As I have pointed out previously, there are two other benefits to be gained by requiring visas from aliens who seek to enter the United States. The visa application can provide special agents conducting an investigation of a criminal or terrorist alien with a wealth of information. I often would attempt to secure these applications during the course of conducting investigations when I worked for the former INS as a special agent. Finally, the law makes visa fraud a crime. When such fraud is committed in conjunction with drug trafficking the penalty can be as much as 20 years of incarceration. When the fraud is carried out in support of terrorism, the penalty increases to a maximum of 25 years in jail. However, when an alien enters the United States in conjunction with the Visa Waiver Program no such prosecution is possible. Often the easiest law violation to prosecute where terrorists and criminal are concerned are immigration law violations.

There are those who will say that the visa requirement creates an inconvenient situation for would-be tourists. Yet, our nation appears to not be concerned about inconveniencing American citizens within their own cities in the United States when we have our backpacks and briefcases searched by police officers. We are now finding it harder to obtain driver's licenses to make certain that individuals are not creating false identities for themselves. Vehicles are often searched before they cross bridges or enter tunnels to make certain they don't conceal explosives. All the while we are told that we are fighting the terrorists overseas so that we will not have to fight them here! The truth is that we need to take the measures that we are domestically to secure our nation against terrorists. We have no choice. But make no mistake, we are, indeed fighting the war on terror within our borders, otherwise we wouldn't need to resort to these tactics. Aliens have no inherent right to enter the United States anymore than a visitor has no inherent right to enter our homes. The responsible home owner looks through the peephole to make certain that the person knocking on the door seeking admission is not a threat to his/her safety. The United States needs to exercise similar caution. The visa requirement provides a peephole to our officials charged with securing our nation's borders.

The second issue is the issue of the discussion of the guest worker program that is so popular among politicians today. The way that many of these British subjects who were involved in the bombings in London came to be born in London is that their parents had originally come to England seeking to earn some money. It was believed that they would ultimately return to their home countries, but obviously this never happened.

I am of the belief that at present there is really no such thing as a temporary guest worker. Anyone who wants to enter the United States to seek employment is likely to remain forever. That is, in fact, the current situation in the United States. That is why the Amnesty of 1986 that took some 3.5 million illegal aliens "Out of the shadows" has resulted in some 15 million or more, illegal aliens slipping into those very same shadows. We lack the resources, resolve and commitment to remove but a small fraction of the number of illegal aliens who gain entry into out country each year. Last year, throughout the entire United States only one company, Walmart, was fined for knowingly hiring illegal aliens! Furthermore, if it is the prospect of employment that draws so many illegal aliens into our country each year, it is immigration benefit fraud that enables them to remain here and obtain resident alien status and ultimately United States citizenship. The task of restoring integrity to the immigration system falls to far too few agents who are provided with scant resources and no leadership to carry out their duties.

Today, sadly, commonsense and a commitment to the security of our nation is being trumped by corporate greed that is aided and abetted by politicians seeking the two elixirs of politics; campaign funds and votes. They want those who send them campaign contributions to send more money for providing them with cheap labor and they want the newly arrived aliens to ultimately vote for them.

I have often made the point that you only get one opportunity to make a first impression, and the first set of laws aliens entering the United States or seeking to enter the United States are the immigration laws. We need to do a far better job of making the proper first impression. We need to make certain that we are mindful of the national security implications inherent in the enforcement of the immigration laws. No less than our country's future depends on it.

Here is the full text of the NYT article:

July 31, 2005
British Bombers' Rage Formed in a Caldron of Discontent

By AMY WALDMAN

LEEDS, England, July 30 - Mohammad Sidique Khan was never on the corner, a detail friends offer as a compliment. In a neighborhood where many young South Asian men had lost their way, or foundered into drug dealing, Mr. Khan's peers admired his focus on family, work, working out, and Islam.

The discipline of Mr. Khan, 30, was shared, and not just with his friends Shehzad Tanweer, 22, and Hasib Mir Hussain, 18, who joined him on a murderous assignation in London on July 7. The three men and Germaine Lindsay, 19, detonated four bombs that killed 56 people, including themselves.

Mr. Khan, Mr. Tanweer and Mr. Hussain were part of a larger clique of young British-raised South Asian men in Beeston, a neighborhood of Leeds, who turned their backs on what they came to see as a decadent, demoralizing Western culture. Instead, the group embraced an Islam whose practice was often far more fundamentalist than their fathers', and always more political, focused passionately on Muslim suffering at Western hands.

In many ways, the transformation has had positive elements: the men live healthier and more constructive lives than many of their peers here, Asian or white, who have fallen prey to drugs, alcohol or petty crime. Why Mr. Khan, Mr. Tanweer and Mr. Hussain in particular crossed a line that no one had before, how they and Mr. Lindsay linked up, or whether their plot was homegrown or steered from outside, remain mysteries, at least to the public.

But the question asked since their identities were revealed after the bombings continues to resonate: what motivated men reared thousands of miles from the Muslim world or any direct experience of oppression themselves to bomb fellow Britons, ushering in a new chapter of terrorism.

Many here see answers in the sense of injustice at events both at home and abroad that is far more widespread among Muslims than many Westerners recognize; in the rigid and deeply political form of Islam that increasing numbers of educated European Muslims are gravitating to; in the difficulty some second-generation immigrants in Europe have had in finding their place or direction.

Theirs is a broader narrative being played out by such immigrants across Britain, and Western Europe. The young men have grown up brown-skinned in white Britain, in a blighted pocket of Leeds straddling their parents' traditional values and the working-class culture around them. They have been reared shoulder to shoulder with old stone churches and young hooligans, and face to face with attitudes toward family and morality different from those taught by their parents.

"They don't know whether they're Muslim or British or both," said Martin McDaid, a former antiterrorist operative who converted to Islam, taking the name Abdullah, and worked in the neighborhood.

They are alienated from their parents' rural South Asian culture, which they see as backward. Reared in an often racist milieu, they feel excluded from mainstream British society, which has so far not yielded to hyphenated immigrant identities as America has. They have come of age in an era marked by conflicts between Muslims and better armed powers - India, Serbia, Russia, Israel, America and Britain - and the rise of an ideology that sanctifies terrorist attacks against the West in response.

So some young men have solved the "don't know" riddle by discovering a new assertive and transnational identity as Muslims. The change has played out within families in the small, brick "back-to-back" terraced houses of little Beeston's lattice of down-at-the-heels streets.

In one corner shop sits Ejaz Hussain, 54, who came from a Pakistani village in his teens, and has reared eight children in Britain. The bombers' fathers and he worshiped at the same mosque; their sons left, rejecting both the mosque's form of Islam as incorrect and its determination to keep politics outside the mosque's doors as unjust.

Walk down Stratford Street, past another mosque of the elders the bombers and their cohort rejected, to the store of Mohammad Jaheer, a burly Bangladesh-born shopkeeper who has adopted the dress of the prophet since going "religious," as young men here say, 10 years ago at 16. Islam has saved him from what he calls an animal-like life as a Western businessman spending time at clubs, he said. He helped form the Iqra Learning Center, an Islamic bookshop, five years ago, to educate Muslims and non-Muslims about the faith.

That bookshop, just a few blocks from his shop, was raided by the police because of its possible links to the bombers. Over time its education came to include provocative material that some contend was meant to inspire jihad. But Mr. McDaid, who worked at the bookshop, said it was intended only to awaken awareness and raise passions - among Muslims and the British establishment alike - about the oppression of Muslims around the world.

Passions have been raised, among the bombers most radically, but among many others here and across Europe. Mr. Hussain, who helped organize two peace marches in the bombings' wake, rejects the notion that an outsider from Al Qaeda recruited the men, although others disagree.

He pointed to his head and said in reference to the bombers, and other young Muslims, "Al Qaeda is inside."

An Epic Migration

Ejaz Hussain was 16 when he left his 40-household village in Pakistan and came to Britain in 1967. Everybody was going; no one planned to stay long. He did not realize that he and so many others were part of an epic, and permanent, migration that would reshape Britain in so many ways, the events of July 7 being just one.

The British Raj officially ended on Aug. 15, 1947, but its relationship to its subjects did not. In the following decades men of the Indian subcontinent came to Britain en masse to supply cheap, unskilled labor for factories, foundries and, especially, textile mills in northern Britain.

The majority of them were farming Muslims from the Mirpur region of Pakistani Kashmir. Others came from Gujarat in India, or what is now Bangladesh, or, as with the bombers' families, Punjab Province in Pakistan. Most were poor, of rural backgrounds and often uneducated, although Mr. Hussain, the thoughtful, genteel son of a policeman, had more education than most.

They started with perhaps �5 in their pocket, and worked 16 to 18 hours a day, with a beaverlike determination to earn and build something for the next generation. Mr. Hussain, now 54, worked in factories and mills, drove a taxi, and has run a corner minimart for 15 years, raising eight children along the way.

Integration was minimal, thanks to barriers of race and language, culture and religion. The migrants were the colonized who came to live among their former colonizers. "When we came we were like servants," Mr. Hussain said. Even though they had time for little beyond Friday Prayer, if that, they were Muslims still, for whom true assimilation into Western ways, like drinking, would inevitably be irreligious.

Many, Mr. Hussain among them, thought they would earn and then go home. Instead, they eventually brought over wives or young families, forming insular communities in which English fluency was dispensable.

In the late 1980's, most of the mills and factories closed. Men began driving taxis, or opened shops or other family-run businesses that require round-the-clock tending by an extended family. Others simply retired.

The first wave's attitude was, and largely still is, one of gratitude toward Britain, which offered a livelihood and left them alone to practice their religion.

"Britain is the greatest country in the world" for those reasons, boomed Arif Butt, a forceful figure in Beeston who runs one of its mosques and has clashed with its youth.

Arshad Chaudhry, an accountant and member of the Leeds Muslim Forum, sees it differently. "They were very timid," he said of the first wave.

Beeston Hill, where Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer were raised, and nearby Holbeck, where Hasib Mir Hussain grew up, have a dreary, dissolute air. The houses somehow seem shrunken in scale, and the dreams of many youth seem to have been sized to match.

The two neighborhoods are about 77 percent white and 18 percent "Asian or Asian British," according to the 2001 census. Almost half the population is under 30.

Many white residents of Beeston tend toward tattoos and pit bulls. The drinking starts early, and openly. Trash and furniture clot some streets. Faces have been ravaged by drugs, whose use peaked a few years ago when legions of zombielike heroin addicts wandered the streets.

More than 10 percent of houses are vacant. Nearly a third of the population of about 16,000 receives "council-administered benefit," the British-equivalent of welfare. Unemployment is nearly 8 percent, more than double the rate for the rest of Leeds.

Whites and Asians live politely, but distantly, adjacent. Both groups say that South Asians have actually prospered more than whites, which has generated some resentment. Plenty of British Muslims face staggering poverty and unemployment, but the bombers and their immediate circle were not among them. At least some youth seem more directionless than deprived.

In some ways, Mr. Hussain and other elders say, the young people have had it easy. At the age when their fathers worked like mules, the sons are playing cricket, studying, hanging out. Compared with their parents, they are well educated, thoroughly literate, fluent in English and the Internet.

Some know family businesses are waiting for them to take over. Some go on "benefit" as soon as they reach adulthood. Some sell drugs. "They are getting lazy, getting spoiled from the government," said Abu Hanifa, 60, another shopkeeper who works around the clock.

And yet Mr. Hussain and others think the young have also had it harder. In an alien culture, work ballasted the migrants, as did the traditional values they had imported from home. The young have no such anchors; they sometimes seem to be living in rooms without walls.

Mohammad Sidique Khan's generation was the first to be educated entirely in Britain. The schools they attended made almost no accommodation to their presence. They learned almost nothing about Pakistan or Islam's history and traditions.

Instead, they were expected to become British, and many have tried. But in areas like Beeston, young men say, that has also meant learning how to drink and do or sell drugs at an early age, how to lose your virginity by 14.

They grew up in rough inner-city neighborhoods where "hardness" - the ability to fight anyone, at any time - was essential, said Mr. Hussain's son Nadeem Ejaz, now 30, who runs the family's green grocer shop. He still has vivid teenage memories of the red shoelaces favored by young racists from the National Front etched in his brain.

Many young Muslims, Mr. Khan among them, turned to martial arts or boxing partly to ensure combat readiness.

At local high schools, boys have regularly divided into white and Asian gangs. In April, a 15-year-old boy was stabbed to death by a member of an Asian mob that pursued him.

The second generation does not have the servility, the passivity, of its progenitors, said Ejaz Hussain. Raised in Britain, they want their rights, even if they have to fight for them. In him, this inspires both pride and fear.

Mr. Hussain sees a continuum of self-destruction between this month's bombings and race riots that occurred just 10 miles away in 2001 - seemingly disconnected rage. "Why this damage to their own streets, their own cities, their own communities?" he asked of the Asian youth who participated in the riots, echoing those who now ask how the bombers could turn on their own society. "Maybe if we had paid attention then this wouldn't have happened."

A good many young Asian men here are, in British social welfare parlance, "NEET": Not in Education, Employment or Training. Here and in other South Asian communities over the past 15 years, they have begun to out-English the English, selling drugs and serving prison terms at alarming rates.

In Stratford Street, a Bengali-British drug dealer with a gold tooth and a practiced air of menace sits on a stoop. Mr. Jaheer, the Bengali-British shopkeeper, passes him by. As Mr. Jaheer and his friends see it, the critical battle here has been between those who have succumbed to their milieu, dragging their community down, and those who have sought to rescue and uplift it.

In that effort to fight Beeston's addiction, violence and aimlessness, they say Islam has proved an invaluable ally. To those who say Islam turned the bombers against Britain, they answer that Islam also saved youngsters from Britain.

The Draw of Religion

Mr. Jaheer was among the first to become religious, and others soon followed. One by one, young men who regularly slept through namaz, or prayer times, awakened. Mr. Khan was among them; so, later on, were his fellow bombers, Mr. Tanweer and Mr. Hussain.

The group was always a small minority among Beeston's youth, but an influential one. The pioneers coached those who followed them in how to live as Muslims in the West, bringing a new social conservatism to bear. It is permissible to look once at scantily clad women in summer, they would tell youth. After that it is a sin. Young men put away their televisions, saying there was no appropriate programming for Muslims, and sometimes imposed new restrictions on their wives.

"They were doing quite well with the young brothers," said Nadeem Ejaz, crediting Mr. Khan and others from weaning some youth from drugs. "It was smack city around here. These people took on the initiative to clean up the community."

The group of friends created a network of organizations to lure Asian youth off the streets through sports, nature outings and extra education. For the Leeds City Council, desperate to counter the social ills present in Beeston and similar communities, the men were an ideal conduit. Over the years the council funneled grant after grant to the organizations they worked with, and say some of their efforts showed success.

Mr. Khan was among the grantees. Under the auspices of the South Leeds Asian Youth Association, he twice applied for, and won, grants of about �2,000 apiece for gym equipment at two different locations, according to council records.

At the same time, the group's newfound faith was distancing them from their peers, and sometimes bringing them into conflict with the choices of their parents.

One of Ejaz Hussain's sons became very religious five years ago. He works at his father's corner shop, joking with customers, calling the women "luv," the standard Yorkshire greeting. But the shop sells cigarettes, bacon and tinned pork, girlie magazines.

To him, the shop - the fruit of his father's decades of work - violates his faith, and he has unsuccessfully tried to persuade the family to give it up.

Religiously, the young men came at Islam like converts - questioning everything, accepting nothing. If they were going to practice, they wanted to do it in what they considered the right way. If they wanted to go to heaven, they felt, they had to find the purest form. They wanted evidence for whatever they did in the Koran.

All of the young men quickly rejected the Islam of their parents, who practice a Sufi-influenced strain of the subcontinent called Brelvi. Shaped partly by Hindu and folk customs, it believes in the power of pirs, or holy men, and their shrines.

The youth, Mr. Khan the most vocal among them, labeled such beliefs the contamination of Islam by "innovation."

They stopped praying at their parents' mosque, even as they used its basement gym to warn youth against the type of Islam their parents practiced upstairs.

The young men turned, instead, to the more rigid, orthodox Deoband school of Islam, which also had a small mosque in town. The adherents of Deobandism include the Taliban of Afghanistan; they take what they see as a highly literal approach to the faith. In Britain, as in Pakistan, it is this school that is fast-growing - starting seminaries, producing English-speaking preachers, and drawing young people away from the more liberal Islam of their parents.

Eventually Mr. Khan and his friends left the Deoband mosque, too, saying its approach to outreach was too narrow, its focus too apolitical. And the young zealots felt only frustration and contempt for the imams of the mosques, who were often brought from the subcontinent, spoke minimal English, knew nothing of the moral maze young British Muslims face, and abided by an injunction by mosque elders that politics or current events involving Muslims should stay outside the mosque.

A Politicized Islam

For the young, Islam was politics. "There is a lot of hatred" because of Iraq, Kosovo, Kashmir, Mr. Ejaz said. If the mosque makes subjects like that taboo, if their doors are closed, he said, young people are going to go somewhere else.

