"Protesters"...or Terrorists?

You may have heard that the Lebanese, under a 30-year occupation by Syria, have recently started agitating for their freedom.

Here's an interesting slant on the beginings of reprisals, from (of course) al-Reuters:
Pro-Syrian Protest Set to Underline Lebanese Rift
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Pro-Syrian protesters will take to the streets of Beirut on Tuesday in a show of strength highlighting deep divisions in Lebanon over Syria's role in the country.
Oh, so it's just another "protest", apparently by other legitimate Lebanese voices, just crying out to be heard? Is that it? Just more free expression to be proud of? And a delicious complication for Bush, no doubt?
Tuesday's protest, called by the Shi'ite Muslim Hizbollah group and its allies to show support for Damascus and oppose what they call Western meddling, was widely expected to attract a large turnout. Shi'ites form Lebanon's largest religious sect.
Oh, the "protesters" are Hezbollah! What a surprise!
Hizbollah (Party of God) warned of mayhem if Syrian troops were to leave Lebanon, where the 1975-90 civil war ended with a fragile balance between the country's diverse main religious groups. Lebanon is due to hold a general election by May.

Set up by Iran's Revolutionary Guard in 1982, Hizbollah is the only Lebanese faction to keep its guns.
Oh, so they're armed foreign agents, with a monopoly on armaments, and their making threats. Just like regular democratic "protesters". That's why the headline doesn't say Terrorists, it says "Protesters", because we wouldn't want to be passing any judgments now, would we? That would be WRONG!
Washington says it is a terrorist group.
Now why would nasty old Washington say such a thing? Maybe because Hezbollah, an arm of Iran, prior to 9/11 had the distinction of the one terror group in the world that had killed more Americans than any other, by far? Including, in an act that should have been taken as war, the murder of 241 Marines

Hezbollah has active cells here in the United States.

These enemy agents are welcomed into our country by an apparent open borders policy, where they immediately engage in organized criminal enterprises such as credit card fraud and cigarette smuggling to raise millions of dollars for Hezbollah's terror masters.

Using obviously phony visas and multiple, bigamous fake marriages, they obtain residency status, even when known to be criminals previously expelled. An excerpt from an infuriating story of incompetence at Daniel Pipes:
Mohamad Youssef Hammoud, an 18-year-old Shiite Muslim from Lebanon, arrived at New York's Kennedy Airport on June 6, 1992. He had come, accompanied by two close male relatives, from Caracas, Venezuela, where each of them had plunked down $200 for a counterfeit U.S. visa. American border guards caught the fraud...The U.S. government also responded in character, just as it would many times over the next eight years: It allowed them into the country.
...
Once settled, the Lebanese suspects began a minor crime wave. They relied on fraudulent Social Security numbers, passed bad checks, used stolen credit cards, passed stolen goods via mail drops, and engaged in forgery. One gang member, known for his ability to take on multiple identities, used so many false names that he had to pull a book out of a friend's safe and study it before going to the bank. He also became a specialist in "busting out" of credit cards-making half a million dollars since 1995 by getting a high credit limit, charging on it to the maximum, then disappearing without paying it off.
...
These are not just crooks, but a whole subculture steeped in criminality.
...
[I]f not for alert local officers piecing suspicious activities into a pattern, the scam would still be going on. The INS showed itself to be hapless, not seeing through one fake marriage after another, losing records, and allowing deportees to disappear without a trace. The State Department proved susceptible to bribery. The FBI knew nothing until late in the game. This is frequently the pattern: In at least five cases over the past 15 years, the local cop with eyes open was the key to stopping a major terrorist action. And while lucky breaks are very welcome, it is dismaying to see national institutions caught off guard.
Why was here here?
Hammoud came here not as an immigrant, to become American-but as a missionary, to bring Hezbollah's message into enemy territory.
...
In a bitter and ironic development little noted by Americans, many recent immigrants arrive, as Martin Peretz puts it, "not with the immigrant's psychological one-way ticket, not with the immigrant's love for America, but with a peculiar immigrant's hatred of America."
How do we know?
Information about Hammoud is available in a powerful and detailed 85-page federal affidavit filed in late July in the U.S. District Court in Charlotte, North Carolina, based on the reports of six cooperating witnesses and five secret informants, physical surveillance, financial records, and much else. Hammoud, it seems, received military training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon and boasts of being "well-connected" to Hezbollah leaders.
What did he do?
By early 1995, the smuggling operation was in place. The Hezbollahis bought tens of thousands of cigarette cartons at North Carolina's many tobacco outlets, loaded these into rental vans, made a quick round trip to Detroit, and returned the van. In the period 1996-99, Hammoud alone bought nearly $300,000 worth of cigarettes on ten credit cards.
...
Starting in 1996, they also sent large sums to Hezbollah. No estimate is available for the total amount transferred, but the affidavit charges Hammoud and four others with smuggling currency and indicates that just one suspect, Ali Hussein Darwiche, sent over $1 million.

