War on Terror – Page 6 – Antiwar.com Blog

First Amendment Takes Another Hit

Fellow Brooklynite Javed Iqbal, 45, today plead guilty to broadcasting Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV programming to US customers. The charge is “providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.”

Eric brought this news item to my attention and asked if I wanted to blog about it.

“Not really. What should I add?”

“Add your outrage.”

I paused and thought about it. “But I’m not outraged right now.”

And that got me to thinking — why AREN’T I outraged? Is it that I am so used to this Administration jailing people for absurd and frivolous reasons? Am I now merely bored by the thought of the government spying on American citizens on the basis of nebulous and unlikely threats of terror? Has it become so “whatever” to hear of someone denied an explicit constitutional right because it might help the propaganda arm of an organization our government has declared a terrorist organization but which is not by all legitimate and objective standards a terrorist organization?

The last time I checked, the only time Hezbollah lifted a finger to physically harm Americans was when the latter were occupying Lebanon — and even then, it’s not proven. Israel might consider Hezbollah to be terrorists for daring to challenge the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, but as I live in the United States, I don’t care much to live by the warped standards of Israeli justice.

This was not shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Al-Manar may broadcast distasteful programs, but it doesn’t incite its viewers to commit violence. This case IS an outrage and should outrage anyone who prefers liberty over security — not that anyone is more secure by Iqbal’s certain conviction.

Broadcasting Al-Manar should not be considered a crime in the United States, where the law of the land explicitly declares that it is the exact opposite: the protected activity of expression.

Hamdan Given 66 Months, Less Time Served, Plus Life

Wait. A man was sentenced to 66 months in prison, most of which he’s already served and then when he gets out he stays in forever?

Right.

The White House-chosen military panel – not a jury – at Camp Justice at occupied Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, issued a split decision Wednesday in the case of the notorious driver of Osama bin Laden, Salim Hamdan. The panel acquitted him on the original conspiracy charges, but convicted him of material support for terrorism.

It was the first “trial” under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Today, on the panel’s recommendation, the “judge” in the case sentenced Hamdan to a mere 66 months, minus the time he’s already spent in detention. Though the “prosecutors” had asked for 30 years to life, it would seem he would be free to go after about 5 months, according to McClatchy Newspapers who’ve apparently counted.

But as announced by the military on Tuesday, even if Hamdan had been acquitted, they would still hold him as an enemy combatant for the rest of his life anyway – as they will after he’s served his 5 months.

Hail Caesar!

Greenwald Challenges Obama and Olbermann

Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald took Keith Olbermann to task for his kneejerk devotion to Barack Obama, manifested shamefully in his 180 on the capitulation of Congress to Bush on telecom immunity and the FISA law. Today, after Olbermann replied, indirectly, on another blog, Greenwald rebutted every point, and then some. He’s relentless. Enjoy!

Anti-Terrorist Raids

Any given day in Iraq includes a distressingly long list of casualties, but what about the stories behind those incidents? Here’s one from today which I thought warranted some expounding on:

Under the headline Terrorist hideout destroyed, a military press release touts the raid of a suspected “terrorist hideout”, the killing of a “terrorist” and the capture of 15 men.

How do we know it’s a terrorist hideout? Surveillance determined that the building contained “stockpiled food”, 12 bedrolls, and perhaps most damning of all, “men’s clothing”. How do we know the slain man was a terrorist? Well he was “near the target building” and made an unspecified sudden movement before being killed. Oh, and those 15 men who were captured? Well 3 of them were actually “wanted” for some crime or another. That would imply the other 12 were “unwanted”, wouldn’t it?

Here’s something conspicuously absent: weapons. Nowhere in the report is it alleged that this vitally important terrorist hideout, the destruction of which would, according to the story, “further degrade al-Qaeda’s terror network”, contained any IEDs, or explosive components, or the dreaded Iranian EFPs. Not one of these hardened al-Qaeda members was reported to be armed, and the story contains not one mention of a weapons cache, or even a single round of ammunition being present in the house: just food, and clothing.

And that “threatening” man somewhere near the building, the one so ably gunned down by Coalition forces? There is nothing in the story to suggest that he had a gun, or a suicide belt, or even a really pointy-looking stick. Just a guy, standing somewhere in Mosul, who made a sudden movement after being accosted by an unknown number of foreign troops. Now and forever though, he is a “killed terrorist”.

Says MNF Spokesman Major Hall â€œOur pursuit of these terrorists will continue to disrupt their ability to hinder the security, stability, and growth that Iraqi citizens are entitled to” Yet one must wonder how 15 unarmed guys in a building containing food and clothing posed such a dire threat to the citizenry of Iraq.