In Beeston and across Britain, that is exactly what they are doing, which is why Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for mosques to preach against extremism may be an exercise in futility.

Educated second-generation Muslim immigrants are finding their way to an extreme form of Islam spreading not through mosques but through Islamic bookshops, the Internet and university societies, said Roger Ballard, an anthropologist in Manchester who specializes in Pakistani Muslims in Britain.

The form is called Salafism, taking its name from the term for the Prophet Muhammad's companions, although its adherents often reject any label. It originated in 19th-century Saudi Arabia, and has helped inspire groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

The Salafi demand for purity and rejection of any Islam except that of the early years can lead to deep intolerance even for fellow Muslims like Shiites.

Salafis see politics as embedded in the DNA of Islam, which was founded to restore social justice to seventh-century Arabia. They take to heart the injunction that the ummah - the global community of Muslims -is "like one body": if one part is suffering, the rest will be in pain as well. They believe, therefore, in an obligation to physical jihad, or struggle, under the right conditions.

For educated young European Muslims who learned nothing of their own history in school, Salafism is a natural fit, Mr. Ballard said. It provides unequivocal answers. And, he said, it is largely "do it yourself."

In Beeston, the young men did do it themselves. After they left the mosques they gravitated to the Iqra Learning Center, the bookshop Mr. Jaheer and friends founded in 2000. Here, they were free of their elders and their old ways. They held studied, debated and produced literature and videos, set up computers, all of it with an agenda that was political as much as religious.

Their effort to create an Islamic identity in young British Muslims has been fueled by the belief that the west is waging a war - a "crusade," the word President Bush used in 2001 - not against terrorism, but against Islam, a notion powerfully strengthened by the invasion of Iraq.

This notion has become a recurring motif in the materials circulated by Islamic bookshops like Iqra. CD's produced and distributed by Iqra juxtapose images from the Crusades with horrifying images of war-mutilated Muslim babies. They superimpose a cross dripping blood over Iraq and Afghanistan. At the end of the video are images of what Mr. McDaid called "mujahedeen," Muslim soldiers fighting back in an array of conflicts, but he insisted those images were not on the copies given away.

Under new laws Britain is weighing against "indirect incitement" to terrorism, all of the material on the CD's could become illegal. To the young men here, that is perplexing and wrong. One Briton's propaganda, they point out, is another's truth. The bloodshed in places like Iraq is not their invention, they say. "How can it be incitement if it's facts?" Mr. Jaheer asked.

In his corner shop, Ejaz Hussain, whose Islam his children rejected as too liberal, opens the newspaper and sees a report, pushed inside by more reports about the London bombers, about 25,000 civilian dead in Iraq in two years.

"People keep asking what was in their heads," he said quietly.

Mr. Hussain changed worlds by coming to Britain, and now the world he made there has been irrevocably changed by its youth.

It remains to be seen if the new, more expansive definition of �...individuals...or entities associated with al-Qaida..." and the Taliban will result in any significant additions to the UN list of designated individuals and entities. The new terms appear to be intended to �clarify� those entities and individuals that require to be designated for their association with, or support for, al-Qaida. The Consolidated List continues to represent but a small sub-set of the al-Qaida network as a whole and many of its supporters and sympathisers remain subject to none of the required measures. Instead of spreading the net, the wording may only encourage those states reluctant to designate to be even more specific and pedantic in their approach, thus enabling those who finance, recruit and/or train to continue with impunity.

Two paragraphs in the latest resolution make reference to Interpol. In the preamble states are encouraged ��to work in the framework of Interpol�" in regards to that organisation's database of stolen and lost travel documents. The requirement would seem to be such a basic adjunct to good police work, especially when dealing with a trans-national terrorist threat, that one questions why it is not happening already, that is if it is not?

But, perhaps the greatest lacuna in �1617� is that there is still no return to the accountability or 'name and shame� authority as was contained in earlier resolutions that empowered an independent monitoring to group to oversee and report on what countries were actually doing to carry out the Security Council directed measures. Full compliance has always been a touchy subject in the UN system. Past experience has shown that when a state has been named in an open report to the Security Council for failing to fully implement sanctions related to Al-Qaida and its associates, even though they might try and explain the charges away, they do, quite often, take steps to remedy ��any incomplete implementation of the [required] measures�� Unfortunately the current Monitoring Team�s mandate precludes such intrusive activity, especially as its guidelines require it to clear any aspect of a report with the State concerned before the report is submitted to the �1267� Committee.

Coming as it does on the heels of the London Bombings, and an almost daily round of horrendous terrorist atrocities in Iraq linked through Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to al-Qaida, we had the right to expect a much tougher resolution.

What is a victory for al-Qaeda is the fact that Somalia remains a country without real civilization controlled by warlord factions ruling by the gun. The fact Somalia is mostly Muslim, controlled by violent warlord thugs who are Muslim, and violence and lawlessness is widespread throughout the country, perhaps should say something to other African countries flirting with the idea of doing business with radical jihadists.

The London attacks will no doubt have European Intelligence and law enforcement authorities looking more closely at their immigrant Somali populations for the hopefully small number who have succumbed to the side of extremism and violence. American authorities should reinforce their efforts in that regard, as well. Along those lines, perhaps this is a good time to recall a January 12, 2005 Supreme Court decision, JAMA v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which I described in a CT Blog article dated January 27.

That decision allows the US Government to deport Somali illegal aliens under final removal orders back to Somalia, even though there is no organized, central government there to accept them back. The decision would apply to other similar countries, but the case specifically dealt with Somalia. Ironically, and interestingly, in April ICE attempted to deport Keyse Jama, the Somali criminal alien who was the subject of the noted Supreme Court case. The Government got Jama all the way back to Somalia, but conditions at the airport were so insecure and unsafe, the escorting security officers could not safely deposit him on the ground, so they turned around and brought him back to the US. I discussed that issue in another Blog article dated April 25.

Given the discovery of the Somali radical Islamic terrorist connections in the London attacks, and the well-established history of radical Islamic terror violence linked to al-Qaeda in Somalia and among Somali aliens who emigrate to the West, the 3500 Somali aliens within the United States who are under final deportation orders should perhaps be given greater scrutiny. Notwithstanding the difficulties that may be faced with physically removing those aliens, at least the minority who are known or believed to be potential security threats should certainly be detained and every effort made to remove them from the United States.

  CAIR MUST CONDEMN AL QAIDA AND JIHADISM..

Walid Phares

In a public relations campaign triggered today, an active American Muslim organization, the Council for American Muslim Relations CAIR released a political commercial (PSA) on national networks responding to what it believes has become surging inquiries about violence and religion. The ad airs seven sentences:

1) The first sentence starts with a young woman wearing a scarf stating: �We often hear claims Muslims don�t condemn terrorism.� The question is about the �we.� Who is it? Is it the organization? Or is it Muslims at large? Or is it an assumption that all Americans hear such a statement and find it offensive? It is important to understand who the �we� is. For if it is CAIR only, it would indicate that the organization, not necessarily the whole community is not satisfied with the issue: The difference is important as many Muslim citizens and a growing number of Muslim organizations are indeed claiming that there are not enough condemnations by the community�s clerics. If the PSA hint at community wide position, it then should be signed by the many organizations that represent the millions of Middle Eastern, Arab and Muslims in the United States. This will in turn open the question of who represents the 4 or more million Muslims in this country. Is it CAIR, the fundamentalists in general or is the community deeply diverse? Hence, would the majority of the various tendencies agree on CAIR�s assumptions that the community is frustrated by calls to condemn Terrorism?

This first statement is indicative of the aim of the ad: It attempts to position all Muslims as victims of a campaign pressing them to state what is obvious, that all Muslims condemn Terrorism just as all other Americans do. The philosophy of this ad is clear: Muslim Americans are unjustly �seen� by others as not doing enough to combat Terrorism, which would be unfair. And CAIR, the legitimate representative of more than 4 million Americans is fixing the problem. That�s what the PSA is designed for.

2) Second sentence: An African American male says: �And that Islam condones violence.� Heard without any explanation or historical background, the sentence leads the average viewer or listener to believe that there is a conspiracy by unrevealed parties to depict Islam as a religion that �condone� violence. The actual issue is not addressed and the subject of debate is over-generalized. Neither the PSA indicate who is portraying Islam as endorsing violence, nor does it explain how. It simply bypasses the elephant in the room: Jihad. If there is an issue to address it is how Islamists claim Jihad as a religious duty. Unfortunately the PSA fails to mention it.

3) The third sentence shows a Muslim woman saying: �As Muslims we want to state clearly� followed by a fourth sentence by the African American male: �that those who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam are betraying the teachings of the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad.� That statement taken alone would be very valuable if confirmed as the center of the political philosophy. If strengthen with Koranic verses and references and made into the response to any act of Terror committed by al Qaida and the Jihadists, one could see the early signs of a reform. That would be encouraging. One would project that the ad would at some point conclude in that direction. But as it unfolds, it doesn�t.

4) The fifth sentence is uttered by a woman: �We reject anyone of any faith who commits such brutal acts.� It is followed with a sixth sentence by the same male stating: �And we�ll not allow our faith to be to be hijacked by criminals.� The readers and listeners would then wait for the next sentence and most important conclusion that is �who?� Indeed, rejection of brutal acts and obstructing criminals from hijack is a universal principle. It could apply to common criminals, dictators and all sort of theological extremists too, depending on the circumstances. But the particular statement Americans, and now all democracies are waiting for, is an unequivocal condemnation of Jihadism as a legitimate political tool, and the Jihadists as an acceptable force: At least a clear condemnation of al Qaida and its ideology, because of whom and which many have been questioning the link to the religion. The PSA is strangely silent about it. 

5) The last sentence could have done it and served the cause of Muslim visibility much better: It could have simply said, we condemn al Qaida, we condemn Osama bin Laden, al Zarqawi, the Jihadi clerics. The PSA could have stated that al Qaida is about hatred and violence while Muslims seek peace. Instead a woman concluded: �Islam is not about hatred and violence. It�s about peace and justice.� It would be the equivalent of a saying in Arabic: man daraba al ma�a bil ma�a. (treating water with water), meaning no tangible results achieved.

In the final analysis, CAIR�s initiative could have been a basis for a strategic resistance to the Jihadists in general and al Qaida in particular. Language is everything here. While I�d leave the political intentions behind the campaign to others for now, it is clear to connoisseurs in Islamic politics that the PSA aim at shielding a political lobby from growing public inquiries rather than triggering an anti-Jihadist campaign. All what the lobby writers had to do was to call al Qaida and Bin Laden by the name: Terrorist. One, not seven sentences would have sent a huge message to the American public. And that is not so difficult, if the intentions were available. Other Muslim groups have done it, such as Free Muslims against Terrorism and American Islamic Forum for Democracy. The difference is this: The latter have the intentions of fighting real Terrorism, but they don�t have the money. See CAIR backing of American Fatwa)

                                                  ***********

Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a Professor of religions and world politics

Officials of both groups have been linked to various terrorist organizations:

The Chairman of the Fiqh Council, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose trial began in June 2005 in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Alwani has been named in court documents as an official of several entities in northern Virginia suspected of being connected to terrorist financing. Documents released in the Al Arian trial show that Alwani funded the Islamic Jihad front groups in Tampa.

Another past trustee of the Fiqh Council, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, is serving a 23-year prison sentence for illegal financial dealings with Libya and immigration fraud, has admitted to his part in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince, and has vocally announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Additionally Alamoudi was just named by Treasury as having been a financier for Al Qaeda.

In 1998, Fiqh Council member Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti, gave a speech calling for jihad against the United States and the United Kingdom, saying that �Allah will curse the Americans and British� and �Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.� Additionally, Hanooti is strongly linked to Hamas, having served on the board of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). A 2002 INS memo extensively documented IAP�s support for HAMAS and noted that the �facts strongly suggest� that IAP is �part of HAMAS� propaganda apparatus.�

On October 28, 2000, Muzammil Siddiqui, the President of FCNA, at a rally in Lafayette Park in Washington D.C., said, �America has to learn -- if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come!"

In the past 4 years, several CAIR officials have been convicted of or charged with various terrorism-related offenses.

CAIR has championed and defended officials of Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraiser Fawaz Damra, and the radical Egyptian cleric Wagdy Ghoneim.

CAIR has repeatedly attacked the prosecutions of Islamic terrorists arrested and/or convicted since 9-11 and has attacked the government�s freezing of Islamic terrorist fronts as part of a �war against Islam� by the United States.

CAIR has led protests against the deportation of radical Islamic clerics who have called for Jihad or who have been fundraisers for Hamas.

CAIR has asserted that the indictment of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian on conspiracy to murder more than 100 people was �politically motivated� and instigated by �the attack dogs of the pro-Israeli lobby."

CAIR has been named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by the family of former FBI official John O�Neill, who was killed on 9-11.

One of the signatories to today�s fatwa is Fawaz Damra who was convicted of immigration fraud related to his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and denaturalized. He is currently awaiting a deportation hearing.

Another signatory, the Muslim American Society, is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and whose publications have repeatedly supported suicide bombings.

For a comprehensive background paper on the links to Islamic terrorist and extremist groups, please click here.

Chairman Chris Cox
Committee on Homeland Security
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20540

Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
Committee on Homeland Security
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20540

Dear Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Thompson:

On Thursday, July 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity of the Committee on Homeland Security will hold a hearing entitled �Improving Management of the Aviation Screening Workforce.�

I would like to have my thoughts on this critical issue be considered by the members of the Subcommittee as they deliberate the issue of the privatization of the screeners. I spent some 30 years with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) before my departure from that agency in February 2002. For the sake of expedience, I am attaching a current copy of my bio to this document to provide some insight into my background to help establish my credentials as an expert on law enforcement issues. I respectfully request that this letter and my bio be submitted for the record.

Prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001 many people in and out of government lived in a state of denial. They apparently found it preferable to believe that while terrorist attacks plagued many countries around the world, the risk that a devastating attack could happen within the borders of the United States was minimal. I say this because although a number of terrorist attacks had already been carried out within the borders of the United States, little was done of consequence to protect our nation from within its borders. This attitude was dangerous and in my opinion, left our nation vulnerable to the attacks of September 11, 2001 even though a number of deadly attacks had been carried out within our borders and other attacks against targets readily identifiable as being United States related targets were also launched with the result being the loss of human life and the great destruction of property. Additionally, other terrorist plots were averted through actions by law enforcement personnel.

On February 26, 1993 the bombing of the World Trade Center complex resulted in the death of 6 innocent civilians, the injury of many employees and visitors at the World Trade Center and the damage to that complex that was estimated to be in the vicinity of one half billion dollars. A bomb was placed in a garage located beneath the World Trade Center. According to members of the investigative teams with whom I spoke during and after the ensuing investigation told me that they believed that had the truck containing the bomb been parked against a different wall in the parking complex, or had the truck contained more explosives, the World Trade Center Tower above the truck might well have toppled sideways. Should this have happened, many more lives would have arguably been lost than perished as a result of the attacks of 911 because evacuation would have been impossible in light of the speed with which the tower would have fallen. Additionally, the other buildings might have been struck by the falling tower that stood approximately one-quarter mile high. It was also possible that the falling tower might have ruptured the sea wall structure that kept the water from the Hudson River out of the foundation of what had been the World Trade Center, flooding lower Manhattan.

Certainly, the potential for extreme devastation both from a human perspective as well as from a financial perspective was incredibly high. Nevertheless, in the interest of commerce, our nation essentially conducted �business as usual� in the wake of this and subsequent attacks. As I said at the outset of this letter, we were conducting ourselves as a nation in a state of denial.

This manifested itself in a number of ways including the continuation of the Visa Waiver Program, the continuation of the Transit Without Visa Program, the failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the United States to better secure our nation�s borders or take other measures to secure critical infrastructures. Passengers boarding airliners were screened by civilians who were employed by the airlines that were at least as motivated by concerns about frightening off paying passengers as they were about security. Public relations was a consideration of these employees who knew that they were being paid by an industry that did not want to discourage passengers from boarding airliners.

After the attacks of September 11 it was impossible to conduct �business as usual.� The government apparently understood that the public would feel most comfortable about boarding an airliner if the screeners whose job was to prevent hijackers from gaining access to airplanes and to prevent potential weapons from being brought on board airplanes were federal employees who were dedicated to the critical mission of airlines safety. It was this apparent motivation that caused the United States government to take over the business of screening passengers and ensuring not only the safety of the flying public but the non-flying public who were concerned that airplanes could be utilized as weapons as we saw on 9/11. This strategy makes sense not only for the superficial reason of reassuring our citizens and tourists that federal employees operating in a quasi law enforcement manner would help to ensure the safety of air travel, but because in my opinion, these employees were better motivated to carry out their critical duties. Employees of a private company who are hired by either an airline company or an airport do not generally see themselves as working towards a career but rather see themselves as simply earning a paycheck to pay their bills. Certainly most employees in most industries ultimately go to work to earn a paycheck, however, for those federal employees who work as screeners, many may well harbor aspirations of moving on to other jobs within the law enforcement profession and are very much aware that the time they spend with the TSA would be credited towards any federal job they may ultimately take with the federal government. Each day on the job therefore potentially puts them further along the path towards a rewarding career with any of a number of federal law enforcement agencies that may require law enforcement background or at least would look more favorably upon an applicant who had spent time working for the TSA.

