Target Centermass

Author: Gunner

  • Prosecutors to Introduce Alleged Terror Camp Photos

    Details of the prosecution case against a father-son pair of would-be domestic Islamist terrorists are surfacing, including satellite photos purported to show an al Queda training camp in Pakistan.

    The government has satellite images of a suspected al-Qaida training camp that federal prosecutors claim was attended by a man on trial for terrorism-related charges, according to a prosecution brief.

    Prosecutors had previously said they would seek to introduce images from Pakistan but had not publicly disclosed the nature of those photographs. The evidence is expected to be a key part of the government’s case against 23-year-old Hamid Hayat and his father, Umer Hayat, 48.

    On Wednesday, a jury of six men and six women was seated for the trial of Hamid Hayat, who is charged with supporting terrorists by attending the camp in 2003 and 2004 and then lying about it to the FBI. Opening statements are scheduled to begin Thursday.

    The government also claims the son planned to attack hospitals and supermarkets after he returned to the U.S.

    Umer Hayat is charged with lying to the FBI about his son’s attending the camp. His portion of the trial is to begin next week before a separate jury that was seated Tuesday.

    Both deny the son attended the camp. In their brief, prosecutors did not offer any direct evidence that he did, such as photographs or witness accounts that place him there. Rather, their case centers on statements the men made to a confidential government informant in the U.S., the men’s purported videotaped confessions and the photographs they say show the actual camp.

    The Pakistani government denied any of the camps exist. Prosecutors, however, said they have satellite images “of a location consistent in appearance with the militant training camp that Hamid Hayat ultimately confessed that he attended,” according to the 60-page trial brief filed Tuesday night.

    The document outlines the government’s case against the father and son from Lodi, an agricultural community about 35 miles south of Sacramento. Both have been in custody since their arrests last June and have pleaded not guilty.

    […]

    Umer Hayat is charged with two counts of making false statements to FBI agents and faces eight years in prison if convicted. His son is charged with three counts of making false statements to the FBI about attending the camp and with providing material support to terrorists. If convicted, he faces up to 31 years in prison.

    Meanwhile, the defense has concocted a stunning argument.

    Defense attorneys have not offered an alibi to show that Hamid Hayat was anywhere other than where prosecutors say he was. But they contend the informant asked leading questions and that the FBI pressured the father and son to confess without a lawyer or interpreter present.

    Damn those leading questions.

    Mark my words — Islamist terror will assuredly come to our shores again. Thankfully, I’m pretty sure these two bastards won’t be involved.

  • Brrreeeport on Love-child Rape Trial

    The Brrreeeport visits South Africa, where a strange courtroom tale is unfolding.

    An unexpected family link between South African ex-Deputy President Jacob Zuma and a judge has left questions over the future of his rape trial.

    South African media have revealed that Mr Zuma has a son whose uncle is a judge who was to have heard the case.

    The 29-year-old man’s mother is the sister of Judge Jeremiah Shongwe.

    Judge Shongwe was due to judge the case after Bernard Ngoepe stood down at the defence’s request, and Phineas Mojapelo stood down for “personal” reasons.

    Mr Zuma’s defence team would have raised the issue of the blood connection in court if Judge Shongwe had not stood down from the case, the Star newspaper reports.

    The recusal of the three most senior judges of the Transvaal region – Judge President Ngoepe and his two deputies, Judge Mojapelo and Judge Shongwe – has left uncertainty over who will preside over the Zuma trial when it resumes in the Johannesburg High Court on 6 March.

    The Brrreeeport suggestion? Let Judge Judy have it.

    Oh yeah, and just what is the Brrreeeport? Just a little blogosphere jacking with the search engines, courtesy of Scobleizer (hat tip to Llama Butcher Steve).

  • A Tale of Two Duh! Headlines

    Please be so kind as to file them both under the “well, I should freakin’ hope so” category.

