The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: isil
Excerpt: It’s Even Worse Than You Think

Excerpt: It’s Even Worse Than You Think

As the 2016 presidential campaign began, Pulitzer-winning journalist David Cay Johnston wrote “21 Questions For Donald Trump” — a penetrating examination of the casino mogul’s shady past that became one of the most popular articles ever published by National Memo. In his new book It’s Even Worse Than You Think: What The Trump Administration Is Doing To America, Johnston demonstrates in comprehensive detail that the current regime in Washington is a  “kakistocracy,” meaning government by the least qualified and most venal. The following excerpt examines the damage done to American diplomacy through the lens of Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, four months after he took office, and the speech he delivered at a Gulf Cooperation Council meeting in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

During the presidential campaign, Trump stirred up crowds with lurid descriptions of ISIL’s beheadings. ISIL sought to inflame Americans and Europeans with its atrocious acts. But they served another purpose as well — frightening people in areas ISIL controlled so they would submit to its authority lest their heads come off.

Trump said nothing about Saudi Arabia beheading people, which government executioners did on average three times per week in 2015 and 2016. Nor did he protest executions via public stonings, another Saudi government technique to frighten its 28 million people into submission to the monarchy’s absolute rule. Burying people in the ground up to their necks so rocks could be thrown at their heads was both a brutal way to kill and a terrifying reminder of the regime’s barbaric views on official violence.

Sometimes beheaded bodies are crucified in Saudi Arabia, all this done in public as crowds watch what journalist John R. Bradley describes as the “only form of public entertainment” in Saudi Arabia, aside from soccer matches.

Qatar, the country the Saudis wanted to bring to heel, does not stage beheadings. The last Qatari execution occurred in 2003 when a firing squad ended the life of a convicted murderer. But it was Qatar that Trump denounced while he was in the Saudi kingdom, shocking its emir and many American diplomatic and military leaders because Qatar is crucial to American interests in that part of the world.

More than 11,000 American military personnel work out of the twenty-square-mile Al Udeid Air Base south of Doha, the capital of Qatar.

From there the Air Force directs American bombers and jet fighter attacks on ISIL, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Houthi rebels the Saudis want suppressed in Yemen. Americans at the airbase in Qatar also controlled drones used for surveillance of suspected Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other terrorist leaders, directing missile strikes at them and their entourages.

Trump’s Riyadh speech praising the Saudis and their Middle Eastern allies while condemning Qatar drew firm lines in the sand. “With God’s help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed,” Trump said, adding, “there can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.”

Those remarks indicate Trump was unaware, or did not care, that the Saudis are the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, far exceeding the Ira- nian government that Trump frequently denounces for its support for terrorism. The State Department lists sixty-one terrorist organizations, all but two of which are aligned with Sunnis and the extreme Wahhabi sect that is officially endorsed in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis fund fifty-seven of those terrorist groups. Qatar, the country that Trump joined the Saudis and their allies in denouncing, was also involved in funding terrorist groups, though they committed their acts of political violence mostly in the Middle East.

All American presidents before Trump had, in varying degrees, modulated their remarks to avoid exacerbating the centuries-old rivalries within Islamic countries. Their carefully scripted and nuanced public statements and official actions reflected the intelligence assessment that taxpayers paid for so our officials would understand the Middle East. Previous presidents took care not to excite a viper’s nest of poisonous religious and political conflicts in that part of the world and to balance American interests among these contending factions.

Abandoning that history of thoughtful diplomacy, Trump went all in with the Saudis and their allies. He said he applauded the “Gulf Coopera- tion Council for blocking funders from using their countries as a financial base for terror, and designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization last year. Saudi Arabia also joined us this week in placing sanctions on one of the most senior leaders of Hezbollah.” While the designation did occur, it was likely window dressing to please Trump, not an actual severing of the relationship between rich Saudis who depend on the Saud family government for their fortunes and the dozens of terrorist groups they enable.

The official White House version of the speech, including capital letters, declared:

A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out. DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship. DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities. DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH. For our part, America is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts. We will discard those strategies that have not worked—and will apply new approaches informed by experience and judgment. We are adopt- ing a Principled Realism, rooted in common values and shared interests.

How attacking Qatar could be principled or realistic is something people deeply versed in the Middle East could not understand. It did, however, align with Trump’s desire to make American news organizations come to heel and present only news that in his opinion accurately reflects his actions.

We cannot know what Trump was thinking as he read his speech. He showed no sign then or later of realizing the irony of delivering these re- marks to a room filled with religious authoritarians whose governments and citizens finance terrorists, including the 9/11 hijackers. Nothing he said suggested that he understood the disputes among the various countries controlled by Sunni potentates and dictators.

Trump’s remarks also made no sense to those who know that Saudis fund the Taliban, the Afghan forces that harbored Osama bin Laden at the time of the 9/11 attack.

The Saudis surely have an interest in going after some terrorists. Their interest is in stopping terrorism by Shia Muslims, the branch of Islam dominant in Iran.

