Israel Intercepts Massive Iranian Weapons Cache for Hizballah

Israeli naval commandos stopped an arms shipment November 3 on its way from Iran to the Lebanese terror group Hizballah by way of Syria. The weapons were being transported by a cargo ship flying the Antiguan flag. Buried amidst the vessel's "civilian" cargo were 36 shipping containers carrying 500 tons of weaponry for Hizballah.

The cache seized from the cargo ship MV Francop included approximately 3,000 Katyusha rockets, 3,000 recoilless gun shells, 9,000 mortar bombs, 20,000 grenades, and more than half a million rounds of small-arms ammunition.

The U.S. says the ship's seizure proves Iran is violating a 2007 arms embargo enacted in the aftermath of the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war.

According to Israel's deputy Navy chief, Brig. Gen. Rani Ben-Yehuda, the quantity of arms seized would have been enough to supply Hizballah for a month or more of fighting against Israel. "The quantity of arms seized on the weapons ship Francop is 10 times or even more than the quantity of weapons on the Karine-A ship," Ben-Yehuda said.

The Karine-A was a ship loaded with 50 tons of advanced weaponry from Iran bound for the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. It was captured in the Red Sea by the Israeli Navy and Air Force on January 3, 2002.

Aboard the MV Francop last week, rockets were packed into cases marked "Parts of Bulldozer" and "Construction Equipment." The Israelis found containers stuffed with polyethylene sacks to camouflage munitions. Farsi and English markings on the sacks revealed that the polyethylene was produced by Iran's National Petrochemical Company.

"Some of the weapons were high-quality, chiefly 60mm, 81mm and 120mm mortar shells produced between 2007 and 2009," reported Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). "The large quantity of rockets (about 2,800) equaled about 70% of those fired during the second Lebanon war (July 2006), when Hezbollah fired approximately 4,000 rockets of various types into Israeli territory, most of them 122mm rockets similar to those found on board the ship."

In addition to the Karine-A, the ITIC lists some other recent examples of publicly exposed Iranian efforts to smuggle weapons to terrorist groups and/or state sponsors of terrorism, which include:

*In December 2003 and January 2004, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards flew weapons to Hizballah through Syria. Humanitarian assistance was flown into southern Iran for earthquake victims. The Iranian government used the return flights to Damascus to smuggle arms to Hizballah.

*In May 2007, an Iranian train carrying rocket launchers and ammunition, mortar shells and light arms was intercepted in Turkey. The weapons were intended for Hizballah.

*In January 2009, a weapons shipment was captured in Cyprus on a Cypriot ship that had been leased by an Iranian shipping company. The vessel contained anti-tank weapons, artillery, and materials for manufacturing rockets.

*Also in January 2009, Israeli planes attacked a convoy of 20 trucks in Sudan; the trucks were loaded with weapons headed for Gaza. The weapons included long-range Fajr missiles that could reach Tel Aviv from Gaza.

*In October 2009 an Indian ship which sailed from Iran flying a German flag was supposed to unload eight containers in Egypt. Following a warning from German authorities, the vessel diverted to Malta, where it was discovered to be carrying bullets and materials to manufacture weapons – apparently linked to Syria.

Read more about Tehran's weapons smuggling to terrorist organizations here and here and here.

Al Qaeda Magazine Encourages "Lone" Wolf Attacks on Western Infrastructure and Public Figures

As exposed by Reuters, al Qaeda recently called on followers to carry out attacks in (and on) the West. In its online magazine Sada al-Malahem the terrorist group specifically encouraged Islamists to create homemade bombs with materials that already exist in their "mother's kitchen." The magazine article suggests that the bombs should be detonated "in airports in Crusader Western countries, which take part in the war against Muslims, or on their aircraft, housing complexes or their subways…"

Additionally, the article encourages violence against public figures such as "a government minister" and "media figures, and writers who insult the religion."

Al Qaeda's open invitation to anyone to commit violent acts on Western soil is an indication that so-called "lone wolf" attackers, may not be so alone after all. While individuals plotting attacks may not hold a leadership position or even have interacted with anyone directly tied to the organization, those who carry out actions in line with al Qaeda's message may be considered a part of the loosely organized outer fringe of the terrorist group.

Al Qaeda's violent instructions should be taken seriously considering that many here in the U.S. already relate to the terrorist organization's grievances and that others pledge allegiance to al Qaeda itself.

