Know the Playing Field - What is "Domestic Terrorism?" and How Do "Hate Crimes" Differ?

18 U.S. Code § 2331.Definitions

5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

Now, you may not like the law as it exists, but it is the law we have until it is changed.

Questions - do the acts of certain groups not engaged in peaceful protest, but using those protests as a "cover" for illegal acts of violence fall within the above definition?

Does it matter if those acts are committed by people on either political extreme - extreme right or extreme left?

Excellent discussion - Who are Antifa?:

Today, antifa activists focus on harassing right wing extremists both online and in real life. Antifa is not a unified group; it is loose collection of local/regional groups and individuals. Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame. This is why most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive.

The current political climate increases the chances of violent confrontations at protests and rallies. Antifa have expanded their definition of fascist/fascism to include not just white supremacists and other extremists, but also many conservatives and supporters of President Trump. In Berkeley, for example, some antifa were captured on video harassing Trump supporters with no known extremist connections. Antifa have also falsely characterized some recent right wing rallies as “Nazi” events, even though they were not actually white supremacist in nature.
***
All forms of antifa violence are problematic. Additionally, violence plays into the “victimhood” narrative of white supremacists and other right-wing extremists and can even be used for recruiting purposes. Images of these “free speech” protesters being beaten by black-clad and bandana-masked antifa provide right wing extremists with a powerful propaganda tool.

That said, it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose. Antifa reject racism but use unacceptable tactics. White supremacists use even more extreme violence to spread their ideologies of hate, to intimidate ethnic minorities, and undermine democratic norms. Right-wing extremists have been one of the largest and most consistent sources of domestic terror incidents in the United States for many years; they have murdered hundreds of people in this country over the last ten years alone. To date, there have not been any known antifa-related murders.

And this:

On May 1, 2020, when boogaloo activists organized a protest against coronavirus public safety measures in Raleigh, North Carolina, many attendees carried firearms in defiance of state laws prohibiting guns at public demonstrations. It was a scene played out across the country in recent weeks, as boogalooers are energized by resistance to lockdown restrictions, which they view as tyrannical government overreach. Boogaloo adherents have shown up at numerous lockdown protests, waving boogaloo signs, wearing Hawaiian shirts, and carrying firearms, sometimes illegally.

These boogalooers are part of an embryonic, decentralized movement that organizes largely online but whose presence has increasingly been felt in the real world. While boogaloo supporters hail from a variety of movements, and include some white supremacists who advocate for race war, the lockdown protests have largely featured the anti-government version of the boogaloo favored by the militia, gun rights, and anarcho-capitalist movements. This iteration holds that the American people are willing to respond with violence – even if it means sparking a civil war – to perceived government efforts to curtail their freedom.

More about "right wing extremism" here:

To be clear, the terms “right-wing extremists” and “left-wing extremists” do not correspond to political parties in the United States, such as Republicans or Democrats. Opinion polls in the United States show that most Republicans and Democrats loathe terrorism. 3

Instead, right-wing terrorism commonly refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities whose goals may include racial, ethnic, or religious supremacy; opposition to government authority; and the end of practices like abortion.4 As Bruce Hoffman writes, right-wing terrorists generally criticize the democratic state for “its liberal social welfare policies and tolerance of diverse opinion—alongside its permitting of dark-skinned immigrants in the national labor force and of Jews and other minorities in positions of power or influence.” 5 Left-wing terrorism, on the other hand, refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities that oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; focus on environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized sociopolitical system like anarchism.6

The Bruce Hoffman piece referred to is Mail Bombs, Hate Crimes, and the Meaning of Terrorism:

As public debate intensifies, it is important to understand what the terms “terrorism” and “hate crime” actually mean and why these definitions matter. For instance, both types of crime can carry harsher penalties than other similar violent acts. Both are also symptoms of deep social and political stress, as history has shown. Only once these crimes are appropriately labeled can Americans grapple with their origins.

Terrorism is ineluctably political. It represents an intent to intimidate, coerce, punish, or otherwise influence others by violence or the threat of violence because of their political views, affiliation, or position. Describing terrorism is often complicated by gaps between the strict legal definition and more general societal interpretations.
***
Hate crime has its own definition in U.S. law: It is an offense that “willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person,” because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. What distinguishes hate crimes from other violent offenses are the enhanced penalties. Federal recommendations generally call for hate crime sentences to be some 40 percent longer.

Well, now you can discuss the events of the past few weeks with some clarity.

Maybe.

Follow the Money: Terrorism Financing, Drug Smuggling and U. S. Maritime Security

The Josh Meyer Politico article The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook contains so many interesting trails that it is easy to forget the key point:

The untold story of Project Cassandra illustrates the immense difficulty in mapping and countering illicit networks in an age where global terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime have merged, but also the extent to which competing agendas among government agencies — and shifting priorities at the highest levels — can set back years of progress.

And while the pursuit may be shadowed in secrecy, from Latin American luxury hotels to car parks in Africa to the banks and battlefields of the Middle East, the impact is not: In this case, multi-ton loads of cocaine entering the United States, and hundreds of millions of dollars going to a U.S.-designated terrorist organization with vast reach.

In addition to funding terrorism, the routes used to smuggle illegal drugs into the U.S. are national security threats.

For example, let's take a look at the now nearly routine capture of "drug smuggling submarines" - see CBP, Coast Guard Seize Drug Smuggling Submarine from earlier this month:

Customs and Border Protection based out of Corpus Christi said they captured a drug submarine attempting to smuggle nearly two tons of cocaine into the country.

Crews from the CBP Air and Marine Operations tracked the sub last month while operating in international waters.

Officers tracked the sub for several days before a Coast Guard Cutter stopped it and arrested its crew.

Over 3,800 pounds of cocaine were seized and three suspects on board face multiple charges.

Or Jaime Seidel's
AMERICA is fighting a new front in its war on drugs — locating, tracking and intercepting fleets of sophisticated homemade submarines loaded with cocaine.:

BURIED deep in the jungles of South America are covert shipyards.
They’re hand-building submarines. And they’re churning out dozens every year.
They have just one job to do.
Covertly carry tons of cocaine, along with crews of armed smugglers.
They skim just beneath the surface of the Carribbean and Pacific, out of sight and under the radar of law enforcement ships and aircraft.

