, bigoted textbooks and whose 1999 valedictorian conspired with al-Qaeda to assassinate President George W. Bush — drew the NGA's attention as it reevaluated Hegab. However, his complaint indicates that the deal breaker for his clearance was Nusairat's "current affiliation with one or more organizations which consist of groups who are organized largely around their non-United States origin."
This passage likely refers to her job with Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), the country's most prominent Muslim charity. While IRUSA collaborates with federal bodies on humanitarian projects, it also distributes millions of dollars per year to an international partner immersed in jihad, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). A NEFA Foundation analysis states that IRW helped launch the Union of Good, designated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury for being a Hamas-financing coalition. In 2006, the Israeli government announced the arrest of an operative of "IRW's Gaza branch" who had "worked to transfer funds and assistance to various Hamas institutions and organizations"; on his computer were photos of "senior Nazi German officials" and Osama bin Laden. Furthermore, several IRW leaders have been tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hegab, who ultimately was placed on unpaid leave, may be the first to have lost a federal clearance due to a spouse's Islamist connections. The lawsuit is pending.
A third controversy involving Muslims and clearances came to light in a heavily redacted letter to the DoD from Amara Chaudhry, civil rights director of CAIR's Philadelphia office (CAIR-PA). Dated November 30, 2011, it is written on behalf of a client "in response to your agency's tentative denial of his eligibility for access to classified information based upon your concerns regarding his susceptibility to 'foreign influence.'" A summary on the CAIR-PA website describes him as "a federal employee with over three decades of service" who "was offered a merit-based promotion which required a top-level security clearance." It states that "his recent pilgrimage to Mecca caused him to have 'contacts with persons in places in the Middle East,'" thus sparking the rejection. CAIR-PA's claims cannot be independently verified at this time.
At the core of the dispute is Guideline B of the U.S. government's Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, which declares that "foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest." An important consideration is whether the foreign country in question "is known to target United States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of terrorism."
Chaudhry uses an accompanying blog post to lament that "in practice, the contacts which create such a 'heightened risk' are contacts in Muslim-majority countries" — no surprise, given the radicalism and terror being exported by many of them. She goes on to reason that due to their "disproportionate negative impact on American Muslims," the provisions of Guideline B are "motivated, in whole or in part, by anti-Muslim bias and enacted with discriminatory intent." Warning of a potential lawsuit, Chaudhry's letter demands not only that the DoD grant her client his clearance and promotion, but also that the government water down Guideline B.
Denying federal clearances based on support for suspect organizations, a spouse's dealings with these groups, or contacts in nations of concern is nothing new; it was a common occurrence during the Cold War. Without a doubt, an employee's links to those who back the jihad should worry the U.S. government no less than did links to communist fronts half a century ago. After all, both Islamism and communism are totalitarian, utopian ideologies that seek to build their "paradises" on the ashes of Western liberal democracy — and both utilize stealth and subversion to advance their goals.
Howls of "anti-Muslim bias" cannot obscure the history of Islamist-aligned insiders abusing their posts to obtain confidential information for illegal ends. A 2008 piece by Daniel Pipes collates numerous examples, including Nada Nadim Prouty, who as an FBI special agent searched restricted files on Hezbollah to determine whether family members had been tied to the group, and Weiss Rasool, a police officer in CAIR's orbit who alerted the subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation to data that had a "disruptive effect" on the case. The trend continues. Last October, Mohamed Elibiary, a Khomeini-honoring Islamist who inexplicably serves on an advisory council for the Department of Homeland Security and had been given unique access to law enforcement intelligence records, was accused of downloading materials and shopping them to the media in hopes of furthering the "Islamophobia" narrative.
Despite the aforementioned positive signs at the DoD and NGA, much remains to be done to combat Islamist penetration. Confidence in the overall integrity of background checks for federal security clearances took a hit following a 2011 report about investigators "submitting forms saying they conducted interviews or verified official documents when they never did"; these bureaucratic holes need to be plugged. Additionally, the Elibiary saga demonstrates that various parts of the U.S. government are still largely blind to stealth jihad and all must be more proactive in rejecting Islamists before they do damage. With CAIR-LA's Ayloush having boasted that "many of our members … end up working for the defense industry and the State Department" and columnist Daniel Greenfield having identified several Muslim defense contractors with unsettling associations, redoubled efforts to weed out Islamists cannot come soon enough.