Just this year the U.S. has seen an instance of an individual who was structurally disconnected from al Qaeda cite allegiance to al Qaeda's message as a reason for planning attacks. Hosam Smadi, a Jordanian citizen, was charged with attempting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper in September 2009. Smadi said that his intention in committing this act was to serve as a soldier for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. FBI agents posing undercover as members of an al Qaeda sleeper cell were introduced to Smadi at which time he told them that he came to the U.S. for the specific purpose of committing "jihad for the sake of God."

In other cases, radicalized people did commit violent acts on U.S. soil without linking themselves to al Qaeda. However, the grievances they mentioned to authorities are exactly those grievances al Qaeda lists as reasons for those in Western countries to detonate bombs - in particular that the U.S. is at war in Muslim countries.

One Muslim convert, Abdulhakem Muhammad, shot two soldiers outside an Army recruiting center in Arkansas in June 2009. Muhammad told investigating detectives that he was mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past.

James Cromitie (a.k.a. Abdul Rahman) was arrested for plotting to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Riverdale section of the Bronx and to shoot military planes located at the New York Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, NY. Cromitie told an FBI informant that he was upset about the war in Afghanistan and that many Muslims had been killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by the U.S. Military.

Similarly in the case of Michael Finton (a.k.a. Talib Islam), accused of plotting to use a truck bomb to blow up the federal building in Springfield, Illinois, Finton discussed targeting locations in the United States and made videos in which he rationalized the attacks and accused the U.S. of being at war with Islam.

Fort Hood Update: Pointed Questions for the Government

While law enforcement tries to figure out whether Nidal Malik Hasan sought guidance from any terror or extremist groups before launching his massacre at Fort Hood Thursday, the demand for answers from the Pentagon and intelligence agencies is intensifying.

As mentioned earlier, ABC News cited anonymous sources who say Hasan's attempts to contact people associated with al Qaeda were discovered "months ago."

But intelligence agency officials are denying that claim to Fox News, saying "it would be wrong to allege the CIA had information about Hasan contacting Al Qaeda that it did not share with the Army.

"There's no sign at this point that the CIA had collected information relevant to this case and then simply sat on it," an official told the network.

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has written the heads of relevant intelligence agencies to demand they preserve any and all records related to Hasan. He criticized the Obama administration for allowing information to trickle out to the media through anonymous sources before key congressional leaders have been informed.

In a statement, Hoekstra pledged an "intense review of this and other issues related to the performance of the intelligence community and whether or not information necessary for military, state and local officials to provide for the security of the post was provided to them."

Hoekstra's review is among many in the works regarding the Fort Hood shootings. U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) wants to find out why Hasan continued to serve in his capacity as an Army psychiatrist despite a series of troubling accounts about his radicalism. Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the military should have "zero tolerance" for someone showing signs of being an Islamist extremist:

"The Department of Defense has a real obligation to convene an independent investigation to go back and look at whether warning signs were missed, both of his — the stress he was under, but also the statements that he was making which really could lead people to believe that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist."

For a look at other possible investigations, click here.

Hasan's Ties to Radical Imam Probed

Federal law enforcement officials are trying to determine whether Nidal Malik Hasan communicated with terrorists or a radical cleric who used to preach at a northern Virginia mosque before waging Thursday's massacre.

Investigators are trying to figure out whether the Army psychiatrist kept in touch with Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was the spiritual leader at the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church in 2001. Hasan reportedly attended the mosque at that time. Awlaki left the U.S. for Yemen in 2002 where he is a vocal supporter of terrorism.

Hasan, who reportedly defended suicide bombings, was chastised for proselytizing to his patients about Islam and shouted Allahu Akhbar before opening fire Thursday, killed 13 people and wounded 30 others before being shot by responding police officers.

Regardless of the depth of any relationship, Awlaki is out with a posting hailing Hasan as "a hero" who followed duty to his faith above his nation:

"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.

Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal."

Awlaki's view that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam is one echoed by American Islamist groups considered to be mainstream. For examples, see here, here and here.

According to the Telegraph, which first reported Hasan's ties to Dar Al-Hijrah, "Hasan's eyes 'lit up' when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas."

ABC, meanwhile, cites two anonymous government officials who have been briefed on the case saying intelligence agencies learned "months ago" that Hasan tried to contact with people associated with al Qaeda. Investigators are said to be scouring Hasan's computer and trying to identify all his email accounts to see whether he communicated with terrorists in advance of his shooting spree.