U.S. Coast Guard video of a capture of a drug smuggling boat in June 2017:

PACIFIC OCEAN
06.08.2017
Coast Guard Cutter Waesche crewmembers intercept a suspected low-profile smuggling vessel seizing an estimated 5,550 pounds of cocaine worth more than $74 million while on patrol off the coast of Central America, June 8, 2017. Waesche is a 418-foot long National Security Cutter homeported at Coast Guard Island in Alameda, Calif., outfitted with the most advanced command, control, and communications equipment for detecting and disrupting transnational organized crime networks. U.S. Coast Guard video courtesy of Coast Guard Cutter Waesche/Released.

Notable is the amount of money involved in this trade Coast Guard in Florida offload $23 million worth of cocaine:

The Coast Guard Cutter Pelican brought ashore almost one ton of cocaine Monday.

The cocaine is valued at $23 million, and along with the seizing of the drug, three smugglers were also arrested.

The cocaine came from a drug bust in the Caribbean Sea on Nov. 11, just south of Jaragua, Dominican Republic, say officials with the Coast Guard.

You will note that arrests are made in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific, an indication of how wide-spread the the operations of these drug cartels are. Spreading the smuggling routes forces the law enforcement agenices to spread themselves thinner to cover larger areas with the same limited number of assets.

Clearly, by the amount of illegal drugs successfully entering the country, the capture rate, even of expensive semi-submersibles, is merely a "cost of doing business" in the lucrative trade.

While much has been made of the potential to use these routes for human smuggling of terrorists, perhaps the amount of money generated through illegal drugs is sufficient to make such efforts unnecessary because it is just as easy to fund locally grownn terrorists or import "refugees" who may be funded to perform acts of terror. At least, that is. so far.

The drug smugglers are innovative and well-financed. As a result, they freely experiment with new tech:


It's a problem and one that we need to find better solutions to handle.

On Midrats 26 June 2016 - Episode 338: Trans-national terrorism and the Long War with Bill Roggio

Please join us on 26 June 2016 at 5pm EDT for Midrats Episode 338: Trans-national terrorism and the Long War with Bill Roggio

When the BREXIT dust settles one thing will remain – the Long War against Islamic terrorists.

In a wide arch along its bloody edge, Islamic extremism continues to look for new opportunities for expansion, and within the borders of Dar al-Islam seeks to impose a retrograde view of Islam by destroying religious minorities, secular governments, and Islamic modernizers.

This Sunday returning guest Bill Roggio will be with us for the full hour to discuss this and more. Bill is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, President of Public Multimedia Inc, a non-profit news organization; and the founder and Editor of The Long War Journal, a news site devoted to covering the war on terror. He has embedded with the US and the Iraqi military six times from 2005-08, and with the Canadian Army in Afghanistan in 2006. Bill served in the US Army and New Jersey National Guard from 1991-97.

Join us live if you can or pick the show up later by clicking here. Or pick the show up later from out iTunes page here or from Stitcher here.

Why Do Some People Become Terrorists?

Is there any messier topic than the one that poses the question, "Why to people decide to become terrorists?"

As set out in the Foreign Affairs article, "The Game Theory Behind Terrorism", the answer to that question is of vital importance:

... U.S. counterterrorism has moved from a purely operations-centered strategy—for example, assassinating al Qaeda leaders or what the media calls “cutting off the snake’s head”—to analyzing what the Department of Homeland Security describes as “the dynamics of radicalization to violence” or the reasons why some individuals associated with violent extremism commit violence and others do not. This new perspective has roped in government bodies, activists, and data scientists who not only analyze terrorist social networks and messaging patterns, but also transmit counter-extremist narratives.
***
In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, Nobel Prize-winning American economist Thomas Schelling introduced the world to his “theory of strategy,” an adaptation of game theory to the world of international relations. In his book, The Strategy of Conflict, Schelling coined the concept of a “focal point” (now known as a “Schelling point”) to describe how individuals and nations reach an agreement when bargaining with each other. The process involves anticipating what the other person or country might do.
***
Although Schelling certainly could not have foreseen the application of this idea to defeating ISIS, it is eerily appropriate. If we apply the 16 squares scenario with radicalization, what we are trying to prevent is, in effect, this “psychic moment,” as Schelling calls it, when likeminded individuals all come to check the same box: engage in terrorism. Around 20,000 plus foreign fighters, many of whom grew up in prosperous, democratic countries, have already done so.
***
In Schelling’s theory, these individuals would have made their decision through “rational behavior…based on an explicit and internally consistent value system.” For jihadists, that value system is Salafism. Given the fact that most of the world’s Salafis are not violent, however, it cannot be the Salafi ideology alone that encourages violence. Moreover, given that ISIS disseminates a good deal of nonviolent messaging—it recently released its own set of textbooks on geography, history, and Arabic poetry for a course to “educate” future jihadists—it is not violence alone that attracts individuals to its worldview.

It is, rather, ISIS’ ability to sell and validate its worldview in light of distinct circumstances that Muslim communities either experience or observe. Specifically, for both those socially and economically disenfranchised by life in the developed world, as well as for those experiencing or witnessing the violent unrest in Syria, ISIS offers the promise of a tranquil and authentic Islamic state, full of opportunity for those who accept its authority.

I don't know about the "tranquil and authentic" thing, but as I have said before, young people who perceive that things are not as they would like are a potentially potent force, as we learned from Hitler and a few hundred other men on a mission -

Inspiring young men to causes bigger than themselves is an old, old story. With lots of unhappy endings.

But why do they young people get involved? I keep hearing and reading that they are disaffected by things like poverty, global warming and various prejudices. As in "Rising tension in France blamed on disaffected Arab youths" or "U.S. Is Trying to Counter ISIS’ Efforts to Lure Alienated Young Muslims"

I'm a simple minded guy, so I like fairly uncomplicated ideas about human motivation. It occurs to me that a key motivator for many young, idealistic people is the desire to "make a better world." We see it all the time in environmental activists and other people rallying around some common cause, probably even including those fighting against that part of global warming they attribute to the activities of mankind. Back in the day when I studied such behavior, I grew to really appreciate the "life positions" described in the psychological school of Transactional Analysis (TA) (yes, I know TA has lots of critics, but bear with me here). These life positions are best viewed in a simple chart:

the ok corral (franklin ernst, 1971)

Sure, you say, but so what? It's my theory that many of the "disaffected" youth are not driven by poverty or the shrinking of glaciers in Greenland, but rather are acting out of a feeling superiority - they view themselves, as do many young people, as in a better position to see the bad things in the world and also believe they have the moral and spiritual superiority that allows them to take action to "improve" things (i.e. to change things to make the world as they believe it ought to be). Or, as TA would have it, they feel they are OK, but the rest of us are "Not OK" and they want to help us correct our thinking and behavior. Support for this idea can be found (somewhat tangentially, I admit) here:

. . . a distorted view of the principles of Islam and a violent and criminal interpretation of the obligation of Jihad constitute the main factor of their drive. Statements made in the course of interrogation by arrested terrorists (especially by supergrasses, referred to in Italy as ‘repenters’) as well as ideological documents disseminated internationally on the internet or items seized in the course of various judicial enquiries consistently show that the religious view of the world, obviously in the distorted perspective specific to terrorists, constitutes the main reason for their behaviour, whereas practically no importance attaches to the aspiration to liberate specific occupied territories or oppressed peoples.