Muslims should not be excluded from holding sensitive government jobs just because they are Muslims. However, the multifaceted conflict with radical Islam and the inescapable fact that every Islamist is a Muslim first make it imperative for agencies on the front lines to jettison political correctness, realistically appraise the threat, concentrate limited resources, and apply the greatest possible scrutiny to Muslim employees and partners. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but that vigilance is most effective when properly focused.
Why Syria’s Regime is Surviving a Revolution
Barry Rubin
Despite what is now the longest-running revolution in Middle Eastern history, the Syrian regime will probably be in power on December 31, 2012. I don’t say that because it’s what I want to happen—Syria’s revolution is more democratic-minded than those in Libya or Egypt; the government is far more repressive than the former dictatorships in Tunisia or Egypt—but because it seems inevitable.
Why is it that after so many months of massive demonstrations and really bloody repression, that President Bashar al-Assad seems likely to survive? Of course no one knows what will happen but there are three reasons to think that Assad's regime is surviving, though the cost of that is a great deal of suffering and the wrecking of the country.
First, the rulers know that it is a case of kill or be killed. Given the hated and sectarian nature of the regime—overwhelmingly dominated by Alawites who comprise only about 12 percent of the population—the elite can expect no mercy if it falls. At least, the Alawite elite and its closest allies among the Sunni Arab Muslims will lose their wealth and power; at most, they and even their families will lose their lives. A negotiated solution of any sort is not a real possibility and the elite’s members—including army generals—are aware that they must all hang together or they will all hang separately. When they look at Egypt, where they see the former president on trial and the armed forces under serious challenge, they are not encouraged to believe they should compromise with the opposition. And when they remember Libya and Iraq, where the former leaders were executed, that conclusion is reinforced.
Second, the revolutionaries don’t have a strategy for seizing state power. They daily hold courageous demonstrations and suffer severe losses through killings and repression, yet the protests cannot force a determined dictatorship out of power. As in Iran—but not as in Egypt and Tunisia, where the armies were unwilling to mow down their own people—the regime's ruthlessness makes it quite willing to pursue a strategy of brutality.
The Free Syrian Army is the opposition’s other potential route to power. But it remains too small, too inexperienced (many or most of its recruits are not former soldiers), and too lacking in international support to overthrow the dictatorship by force.
Third, the Syrian dictatorship is receiving ample international support, mainly from Iran but also from Russia. While the Arab League has supposedly come out against the regime, its intervention is so toothless and time-wasting that it serves the regime because as long as the League doesn’t call for tougher measures neither will Western countries.
The lack of Western intervention is another international problem for the opposition and advantage for the regime. At present, the opposition has two main requests, drawn from experience in Iraq and Libya. It asks that the West impose a no-fly zone on the Syrian military and that it helps establish an exclusion area along the Turkey-Syria frontier where refugees and dissidents can flee, an opposition government can create a liberated zone, and the Free Syrian Army can mobilize.
There does not appear to be the slightest chance of this happening. Why? I almost wish that I could say it was due to Western fear of an Islamist takeover of Syria. In fact, however, the U.S. government has actually helped the Islamists there. The real reason is fear of making another Middle East commitment, along with a strange radical ideology in the West which makes it more eager to help anti-Western forces than friendly ones.
Obviously, no one could seriously propose sending Western forces to Syria. Yet enforcing a no-flight zone would be a relatively easy, low-cost effort that might help break the regime that has been the main Arab sponsor of terrorism (always exceeding Iraq in that respect) during the last forty years and also the Arab government that has done the most to sabotage any Arab-Israeli negotiated settlement. Again, though, there isn’t any chance of this happening, certainly not under an Obama Administration. Indeed,Russia is selling Syria advanced warplanes so the regime can attack the opposition more effectively! So much for a no-fly zone.
What might break President Bashar al-Assad’s regime? Other than his being assassinated, the only likely development would be if some Syrian generals decided that the rest of the elite can only survive by eliminating him and his family. Even then, though, they would probably try to continue the regime under a different name, offering the opposition a face-saving compromise of making some concessions in exchange for an end to the revolt. This is an offer the opposition, unless it is really desperate by that point, might well reject as insufficient.