The job of a screener can be monotonous and mind-numbing, searching bag after bag and person after person, hoping to find the proverbial �needle in the haystack� either a passenger who should be barred from gaining access to an airplane because he or she is on the so-called �no fly list� or because the passenger in question has attempted to surreptitiously bring a weapon on board. In such a difficult job motivation is critical. It is my understanding that attrition rates for privately hired screeners prior to 9/11 was a multiple of what it is for TSA employees. This should not surprise anyone. The TSA employees, as I pointed out previously, may be hoping to use the job with the TSA as a springboard for employment by any of a number of federal law enforcement agencies while the privately hired screener is simply seeking a paycheck.

In my career as a special agent of the INS I worked closely with law enforcement representatives from a number of other countries in working on investigations of mutual interest. Among these people with whom I worked were members of the Israeli National Police (INP). As you may know, Israel has an enviable record of preventing aircraft hijacking notwithstanding the fact that they are often targeted by terrorist organization bent on the destruction of that country in that volatile part of the world. I have had some interesting conversations with a number of high-ranking officials of the INP. They explained to me that they have been successful for a number of reasons. They pay their screeners the highest salary they can possibly pay them to help keep their morale up. They also give them constant training and they do not allow them to serve as screeners for more than a few years and then move them on to other careers within the government. This further helps to motivate them and keeps them from �burning out.�

Now it appears that we have come full circle. Our government is now considering the privatizing the critical missions of screening baggage and passengers. This would, in my opinion, put us back to where we were prior to 9/11. Employees would be hired to help prevent the hijacking of airliners and the potential for devastation that such a crime could cause, yet these employees, like those hired prior to 9/11 would be simply seeking a paycheck and not be motivated as are those who are employed by the federal government.

The �All Clear� has not sounded. Within the last couple of weeks we have witnessed two terrorist attacks in England and one in Egypt. The war on terror continues yet it would appear that proponents for privatizing the screeners are trying to return to the pre- 911 attitudes. Interestingly, the President and Vice President of the United States are not protected by private security guards who have taken a leave of absence from a department store. They are protected by sworn, dedicated, highly trained and highly motivated members of the United States Secret Service. Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State is similarly protected by special agents of the DSS. I could go on listing the various federal agents who protect the heads of various federal agencies. While the agencies are all different, none of these high-ranking officials are protected by private security guards, they are all protected by sworn, federal agents who are highly motivated and highly trained. The traveling public and the citizens of our nation deserve no less protection.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael W. Cutler,
Former Senior Special Agent,
Immigration and Naturalization Service

Consider the case of Mohammed Qassem Sawalha, a Hamas activist, who was appointed as a "moderate" trustee of London's Finsbury Park mosque in February. The mosque was closed in 2004 because it had come under the influence of Abu Hamza al-Masri, a radical Islamic cleric arrested in Britain and charged with 16 terrorism-related offenses. Mr. Sawalha was named one of five trustees of the mosque when it was reopened in early 2005. But Mr. Sawalha's own decade-long history of supporting Hamas terrorist operations differs from Mr. al-Masri's only in terms of the nationality of the population targeted in otherwise identical attacks like suicide bombings, kidnappings, shootings and more.

Mr. Sawalha was named as a co-conspirator in an Aug. 2003 indictment brought by federal prosecutors in Chicago against Hamas activists in the U.S. and accused of assisting Hamas activists planning terrorist attacks. According to the indictment, before Mr. Sawalha moved to London in the early 1990s he was a Hamas leader in the West Bank. The indictment goes on to cite several cases in which Mr. Sawalha allegedly conspired with others to support Hamas terrorist operations. For example, while in London Mr. Sawalha met with Mohammad Salah (one of the defendants) and Mohammad Jarad, who were passing through London on route to Israel. According to the indictment, Mr. Sawalha provided the two men with instructions on "Hamas-related activities they were to carry out while in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip." The indictment further describes how, in Aug. 1992, Mr. Sawalha met with Hamas leader Mousa abu Marzook and Mr. Salah to discuss the need to "revitalize Hamas terrorist operations in the West Bank." At that meeting Mr. Sawalha suggested specific Hamas members in the West Bank on whom Messrs. Salah and Jarad might rely to help energize Hamas's terrorist activities. Less than six months later, in January 1993, Messrs. Sawalha and Salah met yet again in London. At this meeting Mr. Sawalha specifically directed Mr. Salah to "provide money to various Hamas members in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

Also in London, Interpal, a purportedly charitable organization designated as a Hamas front organization by the U.S. Treasury Department, continues to fund Hamas institutions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Despite a plethora of evidence gathered by the U.S., Israel and other governments demonstrating its ties to Hamas, Interpal was given a clean bill of health by the British Charity Commission in Sept. 2003. (The Commission was aware, for example, that the FBI had already determined that Hamas members in the U.S. sent funds to Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza through Interpal). Strangely, the Commission itself acknowledged that Interpal transferred funds on behalf of the al Aqsa International Foundation, a Hamas front organization banned in Britain, the U.S., Germany and elsewhere, but determined anything short of ties to Hamas military or political activists to be insignificant. But only a few weeks earlier the EU banned all of Hamas, including activity supporting any of its military, political or social branches.

More recently, Sheikh Mohammad al Moayad and his assistant, Sheikh Mohammad Zayed, two Yemeni clerics, were convicted of funding both al Qaeda and Hamas through associates in New York. Their trial produced still more damning evidence of Interpal's role in financing terrorism. Unaware he was talking to an FBI informant merely posing as a terror financier, Sheikh Moayad produced a receipt showing that he had transferred $70,000 to Interpal as proof of his ability to, as he put it, "get money to the Jihad." In the context of this and other receipts, the cleric told the informant he had provided millions of dollars to Hamas and al Qaeda.

Efforts to establish a global anti-terrorism treaty date back to 1996, but have stalled for years in the face of objections from several Arab and Muslim countries over the classification of suicide bombers engaged in "resistance to occupation." According to these member states, suicide bombings should not be considered acts of terrorism -- even if they target civilians and non-combatants -- if conducted for a sufficiently legitimate cause. Still others believe that groups that carry out acts of terrorism are not to be considered terrorists if they also participate in the political system or provide social-welfare support. Thus, several European states have long opposed including Hezbollah on the EU's terrorism list because of that group's social activities and participation in Lebanese politics. Others, including Britain, have tolerated the presence and activities of groups like Hamas even as they crack down on other groups engaged in similar acts of terror in the name of apparently less compelling causes.

But as recent attacks in Britain, Turkey, Israel, and Egypt all attest, these are morally bankrupt positions. The international community must stand firm in its condemnation of all acts of terror, no matter what cause or injustice such attacks are intended to remedy and no matter what other political or humanitarian activities these groups engage in. Indeed, the U.N. and individual member states both should make clear once and for all not only that no cause legitimizes terrorism, but that terrorism undermines the legitimacy of otherwise legitimate causes. Let's say it openly and honestly: nothing undermines the legitimate goal of establishing a secure and independent Palestinian state that lives in peace side-by-side with its neighbors more than Palestinian terrorism. There is no excuse for terror.

For related material, see "Hamas from Cradle to Grave"

It�s not clear just what obligations EU banks will have under the new regulations to provide similar information when transferring funds overseas. This issue is complicated by EU privacy restrictions. It appears that such information would be the norm unless there were reasons to believe that the recipient banks would not afford appropriate confidentiality of such information which should only be made available to authorized investigators and judicial authorities.

These new measures represent a �giant leap� beyond Europe�s current �know your customer� rules now in place. �Know Your Customer� puts the onus on the bank making the transfer to establish the bona fides of its own clients. The originating bank is also required, in most cases to retain records related to the transaction. The EU commission is treating the proposal as �draft legislation� and has called on EU member governments to approve the measure by December 2005. It would then have to be approved also by the European Parliament and, if approved on that timetable, would come into effect in January 2007.

What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?

I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.

What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?

It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.

You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power?

Not death as an end, but death as a door open to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.

Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.

Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the after life in Paradise.

Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.

Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and their is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their life time, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.

Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.

What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?

Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel).

Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?

There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.

Why are so many suicide bombers young men?

As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?

What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?

The UN is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communists countries. Their hands are tied. The UN has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the UN leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the UN is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the UN has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four-hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred").

You say that a suicide bomber is a �stupid bomb and a smart bomb� simultaneously. Explain what you mean.

Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it.

How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?

Stop being politically correct and stop believe that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.
Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East?

Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam is expands there is regional conflict. Right now, their are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning.

(NOTE: The web pages linked below are visible only in Internet Explorer - Andrew Cochran) �MAS Active Membership� shows the centrality of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna�s Message of the Teachings to MAS. It states that two of the group�s goals for active members are to �[c]ontinue building the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna,� and to �[m]ake the member fulfill his duties as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna.�  Active membership is MAS�s highest membership level.  �MAS Regular Membership� shows that even lower membership levels are required to base their understanding of Islam on al-Banna�s Message of the Teachings.  This webpage states that regular members must also �[b]uild the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna.�

• The referenced book, Message of the Teachings, was pulled from the Young Muslims Canada website after my Weekly Standard article linked to it. In that book, al-Banna makes clear that Islamic government must become predominant, and states that violence is an acceptable means of spreading Islamic ideology:  "Always intend to go for Jihad and desire martyrdom.  Prepare for it as much as you can."
• The MAS Minnesota website made clear that MAS even requires its adjunct members (another saved page) to read Milestones by bin Laden's ideological comrade Sayyid Qutb.  Milestones contains the essay "Jihad in the Cause of God," which explains that spreading Islam is an acceptable reason for undertaking jihad:  "The reasons for Jihad which have been described in the above verses are these:  to establish God's authority in the earth; to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God; to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life; to end the lordship of one man over others since all men are creatures of God and no one has the authority to make them his servants or to make arbitrary laws for them.  These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming Jihad."

The Muslim American Society:  No anti-terror paragon.

I�m hardly one who can be accused of being soft on national security and terrorism. I spent half my law enforcement career specifically targeting such issues and since my retirement I�ve remained active as a counter-terrorism consultant and have written numerous articles defending the Government�s post-9/11 efforts in the war on radical Islamic terror. That said, career law enforcement officers, contrary to what many on the left may believe, have a unique and personal perspective on Constitutional liberties. When one is granted the authority and power to deprive others of their Constitutional rights, including under certain circumstances the most precious rights of liberty and even life, one quickly learns to appreciate the exceptional and genuine value of those rights we all enjoy in this great country of ours.

It is within that context I see the baggage inspection in the New York subway system as something of a precursor to that larger slippery slope. After the London attacks, very much has been made of the fact the British cops were able to utilize their CCTV system to quickly identify the bombing suspects and aggressively move forward in their investigation. That is true. It�s also true that London�s 200,000 some CCTV cameras did not prevent either the 7/7 or 7/21 attacks. Yet, on all the talking head shows here in the US, we are hearing security experts and politicians of nearly every stripe call for a huge increase in CCTV coverage everywhere in the US, as though cameras on every street corner will keep us safe.

Right after the 7/7 attacks in London, I wrote an article about enhancing security for transit systems by increasing manpower and training for transit police and security forces, especially utilizing more plainclothes officers and Israeli-tested behavior profile surveillance techniques. Increasing uniformed patrols is a deterrent. Bad guys knowing there are more undercover officers watching them is a deterrent. When those trained officers spot someone acting in a suspicious manner, and they can articulate those suspicions, they can then legally detain and search those persons under what would be reasonable circumstances within Constitutional constraints, and still provide enhanced security for all of us without mass intrusion.

No matter how it�s packaged, even random �voluntary� searches at a police checkpoint invariably makes the public feel subservient, not served and protected. It is the sight of armed uniformed officers at a fixed checkpoint requiring submission to intrusive authority before onward passage is allowed that instinctively produces the �us verses them� reaction. Seeing those same uniformed officers, even if they are heavily armed, on routine patrol or standing fixed observation post among the crowd has another effect�it reassures the public and provides them a sense of protection and security and of being served, not being subjected to authority.

There are, of course, places in American society where exceptional security measures are required. We already accept such measures in commercial aviation. No one questions such procedures at nuclear power plants and US military installations. We probably hope for the same at chemical plants.

It is that mass intrusion, for security, into our individual liberties by government, even if it�s slow and subtle, that should concern all of us. We do live in the 21st century, and the founders of our country never envisioned the possibility of mass destruction, but this is still America and we live under that remarkable document known as the Constitution. Unfortunately, so many Americans have so little understanding of a document which perhaps means more to all of us than any other. Americans must demand security and protection from their government, at all levels. That is the most primary and basic duty and function of government. However, that security and protection must not be done at the expense of individual liberties provided by our Constitution, and Americans should remember that while there are many good people in government service, in America, government itself exists to serve the people, not the other way around, and unfortunately sometimes even some of those good people in government forget that.

Random subway searches and many thousands of CCTV cameras might seem like easy and quick fixes; but maybe they are just that, easy and quick instead of requiring political �leaders� and senior government officials making truly hard choices and implementing law enforcement and security procedures that genuinely protect people and freedoms at the same time.

Do most Americans really want police and security officers watching them on a TV camera as they walk down every street in every city in the country? As they walk into every building, get into every stairwell and elevator? What happens when the innocent college student running late for an exam nervously fumbles in his backpack and wires from his i-Pod show up on the street CCTV as he looks for a book on his way to school? The student just happens to fit a general description of a general suicide bomber alert issued the day before, yet he�s been attending that school for several years and walking the same route all that time.

Totally innocent behavior, under circumstances that would otherwise go unnoticed, because they were observed by a CCTV camera and security officer, would likely result in the innocent student being accosted by police on his way to class. Hopefully, the responding officers would act with calm and professionalism and the student would submit to their directives. Consider, however, the scenario if the student, in a rush to get to class, thinking of other matters on a crowded street, did not initially hear the officer�s command to stop. Very quickly the situation could escalate into unnecessary tragedy, all because there was a TV camera on the street.

I know there could be other arguments. What if the �student� was a real suicide bomber and was identified and stopped because of the security cameras. The potential scenarios are endless. The point really is, what are Americans ready to do relative to their security? How much individual liberty are we ready to give up to be secure? This is a difficult question.

I wish more Americans truly understood how much personal freedom they are guaranteed under the Constitution. Terrorism threats argue in favor of more government and security. Some would argue that is part of the victory the terrorists seek against us. Ironically, the true American spirit has always argued in favor of less government and reliance on individual citizens to be responsible for their own lives. That is a historically novel concept, but one that served this Republic well for its first 200 years. Perhaps, even in the 21st century with the scourge of modern terrorism, there is still a place for that uniquely American sense of personal freedom.

" SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON ENGAGING IN CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.
(a) Application of IEEPA Prohibitions to Those Attempting to Evade or Avoid the Prohibitions.--Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) is amended to read as follows:

PENALTIES
SEC. 206.
(a) It shall be unlawful for--
(1) a person to violate or attempt to violate any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this title;
(2) a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any action to evade or avoid, or attempt to evade or avoid, a license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued this title; or
(3) a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to approve, facilitate, or provide financing for any action, regardless of who initiates or completes the action, if it would be unlawful for such person to initiate or complete the action.
(b) A civil penalty of not to exceed $250,000 may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a).
(c) A person who willfully commits, or willfully attempts to commit, an unlawful act described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $500,000, or a natural person, may be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any person who knowingly participates, or attempts to participate, in such unlawful act may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.''.

(b) Production of Records.--Section 203(a)(2) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
(2) In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph (1), the President may require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports, testimony, answers to questions, or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in paragraph (1), either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of such paragraph. The President may require by subpoena or otherwise the production under oath by any person of all such information, reports, testimony, or answers to questions, as well as the production of any required books of accounts, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of any person. The subpoena or other requirement, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate United States district court.''.

(c) Clarification of Jurisdiction To Address IEEPA Violations.--Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is further amended by adding at the end the following:

(d) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue such process described in subsection (a)(2) as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this title.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. While I take a slightly different approach than my colleague from New Jersey, I wish to be clear that my intent is very similar to his; that is, to close loopholes in current U.S. law that allow U.S. firms to do business in terrorist nations or nations that are known to sponsor terrorism and are under U.S. sanctions.

Denying business investment to states that finance or otherwise support terrorist activities, such as Syria, Iran, or Sudan, is critical to the war on terrorism. The United States has had sanctions in place on the Iranian Government for a long time and for good reasons. These sanctions prohibit U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations from doing business in Iran, a nation known as a state sponsor of terrorism. I fully support the use of these sanctions to deny terrorist states funding and investment from American companies.