There is also research that indicates that:

However, convenient ‘root causes’ like poverty, illiteracy, backwardness, fundamentalism, authoritarianism are hardly the considerations in sustaining terrorism or in winning recruits (Parashar, 2005). Claude Berrebi in a Rand Corporation study on the root causes of terrorism concluded that “If there is a link between income level, education, and participation in terrorist activities, it is either very weak or in the opposite direction of what one intuitively might have expected”

So, if not poverty, poor education or climate change, what?

Under Transactional Analysis, a person who holds the "I'm okay, you're not ok" life position:

It is a position of persons who feel victimized or persecuted, so victimize and persecute others. • They blame others for their miseries. • Delinquents and criminals often have this position and taken on paranoid behavior which in extreme cases may lead to homicide.

or as set here:

People in this position feel themselves to be superior in some way to others, who are seen as inferior and not OK. As a result, they may be contemptuous and quick to anger. Their talk about others will be smug and supercilious, contrasting their own relative perfection with the limitation of others.

Well, how does a religion that teaches that it is the only truth path, and that non-believers are less than a believer impact a personality like that?

I have an idea that with certain people, under the right conditions may see that the non-believers need to be taught a lesson - to be punished for not accepting the true path - or for their wicked ways.

Couple that with a network and ideology that reinforces that life position and you may just have a terrorist.

Fighting ISIS: Bubbling Up in the Homeland

Northcom takes proactive stance as the background noise increases Force Protection Level Boosted at DoD Facilities Nationwide

The commander of U.S. Northern Command has elevated the force protection level for all Defense Department facilities in the continental United States, but not because of a specific threat, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said here today.

Force protection condition levels, or FPCON levels, range from Alpha, which applies when an increased general and unpredictable terrorist threat exists against personnel or facilities, to Delta, which applies in an immediate area where a terrorist attack has occurred or is imminent.

Today, Northcom raised the force protection level at all DoD facilities nationwide from Alpha to Bravo. Bravo applies when an increased or more predictable threat of terrorist activity exists.

“I won't go into the specifics of what that means because it is information that a potential adversary could use against us,” Warren said.
***
This is an acknowledgement, Warren added, that “right now we believe the threat level nationwide has increased.”

According to Northcom, the potential for another attack is always possible and implementing random force protection measures is one way to minimize the likelihood of an attack on an installation or service members.

“Some of you can see for yourselves -- you can look at Twitter or at other social media sites and see threats,” Warren said.

“We have a little bit more capability than you do so we see a little bit more than you do. Some of [the threats] are international, some are domestic … but it’s an overall increase in the environment,” he said.

Warren added, “It's as if the temperature of the water has gone up a degree or two.”

How much heat? Secretary of Homeland Security says:

The effective use of social media by the terror group ISIS has thrust the United States into a “new environment” when it comes to the threat against the homeland, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said today on "This Week."

“We’re definitely in a new phase in the global terrorist threat where the so-called lone wolf could strike at any moment," Johnson told ABC's Martha Raddatz. "It is a new environment, but we are not discouraging Americans from doing the things they do on a daily basis.”

And then there is Purported ISIS warning claims terror cells in place in 15 states:

A grim online warning from a self-described American jihadist said Sunday's terror attack in Texas was the work of ISIS and that the terrorist group has scores of "trained soldiers" positioned in 15 states, awaiting orders to carry out more operations.

The warning, which was posted on a file-sharing site, could not be verified, but was signed by Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki. That name matches the moniker of a shadowy American known to have joined a terrorist group in Pakistan several years ago and who has appeared in propaganda videos before. The chilling threat named five of the states where it is claimed that ISIS has terror cells in place.

Well, some of that may be pure baloney, but the same Fox News report notes

In February, FBI Director James Comey said the FBI is investigating suspects with ties to ISIS in 49 states, but that number is believed to include self-radicalized Americans who have followed jihadist websites but don't have direct links to the group.

Of course, any terror group wants to make people nervous. As noted here:

Terrorism . . . involves the weaponization of fear itself. Through the targeting of civilian noncombatants, terrorists hope to use fear to achieve their objective.

How to fight terrorism? Freakonomics asked that question
Select excerpts:

***
BLOOM: I asked, for example, a close friend of mine, Mubin Shaikh, about his experiences because he ended up in an Al-Qaeda training camp and in fact, came back to North America with the intent to perpetrate a terrorist attack. And he eventually changed his mind and he began to work as an undercover agent for the Canadian security services. But I asked him what appealed to him. You know, this was a middle-class kid who had grown up, you know, he didn’t personally experience Islamophobia or hatred. He was well-integrated. And I asked Mubin how he was able to be convinced of the value of Jihad, and he said, “Well one of the things that they did was they distorted the Koran.” So perhaps we need to make sure that people have a good Islamic education. It’s not a secular education that is the solution, but it’s to make sure that people have an education that is grounded in the Koran and doesn’t skip chapters or verses, doesn’t look at Surat At-Tawbah and go from verse five and chapter nine to verse seven, skipping six, which you know talks about the Prophet provided free access or free exit for people who wanted to leave the battlefield, and he protected them. So it’s really important that you know, perhaps when young people are studying the great books, one of the great books should be the Koran. Perhaps children in middle America, in the middle of Nebraska, should know what the Koran is about, and demystify it, not just for Muslim communities so that they integrate and they don’t feel isolated, but also just to educate, you know, the country in general.
***
DUBNER: *** As Mia Bloom and Robert Pape told us, the root causes of terrorism are often not what we assume—and this, obviously, affects how you think about prevention. Jack Jacobs and Nathan Myhrvold warned us not to spend so many resources preventing old-fashioned, physical terrorism when the threats of bioterrorism and cyberterrorism may be much greater. Steve Levitt, meanwhile, my economist friend—he too thinks that Americans worry more than they should about the threat of physical terrorism:

