I am reluctantly changing my mind

I hate conspiracy theories. Especially big conspiracy theories. I rarely give them the time of day. I don't read about them, I avoid conversations about them, and listen with glassy-eyed politeness when such conversations are imposed on me. Nutbars see conspiracies everywhere and some of them are pretty persuasive. I have better things to do with my time than to even try to debunk them.

At the repeated urging of a family member or two, I have finally taken the time to consider the evidence presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is a group of professionals who have made a scientific analysis of the collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and found the official explanations not only wanting, but impossible.

These are not wild-eyed ranters and ravers, but bespectacled, balding men in business suits with Power Point presentations and a lot of hard evidence, the kind of thing I can respect. This is not the sort of presentation that normally brings me close to tears, but in this case I found myself struggling a time or two. The implications are horrific.

Here is Richard Gage, founder of the organization, giving one of his recent public presentations. Be forewarned, this is lengthy. Explore their website if you prefer. You will find no political theorizing, no demonization, but a great deal of skepticism toward official explanations, and a lot of science. The basic thesis? That the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, not in a spontaneous collapse. They present ten characteristics of controlled demolitions that were demonstrably present, and none of which can be explained by official theories.

There are now well over 500 architects and engineers publicly demanding a new, independent inquiry. What do you think?


Technorati tags: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, World Trade Center

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 14

Islamic scholars are taking up the Pope's challenge and engaging in interfaith dialogue, reports Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters. Their response to the Pope will be delivered Sunday, but it is already available online. It's a small start, but it's a start. As you can read in the Bible, "Do not despise the day of small beginnings."

Continuing the Islamic theme, John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia tells us the Saudi government has set up an English/Arabic website with the express purpose of combatting Muslim extremism.

A moderate Muslim journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, is literally running for his life in Bangladesh. Reader_iam at Done With Mirrors brings us up-to-date on his situation, with more than a note of despair.

Technorati tags: Salah Choudhury

Second Muslim mole helped foil bomb plot

We now find out that there was not one, but two Muslim moles working within the terrorist cell that was planning attacks in Toronto. The first, Mubin Shaikh, seen at fight, came to public attention about a month after the arrests.

The existence of the second, who is now in a witness protection programme and whose identity will not be revealed, was reported today by the CBC.

However, the CBC has learned that he played a key role in the investigation that led to dramatic raids in the Toronto area in June.

"He really felt, as a loyal Muslim Canadian, like he owed Canada something, to give back to it," said a close friend and former business associate who, for security reasons, can't be named. "And it's not surprising to see that he did that for the cause of Canada."

The mole, a young agricultural engineer, apparently provided key evidence to investigators and will be an important Crown witness when the matter comes to trial.

This is exactly what many Canadians have been calling for: members of the Muslim community who will put their loyalty to Canada and the protection of innocents ahead of any sympathies with misguided co-religionists. I suppose it won't carry much weight with those who are determined to hate all Muslims and to see them all as terrorists, but it should. These men didn't just talk the talk, they walked the walk.

And if terrorism is to be defeated in the West, this is the kind of collaboration that is absolutely essential. The Muslim community itself is our first line of defence.

Technorati tags: Mubin Shaikh, Toronto terrorists

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 5

Jared at Total Depravity is thoroughly worked up about a vital issue of male - er - human rights...

I generally try to avoid getting involved in the heady realm of Norwegian politics, but an issue has arisen which has serious, far-reaching implications for fathers, our sons, and the very soul of manhood.

At Donklephant, Justin Gardner and his commenters are debating the status of waterboarding - and both sides have some pretty powerful arguments.


John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia explains why the 1973 oil embargo will never be repeated.


In case you've missed this, Patterico is doing a series of interviews with an Army mental health specialist who was treating the detainees at Guantanamo. It is absolutely fascinating. Pour yourself a cup of coffee or bookmark the first page; there's a lot of material. Hat tip to Stubborn Facts.

Technorati tags: Guantanamo, Waterboarding

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 2

Armstrong Williams at Town Hall is lamenting the dangers of a culture obsessed with celebrity and entertainment.