Nevertheless, the prospects are quite likely that Assad will be in power when the year ends. If the deadlock goes on without apparent end the revolution might die down, as it did in Iran. Syria will then be another case to show that revolutions usually succeed only when the elite is divided and loses its nerve, rather than being an inevitable response to oppression.
It will also show that in the Middle East only pro-Western regimes (including the temporarily “cooperative” Libyan dictatorship) get overthrown. In contrast, anti-Western governments prosper, often with Western protection or help. Go figure.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
What self inflicted blindness!
Israel Matzav
Just a few hours ago, I reported that the Obama administration plans to reward the Muslim Brotherhood for refusing to speak with Israel by speeding up US aid to Egypt. Now, it appears that the shoe is on the other foot as well. Perhaps that will change things.
Reports out of Cairo indicate that six Americans who were working for American-funded organizations promoting democracy in Egypt have been barred from leaving the country. One of them is Sam LaHood, the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Ray LaHood is a Republican and the son of a Lebanese father and an American mother. Sam (pictured with his father at the father's swearing-in ceremony) is being held in what's being called de facto detention. And the Obama administration is said to be outraged (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The travel ban came to light on Thursday after the International Republican Institute, an American-backed democracy-building group, disclosed that the Egyptian authorities had stopped its Egypt director, Sam LaHood, at the Cairo airport on Saturday before he could board a flight to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. LaHood is the son of Ray LaHood, the secretary of transportation and a former Republican congressman from Illinois. He is one of six Americans working for the Republican Institute or its sister organization, the National Democratic Institute, whom Egypt has blocked from leaving as part of a politically charged criminal investigation into their activities. ust a day before Mr. LaHood was detained temporarily, President Obama had warned Egypt�s leader, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, that this year�s American military aid hinged on satisfying new Congressional legislation requiring that Egypt�s military government take tangible steps toward democracy, said three people briefed on the conversation.
Mr. Obama referred specifically to the criminal inquiry into several democracy-building groups with foreign financing, including the Republican Institute, the people who were briefed said, and he made clear that Egypt had not fulfilled the Congressional requirements, but Field Marshal Tantawi did not seem to believe him.
So it's Tantawi's fault and not the Brotherhood's? Of course, why didn't I think of that? But the result will be the same: This could lead to a hold-up of US aid money to Egypt.
But here's the weird part. The Obama administration seems to be wanting to play good cop, bad cop over this - and to make Congress the bad cop.
Then, after the travel ban on the Americans became public on Thursday, the administration made the warning public as well. �It is the prerogative of Congress to say that our future military aid is going to be conditioned on a democratic transition,� Michael H. Posner, an assistant secretary of state responsible for human rights issues, said at a previously scheduled press conference in Cairo on Thursday.
Boy is that one rich. Didn't Hillary Clinton argue precisely the opposite six months ago? This is from the Times:
Though members of Congress have talked this year of imposing conditions on American aid to Egypt, the Obama administration had previously opposed the idea.
The White House negotiated intensely to allow the president the option of waiving the conditions, if necessary, in the name of national security. Now Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state, is required to certify that Egypt is making democratic progress � carrying out �policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion, and due process of law� � before releasing the aid this fiscal year.
I don't see how she can certify any of those things regardless of whether these six people are released. Freedom of religion with a parliament that's dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists? You've got to be kidding.
Representative Frank R. Wolf, a Republican from Virginia who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, said the Egyptian government continued to flout American efforts and to undermine democratic rights. �This is out of control,� Mr. Wolf said on Thursday. �If the administration follows the law, there�s no way they can continue the aid.�
And in case you're wondering about the head count...
In addition to Mr. LaHood, four other employees from the Republican Institute, including two Americans, had been barred from travel. Officials of the National Democratic Institute said that six of its employees had been banned, including three Americans.
Hmmm.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Free Market Socialism
Sultan Knish
Before Obama got around to digging up his copy of last year's State of the Union address, crossing out a few lines, adding something about Iraq and Bin Laden, before heading out for another round of golf, David Brooks wrote a New York Times column urging Obama not to forget to mention the importance of promoting education for a free market economy. He titled it, Free-Market Socialism.
