Is this how to deprogram jihadists?

Wendy Pollack over at the Wall Street Journal's Informed Reader writes about how Saudi Arabia is attempting to do this:

Detained jihadists are put through an intensive religious and psychological counseling program aimed at returning the prisoners to society. Prisoners meet with respected clerics, who use Islamic teachings to challenge the ideology of al Qaeda. Family members are brought in to influence prisoners, much in the same way that counselors seek to “deprogram” brainwashed cult members.... The changes come after a 10-year stretch in which terrorists linked to al Qaeda launched a series of violent attacks in the kingdom, initially against foreigners, but eventually hitting at Saudis directly. In 2003 and 2004, 22 terrorist attacks killed 90 civilians in Saudi Arabia and wounded many more.

The upsurge in violence sparked a backlash against al Qaeda among Saudi citizens — a shift in sentiment that the government used to its advantage to bolster its intelligence and hunt down militants....

It is difficult to know if the program has had an impact. Saudi authorities claim to have rehabilitated 500 militants. Violent attacks had ebbed until early this year, when jihadist militants killed four French citizens. Last month, Saudi officials disclosed the arrest of 172 people accused of plotting to attack oil installations, a possible sign that terrorist groups are undergoing a resurgence. Meanwhile, a similar rehabilitation regimen has produced mixed results in neighboring Yemen. But the program might hold lessons for U.S. and European governments.

British intelligence worry that British terrorists may be plotting to hit the U.S.

From yesterday's London Times:

British intelligence chiefs have confirmed to The Times that they are worried by the prospect of the next attack in America being committed by a British citizen arriving without hindrance in the US on the visa waiver programme. They are liaising closely with the FBI to identify possible suspects.

This statement was made in response to the U.S. State Department's release of its annual report on terrorism around the world. As the London Times reported on these findings:

The report also quoted Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, who made the “stark assessment” that there were 200 known terror networks in Britain, 1,699 individuals and 30 terror plots. It said: “The British Government viewed radicalisation of young people in the UK and elsewhere ... as a growing threat to international and British security.”

The report said that there is evidence that al-Qaeda is shifting to “guerrilla terrorism”, through which it seeks to “manipulate and exploit grievances in at-risk populations”. It added: “A deeper trend is the shift in the nature of terrorism, from traditional international terrorism of the late 20th century into a form of transnational non-state warfare that resembles of form of global insurgency.”

Is terrorism a nuisance we should all just live with?

James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web has some fun with ridiculous comparisons.

I'm going to quote him at length here - but to get his often hilarious commentary in daily emails, you can subscribe for free here.

Lynching Was Bad, but . . .

Speaking of the Los Angeles Times, on Friday the paper printed an exceptionally idiotic column by Rosa Brooks titled "9/11 Was Bad, but . . ." Brooks suggests that people who worry about terrorist attacks are "irrational wimps":

The 9/11 attacks were appalling and tragic, but they did not threaten the survival of the nation. . . . Of course, 3,000 dead is 3,000 too many. But keep it in perspective. As a nation, we have survived far worse. We lost more than 100,000 Americans in World War I, more than 400,000 in World War II, 37,000 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam--all without allowing our national character to turn into quivering jelly.

Every year, we also lose millions of Americans to preventable accidents and disease. We're more likely to die on the road than as a result of Al Qaeda's machinations. Annually, we lose some 43,000 people to auto accidents. For the grieving families, that's 43,000 deaths too many. But, although we surely could reduce auto fatalities if we chose to make it our top national priority, the Bush administration has yet to announce a "War on Highway Deaths."

This is unoriginal as well as fatuous. It's not even original in the L.A. Times, which published essentially the same piece three months ago. But in the hope that our new friends at the Times won't make the same mistake a third time, let's repeat our analogy that shows why this is such a ridiculous argument.