LEVITT: I think you just want to start with the basic idea that it is almost at zero. That whether it’s a little bit bigger now or a little less now, terrorism for essentially forever has been just a drop in the bucket of the ways that people can die. And, if you compare it to any sort of health risk, like diabetes or heart attacks or cancer, or any sort of socially constructed risk, like dying in a car crash or even accidents like falling down stairs, in general terrorism in America is not something to worry about. Very different if you live in Syria or Iraq or someplace like that, terrorism matters there because terrorism is like a way of life. It’s really terrorism and, you know, the fight for control of government or whatnot that are all kind of mixed together. But, you know, if you’re American and you don’t want to be a victim of terror, if you basically stay in the United States or anywhere other than places that are actively fighting for control of government, you’re incredibly safe.
***
LEVITT: To be honest, I think if someone wanted to use my services more effectively, I think I would be much less effective in an Obama Administration get together trying to fight terrorism than actually working on the other side. I think it’s much easier for economists to come up with good ideas about how to be terrorists rather than how to fight terrorists, because how to be a good terrorist is about thinking what are the things you can do to a society, which is most disruptive and most affects either the psychology or the commerce of a country. And it’s almost the economic question in reverse. And economists spend a lot of time thinking about how most efficiently to make economies run, so I think we’re actually pretty good at thinking about how to destroy economies, too. And so, not that I think any of us are actively engaged in that endeavor, but I do think that we would be more useful on that side of the table.

If you know that a "good terrorist" is looking for those acts which would be "most disruptive and most affects either the psychology or the commerce of a country," you do have a leg up on countering those moves.

In the case of ISIS, if the Garland, Texas, attack on the cartoon show was really one its ideas(update - see here), it show they are not interested in the "big ideas" but are more inclined to pursue low level attacks using relatively unsophisticated tactics. Even the attack on the Charley Hebdo attack was not very sophisticated - and might only have worked because of a largely unarmed civilian population.

What's the lesson? Don't panic. Maintain situational awareness. Be prepared. And, as the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society."

Why is it hard to fight the "lone wolf" terrorists? Another excerpt from the Freakonomics interview:

LEVITT: If you turn to economics and what economics has to say about fighting terrorism, it’s a hard problem because economics really centers around incentives. And the kind of incentives we tend to use are things like prices or punishment in prison or whatnot. But when people are willing to pay the ultimate price in the form of suicide to reach a goal, they’re not the kind of folks that we’re used to incentivizing and motivating.

Nope, you just can give them that "ultimate price" before they have the chance to take others with them.

Interesting article from Foreign Affairs from 2014, Audrey Kurth Cronin's ISIS Is Not a Terrorist Group:

As ISIS has grown, its goals and intentions have become clearer. Al Qaeda conceived of itself as the vanguard of a global insurgency mobilizing Muslim communities against secular rule. ISIS, in contrast, seeks to control territory and create a “pure” Sunni Islamist state governed by a brutal interpretation of sharia; to immediately obliterate the political borders of the Middle East that were created by Western powers in the twentieth century; and to position itself as the sole political, religious, and military authority over all of the world’s Muslims.
***
ISIS *** offers a very different message for young men, and sometimes women. The group attracts followers yearning for not only religious righteousness but also adventure, personal power, and a sense of self and community. And, of course, some people just want to kill—and ISIS welcomes them, too. The group’s brutal violence attracts attention, demonstrates dominance, and draws people to the action.

The first part is mostly correct, which is why we really need to fight a semi-conventional war in the ISIS territorial claims. The second part is also correct and allows ISIS to attract "foreign fighters" to it fight. More than that, it explains the attraction to the disaffected in Western societies - and how they may have a group of such young men and women lying in wait in the West - not as a main front in the ISIS battle, but as a diversionary, asymmetric threat.

Fun with North Korea: Private Company Submits to Blackmail, Setting Stage for Other Demands

Current DPRK Kim-in-Charge. A/K/A "Chubby"

The really, really impressive DPRK hacks Sony Pictures Entertainment and threatens to use its mighty power to "create a sea of fire" (a standard NoRK threat) or its equivalent and kill every single person who decides to go watch a movie:

The Sony hacking saga took a sinister turn on Tuesday when hackers sent a message threatening to target theaters showing “The Interview” in a 9/11-type attack.

As we all now know, Sony has decided not to expose its customers to such a threat and pulled the movie.

From a corporate liability view, I get it.

On the other hand, who will line up next to threaten movie and television studios about the content of their shows? Russia? Iran? Pakistan? China? al Qaeda? The Taliban? Boko Haram? Hamas?


The list is almost endless.

So, I would guess this includes pretty much anyone who doesn't like to be portrayed in a negative light.

Or, at least, in a light that they feel is negative.

Looks like Hollywood writers need to get working harder on more "space alien" movies where the bad guys come from very far away.

At least until the Gbaba show up.

On the other hand, we could, oh, I don't know, stand up to this sort of bullying effort. Otherwise, you can pretty much kiss freedom of speech good-bye because of a heckler's veto - which you might remember from the excuses rationale offered for the Benghazi attack.

Despite the way in which we seem to submit to threats, we really are not 98-pound weaklings. Just confused a little because we forget our values. "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" expressing one of them.

By the way, I wonder if the current Kim-in-Charge would like us to -um- censor his often looney comments about the world by, oh, threatening the future existence of the worst regime on the planet if he opens his yap again? After all, we technically are still at war with the DPRK.

Just sayin' . . .

Meanwhile, I think Team America is available on Netflix and Amazon. On my list for tonight's film.

Or even in a theater in Texas. UPDATE: Paramount has now pulled the plug on showing Team America - even in Texas. The next time any Hollywood idiot starts to talk about "courage" and "freedom of speech" just walk away. No point it listening to such babble from cowards.

Trust me, Chubby Kim, you do not want to mess with Texas. Messing with Hollywood is much easier, apparently.

On Midrats 27 April 14: Episode 225- "The Long War Becomes a Teenager," with Bill Roggio

Please join us at 5pm EDT, 27 April 14 for Midrats Episode 225- "The Long War Becomes a Teenager," with Bill Roggio

It hasn't gone anywhere, the Long War, that is.

People may be suffering whiplash having to look back to Europe in the middle of a Pacific pivot, and the Arab spring wilted in to extremism and bloodshed - but the war against the West still goes on from lone wolf attacks at home, to drone strikes across the swath of southwest, south, and central Asia.

Coming back to Midrats for the full hour to discuss this and more will be Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Bill is also the President of Public Multimedia Inc, a non-profit news organization; and the founder and Editor of The Long War Journal, a news site devoted to covering the war on terror. He has embedded with the US and the Iraqi military six times from 2005-08, and with the Canadian Army in Afghanistan in 2006. Bill served in the US Army and New Jersey National Guard from 1991-97.

Join us live if you can or pick the show up later by clicking here.

If you have questions for Bill, please join in the chat room and we'll pass on what we can.

"Better protection of US energy facilities needed" - former CIA head says

Oil and Gas Journal's Nick Snow reports "Ex-CIA chief calls for better protection of US energy facilities":

Valero Refinery

US energy firms and government officials should be more concerned with physically protecting domestic facilities from attacks than lining up supplies, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey maintained.

Electric power generation and distribution systems look particularly vulnerable, Woolsey said in wide-ranging remarks July 7 at Johns Hopkins University’s School for Advanced International Studies.

But oil and gas facilities also could be targets, with refineries at greater risk than pipelines and production operations, said Woolsey, who was CIA director during the Clinton administration and now is a venture partner with Lux Capital management.

He said federal and local officials became concerned following an incident on Apr. 16—a day after the Boston Marathon bombings—where several individuals in San Jose, Calif., were observed shooting at power pole transformers in the middle of the night.

Authorities there later found that other people had lifted a manhole cover and reached telephone landlines beneath a street at about the same time, Woolsey said. “These apparently weren’t teenagers who had grabbed their fathers’ rifles for some late night fun,” he added. “They had something more serious in mind.”

Read it all.

Of course, the same government that delays a crude oil pipeline in favor of less safe rail tank cars is carefully monitoring this threat . . . .

Refineries are complex plants, however, and are not all that compact, so they are harder targets than you might think.

On Midrats 21 April 13: Episode 173 - The War Returns to CONUS

Join us at 5 pm (Eastern U.S.) on 21 April 2013 for our Episode 173: The War Returns to CONUS:

The events of the last week in Boston has brought back to the front of the national consciousness what, for the lack of a better description, is known as The Long War.

The threats we face are both domestic, foreign, and increasingly a mixture of both. Communication and transportation has created a breed of transnational threats that are not new, and whose causes, resources, and threat vectors are not as opaque as some may try to make them.

Starting out and working in, what are the lessons we should emphasize to mitigate the ongoing threat? As we continue in the second decade after 9/11/2013, what are we doing correctly, what still needs to be done - and what things are we wasting time and money on for little gain?

To discuss, our guest for the full hour will be Steven Bucci, Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Listen live (or listen later) by clicking here.

Weekend Reading

Krugman needs one of these

When your model is proving to be wrong, insult the people who have a found a plan that works for them: Paul Krugman's Baltic Problem - By Anders Aslund | Foreign Policy

North American energy independence possible, House panel told:

It’s not unrealistic to expect abundant oil and gas resources to help make North America energy independent within a decade, witnesses told a US House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee on Sept. 13.

“The United States has become the world’s second-largest oil producer,” said Harold G. Hamm, chief executive of Continental Resources Inc. in Enid, Okla. “We just passed Russia and are behind only Saudi Arabia. I don’t think a lot of people realize this.”

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have helped the US reduce its crude oil imports from 60% of its total consumption a few years ago to 45%, he told the committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee. US natural gas reserves have grown from a 7-year supply to one that’s more than a century, Hamm added.

“The technology that allows us to drill 2 miles down, turn right, go another 2 miles, and hit a target the size of a lapel pin has unlocked the resources that make energy independence a reality,” he said.

Iran is complaining about "terrorists" in Syria receiving shipments of weapons from stocks in Libya. "Terrorists" being those who oppose the Iranian-supported Assad regime. Irony knows no bounds.

Especially since About Those Blacklisted Iranian Ships Calling at Libyan Ports...:

Over the past two months, at least three Iranian-linked container ships, all blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury, have called at the Libyan port of Benghazi.
***
The U.S. government has described Iran as the world’s “leading state sponsor of terrorism.” The U.S. State Department, in its most recent annual report on terrorism, released in July, noted that Iran had “increased its terrorist-related activity, likely in an effort to exploit the uncertain political conditions resulting from the Arab spring.” The same report noted that “Iran continued to provide financial, material and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.” This includes “weapons, training and funding” for Palestinian terrorist groups, and “weapons and training” to help Syria’s Assad regime in a crackdown that has cost many thousands of lives.
***
In remarks Wednesday on the deaths of American personnel in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed that “A free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that.” Surely, regardless of who was behind the Sept. 11 attack, the aspirations for a free and stable Libya are better served without the presence of blacklisted IRISL vessels dispatched from terror-linked ports in Iran.

Drug submarines continue to make news,
Use of sophisticated drug subs spikes in the Caribbean. There was a time when such drug running subs where operating only in the Pacific. Things change, but the threat is high:

American authorities have recently discovered at least three models of a new and sophisticated drug-trafficking submarine capable of travelling completely underwater from South America to the United States, and the use of these covert vessels has spiked in the Caribbean over the last year.

Older models pressed into service by drug barons were only semi-submersible, requiring a snorkel for air intake, but three newer captured vessels were fully submersible, capable of hauling 10 tons of cocaine and, by surfacing at night to charge their batteries, could sail beneath the surface from Ecuador to Los Angeles.
***
“These vessels are seaworthy enough that I have no doubt in my mind that if they had enough fuel, they could easily sail into a port in the United States,” according to Cmdr Mark J Fedor of the US Coast Guard, who commands the cutter Mohawk, a 200-foot vessel whose fast boat and helicopter interdicted a submersible in the Caribbean last September.

Last year, interdiction missions coordinated by the joint task force captured 129 tons of cocaine en route to the United States — more than five times the cocaine seized over the same period by operations in the United States, where agents and officers stopped about 24 tons of the drug.

Despite these advances, three-quarters of potential drug shipments identified by the task force are not interdicted, simply because there are not enough ships and aircraft available for the missions. “My staff watches multi-ton loads go by,” Admiral Michel said.

And, as noted here,

The drug trafficking quandary is bad enough, but officials worry that these subs could also be employed by terrorists. “If you can carry 10 tons of cocaine, you can carry 10 tons of anything,” said Rear Adm. Joseph Nimmich of the Joint Interagency Task Force South, which polices drug-interdiction efforts in the waters south of the United States.

Though I think it is safe to assume the drug kings would rather have a healthy U.S. economy to allow their profitable business to grow rather than a even more wounded U.S. . . .

Syrian Jihadist Calls to Attack Iranian Ships in Suez Canal, Bab al-Mandab

SITE Intel Group reports Syrian Jihadist Calls to Attack Ships in Suez Canal, Bab al-Mandab:

A Syrian jihadist called upon fighters in Egypt and Yemen to strike Iranian ships passing through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandab strait, explaining that these vessels primarily provide logistical and military support to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
***

I am unclear as to who should be condemned in this instance.

"Collateral Murder" = BS

Bill Roggio and others make a few points about the viral video "Collateral Murder". Not much point in joining in the effort, although I note that if the group behind its dissemination wants to really do reports on "collateral murders" then they ought to be pumping out the videos on al Qaeda and other terrorist bomb attacks in market places, public squares and subway stations. See,for example, At least 7 blasts rip through Baghdad, killing 49 :

At least seven bombs ripped through apartment buildings across Baghdad Tuesday and another struck a market, killing 49 people and wounding more than 160, authorities said.

The explosions were the latest in a five-day spree of attacks in and around the capital that have killed at least 119 people.

In other words, there are thousands hundreds of innocents being murdered every single day by terrorists and we see this video in which a group of men, some clearly armed, get taken out as a convoy approaches?

Give me a break.

American al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn captured in Pakistan

From Bill Roggio: American al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn captured in Pakistan: Report - The Long War Journal:

Reports from Paisitan indicate that the American-born al Qaeda spokesman who has been charged with treason in the US was captured in Pakistan's port city of Karachi.

Adam Gadahn and an associate are reported to have been captured during a raid by Pakistani special forces on a home at the Super Highway in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city.

US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal said they believed Gadahn has been detained but would not confirm the report.

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/03/american_al_qaeda_sp.php#ixzz0hWExpL0a

FBI Most Wanted info on this treasonous future martyr here.

The Latest 9-11 "Can of Worms"

From www.stratfor.com:
Deciphering the Mohammed Trial:

By George Friedman

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York. Holder’s decision was driven by the need for the U.S. government to decide how to dispose of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. Naval base outside the boundaries of the United States selected as the camp in which to hold suspected al Qaeda members.

We very carefully use the word “camp” rather than prison or prisoner of war camp. This is because of an ongoing and profound ambiguity not only in U.S. government perceptions of how to define those held there, but also due to uncertainties in international law, particularly with regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Were the U.S. facility at Guantanamo a prison, then its residents would be criminals. If it were a POW camp, then they would be enemy soldiers being held under the rules of war. It has never really been decided which these men are, and therefore their legal standing has remained unclear.

War vs. Criminal Justice

The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.

An analogy might be drawn from Pearl Harbor. Imagine that in addition to stating that the United States was at war with Japan, Franklin Roosevelt also called for bringing the individual Japanese pilots who struck Hawaii to justice under American law. This would make no sense. As an act of war, the Japanese action fell under the rules of war as provided for in international law, the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Japanese pilots could not be held individually responsible for the lawful order they received. In the same sense, trying to bring soldiers to trial in a civilian court in the United States would make no sense. Creating a mission in which individual Japanese airmen would be hunted down and tried under the rules of evidence not only would make no sense, it would be impossible. Building a case against them individually also would be impossible. Judges would rule on evidence, on whether an unprejudiced jury could be found, and so on. None of this happened, of course — World War II was a war, not a judicial inquiry.

It is important to consider how wars are conducted. Enemy soldiers are not shot or captured because of what they have done; they are shot and captured because of who they are — members of an enemy military force. War, once launched, is pre-emptive. Soldiers are killed or captured in the course of fighting enemy forces, or even before they have carried out hostile acts. Soldiers are not held responsible for their actions, but neither are they immune to attack just because they have not done anything. Guilt and innocence do not enter into the equation. Certainly, if war crimes are in question, charges may be brought; the UCMJ determines how they will be tried by U.S. forces. Soldiers are tried by courts-martial, not by civilian courts, because of their status as soldiers. Soldiers are tried by a jury of their peers, and their peers are held to be other soldiers.

International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions’ protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.” The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms.

The reasoning behind this is important. During the Franco-Prussian war, French franc-tireurs fired on Prussian soldiers. Ununiformed and without insignia, they melded into the crowd. It was impossible for the Prussians to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, so they fired on both, and civilian casualties resulted. The framers of the Geneva Conventions held the franc-tireurs, not the Prussian soldiers, responsible for the casualties. Their failure to be in uniform forced the Prussians to defend themselves at the cost of civilian lives. The franc-tireurs were seen as using civilians as camouflage. This was regarded as outside the rules of war, and those who carried out such acts were seen as not protected by the conventions. They were not soldiers, and were not to be treated as such.

An Ambiguous Status

Extending protections to partisans following World War II was seen as a major concession. It was done with concerns that it not be extended so far that combatants of irregular forces could legally operate using their ability to blend in with surrounding civilians, and hence a requirement of wearing armbands. The status of purely covert operatives remained unchanged: They were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Their status remained ambiguous.

During World War II, it was U.S. Army practice to hold perfunctory trials followed by executions. During the Battle of the Bulge, German commandos captured wearing U.S. uniforms — in violation of the Geneva Conventions — were summarily tried in field courts-martial and executed. The idea that such individuals were to be handed over to civilian courts was never considered. The actions of al Qaeda simply were not anticipated in the Geneva Conventions. And to the extent they were expected, they violated the conventions.

Holder’s decision to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal. While during times of war spies are tried as criminals, their status is precarious, particularly if they are members of an enemy army. Enemy soldiers out of uniform carrying out reconnaissance or espionage are subject to military, not civilian, justice, and frequently are executed. A spy captured in the course of collecting information is a civilian, particularly in peacetime, and normally is tried as a criminal with rules of evidence.