Currently, U.S. sanctions provisions in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibit U.S. companies from conducting business with nations that are listed on the terrorist sponsor list. The law does not specifically bar foreign subsidiaries of American companies from doing business with terrorist-supporting nations, as long as these subsidiaries are considered truly independent of the parent company.

There have, however, been reports that some U.S. companies have exploited this exception in the law by creating foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies in order to do business with such nations. The allegations are that these foreign subsidiaries are formed and incorporated overseas for the specific purpose of bypassing U.S. sanctions laws that prohibit American corporations from doing business with terrorist-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. There is no doubt that this practice cannot be allowed to continue.

I supported Senator Lautenberg's amendment last year because it was the only proposal before us to deal with this very real problem. The Senator from New Jersey has been very eloquent in speaking about this exploitation of the exceptions in the current sanctions laws. The examples that we have heard, where American firms simply create new shell corporations to execute transactions that they themselves are prohibited from engaging in, are truly outrageous. Clearly, the law does need to be tightened. But we need to be careful about how we go about addressing this problem. I have long felt that while the Senator from New Jersey is correct in his intentions, the specific language of his amendment needs improvement.

We have worked very closely--my staff and I--during the past 6 months, with the administration to draft a proposal that closes the loophole without overreaching. We must draft this measure in a manner that gets at these egregious cases that are so outrageous without overstepping the traditional legal notions of jurisdiction. Otherwise, we may find ourselves harming the war on terror rather than helping.

Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm. That foreign company may even be an American firm with a controlling interest in that foreign company, but under the law, it is still considered to be a foreign corporation.

Senator Lautenberg's proposal requires foreign subsidiaries and their parents to obey both U.S. and applicable foreign law at the same time, even if they are in conflict. Not only does this complicate our relations with other countries, it also puts U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies in danger of being subjected to other nations' laws in retaliation. It also raises all sorts of questions when there are conflicts in the two sets of laws. At a time when we are seeking the maximum active foreign cooperation possible in the global war against terrorism, exerting U.S. law over all foreign companies owned or controlled by U.S. firms and their foreign operations seems to be an imprudent and excessive move. The administration agrees.

Rather than simply declaring many foreign entities subject to U.S. law regardless of their particular situation, my amendment would take four strong steps to improve U.S. sanctions laws--specifically, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act--without raising the concerns that come forth if we take the approach recommended by Senator Lautenberg.

First, my amendment would prohibit any action by a U.S. firm that would avoid or evade U.S. sanctions. This would clearly prohibit the creation of a new shell company for the purposes of evading U.S. sanctions, a situation that has occurred and that we need to prevent.

Second, my amendment would prohibit American firms from ``approving, facilitating or financing'' actions that would violate U.S. sanctions laws if undertaken by a U.S. firm. This would prohibit any involvement by a U.S. parent firm with an existing subsidiary that was engaged in a transaction that violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In order to comply with the law, the U.S. parent firm would need to be totally passive in any transaction. But if the American firm is, in fact, approving the actions of that foreign subsidiary that is doing business in a prohibited country or facilitating it in any way--that is a pretty broad word--or financing those prohibited actions, that would be a violation of our law.

Third, my amendment would increase the maximum penalties per violation under the act from $10,000 to $250,000 for a civil violation and from $50,000 to $500,000. For companies who think that the risk of getting caught is worth it, they will need to think again because now the penalties are sufficient that they have real bite.

Finally, our amendment would provide explicit subpoena authority to obtain records related to transactions covered by the act. Right now, there has been a difficulty in enforcing the sanctions in terms of getting the information that is needed. This would provide subpoena power.

Specifically, by increasing penalties and providing for explicit subpoena authority, I believe my amendment results in a much stronger sanctions regime but without invoking many of the concerns that have been voiced with regard to Senator Lautenberg's amendment.

Again, I want to make clear that I think the goals of the Senator from New Jersey and myself are very similar. The question is how to craft a solution that addresses the problem without overreaching and without causing the possibility of a foreign country retaliating against the American subsidiaries of that country's firm.

I believe that my amendment is the right approach to this critical problem. It will make clear that U.S. corporations cannot circumvent U.S. law. They cannot set up phony shell corporations for the purpose of evading the law. They can't direct a foreign subsidiary to do what they are prohibited from doing under our laws. It will also greatly strengthen and improve the enforcement of the law through the increase in penalties and by vesting subpoena power. At the same time, my approach is carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences that will harm our relations with our international allies.

I encourage my colleagues to support this balanced approach.

[Click to hear audio c/o Globalterroralert.com]

"Another aim and objective of jihad is to drive terror in the hearts of the [infidels].  To terrorize them.  Did you know that we were commanded in the Qur'an with terrorism?  ...Allah said, and prepare for them to the best of your ability with power, and with horses of war.  To drive terror in the hearts of my enemies, Allah's enemies, and your enemies. And other enemies which you don't know, only Allah knows them... So we were commanded to drive terror into the hearts of the [infidels], to prepare for them with the best of our abilities with power.  Then the Prophet said, nay, the power is your ability to shoot.  The power which you are commanded with here, is your ability to shoot.  Another aim and objective of jihad is to kill the [infidels], to lessen the population of the [infidels]... it is not right for a Prophet to have captives until he makes the Earth warm with blood... so, you should always seek to lessen the population of the [infidels]."

In fact, Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal's message was so potent and effective--particularly among Western converts to Islam--that it spread even to the United States.  In the years leading up to 9/11, a group of Faisal's faithful established an alternate base of operations in San Diego, where they marketed tapes endorsing jihad and raised money to help free the Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.  Faisal's supporters in the U.S. also set up an Internet website--www.islamicjihad.com--where American Muslims could seek the advice of the fanatical Jamaican cleric.  Responding to one question submitted online, Faisal explained, �I fully endorse the verdict� in regards to martyrdom operations.  I would recommend to all Muslims who slipped into [atheism] and is now suffering from the disease AIDS to come forward and volunteer to carry out such operations in order to die with some form of dignity and prestige.  With this maybe Allah will forgive you of your sins and give you [heaven].�

Can what took place in London on 7/7 and 7/21 also happen here in the U.S.?  If Faisal's constituents are of any indication, unfortunately, the answer would seem to be yes.  One of the regular visitors to Sheikh Faisal's online forum in early 2001 was an  Islamic convert and Al-Qaida sympathizer claiming to be a veteran of the U.S. Army living in the Washington D.C. area.  "Muhammad Daoud al-Marylandi" identified himself as a "former satcom operator, tactical network switching administrator and several other teams", warning other forum participants to use encryption on communications in order to evade detection by U.S. law enforcement.  He also vigorously advocated that his fellow radicals begin military training at once.  In one message, he pleaded: �Brothers, start learning something even if is Morse code.  Prepare your mindset for jihad if anything� SO you must take it upon yourselves and myself [god-willing] to begin training and learning.  May Allah(swt) bless all of us with success in this life and the next .�  In an earlier post, �Muhammad Daood� was more specific about what exactly he meant by training: �Learn about weapons every type you can imagine.  ANd learn about: Breathe Relax Aim and Squeeze� Get in Shape, [god-willing] the [infidel�s] military have left me in great shape.  [Praise God]� Learn CLOSE QUARTER COMBAT.�

From a law enforcement perspective, lessons learned since 9/11 should play a significant role in formulating future financial investigative direction. First, we must understand vulnerabilities in terms of systemic societal vulnerabilities and areas of vulnerability to terrorist interests. Systemic vulnerabilities represent systemic weaknesses that terrorists and criminal elements, especially fraudsters, exploit in furtherance of their activities. It�s incumbent that law enforcement and other agencies responsible for controls recognize such weaknesses and implement mechanisms to minimize such exploitation. Systemic vulnerabilities exploited by Islamic Radicals include:

� Identity theft/fraud
� Alien smuggling
� Travel facilitation
� Fraud schemes
� Informal value transfer systems
� Money laundering
� Non-Government Organizations (NGO�s)/charities
� Mosques
� Internet

The two most significant areas of vulnerability or weakness to terrorists and terrorist organizations are communications and finance. These two areas consistently lead to the disruption and dismantlement of terrorist groups and activities. Investigative initiatives should be proactively developed to specifically address terrorist communications and financing. Although terrorists consistently change their methods of operations and demonstrate adaptability at avoiding detection, they must communicate, and raise and spend money to function. This is where law enforcement and intelligence efforts must exploit the weaknesses of terrorists.

By combining financial information and communication information, such as telephone records, a time line can be developed concerning the activities of the terrorists, their facilitators and other supporters. Importantly relational evidence will be quickly developed which could lead to the prompt identification and apprehension of additional terrorist subjects.

Another lesson learned is the importance of developing and implementing time sensitive investigative techniques, particularly time sensitive financial investigative techniques. The immediacy and severity of terrorist threats require investigative strategies that present a sense of urgency. More often then not, circumstances cause investigative strategies to the threats at hand to be reactive and not proactive. More focus must be dedicated to developing proactive investigative techniques. One area where proactive investigative strategies can be implemented is in terrorist financing, which as discussed above is one of the most significant areas of weakness to terrorists. From a tactical standpoint, strategies have been implemented which allow the near real time tracking of financial transactions. This is a truly powerful technique. It requires close coordination and cooperation between law enforcement and the financial community.

Proactive investigative initiatives implemented by the FBI since 9/11 include operations focused on strategic terrorist financial targets, data mining, 24/7 financial monitoring and national coordination strategies. One initiative to mention in more detail is the 24/7 financial monitoring. It is critically important that law enforcement and the financial sector establish and maintain mechanisms to retrieve financial information in as expeditious a fashion as possible. The FBI�s Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS) has established a network of over 400 financial firms who can provide near real time information concerning terrorist investigations on a 24/7 basis.

An important lesson learned is the critical need for actionable criminal and intelligence analysis, and information sharing. Both the FBI and CIA were harshly criticized for their
pre 9/11 failures in this area. The same problem was identified in the European Union following the Madrid bombings in March 2004. Since 9/11, much has been done in the United States to improve analysis and the flow of information out to all levels of law enforcement.

Based on my experience in working with the various investigative and intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom, I am fully confident that they have implemented the financial investigative methodologies to expedite the identification and apprehension of all individuals responsible for the heinous attacks in London. I know that there has been much coordination between British agencies and their international counterparts to include the FBI and CIA. Such cooperative efforts and information sharing will further work to disrupt and dismantle terrorist operations.

Unfortunately, it took the tragic events of 7/7, and now the lesser attacks of today, to perhaps make the British government and people realize why there are such immigration statutes on the books. The Brits have finally awakened to the fact they have a large number of not only home grown but foreign hate-mongers who preach and teach, openly or in subtler behind the scenes double-speak, the incitement of terror. It is entirely appropriate that a government, even a democratic Western government, enact and enforce reasonable provisions within its immigration laws to exclude and remove foreigners who engage in such activity. That is simply a matter of security and protection.

While the US Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has, for many years, had specific provisions related to national security and terrorism, the USA Patriot Act specifically amended the INA to include a provision which excludes aliens who endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or try to persuade others to support terrorism. This provision is found in Title 8, Section 1182 of the United States Code (Section 212 of the INA).

8 USC, Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are
inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to
receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
(3) Security and related grounds
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who -
(VI) has used the alien's position of prominence within
any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to
persuade others to support terrorist activity or a
terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of
State has determined undermines United States efforts to
reduce or eliminate terrorist activities, or
(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is
inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing
the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last
5 years,
is inadmissible.

While our British allies have their own immigration laws and system, there are similarities to ours. They may perhaps look to our experience in such matters. As porous as our immigration system is, we have managed to have some notable successes in the national security arena and at least have a small cadre of current and former immigration law enforcement and legal professionals well experienced in counter-terrorism cases.

The pamphlet stated �[i]t is not halal for the rules of Turkey to ally themselves with the Jewish state which is a usurpous (sic) enemy with whom we are at war. This is one of the great crimes committed against Muslims whether in Turkey or any other place in the Islamic world. The people in Turkey and outside Turkey must remove these treacherous rulers.� Their animus towards Turkey, however, is not new nor is it limited to any alliance with Israel. Hizb ut-Tahrir claims that the original Muslim Caliphate was dismantled by Kamal Attaturk in 1924, resulting in the rest of the Muslim states being �torn to pieces� and �steeped in humiliation and disgrace.� They claim it is obligatory for all Muslims to resurrect the Khilafah, because �it is the source of [Muslim] glory and the way to [Muslim] strength and unity.�

Hizb ut-Tahir, or �Party of Liberation,� is an extremist Islamic political party. Founded in Jordan in 1953 by Sheikh Taqiuddin an Nabhani, its chief objective is to re-establish the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) by attempting to force governments to �resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic Call to the world.� They want to �bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah (Islamic community) into a struggle with the Kufr (infidels), its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the whole world.�

Although it is unclear as to how Hizb ut-Tahrir plans to carry out the establishment of the Khilafah, it will certainly not be through democratic means. Interestingly, they claim to be a political party, but deplore Muslims who participate in democratic elections. In the recent elections in Iraq and Britain, Hizb ut-Tahrir demanded that Muslims not participate in the local elections and, at the same time, encouraged Muslim resistance to the coalition forces. Hizb ut-Tahrir members disrupted several events during the British election campaign, and were blamed for various acts of vandalism and intimidation of the electorate.

Just this past December, a Hizb ut-Tahrir manifesto titled �Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for Change� was distributed at a Muslim conference in Toronto titled �Reviving the Islamic Spirit.� �Change� according to the book, means �unifying the Muslim lands under the Khilafah State, and then carrying Islam to the rest of the world by invitation and Jihad.� The book further claims that �it is not allowed for the disbelievers to have authority over the believers, because giving them authority means that the security of Muslims is in the hands of Kufr (the infidels) and not in the hands of Islam� and calls for holy war in Muslim lands, stating that �war should be declared against rules if they don�t establish the rules of Islam and display its rituals, and that we should fight against them if they establish the rules of Kufr.� And now, through the auspices of the Guardian, Hizb ut-Tahrir has the ability to spread their propaganda to a mainstream audience.

Brian deserves all the credit for this research and the results.

The General Assembly's Sixth Committee has been studying adoption of such a convention for years. And it has continually been hung up the issue of a terrorism definition. But, there is new impetus now for such a definition and comprehensive convention. And Secretary General Kofi Annan, has strongly urged that the group �unite behind the clear definition of terrorism� proposed earlier this year by the UN�s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. That panel called for a definition that would make it clear that �any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.� This language is supported by the United States and other G-8 members, but questioned by several Middle East and other governments that continue to support so called �freedom fighters� even though they continue to employ terrorism tactics.

The Security Council also has an important role to play in beefing up its response to international terrorism. The mission of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its new Executive Directorate (CTED) continues to languish, suffering from a lack of direction and qualified staff. The CTC was originally intended to serve as a platform for mutual assistance and international cooperation in tracking down and prosecuting terrorists. It was also charged with assisting member countries in drafting new laws and regulations to combat terrorism. But, its efforts were dissipated by an inability to engage countries in any meaningful dialogue concerning their counter-terrorism activities. The Security Council sought to revitalize the CTC with a new mandate in resolution 1566 (2004), but the group still remains short-staffed and its work continues to lack clear direction.

The Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee continues to play an important role in maintaining and deseminating a list of identified al Qaeda and Taliban members and associated individuals and entities. This list provides the basis for State action against these individuals and entities, which according to Security Council Resolutions includes imposing and policing specific sanctions measures aimed at freezing their assets, curbing their mobility and cutting off their access to weapons and explosives. The United States is now circulating a new draft resolution to beef up this operation. According to press reports, the draft resolution proposes new language to �more precisely� define the criteria for designating individuals or entities on this UN list. But, one must be careful that such additional criteria does not just make it more time consuming and difficult to place known al Qaeda operatives or supporters on the UN list.

The draft resolution also requests that Interpol integrate the UN list into its own look-out data base. Absent from the draft, however, are any new provisions that would expand or tighten further the measures now applied to al Qaeda and Taliban members and associates. An earlier draft sought to strengthen the role of the Committee�s monitoring team by charging it with identifying countries which failed to implement the measures. This provision was apparently dropped in the face of Committee opposition. The result is that the draft now circulating continues to retain close Committee control over the monitoring team reducing any likelihood that it might play an effective �name and shame� role. These control measures include requirements that the Monitoring Team submit a comprehensive programme of work to the Committee for its review and approval, consult with States prior to traveling to their country, consult with such states again following their trip and "take into account" their comments with regard to any references made concerning them in their report. In addition the Monitoring teams final reports are subject to debate, review and approval by the committee before issuance and release. (See resolution 1526 (2004) and annex thereto). This writer, for one, believes these extensive "political controls" can only impede the important task of the Monitoring Team to monitor and report on the actual implementation by States of the measures against al Qaeda. They must be relaxed if the Monitoring Team is truly to carry out its important mandate in an objective and transparent manner.

Visas provide our nation with another layer of protection we cannot afford to do without. In this commerce-driven world we are exchanging security for profit. My friend Peter Gadiel of 911 Families For a Secure America, whose son was slaughtered in the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, refers to the view taken by our political and business leaders where the potential for the loss of innocent life at the hands of terrorists as "The cost of doing business!" I fear he is justified in making that statement. The thing is that it is not only our "leaders" who don't seem to give a damn, it would appear that there are many others in other countries who show a similar lack of resolve and spine to confront international terrorists with meaningful strategies and cooperation.

Germany wants to have its citizens travel freely around the world including visa-free travel to the United States. On the other hand, they refuse to cooperate with other nation's efforts to apprehend and neutralize terrorists and their supporters. They will succeed in not having to turn over the suspect in this case. They will also demand the right to have their citizens travel freely to the United States and elsewhere. When there is another terrorist attack somewhere in the world, no one should be surprised- we are still not treating this crisis as we should.

On the second case: I just received the latest edition of the ICE Newsletter and one of the main stories caught my eye. I have consistently opposed the Visa Waiver Program for 3 reasons. First of all, it provides a level of protection against bad guys who would want to enter the United States to ply their trades whether they are shoplifters, drug dealers, members of gangs and/or organized crime groups or terrorists. Second, if you are investigating a criminal or terrorist organization it is important to have all of the information you can obtain about members of the organization that you are investigating. An application for a non-immigration visa can furnish critical information beyond the obvious photographs and fingerprints. Finally, and this relates back to the article that predicated this e-mail, when you are investigating criminals and terrorists your goal is to neutralize them. Virtually everyone is familiar with the fact that Al Capone was not arrested for murder, gun running, assault or even bootlegging during the days of Prohibition. Even though he was involved with all of those activities and other such violent and heinous crimes, his failure to pay income tax ultimately caused his undoing. He was successfully prosecuted for income tax evasion.

Immigration benefit fraud can be similarly used to successfully prosecute various criminals and terrorists. In fact, visa fraud committed in support of narcotics trafficking now carries a maximum sentence of 20 years of incarceration while visa fraud committed in conjunction with terrorist objectives carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in jail. However, aliens who are permitted to enter the United States without a visa cannot be prosecuted for visa fraud because they never applied for a visa in order to enter the United States. Incidentally, visa fraud is a crime that is committed when an alien lies on an application for a visa where the lie concerns a material fact such as membership in a terrorist organization, a past criminal history or other such information which, if known by the official who adjudicates the application for the visa would have caused that official to deny the application.

The linked ICE article shows how a terrorist has been "taken down" for having committed fraud on his application for United States citizenship. While I understand that there are folks in the travel industry who fear that the visa requirement would present an inconvenience to travelers, I would suggest that there is a great inconvenience to be concerned with. Terrorist attacks in which many people are killed or injured and buildings are demolished.

During my last appearance at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security I made the statement that if our nation reacted to the attack on Pearl Harbor the way that we have reacted to the attacks of September 11, there would be a different flag flying over our nation's Capitol.

Finally, the Alamoudi case: George W. Bush has spoken wistfully about wanting to admit "good-hearted" aliens into the United States who simply want to work in our country. While admittedly many illegal aliens are simply and purely motivated to violate our borders to send money back to their family members in Mexico and other such nations, some of these aliens are, in fact, so-called "sleepers." They present the image of a person who is simply seeking employment and thus are able to "hide in plain sight." Although with the current situation where the enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is concerned, they don't need go to great lengths to hide since the odds are excellent that there is no one looking for them. The 2,000 special agents of ICE that are supposed to enforce the immigration laws throughout the entire United States is so pathetically small a number as to be virtually negligible.

The article shows how easily our politicians including two Presidents of the United States, one from each party, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, were so easily snookered by a key fund raiser for al Qaeda. Abdurahman Alamoudi was that individual. I ask that you put his name is Google to read more about him and his treachery. In order for any organization to accomplish goals, money is one of the first requirements. We have seen terrorist organizations develop their skills at generating money from legal, quasi-legal and blatantly illegal activities. Our nation is not only a target for radical Islamic terrorists, it is also the cash cow for these violent organizations. These terrorist organizations have become proficient at working their way into the political mechanism of our country and our politicians are often manipulated by them. Politicians are generally intent on portraying themselves as being balanced, and they are greatly concerned with gaining votes and campaign contributions. The terrorists are well aware of this and have played this to their maximum advantage. This endangers our nation an imperils our allies. I only ask, will anyone learn from this incredible blunder?

Here is the link to the documents filed by the federal prosecutor to seek Alamoudi's incarceration. I would remind you that this is the same person who was spoken so highly of by some of the highest ranking members of our political establishment. I have often used the term "Hide in plain sight." This guy could not be more visible if he tried! Also see this article and this column about Alamoudi.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the safety minions goes something like this: now illegal alien workers everywhere will be reluctant to deal with OSHA and state and local safety officials for fear they will really be dealing with immigration cops and will be arrested; therefore, workplaces will be more dangerous. Oh my�because the big bad ICE arrested 48 illegal alien workers, with false identification documents, employed at a combat operational US Air Force base as part of an ongoing homeland security campaign, suddenly hundreds of thousands of other illegal alien construction workers will refuse to listen to an OSHA worker tell them to put on their hard hats?

It appears officials at OSHA have been infected with the same sanctuary virus that has been running through the veins of too many mayors, city councils and even police chiefs, requiring their local employees to refuse cooperation with Federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of US immigration laws. Being an immigration cop is tough enough, having another Federal agency refuse cooperation and criticize a legitimate enforcement operation is entirely inappropriate. Of course, some of the media has dutifully fallen in line with its own criticism of the ICE operation using �undue subterfuge.� One must wonder, if the targeted violations had been narcotics trafficking or illegal firearms or explosives, would the criticism of such a sting scenario be as it is? Once again, however, immigration law violations are relegated to something akin to traffic offences. That might be expected from certain media sources, but from other Federal agencies?

And, speaking of other Federal agencies�perhaps they should be alerted to a specific section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Admittedly, this statute is seldom used, and probably even most of the High Command of DHS and ICE are not even aware they have this legal tool at their disposal (maybe they should), but it is potentially quite useful when it comes to dealing with the likes of annoyances such as OSHA bureaucrats buzzing about law enforcement stings. It is 8 USC 1360(b), within Section 290 of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

(b) Information from other departments and agencies
Any information in any records kept by any department or agency
of the Government as to the identity and location of aliens in the
United States shall be made available to the Service upon request
made by the Attorney General to the head of any such department or
agency.

The DHS Act transfers all the authorities under the Act relegated to the AG to the DHS Secretary, so such authority now lies with DHS. So, if DHS really chose to, it could legally require an agency like OSHA, that probably maintains lots of information about lots of illegal alien worker identities and locations (whether it realizes it or not) thanks to all those �safety inspections� and training programs it�s so concerned about, to research and turn over all that information. Maybe the State and Federal safety bureaucrats should simply get with the National Security program and let the beleaguered immigration cops do their difficult law enforcement jobs without undeserved post-op criticism. On this one, the ICE folks and their fellow badge carriers deserve the kudos.

President Arroyo has stubbornly clung to power. Without admitting guilt or acknowledging that it was her voice on the tape asking the election official for a �million vote� margin of victory, she has acknowledged �poor judgment.� Opposition parties have begun impeachment proceedings, while the President announced yesterday the formation of a �Truth Commission� to look into allegations of electoral fraud. Meanwhile both sides try to put together larger public demonstrations. She is unlikely to resign. Her political coalition still has a congressional majority, while there is no moral compass in the Catholic church like the recently deceased Cardinal Jaime Sin, who led the people power revolutions in 1986 and 2001. The Bishops have not called on her to stand down. Likewise, the army has not withdrawn its support for President Arroyo as it did with Presidents Marcos and Estrada. Finally no one in the Philippines really wishes to see her vice president, the journalist turned Senator, Noli de Castro, assume power. So her position is fairly secure in the short run.

What does a prolonged political crisis mean for the war on terror in the country that has proven to be Asia's soft underbelly? Well it's not good at all. With five years left in her term, the scandal plagued President Arroyo is not only quacking like a duck, but growing webbing between her toes. The peace process with the MILF is the first casualty.

The latest cabinet members to step down are Ging Deles, the head of the Office of the Presidential Advisor of the Peace Process and Silvestre Affable, the head of the GRP Peace Panel.

While the MILF have been silent on the unrest in Manila, they are quite concerned. Affable and Deles were outspoken proponents of the peace process and voices of optimism amongst the cynics. The peace process has relied on (arguably too many) back channel talks but that conduit was Affable. The MILF have lost a friend, someone in the GRP they trusted. Deles withstood pressure from the US Embassy when evidence of MILF links to the regional Al Qaeda affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) surfaced. She never let the issue of terrorism interfere with the peace process.

While both the GRP and MILF insist that their peace panel working committees are still working and are ready to meet again in Kuala Lumpur next month, there is nothing that they can do, sign or implement without unequivocal political support or involvement from the President. Both are sorely lacking.

Can the MILF have any confidence that a peace agreement can be reached or that the president will ever be strong enough to get the partisan congress to support it, let alone implement it? This president doesn't have a peso of political capital to spend ($1=P56).

At the same time, the hapless Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is still involved in its manhunt against Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), an opportunity they always use to �sucker punch� the MILF. Two days ago, the MILF fired on an AFP helicopter wounding a soldier when it was operating in MILF controlled territory. With a weak president unable to constrain the AFP, what will the military brass need as a casus belli to restart the war? And people wonder why the MILF can't be weaned from JI and the ASG? For them it has always been a rational choice, an insurance policy should the peace process break down. And any resumption of war will play into the MILF hard-liner's hands. This would be unfortunate because the Central Committee has recently sidelined the most outspoken critics of the peace process.

The GRP has never been a strong state, but it's been a while since it was this weak. That, sadly, will have regional security implications.

This ideological lava cannot stop anywhere short of an explosion. Besides, the web recruiting centers for Chechniya, Palestine, Cashemire and even Sudan were obvious, open and playing the mainstream game. They weren�t displaying a sense of underground. In short, the London based Jihadis-online didn�t seem to fear British authorities. A year later, I watched an interesting chat online in a seemingly benign cyber- spot based in the British isles. Few months before al Qaida attacks the USS Cole in Yemen, the "brothers" were discussing the dar al harb notion. Although the �room� was not claimed by the now-infamous al Muhajirun and their Syrian-born Omar Bakri, it had all the fingerprints of this organization. The �mentor,� answering a question by interested souls unequivocally stated in Arabic: �Britania aduw kafir, walakin nahnu naeeshu fiha.� Which literally means: �Britain is an infidel enemy, but we live in it for now.� The debate was enlightening: Even though the West wasn�t spared as part of dar al harb (War zone by Jihadi doctrine), the emirs were to decide upon the re-launching of the operations against the country of their choice. There were questions about the 1993 Ghazwa (raid) against the Twin Towers in New York. The answers were amazingly in line with Jihadi thinking: �al darura (necessity) will decide where and when.�

Luton

On a train to Luton, where I was invited to deliver a lecture, a man approached me (probably because of my Middle Eastern looks) and engaged me ideologically. His insistence to know about my views, religion, and professional affiliations stunned me. Speaking perfect British English, he said he belonged to the �Sunna wal ansar� group, and mainly interested in gathering support to the �brothers� in the battlefields around the world. He invited me to a meeting of the shabab in Brighton and moved to another person. It wasn�t the substance of his talk that impressed me, but how assured he was psychologically. He had no concerns about any sort of authority. He was as comfortable as the Mormons evangelists, possibly freer.

Leeds

The final leg of my trip took me to Leeds. Hundreds of miles to the north of the capital, I didn�t expect to encounter �their� presence that far from London. I was wrong: I met the Salafi Jihadi phenomenon in a small sandwich shop. Books, newsletters and fliers were on the counter. Regardless of who dropped them there, the owners or workers, these reading material were destined to be absorbed by Arabic-speaking minds. Papers do not walk into these cities by themselves. They are brought in for a purpose by carriers who intend to spread an ideology, calls for holy wars and addresses were to go to.

Allah�s justice

This sociological field trip in 1999 England was revealing: The Jihadists have penetrated the country since the end of the cold war. Any expert in the field would have understood as of the mid 1990s that the systematic spread of the Salafi ideology and its activists in the UK was to end up in Terrorism. It was ineluctable that the British dar al Harb had to be attacked at some point; especially when many among its elites �inside academia or its political establishment- were confirming what the Islamists were convinced of: That the country was indeed evil, and it needed justice. An Allah administered justice. But while British elite-apologists aimed, such as MP George Galloway, at changes in Foreign policy, their Jihadi sympathizers aimed at the British people while attending their daily lives on July 7."

I discussed this article on The G. Gordon Liddy Show this morning and had several calls from law enforcement officers, all of whom agreed with my thesis that we need to move from a rigidly bureaucratized approach to protecting terrorist targets toward one where police are given more leeway to use their own ingenuity and intuition.

I wrote this article last weekend, before Bill West's July 12 post on bolstering transit security.  However, I was interested to see that Bill and I had similar thoughts on the matter.  Bill argues:

A key component to enhancing the security of the Nation�s land transit systems will be to quite simply increase the manpower and training available to these transit police and security forces.  The presence of uniformed armed police officers in train stations and bus terminals and aboard those trains, as well as plainclothes undercover officers conducting covert surveillance in the stations and aboard the trains and buses, makes for a powerful deterrent.  The more such officers there are, and the better trained they are, especially if they are trained in behavioral profiling techniques like the Israeli security services have used for decades, the better protected these transportation systems will be.

Bill and I are on the same page about the need for improvements in training, and would like to see an emphasis on policing -- rather than controlled-access security systems -- to protect important soft targets.  I'm not sure that I agree with his desire to increase manpower; making better use of what we have now would be a start.

The London attacks occurred under everyone�s radar. Obviously the Intelligence, security and law enforcement services of all the Good Guys failed to prevent, preempt and disrupt that one�and the Brits are among the best at at least keeping tabs on the bad guys.

Once again, we are tragically reminded how tragically un-secure our border and immigration systems truly are. It is quite likely all the suspects, at least the ones publicly identified so far, would have been able to easily enter the US under the visa waiver program through 7/6. How many others like the 7/7 terrorists already have? That is the real problem in this regard. Notwithstanding all the assurances from our Government authorities that we are safer since 9/11, and to be fair we are safer in some regards, the truth is it is still very easy for alien terrorists, especially those who are dangerously �clean� to the Intelligence and law enforcement communities, to enter the United States because our border and immigration controls are woefully inadequate. And, as I�ve said before, we should not only be concerned about those terrorist aliens who may yet arrive at our borders, but also be even more concerned about the very many who have taken advantage of our immigration chaos over the years and are already here.

One of the lessons learned from 9/11, which has manifested itself in the aftermath of the London bombings is the critical importance of conducting time sensitive, time urgent investigations in terrorism matters. To their credit, investigators in London have done a masterful job of conducting a fast paced investigation. Time sensitive, time urgent investigative techniques are especially important in conducting the financial investigative component of a terrorism investigation.

As was the case in the United States immediately after 9/11, authorities are concerned about the potential for a second wave of attacks in London. One of the best mechanisms to determine if there are additional members of the terrorist cell, or if there is a support infrastructure, is to conduct a comprehensive financial investigation. Financial records and analysis will play an important role in establishing a timeline for the daily activities and associations of the identified subjects. Coupled with an analysis of communications to include telephones and internet, a thorough footprint will develop.

This brings me to the point of this article. Investigators must be afforded the best opportunity available to conduct time sensitive, time urgent investigations. This is particularly challenging in conducting financial investigations, which are inherently slow paced and cumbersome.

Two mechanisms that would enhance the ability to conduct financial investigations in a more time sensitive, time urgent manner in the United States would be the granting of authority by Congress for the FBI to serve administrative subpoenas in terrorism investigations and to have financial records requested by law enforcement produced by financial institutions in an electronic format.

