Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Election in Venezuela

The upcoming October 7th elections in Venezuela do not constitute just another round of elections in another country. These elections are crucial for the future of Latin America and for the security of the United States. In fact, it is no exaggeration to point out that the Venezuelan drama should be as great a  concern as the  elections in the young democracies of the Middle East that emerged in the aftermath of the Arab spring.

Unfortunately, the Venezuelan electoral process  has been characterized by intimidation of the opposition and the press, violence, and indiscriminate use of state resources, all this with the objective of providing an advantage to Hugo Chavez.

In fact,  two supporters of Henrique Capriles Radonsky, the opposition candidate  challenging the President,  were recently shot to death.

Although Chavez and his interior Minister pledged to make every effort to bring the killers to justice, the case seems to follow an environment of intimidation and fear that has characterized the Chavez campaign. Opposition rallies have been blocked and undermined by pro-Chavez supporters and fistfights have been very common. Even the last killings took place at the time Chavez supporters blocked a motorcade of Capriles supporters. In September, Chavez supporters blocked a motorcade and burned a truck that belonged to the Capriles campaign.

As polls have shown a tight race between the two contending sides, Mr. Capriles has proven himself adept at mobilizing large crowds. In the aftermath of the election, It seems almost inevitable that violence will increase especially if Chavez loses the race.

Experts have discussed possible scenarios in the aftermath of October 7th. They predict that if Chavez loses the election there might be a rise in violence, street protests, political hooliganism, and even sabotage of public services or invalidation of the election. So far, the Venezuelan government has rejected observers.

A paper written by Dr. Ray Walser, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, is called “The Chavez Plan to Steal the Venezuelan Election.”  In that document, Walser unequivocally defines the electoral process as an attempt by Chavez to win the election by non-legitimate means.  Walser describes how Chavez has used state power and monopoly over the main natural resource (oil) to spend money to benefit people; how  he has restricted the media and freedom of the press including laws that protect slander of the President; and how he has abused the electoral rules that limit air time for other presidential candidates.

Walser stresses that the electoral process has been flawed. Many voters have raised questions about whether their vote is really secret as their fingerprints, which are required as an anti-fraud mechanism, may be ultimately used to reveal the identity and the political choice of the voter. There is also concern about fraudulent registration of people who are not legally allowed to vote.

I would add that violent scenarios could be created not only if Chavez loses but also even if Chavez wins. This is not necessarily because the opposition and Capriles supporters are violent but because if it is perceived that Chavez cheated, there will be rage similar to the one that took place in the Ukraine and some of the former Soviet satellites and Republics a few years ago. This sense of fraud might mobilize people who are tired of Chavez’s chaotic and authoritarian rule.

In either case, Chavez is likely to mobilize his militias and paramilitary; violence will ensue but this time the presence of fire -arms will increase and we will see  a situation of civil war. Not unlike what is now occurring in Syria.

It will be interesting to see how the United States will respond should Venezuela erupt.

In his paper, Walser urges the United States government to support civil society and continue to support NGO activity to train domestic electoral observers. Walser also urges the Administration to reaffirm their commitment to democracy and demand transparency.  Likewise, he suggests that the United States  work in coalition with other countries in the region and in Europe  to act in unison in case of fraud or violence that might  arise. Finally, Walser calls on the Administration to develop a plan of action that could include severe economic sanctions such as designating Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism, thereby prohibiting the importation of Venezuelan oil.

These recommendations are certainly right on target. We can only hope that countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Chile and a few others will stand on the side of democracy without making excuses in the name of national sovereignty.  These countries have to understand that the prevalence of authoritarianism may have a contagious effect in the hemisphere and can promote more and more pro-Chavez leaders in the region . The clearest examples are, beside the countries of the Bolivarian alliance, the former Government of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, a conservative who became a Bolivarian, and the current government of Cristina Kirchner in Argentina. Almost 30 years ago, Argentina rejected authoritarianism after  horrible years  of repression. Ms. Kirchner has elevated Chavez to the level of a statesman and a hero. What is worse she has replicated  a number of Chavez’s practices including the nationalization of private companies, bullying of the opposition and the private sector, control and censorship of the media. In addition Kirchner has created a constant discourse of hostility, and has instigated a suspicious project of constitutional reform.

The U.S needs to exercise leadership among countries in the Hemisphere but making sure that the Democratic Charter signed by members of the Organization of American States (OAS) is implemented. The U.S must exercise its influence to take democratic leadership in the region or allow another key country to do so. It would be ideal if Brazil could be persuaded to take such leadership as the country is a growing democracy and economic power.

I would add that the struggle for democracy in our hemisphere should not be merely based on moral principles. The struggle for democracy needs to be understood as a major strategic tool of national security. Democracy promotion creates a culture of peace and tolerance. A real democracy includes substantive components that reject elements such as alliances with rogue states.

As Venezuela continues to ally itself with Iran, Belarus, Russia and China, the security threat on the United States aggravates. Chavez has brought his Bolivarian allies in the hemisphere including Presidents Rafael Correa from Ecuador, Evo Morales from Bolivia and Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua into similar alliances with Iran. If Iran turns nuclear, it is likely that missiles will be posted on Venezuelan soil creating a major threat to our security.

Chavez has built an illiberal democracy that includes  regular elections but  nothing else: no rule of law, no reasonable dialogue between the factions, no free press and abundant violence and intimidation. Chavez, nonetheless, rules because he continues to be elected. This is the card he holds to maintain his legitimacy. This is why Western Hemisphere  countries have accepted Venezuela as a democracy,  as have  the Organization of American States (OAS) and  Mercosur (The South American Common Market). In both organizations democracy is a pre-condition to become a member. However, Venezuela does not seem to fall under the category of non-democratic countries because Chavez  elections are held and Chavez has been “democratically elected”..

If Chavez continues in power,  he will consolidate his regime to the point where it will survive his death. Moreover, both China and Russia have  major interests in perpetuating the Chavez government for a number of reasons including an ability to counteract U.S. influence in the hemisphere.

