ACLU Blocks New Jersey TRU-ID Law From Implementation

New Jersey's Motor Vehicles Commission (MVC) was supposed to begin handling drivers license renewals and new issuances under the federal REAL-ID standard that was years in the making starting today. The New Jersey program was called TRU-ID, and required individuals to provide specific kinds of identification to prove that they are who they say they are. That included unexpired drivers licenses or passports, proof of address information, and a Social Security card.

Yet, over the weekend, the ACLU managed to convince a judge to issue an injunction blocking the implementation.

Under the new standards, people could no longer state their Social Security number but would have to show the card itself, a paystub or tax documents. They also would have to show two proofs of residence, rather than the one that's required now. And if a passport is used, it would have to be current and not recently expired.

The new federal standards must be met in order for driver's licenses or IDs to be used for boarding a commercial flight or entering a federal building, for example. That means the state's Motor Vehicle Commission must provide every license- or ID-holder with new documents.

In its motion, the ACLU noted concerns about how the state would collect, store and protect the personal information that people would be required to present under the new standards. They also cited the likely "substantial costs" of implementing the new standards, and said many people — such as domestic violence victims, homeless people and Americans who were born in other countries — would likely face new, major hurdles in getting or renewing licenses.

Any delay in imposing the new standards in New Jersey will likely delay implementation of another recent MVC initiative known as Skip the Trip. Under that program, residents born on or before Dec. 1, 1964, with licenses or other IDs expiring in July or later would be able to renew their driver licenses or identification cards by mail.

The state says mail renewals for about 1 million customers 48 and older — at least for the next several years — will make it easier for New Jersey to make the move to a more stringent ID system required by federal law.

The ACLU waited until days before the law takes effect to come out with this injunction? They had months and years to question and get the MVC to address its privacy concerns - concerns it's had since REAL ID was passed. After all, the ACLU has been opposed to these changes for years.

Under the Real ID program, driver's licenses no longer qualify as a valid form of federal identification for purposes such as air travel. Those who carried out the 9/11 attacks boarded the planes with state-issued driver's licenses that were obtained fraudulently. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended establishing federal license requirements.

The program will affect many travelers. At Newark Airport, an estimated 70% of travelers currently use driver's licenses to board, Mr. Horan said.

States were originally supposed to implement the program by 2008, but the deadline was extended to January 2013.

Resistance to the new licenses has grown among local governments, with 39 states considering or proposing legislation to bar the implementation of Real ID. State officials have argued that the program is an unfunded mandate. Congress has provided $221.4 million to implement the program, though the federal government estimated that it will cost $3.9 billion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

New Jersey was set to become the 10th state to begin adopting a Real ID.

Yet, they didn't do so. Now, they're creating a bureaucratic mess and one that will have consequences for those who were going to be getting licenses. I am supposed to get my license renewed, and had waited for the TRU-ID licensing to be available because it would make things easier for me down the road; I'd be getting a license that will be accepted nationally for showing ID for flights and other similar activities.

Instead, the delays will mean having to get a license under the old standard that will mean having to go back for a REAL ID capable license down the road.

ACLU To Sue NJ Transit For Firing Off-Duty Employee Who Burned Koran

The New Jersey chapter of the ACLU will be suing NJ Transit on behalf of Derek Fenton who they believe was improperly fired from the transit agency. Fenton had burned a Koran on the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the course of demonstrations against the proposed Cordoba House/Park51 project and was thereafter fired by NJ Transit.

Now the American Civil Liberties Union says Fenton should get his job back. The group will file a lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court saying Fenton was unconstitutionally fired for exercising his free speech rights.

"If you allow governments to censor one kind of speech, you open the door to censorship of all kinds of speech," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU in New Jersey. "Our individual right to free speech depends on everybody having it."

A spokeswoman for NJ Transit declined to comment today. When Fenton was fired, the agency released a statement saying it had "concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore was dismissed."

Two months ago Fenton waded into a roiling international debate over free speech, religious freedom and Islam’s place in America. Terry Jones, a fringe pastor from Florida, had already announced plans to burn the Koran on Sept. 11. Fueled by round-the-clock media coverage, it quickly became one of the world’s most inflammatory topics. Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Afghanistan, said the action could endanger U.S. soldiers, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Jones personally to ask him to cancel his plans.

Jones eventually decided not to burn the Koran.

Fenton did what Jones was persuaded not to do. And as I wrote when the incident broke, NJ Transit violated Fenton's free speech rights. Fenton's speech may have been hateful and disrespectful, but that is within his rights under the First Amendment.

Fenton had every right to voice his opinion in that setting. This isn't an instance of an employee carrying out such conduct while in his capacity as an employee or public official. He was off-duty at the time, and NJ Transit determined that dismissal was the preferred option, rather than probation or other disciplinary measures or undertaking sensitivity training or other such programs. I would say that the ACLU has a very good chance of winning this suit on Fenton's behalf.

Muslim Student Suing Newark Over Public School Graduation at Church

A Muslim student is suing the City of Newark for holding a public school graduation at a church. The student claims that his civil rights and liberties were violated because he could not attend the ceremony because it would violate precepts of his religious faith.

The church was selected because the size of the graduating class limited the number of venues that could be used.

I frankly don't think that this case has much chance of success, but the ACLU is involved, so we'll see.

UPDATE:
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, A Few Shiny Pebbles, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, stikNstein... has no mercy, Overtaken by Events, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Charles Rust-Tierney: Sick Puppy

If that name doesn't sound familiar, that's because the news has not exactly plastered his name the way they might do with a politician or Britney Spears. He's a former chapter president of the ACLU who was arrested on child pornography charges.

Well, there are a few details that have leaked about what exactly he'd been up to, and they make my headline seem downright tame and charitable:

Alexandria, Va. (WUSA) -- A public defender from Arlington now finds that he is the accused. Fifty-one year old Charles Rust-Tierney appeared in United States District Court in Alexandria Wednesday.

He’s accused of receiving and possessing child pornography, and investigators outlined what they say they found after searching his home.

They say Rust-Tierney had video showing, among other things, the sexual torture of infants and toddlers. The judge said she’d never heard of child pornography that vile and said because of that, Rust-Tierney would stay behind bars until his trial.

Rust-Tierney is a father himself and also a coach of Arlington-area youth little league and soccer teams. In court, dozens of his friends and family members voiced support for him. They say they have never suspected him of improper contact with kids.

So this creep was into videos showing the rape and torture of infants and toddlers. Wonderful stuff. Other reports indicate that he was into watching pre-pubescent girls getting sexually assaulted.

The media embargo on this story is quite curious. They went to town when Rep. Mark Foley sent inappropriate emails and he never actually was involved in sexual acts with the interns. It was the top story for days on end. He was forced to resign and the GOP took a big hit at the polls as a result of the handling of the scandal.

Here? Not so much. Why? Is it because the ACLU is involved?

The ACLU has supported the likes of NAMBLA on free speech grounds even though such groups encourage and support child endangerment, child abuse, and sexual assaults that are illegal in all states. Rust-Tierney was apparently into the most vile sort of child porn, and yet the media doesn't think much of the story, despite the fact that he and his organization was trying to push NAMBLA's agenda into the mainstream and he personally was involved in trying to prevent library filters from preventing objectionable material from being viewed.

And he apparently coached youth sports teams in his spare time. That is, before he was arrested on the child porn charges.

Ace also comments.

Analysis of Bush Speech

This was a serious speech for a serious situation. Even though the media and Democrats are focusing on the number of troops that may or may not be required, the real key isn't the number of troops, but the rules of engagement that our forces operate under. Change the rules of engagement to let our forces go after the jihadis and insurgents without worrying about the legalities or supposed sensitivities if we have to go into mosques or other areas, and the jihadis and insurgents will have no where left to hide.

That's part of the rationale for eliminating the supposed no-go areas. Having additional forces to make sweeps through those areas is one thing, being able to secure them is another.

I'm not sure I like the idea of giving our enemies where we intend to deploy our forces. It's a mistake to say that 4,000 troops are going to Anbar, because that means that if some jihadi does a back of the envelope calculation, they can figure out where fewer troops are located and concentrate efforts there.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

From the way that the Palestinians have continued to support the acts of Fatah and Hamas, I believe that the President is wrong, but this is paying lip service to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Palestinians have to eliminate the terrorists from their own midst to see any benefits, but the Administration continues to play the humanitarian aid game, which gives Fatah terrorists more time.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Putting a carrier task force in the region and specifically calling out Iran is a visible way to tell Iran that they're on a leash. Just how short that leash is remains to be seen. Adding a carrier task force to the region means that the airpower is in place to put a serious hurting on anyone that poses a threat to the US. The links between the violence in Iraq with the Iranians continues to grow on a daily basis as Iranian fingerprints are found all over IEDs, tactics, and training among the 'insurgents' in Iraq. The Iranians continue to work to destabilize Iraq to their own benefits. They continue to destabilize Lebanon to their own ends, and continue to pose an existential threat to Israel.

It also appears that there was some audio problems with the speech from the common feed, but nothing substantive.

Meanwhile, NBC and ABC have already returned to their regularly scheduled programming while CBS and Fox are continuing with analysis, as is PBS.

More to come.

UPDATE:
Lots of reax. Poliblogger is skeptical and wonders why it has taken so long for the President to come to some of the conclusions reached in this speech. Good question. The issues of de-Ba'athification needed to be addressed two years ago, but this is an issue that can still be overcome. So can the oil revenue sharing legislation that Iraq is considering, which will help spread the revenues among the various groups.

Ed Morrissey live blogged the speech, and has follow up analysis.

Among others commenting: Don Surber, Stop the ACLU, Brendan Loy, The Anchoress, and Hot Air.

Somali News Roundup

The Somali and Ethiopian forces continue to attack the al Qaeda/Islamist stronghold near the Kenyan border. Meanwhile, the US is providing air support and engaging in operations against al Qaeda inside Somalia. It's using the AC-130 gunships that proved to be quite useful in the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and has seen heavy usage in Iraq in support of coalition ground forces because it can drop massive amounts of firepower on pinpoint targets.

Somalia's interim president made his first visit to Mogadishu today, and also commented on US proposals to try and bring some of the more moderate Islamists into the government. That's a real bad idea, and the Somali president,Abdullahi Yusuf, concurred.

In a rebuff to the United States, Somalia's interim president, Abdullahi Yusuf, on Monday rejected U.S. requests to bring moderate Islamists into his weak transitional government.

Negotiations with Islamists "will not happen," he told Al Jazeera television before flying to Mogadishu, Somalia's lawless seaside capital. "We will crack down on the terrorists in any place around the nation."

Yusuf had indicated the opposite position in meetings in the Kenyan capital over the weekend with assistant U.S. secretary of state Jendayi Frazer, U.S. officials said.

There was no immediate reaction from U.S. officials, but Yusuf's remarks underscored the difficulties that Western governments face as they try to shore up Somalia's fragile regime after Ethiopian troops ousted Somalia's popular Islamist rulers last month.

The Somali interim president has a better grasp of what it means not to give into the jihadis by giving them any opening.

An East African al Qaeda cell was apparently flushed out of Mogadishu and we've been hunting them down. The cell contains members of the terrorist group that were involved in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya that killed more than 200 people. Hot Air, Taylor Marsh and Gateway Pundit has more details.

The Somali government may hold talks with Kenya about reopening the common border within the next week. The Ethiopians are saying that they're not going to let the situation devolve into a situation like Iraq. Good luck with that - I hope that they're right, but count on the UN and EU to make the Ethiopians' job that much more difficult.

Javier Solana of the EU thinks that UN peacekeepers should be sent to Somalia. That's not a good idea at all, considering that the UN rules of engagement would give the Islamists free rein to reestablish themselves as a significant threat to the official government.

Rox Populi has more on why we need to concern ourselves with what's going on in the Horn of Africa.

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin has more background on the embassy bombers, Mudville Gazette has more on the military operations, and See Dubya may have seen visions or something...

Others blogging: Sister Toldjah, Dan Riehl, Ace of Spades, Jammie Wearing Fool, Bill's Bites, Stop the ACLU, The Jawa Report, and Webloggin'.

Thoughts on Israeli Preparations for Nuclear Strike Against Iran

I missed the initial uproar yesterday as the headlines blared that Israel has plans drawn up to nuke the Iranian nuclear research/development sites (and Israel has subsequently denied that they have any such plans). Frankly, this isn't the story that folks are making it out to be.

For starters, should this be this a surprise to anyone? Not to me it isn't. Indeed, Texas Rainmaker points out that the same paper made similar statements in December 2005 that Israel was preparing for strikes against Iran's nuclear capabilities.

What exactly do war planners of all countries do in their off time (when they're not actually fighting wars)? They work out scenarios that are foreseeable and game them to maximize their nation's capabilities and minimize the losses that might result. In Israel's case, that includes the potential of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, which is an existential threat that few truly understand since it wouldn't take more than a handful of nuclear weapons to destroy Israel's major population centers and kill millions of Israelis.

Given that fact, what do you think the Israelis would do to prevent such an occurrence? Sit back and take it or launch a preemptive strike of their own? It would be irresponsible to the point of incompetence for the Israelis not to have some form of plans to deal with the existential threat posed by Iran. That includes various types of air raids on the nuclear sites, up to and including nuclear weapons in support of those strikes or as the weapon needed to strike at the hardened sites.

The Israelis have repeatedly shown themselves willing to preempt threats that were imminent. Witness the lightning attacks at the outset of the Six Day War or the raid on the Osirak reactor in Iraq that set back Saddam's nuclear weapons programs considerably. The Osirak reactor strike is a model studied around the world on how to go after nuclear weapons facilities, but also got Iran, North Korea and others in the region to reconsider how and where they built their nuclear facilities. Iran has turned to building them in reinforced bunkers and deep underground so as to reduce the likelihood of a successful air raid.

Iran has surrounded its nuclear facilities with air defense systems and isn't doing so because it wants to protect a civilian nuclear program, but because Iran's endgame is to rain hell on Israel. Iran has already said that Israel will regret any attack- and I read that to mean a resumption of Hizbullah's war in Lebanon against Israel potentially supplemented with additional weaponry (potential WMD included) smuggled in via Syria combined with an escalation of attacks from Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has been explicitly clear as to Iran's intentions: he wants Israel annihilated. He wants the West destroyed and subjugated to Iran's Islamic visions. Yet, the supposed leak of a nuclear strike against Iran's own nuclear facilities is the factor ratcheting up the tensions in the region?

