Andrew Hagen

Democratically-elected officials face a dilemma. The people have certain values, and they also have certain desires. Sometimes the values conflict with the desires. In many cases, it is proper for elected officials to make a judgment call and resolve a conflict between the two.

Yet, what if a decision would be unpopular with a large portion of the voting public? Should the elected official notify the people as to his decision, or should he try to keep the actual decision secret? It must be awfully tempting to keep it secret so the people won’t know that he gratified their desires while breaking with their values, or fulfilled their values at the expense of their desires. That way the people will continue to hold the elected official and his political party in their esteem, and not hold him accountable for the actual decision he made.

It’s the best of both worlds–for one man.

Yet, courage and integrity dictate the proper response: notifying the people as to the elected official’s decision, giving his true reasons for making it, and making a case for why his judgment was proper.

For decades, British Petroleum plc has been one of the largest companies in the world, primarily engaged in the oil and gas business. BP has long been a leading producer of North Sea oil. BP has a long history in Scotland, with operations in Aberdeen going back decades. In recent years, production of North Sea oil has showed many signs that the oil fields there have peaked, and that production will significantly decline in the future.

On December 21, 1988, Pan Am flight 103 took off from Heathrow, bound for New York. The Boeing 747 carried 243 passengers and 16 crew members. Unbeknownst to them, a Libyan, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, had placed a bomb on board the plane. It was Megrahi’s intent that the bomb explode while the airplane was over open water so that no one would learn what caused the disaster. As it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, the airplane was blown out of the sky by Megrahi’s bomb. All aboard died, and 11 people on the ground were killed by falling debris.

In 1999, Scottish governmental authority was restored. The Scottish Executive became the executive branch governmental authority of Scotland. The restored Scottish parliament met for the first time.

In 2001, Megrahi was convicted of committing the Lockerbie bombing by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Investigators believe that others in addition to Megrahi bear responsibility for the bombing. No others have yet been convicted of the crime.

In 2007, BP signed a deal to explore Libyan gas fields. Since then, BP’s efforts have been stymied by Libyan bureaucratic obstacles.

In 2007, the Scottish Executive renamed itself “The Scottish Government.” Cabinet Secretary for Justice is an executive branch position therein.

On 24 July 2009, Megrahi made a request to be released on grounds of compassion.

A few days ago Megrahi was released by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill. The justification as stated by MacAskill was that Megrahi suffered from terminal prostate cancer and should be released for humanitarian reasons.

Dr Bassam Fattouh of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies told the Times of London, “Now that al-Megrahi is released, BP expects to get the go-ahead.”

Under pressure, the Scottish Government has refused to release the name of the one doctor on whose medical opinion it relied to determine that Megrahi was dying, or the doctor’s area of specialty.

Megrahi spent about 12 days in custody for each of the 270 lives he murdered.

The conclusion that Megrahi suffered from cancer has come into serious doubt. Megrahi traveled to Libya and partied with the “reformed” Colonel Khaddaffy.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated publicly that he was “angry and repulsed” by the celebratory hero’s welcome given to Megrahi in Libya.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has tacitly confirmed that he was in negotiations with the government of Libya prior to his decision to release Megrahi. MacAskill told the Scottish parliament that the government of Libya broke its “pledge” to give Megrahi a low-key reception. MacAskill did not reveal what, if anything was pledged by him, the Scottish Government, or other entities in return for Libya’s pledge, or what other arrangements were made.

MacAskill is a member of the Scottish National Party.

In a written statement, MacAskill takes responsibility for the release. He denies that there was any basis for the release other than compassion. In a bizarre passage in his statement, however, he states:

This crime precedes both the election of our Government and even the restoration of a Parliament in Scotland.

While that is a true statement, it nevertheless opens the door to a simple question: why would that matter here? Any legitimate government would wish to uphold law and order within its jurisdiction, even if a crime was committed before the current government came into existence. The fact that MacAskill stated such an irrelevancy creates a natural suspicion that he may have been guided by motives other than compassion.

The values of Scotland include justice. Justice requires that Megrahi be punished for his crimes. Justice required Megrahi to be punished by spending the rest of his life in prison, nothing less.

On the other hand, people like to drive automobiles that run on gasoline (petrol), and British politicians wish to help their own private companies make money. It is a conflict of values and desires.

Good elected officials portray their decisions to the public honestly. They do not deceive the public in the hopes that they and their political party will get their cake and eat it too.

Faithful servants of law and order do not release into freedom a mass murderer on grounds of compassion, regardless of what medical diagnosis the mass murderer is supposed to have received.

It is quite clear that the Scottish Government, and perhaps other public authorities in the UK have engaged in a public deception campaign over the disgraceful release of the smiling, laughing, bloodthirsty mass-murderer Megrahi.

Megrahi and Khaddaffy celebrate joyously, and the victims of the Lockerbie attack have no justice.

Update: Khaddaffy’s son confirms that Megrahi was freed as part of a deal for oil.

Update: The Times of London reports that a minister of the UK government, Ivan Lewis, recently sent a letter to The Scottish Government stating that any deal with the US to keep the terrorist mass murderer Megrahi in Scotland was not definitive. This indicates that the UK government was involved in the matter.