    Poll: Americans fear Iran will develop, use nukes

    Americans are deeply worried about the possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons and use them against the USA, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds, but they also fear that the Bush administration will be “too quick” to order military action against Iran.

    […]

    There is little doubt among Americans about Iran’s intentions. Eight of 10 predict Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists who would use it against the USA or Israel, and almost as many say the Iranian government itself would use nuclear weapons against Israel. Six of 10 say the Iranian government would deploy nuclear weapons against the USA.

    I’ll admit, I’m editing quite selectively, but the story really did try to hide the meat of the poll behind the numbers based upon a so-far successful undermining of the Bush administration and piss-poor reporting of our successes in Iraq.

    US and Israel ‘trying to destabilise Hamas’

    Hamas has accused the US and Israel of refusing to accept the result of a democratic election, after a report that the two countries are discussing means to destabilise and bring down a Hamas-led Palestinian administration.

    The New York Times, citing diplomatic sources in Jerusalem, said Washington and Israel intend to block funding for the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to ensure that Hamas cabinet ministers fail and new elections are called.

    After Hamas’s election victory, the US and EU warned the Islamist group that unless it renounced violence and recognised Israel’s right to exist they would cut funding for the Palestinian Authority.

    Let’s see … a terrorist organization is rightfully elected the run the Palestinian state-or-whatever. The two governments that have previously shouldered a lion’s share of the funding for the state-or-state-of-anarchy balk. Is this undermining or just a shade of common-sense diplomacy? I’m voting for the latter, and I would really like to see a little hardball played here — the Palestinians made a choice and Hamas must find a way to function as a true government or fail upon their promises. After all, they have a rather sizable role to play in the violent anarchy over which they now supposedly govern. That Hamas would decry a withholding of funding from those they’ve deemed enemies is a truly special brand of weak victimization for a state-or-state-of-bloodletting that has already banked for years upon its claims of victimhood.

  • 2006 Milblog Conference in the Works

    Thanks to Andi’s World, the first-ever Milblog conference has been scheduled for 22 APR 06 in Washington, D.C.

    The conference is designed to bring milbloggers together for one full day of interesting discussion on topics associated with milblogging. We will explore the history of milblogs, as well as what the future may hold for this medium which the military community is using to tell their stories.

    The milblog community is diverse, and we intend to showcase the full spectrum of milblogs, including those who have blogged from theater, veteran members of the armed forces, spouses and parents.

    Registration for the conference is free of charge. Due to seating limitations, there are only 300 seats available for this event. Milbloggers and/or members of the military community will be allowed to pre-register. There are 150 seats reserved for the military community.

    Pre-registration will begin on February 8 and continue through midnight February 15. Any slots not filled by milbloggers will be given to the general public. Registration for the public will begin on February 16. All registrations are first-come, first-serve.

    The list of panelists is quite impressive, including several members of my blogroll. The Gunn Nutt (Aut Pax Aut Bellum, babe), a planned live-blogger of the conference, is justifiably star-struck by Blackfive’s listing of blogs that have already signed up for the event. Note to self: go over list again and update blogroll.

    As for myself, I would love to attend although, to be honest, I sometimes question my credentials as a real Milblogger with my ’90s era National Guard time. Also — and this is a pretty damned big “also”– it is slated for a mere two weeks before my wedding, so I’d really have to check some scheduling issues. I wouldn’t mind checking out some of my old haunts in D.C. again. Hmmm … tempting, very freakin’ tempting.

  • Carnival of Liberty XXXII

    This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at New World Man. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant. Special kudos to the carnival’s Valentine’s Day theme.

    UPDATE: I highly recommend Blog d’Elisson’s take on the Mohammed cartoon war. Follow the link at the carnival, as I won’t steal New World Man’s carnival thunder.

  • Air Marshals Charged with Plotting to Smuggle Cocaine

    Here’s an absolutely despicable tale of betrayal of public trust.