Which was Mohammed? Under the Geneva Conventions, his actions in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a POW. Logically, he is therefore a criminal, but if he is, consider the consequences.

Criminal law is focused on punishments meted out after the fact. They rarely have been preventive measures. In either case, they follow strict rules of evidence, require certain treatments of prisoners and so on. For example, prisoners have to be read the Miranda warning. Soldiers are not policeman. They are not trained or expected to protect the legal rights of captives save as POWs under the UCMJ, nor protect the chain of custody of evidence nor countless other things that are required in a civilian court. In criminal law, it is assumed that law enforcement has captured the prisoner and is well-versed in these rules. In this case, the capture was made without any consideration of these matters, nor would one expect such consideration.

Consider further the role of U.S. covert operations in these captures. The United States conducts covert operations in which operatives work out of uniform and are generally not members of the military. Operating outside the United States, they are not protected by U.S. law although they do operate under the laws and regulations promulgated by the U.S. government. Much of their operations run counter to international and national law. At the same time, their operations are accepted as best practices by the international system. Some operate under cover of diplomatic immunity but carry out operations incompatible with their status as diplomats. Others operate without official cover. Should those under unofficial cover be captured, their treatment falls under local law, if such exists. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them, nor was it intended to.

Spies, saboteurs and terrorists fall outside the realm of international law. This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States. It is a defensible position, but where does this leave American intelligence planners working at CIA headquarters for actions carried out by others in a third country? Are they subject to prosecution in the third country? Those captured in the third country clearly are, but the claim here is that Mohammed is subject to prosecution under U.S. laws for actions carried out by others in the United States. And that creates an interesting reciprocal liability.

A Failure to Evolve

The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed. Or more precisely, most legal discussion under international law is moving counter to the Geneva Conventions’ intent, which was to treat the franc-tireurs as unworthy of legal protection because they were not soldiers and were violating the rules of war. International law wants to push Mohammed into a category where he doesn’t fit, providing protections that are not apparent under the Geneva Conventions. The United States has shoved him into U.S. criminal law, where he doesn’t fit either, unless the United States is prepared to accept reciprocal liability for CIA personnel based in the United States planning and supporting operations in third countries. The United States has never claimed, for example, that the KGB planners who operated agents in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union were themselves subject to criminal prosecution.

A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn’t apply and criminal law doesn’t work. Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn’t want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option.

Therefore — and now we move to the political reality — it is difficult to imagine how the evidence accumulated against Mohammed could enter a courtroom. Ignoring the methods of questioning, which is a separate issue, how can one prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compromising sources and methods, and why should one? Mohammed was on a battlefield but not operating as a soldier. Imagine doing criminal forensics on a battlefield to prove the criminal liability of German commandos wearing American uniforms.

In our mind, there is a very real possibility that Mohammed could be found not guilty in a courtroom. The cases of O.J. Simpson and of Jewish Defense League head Rabbi Meir Kahane’s killer, El Sayyid Nosair — both found not guilty despite overwhelming evidence — come to mind. Juries do strange things, particularly amid what will be the greatest media circus imaginable in the media capital of the world.

But it may not be the jury that is the problem. A federal judge will have to ask the question of whether prejudicial publicity of such magnitude has occurred that Mohammed can’t receive a fair trial. (This is probably true.) Questions will be raised about whether he has received proper legal counsel, which undoubtedly he hasn’t. Issues about the chain of custody of evidence will be raised; given that he was held by troops and agents, and not by law enforcement, the chances of compromised evidence is likely. The issue of torture will, of course, also be raised but that really isn’t the main problem. How do you try a man under U.S. legal procedures who was captured in a third country by non-law enforcement personnel, and who has been in military custody for seven years?

There is a nontrivial possibility that he will be acquitted or have his case thrown out of court, which would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. Some might view it as a sign of American adherence to the rule of law and be impressed, others might be convinced that Mohammed was not guilty in more than a legal sense and was held unjustly, and others might think the United States has bungled another matter.

The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.

The international legal community has been quite vocal in condemning American treatment of POWs after 9/11, but it hasn’t evolved international law, even theoretically, to cope with this. Sept. 11 is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, and prosecuting the guilty is not the goal. Instead, it was an act of war carried out outside the confines of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. goal is destroying al Qaeda so that it can no longer function, not punishing those who have acted. Similarly the goal in 1941 was not punishing the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor but destroying the Japanese Empire, and any Japanese soldier was a target who could be killed without trial in the course of combat. If it wishes to solve this problem, international law will have to recognize that al Qaeda committed an act of war, and its destruction has legal sanction without judicial review. And if some sort of protection is to be provided al Qaeda operatives out of uniform, then the Geneva Conventions must be changed, and with it the status of spies and saboteurs of all countries.

Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder’s duty to ensure Mohammed’s prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can.

Whatever the politics of this decision — and all such decisions have political dimensions — the real problem faced by both the Obama and Bush administrations has been the failure of international law to evolve to provide guidance on dealing with combatants such as al Qaeda. International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself.

Emphasis added.

Douglas Burgess has suggested that terrorists be treated as pirates here, because, among other reasons, no international law definition of "terrorism as a crime" exists. Mr. Burgess suggests that the law of piracy -and treating terrorists as "enemies of all mankind" could be applicable. I suspect, however, that AG Holder and crew have in mind more mundane crimes, such as murder, conspiracy and the like in their case against al Qaeda terrorists. I hope, at some point, some far-sighted JAG officer made sure that rights were read to these groups so that their asymmetric war against the United States does not result in a legal judo flip and setting the "suspects" free.

Frankly, I don't give a damn

Looks like we may have made some Somalis mad as set out in Somali fury at 'al-Qaeda killing':

Somali Islamists will avenge the raid in which a top al-Qaeda suspect was reportedly killed in Somalia, an al-Shabab commander has told the BBC.

To which I reply . . .


and we've got more ammo.

Philippines: "Security in ports tightened after bomb found"

One would hope: Security in ports tightened after bomb found :

The Philippine Coast Guard on Sunday ordered stricter security measures in all sea ports following the discovery of a cache of homemade explosives in an inter-island ship in Lucena City, its spokesman said.

Admiral Wilfredo Tamayo, the Coast Guard chief, directed all commanders to implement rigorous security checks in all piers to thwart terrorist attacks or the transport of weapons and materials for terrorism, said Lieutenant Armand Balilo.