The United States cannot treat the Venezuelan case as it has treated the Syrian case. Our national security is at stake.

U.S. policy should be as determined and aggressive as possible with the purpose of restoring genuine democracy to Venezuela and the hemisphere. The morning after the election will be the real test for the region and for the United States.

Anti-Israel Advocate Reps U.S. at Rights Conference

UPDATE: STATE STANDS BY ITS MAN

A Muslim leader who said that Israel should have been added to the”suspect list” for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was recently selected to represent the United States government at a human rights conference sponsored by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was chosen by the Obama administration to deliver remarks in Warsaw, Poland-home to one of the largest Jewish ghettos during the Holocaust-during the OSCE’s Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM), a 10-day gathering meant to foster the “promotion of tolerance,” according to the group’s website.

Al-Marayati was selected to participate in the confab by the U.S. delegation, which was ledby Ambassador Avis Bohlen, a Georgetown University professor and former Clinton administration official, according to MPAC’s website.

The selection of al-Marayati, who has drawn criticism for defending terrorist acts and blaming Israel for 9/11, raised concerns among some observers, who deemed his presence at the human rights meetings offensive.

“It is inexplicable that a person who blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks and advocated for terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah-which has killed more Americans than any terrorist group in the world except al Qaeda-was chosen to represent the United States,” said Josh Block, a former Clinton administration official who now serves as CEO of The Israel Project, a pro-Israel educational group.

Al-Marayati drew widespread criticism from Jewish leaders and others when he said that the U.S. “should put the state of Israel on the suspect list,” according to the New York Times.

“If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies,” al-Marayati told a radio host, according to the Times.

Al-Marayati has also defined attacks by the terrorist group Hezbollah as “legitimate resistance,” according to a report by the Investigate Project on Terrorism.

He was invited to participate in the conference as a “public member of the U.S. delegation,” according to MPAC.

“Al-Marayati was invited as a public member of the U.S. delegation to HDIM along with Professor Ethel Brooks of Rutgers University and Nida Gelazis of the Woodrow Wilson Institute,” MPAC said in a statement.

During his remarks before OSCE participants, al-Marayati said that “hate speech that intends to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence against someone based on religion is harmful,” according to a portion of his speech posted on MPAC’s website.

MPAC, the pro-Muslim advocacy group that al-Marayati helped found, has urged that the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas be removed from the list of U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, according to the Investigative Project’s report.

Among other topics, participants in the Warsaw conference discussed “freedom of religion and belief,” according to MPAC’s website.

“Al-Marayati, who has a long history of civic engagement and service to the U.S. and the Muslim community, was the only American Muslim invited to speak at the HDIM,” the statement said. “This honor and privilege of addressing the OSCE could not have been bestowed upon a better person who epitomizes working toward religious freedom and human rights protection.”

The U.S. Embassy in Poland also praised al-Marayati’s presence.

“The United States is proud to have Mr. Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Professor Ethel Brooks of Rutgers University, and Ms. Nida Gelazis of the Woodrow Wilson Institute serving as public members in the USG delegation to HDIM,” the embassy said in a statement. “Their expertise will be invaluable in addressing these topics at the meeting.”

One official with a Jewish organization said the embassy’s statement was tone deaf, and demanded the Obama administration explain itself to the Jewish community.

“That he was chosen to address human rights and religious tolerance, and that our embassy in Poland said in a statement that it is ‘proud’ to have him provide his ‘expertise,’ compounds the concern,” said the official, who requested anonymity. “Whoever made this decision owes the American people and the Jewish community an explanation for this error in judgment.”

Also in attendance at the meetings was Ambassador Ian Kelly, the U.S. Representative to the OSCE, as well as Ambassador Michael Kozak, a senior adviser on human rights who is serving as the acting special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism.

Stacy Bernard Davis, a senior adviser to the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal, told the Free Beacon that “while Amb. Kozak is indeed in Warsaw on the delegation, I do not know anything about the individual you named.”

Ambassador Bohlen, the U.S. delegation’s leader, served in the government for nearly 30 years, including in the State Department. She also served as the ambassador to Bulgaria during the Clinton administration.

Bohlen currently serves as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies.

She did not respond to a request for comment about al-Marayati’s presence on the trip.

 

Adam Kredo
Washington Free Beacon

The Obama Doctrine?

If President Barack Obama was serious last week when he addressed the United Nations, then he just quietly declared war on the First Amendment.  If he was not serious, then he is pandering to murderous mobs who demanded that he denounce an obscure YouTube video critical of their faith.

The New York Times portrayed [1] Obama’s remarks as a strong defense of free speech and a challenge to Arab leaders to reform. If only that were true.

Looking at the actual words Obama used reveals what could be called the “Obama Doctrine”– where the U.S. constitution does not permit the president to restrict speech before it is spoken, the president will punish speech, after the fact, by marginalizing the speaker.

“[I]t is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who — even when not directly resorting to violence — use hatred … as a central organizing principle of politics,” Obama said.

Later in his speech, Obama offered an example of those whose opinions should be marginalized:   “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated…”

“Slander” is speech.  “Hate” usually takes the form of speech, too.  Is Obama calling on world leaders to join him in ridiculing non-violent people whose speech he does not like?  Or by “marginalization” does he mean something worse than tough words from the bully pulpit?

Obama’s new doctrine is frightening in two senses.  His call to “marginalize” those who “slander” or “hate” encourages the autocrats of Iran, Syria, and other regimes to punish dissidents while also threatening to shrink the free speech rights of Americans.

Continue reading…

Pat Caddell: Media as the “Enemy of the American people”

In recent remarks to an AIM conference, “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth,” former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, “I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy.” Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from “organized governmental power,” they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers.

The video can be watched here.

Accuracy in Media

Pat Caddell

White House Hack Attack

Washington Free Beacon

Hackers linked to China’s government broke into one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive computer networks, breaching a system used by the White House Military Office for nuclear commands, according to defense and intelligence officials familiar with the incident.