Trump had interests, too. At a 2015 rally in Mobile, Alabama, Trump said Saudis “buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 mil- lion. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.” Trump created more than a half dozen companies in Saudi Arabia. All were inactive, but he suggested that he had plans to build a golf course, hotel, or other property there.

A month after the inauguration, his sons opened the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai. A few weeks before taking office, Trump said that his partner in that venture, Hussain Sajwani, offered him a $2 billion deal. Trump said he rejected the offer out of concern that people would think he would “take advantage” of the presidency to make money.

Trump said he would have a conflict of interest regarding Turkey if he became president. “I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” he told Breitbart in 2015. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.” Ivanka Trump tweeted thanks to Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2012 for attending the launch of the Trump twin towers.

There was also a possible explanation for his attack on Qatar. Trump has a long history of being incredibly petty, his tweets showing his thin skin. Qatar Airways rented space in Trump Tower in 2008, but moved out in 2014, a slight Trump would likely not forget.

In Las Vegas, during the final presidential election debate, Trump had taken a very different tone about Saudi Arabia. Referring to gifts to the Clinton Global Initiative, a charity that helps poor people, Trump demanded that Hillary Clinton and her husband ‘‘give back the money you’ve taken from certain countries that treat certain groups of people so terrible.’’

Trump specified ‘‘Saudi Arabia giving $25 million, Qatar, all of these countries. You talk about women and women’s rights? So these are people that push gays off . . . buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly. And yet you take their money.”

Trump’s flip-flop on the Saudis after the election showed how little he understands the Middle East by comparison with Hillary Clinton. As secretary of state, Clinton had a nuanced and deep understanding of the complexities of the Middle East and how all the governments there in some way support terrorists. In an email from February 14 that was revealed by WikiLeaks, she wrote that “we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Dead: Syrian Monitor

ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Dead: Syrian Monitor

If ISIS Could Vote In Our Election, It Would Choose Donald Trump

If ISIS Could Vote In Our Election, It Would Choose Donald Trump

Countless foreign affairs experts (including plenty of Republicans) and weathered military brass all agree: Donald Trump is grossly unfit to be Commander and Chief. But in reality, it’s not just that Trump lacks presidential qualifications; is that he’s uniquely qualified to make things a lot worse.    

It’s already happening. ISIS is using Donald Trump as a recruitment tool, galvanizing support and boosting their momentum.

Think of it this way: if ISIS is a fire that we have to put out, having no access to water or a fire hose would render one unfit to fight it. However, the frightening truth is that Trump and his Republican backers are actively, willingly, and ignorantly throwing gasoline on the flames.  

If you don’t trust U.S. politicians, then at least trust U.S. enemies: ISIS is rooting for a Trump presidency because it gives them a leg up. But why?

First,  the ISIS worldview is simple: They see the world as believers vs. non-believers, divided between land governed by their version of Islam and the lands of its enemies. ISIS fears religious freedom and secular society, which is why their main goal is to “destroy the gray area of coexistence.” ISIS approves of Western Islamophobia, because it fuels their binary “us vs. them” doctrine; they gain power and support from the irresponsible and hateful brand of divisiveness Trump flings around when he solicits cheers for anti-Muslim rhetoric — like he did when he insulted the family of a fallen Muslim-American soldier.  

What’s more, scholars agree that Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. is outright illegal under U.S. and international law, citing the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and the First Amendment’s doctrine of freedom of religion. It’s not just illegal, it’s also not possible:  there’s no ‘religion’ column on passports. So Trump’s nonsensical proposal has the sole effect of playing into ISIS’s narrative–basically doing their dirty work for them.

This isn’t all just theory, either. In a new analysis, Foreign Affairs magazine recently interviewed ISIS supporters, and according to a former ISIS fighter and self-identified jihadist, “We don’t need to convince Muslims in the Middle East that the West is against them … The next step for the Islamic State is to reach Muslims in America and Europe.” Another said, “Congratulations to us on the victory of Trump! Sit back and relax and watch the end of America at his hands.”

From the same Foreign Affairs analysis, another man who left ISIS said that ISIS wants to make the West an “incubator” for locally inspired attacks. ISIS is currently using video footage of Trump’s anti-Muslim sentiments around the attacks in Brussels and Orlando to recruit and galvanize support.

And since ISIS is losing ground on its home turf in the Middle East, they’re increasingly focusing their propaganda less on battles in the region and more on the Trump-type content that will encourage homegrown terrorism and lone-wolf attacks in the U.S. and Europe. Picture a room full of jihadi social media operatives splicing islamophobic Trump-isms into their recruitment videos, woven between footage of beheadings — what more do they need to justify their hateful narrative?

In an increasingly combative election, one of the few things we still all agree on is countering ISIS’s ideology and evil mission. Donald Trump, however, seems intent on designing”‘policies” and advancing an attitude that plays right into their hands, both ideologically and operationally. He claims that he alone can keep the country safe, but he’s actually singularly bad for our national security–and our enemies are taking notice, and using his rhetoric as fuel.