Balilo said that even before the discovery of the bombs, Tamayo put all seaports in the country on heightened alert to prepare for the State of the Nation Address of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on Monday.

"We advised all our commanders to deploy additional sea marshals, boarding team, and response groups in their areas if needed," he said over the phone.

A K9 Unit of the Coast Guard was doing a routine check on M/V Blue Water Princes in Lucena City on Saturday afternoon when a bomb-sniffing dog found improvised bombs in a trash bin near the female comfort room on the second deck of vessel.

Balilo said the bombs, placed inside 12 empty glass bottles, were "obviously made to harm people." He said there were no indications that the bombs would just be used for blast fishing.

"Those who made the bombs put nails inside the glass bottles to make sure that it would harm those aboard the ship. If it exploded, it would surely damage the ship and cause it to sink," he said.

Balilo said the roll-on, roll-off vessel, with 80 passengers and 35 crew members aboard, was about to depart for Masbate when the bombs were discovered.

NY CIty Police: 'Lessons From the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks'

Testimony of NY City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly before Senate Homeland Security Committee on the lessons learned from the Mumbai terrorist attack here:

. . .The attackers displayed a sophisticated level of training, coordination, and stamina. They fired in controlled, disciplined bursts. When our liaisons toured the hotels and railways stations, they saw from bullet holes that shots were fired in groups of three aimed at head level. With less experienced shooters, you'd see bullet holes in the ceiling and floor. This group had extensive practice. And the number of casualties shows it. Ten terrorists managed to kill or injure over 500 people. They were experienced in working together as a unit. For example, they used hand signals to communicate across loud and crowded spaces. And they were sufficiently disciplined to continue their attack over many hours. This had the effect of increasing the public's fear and keeping the incident in the news cycle for a longer period of time. These are a few of the differences from what we've seen before.
***
We are also mindful that the attackers approached Mumbai from the water. That's obviously an issue in a major port city like New York. For that reason, our Harbor officers are trained in and equipped with automatic weapons. They have special authority to board any ships that enter the port. Our divers inspect the hulls of cruise ships and other vessels, as well as the piers they use, for underwater explosive devices. We engage in joint exercises with the National Park Service to protect the Statue of Liberty from any waterborne assault and heavily armed Emergency Service officers board the Queen Mary Two at Ambrose Light before it enters New York Harbor to make certain no one tries to take over this iconic ship when it enters city waters. These are a few examples.

As much as we do, the NYPD, even with the Coast Guard's assistance, cannot fully protect the harbor, especially when one considers the vast amounts of uninspected cargo that enters the Port of New York and New Jersey. I have testified before about the urgent need for better port and maritime security. Mumbai was just another reminder.
***
The other issue that we examined in our exercise last month, and that was the subject of a New York Times article yesterday, is the ability of terrorist handlers to direct operations from outside the attack zone using cell phones and other portable communications devices. With this comes a formidable capacity to adjust tactics while attacks are underway.

We also discussed the complications of media coverage that could disclose law enforcement tactics in real time. This phenomenon is not new. In the past, police were able to defeat any advantage it might give hostage takers by cutting off power to the location they were in. However, the proliferation of handheld devices would appear to trump that solution. When lives are at stake, law enforcement needs to find ways disrupt cell phones and other communications in a pin-pointed way against terrorists using them.

Terrorism from the Sea: Mumbai terrorists use hijacked ship to make India landing

The Mumbai terrorists hijacked a ship at sea in order to make their approach to India, according to this report:

On November 18, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) intercepted a satellite phone conversation, in which a so-far unidentified caller notified his handlers that he was heading for Mumbai along with a certain cargo.

RAW analysts, however, rapidly determined that the apparently innocuous call was made to a Lahore phone number known to be used by the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s main military commander for operations targeting India, who is known only by the code-names ‘Muzammil’ and ‘Abu Hurrera.’

Mumbai Police investigators have determined that the call was made from a satellite phone that was eventually found abandoned on the Porbandar-based fishing boat Kuber, hijacked by the terrorists mid-ocean, most likely on November 19. The satellite phone also contains records of several other calls to Lashkar handlers in Pakistan.

Government sources said the RAW warning sparked a full-scale hunt for the merchant ship on which the terrorists had sailed from Karachi. The hunt was led by the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard. India’s coastal defence forces used global positioning system coordinates from the intercepted call to locate the general area in which the ship was located.

Based on the testimony of arrested Lashkar terrorist Ajmal Amir Kamal, investigators believe the terrorists hijacked the Kuber in order to avoid detection after they saw Indian patrols closing in on the area. Kamal, the sources said, has told investigators that some of the terrorists tied red ceremonial threads on their wrists to appear like Indian fishermen.
***
Meanwhile, Mumbai Police sources said, the continuing interrogation of arrested Lashkar terrorist Ajmal Amir Kamal had allowed them to put together a coherent account of the mechanics of the assault.

Kamal has claimed that the Lashkar assault team, which trained in boat-handling tactics at the Mangla Dam reservoir on the border between Pakistan’s Punjab province and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, was trained to locate their targets on a high-resolution satellite map.
***

Report on the sad fate of the fishing boat crew here:

The bodies of five fishermen suspected to be crew members of fishing trawler 'Kuber' that was hijacked by militants involved in Mumbai attacks have been found, officials sources said here.

The militants killed four members of the crew and threw their bodies into the water soon after taking control of the vehicle but kept the captain alive so that he could help them in navigation until reaching Mumbai's shores where they slit his throat, the sources said. "The officials have recovered four bodies of fishermen suspected to be crew of 'Kuber' from high seas, while the body of its captain was found hand from the boat seized by Mumbai Coast Guard," they added.

The captain's hands were tied behind his back. "Terrorists departed from some locations in Pakistan by vessel 'M V Alpha'. We don't know the exact locations from where they started their journey from that country but the route of the trawler started from Pakistan," Customs officials involved in the investigations said.

To avoid the possibility of being caught by Indian marine security agencies, the terrorist hijacked the fishing trawler 'Kuber' probably near Jakhau, and instructed the Captain to cruise towards Mumbai, they added.

The four onboard crew members of 'Kuber' were killed on way and thrown into water, the custom officials said. The fishing trawler owned by one Hiralal Masani and his brother Vinod Masani, had sailed from Porbander for fishing expidition on November 14, though the departure time of 'Kuber' in custom records was registred as November 13, the officials said.