Now the idea that Obama or any Democratic politician running for the presidency would forget to mention what has become the chief talking point of their political class on jobs and globalization is about as likely as Bill Clinton taking a vow of chastity. When the working class timorously asks where the jobs are, that are always told the jobs are mostly gone and the only way they will ever come back is if they educate themselves for the better jobs that are out there somewhere.
Obama has added the refrain has added to it a warning that if we don't spend more money on education that China will out-compete us. Given that China's biggest asset is cheap labor and our assets are factories that are too expensive to run, natural resources we can't touch and a massive over-educated and over-entitled class that was promised jobs and instead got student loans, it's hard to see how more of the same will fix the problem. If our chief competitors in the economic arena were Russia, Japan or Sweden, pushing college degrees might make more sense. Or at least engineering degrees, but we're not losing a competition for college jobs, we're losing a competition for industries. American manufacturing hasn't gone down the tubes because we don't have enough college grads, it's gone down the tubes because it became too expensive and too difficult to be worth the effort.
New York, Minnesota and North Dakota have some of the highest degree rates in the country. New York has 8 percent unemployment. North Dakota has 3 percent unemployment. Because as it turns out degrees do not magically create jobs. They can only fit existing jobs. New York has a surplus of graduates. North Dakota seems to have just about enough though I suspect a sizable amount of that 3 percent are degree holders too.
To prop up his thesis, Brooks reaches for an Atlantic article that studies the case of a South Carolina woman who works on an assembly line, who had to drop out of school due to a pregnancy and is raising two children as a single mother making it difficult for her to continue her education. Instead she makes 13 dollars an hour in a unskilled job.
Brooks expects us to see this as a tragedy when quite a few college graduates would kill for a 13 dollar an hour job. The woman had planned to go to a four year college to become an animal control officer. The website for one South Carolina county advertises an animal control officer position at 15 dollars and 28 cents an hour.
Would Brooks' victim really be better off if she had gone into debt for a four year college program only to earn less than 2.50 more an hour? And would anyone really be better off with another government employee on the payroll instead of a productive worker?
The ability to get a decent paying work in the manufacturing sector is what really built a prosperous middle class in the United States. The decline of that middle class has been proportional to the growth industry in bureaucratic activists. Take the factory that is the topic of piece. Why is it located in South Carolina? Among other things, South Carolina is a right to work state and a business friendly state. Moving to South Carolina is a patriotic alternative to moving to China.
Rather than ask why there's a factory in South Carolina that's operating close to the economic redline as a family owned business competing with international conglomerates, the Atlantic and Brooks wonder how the workers can be moved into better paying jobs. As it turns out they can't be because there is no money for it. And there's no money for it because the cost of manufacturing is too high.
For decades the Democrats have offered the same technocratic prescription, more education for the high paying technology jobs of tomorrow. Never mind that our technology revolution was the brainchild of college dropouts and outsourced to Chinese factories. The high tech jobs of tomorrow are still in Shanghai and technology has made outsourcing much easier than ever. The technology revolutions of tomorrow will only do the same thing. Americans can take the lead in innovation, but unless those innovations are translated into viable manufacturing jobs than all the brilliant ideas coming out of Harvard and Yale grads will still end up being assembled in Chinese factory towns.
When Democratic presidents went around touting the college mantra did they seriously believe that we could replace every lost job with a college job without further raising the costs to employees and employers resulting in a continuing diminution of purchasing power? And did they really believe that those jobs wouldn't be able to be outsourced either? If Clinton could have feigned naivete back in the nineties, today when radiology, records and programming jobs are being organically outsourced at the establishment level it's more ridiculous than ever for Obama to make the same old college pitch.
We already have David Brook's "Free Market Socialism" which has done a fantastic job of attracting unskilled workers who take jobs at lower rates than American workers do. All those policies have done is attract illegal aliens who want the benefits and are willing to work at illegal per hour wages and without the rules and regulations. They haven't empowered Americans to work, all they have done is expanded the underclass by undermining working class jobs.