Israel is playing a calculated game of showing that it is not above acting crazier than the Iranian mullahs in hopes that Iran might back down. The problem with this strategy is that Iran's visions for the region aren't based solely in politics, but in a religious ideological view that is firmly enmeshed in Iran's political structure. Blue Crab Boulevard concurs. This may simply be designed to make Ahmadinejad and the mad mullahs show their hand. It may simply force an acceleration of Iran's nuclear gambit, but that runs into the technological challenges of assembling the needed nuclear materials for weapons. Israelis believe that Iran is two years from a nuclear weapon while others give them 2-5 years before having nuclear weapons capabilities.

Some wonder whether we should support Israel if they use nuclear weapons against Iran. I wonder if they consider the possibility of supporting Israel after it has been immolated by Iranian nuclear weapons because Israel and the rest of the world refused to take action to force Iran to eliminate its nuclear weapons programs. Macranger takes that view to task. Don Surber thinks that Israel is doing the job that the UN wont do. Canaries in the mines and all that. He's right. Israel is doing the job that the West wont do because it can't or wont.

UPDATE:
Others blogging this so-called breaking news: AJ Strata, who thinks that Israel is doing the right thing; Pajamas Media wonders about the source of the news reports; Rick Moran lays into the obliviousness of Cenk Uygur's Huffpo piece referenced above; Wizbang has a great roundup of news; Outside the Beltway; Stop the ACLU; FFDB (who has lots of satellite imagery and other background); Bill's Bites; and Decision 08.

Joe Gandelman wonders about the breathless headlines associated with this story. Indeed, he doesn't think it much of a story yet.

Reliapundit has some good observations.

Sheehan's Spectacle and Other Media Madness

Well, Cindy Sheehan is back in the news because she disrupted a Democrat press conference with a bunch of her anti-war buddies and took over the podium. They disrupted the Democrats presser on where the Democrats priorities are as the session gets underway.

Meanwhile, this guy is just as nutty - just at the other end of the political spectrum.

In a statement on his website, Hal Turner noted that a newspaper has reported that a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens is expected to be enacted in January, when the Democratic Party takes control of the U.S. Senate and House.

“ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO INTRODUCES, CO-SPONSORS OR VOTES IN FAVOR OF ANY SUCH AMNESTY WILL BE DECLARED A DOMESTIC ENEMY AND WILL BE CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR ASSASSINATION,” Turner posted on his website.

I hope that the US Secret Service pays Turner a visit. I don't see that as anything other than a threat against politicians who do not vote or behave the way he sees fit. Others might take Turner's words to heart, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he's been pulled from the radio as a result. Dumbass doesn't begin to cover it. Free speech gives you the right to remove all doubt as to your lack of intellect. Turner accomplished that feat pretty easily.

Nice. Classy.

Others commenting on the Sheehan spectacle: Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, JammieWearingFool, Stop the ACLU, and Ankle Biting Pundits.

Zawahiri's Latest Gambit

This latest gambit isn't going to sit well with some Democrats. At least it shouldn't.

Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.

In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.

Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.

So, Zawahiri thinks that Democrats are more likely to negotiate with al Qaeda, which is a position that the GOP has consistently taken in portraying the Democrats as weak on foreign policy and the war on terror.

I think he's spot on with that analysis. Democrats, from John Kerry on down, appear more than willing to stop fighting terrorism and sit them down at a table to discuss our differences.

It's interesting that this comes at a time when the US places al Qaeda behind the insurgents as the primary threat in Iraq and when al Qaeda appears to have conceded the battlefield in Iraq to safer climates of Somalia, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa.

Zawahiri continues to harp upon the notion that if a Muslim is somehow engaged in a democratic process or negotiations with the West that we should not be dealing with them. And the reemergence of Palestinian conflict as a talking point for al Qaeda is interesting.

Others blogging and taking note of how the Democrats are perceived as the party of negotiation and not standing up against the jihad: Hot Air, Jawa Report (who reports that the Democrats didn't win; al Qaeda did), Flopping Aces, Stop the ACLU, Blue Crab Boulevard, Charles at LGF, Redstate, and Dan Riehl.

Now, this has a potential to backfire on al Qaeda. Surely, one can hope that Democrats will realize that this puts them in an incredibly bad position. After all, al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed 2,996 Americans on US soil and the US has a policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. Yet, given the tone-deafness by the leading lights of the Democrat party, there is little reason to think that the Democrats will not do everything within their power to curtail the military operations around the world that have thus far been part of a strategy including more vigorous intel methods that have prevented another mass casualty attack within the continental US. Democrats have been poised to reevaluate and undermine intel programs designed to listen in on terrorist communications from overseas, reinstitute a draft in order that the national will is further undermined, and cut funding for the war in Iraq, which would only severely damage our credibility as a partner in a global war against the Islamists and jihadis.

Rape Charges Dropped In Duke Case

This has to have been a real bad month for Mike Nifong. First came word that he withheld key DNA evidence showing that the three charged individuals did not have relations with the accuser. Now we learn that he's dropped the rape charges against Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, though they still remain charged on kidnapping and sexual offense charges.

Prosecutors dropped rape charges Friday against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of attacking a stripper at a team party, but the three still face kidnapping and sexual offense charges, a defense attorney said.

Joseph Cheshire and attorneys for the other players have said for months the woman told several different versions of the alleged assault.

Cheshire said Friday that the accuser now says she does not know if she was penetrated, which he said led District Attorney Mike Nifong to dismiss the rape charges.

Nifong did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

The accuser, a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University, has said three men raped her in a bathroom at a March 13 team party where she was hired to perform as a stripper.

The players — Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann — all say they are innocent. Their attorneys have consistently said no sex occurred at the party and have cited a lack of DNA evidence in the case as proof of their clients' innocence.

"It's highly coincidental," Cheshire said, that the charges are being dropped a week after the director of a private DNA testing lab acknowledged that he initially, with Nifong's knowledge, withheld from the defense test results showing none of the players' DNA was found on or in the accuser's body.

After the revelations that prosecutor Mike Nifong and the lab that ran the DNA tests in the Duke rape case withheld evidence, it must have become all too clear to even Nifong that there was little to support the rape charges against the three. The question remains why Nifong thinks that there is evidence to support the rest of the accuser's story given that the accuser has provided multiple versions of what transpired that evening. I think he's setting up to walk back from the prosecution altogether because the reliability of the accuser's testimony is suspect.

Nifong thinks that there is sufficient evidence for a kidnapping charge? I can understand false imprisonment, but unless North Carolina law has some unusual provisions, I don't see how he could maintain the kidnapping charges.

Others blogging: Stop the ACLU, Bullwinkle Blog, Michelle Malkin, Allah at Hot Air, Outside the Beltway, Sister Toldjah, LaShawn Barber, Powerline, and TalkLeft.

UPDATE:
Lots of reactions coming in on this story: Redstate, Instapundit, Bill's Bites, Pirate's Cove, JammieWearingFool,

Is that Legal? thinks that Nifong should remove himself from the case. Mary Katherine Ham says it's about damned time.

UPDATE:
Don Surber wonders why it took eight months for this to happen. If anything, the intervening period only highlighted the deficiencies in the case that were apparent from the outset when we learned that the accuser provided multiple stories to the prosecutors and related evidence didn't corroborate the accuser.