It all boils down to a simple question all American voters must ask themselves: If ISIS would vote for Donald Trump, why would you?

Kevin Samy is a political Partner at the Truman National Security Project and a communications strategy consultant. Views expressed are his own.

IMAGE: A fighter of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) holds an ISIL flag and a weapon on a street in the city of Mosul, June 23, 2014. REUTERS/Stringer/Files

Officials Envision Probation Program For People Facing Terror Charges

Officials Envision Probation Program For People Facing Terror Charges

By Mila Koumpilova, Star Tribune (Minneapolis) (TNS)

MINNEAPOLIS — Federal authorities in Minnesota are looking at ways to steer some terrorism offenders away from radical ideologies and safely back into society.

In a national first, they are considering adopting pretrial release and probation programs that would blend traditional supervision with counseling and other services to move young people away from militancy.

The head of federal probation in Minneapolis recently traveled to study “deradicalization” initiatives in Europe, where their use has grown, triggering intense controversy. Leaders of the Twin Cities’ East African community and attorneys for nine young men charged with trying to join Middle East militants have pitched their own proposals for allowing the suspects to leave jail as they await trials or sentencing.

With a limited track record for such programs and heightened public anxiety about homegrown terrorism, officials say they are moving cautiously. Attorneys believe it is unlikely the government will sign off on a release proposal before a May trial for five of the defendants.

“You have to balance deradicalization and public safety, with public safety being paramount,” said Kevin Lowry, the chief U.S. probation officer in Minneapolis. “It’s a challenge.”

Early last year, Judge Michael Davis approved an experimental release for one of three defendants who pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a plan to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, in Syria. The program, which combined mentoring and electronic monitoring, drew national attention.

The defendant, Abdullahi Yusuf, returned to jail last summer, but the nonprofit Heartland Democracy says it continues to work with him and with probation officials.

Yusuf, then an 18-year-old community college student, was the first to plead guilty in February as part of an ongoing FBI investigation. Davis signed off on a Heartland Democracy program that connected Yusuf with a team of religious scholars, teachers and other mentors. But in May, Yusuf was taken back into custody after staff at the St. Paul halfway house where he lived found a box cutter taped under his bed.

That spring, six more young men were arrested as part of the same investigation. Attorneys, family members and community supporters argued that the men should be allowed to await trial out of jail. They pointed to the suspects’ lack of criminal history and questioned the strength of the government’s case against them.

A group of community leaders made a proposal: Local mosques would take responsibility for each man, with imams working to convince the suspects that terror groups sell a distorted version of Islam. The defendants would wear electronic monitors and check in with probation officers.

Davis wasn’t sold. Given the charges that they tried to join the most violent terror group in the world, he said the young men are flight risks and pose a danger to the community.

Supporters continue to argue for supervised release — even as they recognize that the San Bernardino, Calif., mass shooting has not helped their case. They say such a move would undercut Islamic State propaganda about the U.S. government.

“We need to have a program in place to give these young men a second chance,” said Sadik Warfa, a community leader and a spokesman for some defendants’ families. “Jail is not the answer.”

At the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services in Minneapolis, Lowry said he cannot discuss whether individual defendants might be candidates for the programs his office is looking to design. He stressed that the effort is at an early stage and still needs funding.

Over nine days in October, Lowry met with government officials, nonprofits and others in Berlin and London. He looked at programs designed to intervene with would-be jihadis, from people whose families worry they might have tuned in to radical propaganda to those returning from fighting in the Middle East. One German program, an offshoot of a long-standing effort to “deprogram” neo-Nazis, helps family members intervene with young recruits.

As hundreds of young people have left Europe to join radical groups, such intervention programs have multiplied and drawn scrutiny. They can involve religious instruction, psychological counseling, job training or cautionary tales from “formers,” militants disillusioned with violent jihad.

Critics on the right question whether such programs can effectively wrest people from the grip of radicalism; they call for a tough law enforcement and long sentences. On the left, detractors say intervention programs can stigmatize Muslim communities and ensnare people for voicing unpopular views.

To Lowry, the challenge lies in finding a proven approach. Some of these programs have been around for almost a decade, but reliable data on their effectiveness is still scarce.

“People claim some level of success, but I think there’s not as much research and numbers as we’d like,” he said.

Lorenzo Vidino, the director of George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, points to a program in Denmark to rehabilitate returning fighters who often cannot be charged because of insufficient evidence. Officials in that country, which U.S. Attorney Andy Luger visited last year, note only one of more than 30 participants has headed back to the Middle East. But, says Vidino, proving that the program produced that outcome is hard. And that approach would be a tough sell in the United States, which has much stricter penalties for terror-related offenses.

“Nobody’s under the illusion that these programs work all the time,” said Vidino. “It’s not threat elimination. It’s threat reduction.”

©2016 Star Tribune (Minneapolis). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: Weapons confiscated from last Wednesday’s attack in San Bernardino, California are shown in this San Bernardino County Sheriff Department handout photo from their Twitter account released to Reuters December 3, 2015.  REUTERS/San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department/Handout