The higher education boondoggle has done an excellent job of shifting jobs from the private sector into the public sector through government or government subsidized jobs. The shift is as much cultural as it is economic, its mainspring is the perception that ordinary jobs are worthless and the truly meaningful jobs are their kinds of jobs. The culture extends to the kind of people that they seek to create. Out with the working middle class, in with the college graduate who has spent an extra four years being programmed by the more sophisticated model of their indoctrination machine and who will think more like them and live more like them, who will share their values and politics.
Mass education also devalues the actual education being received. Today's college students know less than yesterday's high school graduates. Today's high school graduates know less than a middle schooler from 50 years ago. And there is no way around that. Tossing everyone into the same system and expecting the same results leads to a lower quality system. The more education is universalized, the more it is simplified.
Making matters worse is technocratic standardization which insists that the only reason some students fail is inadequate teaching or funding, which leads to more money being tossed into the shredder and more national standards that expect teachers to accomplish the impossible. Either the results have to be faked or the standards have to be lowered. Usually a combination of both which leads to a nation where everyone has a degree and no one knows anything.
Russia, which still leads the world in degrees, mastered this version of universal education in the Soviet period, pumping out degrees for everyone, while still lagging behind the rest of the world in every area that mattered. Like so many other collective efforts, its mass production and central programming did not lead to success, it led to worthless results and purely statistical achievements.
Like the Soviet Union we can push to be the nation with the most degrees dispensed, which will be a costly statistical achievement because our educational system costs a good deal more than the Soviet one did. The USSR could afford to process students like cattle, but trying to duplicate this achievement with a college education that often costs as much as a house, will lead to a huge burden on the taxpayers and on the students.
Obama's response to this economic reality was equally predictable. Faced with high costs, socialists demand that the producers lower their prices. Obama demanded that universities bring tuition down, which if he is really serious about it they will do. At a price. The cost of higher education may be inflated, but it's not going to be reduced by cutting the non-essentials, it's going to be reduced by cutting the essentials, which means an education that will be increasingly worthless as the mass production model is used to drive costs down.
In the State of the Union, Obama demanded that all states compel students to finish high school. And after that why not make higher education into a mandatory mandate as well? If everyone can be forced to buy health care, then the same economics can be applied to forcing everyone to buy a higher education as well. Sallie Mae will get more customers and colleges will get reluctant students that they can quickly dispense with at low cost and high profit. Call it ObamaEducation.
Will any of this help us beat China? About as well as the Soviet Union beat us with its degree mills. Our problems are not that we don't have enough education options, it's that we have a liberal elite with a disdain for traditional jobs and a conservative elite with a disdain for protecting American jobs. Combine the two elites together and you get the Free Market Socialism that Brooks is calling for. But there's no need to call for it, it's already here.
Between the socialists and the free traders, we're bleeding jobs and industries, we are overwhelmed by immigrants and the cost of subsidizing a post-American society on a post-American economy. And no amount of degrees is going to fix that as long as we have a surplus of ideologues talking about jobs, without considering the real world consequences of their policies.
Foreign Woman Attacked in Egypt’s Tahrir Square
CHALLAH @ Bikya Masr
A foreign woman was stripped and sexually assaulted on Wednesday evening in Egypt’s iconic Tahrir Square, one eyewitness said on Twitter and another confirmed in an email to Bikyamasr.com.
The woman, who’s identity has not been revealed, was taken away in an ambulance after being assaulted for 10 minutes. Her husband reportedly was unable to intervene and witnessed the incident.
“I saw the woman and then dozens of men surrounded her and started grabbing her, when she screamed for help some people came, but they were hit in the face,” wrote one witness.
What happened next was “appalling,” said the trusted witness, who asked for anonymity. “The men just started tearing at her clothes and grabbing her body all over. When she fought back, they pushed her. It was chaos.”
There were unconfirmed reports that the men “violated” her with their hands.
The report adds some interesting and shocking statistics:
Instances of sexual assaults on female journalists covering the events in Tahrir Square have continued in the year since Mubarak’s ouster. According to studies conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Right (ECWR) in 2008, 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women surveyed had experienced sexual harassment in Egypt.
Meanwhile, 62 percent of Egyptian men confessed to harassing women and 53 percent of Egyptian men faulted women for “bringing it on.”
This assault should bring forth memories of the assaults on Lara Logan, Mona Eltahway, and Caroline Sanz.
Update: Bikya Masr now has an interview with the attacked foreigner.
“They started fighting over who was going to do what,” Heather told Bikyamasr.com in an exclusive interview. She came forward after seeing the report on a foreign woman who was stripped naked and assaulted only hours after her own incident.
“My roommates and I fell to the ground when they attacked us. The people pulled our pants off even as we yelled and tried to fight,” she continued.
The incident occurred around 7:30 PM local time, just as night was taking hold of the city. Heather said the attack happened “in the center of Tahrir.”
She said that after the men pulled their pants off, they continued to grab and grobe the women’s bodies. “It is disgusting. They put fingers up my ass,” she revealed.
Later in the report we learn
Heather said that she came forward to talk about what happened to her “because people need to know what goes on. It is the only way to start making it a problem that will have to be dealt with.”
However, many people told her to not reveal what happened to her because she was told, “it would hurt the image of the revolution.” But Heather said after seeing the reports of others and their assaults, “I felt it was right to say something.”
Update: In a third article at Bikya Masr, Joseph Mayton adds:
At least four women have been reported to have had their clothes ripped from their bodies, assault and groped endlessly by mobs of men in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Certainly more reports of assaults will flood editors’ email in the coming days. It seems whenever there is a mass protest in Egypt it is accompanied by attacks against women.
Egyptians have attempted to avoid the situation plaguing society for far too long. If it happens to a foreigner, they apologize, but if it happens to their sister, their mother, their girlfriend, their spouse, there has always been a tacit denial of any real problem. Instead of trying to save face, what should be happening is a real dialogue, a real open discussion about the causes of sexual violence in society. Without one, these women will not be the last victims of sexual brutality.
Update: Below is a video of the incident.
Romney and Gingrich on Peace Between Palestinians and Israel
Lauren Appelbaum, Political Director
Washington – In last night’s CNN Debate, an audience member who identified himself as a Palestinian-American Republican asked how the republican candidates would bring peace to Palestine and Israel. Both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich blamed the Hamas leadership for the lack of peace in the region. Below is the transcript. Also, read Fact Checks on Romney and Gingrich’s Statements
BLITZER: Let’s take another question from the audience. Please give us your name and tell us where you are from. (UNKNOWN): Abraham Hassel (ph) from Jacksonville, Florida. How would a Republican administration help bring peace to Palestine and Israel when most candidates barely recognize the existence of Palestine or its people? As a Palestinian-American Republican, I’m here to tell you we do exist.
BLITZER: All right. Let’s ask Governor Romney, first of all. What would you say to Abraham?
ROMNEY: Well, the reason that there’s not peace between the Palestinians and Israel is because there is — in the leadership of the Palestinian people are Hamas and others who think like Hamas, who have as their intent the elimination of Israel. And whether it’s in school books that teach how to kill Jews, or whether it’s in the political discourse that is spoken either from Fatah or from Hamas, there is a belief that the Jewish people do not have a right to have a Jewish state.
There are some people who say, should we have a two-state solution? And the Israelis would be happy to have a two-state solution. It’s the Palestinians who don’t want a two-state solution. They want to eliminate the state of Israel.
And I believe America must say — and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel.
This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements. He said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip. This president threw – (APPLAUSE)
I think he threw Israel under the bus with regards to defining the ’67 borders as a starting point of negotiations. I think he disrespected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
I think he has time and time again shown distance from Israel, and that has created, in my view, a greater sense of aggression on the part of the Palestinians. I will stand with our friend, Israel.
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. (APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, you got into a little hot water when you said the Palestinians were an invented people.
GINGRICH: It was technically an invention of the late 1970s, and it was clearly so. Prior to that, they were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese, or Egyptian, or Jordanian.
There are a couple of simple things here. There were 11 rockets fired into Israel in November. Now, imagine in Duvall County that 11 rockets hit from your neighbor. How many of you would be for a peace process and how many of you would say, you know, that looks like an act of war.
You have leadership unequivocally, and Governor Romney is exactly right, the leadership of Hamas says, not a single Jew will remain. We aren’t having a peace negotiation then. This is war by another form.