UPDATE:
Anonymous emailer has sent in the link for the NC Gen. Stat. Art. 10, Sec. 14-39, which deals with kidnapping:

(a) Any person who shall unlawfully confine, restrain, or remove from one place to another, any other person 16 years of age or over without the consent of such person, or any other person under the age of 16 years without the consent of a parent or legal custodian of such person, shall be guilty of kidnapping if such confinement, restraint or removal is for the purpose of:

1. Holding such other person for a ransom or as a hostage or using such other person as a shield; or
2. Facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony; or
3. Doing serious bodily harm to or terrorizing the person so confined, restrained or removed or any other person; or
4. Holding such other person in involuntary servitude in violation of G.S. 14‑43.2.

(b) There shall be two degrees of kidnapping as defined by subsection (a). If the person kidnapped either was not released by the defendant in a safe place or had been seriously injured or sexually assaulted, the offense is kidnapping in the first degree and is punishable as a Class C felony. If the person kidnapped was released in a safe place by the defendant and had not been seriously injured or sexually assaulted, the offense is kidnapping in the second degree and is punishable as a Class E felony.

According to the statute, it would appear that if the accused were held in the building where the party occurred against her will and serious bodily harm occurred, a kidnapping charge would be appropriate. Nifong claims that a sexual assault occurred so it would kick the crime up to a Class C felony. The problem for Nifong is whether any of this occurred.

UPDATE:
Duke President Richard Brodhead calls for Nifong to step down from the case? And Nifong is begging for the media to back off? The sharks in the water are smelling blood - his blood. They're not going to back off.

Technorati: duke rape case, duke, nifong, lacrosse.

Zawahiri's Taking Sides in Palestinian Civil War

Zawahiri has chosen sides in the Palestinian civil war, which seems to be where the action is these days as al Qaeda in Iraq has been downgraded as the top threat by US defense officials. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he's siding with the more extreme and violent of the terrorist groups aching to be on top when all is said and done:

Al-Zawahiri Criticizes Elections in PA Areas
Ayman al-Zawahiri, second-in-command of Al-Qa'ida organization, said that plots are being hatched to abort the concept of jihad in the Palestinian territories. In a new videotape, he stressed that the elections in the Palestinian areas will not lead to the liberation of these areas.

Excerpt #1:
[Begin Al-Zawahiri video recording] Any path other than the path of jihad will not lead us to anything but to waste and loss. Those trying to liberate the Muslim land through elections based on secular constitutions or on the [UN] resolutions handing over Palestine to the Jews, will not liberate a grain of the soil of Palestine. In fact, their efforts will lead to strangling the jihad and besieging the mujahidin. Retreating before the West will not make them feel satisfied with us, no matter how skillful we might be in maneuvering, tactics, and dialogue.

God says: Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. [Part of Koranic verse] [End recording]

Excerpt #2:

[Begin Al-Zawahiri video recording] One of the forms of recognizing Israel is accepting the legitimacy of Mahmud Abbas, head of the National Authority and America's man in Palestine, and giving the PLO, which recognizes Israel, the mandate to negotiate with Israel. This is an abyss, which eventually destroys jihad and leads to the recognition of Israel. Disregarding the religious facts and the actual realities of the conflict between Islam and non-belief has made some brothers in Palestine go from calm to elections based on a secular constitution; from elections based on a secular constitution to respect for international resolutions; from respect for international resolutions to acceptance of the prisoner document; from acceptance of the prisoner document to a national unity government; and from a national unity government to forcing them out of the cabinet. The series is still unfolding. How is it that they have not demanded that Palestine should have an Islamic constitution before participating in any elections? Aren't they an Islamic movement? Aren't they seeking to make the word of Allah reign supreme? [End recording]

Al-Zawahiri said that plots are being hatched to abort the notion of jihad in the Palestinian territories. He asserted that elections in the Palestinian territories will not lead to its liberation.

Should it surprise anyone that the US and the West are trying to thwart the ascendancy of the Islamists and prevent yet another terrorist incubator from being hatched in Gaza and the West Bank? Zawahiri is nothing if not predictable here.

Zawahiri is fearful of elections, since that could result in losses for Islamists. It's a curious thing really. If political Islam suffers defeats at the ballot, it would appear to call into question the theology and appeal of such ideology. But political Islam does not suffer failure well. Indeed, its adherents spread political Islam at the tip of the sword and will not accept the results of elections, despite the will of the people.

Others blogging: Howie at Jawa Report and Stop the ACLU.

Scrappleface provides video in a way only he can.

Technorati: terrorism, nasrallah, fatah, haniyeh, Olmert, carter, Abbas, abdullah, jordan, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.

A Matter of Size and Mission

How big a military is needed in these troubled times? How many thousands more troops are needed beyond the figures set forth by Congress and the Army? Are we going to need a million troops to handle the various threats that are on the horizon (and those we haven't even anticipated despite war planning and gaming any multitude of scenarios)? Are we going to need to ramp up troops significantly beyond this? Since we're in a long war, the odds are that we're going to need to significantly ramp up troops, but not only because of the situation in Iraq or the Middle East.

President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.

"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

The president's decision comes at a time when he is rethinking his strategy in Iraq and considering, among other options, a short-term surge in troop levels to try to secure violence-torn Baghdad. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are resisting the idea during internal debates in part out of the conviction that it will further strain already-pressed forces.

(snip)

The Army has already temporarily increased its size from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then grow an additional 7,000 soldiers or more per year. The Army estimates that every 10,000 additional soldiers will cost about $1.2 billion a year.

And yet, the size of the military is besides the point here. It's what do we as a nation expect our military to do and what missions must it be prepared to handle?

Our military is the best the world has ever seen at breaking stuff and doing it with overwhelming force, precision, and totality if need be. We can place a bomb on target anywhere in the world within minutes of a decision to do so. Billions have been spent to develop the technology and train the soldiers, sailors, and Marines to break stuff and do so efficiently.

The US military has shrunk steadily ever since the end of the Vietnam War. Indeed, it has shrunk ever since the last huge war of consequence - World War II. The spending charts bear that out. Congress has limited the increase in the size of the military even though spending has increased significantly over the past few years. The manpower available for various missions remains limited. It is this reason that you hear about the same units being sent back to the theater of operations time and time again.

However, this is where things get interesting. Do we need a larger military force to handle the breaking stuff aspect of warfighting and defending the nation, or do we need a force capable of doing the nation-building peacemaking that comes after conflicts?

It is likely a combination of the above, but leaning towards more forces available to do the nation-building.

Here's my reasoning. If you have a sizable force that handles the nation-building, it frees up those forces that are responsible for breaking stuff. Special forces are great at breaking stuff, but are too valuable and specialized to be tasked to nation building for months on end. Military police are of limited use in breaking stuff, but become quite valuable at the end of a conflict to restore law and order. Engineering units are needed in both breaking stuff and in rebuilding stuff. You need the right mix of troops for the missions.

Complicating matters further, you have differing missions. You need major forces for potential conflicts in North Korea or Iran or Syria or China, but special forces and nimble forces for dealing with failed state regimes like Sudan, Somalia, and other places that are or have the potential to become terrorist incubators. Those missions require different and competing interests that cannot be addressed with the current budget.

