Jessica Stern: Brief Interviews with Hideous Terrorists

A few times, I have felt myself in the presence of true evil. At those times, I learned what it means to have the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It’s not just an expression. It happened to me when I met with a leader who recruited cannon fodder for his “jihad,” and on a few other occasions in the last couple decades that I’ve spent interviewing terrorists to learn why they do what they do. But, more often, the evil I’ve witnessed has been banal. I have found myself able to understand the mistaken moral logic that can turn a boy into a terrorist.

 

Here’s a surprising thing. Almost everywhere — in Pakistan, in Indonesia, in Texas — terrorists offer you tea. Sometimes a full meal.

 

Otherwise, they are quite different from one another. Their motivations vary — from irredentism, to pleasing the God they claim to worship, to cleansing the Earth of the mud-people that contaminate the world of purity in their minds. Some live in war zones with grievances that are easy for outsiders to grasp; for others, living in the cushy West, the war that is taking place is principally in their own minds, often over identity. Some are paid, some are blackmailed. Some are recruited, and some recruit themselves to their own holy war, whether at home or far away.

 

Read Jessica’s article on talking with terrorists in Foreign Policy.

Benghazi Hearing: Hicks ‘stunned’ at Rice explanation

Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks said it best about Susan Rice’s statements on the Sunday morning talk shows in which she perpetuated the lies about Benghazi: “My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed,” Mr Hicks said on his reaction to her interview.  Someone must be held accountable for the Obama Administration’s purposeful lies about the terrorist attacks on our Ambassador and three other Americans on 9/11/12. — AA

(Guardian UK)

A top US official who was in Libya during the deadly attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi has given the first public account of the event.

Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Tripoli, said he was “stunned” by UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s comments that the attack was spontaneous.

He also told lawmakers he received a phone call from US Envoy Christopher Stevens, just before he died.

Three other Americans were killed in the attack on 11 September 2012.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed”

Gregory Hicks on his reaction to Susan Rice’s comments

During several hours of emotional testimony before a House of Representatives committee on Wednesday, Mr Hicks described the moment he was informed of the attack.

He said he was in Tripoli watching TV when he received a phone call from Ambassador Stevens.

“Greg, we’re under attack,” the ambassador reportedly told Mr Hicks by telephone before the line cut.

He later received a phone call from the Libyan prime minister informing him of Ambassador Steven’s death.

“I think it is the saddest phone call I have ever had in my life,” Mr Hicks said.

After the disrupted phone call with Ambassador Stevens, Mr Hicks said he received calls from Libyans using the ambassador’s phone who said they had the envoy with them.

But Mr Hicks decided not to act on the calls, fearing an ambush.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been the focus of outrage from Republicans in Congress, for giving the news media what has been acknowledged as an incorrect explanation for the attack.

She said on a Sunday chat show on 16 September that the attack had grown out of an anti-US protest, while other officials have said they knew at the time it was an organised, armed assault, possibly by an Islamist militant group.

“My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed,” Mr Hicks said on his reaction to her interview.

Some Republicans accuse the White House of hiding information about the attack, while Democrats say the issue has become politicised.

The BBC’s Jane O’Brien in Washington says Wednesday’s testimony will do nothing to dispel Republican concerns that President Barack Obama tried to cover up a terrorist attack in the run-up to a presidential election.

Democrats will continue to say there was no attempt to mislead the public, our correspondents adds.

‘Need to evacuate’

At Wednesday’s hearing, Mr Hicks expressed frustration with the lack of a US military response during the night-time attack, saying one could have deterred a second assault.

The Pentagon has said nothing could have been done to assist the Americans in Benghazi.

Mr Hicks and two other state department employees criticised an official review undertaken after the attack, saying many people with first-hand knowledge of the event were not interviewed and it focused too much on lower-ranking officials.

The review found that poor leadership and management in two state department teams led to a security plan that was “inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place”.

Mr Hicks told the panel he spoke to people at the State Department and to Libyan officials, and had a conversation with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton around 02:00 on the night of the attack.