Update: Megrahi continues to claim innocence.

Update: There is now further confirmation that the UK government explicitly freed Megrahi for the sake of an oil and gas deal with Libya.

Congress and the White House have refused to deal with each other in passing an update to US foreign surveillance law. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and George W. Bush might hate each other, but right now, for the good of the country, they need to put down their pop guns and work together on a key bill that transcends political differences.

The newly drafted bill under consideration in Congress allows the US to listen in on foreign terrorist conversations. Advances in technology including computers and cell phones means that the prior legislation, enacted decades ago, is out-of-date. The proposed legislation enacts many powerful new protections against governmental abuse to benefit the privacy of US citizens, including those abroad. Congress will be kept regularly and fully informed through the Intelligence Committee. Separate bills have passed the House and Senate. Yet, there is no bill on the President’s desk to sign. As a result, the temporary legislation that preceded these bills has now expired. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and above all, Nancy Pelosi have failed. Now our ability to stop terrorist activity lies in shambles. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi have been selfish in aggrandizing their own political positions no matter what the cost. Apparently they think that risking another 9/11 is worth it if they can whip up their political bases for the November elections. Sickening.

We are presently engaged in a dire struggle to stop suicide bombs and terrorist attacks. A few hours ago, we let our guard down for no reason. We cannot let the violence of Iraq, reduced as it is since the surge, spread to the US.

The claimed sticking point is whether telecommunications companies should have protection from lawsuits for helping the government listen in on terrorists in the days after 9/11. They should have that immunity. Yet, some have suggested that business and government must not cooperate or we risk fascism. A little history suffices to remedy any misconception. Business and government cooperated extensively in World War II. Without that, the US would not have achieved victory over fascism. In prior years, FDR attempted to spark extensive business-government cooperation in the New Deal, but FDR is not considered a fascist. Business and government often cooperate. Cooperation is not ipso facto tyrannical. The desire for freedom concerns itself with abuses of power. We have First Amendment freedoms in America today and free elections coming up that undermine any claim that our government is fascist.

There is no record of any serious abuse of power in terrorist surveillance in the days after 9/11. US agencies were not exploiting the new cooperation with telecoms after 9/11 to dig up dirt on Americans by listening to their phone calls, like East Germany would have done. There is every indication that our intelligence services acted in good faith at that time. There is no evidence that any telecom company betrayed its customers. In the days after 9/11 we were all worried about more attacks that would kill thousands at a time. There is no evidence that any American’s privacy was invaded by foreign surveillance. If that did happen, it would have been a regrettable mistake, yet forgivable in the immediate days following 9/11. The telecoms were trying to do the right thing for the good of our country.

Benjamin Franklin wisely said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A temporary and minor reduction in privacy was justified by a threat that became real on 9/11. Now we have new legislation to permanently protect our privacy and liberties and provide a cornerstone for our future security. We need not punish telecoms who acted in good faith in the meantime. We deserve both liberty and security.

To forestall continued squabbling, might I suggest a compromise bill? Make the telecoms liable during that period if they did not act in good faith. If they did act in good faith, grant them amnesty. This compromise is a last resort.

Contrary to what conservatives are saying, trial lawyers are not fighting FISA. Maybe civil rights lawyers like the ACLU are currently in the dark and are fighting the update to FISA for no good reason. Trial lawyers are not against this change, even though it grants limited immunity to an industry. In this case, the protections afforded to our lives, liberty, and privacy justify the result.

Give the telecoms amnesty as per the Senate bill. Pass the legislation. Stop playing chicken with American security.

Step back for a second. Is fighting terrorism a war? If not, fighting terrorism is a law enforcement action. Regardless of one’s opinion, it is plain that we cannot stop terrorism unless we give the right tools to either law enforcement or the military–take your pick. One necessary tool against foreign terrorists is foreign surveillance. Congress has put together an adequate bill. Now it is time to make it law.

Terrorists attacked a political rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Their target was apparently Benazir Bhutto, who died of wounds from the explosion and, reportedly, two subsequent gunshots. (*) Fifteen died in what was likely a suicide bomb.

Earlier in the day, Nawaz al Sharif, Bhutto’s recent running mate, was nearly shot. (*)

Bhutto (1953-2007) stood for women’s rights, modernity compatible with religion, and democracy. While prime minister of Pakistan, the Taliban took root in Afghanistan. Later, in a speech to the Pakistani parliament in 1998, Bhutto spoke in favor of cutting ties with the Taliban. (*)

Subsequently in 1998, with a cloud of corruption charges hanging over her, she went into exile in Dubai. She said the charges were politically motivated. In 2007, she returned to Pakistan in part thanks to the United States working with the Pakistani government. Bhutto was granted amnesty. In an election, Bhutto’s side did very well. Pakistan’s leader, General Musharraf announced a state of emergency. Bhutto had stated many times that Musharraf’s cabinet and government is rife with Al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers. (*) In 2004, for example, she stated that prior to 9/11 Musharraf’s government was the biggest supporter of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The New York Daily News reported on December 26, 2007: (*)

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto yesterday accused President Pervez Musharraf of failing to stop the spread of Islamic militants and promised to crack down on the groups if she wins next month’s parliamentary election.