California Yankee wonders what took so long for this decision to be made and thought that Rumsfeld should have made the call years ago.

Now, it appears that even Democrats would be willing to consider the increase the physical size of the military where they may have been reluctant to do so previously, as noted here in the WaPo story:

The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee spoke out forcefully today for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, noting that their leaders describe the services as "stretched and strained." "We're going to have to pay attention to this," Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) told reporters. Saying the two services are "bleeding," he added, "I think we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces. I think that will be a major part of our work."

Others commenting: Blue Crab Boulevard, Stop the ACLU, Hot Air, Unpartisan, Macranger, Redstate, and Political Pit Bull.

UPDATE:
Oliver Willis thinks it isn't the size of the military that is the problem, but rather that it's been tasked to Iraq. Reasonable minds can differ as to Iraq, but Willis does ignore the fact that the military is in Iraq and hoping that the military breaks or forces a withdrawal of the battlefield crawling with insurgents and jihadis doesn't make much sense either.

The Left Coaster has some questions for Bush.

Dan Riehl weighs in. Instapundit has a link-o-rific post from earlier in the week, citing Austin Bay and notes some of the issues I raise above (albeit far more effectively).

Greyhawk notes that another Iraqi province has been handed over to the Iraqi military to handle security; a good thing no matter where you stand on the situation in Iraq.

UPDATE 12/20/2006:
Welcome Instapundit readers! Thanks for visiting and take a moment to check out the rest of my site.

CAIR's Outrageous Conduct of the Day

Via Stop the ACLU:

CAIR has successfully shut down a friend's blog, Vilmar of Rightwing Howler. I'd provide a link, but it would only go to a suspended account. They claimed he was a hate site and quote he advocates the murder of Muslim children. Where did they get this idea? Well, he quoted some Satire from the well known satire site IMAO. I've gathered up quite some angry reactions to this. Most agree that CAIR should put their focus in shutting down all of the jihadi hate sites if they really want to make a difference. People are outraged and urging others to contact his server and ask them why they are afraid of CAIR. Please share with your readers.


Beth of MVRWC has a lot of details.

Outrageous doesn't begin to cover this. Free speech for me, but not for thee...

Does CAIR call for the shutdown of jihadi sites that announce and publicize the beheadings of infidels? Does CAIR call for the ISPs to shut down jihadi meeting places where they gather to discuss terrorist tactics and plot? They instead [seek to] shut down those that satirize the jihadis and Islamists who use their religious beliefs as a battering ram.

Now, this is not a situation where governments are involved, but rather private entities putting pressure on other entities to stop a particular kind of conduct. What CAIR is doing is pressuring and threatening those that shed light on the destructive nature of the jihadis and their fellow travelers.

This cannot stand.

UPDATE:
Right wing Howler posted a notice on his site. He had been considering quitting blogging for some time, and this gives him the opportunity to do so. He also says not to be too hard on the hosting ISP and put yourself in their shoes.

Okay. I'll put myself in their shoes. CAIR is trying to shake down anyone who doesn't kowtow to their line. I'd hold my ground against them. Did RWH actually violate the TOS or did they act precipitiously? RWH thinks that they were within their rights to do so. Again, that doesn't mean that the hosting service was right to do so.

And more to the point, it doesn't mean that CAIR gets to determine what can or can't be said about the jihadis and Islamists who seek to destroy our way of life. Satire is a useful tool in exposing the hypocrisy of the likes of CAIR and others who threaten to muzzle those who expose the jihadi and CAIR agendas.

The truly sad thing is that the text that CAIR complained of didn't even originate at RWH, but at another website, IMAO.

Ed Morrissey who notes the following - and with which I agree:

The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not prior restraint and silencing techniques. People who try to shut down bloggers have no interest in freedom and liberty.

Also, I added text above in brackets. Others blogging: Cao's Blog, Macker's World, Iowa Voice, and Barking Moonbat.

Kofi's Stone Throwing

His last official appearance is December 19. To the end, he refused to call the Darfur situation genocide, which would have mandated action by the UN to intervene. And that he can even see to mention Darfur at all is seen as an accomplishment since he's tried to avoid any discussion of the matter for fear of offending the thugs in Khartoum. Meanwhile the violence continues as Khartoum dickers over the terms of a UN/AU peacekeeping force.

He personally refused to intervene in Rwanda and his butcher's bill exceeds 800,000 from that debacle. Tragic comedy that is more tragedy than comedy.

Then there's the failures listed at Hot Air; ones we're all familiar with, even as Kofi wonders where he's going to spend his retirement and ill gotten gains (perhaps in a country without extradition with the US?).

What do we learn from this? Kofi has never been held accountable for his actions. UNSCAM blows up and he's not held accountable. Peacekeepers engaging in sexual misconduct with those they were sent to protect. Inadequate action taken, and the misconduct continues on missions around the world, including in Haiti and in Africa. Members of the Secretariat are implicated in sexual harassment scandals. No action taken.

The list is endless, yet Kofi feels the need to talk about American accountability yet he feels that the UN should have no accountability for all the pain, misery, and suffering it has inflicted on the downtrodden around the world. From the inability to send peacekeepers to Darfur until hundreds of thousands were slaughtered to Rwanda where the slaughter was complete before uttering a phrase even remotely close to the word genocide, Kofi has sat on his hands while butchers, thugs, and despots slaughtered the innocents. He coddled Saddam Hussein, all the while he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites - and for which he now stands on trial for crimes against humanity and genocide - not because the UN took action, but because the US and a coalition of nations realized that something had to be done following all those UN resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance meant nothing.

It was on Kofi's watch that the irrelevance of the UN except as a debating society and to hamstring US foreign policy was made explicit. Attacking Israel became a daily chore for the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, which ignored real issues like Darfur, child soldiers, slavery, and a whole host of miseries inflicted on people around the world by the very members of the HRC itself. That such gross violators of human rights would sit in judgment on such a panel is itself a testament to the failures of the UN to deal with the structural and procedural failings - and Kofi's refusal to deal with reform in any meaningful way.

Instead, Kofi has the audacity to attack the US, which is the largest benefactor to the UN, provides the bulk of logistical support for UN peacekeeping operations, and puts the UN to shame when there's an international crisis such as a tsunami or earthquake by being able to provide aid immediately and without convening crisis groups and panels to determine what might be needed for the advance team to set up shop.

Others blogging: Charles at LGF, Stop the ACLU, The American Pundit, and Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE:
Dr. Sanity puts the curse of Annan to verse.

Others blogging: Macranger, Dan Riehl, Decision 08, American Thinker, It Shines For All, GOP and College, Kim Priestap, and Wizbang.

UPDATE:
The situation in Darfur is going to get a whole lot more complicated as AU peacekeepers shot and killed three Darfur refugees.

African Union peacekeepers killed three Darfur rioters when a crowd of angry refugees threatened to break into their base in the town of El Geneina, a U.N. official said Monday.

It was the first time peacekeepers have killed Darfur civilians, marking new deterioration in the war-torn region of western Sudan. In a separate incident, the African Union reported Monday that gunmen had kidnapped two of its peacekeepers the night before.

After the riot and shooting on Sunday, Sudanese police deployed around the African Union base to protect the peacekeepers, aid workers in El Geneina said.