According to this table, 4,742 people were lynched in America between 1882 and 1964. That's an average of but 57 people a year, and the number of annual lynchings peaked in 1892, at 230. By the standards Brooks applies to 9/11, lynching was not a big problem. It killed far fewer people than war, disease, accidents, etc.

Yet if someone were lynched tomorrow, would we shrug it off because the number of deaths is only 1/43,000th of the annual car-crash toll? Of course not. It takes a stunning degree of moral obtuseness to treat a murder in the furtherance of a hateful ideology--be it white supremacy or Islamic fundamentalism--as the equivalent of an accidental death.

A similar bit of foolishness comes from Ian Buruma, who won an award at the book festival. In yesterday's Times, he opines:

Just as Jews, during some traditional Passover feasts, ask God to bring down his wrath on the Gentiles who "don't know him," and many Christians believe that hell awaits those who don't subscribe to their faith, Muslims are led to believe that killing the enemies of Islam can be justified.

"Just as"? Surely there is a difference between believing or hoping that God will punish unbelievers and taking it upon oneself to do it. It doesn't speak well of the editors of the L.A. Times that they not only publish such nonsense but do so habitually.

Britain's counterterrorism chief: "We shall be attacked again"

The New York Times reports that this is what Peter Clarke, the top counterterrorism police officer in Britain, told Policy Exchange, a private research group.

According to the Times:

He said that about 100 terrorism suspects awaited trial — in addition to several on trial — and that their cases would confirm a trend that had emerged since 2004 of young British Muslims traveling to Pakistan for training and instructions, then returning home to plot attacks.

As the Times goes on to report:

British terrorism has been largely associated with a Muslim minority of 1.6 million people — just 3 percent of the population — many descended from Pakistanis who immigrated in the 1960s. “The fact is that there are, in the United Kingdom, many young men who are vulnerable to being drawn into extremism and violence,” Mr. Clarke said. “Of all the things I have seen over the past few years, one of the most worrying has been the speed and apparent ease with which young men can be turned into suicidal terrorists.”

But he insisted that homegrown terrorists had not acted alone. “In case after case, the hand of core Al Qaeda can be clearly seen,” he said. “Arrested leaders or key players are quickly replaced, and disrupted networks will re-form quickly.”

But as the Times goes on to say:

British Muslims have frequently expressed skepticism about police motives, citing several high-profile raids and arrests that yielded no charges.

Police say that even if terrorist suspects are often released without charge, they have no choice but to intervene and arrest people based on the intelligence they do have. Their primary concern in these cases, obviously, is to foil terror plots as opposed to wait and criminally prosecute the perpetrators after they are able to carry out their plans.

Not surprisingly, the community most often under suspicion - i.e., British-Pakistani Muslims - is still resentful that its members are often misidentified as terrorists.

Clarke gets the negative impact false alarms can have as well on the community. As he reportedly told Policy Exchange, it was “no exaggeration to say that the lack of public trust in intelligence is in danger of infecting the relationship between the police and the communities we serve.”

Will Congress protect the "John Does" in the flying imam lawsuit?

Powerline reports that Rep. Steven Pearce (R-NM) and ten cosponsors have introduced legislation to protect the John Does from liability.

The John Does are the citizens who were alarmed enough about certain behaviors of the imams to alert the airlines to what they feared might be a possible hijacking.
In the press release introducing the draft legislation, Rep. Pearce issued this statement:

It is a sad day in America when our own institutions of freedom are being used against us in the battle against terrorism. When I first heard about the lawsuit brought by the 'imams' in Minnesota, it was clear to me that this was an injustice against Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves. These brave citizens should be recognized as heroes for their efforts to report suspicious activity, particularly activity that has been associated with previous terror attacks.

As Americans, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied by individuals who seek to disrupt our way of life. We can not allow the sympathizers of terrorism to make Americans wonder if they could be sued before reporting possible terrorist activity. Whether it is an intimidation tactic or a full scale attack, Americans have the right and responsibility to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. I introduced this legislation to protect Americans and keep all citizens alert and vocal as they serve on the front line in our battle against terrorism here in America.

Another arrest in the British "airplanes" plot

CNN is reporting that another suspect has been arrested in connection the "airplanes" plot that was discovered last summer in Britain. Fourteen out of 24 persons that were originally arrested remain in custody and now, this fifteenth person, a 27-year-old man who was arrested in the Waltham Forest area of London, according to the London police.
No information was released regarding his specific role in the plot. As CNN reports:

Security sources said the alleged plotters intended to use an electrical charge to detonate liquid explosives in planes as they flew at maximum cruising altitude over the Atlantic Ocean, making it difficult for investigators to retrieve evidence.

These are some interesting details:

According to a British intelligence official, the planned near-simultaneous attacks -- which one top U.S. official said were intended to be "a second September 11" -- were foiled when a member of the country's Muslim community contacted authorities after noticing an acquaintance acting suspiciously.

An undercover British agent then infiltrated the group to gather information, U.S. government officials told CNN.

The WSJ raises some serious questions about today's NATO

In today's Wall Street Journal, the editors discuss the implications of Italy's decision to indict the 25 CIA agents, U.S. Air Force officer, and five Italian intelligence agents who allegedly kidnapped a terrorist recruiter in 2003 and "rendered" him to his native Egypt, so they could torture him to extract information about his various activities.

The WSJ characterizes the charges as "Exhibit A in how European politicians are working against the U.S., undermining the fight against Islamic terrorism and endangering the NATO alliance." As the WSJ points out:

[No] one, including the Italian prosecutors, doubts that [the recruiter, Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr,] posed a security risk. In 2005, a Milan court, at [the prosecutor's] behest, issued an arrest warrant for Nasr, charging him with building a terrorist network in Europe that actively recruited terrorists, including for Iraq. Eight of his accomplices have been sentenced to up to 10 years in prison on similar charges, and Italian authorities believe more are at large.

The WSJ acknowledges that the strategy in dealing with Nasr this way isn't obvious. To quote the Journal:

Why Nasr was captured rather than arrested in 2003 isn't clear. According to a July 2005 story in the New York Times, which cited unnamed current and former American officials, the CIA was concerned that Nasr was plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Rome. For whatever reason, the U.S. wanted him off the streets while the Italians weren't ready to arrest him. The CIA won't comment. The government of Silvio Berlusconi -- who was Prime Minister at the time -- denied any foreknowledge of the rendition.

But regardless of the reasons for the action, as the WSJ goes on to explain:

No one seriously claims, however, that the CIA agents were in Italy without the explicit knowledge and participation of Italy's security services. This is the crucial point -- and explains why the indictments are a hostile act against the U.S. By long-established international legal practice, the official agents of one country operating in another with that state's permission are immune from prosecution.

As the WSJ concludes:

European politicians are more at fault here than any prosecutor. Since the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., many European leaders have been playing a double game, working with the U.S. to root out terrorist plots on the sly -- and saving countless lives -- while publicly condemning "American methods" in rhetoric that has fed rising anti-Americanism...

European officials need to understand the risks they're running if they keep this up. Italy and the U.S. are NATO partners, but such an alliance is meaningless if "allies" make a habit of prosecuting each other for cooperating against a common threat. Italy's political grandstanding is endangering NATO, as well as the lives of millions on both sides of the Atlantic.

But do read the whole thing.

MI5: Threat of al-Qaeda attack in Britain now highest since 9/11

Today's London Telegraph reports that "secret intelligence documents reveal" that "the terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaeda agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001."

This follows a November report by Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director-General of MI5, Britain's domestic spy agency, that warned there were some 1,600 'identified individuals" actively plotting terror in Britain, in 30 known networks, working on at least 30 different terrorist plots.

The secret document, says the Telegraph, also claims that al-Qaeda is now a "world-wide organisation with a foothold in virtually every Muslim country in North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia."