Well put:

Of detainees already released from Gitmo, Scalia pointed out that one "masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was later shot to death when used as a human shield against Pakistani commandoes." Another "promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers. . . . Still another murdered an Afghan judge." And last month came news that another detainee committed a suicide bombing against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul.

Boumediene will force military attorneys to release evidence against enemy combatants to the terrorists' own lawyers. It will likely see U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan be called as witnesses. And detainees will have a legal right of access to classified information.

The decision "sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner." He concluded: "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."...

"The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today...."

Let there be no doubt!

As Noel Sheppard notes at NewsBusters, in case you missed it, the Supreme Court Thursday bestowed Constitutional rights to terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay and the broadcast evening news programs predictably - quickly saw this decision as "a stinging defeat for the Bush administration that could prove tremendously embarrassing to the president."

Needless to say, Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer, lawyer, and radio talk show host, is to say the least, mad as hell, and stated earlier in the day that reporters making such statements "are lying through they're teeth. They are propagandists, spewing the talking points of the enemy."

And in light of the spirited "defense" of ABC by a commenter here on a post that, although the key source of the info is anonymous, nonetheless models the overwhelming bias of ABC in favor of America's enemy, here's a well-sourced story on the very same ABC reporter:

The broadcast network evening newscasts gave as much emphasis Thursday night to the biting dissent as the majority opinion in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees, but told the story through the prism of the Bush administration getting rebuked by the decision characterized as "historic" and "landmark" -- with ABC's Martha Raddatz ominously warning "it could be very embarrassing for the administration." CBS avoided any label for the majority while tagging the dissenters as "conservative" and only NBC noted how some of those already released have committed atrocities.

As Noel Sheppard notes at NewsBusters, in case you missed it, the Supreme Court Thursday bestowed Constitutional rights to terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay and the broadcast evening news programs predictably - quickly saw this decision as "a stinging defeat for the Bush administration that could prove tremendously embarrassing to the president."

Needless to say, Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer, lawyer, and radio talk show host, is to say the least, mad as hell, and stated earlier in the day that reporters making such statements "are lying through they're teeth. They are propagandists, spewing the talking points of the enemy."

And in light of the spirited "defense" of ABC by a commenter here on a post that, although the key source of the info is anonymous, nonetheless models the overwhelming bias of ABC in favor of America's enemy (note that "ABC Finds Soldiers in Iraq Backing Candidates: Obama and Clinton" seems to back up the info in the post - via a 5 second Google search), here's a well-sourced story on the very same ABC reporter:

The broadcast network evening newscasts gave as much emphasis Thursday night to the biting dissent as the majority opinion in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees, but told the story through the prism of the Bush administration getting rebuked by the decision characterized as "historic" and "landmark" -- with ABC's Martha Raddatz ominously warning "it could be very embarrassing for the administration." CBS avoided any label for the majority while tagging the dissenters as "conservative" and only NBC noted how some of those already released have committed atrocities.

Related: How the Jihadi Propaganda Machine Will Win the Guantanamo Trials:

This is now what the world will witness during the trials of the al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo, Cuba. Both the inmates on the inside and the Jihadi-mates on the outside were waiting for this moment to strike, politically and psychologically, using the media as their weapon. To the well-trained and -indoctrinated five standing trial, the objective is not to gain as many rights and freedoms as possible under current U.S. and international law; rather it is to resume what they began before 9/11 which they deeply wish to fulfill - as they said in their own words - using the trial as a global media opportunity.

The goal of these other free Jihadists is to deter Washington - and other Western countries - from trying the incarcerated Jihadists. Their thinking is that if the U.S. gets condemned in the global media for prosecuting and trying and eventually sentencing the worst of the worst, America will be intimidated when it tries to prosecute non-al Qaeda Jihadists. In addition, other "hidden forces" sympathetic to the goals, but not the methods, of Bin Laden will support the campaign against the trial by enlisting their resources in the media to serve the "anti-trial" campaign (even though this is not a pro-al Qaeda trend).

Also: SCOTUS Ruling Proves Liberalism is all Emotion, No Brains

Surely, this post awaits Althor's exuberant input!

In an article published in the Washington Post on Friday May 30, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden is quoted as portraying al Qaeda movement as "essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

As Walid Phares points out in his piece, "How to Measure al Qaeda's Defeat," the WaPo article said Hayden asserts that "Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents." The WaPo article quotes the chief intelligence declaring a "near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq; near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia; significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally, ... as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam."

And as Phares also points out, these powerful declarations prompted a series of reactions and debates both in political and counter terrorism circles, causing loud media discussions. with the main question of interest to the public, and subsequently to voters in the US and other Democracies, being - "Is al Qaeda being defeated?":

[...] If al Qaeda is being defeated, who is defeating it? Is it the US and the West, the Arab and Muslim moderates, or other Jihadists? If Osama Bin Laden is being challenged by his own members, ex members or non al Qaeda Jihadists, how can that be determined as a defeat and to whom?