    Two federal air marshals scheduled to appear this afternoon on drug conspiracy charges are accused of smuggling 15 kilograms, or 33 pounds, of cocaine for $4,500 per kilogram, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said today.

    Air marshals Shawn Ray Nguyen, 38, and Burlie L. Sholar III, 32, both of Houston, were arrested Thursday at Nguyen’s Houston home, where an informant had delivered the cocaine and $15,000 in “up front” money.

    Nguyen and Sholar are charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, which carries a sentence of 10 years to life in prison and a maximum fine of $4 million.

    The two air marshals had allegedly agreed with the confidential informant to bypass airport security at Bush Intercontinental Airport to smuggle the cocaine on board a flight bound for Las Vegas.

    Joanne R. Oxford, special agent in charge of the Federal Air Marshal Service in Houston, said, “The Federal Air Marshal Service takes these allegations seriously and is cooperating fully with the investigation.”

    Whatever beliefs one may hold about the U.S. drug policy, one should certainly feel that government agents should not be violating that policy. There comes a point where betrayal of public trust is almost treasonous, and there is arguably nowhere, other than the U.S. military, in the post-9/11 world where the American public has placed so much trust for their own security than the federal air marshall program. If these two marshalls are tried and found guilty, I vote that they be skinned.

  • White House Takes Fire in Cheney Hunting Mishap

    Accidental blood on the hunting ground is now predictably followed by a feeding frenzy in the White House media pool.

    The Bush White House took a pounding from reporters today for not immediately disclosing Saturday night that Vice President Dick Cheney had accidentally shot a fellow hunter, sending him to the hospital with shotgun pellet wounds in his face and chest.

    During his daily briefing, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that Cheney had agreed to allow a member of the hunting party and an eyewitness to the shooting, Katharine Armstrong, to call a reporter for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times on Sunday to report the incident.

    The newspaper quickly posted the story on its website. Cheney’s press aides then answered some rudimentary questions, but provided few details.

    The incident at the vast Armstrong family ranch in South Texas occurred about 5:30 p.m. Saturday. The victim was Harry Whittington, an Austin attorney, who was listed in stable condition today at Christus Spohn Hospital in Corpus Christi.

    Peter Banko, the hospital administrator, said Whittington would be transferred to a “step-down” unit later today, indicating progress in the treatment.

    McClellan insisted that the vice president’s and his staff’s overriding concern after the shooting was getting Whittington proper medical care. McClellan said that top White House aides, including chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., were being updated in Washington with fragmentary information throughout the night and into the wee hours of Sunday morning.

    “The initial report that we received was that there had been a hunting accident. We didn’t know who all was involved, but a member of his party was involved in that hunting accident, and then additional details continued to come in overnight,” McClellan said.

    “It’s important always to work to make sure you get information out like this as quickly as possible, but it’s also important to make sure that the first priority is focused where it should be, and that is making sure that Mr. Whittington has the care that he needs,” he said.

    After the shooting, Cheney rushed to Whittington’s assistance, McClellan said.

    [Sad attempt at NSA/Katrina tie-in deleted. Check the source if you want the garbage]

    The White House’s hands-off role in Saturday’s accident seemed to incite many members of the White House press corps, who bombarded McClellan today with questions suggesting that the White House had been derelict in not getting the information out quickly Saturday evening.

    McClellan referred numerous questions about the incident to Cheney’s press office. But one reporter, ABC News’ Jessica Yellin, complained that the vice president’s office was not providing the answers.

    McClellan said that Card first informed Bush that there had been a shooting accident between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. Saturday.

    At one point, McClellan seemed on the verge of losing his poise, as his voice began to rise amid the avalanche of questions being shouted at him. But he quickly regained his trademark composure.

    “I think you can always look at — you can always look back at these issues and look at how to do a better job,” he acknowledged.

    The story goes on to give the details of the incident, which are certainly worth reading — unless one is hoping to use the situation to demonize the vice-president.