Also, law enforcement observed a preparation for violence. Associates of the suspects built up an arsenal, including a fully automatic AK-47-style assault rifle, with which they, along with Hammoud, regularly practiced-in what a witness described as "paramilitary-style training" in a remote shooting range east of Charlotte.
How was he caught? Dumb luck:
But the cigarette scam was too obvious, especially as the smugglers kept getting arrested for driving offenses, and having large numbers of cigarettes (121,500, 436,500, 1,412,400) and dollars ($17,000, $45,922) confiscated. By 1996, the authorities figured out what was going on. A slew of local, state, and federal agents investigated, and made further discoveries.

Finally, on July 21 of this year, about 250 law-enforcement officers swooped down on the group, arresting 17 in the Charlotte area and one in Michigan. Eleven are Lebanese Muslims, seven are the American citizens who took money for phony marriages.
What have we learned?
This case opens an important window on the small but worrisome subculture of Islamist immigrants who despise America even while living in it, who flout its laws and actively aid its enemies. The information from Charlotte prompts several reflections:

First, it confirms the inaccuracy of Islamist whining about American bias against Muslims...Immigration and law-enforcement authorities were excessively lenient; note how Hammoud kept beating the system.

Second, the Charlotte case again confirms that Islamist money is flowing from North America to the Middle East, not the other way around...How many more Charlotte-like webs are out there?

Third, the Lebanese suspects showed a contempt toward the U.S. that bordered on the bizarre. Though acting on behalf of a devoutly Muslim organization, they felt entitled to break American laws at whim, without taking even elementary precautions.

Even after arrest, they remained arrogantly unconcerned; according to the Charlotte Observer, at their court hearing, the defendants "smiled, laughed and made jokes. They asked which of their homes, cars and bank accounts had been seized by the government." This nihilism, quite common among uneducated Islamist immigrants, portends trouble.
They're laughing at us, like we're a bunch of chumps.

And we are.

How's it feel to be a chump, o defender of open borders and the "rights" of every non-American to invade this country?

It's more important to yell "racism!" and "profiling!" then to defend against this wave of barbarians.

The communists once said the capitalists would sell them the rope with which they'd be hanged; today we're handing over for free the knife with which the jihadists of the Party of Allah! will slit our throats.

Why anyone from any country at war with us (i.e. most Islamic countries) gets a visa at all is beyond me. It's as if citizens of Japan and Germany were let to visit the USA as tourists, free to move anywhere, during WW2!

The concept then would have been unthinkable.

Because it is literally insane.

By the way, "Islamist" isn't a "race". It's a belief-system. If we can't make discriminating judgments about people based on compatibility of world-view, we might as well surrender right now.

New Blog

Here's another new blog to give you a lift: The Bernoulli Effect.