Would a coup inside al Qaeda be of interest to Washington if the new team is as Jihadist but not as "Bin Ladenist"? Or is it the US-centered interests that are at play? Meaning the inability of al Qaeda under Bin laden and Zawahiri to strike at America or target American troops and presence overseas, including in Iraq?

Is it Bin laden's discredit, al-Qaeda's weakening or Jihadism's defeat that is the broadest strategic goal to attain? Even farther in questioning, is it al Qaeda' Takfiri method or it the global Jihadist ideology that is receding? The matter is not that simple, as one can conclude. So how can we measure an al Qaeda defeat in the middle of a War still raging around the world? I propose the following parameters.

Is Al Qaeda Being Defeated Strategically Worldwide as Stated by the CIA Director?

First the confrontation is still ongoing. Hence we need to situate the conflict first. Are we comparable with WWII before Normandy or after? In this War on Terror terms, what are our intentions? Is the US-led campaign designed to go after the membership of al Qaeda, go after its ideology or to support democracy movements to finish the job? Everything depends on the answers.

Geopolitically and at this stage, al Qaeda has been contained in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Somalia. But al Qaeda has potential, through allies, to thrust through Pakistan and the entire sub Sahara plateau. It was contained in Saudi Arabia but its cells (and off shoots) are omnipresent in Western Europe, Latin America, Indonesia, the Balkans, Russia and India, let alone North America. Objectively one would admit that the organization is being pushed back in some spots but is still gaining ground in other locations. Although geopolitical results are crucial, a final blow against al Qaeda has to be mainly ideological.

How Can We Measure al Qaeda's Defeat in Iraq, If that is True?

There are three ways to measure defeat or victory: Operational, Control and Recruitment. First, is al Qaeda waging the same number of operations? Second, does it control enclaves? Third, is it recruiting high numbers? By these parameters al Qaeda was certainly "contained" in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni triangle. This was a combined result of the US surge operations and of a rise by local tribes, backed by American military and funding. But this scoring against al Qaeda would diminish and probably collapse if the US quit Iraq abruptly, or without leaving a strong ally behind. So, technically it is a conditioned containment of al Qaeda in Iraq.

How About Saudi Arabia?

The Saudis have contained many of al Qaeda's active cells in the Kingdom. But authorities haven't shrunk the ideological pool from which al Qaeda recruits, i.e. the hard core Wahhabi circles. The regime has been using its own clerics to isolate the more radical indoctrination chains. It has been successful in creating a new status quo, but just that. If Iraq crumbles, that is if an abrupt withdrawal takes place in the absence of a strong and democratic Iraqi Government, al Qaeda will surge in the Triangle and thus will begin to impact Saudi Arabia. Therefore the current containment in the Kingdom is hinging on the success of the US led efforts in Iraq, not on inherent ideological efforts in Saudi Arabia.

Continue reading: How to Measure al Qaeda's Defeat

After a judge warned Thursday that he faces the death penalty for his confessed role as mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, appearing for the first time since his capture five years ago, said he would welcome becoming a "marytr."

So why are we wasting time and money, instead of giving the guy what he wants, taking him out now and shooting the bastard!

Am I missing something here?

The sooner the devil calls this guy home, the safer America and its allies will be. It's hard to figure whether this guy's just a sad, dangerous clown or a disgustingly stupid senile old man - or both.

Other coverage:
Jimmy Carter Shocks World & Announces Israel's Nuke Count
Dhimmi Carter Reveals Key Ally's Nuclear Secrets

Related: Jimmy Carter: Tyranny's Enabler

(May 21, 2008) ... the supporters of the Lebanese government--the leadership of the majority of the Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Druze communities--capitulated to the demands of Hizballah. And who can blame them? With a steady drumbeat of terrorist acts and assassinations, with the Hizballah offensive seizing Sunni west Beirut, with the lack of support from the West, they concluded that the battle was unwinnable.

In the way of a follow-up to Mike's post this morning in which he linked to Barry Rubin's "unusually despairing column about the fall of Lebanon," I'm posting more here to call attention to what I believe to be this month's must read. It's importance lies in the fact that there can be little doubt that May 21, 2008 is a date that like December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001should now live in infamy. "It's the day the Lebanese government--the leadership of the majority of the Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Druze communities--capitulated to the demands of Hizballah": The Fall of Lebanon:

May 21, 2008, is a date--like December 7 (1941) and September 11 (2001)--that should now live in infamy. Yet who will notice, mourn, or act the wiser for it?