The FBI has administrative subpoena authority for investigations of crimes to include drug trafficking, health care fraud and child exploitation. Such authority is lacking for terrorism cases. Approval of administrative subpoenas for terrorism investigations would enhance the FBI�s ability to conduct time sensitive, time urgent investigations. The Bureau has a proven record of issuing administrative subpoenas in an appropriate manner. Administrative subpoenas are subject to judicial scrutiny. FBI officials are accountable for the issuance of administrative subpoenas. The FBI, as Director Mueller has consistently stated, is mindful of, and dedicated to, protecting the civil rights of the American people. Those who are opposed to granting the FBI such authority should acquaint themselves with all the facts before reaching unfounded conclusions. Put in context, in the war on terrorism, the FBI are the good guys and terrorists are the bad guys. Questioning the motives of the good guys and jumping to the conclusion that by virtue of having administrative subpoena authority the FBI would abuse the privilege is wrong. The bad guys, the terrorists want to cause as much death and destruction as they can inflict. We need to support the good guys and give them what is needed to stop the bad guys and to protect our society from vicious attacks.
I was responsible for writing the following statement taken from the testimony of current FBI Deputy Director John Pistole when he appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on September 25, 2003. It is as relevant today as it was when written.
�One of the biggest challenges facing law enforcement when it comes to financial records analysis is the unavailability of financial records in electronic format. In the past, it was common for investigators to request and financial institutions to provide copies of financial records such as statements, copies of checks or deposit slips in hard-copy (i.e., paper) form. The delays inherent to their production and forwarding to law enforcement was complicated by the fact that the records were not readily accessible by the financial institution and because they are often in paper form they are not readily searchable or retrievable. This is especially true when time is of the essence during emerging threat situations where access to and analysis of the records is critical. Some financial institutions have made great strides in converting and storing their transactional and customer records in electronic format. The credit card industry is a good example of this. Many banks and institutions even allow their customers to view and download their account transactional data via the internet into financial management programs. However, others because of the nature of their business or the costs involved do not digitally store or are not capable of producing records electronically.
Future law enforcement investigations would be significantly enhanced if financial institutions were to develop and adopt standards of best practices for the storage and production of financial records in electronic format. Countless hours and resources on the part of private industry and the government could be saved if these records were stored and produced in a format that eliminated the need for investigators to re-input or type the information back into financial analysis programs.
Currently when records are not available in a digital format, we utilize high-speed scanners to scan and copy the records. Text is thereby converted to Optical Character Recognition (OCR) searchable text. By "digitizing" the documents into scanned, searchable images they become immediately available to all with a need or interest in the records. Digitizing the records not only facilitates rapid dissemination of the documents but also provides for enhanced searching and analysis. Storage, retrieval and discovery production costs are also thereby reduced. Once the records are digital, then advanced searching tools may be applied against them to identify key information, patterns or trends.
However, as long as relevant records remain in paper form whether held by the financial institution or the government, investigators are impeded in their timely dissemination and analysis. This can have an impact on our preventative efforts.
In summary, the increased promotion of anti-terrorist financing training both domestically and internationally would go a long way towards furthering cooperation and raising awareness of patterns in terrorist financing. Efforts to interdict illegal money remitters which undermine our financial institutions and provide a potential avenue for illicit funds to be transferred should be pursued. Finally, the production of financial records in electronic format would facilitate not only sharing and analysis, but increase our ability to tactically respond to emerging threats.�

Today, two more teachers were gunned down, bringing the total of assassinated teachers to 27. Teachers are perceived as agents of assimilation, and in remote rural communities, schools are the only real manifestation of the state. Over 3,000 teachers have requested transfers-and there is now a pilot program to have army soldiers serve as replacement teachers.

People are fleeing the south en masse. Just under 10 percent of the South�s 360,000 Buddists have fled. The militant�s pogrom is, sadly, working. At the same time, there attacks against their coreligionists have also increased. Moderate Muslims who are civil servants, local headmen or people deemed to be government collaborators and informants have been systematically gunned down. Hard-line Salafism is being imposed. As much as this is an insurgency, it is also a cultural revolution.

There is a lot of concern that the insurgency is gaining momentum. The first six months of 2005 saw some 115 bombings and attempted bombings and 179 deaths. In May, there were 26 bombings, a rate of almost one per day. In June, the number increased to 36 bombings and attempted bombings, with some 207 people killed and 601 wounded in Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani.

Synchronized attacks are also becoming routine. While the triple bombings of 3 April in Songkhla and Yala which killed two and wounded over 80, demonstrated that the insurgents retained the capacity to carry out near simultaneous bombings across two targets, as well as to target key economic infrastructure, such as the Hat Yai airport, what was less reported in the press was that nine bombs were actually set. A quadruple bombing occurred in Yala in June. Yesterday saw six simultaneous bombings.

What is most alarming is that Thai security forces still have such a poor understanding of the insurgency. Their intelligence is pretty abysmal. To date not one bomb factory was raided, and the only explosive materiel that has been seized was 880kg of ammonium nitrate found on a truck at a roadside checkpoint in June. How much has gotten through? Only 12 of the 58 known insurgent leaders have been captured. Less than half of the some 100 people with warrants have been arrested.

Yesterday the Thaksin government passed a royal decree establishing an �Emergency Powers Law.� The law, which allows the government greater powers to tap phones, and hold suspects without charges, also allows for press censorship. There is little evidence that these powers, that will devastate human rights and the rule of law, already eroded under Thaksin, will do anything to help stem the insurgency.

While there is concern that the regional Al Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) will get involved leading to an escalation of the conflict, to date there is only the faintest of evidence that JI is involved. JI needs to foment sectarian violence to create a Manichean worldview, to create a sense of victimization, of persecution, and to relay the sense that the secular states are at best not protecting the interests of the Muslim community and at worse actively complicit against it. But JI remains focused on Malaysia and Indonesia, where they have deep networks and a long history, as well as in Mindanao liaising, and training with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Abu Sayyaf Group. JI has tried to deepen their relationship to Thai Muslims in the past, with only limited success. Though they may be sympathetic to and aspire towards JI, Thai separatist groups till now have been cognizant that the Thai government will not tolerate JI�s involvement and as such, JI�s known/discovered role ultimately will be counterproductive for them. That said, conditions and attitudes can change. Moreover, the insurgency is going better than they could have hoped; there is little need to court JI at present. Other groups, such as HUJI-B and the Rohinga Solidarity Organization have ties to the Thai militants. There is some indication that Cambodian Islamists, who traditionally have close links with their co-religionists in Thailand, are joining the insurgents. Thai authorities should also be concerned about �bleed-out� from Iraq as Jihadis move on to the next crisis spot. It is a matter of time before the broader Islamic militant community focuses on Thailand�s treatment of its Muslim minority. The systematic persecution of Muslims is the light that attracts the jihadi moths.

He also discussed the Arab Bank, which is under DOJ investigation and agreed to a Consent Order for "its failure to exercise due diligence with regard to its customer base and for its failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports." He said that the case is evidence of "the failure of the federal regulator to adequately supervise that bank and for the bank itself to comply with U.S. regulations. The parallels to the Riggs Bank case are striking, and disturbing." (See Lee Wolosky's post on the Arab Bank case and my earlier post on the Riggs Bank case.) Sens. Hagel and Bunning had different views of the status of terrorist financing - they were concerned that banks, especially smaller institutions, have been overburdened and are filing SARs defensively without reason.

The senior U.S. Treasury Department official for anti-terrorist financing issues, Stuart Levey, said the U.S. continues to pressure the Saudis, Syria, and most recently Libya to halt terrorist financing from within their borders. He said that the Saudis - private donors and charities - remain a "significant source" of terrorist funds.

I posted on April 13 that the Justice Department was considering an important change in the protocols for bank prosecutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. Until recently, U.S. Attorneys could pursue prosecutions without clearing them through DOJ headquarters, a practice that was both inconsistent with established procedure under the Annunzio-Wylie Money Laundering Act of 1992 and very troubling to the industry, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve System. The American Banker reports this week (paid suscription) that DOJ headquarters changed the protocols as predicted. Despite published denials by senior DOJ officials, the practical impact of the change will be to significantly lower the chances that banks will face criminal prosecution, as AmSouth Bank faced last year, for egregious Bank Secrecy Act violations.

While Western forces continue to scale back their activities in the Balkans and slash their intelligence-gathering capabilities there in the mistaken belief that things are returning to normal, radical Islamists are steadily preparing for renewed activity and are already engaged in acts of violence. The gun that killed Dutch film maker Theo Van Gough came from the Bosnia. The huge, unsecured stockpiles of weapons and explosives make obtaining these items easy. And there are still militant Islamists in positions of power. The foremost is Hasan Cengic, now in the Bosnia parliament, was a former deputy defense minister in charge of arming Bosnian Muslims during the Bosnian war. He set up, with the help of a very reluctant U.S. intelligence community, a weapons pipeline that ran primarily through Iran. He was also a director of the Third World Relief Agency, (TWRA), the fake Islamic charity that funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to radical Islamists during that conflict. Much of the money remains unaccounted for. TWRA officially went out of business in 1996, but more than $300 million in assets were not accounted for. It is interesting to note that Viktor Bout, happily flying for the U.S. military and KBR in Iraq and Afghanistan, dealt with Cengic often and provided him with at least one aircraft during the Bosnia war.

It is often forgotten that Bosnia played an extemely significant role in the formation of al Qaeda, and that the infrastructure established during that war were never erradicated. Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups used Bosnia as a training ground, a financial center, a weapons storage site and a money laundering center. Bosnia is still an active center for all of those activities. We ignore the obvious signs of danger at our own expense. Maybe the supply of high-grade explosives from the region will finally focus the necessary attention on Bosnia as an unfinished enterprise.

�Catch and release� refers, of course, to the policy of releasing on personal recognizance the vast majority of these non-Mexican illegal aliens after they are arrested and processed for removal proceedings. The aliens are served with �Notice to Appear� charging documents and then released, often being driven in Border Patrol vehicles to the nearest bus or train stations for onward transportation to wherever they are destined. The situation has become so ridiculous that such non-Mexican illegals are actually seeking out Border Patrol agents along the border once they have made it in so they can surrender themselves, knowing full well that after a few hours of detention they will be free and on their way to the interior of the US. Exceptionally demoralized Border Patrol agents have taken to calling those charging documents �Notices to Disappear� because, and here is the true insanity, some 85% of those released illegal aliens fail to appear for their subsequent removal hearing in Immigration Court.

Working the numbers, just from last year and so far this year, that means we can easily expect more than 150,000 illegal aliens that were arrested and at least initially detained to become absconder fugitives from the immigration system. And, while the Government tells us these people are released because they were determined to have no criminal records and not to be a security threat, what does that really mean? It means the identity known to the arresting authorities at the time, along with the fingerprints, did not surface on any of the lookout/watch list databases queried, and whatever interrogation was done did not trip any immediate suspicions. Arguably, seventeen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers would have passed that test, as likely would have all of the four 7/7 suicide bomber suspects.

And, what of those very few, the 15% who actually show up for Immigration Court? Here�s a brief example of how the removal court process works:
- Initial Hearing before Immigration Judge (to decide administrative issues and set scheduling)
- Merits Hearing(s) before Immigration Judge (to hear the evidence of the case and render a decision, sometimes the decision is rendered later)
- Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (can take many months, even a year or more to decide)
- Appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (can take many months, sometimes a year or more, depending on the Circuit and case)
- Appeal to the US Supreme Court (rare for a case to be accepted here)
- Habeas action to US District Court if alien is detained (anytime during proceedings if alien is detained)
- Motions to Reopen before the Immigration Court or Board of Immigration Appeals
All of these proceedings can literally take years, especially if the alien is not detained. In this regard, it would even make sense for the alien to actually show up for their court proceedings, especially since every jurisdiction has pro-bono immigration defense legal services available, and fight their cases as far as they can. While the aliens are in removal proceedings, they are in effect in a legal limbo (generally won�t be touched further by immigration authorities), can sometimes be granted employment authorization status, and in some states, especially if they apply for relief from removal such as political asylum, may be eligible for public assistance benefits while all the proceedings are pending. From the illegal alien perspective, what�s not to like?

Homeland Security officials tell us they simply cannot detain all the aliens that are caught on the border. Mexican aliens are summarily returned to Mexico after a brief detention and processing, most only to turn around and attempt illegal entry again, and again and again until they succeed. For Mexicans, that is why they choose the �Voluntary Removal� status instead of formal removal proceedings. Ironically, if Mexican illegal aliens ever got the idea to start asking for formal removal hearings before Immigration Courts, as they are entirely lawfully entitled to do under the law, the Mad-Hatter system that is teetering on the edge of the cliff would collapse in about a day. Very likely, those Mexican illegal aliens, too, would walk freely out the door of the Border Patrol stations with their �Notices to Disappear� like their non-Mexican illegal colleagues�instead of being sent (albeit temporarily) back across the border to Mexico.

The sad truth is there is no border control. There is border chaos that is sort of managed at varying levels. Until our political leaders recognize that hard choices need to be made and hard action needs to be taken to secure our borders, and that means real manpower and detention and swift removal of illegal aliens caught entering the country, the madness will continue and likely get worse.

Needless to say, I was a bit shocked and dismayed when we arrived at the community center that afternoon to discover an audience of approximately twenty young British kids of Bengali origin mostly between the ages of 12 and 20.  My heart sank as I realized that any hope of maintaining anonymity in this utterly homogeneous crowd was quickly dashed.  In the end, I suspect we were only allowed to stay because the organizers recognized us as recent guests of Shaykh Omar Bakri Mohammed and thought us fairly harmless. 

After several minutes of introduction, the main speaker at the event--a twenty-something Briton named "Faisal"--took to the podium, and wasted no time in launching a series of ranting tirades against Jews, freemasons, and Americans who, according to Faisal, are "all working against Islam... They're fighting against the truth."  Faisal then continued:

"There is a war, a major war going on... Millions of people are going to die.  This is not the beginning of it.  Millions of people are going to die... Allah has given us an opportunity.  Allah has created people like Usama Bin Laden... how much are you going to worship [Allah]?  How much are you going to fight in [his cause] with your money, with your body, how much are you going to do it?  ...It's so clear that, you know, you can live your life, fight, and die either in the cause of Allah or else in the cause of Satan... There are secularists who say Islam is a peaceful religion.  They want you to say, 'Yes, we�re all getting slaughtered now, but we�re so peaceful, we�re going to sit here with our hands tied behind our backs and do nothing'... No, Islam is not that peaceful.  Islam says at that point we kill them... In Palestine, both the women and the men are occupying our land... [they are] a legitimate target... you can kill them, it is not a problem.  "

When pressed on his point about Palestine, Faisal reiterated several times, "that's all occupied Muslim land.  Every single part of it is Muslim land and it all has to be taken back by force... yes, the women have to be targeted... in Israel, we're going to target the women... if the children get killed, the Jewish children, [you can only] blame yourselves" for living on occupied land.

Perhaps what disturbed me the most about Faisal's desperate words was searching around the room and seeing dozens of eyes diligently trained on him--the eyes of young, impressionable Muslim kids.  It is common in this modern era for Western youths (of all backgrounds) to worship popular rock stars or Hollywood actors and aspire to become them.  Yet, for many years, the radical religious fringe has preached a consistent countermessage to young Muslims: "by virtue of your heritage alone, you are different from your peers and 'we love death as they love life.'"  A minority of these youths have been raised to idolize Usama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta in the same way that many Americans follow Johnny Depp and Bruce Springsteen.  With disastrous "Muslim wars" ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of those brainwashed into following Al-Qaida now see a unique opportunity for themselves to step forward from obscurity and become famous, heroic "martyrs" of the Islamic nation, much like the 9/11 hijackers.  Let noone be mistaken: the deluded suicide bombers responsible for the carnage on 7/7 are far from alone.  The age of the "human cruise missile" is now fully upon us and it is likely only a matter of time before this problem crosses the Atlantic and reaches the shores of the American homeland.

The measures currently in place against al Qaeda, unfortunately have not stemmed the flow of new recruits to Jihadi groups. Nor have they reduced the risk of future terrorist attacks to tolerable levels. Identifying and eliminating remnant al Qaeda and emerging new terrorist cells has become an increasingly frustrating enforcement effort. So what else should be done? It is clear that greater attention must be directed at the two fixed pillars of international jihadist terrorism -- recruitment and financing -- that have, so far, gotten away with murder.

It should not be that difficult to identify European centers used for radical Jihad indoctrination and recruitment. They are well established in Europe, and most are already well known to local authorities. While our democratic societies must remain dedicated to protecting religious freedom and to respecting ethnic sensitivities and diversity, we should be able, by now, to make the distinction between fundamentalist religious proselytizing and teaching on the one hand, and recruitment for hatred, violence and terrorism on the other. We can no longer tolerate the preaching to violence by the likes of Abu Hamza al-Masri or Omar Bakri Mohammed..

The second fixed pillar is the deep pockets that continue to finance, not just the terrorists and their operations, but the whole process of indoctrination, recruitment, organization and training of committed violent Jihadists. A number of these terrorist financiers have already been identified. Many still remain unknown. Most are motivated by strong, if misdirected, religious convictions, or by a sense of revenge or hatred for Western culture, actions or policies. But, we have done so very little to dissuade them from supporting such movements or to punish them for doing so. Just take a look at what little effect UN designation as Taliban and Al Qaeda financial supporters has had on those identified individuals, and how easy it has been for them to circumvent the sanctions that are supposed to accompany such designation. See my February 22nd Blog "What Value UN Designation?" Let�s hope that Gordon Brown�s calls are heeded and that Europe, the United States, the United Nations and the international community at large now takes the appropriate steps to put new teeth into these counter terrorism efforts.

Fellow CT Blog contributor Michael Kraft just posted an excellent article about the development (and lack thereof) of security technology for land transportation systems and within the counter-terrorism arena in general. Even once the bureaucratic obstacles are surmounted, as noted in the Michael Kraft article, technology is still not the final answer, but only an important part of the solution.