She did not give specifics.

As it turns out, maybe Musharraf was right to call for the state of emergency. Maybe he should have tightened it.

Since 9/11, Musharraf has worked with the international community to fight the war on terrorism. Key Al Qaeda suspects like Khalid Sheik Muhammed were arrested on Pakistani soil.

I do not share Bhutto’s deep skepticism of Musharraf’s commitment to the war on terrorism. I feel Musharraf has turned against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bhutto’s father was assassinated by a military dictator and I believe feelings lingered in Bhutto against Musharraf, who at the least resembles a military dictator. I believe we should work with Musharraf and encourage Bhutto’s followers to support the current government.

The highest priority for Pakistan should be resistance to extremism. Once that is established, other goals can gain priority.

Pakistan is an unstable country. It might be prudent for NATO to offer the Pakistani government a part of an island for lease for the purpose of safe storage of weapons of mass destruction. As part of this deal, a nuclear guarantee could be granted to Pakistan while its WMD is out of the country. The deal would include a next step which would be a peace process with India.

The world’s goal should be to have a Pakistan and India living as peaceful neighbors, neither falling prey to extremism.

Update: A camerman said Bhutto waved to the crowd through the sun roof, then shots rang out, and then the explosion occurred. (*) CNN has apparently now removed this story from their site. There is fogginess, confusion, and misinformation on the exact particulars of the assassination.

It happened in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistani military. Bhutto had prepared an e-mail for posthumous delivery. In it she blamed Musharraf for her death. In my view, the assassination was an Al Qaeda job. By performing the attack in Rawalpindi they encourage shifting of blame to the government of Pakistan. Bhutto must have been perceived as a stronger enemy of Al Qaeda than Musharraf. I don’t doubt there is infiltration to a degree of Al Qaeda and Taliban into the Pakistani armed forces, including to a degree in Rawalpindi. I do doubt that Musharraf was in the conspiracy. I would like to see investigated Bhutto’s allegations against cabinet-level ministers in Pakistan as to Al Qaeda infiltration.

The Iraq Study Group has released its report. (*) The call for drawing down US forces in Iraq puts great pressure on the Maliki government of Iraq to establish security and the rule of law in Iraq, especially in the immediate area around Baghdad, where 80% of insurgent attacks take place.

Iraqi reaction from ruling party Shia elements has been negative. (†) Nevertheless, Sunni politicians will see this as an opportunity to swing the government away from sectarian politics and toward national unity. The Kurds appear to be negative on the ISG, as is likely. The ISG wisely disagrees with the notion of splitting Iraq into three countries, and furthermore suggests the US should draw its force levels down, reducing the chances of an irresponsible Kurdish independence.

ISG panelist and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor made the following remarks at the press conference today. But first, remarks by President Clinton’s former chief of staff Leon Panetta.

LEON PANETTA: As I told the President this morning, this war has badly divided this country. It’s divided Republicans from Democrats and to some extent the President from the people. And policy sometimes with those divisions has been reduced to a thirty-second soundbite that runs the gamut from victory or stay the course to cut and run. And what this group tried to do, five Democrats and five Republicans, is to try to set aside those code words and those divisions and try to look at the realities that are there.

And I would suggest to the President and to the American people that if you look at the realities of what’s taking place there, the fact that violence is out of control, the fact that Iraqis ultimately have to control their future, they have to take care of security, they’ve got to deal with the region in that area, that ultimately you can find consensus here. This country cannot be at war and be as divided as we are today. You’ve got to unify this country. And I’d suggest to the President that what we did in this group can perhaps serve as an example to try to pull together the leadership of the Congress and try to focus on the recommendations we’ve made.

We have made a terrible commitment in Iraq in terms of our blood and our treasure. And I think we owe it to them to try one last chance at making Iraq work, and more importantly to take one last chance at unifying this country on this war. I think the President understands that he simply is not going to be able to proceed with whatever policy changes he wants to implement if we’re divided. That is the principal goal in my mind that he has to accomplish.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: I would be willing to add a comment about what Leon Panetta has just expressed so well. We’ve said in the report that we agree with the goal of US policy in Iraq as stated by the President: an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And to do that, we’ve made these various recommendations on a consensus basis. It’s my belief that if a large segment of our country gets behind that on a consensus basis that it’s very likely we can move forward and make some progress toward that statement of goals. And this is not an ongoing commission. It really is out of our hands having done what we did.

It’s up to you, frankly. You are the people who speak to the American people. You’re there interpreting this and talking to America. And I hope the American people feel that if they are behind something in broad terms that we’ll be better off. I think we will and I hope in general that others think so too.

(Video available from C-SPAN. )

The primary objective of the ISG was to find a workable political consensus for implementing the inevitable changes that will occur to US policy in Iraq. That is a worthy cause, and perhaps they have achieved it.

The other, perhaps unexpected result is the pressure ratcheting up on the Maliki government of Iraq. If Iraq is to establish security, it must come primarily from the government of Iraq. My guess is that Maliki is too closely tied with militant Shia groups like that of Muqtada al-Sadr. We are likely to see Maliki’s coalition implode within the coming months. Hopefully, we will then see a transition to more effective Iraq governance.