My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom. and they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say Israel has a right to exist, we give up the right to return, and we recognize that we’re going to live side-by-side, now let’s work together to create mutual prosperity.
And you could in five years dramatically improve the quality of life of every Palestinian. But the political leadership would never tolerate that. And that’s why we’re in a continuous state of war where Obama undermines the Israelis.
On the first day that I’m president, if I do become president, I will sign an executive order directing the State Department to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to send the signal we’re with Israel. (APPLAUSE)
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Syrian capital flight intensifies
Abigail Fielding-Smith in Beirut
Money has been streaming out of Syria as fears for the unstable economy lead Syrians to seek a safer place for their assets, according to members of the country’s business community.
Cash is being smuggled over the border to Lebanon “every day, every hour,” said one Syrian businessman, while another claimed Syrian money is being stashed in the grey economy that has long existed between the two countries.
More
On this story
Six killed by Syrian military, say activists
In depth Syria
Editorial Isolating Assad
Defiance of city seen as key to Syria’s fate
Syrian forces kill 20, say reports
IN Middle Eastern Economy
Cairo’s depleted bank coffers weigh on stocks
Iran defiant in face of global pressure
Gulf bond issuers pressed on transparency
Food inflation threatens stability in Iran
In what many see as an example of the cross-border transfer, Syrian state news reported last month that officials had intercepted over $100,000 worth of Syrian pounds being smuggled across the Lebanese border under the seat of a car.
Samir Seifan, a Dubai-based Syrian economist, estimated Syria’s middle and upper classes had moved between three and five billion dollars out of the country since unrest broke out in March, alarmed by pressures on the currency and the dearth of investment opportunities.
“The easiest way to smuggle money out of Syria is into Lebanon,” said Mr Seifan. “There are established channels.”
Reports of the cash exodus highlight the growing financial pressure on President Bashar al-Assad’s Damascus regime, after nearly eight months of bloody confrontations between anti-government protesters and the regime’s brutal security forces. The loss of foreign currency earnings from the decimation of the tourism industry and an EU embargo on Syrian oil exports have put pressure on the Syrian pound, which has lost 10 per cent of its value against the dollar on the black market since the start of the unrest.
Capital controls introduced by Damascus in August prevent people from buying more than $2,000 a year in Syria without justification. Though locals say dollars can still be bought, with increasing difficulty and risk on the black market, many people are said to be seeking ways around restrictions on transferring money out of the country.
According to one of the Syrian businessman interviewed by the Financial Times, some people exchange Syrian money brought into Lebanon ‘under the table’. “We’re not Europe,” he said wryly.
As quantities appear to be either small or bypassing formal channels, the money does not show up in financial institutions in Lebanon, Syria’s neighbour, which is a crucial link to the wider world. The banking sector, under the watchful eye of the US Treasury, which this year placed sanctions on a Lebanese bank it alleged was laundering drugs money, has increased its customer accountability requirements, and overall deposits of local currency and dollars have gone up by less than they did over the same time period last year.
Lebanon’s usually freewheeling money changers are reluctant to talk about Syrian money, although the owner of one exchange bureau in Beirut said he was currently processing 400-500,000 Syrian pounds a day (roughly $8-10,000), compared with 100-200,000 ($2-4,000) a week before the crisis.
Another man in the bureau warned: “Its more dangerous to talk about this than politics,” an oblique reference to the Syrian security services’ tentacular reach into Lebanon.
Jihad Yazigi, an economic analyst and editor of the newsletter ‘The Syria Report’, said Syrians had “got used to finding ways to get money out of the country,” after years of tough restrictions on capital movement before limited economic reforms began in 2005. He said one trick was to pay someone inside Syria in Syrian pounds, in exchange for a return payment in a foreign currency in a bank overseas.
Observers of the capital flight say it is a steady flow rather than a panicked rush that could bring the Assad regime down in the short term. The Syrian Central Bank governor recently claimed Damascus had $18bn worth of foreign reserves – about 30 per cent of GDP – to keep the pound stable.
But analysts say the real amount of resources with which Mr Assad’s government has to defend the pound – and keep itself alive economically – is unknown because of a lack of transparent accounting. “The truth is that probably no one knows – not even the regime,” said one diplomat in Damascus.