When it comes to our land transportation systems, it will be virtually impossible to implement controlled-access security systems like we have at airports. The intrusive and time-consuming security screening procedures that seemingly work at airports will never be tolerated nor would they be practical at commuter train stations where tens of thousands, and in some places hundreds of thousands of people pass through stations each day. Nor can we expect metal detectors and bomb sniffers to be placed at bus stops throughout cities around the country�at least not anytime soon.

Most major metropolitan areas with subway or other commuter rail systems have a transit police force for those train systems. Often, those transit police are also responsible for policing the public buses. Amtrak, the country�s national railroad corporation, even has its own police department.

A key component to enhancing the security of the Nation�s land transit systems will be to quite simply increase the manpower and training available to these transit police and security forces. The presence of uniformed armed police officers in train stations and bus terminals and aboard those trains, as well as plainclothes undercover officers conducting covert surveillance in the stations and aboard the trains and buses, makes for a powerful deterrent. The more such officers there are, and the better trained they are, especially if they are trained in behavioral profiling techniques like the Israeli security services have used for decades, the better protected these transportation systems will be. Having a lot of well-trained officers who know what and who they are looking for, with the authority to stop, question and when legally appropriate search people acting suspiciously, can make the difference.

This old-fashioned gumshoe response to a new threat may be relatively simple, but it is one that, in terms of dollars spent, gives a relatively fast and solid return. There may even be some creative potential alternatives to direct-hire plans for new officers. In many jurisdictions around the country, local law enforcement agencies have reserve officer programs that allow unpaid volunteers to undergo full law enforcement training and serve as part-time officers alongside paid active duty personnel. Some form of Reserve Officer program for the transit police departments might be considered. There has been proposed to Congress by several Federal law enforcement associations the creation of a Reserve Homeland Security Force composed of retired Federal law enforcement officer volunteers. Such a Reserve Homeland Security Force might serve to augment land-based transportation system security.

Technology alone is not the answer. Augmenting land-based transit system security forces with well-trained personnel, with an emphasis on aggressive surveillance and deterrence patrol techniques, is something policy makers should seriously consider.

Nearly 20 years ago, an interagency R&D program was established following recommendations of a counterterrorism task force headed by then Vice President George Bush in the wake of the series of terrorist hijackings in 1985.

The program is called the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). http://www.tswg.gov/tswg/about/about.htm
The TSWG brings together experts from more than 20 agencies. Their consultative meetings are designed to prevent duplicative research and to fill the R&D gaps by selecting worthwhile projects that are not being conducted by any individual agencies. The program concentrates on projects that can be of use to more than one agency, such as sensing devices for detectors that can be installed at either airports or entrances to office buildings. The program has developed a number of useful items, including suit-case size portable X-ray machines and improved light weight masks to protect against chemical and biological agents.

The program is run by the State Department and Defense Departments but other agencies such as the FBI and Energy Department also chair specialized subcommittees and contribute funding. The overall budget is about $70 million annually, with the Defense Department contributing the lion�s share. The State Department contribution is buried in the budget at only about $1.8 million annually, a figure that has remained relatively constant over the past half dozen years despite the Counterterrorism office�s efforts to persuade the Department�s budget gurus and OMB to back up the counterterrorism rhetoric with money to fight the terrorists.

One of the State Department�s successes was providing the TSWG with leadership in developing cooperative R&D programs with Britain, Canada and Israel. These partners also contribute funds and researchers, and help prevent duplication of efforts, thus providing a coordinated multiplier effect for the U.S. program.

However coordinating the program within the USG has not been and is not easy.
Several years ago, the TSWG coordination efforts were thrown a curve ball when Congress, led by Senate Appropriations Committee members catering to constituent interests, appropriated $10 million each to Dartmouth University and the University of Oklahoma for counterterrorism research and development, ten times the State Department�s budget. It took a great deal of time and effort to make sure that projects stemming from these two grants were coordinated with the TSWG. Also, as a result of effective lobbying by a former staffer, Congress had earmarked funds for equipment to scan cargo containers even though the US agencies that were potential customers turned it down as too slow and cumbersome.

After the Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002, it developed its own R&D program http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home5.jspand, among other things, approached the British for joint projects. The DHS embryo program was finally coordinated with the TSWG. But the relationship seems tenuous.

As the TSWG and DHS programs grow, especially in the wake of renewed consciousness of the terrorism threat, it is increasingly important that the US Government coordinate its various R&D programs as closely as possible. The technical problems are difficult enough, without wasting money in duplicative efforts or reinventing wheels. Congress and the bureaucracy must resist the temptation to go off in their own directions. They must maintain a strong interagency coordinating mechanism.

�We will pursue those responsible,� Tony Blair told Parliament, �not just the perpetrators but the planners of this outrage, wherever they are and we will not rest until they are identified, and as far as is humanly possible, brought to justice." It is usually the case that the operation�s planners are also close to the source of funding. . At this stage forensic investigators will be employed to help trace the funds back to their origin. Those charged with the London Bombing investigation can draw on a range of new forensic tools to determine whether the tainted funds passed through the British banking system, or were transferred through alternative means. Banking records in Britain, as in the United States, have become useful investigative tools for tracing money. Post 9/11 regulations and practices require banks to �know their customers,� and to maintain detailed transaction records. They are also required to report all suspicious transactions. The British Government has also undertaken a meticulous review of informal transfer mechanisms that should allow their investigators an opportunity to look more closely at such transfer routes that might be linked to the bombings. Improved intelligence cooperation with the United States and other European intelligence services will also assist in this investigative process. Lets wish these investigators great success and provide them all the help and assistance we can.

Inspectors are generally expected make that critical yea or nay decision in about one minute with little more to go on than information contained in several databases, a review of the passport and the answers to a couple of perfunctory questions. The pressure on the inspector is enormous. He or she knows that with only 2,000 ICE special agents who are dedicated to enforcing the immigration laws throughout the United States, any alien who gets past the admission process can easily hide in plain sight anywhere in the United States. Yet if that inspector dwells too long on the decision as to whether or not to admit an alien, criticism from a supervisor cannot be far behind. When I was a new inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport in the early 1970s a couple of the old-timers took me and my new colleagues under their wings, so to speak, and admonished us that we would never get into trouble for letting someone in but there might be Hell to pay if we tried to keep someone out! From what I am told, the situation is a bit better now, but only marginally so.

The visa process, while not perfect is far better than no real screening process where an alien might well secure a passport in a false name, gain access to our country and take the lives of many innocent civilians or in other, less violent ways, act in support of a criminal or terrorist organization.

The Sunday Times article makes the point that last week's mass murder may have been carried out by British subjects. These individuals, just like Richard Reid, the infamous "Shoe bomber" are eligible to hop on an airliner and show up at a port of entry in the United States and seek admission to our country. If citizens of this nation are being subjected to the high levels of scrutiny that we are in the name of national security, why is our nation reluctant to demand that aliens, who have no inherent right to be here not also be subjected to a greater level of scrutiny?

Ironically, as a result of Richard Reid's attempt to destroy an airliner in flight by setting off bombs in his shoes, all airline passengers are now required to remove their shoes for inspection by the TSA officials. What our government refuses to deal with is the fact that Reid, as a British subject, was eligible to enter the United States without first securing a visa.

The visa process offers that extra layer of protection and offers an additional advantage. Under recent changes in law, when an alien commits visa fraud in support of drug trafficking, the penalty for that crime is now 20 years of maximum incarceration in a federal prison. An alien who commits visa fraud in support of terrorism faces a maximum of 25 years of incarceration. These charges and penalties can and are used to great advantage during the course of conducting drug or terrorist investigations. However, an alien who enters the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program cannot be prosecuted since are not required to obtain a visa before coming here.

I do not believe that requiring visitors who seek entry in our country to first obtain a visa is an unreasonable burden. The law permits the State Department to give aliens who appear to be credible, visas that last for 10 years. This is no greater a burden than some states impose on motorists who have to renew driver's licenses. In the high-stakes world of terrorism we now confront, it is time to eliminate the Visa Waiver Program and do what any sensible homeowner would do before opening the door to a visitor- making certain that he or she knows who they are letting in. The United States should do no less.

It suffices for the connoisseur to compare some language to be able to situate the development. Linguistically, when an attack is defined as a Ghazwa, you're talking Jihadism, Salafism, and most likely al Qaida. Ghazwa, literally "raid," has a historical context. It is a thrust into the dar al Harb, the "war zone controlled by the infidels." It has a historical reference to ancient times of Jihad. Modern times Islamists reactivated its use to legitimize its religious value. In short, if and when used by Jihadists, it becomes in theory blessed, halal and kosher. Those who perpetrate Terror acts but call them Ghazwa, becomes Allah's fighters, as it is widely explained on web sites and analyzed by radical Jihadists on! al Jazeera. Significantly, September 11 was baptized Ghazwa. So were defined Madrid's, Beslan's (in Russia), and other Terror attacks in India and beyond. In a sum, by Jihadi doctrines, and crucial to understand, the land of the infidels is an open field for thrusts, invasions and raids, regardless of the method. Britain was and remains one of the infidels? zip codes: And a very important one. The UK has been designated second, after America, in the long list of enemies, even sometimes above Israel: A list that was published by Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al Thawahiri at least twice since 2002. So London was a target by doctrinal parameters, even though Londoners were not educated about their status in al Qaida?s eyes. For when Egyptian-Swiss historian Bat Yeor published Eurabia last year, warning from the surge of Euro-Jihadism, or when other experts attempted to open British and Western eyes to the crawling dangers, they were dismissed by the established academics and their media extensions as "alarmist."
Euro-elite were wrong and Spanish and British masses paid the price.

The Jihadi decision to strike in Britain was made but put on hold: That was the equation broken on 7/7. What triggered the release of the button? It was a unilateral decision by al Qaida and its fluid nebulous. Before the September 11 attacks against the US, most Jihadi terror networks had developed support systems in the West, including inside the American mainland. A number of Arab commentators after the London bombings blamed Britain and indirectly others for hosting the terrorists for decades. For Arab ears and eyes have been accustomed to the omni presence of the Jihadi machine in Europe and the West for years. Organizing, training, recruiting, and publicizing for their causes, the radical Islamists have enjoyed Euro-freedoms for too long. While their counterparts have structured their presence modestly in the US, British and European Jihadists developed a strange arrogance in their public rhetoric. Out of today?s bleeding London, and for many decades, the Muhajirun led by Abu Hamza al Masri and many others, were openly fundraising for Terror worldwide, training cells in the United States and unbelievably, calling for attacks against British and other ally soldiers internationally.

But how did the Jihadists explain their cease fire on the British Isles? No secrets: Abu Hamza personally said on al Jazeera over Andover again that ?there is a non-aggression agreement between us and the British state: A Mu'ahada as known in Jihadi discourse. Ironically, the Salafists can develop these peculiar unilateral treaties with the enemy without the knowledge of the latter! Al Masri and many clerics often declared this sort of one way "cease fire" with the infidel. "We are in their lands" said al Masri in Arabic, and we have a "freedom of action." In English, his spokespersons called it "protected by English laws." It was easy to understand: Britain, although an ally of the US, was a pre 9/11 space. Its people were non-mobilized by most of its press and educators; its security services, among the best in the world, were bound by an aggressive so-called anti-War movement. The Jihadi presence in the UK resembled to pre-9/11 America's: under the wings of the Wahabi oil lobby. Furthermore the Terrorist groups were shielded politically by apologists such as pro-Saddam activist, MP George Galloway. Then something happened: The British "broke" the shield.

Slowly moving against the Jihadi networks, making arrests, dismantling financial interests and finally bringing chief recruiter al Masri to court, the Blair Government was encircling the Jihad headquarters of London. In response, on air and online, as of the early weeks of 2005, a Ghazwa was in the making. In al Ansar chat rooms, and even on al Jazeera's panels, the Salafi "sith lords" started to demonize Britain. "England is the mother of evil" postulated Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, the network?s mentor, despite invitations to lecture in a city that was to be bled few months later.

The self established shield over London was removed by the Jihadists. The city was an open field again. Its fate was to resemble Madrid's in 2004. With al Masri in jail and the Islamists under a growing pressure, there was nothing else to ripe from the infidel nation. The dice were rolling since. As for its predecessor-cities of New York and Madrid, London was in the cross hair. And as for the American and Spanish cities, it is quasi impossible to escape the first strike. Dozens of British and other innocent civilians paid the price with their lives leaving another democracy in shock. This is the bottom line of the 7/7 Jihadi onslaught on her majesty's capital. The rest is technical.

Was it al Qaida? Strategically it was. Were the two press releases credible? The "Secret organization of al Qaida in Europe" that issued the first claim, is a manifestation of a "regional presence" of radical factions. These are the locals taking credit. The "Abu Hafs Brigades" issued the second claim. They are the equivalent of the SS within the nebulous. They are usually dispatched by the central command to perform a thrust on specific battlefields. But another reading from within al Qaida's mind is possible. Most likely the operation was carried out by British Jihadists. Practically, hundreds of UK citizens have been trained in Afghanistan by al Qaida. Potentially, they have trained at least two times their numbers. That would easily provide a couple dozens of urban assassins, able to plant and synchronize a basic bombing operation. From this reality on, the reconstruction of the operation and evidence building is of the resort of the investigation. But among the experts the consensus is clear: shocked yes, surprised no.

Politically, the motivation is also predictable. The Ghazwa planners want enough blood to incite against Blair's war on Terror, and unsettle him, but not as much blood to unleash a massive anti-Jihad mobilization in the country. Carefully designed to bring the Government down, and trigger a withdrawal from Iraq, the July 7 "holy raid" has been administered to the Londoners. Now it is up to the latter to respond.

"...Tell me, my dear brother, what can you say about the fatwah published today by the Mufti of Saudi Arabia that what happened in London is against Islam because it targeted the innocents (women, the elderly, children, and others).  Also, tell me what do you think about all the statements of condemnation published by the Muslim Brotherhood by all of its branches from Egypt to Syria.  We should not forget about our true brothers in the Hamas movement!  Also, tell me how one can describe the condemnations published by various Islamic committees and organizations in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere?"

"...You should not listen to the Muslims who are controlled by the cross worshippers and their statements which are not based on a single fact or piece of evidence--such as the erroneous and ridiculous statement that was published by the individuals claiming to be 'Al-Qaida's Secret Organization in Europe.'  That statement is not based upon the principles of the mujahideen and it is certainly 100% fake and erroneous.  This statement was re-broadcast by various media channels as if it was the ultimate truth.  I wish I could have been able to write a claim of responsibility if I was in Europe because then I would have written that the attacks were executed by 'the Battalions of Robin Hood' from the Sherwood Forest and let them search for him!"

"There is still more to say on this subject especially concerning the point of view of the mujahideen and whether [the London attacks] have a direct or indirect connection to the Al-Qaida organization in general or to Al-Qaida's Committee in Iraq specifically.  I do not wish to prolong my speech and statements now, but the future will prove all my claims.  Allah speaks the truth and shows us the path."

"Your brother, servant of the jihad and mujahideen, Saif Al-Islam Al-Athari."

The G8 Statement contains some surprisingly harsh words for North Korea and Iran.

�We express profound concern over the threat posed by DPRK�s nuclear weapons programme, particularly following its recent statements that it has manufactured nuclear weapons and in the light of its missile programmes and history of missile proliferation. The DPRK has violated its commitments under the NPT and its IAEA safeguards agreement. We reiterate the necessity for the DPRK promptly to return to full compliance with the NPT, and dismantle all its nuclear weapons related programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. It is also essential that the DPRK not contribute to missile proliferation elsewhere, and maintain indefinitely its moratorium on the launching of missiles. We reaffirm our full support for the Six-Party talks, which represent an important opportunity to achieve a comprehensive solution. It is essential that the DPRK return to the Six Party Talks immediately without preconditions, and participate constructively to this end.�

With regard to Iran, the group signaled that it is �determined to see the proliferation implications of Iran�s advanced nuclear programme resolved.�

�It is essential that Iran provide the international community with objective guarantees that its nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes in order to build international confidence. We welcome the initiative of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and the High Representative of the European Union to reach agreement with Iran on long-term arrangements which would provide such objective guarantees as well as political and economic co-operation. We call upon Iran to maintain the suspension of all enrichment- related and reprocessing activities while negotiations on the long term
arrangements proceed. We reiterate the need for Iran to co-operate fully with
IAEA requests for information and access, to comply fully with all IAEA Board
requirements, and to resolve all outstanding issues related to its nuclear programme.
We also urge Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol without delay and, pending its
ratification, to act fully in accordance with its provisions.�

While the vast majority of Europe�s Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people, that large population provides a fertile recruiting ground and easy operational cover for a dangerous and growing cadre of radical jihadists. Those jihadists, some of whom are recent newcomers from Arab and other predominantly Islamic countries, are increasingly �home-grown� Europeans.