I would hope that the US government has learned the lessons of Mossadegh, Diem, and Allende. Assassinating foreign leaders does not work. Forcing a coup d’etat would also be incredibly foolish.

Allow the organic political processes to work in Iraq. Continue to push the Iraqi government into the lead role in its country’s security.

As for talking with Iran and Syria, that is better than just bombing them now. The whole point of creating an active front in the war on terror in Iraq was to stave off a larger, wider war. That objective remains as possible as ever. Nevertheless, our strategic dealings with Iran need deeper contemplation than they are currently receiving.

Terrorists in Iraq are targeting American troops in Iraq with sniper fire. CNN obtained videotape taken by the terrorists for the purpose of propaganda. (*)

The newsclip video from CNN features an interview with an American serviceman. († video) He says:

One of the attacks, you know, the locals, they talk to us about what they see, and they said they saw a car pull up, a guy get out the back seat, uh, get out the front seat, get in the back seat, remove a panel from off his car and aim from the car to our rooftop position. Which unfortunately resulted in the death of one Marine who was on the rooftop.

In another video clip, CNN interviews Jack Coughlin, a retired Marine sniper who was shown the terrorist videos. (‡ video) The retired Marine sniper states that he believes that some of the videotaped shots may have come from a location different from the cameraman, perhaps hundreds of yards away. Others may have been closer.

When John Allen Muhammad, 41, a US citizen, and 17-year-old John Lee Malvo, a Jamaican citizen. were arrested for the DC sniper attacks that occurred in 2002, their method of operation came to light. CNN reported on how the DC snipers used a car with a customized panel that could swing open, through which a shot could be fired, and then swung closed to make an unnoticed getaway. (§)

The Chevrolet Caprice used by the sniper suspects was a “killing machine” with two holes in the trunk, one for the rifle, the other for the scope, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.

The two holes were there so that shots could be fired without opening the trunk, a source said, adding that the back seat could fold down, enabling a potential shooter to stretch out in the back without stepping foot outside.

The source called it a “perfect place” for a shooting platform.

This appears to be quite a coincidence. Perhaps the Iraqi terrorist snipers learned from the DC snipers, or perhaps there was another source for this concept.

British and American authorities foiled a plot today that was intended to blow up approximately 10 airplanes simultaneously en route from the UK to the US. (*) (†)

The New York Times reports: (‡)

The police did not identify the suspects or their origin, though Paul Stephenson, the deputy metropolitan police commissioner for London, said “community leaders” had been alerted about the police action, using a code word for the British Muslim community.

The terrorist objective of bombing multiple airplanes at a time over an ocean was also at play in the Bojinka plot. (§)

Bernard Lewis has a critically important op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. (*)

A strategic analysis of conflict in the Middle East is in order. First, however, a summary.

Last month, an explosion occurred on a Gaza beach. Israel and Palestinian terrorists pointed fingers at each other. (*) An Israeli soldier was kidnapped and taken into Gaza. Israel started to move on Gaza. Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and took them to Lebanon. Israel started to move on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. Israel has responded with air strikes on Hezbollah and strategic positions in Lebanon, including the Beirut airport. Hezbollah fired a UAV missile at an Israeli warship, inflicting damage. Israel has responded with more air strikes and indications it may send ground forces into southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is entrenched without the approval of the free government of Lebanon. (†) Meanwhile, Iran continues saber rattling against Israel while continuing to delay and obstruct nuclear weapons inspectors and the UN Security Council from acting. Sectarian violence worsens in Iraq between Arab Sunnis and Arab Shias.

Let’s begin the analysis with a sketch of the motivations of the major players:

Hezbollah - Wishes to destroy Israel and dominate Lebanon to impose a Khomeini-style regime. Not incompetent. Frequently termed “the A-team of terrorists.” Possesses several thousand Katushya rockets (unguided) and a few heavier weapons. Has several thousand terrorist fighters in Lebanon who were trained in Iran. Hezbollah takes orders directly from Iran. It is funded and supplied by Iran and Syria.

Lebanon (free government) - Wishes to supplant Hezbollah in Lebanon and establish peace and rule of law in Lebanon. Not friendly with Israel, but Lebanon’s other enemies are bigger threats right now.

Syria - Seeks to restore its influence in Lebanon. Barring that, this regime of a Sunni-dominated country wishes that Israel loses influence in the region and Syria gains. The Syrian regime does not want a direct conflict with Israel because it knows it will lose. The Syrian regime is dependent on Iran for military and economic cooperation, and is heavily influenced by Iran.

Iran - The Khomeini/Khamanei/Ahmadinejad regime seeks to build nuclear bombs and missiles and then to literally destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. Subsequently, Iran will seek greater influence in the Middle East and the world, assuming that Iran has not by then triggered the end of the world as per the Khomeini regime’s religious beliefs by nuking Israel. In the meantime, Iran must delay and block the weapons inspectors and the UN.