It is only when we as a nation recognize that every pre-eminent nation that succeeded us fell when they became enamored with sports, entertainment, and thus became consumed with lifestyles of the rich and famous. We must recognize that we can learn quickly from their mistakes and misplaced values so that we can avoid the same decline.

Unlike most commentators, he doesn't wallow in gloom and doom though; he sings the praises of a program designed to point children toward academic excellence - the Carson Scholarship program. Hat tip to Booker Rising.


Cicero at Winds of Change, shares a bleak and realistic assessment of America's options in a new world of nuclear proliferation. Nonetheless, he seems some small cause for hope. The preamble is a bit lengthy; skip the first four paragraphs if you're not in a leisurely mood.


On a more optimistic note, the Strategy Page outlines the reasons to believe that Al-Qaeda's influence and strength are waning.


Technorati tags: Al-Qaeda

Excellent commentary on the detainee bill

Finally! I feel like I've seen the light at the end of the tunnel! This is the absolute best commentary on the detainee bill and the issues surrounding it that I have seen yet. Not just commentary either, but a practical roadmap for the future. I wish Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal Group were in power. (My thanks to Pat of Stubborn Facts for drawing this article to my attention.)

In "The Right Approach to Rough Treatment," he grapples with the moral, legislative, and practical aspects of the detainee bill and offers some common sense solutions whereby virtually everybody on every side of this debate could come away reasonably satisfied. And all in a relatively short article in wonderfully clear and lucid language. A sample:

In any case, if a law bans the use of "alternative methods" even in the direst circumstances, it will succeed only in driving those methods underground. "Any president, Democrat or Republican, faced with really frightening, bone-chilling threat reports and credible claims that he can stop bad things from happening, is going to be very hard-pressed not to push his powers to the full extent of the law," says Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and a former official in the Bush Justice Department. Responsible law-making respects not just human rights but also human realities.

My view is worth no more than yours or anyone else's, but here it is: The law should leave room for exceptional recourse to "alternative" interrogation techniques, while making sure that their use is genuinely exceptional. On that score, both the Bush bill and the Senate alternative improved on the post-9/11 Bush regime, under which the president made up the law as he went along and no one could say boo about it; and both improved on the Supreme Court's Hamdan regime, under which almost any sort of rough interrogation, however necessary, might be judged a war crime.

Both bills, though, made the same mistake: While concerning themselves quite properly with legality, they omitted accountability.

Read the entire article, as this excerpt taken out of context doesn't really do it justice. If I were an American citizen, I would be contacting my Congressman and Senators to promote Rauch's solutions.

As a normal rule, I don't comment much on internal American affairs, for the simple reason that I'm not an American. I've made an exception for the whole question of torture for several reasons. First, the moral issues are so profound and could have such a major impact on the rest of the world in so many ways, that I felt it would be irresponsible to just look the other way. Secondly, foreign nationals, including Canadians, are directly impacted by American legislation and practices. Lacking a vote and a representative to affect the issue directly, I have to hope that my discussion of it will, in some small way, contribute to the best possible outcome.

Technorati tags: Detainee Bill, Jonathan Rauch, National Journal Group

Text of the declassified NIE

This is the integral text as released earlier today.

Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” dated April 2006

Key Judgments

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

• The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution— - an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world - —is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities
for jihadists to exploit.

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.

We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.

• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.

Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.

• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qa’ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.

We judge that most jihadist groups— - both well-known and newly formed— - will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.

• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.

While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.

Original text available here in PDF format.

Technorati tags: National Intelligence Estimate, Al-Qaeda

View Related Articles by Canadian bloggers

The National Intelligence Estimate and what it means [Updated]

Leaked reports by unnamed sources of the National Intelligence Estimate that came out a few days ago have been generating an enormous amount of media buzz.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

Needless to say, the Democrats are all over it, saying that this justifies withdrawing from Iraq as soon as possible.

The blogosphere is all over it too. Being committed to the idea that examining different viewpoints is essential to coming to any intelligent conclusion, I offer you some of the varying viewpoints.

Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory adamantly opposes the war in Iraq, and sees the report as providing the ultimate justification for that position. He didn't actually call for immediate withdrawal, mind you, at least not in this post.

So, a recap of the Iraq war: there were never any WMDs. The proliferation of government death squads and militias in Iraq means that, compared to the Saddam era, human rights have worsened and torture has increased to record levels. Iranian influence has massively increased, as a result of a Shiite fundamentalist government loyal to Tehran replacing the former anti-Iranian regime. We've squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. And we have -- according to the consensus of our own intelligence community -- directly worsened the terrorist problem with our invasion, and continue to worsen it with our ongoing occupation.

Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters approaches the issue from the other side and dismisses even the basic premise of the report.

It's a fascinating article, and one CQ readers should read in its entirety. It makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

Finally, Bobby at Stubborn Facts approaches the whole issue from a military background and provides a rather sophisticated analysis that is not as overtly partisan. His basic argument is that while the war in Iraq may have started as a war of choice, it has now become a war of necessity, and an immediate withdrawal could have disastrous consequences.

On the other hand, it does not logically follow that our security interests would be any better served by handing over control of the country to those radical Islamists who would likely come to power in a premature American withdrawal. In fact, in the event of a premature withdrawal (and by premature, I mean any withdrawal before the legitimate Iraqi government has developed the functional capability to provide for its own security, repond to the needs of its citizens, and provide for a stable Iraqi society that does not support international terrorism), it's far more likely that the Islamist radicals would be far better able to exploit this defeat-- by celebrating their victory and establishing bases of operation-- that would make the radicals more lethal, in terms of quantity and quality, in their attacks against the West.

I strongly recommend having a look at all three, especially Bobby's. At least read the ones you disagree with...

[Update - Sept. 26] John in the comments links us to Robert Kagan's column in the Washington Post. Anonymous Liberal has seen it too, and he sure didn't like it. He takes it on blow by blow in his post today. Meanwhile, Captain Ed is calling for the release of a redacted version. He's got his own set of quotes from the NIE, courtesy of Spook86, which suggest that there's a lot more nuance to it than the NYTimes' initial report would lead us to believe. He has a point. Selective quotes from unnamed sources are not exactly the bedrock of comprehensive, balanced reporting.

Technorati tags: National Intelligence Estimate

Defending the indefensible

I normally rather enjoy Thomas Sowell's columns when I happen to come across them. Not today. Torture is indefensible, but he defends it. Glenn Greenwald has done a thorough and excellent job of tearing his arguments to pieces, so I won't run through them all. I will add this though. When you start using torture in the name of defending yourself against terrorism, you have stopped fighting terrorists. You have joined them.

Technorati tags: Thomas Sowell

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sept. 18

Glenn Greenwald attacks Presidential Infallibility Syndrome at Unclaimed Territory.

This principle is just axiomatic -- the fact that someone is accused by the Bush administration of being a terrorist or suspected by the administration of working with terrorists does not, in fact, mean that they are a "terrorist." There is a distinction between (a) being accused or suspected by the Bush administration of working with Al Qaeda and (b) actually being in cahoots with Al Qaeda and being a "terrorist."

Presumption of innocence and the right to a fair and open trial are values that can not be compromised. They underpin our entire society and must be protected.

Bigger than 9/11

This is the kind of attack Al-Qaeda is threatening against the US, warning all American Muslims to flee New York and Washington. The announcements come from Abu Dawood, the newly appointed commander of the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, and were obtained by journalist Hamid Mir.

The attacks are to be led by Adnan el Shukrijumah, known as "the Pilot," seen at right.

AT the same time, they are announcing major offensives against NATO forces in Afghanistan during the month of Ramadan.

Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has a tendency of following through on threats.

Read the entire interview.

[Update] 7:12 PM

According to Wikipedia, the Canada Free Press who first published this interview, is not the most reliable of sources. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article itself seems somewhat confused, labelling CFP a far right publication and shortly thereafter talking about how it has frequently supported Liberal and NDP candidates, which would be anathema to any far right organization.