Europe has an established core of radical fundamentalist Imams who preach violent jihad-based incitement in their mosques, and this serves as a recruitment base for young disillusioned Muslim men, not always poor and uneducated, who view �the West,� including their own secular European homes, as the enemy. Europe�s generally liberal free speech and freedom of religion laws, like in the US, make it difficult for authorities to aggressively monitor and investigate much of what happens inside those mosques.

British police and security authorities, in recent years, have been successful in preempting several planned attacks by radical jihadists. London has seen plenty of examples of brazenly open radical �clerics� preaching their version of Islamic jihad; what occurs underground is no doubt many times more virulent. Yesterday�s attacks, unfortunately, has signaled a shift from words to action by these barbaric thugs.

Of course, any terror attack against a US ally is a great concern to America. That radical Islamic terrorists based in Europe may well have conducted such an attack should be a special concern to us. Many European countries enjoy status under the US Visa Waiver Program. This allows citizens of those countries to visit the US for up to 90 days without obtaining a US visa. These European citizens can enter the US simply by presenting their passports.

Since there is now a significant cadre of radical Islamic jihadists who hold European citizenship, those people are also eligible to enter the US under the Visa Waiver Program�without any pre-screening by a US Consular officer overseas. If such a person has not surfaced on any Intelligence Agency or Law Enforcement radar screen and is not in a lookout system �watch list,� they would likely be admitted into the United States.

In recent months, there have been a number of media reports about the potential smuggling of terrorist-linked aliens across our borders with Mexico and Canada. Without doubt this has and continues to happen. The numbers of such people are unknown, since the Government can, at best, only estimate the overall number of aliens illegally entering the country over those borders including those being smuggled. The federal Government really does not control the borders of the United States; at best it provides a degree of �chaos control.� The terror-linked aliens surreptitiously crossing the borders are most likely those from the Arab and Muslim-prime countries; or, if they are Euro-jihadists, they are the ones already known to the Intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The �clean� Euro-jihadists need only board a US-bound airliner and walk up to a border inspector to be admitted under the Visa Waiver Program. We do have what�s called the US VISIT system, which is the biometric border entry control system to take digital fingerprints and photographs and copies of entry documents for each nonimmigrant entrant attempting entry into the US. The system was initiated soon after the 9/11 attacks, and has had some success in identifying and capturing criminal and fugitive aliens and some who were previously deported.

US VISIT works to a degree, but is a system still under construction and evolution. It is linked to certain Intelligence and law enforcement databases, and the more information that can be front-loaded for comparison to alien entrants, the better. Arguably, the process of applying for a visa at a US embassy or consular office, affording a US official an opportunity to review documents and conduct an interview overseas before the alien ever sets foot in the US, provides an added layer of security coverage as well as potential intelligence gathering. This visa processing information could also be uploaded into US VISIT. The Visa Waiver Program does not allow for this.

US VISIT is only working at half speed at best. The departure control part of the system, wherein visiting aliens are supposed to present themselves for biometric and document departure verification when they leave the US, is only operational at a handful of ports and airports on a test basis. DHS claims it will likely be as much as five years before the system is fully operational nationwide. Departure control would provide some reasonable indication of how many alien entrants do not leave as required, and therefore violate their immigration status. Further, and perhaps even more importantly, the system would (or should) identify who those violators are.

Therein lies a big part of the rub. Even assuming the departure control part of US VISIT is made to work properly, DHS has not fully explained, yet, what it intends to do with all that violator information. Past Government studies have indicated as many as 40% of the illegal alien population within the US originally entered the country on temporary (nonimmigrant) visas. That means the US VISIT departure control system would presumably churn out very many violator leads in short order. DHS cannot be said to have the illegal alien situation under control as it is. What will it do when its own immigration supercomputer specifically identifies many thousands more clear immigration law violators�instantly providing electronic copies of the suspect�s identity documents, photograph, fingerprints and last known address? Maybe we are getting an idea why that departure control system is still a half-decade away from being fully operational.

That very system that is obviously problematic for overall immigration law enforcement might well be a treasure trove for counter-terrorism investigations. Even as it is currently established, US VISIT contains a huge quantity of information about foreign nationals who have entered the United States over the past several years. Most of these are nonimmigrant aliens who are not covered by the Privacy Act and FOIA provisions. Sharing this information with other Government agencies as part of a broader Intelligence data-mining effort to identify known or potential terrorist and other national security threats is something that is hopefully already being done. If not, we might ask why not?

When (if) the departure control system of US VISIT does become fully operational, it would appear to make sense to conduct appropriate Intelligence matrix processing on those violator leads and focus investigative efforts on those believed to be known or potential threats. But, that�s still years away. The London attacks happened yesterday. Madrid�s 3/11 happened just over a year ago. 9/11 happened almost four years ago. Europe�s jihadists have been evolving for many years. America�s borders and ports-of-entry have been as porous as Swiss cheese for decades and our interior immigration law enforcement has been deliberately and perennially kept to a minimalist and notably ineffective level. No one doubts the United States has an illegal immigration problem.

Will the attacks in London make the Europeans realize they need to pay closer attention to their own home grown and long-time resident jihadists and just maybe start cracking down on their immigration issues? It remains to be seen. Will the attacks in London remind us that terrorism is very much alive and well in the civilized world and that we could just as likely be next? If we are hit again, it is quite likely the perpetrators will be foreign nationals, or naturalized US citizens who were once aliens, who took advantage of our own exceptionally lax immigration system and under-enforced immigration laws. We should not take comfort in the hope that terrorist enemy aliens are not here yet. We should fully assume that very many are, and have been, walking among us for a long time.

On July 6, ICE announced the arrest of 48 illegal aliens, all with false documents, working for a defense contractor at Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. Unfortunately, this hardly made news and that�s because it�s not uncommon for illegal aliens to be found working at what are supposed to be some of America�s most secure and sensitive Government facilities. Last month it was learned that happened at the Y-12 nuclear weapons facility in Tennessee.

European-bred and passport bearing radical Islamic jihadists can enter the US without a visa. Terrorist aliens from the Muslim third world can be smuggled surreptitiously across our land borders or on vessels over poorly secured coasts. Routinely, illegal aliens with false documents are discovered with access to and working in US military and other supposedly highly secure installations. One of the positive things to hopefully come out of the tragedy in London should be a redoubling of the efforts to make certain our intelligence is smart, shared and focused. That, combined with establishing the mechanisms to process that intelligence among the agencies that need it, is absolutely key to connecting those notorious dots.

Special agents are also needed to conduct fraud investigations to lend integrity to the immigration benefits program which accords a wide variety of benefits to aliens in the United States ranging from replacing lost "green cards" to conferring lawful resident alien status and United States citizenship upon aliens. (In January 2002 the GAO issued a scathing report that said that immigration benefit fraud was a pervasive and severe problem throughout this critical program.) Additionally special agents are also supposed to attempt to locate and apprehend criminal aliens who have been deported because of their criminal convictions and then re-entered the United States illegally without proper authority, and in so-doing committed a serious felony upon their illegal return to the United States. Special agents are also supposed to conduct investigations into alien smuggling rings and participate in a variety of task forces such as the Drug Task Force and the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

These are just the basic areas of responsibility for the special agents and there are merely 2,000 of these essential law enforcement officers for the entire United States. Additionally, since the merger of the former INS and Customs to form ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) the new special agents are not getting the Spanish language training that had been an essential component of the training for all former INS enforcement officers. It is estimated that some 80% of the illegal alien population in the United States is Spanish speaking. You simply cannot investigate people you cannot communicate with. I have raised this issue at a number of Congressional hearings at which I have testified and strongly recommended that law enforcement officers who are charged with enforcing the immigration laws be given additional language training to include strategic languages such as Arabic, Urdu and Farsi. To date, no foreign language training is being offered, let alone being mandated!

It is also worthwhile to consider that nearly half of the illegal alien population did not run our nation's borders in order to enter the United States, they entered the United States through ports of entry such as airports, meaning that the Border Patrol could not have prevented their entry. The 19 terrorists who attacked our nation September 11, 2001 did not run our borders but were admitted through ports of entry. At present, without meaningful numbers of trained and effectively lead special agents to back up the CBP inspectors at ports of entry and the beleaguered Border Patrol, we are in a situation that would be comparable to a baseball team that is hobbled whenever they take the field because they would not be permitted to have the outfielders take their positions in the outfield. Any batter who could hit the ball over the second baseman's head would score an in the park home run! It would be foolish to play baseball that way and potentially deadly to attempt to protect our nation from terrorists without the number of special agents we desperately need to secure our nation.

Additionally, the Visa Waiver Program continues, wherein aliens from 27 countries plus Canada do not need to apply for visas before coming to the United States. Biometric passports that had been initially required in lieu of requiring visas (a half measure at best) are still not being required. It is entirely possible that terrorists have either legitimately acquired citizenship in the so-called visa waiver countries, or obtained passports from these coutries either by fraud or through the corruption of passport issuing officials. This would greatly facilitate their travel to the United States.

The "All Clear" has most certainly not been sounded! Yesterday's attack on London should make that point abundantly clear to all of us especially our alleged leaders who simply want to give out free passes (guest worker visas) to individuals who contumaciously violated our borders and our laws upon entry into our country. Our politicians refuse to deal with reality. The article makes it clear that our border afford us virtually no protection. The potential that terrorists have entered our country and continue to seek to enter our country is great.

-- Reports two weeks ago of a possible terrorist threat against U.S. and British embassies in Nigeria, a major supplier of sweet crude to the United States, helped send oil prices to record highs.
-- Up to one-fourth of the suicide bombers in Iraq are from North Africa, according to senior U.S. military officials. Algeria was the source of about 20 percent and neighboring Morocco and Tunisia provided another 5 percent, said the officials, who briefed reporters in connection with a U.S. counterterrorism training exercise with nine nations from northern and western Africa last month.
-- U.S. and British agents in Kenya are tracking members of two al Qaeda- linked groups, who crossed over from Somalia, according to press reports from Nairobi. "Al Qaeda is assessing local groups for franchising opportunities. I'm quite concerned about that," Maj. Gen, Richard Zahner, chief intelligence officer for the U.S. European Command, told the New York Times.
Despite these red flags, in Washington:
-- The House last week cut $1.25 billion from the administration's $3 billion 2006 budget request for the Millennium Challenge Grant, the landmark program that provides stepped-up foreign assistance to countries that make economic and political reforms. It also cut by 9 percent the administration's $133.5 million request for the Antiterrorism Training Assistance Program, which helps improve civilian law enforcement in Africa and elsewhere.
-- The leaders of five African nations in the program complained to President Bush recently of slow progress in the provision of the Millennium Challenge grant funds. Only about $325 million of the proposed $5 billion program has been obligated to date.
Caroline Cox, a British specialist on Islam, told a Heritage Foundation forum last month that in some parts of Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa, health clinics sponsored by Islamic groups tell African clients that they must convert to Islam in order to get treatment. Farmers seeking small loans were also told they had to convert. These social services have proved to be an effective terrorist recruiting tool in the Middle East. Providing training exercises and other specific counterterrorism assistance to developing countries in Africa and elsewhere is a necessary and a good step and should be fully funded.
But these are short-term measures, often underfunded. The federal Office of Management and Budget and Congress apparently don't understand that when Bush says it is better to fight terrorists overseas than at home, the theory should also be applied to assisting other countries in strengthening their capabilities, not just by fighting the terrorists who have gravitated to Iraq.
North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa are extremely vulnerable to being used as venues for terrorist attacks because of weak governments, porous borders and widespread corruption among border guards and other low-level officials susceptible to being bribed. While North Africa is primarily Muslim, some regions of West and East Africa are also home to substantial numbers of Muslims, some of whom feel disaffected, providing potential recruiting grounds and cover for terrorist operatives such as those who conducted the 1998 attacks against the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
To have any hope of strengthening governments, upholding the rule of law and curbing rampant corruption, the United States and other donor countries need to make a large, long-term commitment of foreign assistance. Improving the legal system and the skills of crime investigators also develops capabilities for dealing with terrorist threats. Improving the school and medical systems is a worthwhile goal in itself, and it also minimizes the radical groups' ability to win supporters by filling the existing vacuum.
In short, if we are going to be serious about fighting the terrorism threat, we must think long term. We need to provide serious, focused -- and sustained -- assistance to help vulnerable African countries strengthen their government structure, economies and education systems. As the attack in London and the surge in oil prices because of the Nigeria terrorist alerts have shown, it is in our own self-interest. We must connect the dots.

Michael B. Kraft is a Washington-based counterterrorism consultant and a former senior adviser in the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.

First of all, the G-8 might could decide to throw even more weight behind the push for a new comprehensive anti terrorism convention. The key element in such a convention would be a clear and straight forward definition of terrorism that would eliminate any wiggle-room countries now have to protect favored �so-called freedom fighters� even though they employ terrorist tactics. It would also require all countries to either prosecute or extradite those engaged in terrorist activities. Now is the time for G-8 leaders to push energetically for such a convention.

Secondly, the G-8 might put new energy behind its previous CTAG initiative. That initiative called for the identification of countries that lacked the resources or the political will to carry out agreed international counter-terrorism measures. Once identified special resource assistance would be offered. Where appropriate, further measures might also be adopted to press these countries to conform to their international obligations. Unfortunately, so little has been accomplished so far under this 2002 G-8 initiative.

Third, the G-8 might decide to expand on the very useful bi-lateral relationships some of them have established to share intelligence and other information concerning terrorists. This might include a central data bank of information on known and suspected terrorists, that could be shared widely among participating countries. For their part the EU countries might choose to accelerate their plans to upgrade their Schengen Information System ahead of the scheduled 2007 inauguration.

Fourth, the UN Security Council is now about to consider new measures to re-enforce its counter-terrorism resolutions against Al Qaeda and associated individuals and entities. This should include an expansion of the obligations on member countries to take effective measures against known al Qaeda operatives and financiers. This should include an obligation that their host countries keep track of those designated by the UN�s Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee, and report regularly to the Committee on their whereabouts.

Now is not the time for the G-8 to taut successes in the war on terrorism. Rather it must demonstrate anew its determination to take firm action against terrorists, those that support terrorists, and those that tolerate terrorists within their borders.

Believe it or not, quoting Congressional testimony given by the GAO at a recent hearing, "...In 2003, ICE headquarters issued a memo requiring filed offices to request approval from ICE headquarters prior to opening any worksite enforcement investigation not related to the protection of critical infrastructure sites, such as investigations of farms and restaurants. ICE officials told us that the purpose of this memo was to help ensure that field offices focused worksite enforcement efforts on critical infrastructure protection operations. Field office representatives reported that non-critical infrastructure worksite enforcement is one of the few investigative areas for which offices must request approval from ICE headquarters to open an investigation and also reported that worksite enforcement is not a priority unless it is related to critical infrastructure. In addition, some of the representatives, as well as immigration experts we interviewed noted that the focus on critical infrastructure protection does not address the majority of worksites in industries that have traditionally provided the magnet of jobs attracting illegal aliens to the United States..."

The only real question is whether or not our leaders will do what should have been done immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. (How many people recall that the first attack on the World Trade Center that resulted in the loss of 6 lives and injuring of many people. The damage to the complex at that time was estimated at some one half billion dollars?) Many people have forgotten that date because it was eclipsed by the attacks of September 11, 2001. What keeps me awake at night is the concern I have, as to the attack that might, God forbid, eclipse the attacks of 9/11.

According to the ICE press release, the enforcement operation involved a joint investigation with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), Social Security Office of the Inspector General SSA/OIG) and the Johnston County Sheriff�s Office. A company identified as the Parson Evergreen Corporation, a Defense Department contractor, employed the workers and the press announcement stated the company was not a current target in the investigation.

There is a particularly disturbing section of the ICE press release: �The ICE-led investigation revealed that the majority of the work force employed by Parson Evergreen Corporation and its various subcontractors had provided counterfeit identity documents in order to gain employment with Parson Evergreen Corporation, and access to the Air Force base.� This means a large number of false identity documents were involved, identity documents that, at least to some degree, were missed by the security screening process at the AFB.

The initial arrests by ICE were for administrative removal charges; however, the media release stated the US Attorney�s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina would prosecute the case, so presumably there will be criminal charges stemming from the false immigration documents involved.

This case is similar to a number of others since 9/11 wherein significant numbers of illegal aliens, usually found to have fraudulent immigration/identification documents, were employed on US military installations or other sensitive Government installations. Last month, the Department of Energy Inspector General released a report concerning a recent incident where a group of illegal aliens working for a contractor were discovered at the Government�s Y-12 nuclear weapons facility in Tennessee. This is clearly an ongoing and apparently fairly widespread problem.

While it also appears most and hopefully all of these illegal aliens are what they appear to be�simply illegal alien workers in low-level contract jobs with nothing more nefarious involved (at least that�s what the Feds tell us)�can we be completely assured that is the case? Is it possible a terrorist organization or hostile foreign intelligence service might infiltrate an operative under the cover of being a construction or maintenance worker? If so, they�d probably do it with more solid cover documents; but, th