The refugees protesting at the base were relatives of 30 civilians who were executed by pro-government janjaweed fighters on Saturday. They were protesting against the African Union for what they say is the peacekeeping force's failure to protect them.

Earlier coverage is here.

Technorati: darfur, dafur, UN, sudan, chad, somalia, ethiopia, eritrea, african union, janjaweed, genocide, crimes against humanity, kofi, failure, and Kofi Annan

Jihad in the Heartland

This may be my last will and testament, the last words I have spoken to those who know me, to those who do not know me. My name is Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef. I am 22 years of age. I am from America and this tape is to let you guys know, who disbelieve in Allah, to let the enemies of Islam know, and to let the Muslims alike know that the time for jihad is now....Be strong, oh Mujahaideen. Be strong oh brothers who want to fight for jihad...This is a warning to those who disbelieve, that we are here for you, and I am ready to give my life.

Thus spoke Derrick Shareef, aka Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef, who was arrested for plotting terrorist attacks in Illinois.

The attacks would have involved a CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, Illinois (just outside Chicago) and Allah has running updates.

The attacks were planned for December 22, when Shareef thought the mall would be the busiest. He planned on using hand grenades to carry out the attack. Shareef met with an undercover federal agent to swap stereo speakers for four hand grenades and a handgun, and was arrested in a store parking lot.

In a complaint filed today in U.S. District Court in Chicago, Shareef was charged with attempting to damage or destroy a building by fire or explosion and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. He is scheduled to make his initial court appearance this afternoon, officials said.

Authorities said there was never any risk to the public because Shareef was under heavy surveillance prior to his arrest.

Others blogging: Stop the ACLU, The Jawa Report, The Junkyard Blog, Suitably Flip.

UPDATE:
The Sun Times reports that federal authorities became involved when Shareef mentioned his intentions to a friend who then alerted authorities.

Shareef allegedly discussed targeting other local government facilities. He was charged with one count of attempting to damage or destroy a building by fire or explosion and one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Shareef’s alleged plot was foiled after he shared his plans with a friend, who cooperated with the FBI. Shareef told the person he wanted to commit “acts of violent jihad” against people and other crimes to obtain funds to further his goals.

He at one point told the informant he wanted to target government facilities.

“I want some type of city hall-type stuff now, federal court houses,” Shareef was caught on tape saying, according to an FBI affidavit. “I just want to smoke a judge.”

“Once the threat Shareef posed was detected by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, his activities and movements were under constant surveillance and there was no imminent risk to the public,” Chicago FBI chief Robert Grant said in a prepared statement.

Technorati: shareef, terrorism, jttf, derrick shareef, Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef, cherryvale.

Disturbing If Confirmed

Tucked in a Jerusalem Post article about how Hamas is able to stay afloat economically - smuggling plays a big role, comes this juicy tidbit that deserves more attention and scrutiny:

Hamas officials have managed to smuggle more than $66 million in cash through the Rafah border crossing in the past eight months, a member of the Hamas-led government revealed Wednesday.

Meanwhile, sources close to the Hamas-led government claimed that Hamas representatives recently held talks with officials from the US Democratic Party at a secret location.

The sources told the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency that Hamas representatives had also held secret talks with officials of European governments, including Britain and France.

Who, what, when, where, why, and how. Let's get to basics folks. Who met with which Hamas representatives. What happened in that meeting. Where did this meeting take place. Why? How did anyone associated with the US government, let alone members of the Democrat party meet. Was this a sanctioned meeting with the blessing of the Administration in an overall attempt to kickstart a peace process that should be considered dead because that is what Hamas has done to it by using Gaza as a springboard for continued attacks on Israel all the while denying Israel's right to even exist.

When I first posted on LGF, I wondered out loud whether Jimmy Carter was somehow involved in all this. Given his anti-Israel stance, and support for the genocidal terrorists running the Palestinian Authority these days, I think this is an avenue of investigation worth pursuing.

The matter is of great concern if there are members of the Democrat party who are busy engaging in diplomacy behind the back of the Administration. Not only would they be subverting the existing diplomatic efforts such as they are, but they could very well be violating federal law. Hamas is on the State Department's terror watch list, and could be construed as consorting with the enemies of the US.

Powerline also wonders who spoke with Hamas reps. Meryl Yourish finds the whole affair troublesome.

UPDATE:
Others taking a closer look at the curiosity raised in the JPost article include The Jawa Report who points to the federal law on the subject, Hot Air is skeptical, Stop the ACLU, The Anchoress, and Ace of Spades.

The ISG Report Is In

This is why I call the Baker boys psuedorealists and why the media doesn't quite get it.

Headline: Panel: Start Withdrawing From Iraq.

The lede:

A commission on the war in Iraq recommended new and enhanced diplomacy Wednesday so the United States can "begin to move its combat forces" out of the country responsibly.

"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating," the commission warned after an eight-month review of a conflict that has killed more than 2,800 U.S. troops and grown increasingly unpopular at home. The report was obtained by The Associated Press.

The report warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a risk of a "slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."

Maybe it's just me but there's a serious disconnect between the headline and what the panel is ostensibly calling for. If the US withdraws, the slide towards chaos will accelerate and deteriorate further. It would not improve with the US leaving. The only difference is that the US wouldn't be in country to do anything to stop the violence (though the ISG says that there's little the US can do on that score except accelerate training of the Iraqi forces).

The report says that Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own security - but that's what the US has been saying for some time now. The Iraqis haven't quite figured out how to deal with the jihadis and militias that are operating both within the government and outside it. They must gain control over the situation to improve the security situation.

But to think that the situation will improve if the US up and leaves, is downright naive. The situation cannot improve if the US leaves because the terrorists will be able to operate openly and freely. The US takes casualties because of its ongoing operations to deal with terrorists where we know they're located - inside Iraq.

It's also naive to think that the Syrians or Iranians have Iraqis best intentions in mind. They're too busy trying to destabilize all the democratically elected neighbors so that they can increase their power in the region. Lebanon tetters on the brink, Israel is beleaguered and beset on its borders by terrorists sponsored by Syria and Iran, and Iraq is between a rock (Syria) and a hard place (Iran). Calling for negotiations with countries whose long term goals are the imposition their will and their version of Islam (Ahmadinejad issued yet another da'wa to the West today) are doomed to failure because there is no common ground. Any concessions by the West will be seen as weakness by the Iranians to be exploited down the road. It is for this reason I call Baker and his comrades who call for negotiations with Iran and Syria pseudorealists because nothing good can come of such talks for the long term strategic interests of the US (or its allies in the region).

The report doesn't call for a specific timeline for withdrawal, which is a good thing since there's no reason to spell out the specific date that the terrorists have to simply survive until in order for them to achieve their success. Instead, the report provides goals that need to be achieved and warns of the dire consequences of failure. The report notes the importance of gaining consensus on what to do about Iraq and to see things through. I could not agree more. Precipitous withdrawal would have disasterous consequences not only for the Iraqis, but for US interests in the region both in the short term and the long term. While such a withdrawal would mean US forces coming home, it would reduce US national security because our allies would be that much more leery of committing to action to defend their common interests, and nations and leaders that might otherwise seek our support and assistance would instead become more reluctant to work with the US for fear of having the carpet pulled from under them at the worst possible time.