Long Volatility

An interesting look at geopolitics from the perspective of stock option pricing:
"Fifteen years ago, the United States was short vol. Now it's long vol," observed an acquaintance who trades options. By this he meant that the United States stood to lose from instability during the Cold War, and stands to gain from it now.
...
Flippant as the application of finance theory to geopolitics might appear, it provides a disturbing yet convincing characterization of the present state of affairs. The elder Bush and advisers such as James Baker and Bent Scowcroft, schooled in the Cold War, flinched at the thought of instability. Any regime, no matter how corrupt and oppressive, merited American backing, as long it was "our bastard", as Franklin Roosevelt qualified Nicaragua's strongman of the 1930s. It is a stretch to accuse such men of having a philosophy. Their strategic reflex came from the simple fact that the Soviet Union stood to gain from any instability outside its immediate sphere of influence. The more chaos, the more options open to the Kremlin.
...
Does the Saudi monarchy rankle at American suppression of Islamic radicalism? Hang them out to dry, as Secretary of State Colin Powell already has hinted. Pull out the American troops, and see how the Saudis fare against Iraq, Iran, and their own domestic opponents. If need be the United States will occupy the Saudi oil fields. As for the rest of the Arabian peninsula, Washington can afford to leave it to the fates. Is Yasser Arafat playing games with Tehran? Let the Israelis blockade him in Ramallah, and chop up Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other friends of Osama bin Laden as best they can.

Is India on the verge of crushing Pakistan? Tell Islamabad that Washington will not hold India back unless it accedes to Indian demands to mop up Islamic militants. Does that threaten Pakistan's stability? That's Pakistan's problem.

Just a year ago, America's cold-eyed sanction of Israel's iron hand in the West Bank would have been unthinkable. America is "long vol". If Israel crushes the Palestinian militants, one of two things can happen. One is that the militants will seem a "weak horse" (in bin Laden's phrase) and Arab public opinion will turn against them. Another is that the "Arab street" will rise up in protest, forcing America's clients in the Arab world to cling to Washington for dear life.

Coups, revolutions, wars do not faze Washington. It can sit back like the council of gods in Homer's Iliad, betting on the outcome and choosing whom to support and whom to undermine. From the standpoint of American interest, the more volatility, the more choices and the more influence.

Laser News

The Airborne Laser program continues to move forward.
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has awarded Northrop Grumman a $142 million follow-on contract for systems engineering, planning and logistics support for its Airborne Laser boost phase missile defense program.

The Airborne Laser system is a high-energy, oxygen-iodine laser and beam control system in a Boeing 747 aircraft that can detect, track and destroy ballistic missiles during boost phase using a high-power laser beam.

Additional work on the contract includes analysis, systems engineering and modeling and simulation for the chemical oxygen-iodine laser device, which causes structural damage to a target missile, and the beam control system, which senses the target, selects an aim-point, and directs the laser to that aim-point. The beam control system also senses and corrects for distortions caused by the atmosphere along the beam path.
Which isn't easy.

Constitutional Confusion

I'm seeing lots of commenters at LGF totally miss the point about this Padilla ruling.

Over and over, they're saying basically, "well, I don't like Padilla, but he's a citizen, the Constitutiona applies, so he needs to be either charged or released."
This is nonsensical. It's a complete non-sequitor to even think about "charging" him with anything. The issue has nothing at all to do with criminal law. He was not detained for being a criminal. It's completely incidental if his actions happen to have broken any laws.

No, the point is he can be considered a belligerent in a war, and is thus detainable anywhere he's captured, for the duration of the hostilities.

He surely has no more "rights" to the full criminal justice system than any other POW.

Now here's where people say, "but but but, it's wrong to hold someone indefinitely without charges!" And again I say, that's how it always is with POWs, isn't it?

ISN'T IT?!?

Citizenship and the Constitution have little direct bearing on this at all; a careful reading of the Constitution shows that all that is required (absent outright suspension of habeus corpus) is "due process of law" to examine his writ to determine if the government has made an error in categorizing him. The standard of proof can be rather low, and a military tribunal can suffice.

Those who think "due process" means a full-blown trial have been watching too much Court TV!

That's not just me talking, that is apparently what the Supreme Court believes, according to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. See especially pages 7-17 for a discussion of how POW detention is not punitive, and not within the scope of criminal law.

He's not being held as punishment for a legal violation, but is being detained, like all war prisoners are, to protect our Nation as a whole, so the Constitution will surive to shower its benefits for the longest time over the greatest number of people, for if a foreign power defeats us in war, we lose everything forever.