Ultimately what matters most here is the authenticity of the actual interview. This should become clear over the next few days or weeks. I certainly would not mind discovering the whole thing was a hoax. If it isn't, I wouldn't mind discovering that North American intelligence services were privy to the whole plot and will use this announcement as a trigger to move in. And for those who would be tempted to leap to conclusions, drawing attention to this is not the same thing as quaking in fear, any more than telling someone there's a car coming is ceding to panic. In this case, checking out the validity of these announcements is a prudent, not a fearful thing to do.

Technorati tags: Al-Qaeda, Canada Free Press

Padded cell vs. open road

Open letter to MP John Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper


Dear Sirs,

The Anti-terrorism Act is coming up for review. This law was passed hastily in the aftermath of 9/11 and contains some of the most alarming provisions ever enacted in a Canadian Parliament.

I have been impressed by the level-headedness and willingness to act according to principle that your government has demonstrated. Could you please use both in retooling this act?

Security certificates and the extremely broad wording limiting freedom of the press are especially troubling, as they dangerously undermine the foundational values of a free society. Allowing this legislation to be reintroduced in its present form would leave a legacy of open doors for legally sanctioned despotism. While you may have no intention of abusing the possibilities of this highly regressive act (although one could argue that any use at all is abuse), you cannot guarantee the actions of your successors.

I am confident that there are ways to protect our society from terrorism without sacrificing our most fundamental principles: freedom of speech, presumption of innocence and open trials.

I for one, am willing to accept some measure of risk in protecting these principles. Padded cells may be safe and even comfortable, but I prefer the risk of the open road.

On a related note, I believe it is high time that charges against Juliet O'Neill were dropped. This was a shameful move by the previous government and it dishonours you to allow it to continue.

Respectfully,

Technorati tags: Juliet O'Neill, Anti-Terrorism Act

Subcontracting torture

Maher Arar has moved to B.C. And I for one wish him well. I didn't know the man, although I did run into him on the street a couple of times when we lived in the same neighbourhood. But the mere thought of what he has had to go through makes my blood boil.

I don't care how spooked we or the Americans were by 9/11, there is NEVER any excuse whatsoever for sending ANYBODY to be tortured in foreign jails. Which is what happened to Maher Arar, on the flimsiest of evidence, with no court hearings, no appeal.

This is such a fundamental breach of justice it just about makes me ill. I don't believe for a minute that he was guilty. Guilty people do not clamour loudly for extensive public investigations, as Arar has. But even if he had been a fire-breathing jihadist, we profoundly violate our own values as a society if we take our own criminals and hand them over to other criminals who happen to be in charge in another society.

First, it violates the principle of presumption of innocence. Quite frankly, if we sacrifice that, we might just as well join the Taliban, because we have lost one of the main things that allows us to claim any moral superiority over them.

Secondly, it violates the principle of an accused person to face those accusations in an open trial. Again, this is such a fundamental principle of our society that it can not and must not be sacrificed.

Thirdly, we are big boys and girls. If we have terrorists to deal with, we are capable of handling them. We don't need Syrian torture chambers. This was not only a violation of fundamental justice, but an abdication of responsibility.

Fourthly, torture is just plain wrong. You may call this a subjective moral judgment, but I'm not budging. It's too big a topic to handle in this context, so I may tackle it another time.

Fifthly, even if you can stomach the idea of torture, in practice, it is horribly inefficient. Confessions and information obtained under torture are always highly suspect.

Sixthly, it was a violation of Canadian sovereignty. What business do American officials have deciding to deport a Canadian citizen, dual citizenship or not? He hadn't violated any American laws on American territory. Public inquiries or no, I don't think we've ever really found out how much Canadian complicity there was in this affair (correct me if I'm wrong). From the little I know about it, there was some cooperation between the police forces and possibly secret services of the two countries, which might make this a moot point.

Great as the wrong committed against Arar was, we violated ourselves just as much in this whole sorry affair. No one has ever been held responsible, no heads have rolled, and as far as I know, no measures have been implemented to ensure it doesn't happen again. We desperately need to address these issues or risk becoming a society unworthy of defence.

Technorati tags: Maher Arar