“Secretary of State Clinton called me along with her senior staff… and she asked me what was going on. And I briefed her on developments,” Mr Hicks told congressmen.

“Most of the conversation was about the search for Ambassador Stevens. It was also about what we were going to do with our personnel in Benghazi, and I told her that we would need to evacuate. She said that was the right thing to do.”

The ambassador died of smoke inhalation when he was trapped in the burning consulate building, after armed men stormed the compound.

State department employee Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty also died in the attack.

Mrs Clinton angrily defended her handling of the Benghazi raid in a series of hearings on Capitol Hill in January.

Source: Investigators recover circuit board believed used to detonate Boston Marathon blasts

Shelley Murphy, Boston Globe

Investigators combing through the aftermath of the deadly Boston Marathon terrorist attack have recovered a circuit board in the area of one of the two blasts that they believe was used to detonate the bombs, according to an official briefed on the investigation.

Investigators have also recovered components of the bombs, enabling them to determine what they consisted of two 6-liter pressure cookers packed with nails, ball bearings, and other metal. The makeshift bombs were placed in black duffel bags, the official said.

The one that exploded first was placed on the ground on Boylston Street, across from finish-line viewing stands where dignitaries, including Governor Deval Patrick, had been sitting earlier. The second bag was placed on the ground about 75 to 100 yards down the street, outside the Forum restaurant at 755 Boylston St., according to the official.

The bombs, detonated about 12 seconds apart, killed three people and injured 176 others, including 17 who are still in critical condition. The attacks created a scene of bloody caranage near the finish line of a race that is a colorful rite of spring and draws runners from around the world, who are cheered on by happy crowds.

President Obama, speaking to reporters at the White House this morning, called the attacks a “heinous and cowardly act” and said that the FBI was investigating it “as an act of terrorism.”

“We will find whoever harmed our citizens and we will bring them to justice,” he said.

Eight-year-old Martin Richard of Boston was one of those killed in the attack. A second person who died in the blast was also identified today. She was Krystle Campbell, 29, of Arlington, her grandmother said. The name of the third person killed was not released.

Doctors at several major hospitals in Boston said earlier that they had seen evidence that the bombs contained some kind of shrapnel.

Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley

Since the attack in Boston yesterday, Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley has represented the people of Boston incredibly well.  At this morning’s press conference, he summed up the bombing perfectly: 

“An act of cowardice of this severity cannot be justified or explained. It can only be answered.” 

 

The Green Building, Boston

National Post: Budget cuts could delay terrorism trial for Osama bin Laden son-in-law, chief al-Qaeda propagandist

NEW YORK — A judge said he found it “stunning” to hear Monday that federal budget woes could delay the start of a terrorism trial for Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law.

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s comment came as he set deadlines for lawyers to submit pre-trial arguments regarding Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, who pleaded not guilty last month to charges that he conspired to kill Americans in his role as al-Qaeda’s top propagandist after Sept. 11, 2001.

The charismatic al-Qaeda spokesman was shown in early October 2001, sitting with bin Laden and current al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri in what became a heavily watched propaganda video. Prosecutors say he had called on every Muslim to join the fight against the United States, declaring that “jihad is a duty.”

Ghaith, who was brought to the U.S. last month, was handcuffed as he was led into a courtroom on Monday. The handcuffs were taken off before he listened through headphones to an Arabic translator.

Kaplan said he was considering starting the trial as early as September, drawing protests from defence lawyers who said the 5.1 per cent across-the-board federal budget cuts known as sequestration required all public defenders to be furloughed for more than five weeks by autumn.

The judge left open the possibility that the trial may not begin until next year.

Al-Jazeera / The Associated PressThis image made available by Al-Jazeera shows Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and spokesman

Defence lawyers said they expected to ask the judge to toss out a 22-page statement Abu Ghaith provided after his Feb. 28 arrest in Jordan.

They also said they were likely to seek a change of venue. The federal courthouse in lower Manhattan is located just blocks from the World Trade Center complex.