One official said the cyber breach was one of Beijing’s most brazen cyber attacks against the United States and highlights a failure of the Obama administration to press China on its persistent cyber attacks.

Disclosure of the cyber attack also comes amid heightened tensions in Asia, as the Pentagon moved two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups and Marine amphibious units near waters by Japan’s Senkaku islands.

China and Japan-the United States’ closest ally in Asia and a defense treaty partner-are locked in a heated maritime dispute over the Senkakus, which China claims as its territory.

U.S. officials familiar with reports of the White House hacking incident said it took place earlier this month and involved unidentified hackers, believed to have used computer servers in China, who accessed the computer network used by the White House Military Office (WHMO), the president’s military office in charge of some of the government’s most sensitive communications, including strategic nuclear commands. The office also arranges presidential communications and travel, and inter-government teleconferences involving senior policy and intelligence officials.

An Obama administration national security official said: “This was a spear phishing attack against an unclassified network.”

Spear phishing is a cyber attack that uses disguised emails that seek to convince recipients of a specific organization to provide  confidential information. Spear phishing in the past has been linked to China and other states with sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities.

The official described the type of attack as “not infrequent” and said there were unspecified “mitigation measures in place.”

“In this instance the attack was identified, the system was isolated, and there is no indication whatsoever that any exfiltration of data took place,” the official said.

The official said there was no impact or attempted breach of a classified system within the office.

“This is the most sensitive office in the U.S. government,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the work of the office. “A compromise there would cause grave strategic damage to the United States.”

Security officials are investigating the breach and have not yet determined the damage that may have been caused by the hacking incident, the officials said.

Despite the administration national security official’s assertion, one defense official said there is fairly solid intelligence linking the penetration of the WHMO network to China, and there are concerns that the attackers were able to breach the classified network.

Details of the cyber attack and the potential damage it may have caused remain closely held within the U.S. government.

However, because the military office handles strategic nuclear and presidential communications, officials said the attack was likely the work of Chinese military cyber warfare specialists under the direction of a unit called the 4th Department of General Staff of the People’s Liberation Army, or 4PLA.

It is not clear how such a high-security network could be penetrated. Such classified computer systems are protected by multiple levels of security and are among the most “hardened” systems against digital attack.

However, classified computer systems were compromised in the past using several methods. They include the insertion of malicious code through a contaminated compact flash drive; a breach by a trusted insider, as in the case of the thousands of classified documents leaked to the anti-secrecy web site Wikileaks; and through compromised security encryption used for remote access to secured networks, as occurred with the recent compromise involving the security firm RSA and several major defense contractors.

According to the former official, the secrets held within the WHMO include data on the so-called “nuclear football,” the nuclear command and control suitcase used by the president to be in constant communication with strategic nuclear forces commanders for launching nuclear missiles or bombers.

The office also is in charge of sensitive continuity-of-government operations in wartime or crises.

The former official said if China were to obtain details of this sensitive information, it could use it during a future conflict to intercept presidential communications, locate the president for targeting purposes, or disrupt strategic command and control by the president to U.S. forces in both the United States and abroad.

White House spokesmen had no immediate comment on the cyber attack, or on whether President Obama was notified of the incident.

Former McAffee cyber threat researcher Dmitri Alperovitch said he was unaware of the incident, but noted: “I can tell you that the Chinese have an aggressive goal to infiltrate all levels of U.S. government and private sector networks.”

“The White House network would be the crown jewel of that campaign so it is hardly surprising that they would try their hardest to compromise it,” said Alperovictch, now with the firm Crowdstrike.

Last week the senior intelligence officer for the U.S. Cyber Command said Chinese cyber attacks and cyber-espionage against Pentagon computers are a constant security problem.

“Their level of effort against the Department of Defense is constant” and efforts to steal economic secrets are increasing, Rear Adm. Samuel Cox, Cyber Command director of intelligence, told Reuters after a security conference.

“It’s continuing apace,” Cox said of Chinese cyber-espionage. “In fact, I’d say it’s still accelerating.”

Asked if classified networks were penetrated by the Chinese cyber warriors, Cox told the news agency: “I can’t really get into that.”

The WHMO arranges the president’s travel and also provides medical support and emergency medical services, according to the White House’s website.

“The office oversees policy related to WHMO functions and Department of Defense assets and ensures that White House requirements are met with the highest standards of quality,” the website states. “The WHMO director oversees all military operations aboard Air Force One on presidential missions worldwide. The deputy director of the White House Military Office focuses primarily on the day-to-day support of the WHMO.”

The office is also in charge of the White House Communications Agency, which handles all presidential telephone, radio, and digital communications, as well as airlift operations through both fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft.

It also operates the presidential retreat at Camp David and the White House Transportation Agency.

“To assure proper coordination and integration, the WHMO also includes support elements such as operations; policy, plans, and requirements; administration, information resource management; financial management and comptroller; WHMO counsel; and security,” the website states.

“Together, WHMO entities provide essential service to the president and help maintain the continuity of the presidency.”

Asked for comment on the White House military office cyber attack, a Cyber Command spokesman referred questions to the White House.

Regarding U.S. naval deployments near China, the carrier strike groups led by the USS George Washington and the USS Stennis, along with a Marine Corps air-ground task force, are now operating in the western Pacific near the Senkakus, according to Navy officials.

China recently moved maritime patrol boats into waters near the Senkakus, prompting calls by Japanese coast guard ships for the vessels to leave.

Chinese officials have issued threatening pronouncements to Japan that Tokyo must back down from the recent government purchase of three of the islands from private Japanese owners.

Tokyo officials have said Japan is adamant the islands are Japanese territory.

Officials said the Washington is deployed in the East China Sea and the Stennis is in the South China Sea.

About 2,200 Marines are deployed in the Philippine Sea on the USS Bonhomme Richard and two escorts.

The U.S. Pacific Command said the deployments are for training missions and carriers are not necessarily related to the Senkaku tensions.

“These operations are not tied to any specific event,” said Capt. Darryn James, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command in Honolulu, according to Time magazine.  “As part of the U.S. commitment to regional security, two of the Navy’s 11 global force carrier strike groups are operating in the Western Pacific to help safeguard stability and peace.”

As a measure of the tensions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Chinese military leaders during his recent visit to China that the U.S. military will abide by its defense commitments to Japan despite remaining publicly neutral in the maritime dispute.

“It’s well known that the United States and Japan have a mutual defense treaty,” a defense official said of Panetta’s exchange in Beijing. “Panetta noted the treaty but strongly emphasized that the United States takes no position on this territorial dispute and encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute peacefully. This shouldn’t have to get to the point where people start invoking treaties.”

A report by the defense contractor Northrop Grumman made public by the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in March stated that China’s military has made targeting of U.S. command and control networks in cyber warfare a priority.

“Chinese capabilities in computer network operations have advanced sufficiently to pose genuine risk to U.S. military operations in the event of a conflict,” the report said.

“PLA analysts consistently identify logistics and C4ISR infrastructure as U.S. strategic centers of gravity suggesting that PLA commanders will almost certainly attempt to target these system with both electronic countermeasures weapons and network attack and exploitation tools, likely in advance of actual combat to delay U.S. entry or degrade capabilities in a conflict,” the report said.

C4ISR is military jargon for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

Little is known within the U.S. intelligence community about Chinese strategic cyber warfare programs.

However, recent military writings have disclosed some aspects of the program, which is believed to be one of Beijing’s most closely guarded military secrets, along with satellite weapons, laser arms, and other high-technology military capabilities, such as the DF-21 ballistic missile modified to attack aircraft carriers at sea.

A Chinese military paper from March stated that China is seeking “cyber dominance” as part of its efforts to build up revolutionary military capabilities.

“In peacetime, the cyber combat elements may remain in a ‘dormant’ state; in wartime, they may be activated to harass and attack the network command, management, communications, and intelligence systems of the other countries’ armed forces,” wrote Liu Wangxin in the official newspaper of the Chinese military on March 6.

“While great importance is attached continuously to wartime actions, it is also necessary to pay special attention to non-wartime actions,” he said. “For example, demonstrate the presence of the cyber military power through cyber reconnaissance, cyber deployment, and cyber protection activities.”

Poll: 70% in Ohio, Florida Believe Iran Would Arm Terrorists With Nuclear Weapons to Attack Us

Seventy percent of Ohioans and Floridians believe that if Iran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic would arm terrorists to attack the American homeland, two recently released polls reveal.

The foreign policy-focused polls were commissioned by Secure America Now, a self-described non-partisan issues advocacy organization that supports, according to its website, “policies that will protect our nation against terrorist infiltration, attack, and capitulation to our enemies.”*

In Florida, 75.8 percent of respondents said they believe Iran would arm terrorists with a nuclear weapon to attack America while 70 percent of Ohioans indicated the same.

But the polls of the battleground states, both seen as crucial in this November’s presidential election, reveal that the states view President Obama differently on foreign policy. In Ohio, the poll showed that 51.8 percent view Obama’s polices on security and foreign policy as strong, while 44.9 percent view them as weak. In contrast, only 46.2 percent of Floridians said they view Obama’s positions on such issues as strong, while 49.1 percent said they view them as weak.

Similarly, 51.7 percent of Ohioans indicated they approve of President Obama’s handling of national security, while only 46.3 percent of Floridians feel the same way.

The differing view of President Obama in both states carries over to how each state’s residents feel on policy questions. For instance, 53.7 percent of Floridians said that if Israel acts preemptively to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the U.S. should support the Jewish State, while only 43.7 percent of Ohioans feel the same way.

Nonetheless, large majorities of Ohioans and Floridians believe that a strike by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities would either benefit everyone in the world, or at least just the U.S. and Israel. Just over 61 percent of Floridians said an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would benefit everyone in the world, while another 10.5 percent said it would at least benefit the U.S. and Israel. In Ohio, 58.8 percent believe such a strike would benefit everyone in the world, while another 4.5 percent believe it would benefit at least the United States and Israel.

By large majorities, Ohioans and Floridians also indicated they don’t believe that sanctions and negotiations will convince the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons. In Florida, 67.4 percent expressed skepticism that such a strategy would work, while in Ohio 66.1 percent feel the same way.

Majorities in both states believe that the initial omission of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the 2012 Democratic platform was intentional, according to the polls.

The polls were conducted by Caddell Associates and McLaughlin & Associates. Both the Florida poll, conducted from Sept. 11-12, and the Ohio poll, conducted Sept. 13-15, surveyed 600 likely general election voters in each state and have a margin of error of 4 percent.

For more info, please click here.

Secure America Now

Karen Lugo: How Much For A Piece Of The First Amendment?

The United States faces mounting pressure from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation to comply with demands for “legislation against incitement to religious hatred, violence, discrimination on the basis of religion, in particular for Muslims.”

The response to both marauding rioters and fatwa-driven heads of Islamic states must be a confident and unequivocal defense of First Amendment guarantees as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and confirmed by America’s highest Court.

Just a year and a half ago the Supreme Court considered whether there should be a special free speech “funeral exception” to protect military families from demonstrators shouting epithets such as, “Thank God for dead soldiers” as these families bury their fallen daughters and sons. The near-unanimous ruling affirmed the full spectrum of public debate, including speech as “distasteful” as the Phelps cult’s hateful jeers. This decision, denying the Snyder family compensation for emotional pain, was a bitter pill for many to swallow, but the Court properly refused to react to pain “by punishing the speaker.”

The current talk of caving in to murderous Islamists and censoring the latest speaker, or filmmaker, is in direct violation of the same First Amendment free speech protections that applied to the funeral demonstrators. If it is safe to presume that military families who are confronted with vile demonstrators will not react violently, why the desperation to placate the offended party when thuggery is part of the equation?

Some commentators rationalize that Islamists, according to arbitrary blasphemy protestations, can be expected to “act out.” They therefore claim that the Brandenburg rule, as it excludes expressions “likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action” from the zone of protected speech, should apply to speakers who offend Muslims. This generalized approach, however, ignores the instruction provided by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg when it clarified the standard as akin to “preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.” The Court was careful not to convey a vague and easily manipulated “likely to incite” standard.

Also lost in this desperate attempt to tamp down the tantrums is the absurd premise that legal culpability for a bad act can be shifted to a third party. For example, if the threatened riots had resulted from Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris’s suggestion about an “everybody draw Mohammed day,” she would have been in the impossible position of defending against the legally contorted charge that she may or may not reasonably have known that she was saying something sufficiently offensive to incite mob mania. The potential for upping-the-ante if feigned offenses can be leveraged into crimes would only be limited by Islamist inventiveness.

Unseemly haste to placate the violent mobs on their terms reveals just how desperate leaders are to put off a reckoning until another day. What we forestall along with the inevitable confrontation, nevertheless, is the audacity that accrues to the thugs as American pundits and politicians focus on censoring the filmmaker.

One of the hard lessons from the pre-school sandbox is that bullies thrive on weakness. Yet Obama hopes to escape this truth as his administration desperately pressures Youtube to ban the video, and spends $70,000 of taxpayers’ money to run public service disclaimers in Urdu. Youtube has responded that the clip is not in violation of community terms of use — although Youtube did comply with censorship requests from Libya and Egypt. Pakistanis reacted to the Obama administration’s public relations entreaties with a national day of rampage, killing at least twenty.

In Great Britain a debate over historian Tom Holland’s documentary Islam: The Untold Story scheduled for two days after the Cairo and Benghazi attacks was canceled. France recognized Charlie Hebdo‘s right to publish risqué cartoons of Mohammed but did shut down twenty embassies in Muslim countries for fear of riots.

As constitutional law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh writes, caving in to bullies only accelerates the rate and scale of their ambitions. After performing a straightforward cause-and-effect analysis, Volokh concluded that it would “actually be safer — not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected.”

Even if accelerated tantrums and murder are the initial response, civilized society would be better off hanging tough. The future of American rule of law depends on facing down these particular bullies at this time. Otherwise, Prof. Volokh’s trifecta will prevail: “kill Americans, visibly force America to change its ways, and on top of that suppress the blasphemy or other behavior that you dislike, win win win.” The key to implementing this trifecta is the visible component of the formula. If America sacrifices prestige and moral authority on the world stage to buy temporary relief, Western states know exactly how to score the transaction: civilization loses, barbarians win.

Military families, Christians, Jews, tea party activists, and various other groups must suffer insult with a stiff upper lip so that discourse can run the full range of parody and ridicule. The kind of free, unfettered, and robust speech that sustains a free and independent people entails give and take all the way around, and the worthwhile benefit is a full vetting of ideas and policies.

Patrick Henry did not say, “Give me liberty, or . . , ahh . . , uhm . . , I will apologize for even asking.” Our examples, our founding leaders, spoke in clear and certain terms.

Daniel Webster surveyed America’s founding era in 1826 and exhorted subsequent generations to cherish the “newly awakened and unconquerable spirit of free inquiry and diffusion of knowledge such as has been before altogether unknown and unheard of.” He warned that if “these great interests fail, we fail with them.”

No matter how objectionable or socially repugnant is the material in controversy, American freedoms must not extorted away by the tantrums of raging mobs. Our destiny must remain subject to American sovereign will and be determined by time-tested deliberative processes.

Karen Lugo is Co-Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

 

Originally posted at the Gatestone Institute.

Team Obama’s mendacity

For the last two weeks, the American people have been encouraged by Team Obama – both official spokesmen for the administration, its champions in the press and other partisans – to believe a number of national security calumnies that can only be described as surrealistically epic lies and dangerous deceptions.  Far more than the usual political slight-of-hand that can be expected in the run-up to an election, the mendacity of Team Obama is truly audacious, and the consequences of the public accepting it at face value are very grave.

Take, for example, Obama’s insistence that the surging violence in dozens of countries is a “natural” response by Muslims to a video produced in America that trashes Islam’s prophet, Mohamed.  One can scarcely find an official or press account of these events that does not start with something to the effect that the attacks were precipitated by that (almost-entirely-unviewed) short film.

There are several things wrong with this proposition.  First, in some places – notably, Libya where an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi resulted in the brutal murder of the American ambassador and three others assigned to that mission – there is no evidence that the film was even a pretext, let alone the real reason for what was, in fact, a disciplined, coordinated and successful act of jihad.  In others, it was simply the latest excuse by Islamists to incite crowds to violence, just as Danish cartoons, burned Korans, a speech by the Pope and defiled Afghan corpses have been at one time or another in the past.

What this latest campaign of deceit by Team Obama is meant to obscure is its own national security malpractice, namely a dogged refusal to face the reality that America is at war with an enemy that they have been unwilling to name, have failed to counter and are actually emboldening.  Such behavior has signaled to jihadists seeking to impose on the rest of us the totalitarian ideology they call shariah that acts of violence – or even threatsof violence – against us will be met with accommodations and concessions whenever the stated justification is outrage over some perceived insult to Islam.

As recounted in this space last week, the Obama administration has already committed to engage in, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, “old-fashioned peer-pressure and shaming” to discourage such offensive behavior.   This is but a milestone (as Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb would say) along the trajectory of the White House’s acquiescence to the shariah blasphemy agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood’s state-level counterpart, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The course of this trajectory is utterly predictable:  More violence, followed by more demands for more self-imposed restrictions on free speech,which are justified as necessitated by the national security.  This pattern, in turn, translates into a rising perception of our submission to the Islamists’ demands, which encourages another cycle of jihadism.  And on and on. What started as the U.S. government’s refusal to understand or even name the enemy for fear of causing offense, may soon metastacize into a cowed submission to shariah.  All in the name of “keeping the peace,” of course.