In this scenario, Iran wants to create a widespread Middle East war that Iran is not blamed for. Iran will need support from Islamic countries as the Security Council acts on Iran’s nuclear weapons program in the next few weeks. A regional war would serve Iran’s purposes. It would distract the world’s attention while Iran builds the bomb, and will also serve the purpose of providing a pretext, however thinly disguised, for Iran’s use of nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

How could this scenario play out?

Hezbollah’s rockets cannot inflict great damage to Israel, but the randomness of the strikes and their increased range will keep the Israeli population in fear. The Israeli air force will not be able to stop the rocket attacks in a short enough time to keep the Israeli people safe because the rockets are mobile. Israel will have to send in ground forces to destroy Hezbollah. The specter of Israel occupying “Arab land” will again be on full display in the media.

The question is why is Hezbollah forcing Israel to invade Lebanon, when Hezbollah realizes that it will be destroyed by the superior Israeli army. The answer might be based on Hezbollah taking orders from Iran and Iran’s motivations.

An Israeli invasion of Lebanon could drag the Lebanese government into the war, either with or against Hezbollah. At this point, Iranian and Syrian forces would seek to re-establish influence over the Lebanese government and force it to side with Hezbollah, Iran’s pawn.

Iran wants an Israeli-Syrian conflict. Once nations become nervous with war occurring nearby, a subterfuge or other sleight-of-hand maneuver can light the match. If Israel does not strike Syria, it is not clear why Syria would want to engage in a war with Israel, however.

Additionally, Iran has a motive to entangle the US and a third country with a war outside of Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s borders. This would further distract the US. One possibility would be an Iranian deal with North Korea, truly an Axis of Evil. It is not impossible that North Korea’s missile tests could be part of a pact that the North Korean regime has with the Iranian regime. The missile tests could also be useful to Iran’s missile technology.

At some point, Iran would want to have the blame for a wider war shifted to Israel and/or the United States. It is not clear how that might occur, although with Israel and the US winning few world popularity contests right now, it is not inconceivable either.

In this scenario, Iran distracts the world long enough, and pins enough blame on Israel and the US, that Iran is able to become a nuclear power, nuke Israel with impunity, dominate the Middle East, and gain great global influence.

This scenario would counsel that immediate attention be applied to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It must be put on the top of the world’s agenda by the United States. The US must not allow what happens in Lebanon to sidetrack the process. Furthermore, the UN Security Council should act immediately, not any later. Finally, the US should consider a offering single UN Security Council resolution with two purposes to irrevocably link what is occurring in Lebanon with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. For example, the same chapter 7 resolution could call for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and for Iran to open fully to inspectors within 12 hours or face war. Everyone knows Iran controls Hezbollah. A dual resolution would force Iran to either accept the resolution or oppose it utterly, with no wiggle room and no finessing the issue.

On top of that, the US should introduce a UN Security Council Chapter 7 resolution stating that Iran, North Korea, and Syria must immediately publicly divulge all secret treaties, including mutual defense pacts, that they have entered into, especially with one another. These secret treaties were made illegal by the UN Charter because secret treaties have historically helped cause many wars, including World War I.

Of course, what is likely occurring here is that in Iran’s Islamofascist regime, we have another Nazi totalitarian government hell-bent on dragging the world into another world war. With this in mind we have to realize that the only rationality to the actions and words of Iran’s regime might be, by hook or by crook, to spark all-out global war. This fits generally with the known radical Islamic scenario of destroying the United States as a stepping stone to establishing global radical Islamic supremacy.

Through it all, it should be kept in mind that nothing that the Iranian regime says should be accepted as true unless it can be independently verified.

(Note: “Hezbollah” means “Party of Allah” in Arabic. In Arabic, “Allah” of course means God. Thus, when Western reporters, commentators, and statesmen say things like “Hezbollah is a terrorist group,” or “Hezbollah needs to surrender,” it must sound suspicious when translated into Arabic for Arab-speaking people. We should refer to Hezbollah as “the group calling itself Hezbollah,” or “the group supposedly known as Hezbollah.”)

Directly implicated in torture, brutality, and thousands of attacks and murders, Jordanian-born terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed in an air raid, says the Iraqi prime minister. (*)

This is a great day for humanity, as one of the most loathsome, vile, blood-drenched savages of our time has been put down like the rabid dog he was.

Zarqawi was the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The news of his death will have the worldwide Al Qaeda organization in freefall. Additionally, his death opens the door to the killing and arrests of the rest of the insurgency of all wings. There are hard battles ahead, but now as plain for all to see, we can and will win every one of them.

This is a great day for Iraq. Not only is the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq dead, but now the freely-elected, democratically constituted Iraqi government will be able to take major steps forward in consolidating peace and security in Iraq, the birthplace of civilization.

The Iraqi people have suffered countless heartaches and losses at the hands of Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups. The courage and grit and determination of the Iraqi people has been unbelievable. They have endured this storm, and now it has passed. Of course other great challenges remain. As I have said over and again, however, never underestimate the people of Iraq.

Congratulations to all of the coalition forces. You have stuck together amidst an onslaught of the worst inhumane tactics of war used against you, such as the vile and evil IED, lies and slander, and you have proved valorous through it all.