UPDATE:
The full text of the report can be found here. Among the problems, many are due to corruption within the Iraqi government, a weak judiciary, and failings of the Iraqi military and security forces who have uneven performance and allegiances (pages 20/21). The economic situation in Iraq is uneven, but there are serious signs of progress. Cell phone usage is growing significantly and that's also a sign of freedom of speech as Saddam had restricted such usage because he would not be able to control the message. Food production also increased by 40% in Kurdish controlled areas because of an improved security situation. The Iraqi government also met IMF benchmarks.

The Iraqi economy is growing at 4% a year, which falls short of the hoped for 11%. Considering that most of Europe would kill to get 4% economic growth, take that comment by the ISG with a grain of salt. The unemployment situation is bad and improving that could go a long way to reducing the violence as well. Some percentage of those who are involved in the insurgency are doing so because they don't have jobs or because they no longer have their former jobs under Saddam. That will need to be addressed by the Iraqi government in some form or another.

Corruption and violence are also affecting Iraq's oil output, though the high prices of oil on the international markets have meant that Iraq's economy has not been harmed nearly as badly. Output is below pre-war figures, and that too needs to be addressed by the Iraqi government.

International aid has fallen short of its pledged amounts. No surprise there. (page 27). Strangely, the report claims that no country in the region wants an unstable Iraq and yet a few pages later the ISG outlines that Iran and Syria are meddling in Iraq to achieve their own strategic and tactical goals. Both are purposefully undermining the US and coalition efforts in Iraq, and undermining democratically elected governments elsewhere in the region because such governments are a direct threat to the thugs in Damascus and Tehran. Chaos in Iraq is being exploited by Iran and Syria to expand and enhance their power. Instead of addressing this, the ISG ignores this basic fact and instead suggests that the US engage in multilateral discussions as though this will accomplish US strategic interests (page 50).

What also makes little sense is why the US can or should link the situation in Iraq to any peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis (page 44). That conflict has been going on for 60 years with no sign that the Palestinians are any closer to recognizing Israel's right to exist and a 2-state solution than they were when Israel declared its independence in 1948. Yet, there is one respect where the various regional conflicts are linked: international terrorism and the state sponsorship of that violence by the likes of Iran and Syria. Saudi sheikhs are also involved in the sponsorship and other countries host terrorists and groups that preach violence and jihad. The problem is that none of the countries in the region are willing to address those issues because the terrorism is an extension of their foreign and military policies and/or lack of control over such groups as a result of being failed states that have become terrorist incubators. The ISG wiggles out of this in the following manner:

There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist)[emphasis added], and particularly Syria—which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.

Considering that the Palestinians elected Hamas - an Islamic terror group dedicated to Israel's destruction, and Fatah is also committed to Israel's destruction, no progress is possible unless and until the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist. Syria will not stop its support of terrorism unless the regime itself is threatened with force to cease such support. It will not willingly give up thoughts of dominating Lebanon either without such threats. Yet, the ISG claims that there is no military solution to the situation. I disagree. A military solution would involve heavy casualties, but those regimes that support and harbor terrorists would be deposed and would no longer provide safe havens to the terrorists. Hizbullah and Hamas would lose their primary financial support, and be forced to fend for themselves. They'd still be able to cause mayhem against Israel and Lebanon, and perhaps other US interests in the region.

Israelis are tired of leaders that waffle and do not take decisive actions. They supported Sharon's disengagement from Gaza because it ended Israeli occupation of Gaza. That was met with a rocket war launched by PIJ, Hamas, and Fatah. Palestinians, instead of using the opportunity to advance economically, turned Gaza into an armed camp - complete with bunkers, smuggling tunnels, and further radicalized the Palestinians who saw the disengagement as a sign of Israeli weakness instead of a peace offering.

Land for peace may sound great as per UN SCR 242 and 338, but the Palestinians have no interest in anything other than pieces for peace. They want Israel in pieces, and then the Palestinians will have their peace. Their refusal to carry out any of the obligations under Oslo shows that they are unserious about peace. The Palestinians refused the deal offered by Barak at Camp David in 2000, and their elected leaders are more radical now than in 2000.

Elsewhere, the ISG's recommendations on page 45 amount to little more than asking Iran and Syria to "pretty please with sugar on top" stop making trouble in Iraq. Hoping that the UN will have some kind of magic pixie dust (page 50) to assist in Iraq is also wishful thinking. The UN was part and parcel of the problem via OFF/UNSCAM and a blind eye to the repeated Iraqi violations of UN resolutions by Saddam. Now, China, Russia, and others are hoping to use Iraq to club the US and tie it down there so that they can expand their influence in the region at US expense.

The ISG's response to addressing the issue of Iran's nuclear program: punt to the UN Security Council (pages 51/52). That's done wonders so far. No resolution and Iran continues down the path to securing its nuclear weapons program.

Hoping that Syria will adhere to UN SCR 1701 is also wishful thinking (page 54). Heck, it's wishful thinking that the UN itself would carry out the terms of UN SCR 1701 since they've ignored the part about disarming all militias operating within Lebanon - including Hizbullah. That's a not insigificant oversight and flaw in both the UN and the ISG report.

All in all, the ISG report mostly rehashes recent history and offers up a bunch of ideas that are pie-in-the sky offerings and hopes for renewed diplomatic maneuverings that might get movement somewhere on the issues facing the region.

UPDATE:
As would be expected, quite a few people are discussing the report and attempting to read the tea leaves. This includes Charles at LGF who wonders why the ISG wants to hang Israel out to dry and negotiate with the terror supporting regimes that destabilize the region.

Rick Moran takes a read on the lay of the land. Decision 08 saw this coming given the leaks about the report for weeks and months now and further notes benchmarking is a great idea, but negotiating with Syria and Iran isn't.

The incoming chair of the House Intel Committee thinks that the US should add troops to Iraq.

Don Surber notes that the Democrats have found themselves wanting to win in Iraq now that they're going to be in charge of Congress come January. Flopping Aces wonders what this is going to do to the unhinged Left.

Others blogging: Stop the ACLU, Ace of Spades, Jules Crittenden, Tom Maguire, and Outside the Beltway.

UPDATE:
Added TTLB linking for citations above. The ISG isn't a blueprint to victory. As others have noted, this is a political document designed to provide political cover to those who think the Administration needs to withdraw post-haste, or to continue and fight but aren't sure just what their commitment is. Others blogging: Security Watchtower, QandO, neo-neocon, and Redstate.

UPDATE:
Still more reactions: Macranger thinks the ISG is telling the US to bend over.

Others blogging: The Lede, Dan Riehl, AJ Strata, Tigerhawk, and Tammy Bruce.

More importantly, what do Iraqis think of this. They aren't exactly thrilled about the report, or its contents.

Technorati: iraq, isg, iraq study group, bush, baker, terrorism.

UNfulfilling

US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has submitted his letter of resignation to President Bush effective when his recess appointment expires. President Bush accepted the resignation. That's a big loss since Bolton has done more to advance the US interests in the UN than recent US ambassadors to the UN.

The ambassador position is not meant to advance the UN position in the US, but vice versa. Bolton understood this, and this meant tackling the issues of rampant corruption in the Secretariat and pushing for action on Darfur and other human rights crises. It meant standing up for the rights of our allies, including Israel that came under constant attack from Islamic terrorist groups, and the UN General Assembly instead sought to limit Israel's response. Bolton tried to deal with Darfur, and ran into roadblocks in the form of China and Russia. The same thing happened on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, which continues to proceed at full speed.