We are likely to be treated to another example of Obama’s staggering national security disinformation campaign in connection with the UN General Assembly meetings in New York this week.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, is expected to use his appearances to repeat his demand that the United States release a convicted terrorist currently serving a life-sentence in federal prison, Omar Abdul Rahman, better known as the “Blind Sheikh.”  The Obama administration wants us to believe that such a step is notunder consideration.

Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department gave a visa in June to one of the Blind Sheikh’s fellow terrorists, Hani Nour Eldin.  The reason?  To facilitate discussions of Morsi’s demand in meetings at the White House, State Department and on Capitol Hill.  Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who secured Abdul Rahman’s conviction for conspiring to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, warns that, despite the administration’s serial and artfully worded denials, President Obama is likely to release the sheikh after the November election.

Another Obama calumny I have experienced personally, but it touches every American that speaks clearly about the threat we face.  Organizations closely aligned with the White House and supportive of its pandering to Islamists – like the radical left’s Center for American Progress, American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council(among others) – have taken to vilifying opponents of jihadism.

Without any basis in fact, we have been called everything from “racists” and “bigots” to “Islamophobes.”  Our expertise on national security and threats from the shariah agenda have been denied, basically on the grounds that we have not been approved by the Muslim Brotherhood, attended a madrassa or been trained as an Islamist cleric.  And lately it has been suggested that, if anything bad happens in the future involving Muslims and violence, it will be our fault.

Presumably, this assertion is designed to set the stage for prosecution of the kind we have seen in Europe and Canada on hate speech or other charges consistent with what amount to shariah blasphemy laws – once our First Amendment rights have been further shredded by Mr. Obama and his team.

Will we really accede to this succession of big lies, with all that portends for our freedom of expression, our situational awareness of the jihadist threat and our ability to resist it?  Not if we want to bequeath to our children the America we inherited.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for theWashington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

The consequences of Colombia’s negotiations with FARC

Early in October, peace negotiations will take place between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Oslo, Norway. If successful, the talks will continue in Havana, Cuba.

These talks are taking place against the backdrop of major military victories by  the Colombian army against the FARC, the elimination of key FARC leaders in the last four years, and, confirmed connections between the FARC and the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador.

The upcoming talks were made possible through the mediation of Chile, Venezuela and Cuba. Venezuela and Cuba are two key players in the revolutionary, anti-American Bolivarian alliance. The Government of Venezuela has been one of the staunchest enemies of Colombia whom it views as an American puppet. Venezuela has also objected to the war on drugs and to Plan Colombia..  Many  of Hugo Chavez’s international political attacks have been directed towards Colombia.  Chavez even started an arms race with the help of the Russians and made a number of threats against his Colombian  neighbor.

Chavez also made alliances with the FARC, proven in the FARC Files (or Reyes Files) captured during a military raid in Ecuador early in 2008. Venezuela served as haven for the FARC guerillas escaping Colombia and also made alliances with other drug cartels who are the archenemies of the Colombian government.

The presence of Chile in the mediating group looks rather symbolic and poses a serious question mark as to their reasons for participating.

On the other hand these talks are taking place in Norway, far away from the region and in a country whose dominant political culture has been apologetic towards  extremist organizations.  According to Alan Dershowitz, a well-known Harvard Law professor, the former Norwegian Prime Minister, Kare Willock reacted negatively to President Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. It appeared that the fact that Emanuel was Jewish  disqualified him  for   a job that included dealing with  the Middle East conflict. Following the same logic, the Government of Norway has also maintained contacts with the arch-terrorist group, Hamas, claiming that it supports “dialogue”. [1] In other words, whether Norway’s opinion matters in the FARC-Colombia dialogue or not, Norway’s role is consistent with its approach that “terrorist groups might not be that bad, after all. It is likely that Norway’s sponsorship  will lend  legitimacy to the talks. It is also likely that they will  bestow  the status of “freedom fighter” upon  the Colombian guerrilla group even though the FARC  is and has  been responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people just like Hamas.

As stated, if the first round of talks are successful the second round will take place in Cuba, a country that has supported both terror and  the FARC.

Though it is not clear why Santos agreed to these negotiations given that terrorist organizations like the FARC are not known for their trust- worthiness in abiding by treaties, there are a number of possibilities as to why these negotiations are taking place and the kinds of outcomes that may result.

First, it is  possible that the Colombian government believes it can reach a good deal given the weakness of the FARC after four years of military setbacks. In this case, the FARC can either become a political party or somehow be integrated into the democratic mix. . Such expectation is based on the belief  that the FARC may replicate the experience of the M-19, a former guerilla group, which so far has been positive and lasting. Thus, if the FARC follows in the footsteps of the M-19,  Colombia could  have a situation of total peace. The Colombian people would then  be happy and grateful to President Manuel Santos for his efforts.  However,I find this scenario to be highly unlikely given the still extremist discourse, behavior and resentment of the FARC leadership.

In order to find a possible answer to the reason for these strange   negotiations, mediated by two allies of the FARC and enemies of Colombia, it is important to understand some of the shifts that the FARC has undergone in the last several years.

The alliances between the FARC and the Bolivarian countries have a deep strategic meaning.

The FARC is a guerilla movement with decades of experience in what is called “asymmetric war” or the war of the weak against the strong.  “Asymmetric war” is a concept adopted by Chavez very early in his tenure.  He defines it as the “war of all the people” against a never to come U.S. invasion.

Though defined this way by Chavez, asymmetric war can be fought in support of the consolidation of a revolution and the spread of terror on an  oppressed population or as a subversive force against a government the revolution seeks to overthrow.

The FARC’s weakening has forced the organization to cut an alliance with Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.  In light of this, the Bolivarian Revolution seems to be the only viable way to achieve a radical transformation. Thus, the FARC has loosened its ideology of peasant-based Marxist revolution in order to embrace the Bolivarian Revolution and to commit to its expansion. This includes the fight against U.S. imperialism, neo-liberalism and globalization. Likewise, it embraces socialism and continental unity.

The Venezuelan Bolivarian leader, Hugo Chávez created a body called the Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (Bolivarian Continental Coordinator or CCB), which later changed its name to Bolivarian Continental Movement (MCB). The CCB and the MCB has the FARC as one of its members.

The CCB was founded in 2003 as an umbrella organization that integrates different social and political revolutionary organizations across Latin America. The organization seeks to “rescue and reaffirm our historical memory and Bolivarian integration in order to create a new alternative pole against the domination of the world imperial powers.” The CCB seeks to create “a movement capable of articulating the diverse revolutionary forces and to develop a strategy in order to defeat the imperialist strategy and so emancipate Latin America (Nuestra America) forever.”[2]

The CCB/MCB views violence as a crucial component on the way to achieve its goals. Indeed, in the aftermath of the CCB gathering in Caracas, -which was attended by representatives of global extremist organizations including terrorist groups such as the Spanish ETA (the Basque insurgency), the communist party of El Salvador, remnants of the Red Brigades and other armed groups [3] a declaration was issued that stated the following: “The Continental Bolivarian movement is a means to promote the cause of the big nation” envisioned by Simon Bolivar. “We are thought and action melted with weapons against injustice. We are the combination of a variety of forms and methods of struggle.” Likewise, the “Bolivarian revolution…will be defended with our soul and hearts and with blood loaded with anger if necessary.” Then, the declaration turns more specific: “We will defeat the regime of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia…We will defeat the regime in Honduras and open up the way for a constitutional reform…Colonialism in Puerto Rico, the Falkland Islands and the Caribbean will face us.”[4]

In a message delivered by video early this year, the FARC invoked Simon Bolivar’s name as a role model and  a liberator of  oppressed people and as a supporter of continental unity. Again, the FARC repeated  its fight against imperialism and its support for socialism. Continental unity would provide the power to fight the transnational corporations that exploit national resources for their benefit and not for the benefit of the people. [5]

Although, in the same message the FARC stresses the need to continue the armed struggle against imperialism and particularly against Colombia, it is clear that they  no longer have the ability to act without the help of the Bolivarian Revolution.

In short, the FARC has ceased to be a solely  Colombian organization but rather has  become part of the Bolivarian Revolution. Its  activities and involvement are  now  regional and transnational. Indeed, the FARC is involved in about thirty countries to varying degrees. Some of their operations are more visible and some  more clandestine. The FARC reaches out to students and regular militants with propaganda and ideology and sometimes helps insurgent militias. Sometimes, they are involved in drug trafficking and sometimes in money-laundering. Sometimes they have sought support for their organization and sometimes they have sought to secure sanctuary.

In Mexico, the FARC has worked with the  Ricardo Flores Magon Militia and  has provided financial support to left-wing politicians.

In Peru, the FARC has reached out to the Peruvian Revolutionary Movement, Tupac Amaru (MRTA). The FARC provided training to several groups including a splinter group of the MRTA and the Left Revolutionary Movement (MIR).  The FARC also recruited people in Peru and provided weapons to the Maoist guerilla group, Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path).  In El Salvador,the FARC used its connections with the Frente Farabundo Marti (FMLN), now in power, to purchase arms and munitions.

In Bolivia,the FARC tried to carry out activities of indoctrination.

In Chile, the FARC recruited members of the communist party and sent them to Colombia for guerilla training. Likewise, the FARC reached out to groups, such as the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodriguez (FPMR), the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), and the Mapuche indigenous movement. [6]

In Paraguay there has been a large presence of FARC members. They assisted the People’s Army of Paraguay (EPP) in the kidnapping and murder of Cecilia Cubas, the daughter of  former president, Raul Cubas (1998-1999).[i] The EPP is a relatively small Marxist group, mostly active in the northeastern part of the country. The connections with the FARC have existed for more than ten years and EPP members have received training in Colombia.  The group was not only assisted by the FARC, but has allegedly also received training in Venezuela and Cuba. The group considers Hugo Chávez a hero. [7]

In summary, the reason why the FARC wants these negotiations is  to give them legitimacy  in the eyes of the world under the auspices of an incredibly naïve Western country like Norway that sees nor hears  no evil. Since Norway’s attitude towards Hamas is exculpatory, it is likely that this country will turn the blame on the Colombian government while providing excuses and apologies for the FARC. Regardless of how insignificant Norway is as a world player, it could distort the Western European perception of reality in South America in the same way it has done  in the Middle East.

In addition, the FARC could get “a break” from the Colombian mighty and effective hunting machine.  In that way, the FARC could   then  concentrate on their Bolivarian revolutionary goals. Most recently, Hugo Chavez stated that if he does not win the October 7th election there would be civil war. For that he needs a robust and healthy FARC.  Therefore, the strategy is aimed at placing the Colombian government, which is the most effective tool against the FARC, on hold. But paraphrasing Chavez,”por ahora” (for now).

President Santos has proven to be a wise man. We hope he has taken all these elements  described above into account.

But Santos  also needs the help of the U.S. government to make the right choices. Santos has refused to agree to a ceasefire until the negotiations are under way.  Likewise, he pointed out that these negotiations will not be allowed to drag on forever.  Santos has said that he will give negotiations a chance for no more than six to eight months. This is good.  However, as pointed out, even if there is an accord, the dangers of the FARC are not likely to go away as long as Chavez keeps them busy and provides them with a life-line.

Colombia is the most important U.S. strategic ally in the region and should not fall into a trap. Colombia is the country that keeps U.S. enemies in the region at bay and is an important regional ally. It is not certain whether we have recognized the fact that the Bolivarian Alliance and their allies aspire to weaken and eventually defeat their American neighbor to the North. In the meantime Chavez and his allies will do anything in their power to chip away at  U. S. interests. The United States needs to open its eyes to this reality and act accordingly.

 

[1] Alan Dershowitz, “Norway to Jews: You are not Welcome Here” , Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2011

[2] “Aporrea, Conclusiones del II Congreso de la Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (29 February 2008),  http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n109960.html.

[3] Douglas Farah, Venezuela Hosts Terrorist Central in Caracas, 8 December 2008, http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/517/venezuela-hosts-terrorist-central-in-caracas

[4]  Noticias de la Rebelion, Declaración Bolivariana de Caracas, 17 December 2009, http://www.noticiasdelarebelion.info/?p=4931

[5] “Saludo de las FARC-EP, Marzo de 2012” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g9Gbk_RCopM#!

[6] The World of the FARC (Part II: America),” Semana,  January 6,  2009.

[7] Hanna Stone, “Paraguay’s EPP: Phantom or Rebel Army?,” 2 May 2011, http://insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/852-paraguays-epp-phantom-or-rebel-army.

[i] ‘Fluidos Contactos con las FARC antes del Secuestro de Cecilia Cubas”, ABC Color, Asunción, September 15, 2009.

Will Obama Free the Blind Sheik?

Are senior Obama administration officials considering transferring to Egypt a poisonously influential Islamist cleric serving a life term in federal prison for trying to unleash a war of urban terrorism in the United States? That’s the impression several officials have given over the past three months, apparently out of fear that if the cleric dies in U.S. custody, American outposts in the Middle East could be overrun by vengeful mobs.

Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik, is one of the world’s leading theologians of terrorism. Abdel Rahman, who has diabetes and is in his mid-70s, is confined at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons medical facility in Butner, N.C. He served as spiritual adviser to El Sayid Nosair (in connection with the 1990 assassination in Manhattan of Meir Kahane, a right-wing Israeli politician) and to the band of terrorists who carried out the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that killed six and wounded numerous others (an operation undertaken in part to free Nosair from jail).

Abdel Rahman was convicted in 1995 of participating in a seditious conspiracy that included the Kahane murder, the 1993 WTC bombing, and a plot to blow up other landmarks in New York and to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he visited the United Nations. I presided over the trial as a U.S. district judge; upon his conviction, I sentenced Abdel Rahman to life in prison.

In 1997, members of Abdel Rahman’s organization (Gama al Islamiyah, or the Islamic Group, which is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization) murdered more than 60 tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and inserted notes in the body cavities of several victims demanding the Blind Sheik’s release. Also in the mid-1990s, Abdel Rahman contrived from jail to issue the fatwa that Osama bin Laden cited as authorization to carry out the 9/11 attacks. The sheik’s confinement was on bin Laden’s list of grievances meant to justify that atrocity.

Blind since youth, Abdel Rahman reputedly memorized the Quran in his teens. He later lectured at the prestigious Al Azhar University (where President Obama would deliver his speech of outreach to the Muslim world in 2009). Abdel Rahman has been a totemic figure to Islamists since 1981, when his pronouncements gave a group of Egyptian army officers the spiritual justification for assassinating President Anwar Sadat. The officers were hanged, but Abdel Rahman successfully defended himself at trial by arguing that he had simply been opining on issues of Islamic law and should not face censure for that in a Muslim country.

The evidence that the U.S. government is seriously considering transferring him to Egypt is circumstantial. However, as Henry David Thoreau pointed out when dairy customers were suspicious that local farmers had diluted the milk they were selling, “some circumstantial evidence can be very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

The first hint of something fishy came in June, when Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the terrorist group that carried out the Luxor slaughter and who had himself spent 11 years in Egyptian jail on terrorism charges, was granted a visa to come to the United States, where he visited the White House and urged that Abdel Rahman be transferred to Egypt. Members of Congress immediately raised questions about how such allowances were made for a member of a designated terrorist organization.

The assistant secretary of homeland security for legislative affairs, Nelson Peacock, responded in a July letter. It suggested that no warning flags had been raised during the processing of the Eldin visa, but the letter acknowledged that, as a member of a designated terrorist organization, Hani Nour Eldin would have needed a waiver from someone in authority to get a visa.

Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) then demanded that the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general investigate how that waiver was secured and explain what role the department would play in any transfer of Abdel Rahman. Acting Inspector General Charles K. Edwards answered on Sept. 10 with a letter promising that the department would conduct the requested review “and add it to our FY 2013 workplan” (for which no deadline is announced).

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Egypt in July to meet with President Mohammed Morsi, an avowed Islamist and leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and invite him to the U.S. He will be in New York this week for the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly. Mrs. Clinton’s visit came two weeks after Mr. Morsi’s inaugural speech in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, in which he promised to seek the release of the Blind Sheik. This month, when Mr. Morsi dispersed protesters outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (following a telephone scolding from President Obama), he left in place those protesting the Blind Sheik’s continued confinement.

Transferring Abdel Rahman to an Egypt already under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood and presided over by Mohammed Morsi would be pouring gasoline on a bonfire.

A congressional staffer I spoke with last week recently called the Egyptian Embassy in Washington and asked to speak with the official in charge of the request to release Abdel Rahman. This call elicited not a denial but rather the disclosure that the matter was within the portfolio of the deputy chief of mission, for whom the caller was invited to leave a message.

Then there are the statements of U.S. officials on the subject, which all have sounded excruciatingly lawyered. Asked before Congress in July whether there is an intention “at any time to release the Blind Sheikh,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responded: “Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention.”

The State Department’s spokesperson last week, after the ceremonial “let me be clear,” said that there had been no approach on this topic “recently” from any “senior” official of the Egyptian government-an elucidation laden with ambiguity and certain to send chills up the spine of anyone familiar with Abdel Rahman’s record and President Morsi’s inclinations.

All of this plays out in the context of an Obama administration that hasn’t hesitated to employ executive orders to get around Congress, led by a president who was caught on a “hot mike” assuring Russia’s leaders that if he wins re-election he will have more “flexibility” to accommodate Russian demands that the U.S. curtail missile defense in Europe.

It appears that the only course open now is for Congress to demand an unequivocal statement from the State Department and the White House that the U.S. will not transfer or release Abdel Rahman under any circumstances. Absent such assurance, it may be time for Congress to make clear that such a transfer or release could be considered the kind of gross betrayal of public trust that would justify removal from high office.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general from 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge from 1988 to 2006.

This article was originally posted in the Wall Street Journal.