    Is this even news? Well, of course it is. The vice-president of the United States of America was involved in an incident resulting in a man being shot. How could that not be news? The Telegraph underlines this point by mentioning the following:

    Historians speculated that this was the first time a vice-president had shot someone since Aaron Burr killed his rival, Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers, in a duel in 1804.

    Is this well within the domain of late-night television satirists and humorists? Well, of course it is, and they have made use of it aplenty.

    Now, I’ve stated what the story is. Here’s what I feel it isn’t: significant. There will be no long-term ramifications, except for a parade of disgusting sniping from the far left. This will provide no leverage for the anti-gun movement. Though I may agree with some of their arguments in some cases, any attempt to capitalize on this obvious accident will fail — they ain’t going to make a dent based on a birdhunt-shotgun peppering. This event may eventually become an answer to a Trivial Pursuit question.

    Here’s what else should be taken from the story: the media really need to reign themselves in before (I know I’m almost certainly too late here) they turn themselves into a parody of actual journalism. I only caught a few minutes of the White House press conference before work called me away, but disgust had already settled in over the display. My advice for the traditional media is as follows:

    • First, check your arrogance. That the story wasn’t immediately spoon-fed to you but instead given to the locals by the locals is not a sign of a cover-up.
    • Second, piss-poor decorum in the White House on the trail of a relatively non-event will not win you points with the American public, a public that grows increasingly tired of such partisanship in our nation’s capital.
    • Third, a sense of perspective would help. After a hunting accident, there is no need for accusatory questions about the vice-president’s seemingly hoped-for resignation, however much the so-called journalist may wish for the demise of Cheney. Follow the story, but don’t try to invent one.

    And that is probably all I’m going to say on this matter, other than to wish the best for Mr. Whittington.

  • At the Movies with the United Nations

    The good:

    Govts should pay for cartoon protest: UN

    Iran, Syria and other governments that failed to protect foreign embassies from mobs protesting over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed should pay for the damage, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.

    The cartoons’ publication in a Danish newspaper have triggered widespread protests across the Muslim world including violent attacks on Western diplomatic offices in a number of countries.

    “The government has a responsibility to prevent these things from happening. They should have stopped it, not just in Syria or Iran but all around,” Annan said.

    “Not having stopped it, I hope they will pick up the bill for the destruction that has been caused to all the foreign countries,” he told CNN.

    “They should be prepared to pay for the damage done to Danish, Norwegian and the other embassies concerned.”

    The bad:

    UN report calls for closure of Guantánamo

    A UN inquiry into conditions at Guantánamo Bay has called on Washington to shut down the prison, and says treatment of detainees in some cases amounts to torture, UN officials said yesterday.

    The report also disputes the Bush administration’s legal arguments for the prison, which was sited at the navy base in Cuba with the purpose of remaining outside the purview of the US courts, and says there has been insufficient legal process to decide whether detainees continued to pose a threat to the US.

    The report, prepared by five envoys from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and due for release tomorrow, is bound to deepen international criticism of the detention centre. Drafts of the report were leaked to the Los Angeles Times and the Telegraph newspapers, but UN envoys refused to comment yesterday.

    During an 18-month investigation, the envoys interviewed freed prisoners, lawyers and doctors to collect information on the detainees, who have been held for the last four years without access to US judicial oversight. The envoys did not have access to the 500 prisoners who are still being held at the detention centre.

    “We very, very carefully considered all of the arguments posed by the US government,” Manfred Nowak, the UN special rapporteur on torture and one of the envoys, told the LA Times. “There are no conclusions that are easily drawn. But we concluded that the situation in several areas violates international law and conventions on human rights and torture.”

    The report lists techniques in use at Guantánamo that are banned under the UN’s convention against torture, including prolonged periods of isolation, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, and humiliation, including forced shaving. [Note: humilition equals torture. Go figure.]

    The UN report also focuses on a relatively new area of concern in Guantánamo – the resort to violent force-feeding to end a hunger strike by inmates. [Note: certainly a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Imagine the outcry had they been allowed to starve. I say fine — let ’em starve.]

    And the ugly:

    Bush agrees to work with U.N. on international force for Darfur

    In a move that ultimately could lead to the deployment of U.S. troops to Africa, President Bush on Monday agreed to work with the United Nations on the creation of a new international force to stop ethnic killings in Sudan’s Darfur region.

    Although Bush made no commitments on a possible role for U.S. troops, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he favors American participation in the peacekeeping mission. Bush and Annan sidestepped that issue during a White House meeting that focused on the mechanics of creating a peacekeeping force.

    “When the planning is done and we come up with detailed requirements, then each government will have to indicate what they will offer and what they will do,” Annan told CNN after the meeting. “I hope that the U.S. and other governments with capacity will pull together and work with us in putting the forces on the ground.”

    Annan said that international troops offer the best hope for ending the violence that’s claimed as many as 200,000 lives and left nearly 2 million people homeless. Peacekeeping troops from neighboring African countries have been unable to stop marauding militias that operate with support from the Sudanese government.

    The campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing, orchestrated by Sudanese Arabs, targets Darfur’s African population. Humanitarian groups say the violence rivals the slaughter in Rwanda in the 1990s.

    Bush and other administration officials have shown little enthusiasm for putting U.S. troops in the middle of the ethnic strife, but they haven’t ruled it out. Bush, who has called the killings in Darfur genocide, didn’t even mention plans for an international force in brief remarks to reporters after his meeting with Annan.

    He said only that they had “a good discussion” about the problem.

    A State Department spokesman said that any discussion of sending U.S. troops to Africa is premature until the United Nations comes up with a more complete plan for an international force. The Pentagon is ready to send experts to U.N. headquarters in New York to help plan the peacekeeping mission and ensure that it has a large African component.

    “It’s really premature to speculate about what the needs would be in terms of logistics, in terms of airlift, in terms of actual troops. And it’s certainly in that regard premature to speculate on what the U.S. contribution might be,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

    One note about the ugly factor here: it is certainly an understatement to say the Sudanese situation is already quite ugly. Any U.S. military involvement only increases the potential for “Americanizing” the bloody mess.

  • Quote of the Week, 13 FEB 06

    The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military mind is to get an old one out.

    —B. H. Liddell Hart

  • NATO Commander Fears Rapid-reaction Force Delay

    This is not a good sign for the future relevancy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

    NATO’s top commander of operations said on Friday he doubted whether the alliance would have enough troops to declare a long-heralded rapid reaction force fully operational in October as planned.

    A delay to the 25,000-strong NATO Response Force (NRF) would be a setback to U.S.-backed efforts to turn the alliance that was Europe’s Cold War protector into an outfit capable of launching itself into crisis spots around the world at days’ notice.

    NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen. James Jones, in an interview with Reuters at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Sicily, said NATO allies still had not come up with the final 25 percent of the troops due to serve in the force.

    “The reason I’m not confident is it isn’t resourced now,” Jones said, when asked if he was confident it would be fully operational by October.

    “As things stand now, I can’t say that, missing 25 percent of a force, that I have a great deal of confidence that we’re going to generate 25 percent as if by magic. I’m hoping to get there,” he added.

    Jones also said the alliance would scale back the first major maneuvers for the force, first proposed by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002, in the Atlantic island group of Cape Verde this June.

    “We’ve downscaled the operation in terms of some of the manpower, which is really what costs a lot of money,” Jones said. He said some 6,000 troops would take part instead of a planned 8,000, insisting it would still be a valid test.

    With the countries squabbling over financial and troop contributions for the relatively small response force, I find myself again questioning the worth of the Cold War-era alliance in the world of today and tomorrow.