The hostilities, though of indeterminate length, can be officially "cancelled" by Congress repealing that authorization; that's when legal the war will be over. If Bush or any other President is seen to be abusing, wholesale, the powers needed to protect the Nation so we can all enjoy liberty, Congress can just take them back. And if the President doesn't cease, he will be impeached. That's how it works.

And if it takes 1 year, or 5 years, or 100 years, well, that's Padilla's problem, isn't it?

But suppose congress revoked the authorization of Force, or passed a resolution declaring hostilies over: THEN, yes, THEN, we'd have to decide if Padilla broke any laws, and he'd have to be charged or released. This is where he's now unlike "normal" POWs: they'd all be sent home immediately if they had complied with general standards of the rule sof war.

But now Padilla's citizenship works gainst him, opening him to charges of Treason and Sedition, AFTER the hostilities are over, and he is released from his wartime indefinite detention into the tender ministrations of the criminal justice system, with full Constitutional rights.

It's just not a criminal issue right now!

Geez, it's not as if we haven't survived abuses in the past. But now the likes of the ACLU want to pre-empt using any power to defend our way of life out of the mere FEAR that someone, somewhere, might get treated unfairly. Which just puts our WHOLE SYSTEM at risk.

I ask you, imagine that due to a lack of firm measures, some enemy agent like Padilla gets off a devastating attack with, say small pox, or a small atmoic bomb followed by a second -- implying there may be many more to come. Would not the ensuing panic lead directly to people BEGGING for martial law? Would not the loss of civil liberties that followed the inevitable draconian crackdown take far longer to restore than the mild measures they are so dead-set against?

Andrew McCarthy cogently points out,
Taking a proper historical view, however, one might state the proposition differently: doctrinaire civil libertarians can always be relied on, no matter what the crisis, to minimize the danger faced by the nation. In the real world, moreover, free speech can only produce its vaunted corrective effects if it has both the inclination and the time to work. The problem is that it often does not.

Today’s marketplace of ideas, for example, has been notably reluctant to engage even the subject of Islamofascism and the threat it poses to our institutions and our liberties. Nor does that marketplace strike one as a very effective weapon for bringing suicide murderers to heel, let alone for militating against electronically beamed fatwas capable of unleashing weapons of untold destructive power before other ideas have a meaningful opportunity to compete and persuade.
...
There is also a tendency of libertarians to discount danger out of their innate cynicism about government. Since crises provide government with the necessary justification to curtail freedoms, libertarians naturally reason that a crisis may not be authentic—the powers-that-be have manufactured it, or at the very least drastically overstated it.
...
Without security, there is no liberty at all. The fact that government is made up of human beings, and that human beings are certain occasionally to abuse any powers given them, is surely a rationale for narrowing those grants of power; but not for eradicating them, or reducing them to a quantity that fails to protect or even to take account of the higher interest that impelled the grant in the first place. Individual abuses of dissent are bad, but undermining the framework that ensures the right to dissent is immeasurably worse. This, as Holmes intuited, is supposed to be a matter of degree.

Moral clarity, moreover, postulates that some evils are so palpable we need not further test them in the marketplace. There are relatively few of them, but they do exist and we need not fear we are wrong about them. Such recognition is critical to the functioning of a healthy society, and declaring an end to discussion of any conceivable value they may have is very far from declaring a tyrannical power to end discussion of any topic disfavored by government. Do we really need additional ideological thrust-and-parry to know, for example, that the advocacy of genocide, or rape, or the indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians is condemnable under any and all circumstances?
Why can't people see this?

Why do they deny we're in a real war?

Yes, it's unpleasant, but let me tell you something, war is by its nature extrajudicial killing. No judges or lawyers or appeals, just the President and his generals pointing their fingers at groups of people and having them killed. Killed by the buckets full. The "guilty" and the "innocent" alike.

It's horrible, but if we lack the courage to even detain the enemy, let alone kill him -- and everyone around him -- in mass numbers, then we lack the courage to survive in this brutal world.