On that day, the Beirut spring was buried under the reign of Hizballah.

Speaking on October 5, 1938, after Britain and France effectively turned Czechoslovakia over to Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill said, "What everybody would like to ignore or forget must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat...."[1]

In contrast, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch said that the agreement over Lebanon was, "A necessary and positive step." At least when one sells out a country one should recognize this has happened rather than pretend otherwise. But this is precisely what took place at Munich, when the deal made was proclaimed as a concession that brought peace and resolved Germany's last territorial demand in the region.

Churchill knew better and his words perfectly suit the situation in Lebanon today:

"The utmost [Western diplomacy] has been able to gain for Czechoslovakia...has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course."

Yes, that's it exactly. On every point, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria, got all they wanted from Lebanon's government: its surrender of sovereignty. They have veto power over the government; one-third of the cabinet; election changes to ensure victory in the next balloting; and they will have their candidate installed as president.

The majority side is not giving up but is trying to comfort itself on small mercies. The best arguments it can come up with are that now everyone knows Hizballah is not patriotic, treats other Lebanese as enemies, and cannot seize areas held by Christian and Druze militias. It isn't much to cheer about.

Nevertheless, as in 1938, a lot of the media is proclaiming it as a victory of some kind, securing peace and stability in Lebanon.

Not so. If Syria murders more Lebanese journalists, judges, or politicians, no one will investigate. No one dare diminish Hizballah's de facto rule over large parts of the country. No one dare stop weapons pouring over the border from Syria and Iran. In fact, why should they continue to be smuggled in secretly? No one dare interfere if and when Hizballah, under Syrian and Iranian guidance, decide it is time for another war with Israel.

This defeat was not only total, it was totally predictable. Just as Churchill said:

"If only Great Britain. France and Italy [today we would add the United States, of course,] had pledged themselves two or three years ago to work in association for maintaining peace and collective security, how different might have been our position.... But the world and the parliaments and public opinion would have none of that in those days. When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have affected a cure."

Instead there was a lack "of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong...." Actually, though, as Churchill knew, when he spoke these faults were still not corrected. The folly continued.

And so is what comes next? Back to Churchill:

"All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness." That country suffered because it put its faith in the Western democracies and the League of Nations (now the United Nations). In particular, she was betrayed by France whom the Czechs then, and the Lebanese today, trusted to help them.

The UN Security Council on May 22 endorsed the Lebanon agreement even though it totally contradicted the Council's own resolution ending the Hizballah-Israel war, thus betraying the commitments made to Israel about stopping arms smuggling, disarming Hizballah, and keeping that group from returning to south Lebanon. The UN's total reversal of its demands from two years ago--constituting a total victory for Hizballah--did not bring a flicker of shame or even recognition that this in fact had happened.

All this is a victory for terrorism. It is quite true that the Lebanese Shia--like the German minority in Czechoslovakia which Hitler promoted--has genuine grievances and that Hizballah has real support in its own community. But how did it overcome the other communities, the other political forces in Lebanon? Through assassination and bombing albeit done by Syria's surrogates rather than directly), by intimidation and fear, by demagoguery and war.

Iran and Syria help their allies; the West doesn't. And so the message was: We can kill you; your friends cannot save you. Look at their indifference! Despair and die.

Continue reading: The Fall of Lebanon ...

We've known about Islamberg for a long time now (this is our February 2006 post on it), and I can't help but wonder why it is that even though Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been involved in terror attacks and sundry criminal activities, recruited thousands of members from federal and state penal systems, and appears to be operating paramilitary facilities for militant Muslims, it remains to be placed on the official US Terror Watch List and freely operates this radical Islamic camp, and others.

We've known about Islamberg for a long time now (this is our February 2006 post on it), and I can't help but wonder why it is that even though Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been involved in terror attacks and sundry criminal activities, recruited thousands of members from federal and state penal systems, and appears to be operating paramilitary facilities for militant Muslims, it remains to be placed on the official US Terror Watch List and freely operates this radical Islamic camp, and others.

In this clip, Sam Harris "touches on a blind spot shared by many commentators, especially on the left (HT - David Thompson).</br?

David Thompson on Sam Harris, "root causes" and the left's disbelief in Islam as a motive for terrorism...

"I think liberals, almost by definition, don't know what it's like to really believe in God. They don't know what it's like to be sure that the book they keep by their bedside is the literal word of the creator of the universe and that death is merely a passage to an eternity of happiness. And so they find it very difficult to believe that anyone actually believes this stuff and is motivated by the content of their religious beliefs. And so liberals, when they see the jihadist look into the video camera and say things like 'we love death more than the infidels love life' - and then he blows himself up - it's the liberal in our society, the religious moderate or the secularist, who is left thinking that's just propaganda."

Continue reading ...