The Washington Post reports Awlaki is among the prospective contacts. He previously was scrutinized after two other men who prayed at Dar Al-Hijrah were identified as 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi.

Awlaki was investigated by the FBI before he left the country but never was charged with any crime.

For more on the Fort Hood investigation and on Awlaki, click here, here and here.

A Win and a Loss for CAIR

A federal judge in Washington has ordered the authors of a damning book on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to cease publishing documents taken from CAIR offices and to return the material to the group.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Tuesday granted a 10-day temporary restraining order sought by CAIR. The order covers material with privacy concerns – identifying donors and employees and communication with CAIR attorneys – taken by Chris Gaubatz in pursuit of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America that was co-authored by Gaubatz's father David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry.

The book shows how CAIR hypes its political clout by misrepresenting the size of its membership rolls and the depth of financial support from American donors. It received more attention for its claims that CAIR has a program to place interns on congressional committees dealing with the judiciary and homeland security. That allegation prompted four congressional Republicans to demand an investigation.

In issuing the restraining order, Kollar-Kotelly noted that no one disputes whether Chris Gaubatz took CAIR documents. Muslim Mafia describes how Gaubatz worked as a CAIR intern in 2008 under an assumed name and used his access to remove files and make secret recordings of CAIR officials. The judge also detailed her office's attempts to reach the defendants or their attorneys, including the message that failure to respond or appear at a hearing would be viewed as a concession on the restraining order. With the information before her, Kollar-Kotelly ruled that it appears the Gaubatz's "have unlawfully obtained access to, and have already caused repeated public disclosure of, material containing CAIR's proprietary, confidential and privileged information."

David Gaubatz was served with court papers Wednesday. He Gaubatz minimized the ruling in an interview with Worldnetdaily, which also published the book. "The last thing they want is more evidence of their ties to terrorists before our courts," Gaubatz said.

Things haven't gone so well for CAIR in Dallas, where the group petitioned a federal court to be removed from a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). As Josh Gerstein reported for Politico, a federal judge denied CAIR's request to be removed from the conspirator list in a sealed ruling July 1. A notation on the case docket appeared only after Gerstein inquired about the ruling.

CAIR is listed among "members of the US Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee." It has denied the allegation and cast itself as a victim of guilt by association. As even a cursory review of the criminal prosecution reveals, however, this couldn't be further from the truth. Evidence in the trial showed that the committee was created to help Hamas politically and financially. This 1994 meeting agenda shows CAIR listed among the Palestine Committee's organizations.

Among the allegations, HLF was accused of having provided more than $12 million to Hamas.

After a 2007 mistrial, five former HLF officials were convicted on 108 counts, ranging from money laundering to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis, the presiding judge from the 2008 HLF trial, may have chided the government for filing the list publicly, Gerstein reports. Department of Justice policy calls for such information to be kept secret. That wasn't enough for Solis to grant requests by CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust for relief.

There's a little appreciated aspect of the exception in this case and why the list was filed with the court. The defense asked for it. On October 6, 2006, the Holy Land Foundation and its directors filed a motion for a "bill of particulars," a common legal tool used to gain additional information regarding the underlying charges. In that motion, HLF demanded that the court require the government to produce "the names of all unindicted co-conspirators."

Prosecutors opposed the motion, presumably out of deference to DOJ guidelines. In court documents explaining their opposition, however, the government stated that, "the defendants' request for the names of any possible co-conspirator witnesses is clearly not necessary to enable the defendants to understand the charges against them." Consider that—in all likelihood, had it been up to the government, the list of "unindicted co-conspirators" would have never been made public.

In ruling on, and denying the defense motion, the court explained "although the court will not grant this motion for a bill of particulars to give the defendants a preview of the government's witness list, the court has ordered the government to provide defendants with its witness list well in advance of trial." This left the government in a difficult situation. Under the same guidelines governing the use of "unindicted co-conspirator" lists, the manual states, "prosecutors shall comply…with any court order directing the public filing of a bill of particulars." Consequently, rather than a political move as CAIR would have you believe, the release of the list was done in response to court order and in compliance with Justice Department procedures.

Other than respond to reporters' questions, CAIR has not tried to draw attention to either matter. It has issued no release highlighting its lawsuit or its initial victory with the restraining order.

Hizb ut-Tahrir's Ideology Legitimizes Islamist Terror

A disturbing new report by the Centre for Social Cohesion, a British think tank, makes a strong case that Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is not the "peaceful" Islamist group it purports to be.

In a study published Monday, the center - quoting extensively from the statements and writings of HT leaders and party organs – shows that the group actually advocates hijacking planes and other forms of jihadist violence in order to annex all Muslim-majority nations and colonize non-Muslim-majority ones.

Representatives of HT, which seeks to establish a global Islamic state (a Caliphate), have long claimed that they oppose violence. When Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2005 proposed banning Hizb ut-Tahrir, the organization issued an "open letter" to Britain's home secretary which stated:

"Hizb ut-Tahrir is a non-violent political organisation that was established in 1953 by Palestinian Judge Sheikh Taqiudddin an-Nabhani. From its inception it has stated that its objective is to establish an Islamic Caliphate State in the Muslim world through peaceful political means as exemplified by the Prophet Muhammad."

The letter added that for 50 years Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to achieve its goals "through organizing political actions such as protests, demonstrations, petitions, vigils, leaflets and magazines." Faced with these protestations of nonviolence and a strongly negative reaction from civil libertarians in Britain (and elsewhere in the European Union), Blair dropped his effort to ban HT.

The group has had a small presence in the United States for years, and tried to heighten its profile last summer with an open meeting outside Chicago.

Today, the British Conservative Party is urging that the group be banned. While reasonable people may disagree as to whether banning is the best way to deal radical Islamist organizations, there is no question that Hizb ut-Tahrir has a violent, totalitarian ideology, say study's authors – Centre for Social Cohesion researchers Houriya Ahmed and Hannah Stuart.

Ahmed and Stuart produce some chilling quotes to make their case against HT. "The fierce struggle, between the Muslims and the Kuffar, [non believers] has been intense since the dawn of Islam," the group has said. "It will continue in this way –a bloody struggle alongside the intellectual struggle-until the Hour comes and Allah inherits the Earth."

The authors go on to show how HT ideologues legitimize: the concept of offensive jihad to spread Islam; the killing of civilians in countries that fail to accept Islamic rule; the killing of Israeli Jews; and the hijacking of planes.

"Historically, HT is no different [from] al Qaeda," Ahmed contends. "It is a dangerous and divisive organization that aims to implement a totalitarian dictatorship that will use violence to spread its rule."

What's Missing in the CAIR Lawsuit?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has a message for the authors of a new book alleging a host of secret and nefarious activities by the group: We'll see you in court!

CAIR filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court Friday against David and Chris Gaubatz, the father-and-son investigative team behind the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America. In the book, Chris Gaubatz acknowledges securing an internship at CAIR's headquarters in 2008 by posing as a Muslim and using an assumed name. Once inside, he took more than 12,000 documents and secretly recorded 300 hours of video, including private conversations with CAIR officials.

Citing those records, the book reports that CAIR officials grossly exaggerate their membership rolls and the depth of their domestic financial support. In addition, they actively thwart law enforcement counter-terror investigations. Following the release of the book, four congressional Republicans sought an investigation into the book's claims that CAIR seeks to place interns on committees dealing with the judiciary and homeland security.

To this last point, CAIR officials have ridiculed the book's findings in an attempt to minimize them, and attacked the author's motives. Suspiciously absent from CAIR's public shouting fest has been any claim of any falsehood in Muslim Mafia, and there's no indication CAIR issued a demand letter seeking any retractions.

The suit makes no charge of defamation or libel, instead alleging breach of contract, trespassing, and hacking CAIR computers. Politico reports that CAIR also wants a restraining order blocking the authors from using the internal CAIR documents the younger Gaubatz acknowledges taking during an internship there under an assumed name.

CAIR, rarely shy in promoting itself and its actions, is oddly quiet about the litigation, Politico notes.

Even if they should prevail on the merits of their lawsuit, CAIR officials – via their silence – vouch for the book's accuracy. It's not exactly blurb material for the paperback, but it still speaks volumes.

UN Official Challenges US Drone Attacks

In a little noticed but critical piece of news, the BBC reports that Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, has warned the United States against striking terrorists from unmanned drones. He has gone so far as to state that such actions "may violate international human rights laws."

Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, told the BBC: "My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law." He also stated, "The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons."

Alston, a professor at New York University, also has stated that the US government and the CIA need to explain how such measures are legal in the first place. The previous explanation from the US government clarified that the United States uses a framework to respond to unlawful killings (should they occur), and that it did not believe that the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council had any role in relation to killings carried out during an armed conflict. Alston rejected these arguments, calling them "untenable," and demanded that the US furnish proof of the legality of its actions in wartime circumstances.

The weight of such a decision by a high-ranking UN official is astounding. Rather than evaluate the United States' wartime actions against a terrorist entity, which is oppressing millions of Afghanis and murdering thousands of civilians in indiscriminate bombings, the UN is forcing the United States to justify unmanned strikes against high ranking Al Qaeda leaders.

Some drone attacks have missed the marks and civilians tragically have been killed. However, they've also been among the most effective means of killing Al Qaeda leaders and keeping it off balance. It is difficult to see how this wouldn't give terrorists the upper hand, forcing the United States to pick between running afoul of the UN Human Rights Council, or endangering the lives of tens of thousands of troops and civilians.

Saudis Skate (Again) on Religious Freedom Sanctions

The State Department's annual report on religious freedom throughout the world is out. As it has since 2001, the State Department lists Saudi Arabia as a significant violator of international religious freedom. Since 2005, the State Department has identified Saudi Arabia as a "Country of Particular Concern" for engaging in violations of religious freedoms.

Despite this, the State Department again has invoked a waiver of potential sanctions reserved for severe violators of religious freedom. Those sanctions can include denial of visas and entry into the United States or deportation of such foreign officials if already here.

The report is required each year under provisions in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). So is the waiver, which is supposed to apply in cases of "important national interest of the United States" or to "further the purposes of the Act." Seemingly, that "further the purposes of the Act" waiver would apply primarily in cases in which our government was convinced the offending foreign country was making genuine progress in no longer violating international religious freedom standards.

Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist Sunni Muslim state. Its government adheres to an austere form of Islam. The public practice of other religion is prohibited. Even the private practice of other faiths, or of Shia or more moderate versions of Sunni Islam, can result in persecution. Draconian legal sanctions based on archaic Islamic religious precepts are frequently practiced. These include cases of women who are rape victims being convicted for consorting with unrelated males and sentenced to whipping. The primary basis for Saudi religious freedom violations stems from the country's strict and official adherence to radical Islam.

The 2009 report on Saudi Arabia notes "incremental improvements" in some areas, "including selective measures to combat extremist ideology," but still found cases in which the death penalty was administered for alleged witchcraft, non-Muslims were jailed for private worship and vice patrols continue harrassing women for being with a man or being clothed with insufficient modesty.

For a decade, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the State Department has rightfully branded the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a notable violator of international religious freedom. State Department reports fully identify the Kingdom's practice of and adherence to radical Islam, and the pervasive legal and cultural persecution that emanate from there, as the primary causes of those violations. Yet, for that decade, our State Department has given the Saudis a "buy" on this critically important human rights issue by repeatedly invoking the waiver of sanctions under the law, ostensibly to "further the purposes of the Act" as if to suggest that further diplomatic consultation will somehow soften the Islamic radicalism entrenched in the mindset of the Kingdom's rulers and clerics.

For a decade, the carrot has not worked. Stick time?

Palestinians Admit Police Torture

Senior Palestinian police officials are receiving immediate training from British counterparts on prisoner interrogation and care after it was disclosed this week that the Palestinians routinely tortured people in their custody.

London's Mail on Sunday broke the torture story Sunday, quoting Palestinian officials acknowledging the mistreatment, "including beatings, being suspended from the ceiling and electric shocks." In addition, at least four people are thought to have been killed in Palestinian Authority.

Most of the victims are Hamas members suspected of trying to undermine PA governance in the West Bank.

The British are financing the program, which cost £100,000 just to launch. The government already contributes £20million a year to the agencies responsible for the torture cases.

The story has not received the attention it might have had the torturers been Western or Israeli police. At the National Review Online, Tom Gross points out that PA prisoner abuse dates back to the Authority's foundating under Yasser Arafat:

"Meanwhile, as Palestinian detainees are being tortured to death in Palestinian Authority jails, Palestinian prisoners (including convicted terrorists) in custody in Israel are studying for Israeli university degrees (at Israeli taxpayers' expense) and also given cable TV, IPods and dental treatment – but international human rights groups criticize Israel, whose deputy foreign minister and former ambassador to Washington Danny Ayalon narrowly escaped being arrested in Britain for "war crimes" yesterday."

It's at least a hopeful sign that the training is taking place and that the PA official quoted by the Mail didn't try to duck the issue. The Brits should do all they can to ensure their latest PA donations aren't wasted.

Newer Postings   |   Older Postings