As an American citizen, thank you to our heroes, our troops on the front, in the battle, and behind the lines, and their families, who have sustained such a heavy toll of life and limb and health. You are an inspiration to us all, and your sacrifice is shortening the war and bringing America and humanity closer to victory in the war on terrorism. I cannot say how important these fights and victories have been, except to say there is nothing more important.

Zarqawi is dead. The myth of the immortal terrorist is shown to be a lie. The way of the terrorist is more starkly drawn than even before: it is the way of death. This terrorist jihad is doomed. The human race and our God-given freedoms and liberty shall prevail.

US State Department will seek “asset freezes, a Chapter 7 resolution under the U.N. charter, sanctions and travel restrictions on some members of the Iranian government.” (*)

Amir Taheri: Ahmadinejad claims he has a spiritual warrant from “the hidden imam” for a: “single task: provoking a “clash of civilisations” in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the “infidel” West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.” Furthermore, it was immediately after Ahmadinejad’s announcement of uranium enrichment that Iran announced it was building 54,000 centrifuges. Iran will soon offer to suspend enrichment and sign additional protocols in an attempt to wait out Bush, and deal with the next US president, who will be weak and surrender easily to Islam and terrorism. All the while Iran will continue building the bomb. Islamic males of fighting age outnumber Western males of fighting age four to one. (*)

Blair will back a Chapter 7 resolution, but won’t contribute to a military strike. (*)

The IAEA previously found one Iranian facility described as a “250,000-acre complex containing two vast underground bomb-proof bunkers designed for enriching uranium to weapons grade. (*) Iran continues to deny that it is building a nuclear weapon.

Debka: Iran building huge “Shahid Moradian” plant with 155,000 centrifuges, operational by the end of 2007. (*)

Iranian workers striking on basis of low or no wages. “We are hungry.” (*)

Ahmadinejad: “The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm.” (*)

Iranian text-messages Amhadinejad, suggests he should bathe more. (*)

Shimon Peres: “The Iranian president represents Satan and not God. History has rejected these sorts of sword-brandishing lunatics.” (*)

Iranian General Yahya Rahim Safavi boasts Iran can easily defeat United States. (*)

Sunday Times: Iran will hit the US and the UK with “battalions of suicide bombers,” 40,000 in total, if it is attacked. (*)

Islamic Jihad claims it will back Iran if Iran is attacked. (*)

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon: the costs of attacking Iran would outweigh the benefits. Iranian intelligence service is too powerful. Bill Clinton took Iranian intelligence down, and easily enough, in 1996. (*) (In other words, the column is nonsensical.)

White House is committed to stopping Iran. Nevertheless, Iranian-sponsored terrorism would spike upward immediately after a strike. (*)

Rumsfeld criticized by some retired US generals in what is apparently a coordinated effort. (*) Does this somehow relate to planning on Iran?

Reuel Marc Gerecht: Iran is choosing this moment because Bush is weak and the media says the US is tied down in Iraq. Iran wants acquiescence now before the wind changes direction. Furthermore, Iran has maintained its radicalism and authoritarianism despite European free trade with Iran, tending to disprove the “free trade causes democracy” assertion. (*)

Retired US general Thomas McInerney: a feasible US military strike option exists. (*)

(Iranian nuclear crisis updates now using only asterisks for links.)

Agitator Cindy Sheehan appeared on the Donny Deutsch program on CNBC in September 2005. On the opposing side was Laura Youngblood, the widow of Casey Youngblood, a servicemember killed in the line of duty in Iraq. Apparently there is no official transcript posted online. Based on web sources, the conversation went like this.

WIDOW: My husband was hit with a IED July 15th and died July 21st. He was part of the 325 unit out of Ohio. He was a Navy corpsman. He died two weeks before 21 Marines died out of Ohio. Everyone keeps saying Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq. Al-Qaeda took responsibility for the IED that killed my husband, and –

SHEEHAN: Well, sweetie, they weren’t there before they invaded and opened the doors borders to the terrorists –

WIDOW: No, we don’t know that, though.

SHEEHAN: — that came pouring in.

WIDOW: No one knows that.

SHEEHAN: Yeah, there’s been reports –

WIDOW: I served five years and, you know what? I’m going to have our baby in 12 more days, and if I do get called I will go back, and I will serve my country the way my husband would want me to. (applause) I am proud of my husband, because, you know what? You can’t let them come back and not finish what we started.

SHEEHAN: You know what? Your baby is going to be fatherless for a lie, for two lies, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

WIDOW: (Holding up a photograph of her husband) My child will never be fatherless because his father is an angel and they know that, and they will know their father loved him more than anything in this world.

(*) (†) (‡)

No child is fatherless.

US General John R. Vines states that Zarqawi and Al Qaeda are leaving Iraq, conceding defeat. (*)

Apparently they will go jihad somewhere else from now on.

It’s a little early to start uncorking the champagne, but we’re getting close.

Update: This would be great opportunity for Zarqawi. He might want to contact Yale University and send in an application for enrollment.

In the New York Times, Edward Wong writes: (*)

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 13 — Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant [Zawahiri] has released an Internet video calling on Iraqi insurgents to remain strong in the fight against Americans and praising the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant who directs Al Qaeda’s operations in Iraq.

Now even the New York Times admits that Zarqawi works for the Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the criminal atrocity of 9/11.

In the wake of Iran’s announcement of enrichment of uranium:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice: it will be “time for action” when the Security Council reconvenes on April 28. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Krivtsov: “Step in the wrong direction.” IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei: continue negotiations. (*)

US will seek Chapter 7 Security Council resolution (military authorization). Russia and China reject a Chapter 7 resolution. Krivtsov: “There is no evidence of noncompliance with the nonproliferation [treaty].” (†)

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: “cool down the rhetoric.” Summary paragraph written by UN staffers: “In 2003, it was discovered that Iran had carried out secret nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and some countries, the United States among them, claim that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran denies.” (‡)

Protester Cindy Sheehan: We must not believe BushCo or anything they say about Iran. . . . We must not allow him to frighten us into this one.” (§) (posted prior to enriched uranium announcement)

Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Simini: “Taking Iran to the UN Security Council and imposing sanctions on it would prompt the hard-liners to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its Additional Protocol.” Instead, get Iran to improve human rights. (**) (originally published in the International Herald Tribune)

Bloomberg news: Iran could have nukes in 16 days. (††) (more likely a matter of months)

Iranfocus.com: “Iran’s radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a fiery sermon demanded that “Iran’s enemies”, or the West, bow down before Iran and apologize for having held back Tehran’s nuclear program for three years. He also warned the West that it would “burn” in the “fire of the nations’ fury”.” (‡‡)

Spacewar.com: Iran offering neighbors a non-aggression pact. (§§) (A fake one)

Greenpeace: “Greenpeace is opposed to any nation acquiring nuclear technology and nuclear weapons, including Iran.” Continue with what the IAEA is doing, don’t refer to Security Council. Solution is “Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East.” (***) (Disarmament would require a basic level of trust. In the wake of 18 years of secret Iranian nuclear weapons development, and Israel’s unofficial nuclear weapons stockpile, trust and verification would be problematic or impossible. Other problems also exist. For example, Bennett Ramberg’s plan would require Israel to join NATO (†††), thereby involving every NATO member in daily cross-border raids and rocket attacks. Unworkable.)

February 2006: Iran vows to enrich uranium in response to the IAEA’s referral of Iran to the Security Council. (‡‡‡) If Iran really only wanted to generate electricity, why escalate this to an international crisis?

President Bush said:

I mentioned to you the need for international bodies to be effective. We’re working with the IAEA with Iran. And the Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned. It’s essential that they hear that message. An appropriate international body to deal with them is the IAEA. They signed an additional protocol, which was a positive development. The foreign ministers of Great Britain, France and Germany have interceded on behalf of the civilized world to talk plainly to the Iranians. One of my jobs is to make sure they speak as plainly as possible to the Iranians, and make it absolutely clear that the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable, and a program is intolerable, otherwise there would be — otherwise they will be dealt with, starting through the United Nations.

Unfortunately, that press conference was April 21, 2004. (*)

It is now two years later, and where are we? We’re still sitting on our hands, hoping the IAEA will smoke a peace pipe with Iranian spittle-flecked figurehead Ahmadinejad, and the real dictator of Iran, Supreme Leader Khamenei, no less a psychotic homicidal maniac as Ahmadinejad, only quieter and more shadowy.

So now Iran has enriched uranium. (†) Their process is not advanced enough to create a nuclear weapon, but they will gain that knowledge soon. Today, no obstacle stands in their way.

The IAEA appeaser-in-chief, Mohammed Elbaradei, waddles to Iran again. Maybe he will at last find his proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Congratulations to his cheering section at the Nobel prizes. They can be very proud as their boy kowtows before the armed terror overlords of Iran and their atomic artillery almost ready to roll off the assembly line. At this point, the IAEA is at best a distraction that speeds proliferation.

The time has now passed for polite chit-chat with rabid dictators who tomorrow will be armed with the weapons of extinction.

President Bush should summon the UN Security Council for an emergency meeting to occur in 24 hours. If the Security Council fails to act immediately and decisively against Iran, ordering sanctions backed with the threat of military force, the US and allies must act. We must rapidly prepare to fight to preserve the founding principles of both our countries and the United Nations. It may be that other countries are too afraid. They may be too scared to fight for freedom, too weak to hold aloft even a small candle of hope for humanity. Sacrifice is what grown-ups do to avert a disaster from befalling the little people sometimes called the future.

Let us turn now to a relevant document. The opening lines of the Charter of the United Nations, signed in San Francisco in 1945:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind. . . .

(‡) Now, with Iran on the doorstep of delivering to the world an aggressive, unprovoked nuclear armageddon of Israel, is the last chance to act. There is still a chance that sanctions could shut them down before it hits critical mass.

If sanctions do not work, however, we must prepare to fight a limited war now to avoid the global nuclear catastrophe that is sure to follow the terrorist state of Iran gaining access to nuclear weapons.