Efforts to change the location where a trial is held or to challenge post-arrest statements have been unsuccessful in previous terrorism trials in Manhattan.

The single notable exception occurred when the Obama administration announced it was going to conduct a civil trial in New York for Khalid Sheik Mohammad, who has claimed responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, and four others, only to return the cases to military tribunal proceedings amidst an uproar over security concerns.

Great Piece by Daniel Pipes Regarding Slanted New York Times’ Reporting

At 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 5, Lars Hedegaard answered his door bell to an apparent mailman. Instead of receiving a package, however, the 70-year-old Danish historian and journalist found himself face to face with a would-be assassin about one third his age.

The assailant shot once, narrowly missing his head. The gun locked, Hedegaard wrestled with him, and the young man fled.

Given Hedegaard’s criticism of Islam and his even being taken to court on criminal charges of “hate speech,” the attack reverberated in Denmark and beyond. The Associated Press reported this incident, which was featured prominently in the British press, including the Guardian, the Daily Mail and the Spectator, as well as in Canada’s National Post. The Wall Street Journal published an article by him about his experience.

When the New York Times belatedly bestirred itself on Feb. 28 to inform its readership about the assassination attempt, it did not so much report on the event itself but on alleged Muslim support for Hedegaard’s right to express himself.

As implied by the title of the article, “Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak,” NYT journalist Andrew Higgins mainly celebrates Danish Islam:

“Muslim groups in the country, which were often criticized during the cartoon furor for not speaking out against violence and even deliberately fanning the flames, raised their voices to condemn the attack on Mr. Hedegaard and support his right to express his views, no matter how odious [emphasis added].”

And this is the theme that pervades the piece. For example,Higgins quotes Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration,  who says he is pleased that “the Muslim community is now active in the debate.”

(For a close dissection of Higgin’s agitprop, see Diana West’s evisceration; see also Andrew Bostom’s article where he compares Higgins to Walter Duranty, the NYT reporter who whitewashed Stalin’s crimes.)

Essentially, Higgins delegitimizes Hedegaard. In addition to the snarky “no matter how odious” reference, Higgins dismisses Hedegaard’s “opinions” as “a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war” and claims the Dane has “fanned wild conspiracy theories and sometimes veered into calumny.”

These characterizations of Hedegaard’s work are a vicious travesty. A few specifics:

1. What Higgins airily dismisses as Hedegaard’s “opinions” is in fact a substantial oeuvre published in several academic books and articles and  laden with facts and references dealing with Islamic ideology, Muslim history and Muslim immigration to Denmark. 

To the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed these writings contain sloppy scholarship or wrong references. As Hedegaard puts it, “I am a university-trained historian and take my craft seriously.”

The real criticism of Hedegaard is not about his scholarship – but that he raises difficult and even unpleasant questions.

2. Higgins accuses Hedegaard of “forecast[ing] … a coming war.” However, what Hedegaard forecasts is not his won. He is only reporting what Islamist texts and spokesmen themselves predict and advocate.

3. Higgins writes that Hedegaard “is a major figure in what a study last year by a British group, Hope Not Hate, identified as a global movement of ‘Islamophobic’ writers, bloggers and activists, whose ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric poisons the political discourse, sometimes with deadly effect’.”

“Islamophobia” is a silly neologism intended to vilify anyone who criticizes Islam or even Islamism.

 

As for “sometimes with deadly effect,” Higgins nastily insinuates that Hedegaard is responsible for deadly attacks on Muslims when, in fact, he was the victim not the perpetrator of an attack.

(Hope not Hate, by the way, lists both the Middle East Forum and me in its Counter-Jihad Report; it flatters me as the “Powerhouse behind the international counter-jihadist movement.”)

In conclusion, Higgins has written a stew of shoddy aspersions of a brave, distinguished and accomplished writer with whom I co-authored an article “Something Rotten in Denmark?” in 2002 and who is currently a colleague at the Middle East Forum.

Shame on Higgins for this article and shame on The New York Times for publishing him.

 

Dr. Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. More articles can be found at  DanielPipes.org