Secretary General Kofi Annan has avoided dealing with Darfur at all costs, refusing to acknowledge that yet another genocide occurred on his watch either as head of the peacekeeping operations or as Secretary General (that would make at least three by my count - Rwanda, Congo, and Darfur). Yet, he goes out of the way to claim that the situation in Iraq now is worse than at any time when Saddam Hussein was in power. Now, that's quite a stretch considering that Saddam is currently standing trial for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes relating to the 1987-1988 Anfal campaign where at least 180,000 Iraqis were slaughtered and Saddam employed chemical weapons.

Thankfully, Kofi's term will end soon enough. His last public appearance at the helm is set for December 19. It can't come a moment too soon. The world needs a serious break from Kofi's brand of human rights and peacekeeping. So do the millions of victims of the violence - including widespread confirmed cases of sexual harassment, rape, and prostitution that are all in violation of UN protocols. It also doesn't address the UNSCAM/Oil for Food scandal that siphoned billions of dollars from humanitarian aid that was meant for the Iraqis and instead ended up lining the pockets of some of those closest to Kofi including his son Kojo.

UPDATE:
As should be expected, quite a bit of blogging on the subject is going on today. Among those providing commentary and analysis - many of whom are discouraged by the Administration losing another casualty to the November elections: Macranger, Michelle Malkin, Texas Rainmaker, Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, Outside the Beltway.

The GOP simply didn't have the votes or the willpower to fight for Bolton's reappointment during the lame duck session, let alone in the new session in January when the GOP assumes minority party status in both the House and Senate.

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs was devastated by the news. She agrees that this was a huge loss for the US.

Stop the ACLU has a huge roundup of reaction.

Gateway Pundit knows who is benefiting the most from this: "Iran, Syria, Cubazuela, Sudan, Hezbollah, Libya, etc." Agreed. Dictators, tyrants, and thugs are going to benefit the most from the loss of a voice of reason and sanity at the UN.

UPDATE:
Still more reaction from the blogosphere on the Bolton resignation and who might replace him. George Mitchell's name keeps coming up in various discussions, and he'd probably sail through confirmation as he is a former Senator who's respected on both sides of the aisle. Rick Moran says we could do worse. Tis' true. We could. Harriet Miers is available of course.

Others blogging: memeorandum has a huge roundup of reaction from both sides of the 'sphere. Dan Riehl expresses his disgust at weak-willed GOPers and Democrats.

Poliblogger and American Mind wonders what is the big deal with Bolton's resignation. I think Bolton was very good at providing sound bites of the President's position far better than most everyone else in the Administration. He was a better spokesperson for the President that the President himself.

It's true that the writing was on the wall, but it still is a shock to many who thought that the Administration and GOP might go to bat for Bolton in one last gasp before the end of the lame duck session. That wasn't going to happen.

Of course, the resignation overshadows lots of UN related news - like North Korea being at the center of a reinsurance scam that has netted the cash strapped nation millions of dollars - where every dollar counts (whether they've counterfeited it or not). More importantly, the commentary by Kofi on the state of affairs in Iraq, which he believes is far worse than at any time when Saddam was in charge. As noted above, Kofi never saw a genocide that he couldn't ignore and Iraq is no exception. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Period. It would get in the way of his anti-US, anti-interventionist position that threatens so much of the world because failed states are terrorist-incubators that threaten regional stability (Middle East, South Asia, Africa), can inflict billions in damage around the world, and threaten with genocide all those who stand in the way.

Blind Mice

The media continues to report on the Jamil Hussein story, disparaging Curt at Flopping Aces and others who have questioned the original AP story that was picked up by newspapers and media outlets around the world without knowing whether Hussein, in fact, actually existed.

AP stands by its stories, and claims that it has had its reporters interview Hussein again - and that he continues to stand by his stories.

However, the US military and the Iraqi government has responded in force - the guy does not exist.

There's a simple way to solve the problem. AP has to produce the guy. Let Hussein provide his bona-fides. If he is who he says he is, then we can take the story from there. If AP refuses to take this action, or other media outlets cannot find the guy, then we know something is definitely fishy.

The Times reporting on the story is sorely lacking and could use a serious update. Michelle Malkin and Flopping Aces have been at the forefront of the story.

Also commenting: Don Surber, Dan Riehl, Hot Air, Confederate Yankee, Gateway Pundit, Patterico, and the Belmont Club.

UPDATE:
Curt has a good update. Others waiting in line to throw AP under the bus for proffering Hussein as a source and then absurdly claiming that he exists without any actual proof include: Stop the ACLU, and the Political Pit Bull.

UPDATE:
Here's a few more thoughts on the NYT coverage here. The NYT seemingly wonders how an email from the MNF-I ended up on the conservative blog circuit - as though this was some piece of classified information that should be kept secret while the Times goes ahead and publishes story after story based on classified information leaked by persons who have violated federal law. The Times wants readers to believe in conspiracies where none exist, and chooses to single out a fact that the US military has found it necessary to deal with outside firms to handle communications because the media is doing such a piss-poor job reporting the conflict. Never mind that the military has been in constant contact with the media, including the Associated Press, but the AP has refused to address the military's version with anything but derision and contempt. Bloggers picked up on the story because they smelled something was fishy. Simply put, the military did not single out bloggers to contact, but instead was engaging in outreach to inquiring bloggers in addition to its daily reporting to media outlets.

UPDATE:
Curt's main website continues to have access problems due to the heavy traffic. Here's his backup site. Others commenting on the story include: In the Bullpen, LGF, Newsbusters, and Prarie Pundit.

UPDATE:
It's been a bit since I've updated, and there's quite a bit of additional commentary flowing on the subject of AP and Jamil Hussein. Rick Moran wonders about the whole nature of journalism and its future. The ultimate reader doesn't concern AP, it's the editors in the newsrooms and television stations that rely on the wire reports. Their lack of curiosity on the story is itself instructive and disturbing:

And what does that say then about all of those media outlets who carried this story? Curt at Flopping Aces was able to raise numerous questions about the truth of the burning Sunnis story after a couple of hours of research using nothing more than some common sense, a curious mind, and a modem. If similar questions had been raised in newsrooms across America, I can guarantee you any responsible editor would have put a “hold” on that story. At least until a later revision from AP had been forthcoming.

But that wouldn’t have been good enough. The changing nature of journalism in America means that to a large extent, reporters are almost as incurious about the world as their readers. What would it have cost to pick up the phone and call CENTCOM? The PA officers there got back to Curt within a few hours with the info that contradicted the AP story. Better yet, duplicating Curt’s work, how much trouble would it have been to Google up Capt. Jamil Hussein? Would the fact that he appeared as a source for AP so many times over the previous months raised a red flag in any newsroom in America? I doubt it.

Meanwhile, Countercolumn has his own reservations about how the AP itself is conducting itself. It isn't pretty.

Greyhawk notes some other curious news stories carried by AP and substantive portions of the AP narrative were denied to have happened by CENTCOM.

Others blogging: Junkyard Blog, Media Lies, LGF, and Blackfive.

Technorati: fauxtography, jamil hussein, fauxtography, journalism.