I’m sure many of my readers wouldn’t shed a tear if Israel were wiped from the Earth. Nor the entire Jewish people as well. For any that think a nuclear Iran is tolerable, however, do not forget the words of Martin Niemoeller, who reminds us even today that first they come for the Jews, and then another group, then another, until finally they will come for us. Divide and conquer is the eternal way of the tyrant.

Naturally, if one country can be nuked off the map, so can any country. We human beings live interdependently in this world. We must police and protect ourselves. This is called morality.

The Doomsday Clock tells us that the world is at seven minutes until nuclear midnight. (§) With today’s knife-to-the-throat announcement by Iran’s thugocracy, we can anticipate the minute hand to move faster and faster.

Today the gravest threat to humankind is the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. A little nuclear war here and there is likely to touch off a global nuclear war. In the emerging context, it is more than morality that we stand for; it is survival.

And two years after taking a firm stand against a nuclear-armed Iran to a room full of reporters, President Bush has hardly lifted a finger to stop this ferocious menace.

It is time for action.

Assuming sanctions do not work, what would the military option look like? First, the US is not really going to use nuclear weapons on Iran first, unless Iran already has or is about to in an imminent time frame use its nuclear weapons.

Of course, since Iran has an itchy trigger finger and ruling autocrats who firmly believe Allah wants them to kickstart Islamic Armageddon by hurtling the a-bomb hither and yon, knowing just when Iran plans to use the bomb may be difficult to estimate. For that reason, it is wise to keep our nuclear arrow in the quiver.

All this only increases the importance to hit Iran now. First, with powerful sanctions, and second, with swift preparation for a military option.

If President Bush no longer has what it takes to do what is necessary, he needs to resign.

From far away, if enough have the bravery and steadfastness to stand up to Iran and their brutal words and their brutal weaponry, it will look like a showdown between nations.

The real showdown, though, will not be along the borders of the Middle East, but in the borderlands of the human heart. Do we have the courage of our convictions? Will we, in the last instance, do what is right, even when it is very hard? Are we willing to sacrifice our selfish drives for a brighter tomorrow? Will we let the light shine, or will we succumb to darkness?

Time will tell. I know we can do what is right. I know we can stop Iran. I know the human heart can triumph over despair. But will we do what we must? Will we do what is right?

To accomplish something small, little effort is needed. To accomplish something great, little effort is needed, only many times. People want to stand for what is right, but they are afraid. That is why it is important that as many of us as possible stand for what is right, so that courage spreads, little by little, until at last we accomplish that great thing, and stop cold a brutal oppressor. We cannot make the world absolutely safe, but we can absolutely remove one threat to it.

The UK’s Secretary of State for Defence, John Reid, recently gave a speech in which he called for changing the Geneva conventions. The changes would respond to the barbaric tactics of terrorism. (*)

It cannot be denied any longer. (*)

United Nations officials investigating Iran’s nuclear programme say they have found convincing evidence that the Iranians are working on a secret uranium enrichment project that has not been officially declared.

The UN must take action.

President Bush is pushing hard to sell to a United Arab Emirates company control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. (*)

Ports are a known vulnerability in US homeland security. There is the possibility that terrorists could slip a nuclear warhead into the US through port security, and then set it off.

Congressional representatives have stated that illegal nuclear weapons technology was transferred in the AQ Khan network through the United Arab Emirates (UAE) between countries such as North Korea and Iran.

While the Homeland Security department has declared that this deal is inevitable, that is false. National security trumps administrative procedure.

Congress should call for a full-fledged investigation of this matter. In particular, the Bush Administration should be asked if there is any “secret deal” between the White House and the UAE.

With the press obsessed with Cheney’s bad aim and the latest sensationalized criminal case, perhaps the news professionals should think about covering this important story.

Victor Davis Hanson, responding to the Muslim cartoon riots. (*)

The great wealth and leisure created by modern technology have confused some in the modern age into thinking that history is linear. We expect that each generation will inevitably improve upon the last. . . .

[W]e are in the great age now of ethical retrenchment. . . .

If we give in to these 8th-century clerics, shortly we will be living in an 8th century ourselves, where we may say, hear, and do nothing that might offend a fundamentalist Muslim — and, to assuage our treachery to freedom and liberalism, we’ll always be equipped with the new rationale of multiculturalism and cultural equivalence which so poorly cloaks our abject fear.

Clifford D. May: (*)

Our enemies know this grim truth: War has never become obsolete

TO BE FAIR to our enemies, they are only doing what comes naturally. We are the historical oddballs. Wars have been fought since time immemorial. The vast majority have been over power and resources, to defeat rival civilizations, to vanquish hated “others” . . . .

Militant Islamism — the 21st century’s most dynamic and dangerous form of totalitarianism — is attempting to appeal to 1.2 billion Muslims living in more than a hundred countries. Non-Muslims are encouraged to convert. Indeed, Osama bin Laden expects many will, once it becomes clear which side in this global struggle has the stronger will to power. . . .

Bin Laden and his ideological brethren promise that the conflict that has begun will not end until Muslims have the lands, power and status they demand and deserve. Lesser peoples are to be annihilated or subjugated. . . .

The War on Terror is war to the death.