Doc's Talk: Terror Suspect: Warning Signs Missed?

Monday, December 28, 2009

Terror Suspect: Warning Signs Missed?

Steven Emerson
Interview on MSNBC
December 28, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1598/terror-suspect-warning-signs-missed

CHRIS JANSING: But first, new developments this morning in the attempt to blow up a passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas Day. 23 year old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, from Nigeria, now charged with trying to destroy an airliner. A federal judge read the charges of Abdulmutallab at a hospital in Michigan where he's being treated for burns. The suspect is reportedly claiming he received training and instruction from Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. U.S. officials say the suspect's father expressed concerns about his son to the American embassy last month. Officials also say the suspect's name was added to a government watchlist of people with terror ties in November. And security a whole lot tighter at airports worldwide. There are extra pat-downs before boarding, no getting up for the last hour of flight, and more bomb-sniffing dogs.

For more now, I'm joined by terrorism expert, Steve Emerson. Good to see you, Steve. Let's start with the obvious question. What are the questions you have about how this happened?

STEVEN EMERSON: Well, I'd like to first find out who recruited him. I'd like to find out where he got the explosives. I want to get the signature of the bomb which is now being determined by forensic investigators at Quantico, Chris. I'd like to find out who sent him. How he was recruited. Those are all things they may find out, obviously, through the interrogation of him, plus a review of his cell phone records, his travel records, his computers, or laptop if they can retrieve it. Interviews with his colleagues, his friends, or whatever. And now a review of his national security records over the past year to see whether he actually came into the United States ahead of time, as they think he did, to do a reconnaissance mission to determine the feasibility of carrying out such an attack.

JANSING: Which leads to the obvious follow-up, which is were warning signs missed? We know he was on this very broad base of a watchlist. We know that his father reported him. There are reports that he'd been in Yemen that he'd been in with a well known radical cleric. Were there signs do you think that we'll find should have been seen before all this happened?

EMERSON: Chris, I think there were two sets of signs that were missed. One were the long range signs, long range indicators and the other ones were short range indicators. Let's take the short range first. He pays cash for an airplane ticket, doesn't have any checked baggage, just has one carryon; a small carryon. That's a telltale giveaway that somebody's on a no-good mission. That's number one. Number two, reports about his Islamic extremist views that were actually advanced to the U.S. embassy by none other than his father, six months to a year before this plot. Another piece of intelligence collected by U.S. intelligence that was entered into a database a month ago that he was connected to Al Qaeda. I think, Chris, to be honest with you, there was a little bit of a political aversion to furthering an investigation just because somebody was noted as an Islamic extremist. I think that's because of certain political correctness. I think that right now we have to investigate anyone who's noted as a radical Islamic extremist and see whether in fact they are in contact with terrorist groups. If we had done that Chris, we might have averted this incident.

JANSING: Is this an indication to you, Steve, that sort of, if I can use this word, that the profile of the people that are being recruited are changing? If we make the assumption that he did not act alone, that he was somehow either closely or loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda or one of its offshoots. After 9/11, you and I talked extensively and one of the things you and other analysts said to me is "look, they're recruiting a lot of these young, poor, disenfranchised kids. They have nothing in their life. They have a lot of anger about it." This is not that profile at all. He's highly educated; his father was a prominent banking official in Nigeria, the house that is his last known address was apparently worth four million dollars. Is this a new kind of more wealthy, more educated person that may be drawn to these terrorist groups?

EMERSON: You know, Chris, I think that we see that Al Qaeda recruits the entire spectrum of the Islamic socioeconomic class from poor, let's say refugee status Muslim fanatics to actual upper class, people like this kid, who came from a privileged background. His father as you noted, was Chairman of the most prominent Nigerian bank. He didn't suffer from lack of want. He actually somehow became disaffected and was recruited and became a true believer in the last several months; a true believer in Al Qaeda. So Al Qaeda is basically a franchise operation. You don't fit a profile any longer. You can be lower middle class, you can be working class, you can be upper class. This is what beguiles investigators because they no longer have a standard profile.

JANSING: Let me ask you about what's going on now because they're already stepping up security. I happen to fly yesterday morning and I saw the lines were incredibly long. We're talking about keeping people in their seats for the last hour of flight, not allowing them to have blankets potentially over their lap for the last hour of flights. Things that are specifically designed to have prevented what happened. But do you think that's the smartest way to go? To look at what has happened before in this case just a couple of days ago and say ok, this is how we could have prevented this from happening?

EMERSON: Generals are always fighting the last war and the same thing in counterterrorism. You're always fighting the last war. You're always responding to the most critical aspect of the war in which you're vulnerable. Here Al Qaeda tested a vulnerability of U.S. security or a would-be Al Qaeda, or a wannabe. We don't know yet whether he was recruited or whether he signed up by himself or whether it was a franchise operation or whatever. The fact of the matter is this point we're responding to the vulnerability of the security system which was tested and then found to be wanting. The only reason the plane didn't blow up was because of the fast action of a passenger and because he didn't ignite the explosive residue that he had maintained up his leg. He had the syringe, he has the explosive matter available but didn't carry it out successfully.

JANSING: Steve, it's always good to talk to you. Thanks so much, appreciate it.

EMERSON: Sure, thank you.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk