A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret.
"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."
Monsoor, a 25-year-old gunner, was killed in the explosion in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. He was only the second SEAL to die in Iraq since the war began.
Two SEALs next to Monsoor were injured; another who was 10 to 15 feet from the blast was unhurt. The four had been working with Iraqi soldiers providing sniper security while U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted missions in the area.
In an interview at the SEALs' West Coast headquarters in Coronado, four members of the special force remembered "Mikey" as a loyal friend and a quiet, dedicated professional.
"He was just a fun-loving guy," said a 26-year-old petty officer 2nd class who went through the grueling 29-week SEAL training with Monsoor. "Always got something funny to say, always got a little mischievous look on his face."
Other SEALS described the Garden Grove, Calif., native as a modest and humble man who drew strength from his family and his faith. His father and brother are former Marines, said a 31-year-old petty officer 2nd class.
Prior to his death, Monsoor had already demonstrated courage under fire. He has been posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his actions May 9 in Ramadi, when he and another SEAL pulled a team member shot in the leg to safety while bullets pinged off the ground around them.
Monsoor's funeral was held Thursday at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego. He has also been submitted for an award for his actions the day he died.
The first Navy SEAL to die in Iraq was Petty Officer 2nd Class Marc A. Lee, 28, who was killed Aug. 2 in a firefight while on patrol against insurgents in Ramadi. Navy spokesman Lt. Taylor Clark said the low number of deaths among SEALs in Iraq is a testament to their training.
Sixteen SEALs have been killed in Afghanistan. Eleven of them died in June 2005 when a helicopter was shot down near the Pakistan border while ferrying reinforcements for troops pursuing al-Qaida militants.
There are about 2,300 of the elite fighters, based in Coronado and Little Creek, Va.
The Navy is trying to boost that number by 500 — a challenge considering more than 75 percent of candidates drop out of training, notorious for "Hell Week," a five-day stint of continual drills by the ocean broken by only four hours sleep total. Monsoor made it through training on his second attempt.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Lynne Stewart, lawyer to rebels, braces for possibility of prison by Tom Hays
She's already a grandmother of 14, a cancer survivor and a former civil rights lawyer who took on radical clients others considered toxic.
Lynne Stewart will soon find out if she will be forced to assume another role - prison inmate.
"I couldn't tell you I'm not stressed," Stewart said about her Monday sentencing in a Manhattan terrorism case. "I'm very concerned."
Prosecutors have asked a federal judge to impose a 30-year term for what they described in court papers as Stewart's "extremely dangerous and devious" conduct to help an Egyptian terrorist leader communicate with followers.
Stewart, 67, recently responded by writing the judge a nine-page letter seeking leniency.
Mixed with her trademark defiance - "I am not a traitor" - was a measure of contrition. After some soul searching, she wrote, she had concluded that a careless over-devotion to her clients - "I am softhearted to the point of self-abnegation" - was her undoing.
The letter was an attempt to "look back at this disaster in my life and speak to the judge from my brain and my heart," she told The Associated Press in a recent telephone interview. "I think mercy is a great quality, but it's very hard to ask for it for myself."
She admits the plea may be too little, too late.
"I don't know whether it's the lawyer or the Irish in me that says, 'Prepare for the worst,'" she said. "I'm prepared to be led out of that courtroom in handcuffs."
Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists by releasing a statement of Sheik Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, who was imprisoned for life after being convicted in 1995 of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks.
Prosecutors said she blatantly broke rules designed to keep the blind cleric from communicating with the outside world and inciting violence, especially among his followers in Egypt.
It was hardly unusual for Stewart to question authority and defend unpopular figures in her three-decade legal career. With an aggressive yet self-effacing courtroom style, she represented Black Panthers, Weather Underground leaders, a former mob hit man and a man accused of trying to kill nine police officers.
As with other clients, she grew close to Abdel-Rahman and watched as he deteriorated mentally and physically through years of solitary confinement - to the point, she says, that she felt compelled to help him speak out.
She believes the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, more than anything, made her behavior intolerable in the eyes of the government and gave it an excuse to make an example out of her.
"I did what I did for the client because he was a human being," she said. "Did my heart run away with me? It always does ... I let myself slide too much."
Testifying in her own defense, Stewart insisted she never condoned the sheik's terrorist agenda. But she also called herself "a revolutionary with a small 'r,'" saying she believed violence against institutions was sometimes necessary to fight oppression.
She still believes it.
"My politics hasn't changed," she said. But she regrets not striking a gentler tone on the witness stand.
"I probably should have spent more time talking about what kind of lawyer I am, so the jury would understand," she said.
After her conviction, the attorney - turned - criminal defendant became a medical patient when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Surgery and radiation treatments have restored her health enough to face sentencing.
Stewart has drawn comfort from her family, including her six adult children and 14 grandchildren, and enjoyed the backing of other defense lawyers and strangers who see her case as a symptom of intolerant times. There have been hundreds of letters of support and a series of rallies, the latest planned on Sunday.
Her supporters see her case as "another affront to the constitution," she said. "They want to live in a free society."
Being a martyr behind bars has no appeal, she said. But even if she somehow escapes a harsh sentence, losing her identity has been ample punishment.
"To have lost my career. To be looked at askance. This loss of my personhood is immeasurable to me," she wrote in her letter. "It is the worst sentence and it is immutable."
Lynne Stewart will soon find out if she will be forced to assume another role - prison inmate.
"I couldn't tell you I'm not stressed," Stewart said about her Monday sentencing in a Manhattan terrorism case. "I'm very concerned."
Prosecutors have asked a federal judge to impose a 30-year term for what they described in court papers as Stewart's "extremely dangerous and devious" conduct to help an Egyptian terrorist leader communicate with followers.
Stewart, 67, recently responded by writing the judge a nine-page letter seeking leniency.
Mixed with her trademark defiance - "I am not a traitor" - was a measure of contrition. After some soul searching, she wrote, she had concluded that a careless over-devotion to her clients - "I am softhearted to the point of self-abnegation" - was her undoing.
The letter was an attempt to "look back at this disaster in my life and speak to the judge from my brain and my heart," she told The Associated Press in a recent telephone interview. "I think mercy is a great quality, but it's very hard to ask for it for myself."
She admits the plea may be too little, too late.
"I don't know whether it's the lawyer or the Irish in me that says, 'Prepare for the worst,'" she said. "I'm prepared to be led out of that courtroom in handcuffs."
Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists by releasing a statement of Sheik Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, who was imprisoned for life after being convicted in 1995 of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks.
Prosecutors said she blatantly broke rules designed to keep the blind cleric from communicating with the outside world and inciting violence, especially among his followers in Egypt.
It was hardly unusual for Stewart to question authority and defend unpopular figures in her three-decade legal career. With an aggressive yet self-effacing courtroom style, she represented Black Panthers, Weather Underground leaders, a former mob hit man and a man accused of trying to kill nine police officers.
As with other clients, she grew close to Abdel-Rahman and watched as he deteriorated mentally and physically through years of solitary confinement - to the point, she says, that she felt compelled to help him speak out.
She believes the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, more than anything, made her behavior intolerable in the eyes of the government and gave it an excuse to make an example out of her.
"I did what I did for the client because he was a human being," she said. "Did my heart run away with me? It always does ... I let myself slide too much."
Testifying in her own defense, Stewart insisted she never condoned the sheik's terrorist agenda. But she also called herself "a revolutionary with a small 'r,'" saying she believed violence against institutions was sometimes necessary to fight oppression.
She still believes it.
"My politics hasn't changed," she said. But she regrets not striking a gentler tone on the witness stand.
"I probably should have spent more time talking about what kind of lawyer I am, so the jury would understand," she said.
After her conviction, the attorney - turned - criminal defendant became a medical patient when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Surgery and radiation treatments have restored her health enough to face sentencing.
Stewart has drawn comfort from her family, including her six adult children and 14 grandchildren, and enjoyed the backing of other defense lawyers and strangers who see her case as a symptom of intolerant times. There have been hundreds of letters of support and a series of rallies, the latest planned on Sunday.
Her supporters see her case as "another affront to the constitution," she said. "They want to live in a free society."
Being a martyr behind bars has no appeal, she said. But even if she somehow escapes a harsh sentence, losing her identity has been ample punishment.
"To have lost my career. To be looked at askance. This loss of my personhood is immeasurable to me," she wrote in her letter. "It is the worst sentence and it is immutable."
Friday, October 13, 2006
Bin Laden Asked to Replace Al Qaeda Leader in Iraq by F.I.A.
A man introducing himself as the ‘Jihad leader in Iraq’ called on Osama bin Laden to oust Abu Ayyub al-Masri who has been appointed the leader of the Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Dubai TV station Al Arabia reports.
Al Arabia showed footage of Abu Osama al-Mijahid in which he complains to bin Laden about unfair acts of violence on the part of the Iraqi unit of terrorist network Al Qaeda, whose leader is Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
“We insist that we are led by an Iraqi, just like in Afghanistan the leader is an Afghan,” Al-Mujahid underscored, cited by the TV station.
Al Arabia showed footage of Abu Osama al-Mijahid in which he complains to bin Laden about unfair acts of violence on the part of the Iraqi unit of terrorist network Al Qaeda, whose leader is Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
“We insist that we are led by an Iraqi, just like in Afghanistan the leader is an Afghan,” Al-Mujahid underscored, cited by the TV station.
They Dare Call It Treason (Finally) by Henry Mark Holzer
In a stunning reversal of United States policy that has been in place since the end of World War II, turncoat citizen Adam Gadahn has been indicted for the constitutional crime of treason. (The second count of the indictment charges him with the crime of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.)
Eight treason indictments and convictions of Americans came out of World War II. One resulted from mistreatment of prisoners of war held in Japan. Two arose from spying activities in the United States. Four, including a case against the infamous Axis Sally, were for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Nazis. The fifth was for similar broadcasts by the equally infamous Tokyo Rose.
All eight indictments and convictions were based on Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the United States: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
The "aid and comfort" prong of treason has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to require proof of four elements:
1. an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from);
2. an overt act;
3. witnessed by two people; and
4. that provides aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.
After World War II, a notorious example of treason was Jane Fonda’s 1972 trip to Hanoi. As Erika Holzer and I proved conclusively in our "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, Hanoi Jane was indictable for, and could have been convicted of, treason because of her activities. Regrettably, Fonda was not indicted because of political calculations made at the highest level of the Nixon administration — just as other kinds of political reasons since 1972 prevented treason charges from being brought against a host of other traitors since then. For example, charges other than treason were brought against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Navy spies in the Walker family, renegade CIA and FBI agents Aldrich and Miller, and Taliban John Walker. And, as of today at least, no charges of any kind have been leveled against The New York Times and other newspapers for their treasonous exposure of three highly secret government programs that served as integral parts of America’s war against Islamic terrorists.
The October 11th indictment of Gadahn in the federal District Court for the Central District of California, however, suggests that political considerations no longer trump the loud dictates of justice.
The Gadahn indictment, only nine pages long, has been brought under 18 United States Code, Section 2381, which is a codification of the constitutional treason provision. The indictment is spare, but powerful.
The government begins with a recitation of the nature of al-Qaeda. It then alleges that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have admitted they are the organization’s leaders, and that al-Zarqawi proclaimed he was the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.
The indictment’s next paragraphs allege that the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001; that bin Laden admitted the attacks were al-Qaeda operations; that the organization is at war with the United States; that Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and proper force against the perpetrators of the attacks; that in July 2006 bombs were exploded in a London subway station; and that al-Zawahiri admitted those explosions were the work of al-Qaeda. He further admitted that Shehzad Tanweer was one of their operatives.
These allegations are designed to lay a factual basis for the charges that follow. In sum, the indictment alleges that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, that its leaders are terrorists, and that the United States is at war with them.
Paragraph 8 contains the indictment’s core allegation:
Beginning on a date unknown and continuing to at least September 11, 2006, defendant ADAM GADAHN, also known as "Azzam al-Ameriki" ("GADAHN"), a citizen of the United States, whose last known place of residence was in Orange County, within the Central District of California, owing allegiance to the United States, knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaeda, and gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort, within the United States and elsewhere, with intent to betray the United States. In so doing, GADAHN committed the following overt acts witnessed by two or more witnesses. (My emphasis.)
All the requisite allegations for indictment/conviction of treason appear in this one paragraph: intent to betray the United States, by overt acts, witnessed by two or more people, giving and comfort to the enemy.
As to the requisite overt acts, the indictment sets forth five al-Qaeda video broadcasts made by Gadahn. In the October 27, 2004, video, Gadahn acknowledged that he "has joined a movement waging war on America and killing large numbers of Americans." He also made the following statements:
* "Fighting and defeating America is our first priority…."
* "September 11th...notified America that it’s going to have to pay for its crimes and pay dearly."
* "Jihad is our path and jihad is the answer."
* "People of America…you too shall pay the price for the blood that has been spilled…."
* "People of America, I remind you of the weighty words of our leaders Sheik Usama bin Laden and Doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri that what took place on September 11th was but the opening salvo of the global war on America…The magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11th."
* "The streets of America shall run red with blood…casualties will be too many to count and the next wave of attacks may come at any moment."
In the September 11, 2005, video, he described the terrorist attacks of four years earlier as "the blessed raids on New York and Washington." He also made the following statements:
* "These communiques have been released to explain and propound the nature and goals of the world wide jihad against America and the crusaders and convey our legitimate demands to friend and foe alike, so that the former may join us on this honorable and blessed path, and so that the latter may acknowledge his crimes...."
* "The call has gone out and the era of jihad and resistance has dawned in all its glory. As Sheik Usama has told you repeatedly, your security is dependent on our security."
* "Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, Allah willing. And this time, don’t count on us demonstrating restraint or compassion."
* "We love peace, but when the enemy violates that peace or prevents us from achieving it, then we love nothing better than the heat of battle, the echo of explosions, and slitting the throats of the infidels."
* "When it comes to defending our religion, our freedom, and our brothers in faith, every one of us is Mohammed Atta, every one of us is Jamaal Lindsay, and every one of us is Mohammed Boyeri."
In the July 7, 2006, video, there were statements by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, AbuMusab al-Zarqawi, and Shehzad Tanweer. In that video, Gadahn referred to the recent capture and execution of two American servicemen in Iraq. He also made the following statements:
* "So after all the atrocities committed by America...why should we target their military only?"
* "It’s hard to imagine that any compassionate person could see pictures, just pictures, of what the Crusaders did to those children, and not want to go on a shooting spree at the Marines’ housing facilities at Camp Pendleton."
* "When we bomb their cities and civilians like they bomb ours, or destroy their infrastructure and means of transportation like they destroy ours, or kidnap their non-combatants like they kidnap ours, no sane Muslim should shed tears for them. And they should blame no one but themselves."
In the September 2, 2006, video, Ayman al-Zawahiri also appeared and addressed "the American people in particular and all Western peoples in general." Al-Zawahiri introduced Gadahn as "our brother Azzam the American" and explained that Gadahn "talks to you as one concerned about the fate which awaits his people." Al-Zawahiri urged Americans to listen to Gadahn "because what he is talking to you about is serious and significant. He is talking to you about the fate which awaits every human, an extremely grave issue in which there is no joking, procrastination, or backtracking." Gadahn also made the following statements:
* "So if you want to be on the winning side in this life and the next, and if you want your resistance to Crusader tyranny to truly count, then take the simple step I have just outlined...We send a special invitation to all of you fighting ... in Afghanistan…You know the war can’t be won and that the condition of America’s war machine is going from bad to worse."
* "You know you’re considered...as nothing more than expendable cannon fodder, a means to an end...You know they couldn’t care less about your safety and well being and that the only thing that upsets your leaders when American forces suffer casualties is the damage these casualties do to their popularity and the popularity of the wars they started."
* "Escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out, so make the right choice before it’s too late and you meet the dismal fate of thousands before you."
In the September 11, 2006, video, there were statements by Osama bin Laden and video footage of the World Trade Center attack in 2001. The pictures of the World Trade Center attack were accompanied by the written statement: "The word is the word of the sword until the wrongs are righted." In that video, Gadahn referred to the United States as "enemy soil" and made the following statements:
* "All the brothers who took part in the raids on America were dedicated, strong-willed, highly motivated individuals with a burning concern for Islam and Muslims."
* "Look at the pilots, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Hani Hanjour. All of them had lived and studied in the West. All of them had the world within their reach, if they had wanted it. But how could they live with themselves, if they were to enjoy this worldly life while their Ummah burns."
* "In hind sight, everything that al-Qaeda was doing was preparation for the Manhattan and Washington raids, and the expected crusader invasion."
This indictment speaks volumes in what it says and in what it doesn’t say.
The essential allegations are there: A jury could find from Gadahn’s express statements (overt acts), or infer from those statements, that he intended to betray the United States, and that in making them he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. (Obviously, the two-witness rule is easily satisfied.) In those allegations we see little more than a boilerplate treason indictment.
Not so readily apparent, however, is that like the four German (Chandler, Gillars, Best, Burgman) and one Japanese (D’Aquino) propaganda broadcasters, the Gadahn indictment does not allege any overt "acts" other than broadcasting. (As indicated in "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda in North Vietman, she did much more in Hanoi than merely make propaganda broadcasts.)
This is significant because one defense in those prosecutions (one that Tom Hayden unsuccessfully tried to use against me on the O’Reilly TV show) was that the broadcasters were protected by their First Amendment right of free speech – a defense that was, correctly, rejected in the World War II cases, especially Chandler v. United States and Gillars v. United States.
Chandler had argued that the overt acts charged in the indictment should not have been allowed to go to the jury. In a defense that would reappear in later broadcast treason cases, Chandler maintained that "mere words, the expression of opinions and ideas for the purpose of influencing people, cannot constitute an overt act of treason; that [he] had a right to broadcast, or otherwise disseminate to the American people, the ideas which coincided with the Nazi propaganda line; and that therefore his preliminary steps to that end – his attendance at conferences of commentators, his preparation of commentaries, his speaking into a microphone to make recordings – cannot be treasonable acts."
The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument:
There are occasional statements to be found in the books to the effect that mere words cannot amount to an overt act of treason. * * * That is true in the sense that the mere utterance of disloyal sentiments is not treason; aid and comfort must be given to the enemy. But the communication of an idea, whether by speech or writing, is as much as act as is throwing a brick, though different muscles are used to achieve different effects. One may commit treason by conveying military intelligence to the enemy, though the only overt act is the speaking of words. * * * The significant thing is not so much the character of the act which in fact gives aid and comfort to the enemy, but whether the act is done with an intent to betray. In Cramer v. United States the Court said:
On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy – and making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength – but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason. [My emphasis.]
The Court of Appeals firmly pointed out that this was not what Chandler was up to in World War II Nazi Germany:
In the present case, however, it cannot be said that what Chandler did was merely exercising his right of free speech in the normal processes of domestic political opposition. He trafficked with the enemy and as their paid agent collaborated in the execution of a program of psychological warfare designed by the enemy to weaken the power of the United States to wage war successfully. We have found no indication of a reluctance on the part of the framers of the Constitution to punish as treason any breach of allegiance involving actual dealings with the enemy, provided the case is established by the required two-witnesses proof. It is preposterous to talk about freedom of speech in this connection; the case cannot be blown up into a great issue of civil liberties. [My emphasis.]
In Gillars [Axis Sally], the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit observed that Gillars had taken "part in psychological warfare against [the] United States by participating in recording of radio drama." The court then added:
While the crime [of treason] is not committed by mere expressions of opinion or criticism, words spoken as part of a program of propaganda warfare, in the course of employment by the enemy in its conduct of war against the United States, to which the accused owes allegiance, may be an integral part of the crime. There is evidence in this case of a course of conduct on behalf of the enemy in the prosecution of its war against the United States. The use of speech to this end, as the evidence permitted the jury to believe, made acts of words. * * * ... words which reasonably viewed constitute acts in furtherance of a program of an enemy to which the speaker adheres and to which he gives aid with intent to betray his own country, are not rid of criminal character merely because they are words. [My emphasis.]
In light of Chandler, Gillars, and some of the other treason cases, the Justice Department is on solid ground in charging Gadahn’s broadcasts alone as treasonous overt acts.
Another significant fact about the Gadahn indictment relates to an argument made against the Holzers’ "indictment" of Jane Fonda in "Aid and Comfort": that Vietnam was not a declared war. However, in our book, we proved that a formal declaration of war is unnecessary before a charge of treason can be laid. Here again, the Justice Department is on solid ground in its indictment of Gadahn even though there has been no formal declaration of war by Congress against al-Qaeda.
If Gadahn is found and returned to the United States for trial, he will learn that neither the "free speech" nor the "declaration of war" defense, or any others, will help him — even though we may expect the legal left’s lawyers to defend Gadahn with every dirty weapon in their armory.
It will do them no good. If the United States gets its hands on Adam Gadahn – American spokesman for terrorists, accomplice to mass murderers, traitor to the United States – he will either be convicted by a jury of Americans, or, like that spoiled brat Taliban John Walker, make a plea bargain so as to avoid risking the much deserved death penalty.
And while the case of Islamic Adam is unfolding, we can hope that since the treason taboo has finally been lifted, other indictments will soon follow against those who recently have betrayed America’s secrets – surveillance, secret prisons, terrorist money trails – and who, with the requisite intent and overt acts, have provided "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States."
Eight treason indictments and convictions of Americans came out of World War II. One resulted from mistreatment of prisoners of war held in Japan. Two arose from spying activities in the United States. Four, including a case against the infamous Axis Sally, were for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Nazis. The fifth was for similar broadcasts by the equally infamous Tokyo Rose.
All eight indictments and convictions were based on Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the United States: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
The "aid and comfort" prong of treason has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to require proof of four elements:
1. an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from);
2. an overt act;
3. witnessed by two people; and
4. that provides aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.
After World War II, a notorious example of treason was Jane Fonda’s 1972 trip to Hanoi. As Erika Holzer and I proved conclusively in our "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, Hanoi Jane was indictable for, and could have been convicted of, treason because of her activities. Regrettably, Fonda was not indicted because of political calculations made at the highest level of the Nixon administration — just as other kinds of political reasons since 1972 prevented treason charges from being brought against a host of other traitors since then. For example, charges other than treason were brought against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Navy spies in the Walker family, renegade CIA and FBI agents Aldrich and Miller, and Taliban John Walker. And, as of today at least, no charges of any kind have been leveled against The New York Times and other newspapers for their treasonous exposure of three highly secret government programs that served as integral parts of America’s war against Islamic terrorists.
The October 11th indictment of Gadahn in the federal District Court for the Central District of California, however, suggests that political considerations no longer trump the loud dictates of justice.
The Gadahn indictment, only nine pages long, has been brought under 18 United States Code, Section 2381, which is a codification of the constitutional treason provision. The indictment is spare, but powerful.
The government begins with a recitation of the nature of al-Qaeda. It then alleges that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have admitted they are the organization’s leaders, and that al-Zarqawi proclaimed he was the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.
The indictment’s next paragraphs allege that the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001; that bin Laden admitted the attacks were al-Qaeda operations; that the organization is at war with the United States; that Congress authorized the President to use all necessary and proper force against the perpetrators of the attacks; that in July 2006 bombs were exploded in a London subway station; and that al-Zawahiri admitted those explosions were the work of al-Qaeda. He further admitted that Shehzad Tanweer was one of their operatives.
These allegations are designed to lay a factual basis for the charges that follow. In sum, the indictment alleges that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, that its leaders are terrorists, and that the United States is at war with them.
Paragraph 8 contains the indictment’s core allegation:
Beginning on a date unknown and continuing to at least September 11, 2006, defendant ADAM GADAHN, also known as "Azzam al-Ameriki" ("GADAHN"), a citizen of the United States, whose last known place of residence was in Orange County, within the Central District of California, owing allegiance to the United States, knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaeda, and gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort, within the United States and elsewhere, with intent to betray the United States. In so doing, GADAHN committed the following overt acts witnessed by two or more witnesses. (My emphasis.)
All the requisite allegations for indictment/conviction of treason appear in this one paragraph: intent to betray the United States, by overt acts, witnessed by two or more people, giving and comfort to the enemy.
As to the requisite overt acts, the indictment sets forth five al-Qaeda video broadcasts made by Gadahn. In the October 27, 2004, video, Gadahn acknowledged that he "has joined a movement waging war on America and killing large numbers of Americans." He also made the following statements:
* "Fighting and defeating America is our first priority…."
* "September 11th...notified America that it’s going to have to pay for its crimes and pay dearly."
* "Jihad is our path and jihad is the answer."
* "People of America…you too shall pay the price for the blood that has been spilled…."
* "People of America, I remind you of the weighty words of our leaders Sheik Usama bin Laden and Doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri that what took place on September 11th was but the opening salvo of the global war on America…The magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11th."
* "The streets of America shall run red with blood…casualties will be too many to count and the next wave of attacks may come at any moment."
In the September 11, 2005, video, he described the terrorist attacks of four years earlier as "the blessed raids on New York and Washington." He also made the following statements:
* "These communiques have been released to explain and propound the nature and goals of the world wide jihad against America and the crusaders and convey our legitimate demands to friend and foe alike, so that the former may join us on this honorable and blessed path, and so that the latter may acknowledge his crimes...."
* "The call has gone out and the era of jihad and resistance has dawned in all its glory. As Sheik Usama has told you repeatedly, your security is dependent on our security."
* "Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, Allah willing. And this time, don’t count on us demonstrating restraint or compassion."
* "We love peace, but when the enemy violates that peace or prevents us from achieving it, then we love nothing better than the heat of battle, the echo of explosions, and slitting the throats of the infidels."
* "When it comes to defending our religion, our freedom, and our brothers in faith, every one of us is Mohammed Atta, every one of us is Jamaal Lindsay, and every one of us is Mohammed Boyeri."
In the July 7, 2006, video, there were statements by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, AbuMusab al-Zarqawi, and Shehzad Tanweer. In that video, Gadahn referred to the recent capture and execution of two American servicemen in Iraq. He also made the following statements:
* "So after all the atrocities committed by America...why should we target their military only?"
* "It’s hard to imagine that any compassionate person could see pictures, just pictures, of what the Crusaders did to those children, and not want to go on a shooting spree at the Marines’ housing facilities at Camp Pendleton."
* "When we bomb their cities and civilians like they bomb ours, or destroy their infrastructure and means of transportation like they destroy ours, or kidnap their non-combatants like they kidnap ours, no sane Muslim should shed tears for them. And they should blame no one but themselves."
In the September 2, 2006, video, Ayman al-Zawahiri also appeared and addressed "the American people in particular and all Western peoples in general." Al-Zawahiri introduced Gadahn as "our brother Azzam the American" and explained that Gadahn "talks to you as one concerned about the fate which awaits his people." Al-Zawahiri urged Americans to listen to Gadahn "because what he is talking to you about is serious and significant. He is talking to you about the fate which awaits every human, an extremely grave issue in which there is no joking, procrastination, or backtracking." Gadahn also made the following statements:
* "So if you want to be on the winning side in this life and the next, and if you want your resistance to Crusader tyranny to truly count, then take the simple step I have just outlined...We send a special invitation to all of you fighting ... in Afghanistan…You know the war can’t be won and that the condition of America’s war machine is going from bad to worse."
* "You know you’re considered...as nothing more than expendable cannon fodder, a means to an end...You know they couldn’t care less about your safety and well being and that the only thing that upsets your leaders when American forces suffer casualties is the damage these casualties do to their popularity and the popularity of the wars they started."
* "Escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out, so make the right choice before it’s too late and you meet the dismal fate of thousands before you."
In the September 11, 2006, video, there were statements by Osama bin Laden and video footage of the World Trade Center attack in 2001. The pictures of the World Trade Center attack were accompanied by the written statement: "The word is the word of the sword until the wrongs are righted." In that video, Gadahn referred to the United States as "enemy soil" and made the following statements:
* "All the brothers who took part in the raids on America were dedicated, strong-willed, highly motivated individuals with a burning concern for Islam and Muslims."
* "Look at the pilots, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Hani Hanjour. All of them had lived and studied in the West. All of them had the world within their reach, if they had wanted it. But how could they live with themselves, if they were to enjoy this worldly life while their Ummah burns."
* "In hind sight, everything that al-Qaeda was doing was preparation for the Manhattan and Washington raids, and the expected crusader invasion."
This indictment speaks volumes in what it says and in what it doesn’t say.
The essential allegations are there: A jury could find from Gadahn’s express statements (overt acts), or infer from those statements, that he intended to betray the United States, and that in making them he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. (Obviously, the two-witness rule is easily satisfied.) In those allegations we see little more than a boilerplate treason indictment.
Not so readily apparent, however, is that like the four German (Chandler, Gillars, Best, Burgman) and one Japanese (D’Aquino) propaganda broadcasters, the Gadahn indictment does not allege any overt "acts" other than broadcasting. (As indicated in "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda in North Vietman, she did much more in Hanoi than merely make propaganda broadcasts.)
This is significant because one defense in those prosecutions (one that Tom Hayden unsuccessfully tried to use against me on the O’Reilly TV show) was that the broadcasters were protected by their First Amendment right of free speech – a defense that was, correctly, rejected in the World War II cases, especially Chandler v. United States and Gillars v. United States.
Chandler had argued that the overt acts charged in the indictment should not have been allowed to go to the jury. In a defense that would reappear in later broadcast treason cases, Chandler maintained that "mere words, the expression of opinions and ideas for the purpose of influencing people, cannot constitute an overt act of treason; that [he] had a right to broadcast, or otherwise disseminate to the American people, the ideas which coincided with the Nazi propaganda line; and that therefore his preliminary steps to that end – his attendance at conferences of commentators, his preparation of commentaries, his speaking into a microphone to make recordings – cannot be treasonable acts."
The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument:
There are occasional statements to be found in the books to the effect that mere words cannot amount to an overt act of treason. * * * That is true in the sense that the mere utterance of disloyal sentiments is not treason; aid and comfort must be given to the enemy. But the communication of an idea, whether by speech or writing, is as much as act as is throwing a brick, though different muscles are used to achieve different effects. One may commit treason by conveying military intelligence to the enemy, though the only overt act is the speaking of words. * * * The significant thing is not so much the character of the act which in fact gives aid and comfort to the enemy, but whether the act is done with an intent to betray. In Cramer v. United States the Court said:
On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy – and making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength – but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason. [My emphasis.]
The Court of Appeals firmly pointed out that this was not what Chandler was up to in World War II Nazi Germany:
In the present case, however, it cannot be said that what Chandler did was merely exercising his right of free speech in the normal processes of domestic political opposition. He trafficked with the enemy and as their paid agent collaborated in the execution of a program of psychological warfare designed by the enemy to weaken the power of the United States to wage war successfully. We have found no indication of a reluctance on the part of the framers of the Constitution to punish as treason any breach of allegiance involving actual dealings with the enemy, provided the case is established by the required two-witnesses proof. It is preposterous to talk about freedom of speech in this connection; the case cannot be blown up into a great issue of civil liberties. [My emphasis.]
In Gillars [Axis Sally], the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit observed that Gillars had taken "part in psychological warfare against [the] United States by participating in recording of radio drama." The court then added:
While the crime [of treason] is not committed by mere expressions of opinion or criticism, words spoken as part of a program of propaganda warfare, in the course of employment by the enemy in its conduct of war against the United States, to which the accused owes allegiance, may be an integral part of the crime. There is evidence in this case of a course of conduct on behalf of the enemy in the prosecution of its war against the United States. The use of speech to this end, as the evidence permitted the jury to believe, made acts of words. * * * ... words which reasonably viewed constitute acts in furtherance of a program of an enemy to which the speaker adheres and to which he gives aid with intent to betray his own country, are not rid of criminal character merely because they are words. [My emphasis.]
In light of Chandler, Gillars, and some of the other treason cases, the Justice Department is on solid ground in charging Gadahn’s broadcasts alone as treasonous overt acts.
Another significant fact about the Gadahn indictment relates to an argument made against the Holzers’ "indictment" of Jane Fonda in "Aid and Comfort": that Vietnam was not a declared war. However, in our book, we proved that a formal declaration of war is unnecessary before a charge of treason can be laid. Here again, the Justice Department is on solid ground in its indictment of Gadahn even though there has been no formal declaration of war by Congress against al-Qaeda.
If Gadahn is found and returned to the United States for trial, he will learn that neither the "free speech" nor the "declaration of war" defense, or any others, will help him — even though we may expect the legal left’s lawyers to defend Gadahn with every dirty weapon in their armory.
It will do them no good. If the United States gets its hands on Adam Gadahn – American spokesman for terrorists, accomplice to mass murderers, traitor to the United States – he will either be convicted by a jury of Americans, or, like that spoiled brat Taliban John Walker, make a plea bargain so as to avoid risking the much deserved death penalty.
And while the case of Islamic Adam is unfolding, we can hope that since the treason taboo has finally been lifted, other indictments will soon follow against those who recently have betrayed America’s secrets – surveillance, secret prisons, terrorist money trails – and who, with the requisite intent and overt acts, have provided "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States."
Boeing Begins Flight Tests and Laser Firings for Laser Gunship Program
Boeing has begun flight testing for the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program and has generated "first light" of ATL's high-energy chemical laser in ground tests, achieving two key milestones in the laser gunship development effort.
During the "low-power" flight tests, which began Oct. 10 and conclude this fall, the ATL ACTD system will find and track ground targets at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. A low-power, solid-state laser will serve as a surrogate for ATL's high-power chemical laser.
To prepare for the tests, the ATL aircraft, a C-130H from the U.S. Air Force 46th Test Wing, was outfitted with flight demonstration hardware at Crestview Aerospace Corp. in Crestview, Fla. The hardware includes the beam director and optical control bench, which will direct the laser beam to its target; weapon system consoles, which will display high-resolution imagery and enable the tracking of targets; and sensors.
Boeing fired the high-energy chemical laser for the first time in ground tests on Sept. 21 in Albuquerque, N.M. -- an achievement known as "first light." Ground tests of the laser will conclude this fall. By 2007, Boeing will install the device on the aircraft and fire it in-flight at mission-representative ground targets to demonstrate the military utility of high energy-lasers. The test team will fire the laser through a rotating turret that extends through an existing 50-inch-diameter hole in the aircraft's belly.
"ATL will transform the battlefield by giving the warfighter a speed-of-light, precision engagement capability that will reduce collateral damage dramatically," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. "The start of flight and laser testing shows that Boeing is making solid progress toward making this revolutionary capability a reality."
Boeing is developing ATL for the U.S. Department of Defense through an ACTD program.
ATL will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations. ATL will produce scaleable effects, meaning the weapon operator will be able to select the degree and nature of the damage done to a target by choosing a specific aimpoint and laser shot duration. For example, targeting the fuel tank of a vehicle could result in total destruction of the vehicle, while targeting a tire might result in the vehicle stopping without injury to the driver.
Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser industry team includes L-3 Communications/Brashear, which made the laser turret, and HYTEC, Inc., which made various structural elements of the weapon system.
During the "low-power" flight tests, which began Oct. 10 and conclude this fall, the ATL ACTD system will find and track ground targets at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. A low-power, solid-state laser will serve as a surrogate for ATL's high-power chemical laser.
To prepare for the tests, the ATL aircraft, a C-130H from the U.S. Air Force 46th Test Wing, was outfitted with flight demonstration hardware at Crestview Aerospace Corp. in Crestview, Fla. The hardware includes the beam director and optical control bench, which will direct the laser beam to its target; weapon system consoles, which will display high-resolution imagery and enable the tracking of targets; and sensors.
Boeing fired the high-energy chemical laser for the first time in ground tests on Sept. 21 in Albuquerque, N.M. -- an achievement known as "first light." Ground tests of the laser will conclude this fall. By 2007, Boeing will install the device on the aircraft and fire it in-flight at mission-representative ground targets to demonstrate the military utility of high energy-lasers. The test team will fire the laser through a rotating turret that extends through an existing 50-inch-diameter hole in the aircraft's belly.
"ATL will transform the battlefield by giving the warfighter a speed-of-light, precision engagement capability that will reduce collateral damage dramatically," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems. "The start of flight and laser testing shows that Boeing is making solid progress toward making this revolutionary capability a reality."
Boeing is developing ATL for the U.S. Department of Defense through an ACTD program.
ATL will destroy, damage or disable targets with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations. ATL will produce scaleable effects, meaning the weapon operator will be able to select the degree and nature of the damage done to a target by choosing a specific aimpoint and laser shot duration. For example, targeting the fuel tank of a vehicle could result in total destruction of the vehicle, while targeting a tire might result in the vehicle stopping without injury to the driver.
Boeing's Advanced Tactical Laser industry team includes L-3 Communications/Brashear, which made the laser turret, and HYTEC, Inc., which made various structural elements of the weapon system.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Dangerous Knowledge by John Robb
North Korea's public relations announcement (via a test detonation) that it had nuclear weapons, is a great demonstration of the proliferation of dangerous knowledge beyond the realm of major states. We can expect more demonstrations in the near future as Iran, spurred on by the example of North Korea and the opportunity afforded by the US embroiled in Iraq, replicates the process. It won't stop there. Insecurity caused by the growth in global multi-polarity will drive the process. We can expect to more entries into the nuclear club over the next decades, by states that hitherto have avoided developing these weapons.
As we are finding with Iran, the problem isn't just the ownership of the weapon (although that matters), it is the knowledge of the process necessary to make it. Any disruption of the physical assets through bombing or sabotage can at best only delay the inevitable, if both the knowledge and the will to do it are left intact.
If we take the long view of this, the process we see at work at the state level with nuclear weapons foreshadows a more interesting trend line. This trend dictates that the knowledge of technologies that enable mass destruction/death/disruption will inevitably fall within the capability horizon of organizations with increasingly lower levels of complexity. Soon, the level of organizational complexity required for weapons of this type will descend below the level of a state. In short, dangerous knowledge will continue to proliferate and eventually reach organizations that are willing to use these weapons.
While non-state entities that develop this capability may be more vulnerable to physical intervention than states, they do have attributes that work in their favor that will make detection increasingly difficult (bordering on impossible). Further, since knowledge of the process will increasingly define the danger (particularly since many of the weapons that are on our future docket are increasingly defined by the manipulation of information rather than physical assets), it will become increasingly easy to transfer and resuscitate the original danger if those involved are not completely sealed off.
How we answer the problems of North Korea and Iran will be an important harbinger of our ability to deal with this larger trend. I suspect that we won't adapt well. NOTE: Drivers of the proliferation of dangerous knowledge:
* Rapid advances in dangerous (particularly self-replicating) technologies.
* Ubiquitous global education in sensitive subjects. Increasing pool of actors.
* Tool improvement. Moore's law.
* Knowledge/information transfer. Internet.
As we are finding with Iran, the problem isn't just the ownership of the weapon (although that matters), it is the knowledge of the process necessary to make it. Any disruption of the physical assets through bombing or sabotage can at best only delay the inevitable, if both the knowledge and the will to do it are left intact.
If we take the long view of this, the process we see at work at the state level with nuclear weapons foreshadows a more interesting trend line. This trend dictates that the knowledge of technologies that enable mass destruction/death/disruption will inevitably fall within the capability horizon of organizations with increasingly lower levels of complexity. Soon, the level of organizational complexity required for weapons of this type will descend below the level of a state. In short, dangerous knowledge will continue to proliferate and eventually reach organizations that are willing to use these weapons.
While non-state entities that develop this capability may be more vulnerable to physical intervention than states, they do have attributes that work in their favor that will make detection increasingly difficult (bordering on impossible). Further, since knowledge of the process will increasingly define the danger (particularly since many of the weapons that are on our future docket are increasingly defined by the manipulation of information rather than physical assets), it will become increasingly easy to transfer and resuscitate the original danger if those involved are not completely sealed off.
How we answer the problems of North Korea and Iran will be an important harbinger of our ability to deal with this larger trend. I suspect that we won't adapt well. NOTE: Drivers of the proliferation of dangerous knowledge:
* Rapid advances in dangerous (particularly self-replicating) technologies.
* Ubiquitous global education in sensitive subjects. Increasing pool of actors.
* Tool improvement. Moore's law.
* Knowledge/information transfer. Internet.
Lucas Tilts at Studio Tentpoles: 'Star' man sees shrinking pic biz by David Cohen
George Lucas has a message for studios that are cutting their slates and shifting toward big-budget tentpoles and franchises: You've got it all wrong.
The creator of "Star Wars," which stamped the template for the franchise-tentpole film, says many small films and Web distribution are the future.
And in case anyone doubts he means it, Lucasfilm is getting out of the movie biz.
"We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature film thing because it's too expensive and it's too risky.
"I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas said.
He spoke to Daily Variety after the groundbreaking ceremony for the renamed School of Cinematic Arts at USC.
He gave $175 million -- $100 million toward the endowment, $75 million for buildings -- to his alma mater. But he said that kind of money is too much to put into a film.
Spending $100 million on production costs and another $100 million on P&A makes no sense, he said.
"For that same $200 million, I can make 50-60 two-hour movies. That's 120 hours as opposed to two hours. In the future market, that's where it's going to land, because it's going to be all pay-per-view and downloadable.
"You've got to really have a brand. You've got to have a site that has enough material on it to attract people."
He said he's even discussed the subject with Pixar's Steve Jobs and John Lasseter.
"If you don't do very many movies, and you're really lucky, and you really know what you're doing, you can get away with it. But you know at some point you're going to lose a game."
Lucas said he believes Americans are abandoning the moviegoing habit for good.
"I don't think anything's going to be a habit anymore. I think people are going to be drawn to a certain medium in their leisure time and they're going to do it because there is a desire to do it at that particular moment in time. Everything is going to be a matter of choice. I think that's going to be a huge revolution in the industry."
That doesn't mean Lucasfilm is diving into online distribution, though. "Having had a lot of experience in this area, we're not rushing in," he said. "We're trying to find out exactly where the monetization is coming from. We're not interested in jumping down a rat hole until such time as it finally figures itself out."
Nor is Lucasfilm's exit from features instant or absolute. "Indiana Jones 4" is still in development. "Steve (Spielberg) and I are still working away, trying to come up with something we're happy with. Hopefully, in a short time, we will come to an agreement. Or something," Lucas said, without a great deal of enthusiasm.
Lucasfilm also is working on "Red Tails," a film about the Tuskegee airmen of WWII.
"I've been working on that for about 15 years," he said, adding that he's also been working on "Indy 4" for 15 years.
And Lucas Animation does plan to start making feature films -- eventually.
"Right now we're doing television, which looks great. I'm very, very happy with it," he said of his toon division. "And out of doing the animation, we're getting the skill set and the people and putting the studio in place so we can do a feature. But it's probably going to be another year before we have the people and the systems in place to do a feature film."
Lucas admitted the big-budget strategy has done well for him in the past, but said, "We're not going to do the $200 million investments."
He calls himself "semi-retired" but reiterated his plans to direct "small movies, esoteric in nature," after his other projects are launched. He expects to serve as exec producer on the two features and the TV shows, including a live-action "Star Wars" skein.
At the USC groundbreaking, Lucas was honored amid cannon shots of confetti and fanfares from the USC Marching Band for his gift, the largest in the school's history.
Other bizzers in attendance included Lucas pals Robert Zemeckis and Spielberg.
Lucas said the gift is intended to set an example for the rest of the entertainment industry, as well as other universities.
"In a lot of industries, the people in the industry give a lot of money to the schools that produce the people who are their employees," he said, pointing to the auto industry as an example. "The film industry doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic about that idea. I'd love to see the industry do more.
"As self-interest, it's good to have the best trained people working for you. And the best trained people come from film school.
"The world of moving images hasn't had a lot of respect (in academia)," said Lucas. "But it's the major form of communication in the 21st century."
This $175 million, he said, is meant to "put other universities on notice that this is an important discipline that needs to be fostered."
The creator of "Star Wars," which stamped the template for the franchise-tentpole film, says many small films and Web distribution are the future.
And in case anyone doubts he means it, Lucasfilm is getting out of the movie biz.
"We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature film thing because it's too expensive and it's too risky.
"I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas said.
He spoke to Daily Variety after the groundbreaking ceremony for the renamed School of Cinematic Arts at USC.
He gave $175 million -- $100 million toward the endowment, $75 million for buildings -- to his alma mater. But he said that kind of money is too much to put into a film.
Spending $100 million on production costs and another $100 million on P&A makes no sense, he said.
"For that same $200 million, I can make 50-60 two-hour movies. That's 120 hours as opposed to two hours. In the future market, that's where it's going to land, because it's going to be all pay-per-view and downloadable.
"You've got to really have a brand. You've got to have a site that has enough material on it to attract people."
He said he's even discussed the subject with Pixar's Steve Jobs and John Lasseter.
"If you don't do very many movies, and you're really lucky, and you really know what you're doing, you can get away with it. But you know at some point you're going to lose a game."
Lucas said he believes Americans are abandoning the moviegoing habit for good.
"I don't think anything's going to be a habit anymore. I think people are going to be drawn to a certain medium in their leisure time and they're going to do it because there is a desire to do it at that particular moment in time. Everything is going to be a matter of choice. I think that's going to be a huge revolution in the industry."
That doesn't mean Lucasfilm is diving into online distribution, though. "Having had a lot of experience in this area, we're not rushing in," he said. "We're trying to find out exactly where the monetization is coming from. We're not interested in jumping down a rat hole until such time as it finally figures itself out."
Nor is Lucasfilm's exit from features instant or absolute. "Indiana Jones 4" is still in development. "Steve (Spielberg) and I are still working away, trying to come up with something we're happy with. Hopefully, in a short time, we will come to an agreement. Or something," Lucas said, without a great deal of enthusiasm.
Lucasfilm also is working on "Red Tails," a film about the Tuskegee airmen of WWII.
"I've been working on that for about 15 years," he said, adding that he's also been working on "Indy 4" for 15 years.
And Lucas Animation does plan to start making feature films -- eventually.
"Right now we're doing television, which looks great. I'm very, very happy with it," he said of his toon division. "And out of doing the animation, we're getting the skill set and the people and putting the studio in place so we can do a feature. But it's probably going to be another year before we have the people and the systems in place to do a feature film."
Lucas admitted the big-budget strategy has done well for him in the past, but said, "We're not going to do the $200 million investments."
He calls himself "semi-retired" but reiterated his plans to direct "small movies, esoteric in nature," after his other projects are launched. He expects to serve as exec producer on the two features and the TV shows, including a live-action "Star Wars" skein.
At the USC groundbreaking, Lucas was honored amid cannon shots of confetti and fanfares from the USC Marching Band for his gift, the largest in the school's history.
Other bizzers in attendance included Lucas pals Robert Zemeckis and Spielberg.
Lucas said the gift is intended to set an example for the rest of the entertainment industry, as well as other universities.
"In a lot of industries, the people in the industry give a lot of money to the schools that produce the people who are their employees," he said, pointing to the auto industry as an example. "The film industry doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic about that idea. I'd love to see the industry do more.
"As self-interest, it's good to have the best trained people working for you. And the best trained people come from film school.
"The world of moving images hasn't had a lot of respect (in academia)," said Lucas. "But it's the major form of communication in the 21st century."
This $175 million, he said, is meant to "put other universities on notice that this is an important discipline that needs to be fostered."
Monday, October 09, 2006
Lots more press for the USA-USMC dual-designated COIN strategy by Thomas Barnett
ARTICLE: "Military Hones A New Strategy On Insurgency," by Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 5 October 2006, p. A1.
USMC PUBLICATION: "Countering Irregular Threats: A Comprehensive Approach," signed by Lt. Gen. J.N. Mattis, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, 14 June 2006.
ARTICLE: "Spinning pop tunes to beat the Taliban," by Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 4 October 2006.
The new counter-insurgency doctrine is rolling out, catching more and more attention from the press.
I was privileged to have the manual briefed to me by Petraeus' people at Leavenworth when I was there lecturing the student body and doing interviews for the "Monks of War" piece last December. I liked what I saw then and I still like what I see now.
This is the Army and Marines really beginning to learn from Afghanistan and Iraq in a doctrinal sense. The more that operational experience piles up, the harder it will be to say no to them in budget battles.
The paradoxes of counterinsurgency listed in the NYT piece sounds like a Nine Commandments for the SysAdmin force:
1) The more you protect your force, the less secure you are (If military forces stay locked up in compounds, they lose touch with the people, appear to be running scared and cede the initiative to insurgents.)
2) The more force used, the less effective it is (Using substantial force increases the risk of collateral damage and mistakes, and increases the opportunity for insurgent propaganda.)
3) The more successful counterinsurgency is, the less force that can be used and the more risk that must be accepted (As the level of insurgent violence drops, the military must be used less, with stricter rules of engagement, and the police force used more.)
4) Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction (Often an insurgent carries out a terrorist act or guerrilla raid with the primary purpose of causing a reaction that can then be exploited.)
5) The best weapons for counterinsurgency do not shoot (Often dollars and ballots have more impact than bombs and bullets.)
6) The host nation's doing something tolerably is better than our doing it well (Long-term success requires the establishment of viable indigenous leaders and institutions that can carry on without significant American support.)
7) If a tactic works this week, it might not work next week; if it works in this province, it might not work in the next (Insurgents quickly adapt to successful counterinsurgency practices. The more effective a tactic is, the faster it becomes out of date.)
8) Tactical success guarantees nothing (Military actions by themselves cannot achieve success.)
9) Most of the important decisions are not made by generals (Successful counterinsurgency relies on the competence and judgment of soldiers and marines on all levels.)
You can see Petraeus and Mattis all over this document, with a lot of Nagl too. Actually you see T.E. Lawrence shining through them all, showing the time travel involved.
Yes, as Dennis Tighe of the Combined Arms Center at Leavenworth noted in the NYT piece, moving in the SysAdmin direction raises fears that the Army and Marines will lose their ability for high-end traditional warfare, but that's where the transformed Leviathan force matters. That force should have a small ground footprint and be dominated by air and sea power superiority. No one on the planet has that power projection capability, so let's keep it strong but reasonably sized vis-a-vis the SysAdmin, which, so long as it has the Marines, will still know how to fight high-intensity as required.
Mattis's little pub is a neat gem that explains the new approach nicely. My favorite quote:
Marines need to learn when to fight with weapons and when to fight with information, humanitarian aid, economic advice, and a boost toward good governance for the local people.
Thus the Maslowian diagram on page 6 (which looks just like the one in my brief that I use to explain the Development-in-a-Box concept that Steve DeAngelis and I work hard to spread the gospel on) that details the "six lines of operation" includes not just info ops and combat ops, but also governance, "train and employ" local forces, essential services and economic development.
The mottoes for each are great:
Governance = "for the people"
Information Operations = "nothing but the truth" (getting out there on that 5GW ledge, methinks)
Combat Operations = "war of the stiletto"
Train and Employ = "breathing room" (echoing Abizaid's dictum that the military only buys you time)
Essential Services = "stop the bleeding"
Economic Development = "toward a better life" (or perhaps a "future worth creating"!).
Good stuff that speaks to both new opportunities (like the story on spinning records for the Taliban) and new challenges implied.
Mattis' piece ends with a series of force development implications:
--better collaboration with the rest of the US government
--training Marines to be "both fighters and peace builders"
--train Marines in cultural intell, foreign languages, negotiation and dispute resolution
--long-term planning capacity for COIN
Sounds like Mattis is building the SysAdmin from the inside out, just like I expected (the bucks and bodies are found in DoD--so go figure!)
Thanks to readers and fellow bloggers for sending me the links.
USMC PUBLICATION: "Countering Irregular Threats: A Comprehensive Approach," signed by Lt. Gen. J.N. Mattis, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, 14 June 2006.
ARTICLE: "Spinning pop tunes to beat the Taliban," by Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 4 October 2006.
The new counter-insurgency doctrine is rolling out, catching more and more attention from the press.
I was privileged to have the manual briefed to me by Petraeus' people at Leavenworth when I was there lecturing the student body and doing interviews for the "Monks of War" piece last December. I liked what I saw then and I still like what I see now.
This is the Army and Marines really beginning to learn from Afghanistan and Iraq in a doctrinal sense. The more that operational experience piles up, the harder it will be to say no to them in budget battles.
The paradoxes of counterinsurgency listed in the NYT piece sounds like a Nine Commandments for the SysAdmin force:
1) The more you protect your force, the less secure you are (If military forces stay locked up in compounds, they lose touch with the people, appear to be running scared and cede the initiative to insurgents.)
2) The more force used, the less effective it is (Using substantial force increases the risk of collateral damage and mistakes, and increases the opportunity for insurgent propaganda.)
3) The more successful counterinsurgency is, the less force that can be used and the more risk that must be accepted (As the level of insurgent violence drops, the military must be used less, with stricter rules of engagement, and the police force used more.)
4) Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction (Often an insurgent carries out a terrorist act or guerrilla raid with the primary purpose of causing a reaction that can then be exploited.)
5) The best weapons for counterinsurgency do not shoot (Often dollars and ballots have more impact than bombs and bullets.)
6) The host nation's doing something tolerably is better than our doing it well (Long-term success requires the establishment of viable indigenous leaders and institutions that can carry on without significant American support.)
7) If a tactic works this week, it might not work next week; if it works in this province, it might not work in the next (Insurgents quickly adapt to successful counterinsurgency practices. The more effective a tactic is, the faster it becomes out of date.)
8) Tactical success guarantees nothing (Military actions by themselves cannot achieve success.)
9) Most of the important decisions are not made by generals (Successful counterinsurgency relies on the competence and judgment of soldiers and marines on all levels.)
You can see Petraeus and Mattis all over this document, with a lot of Nagl too. Actually you see T.E. Lawrence shining through them all, showing the time travel involved.
Yes, as Dennis Tighe of the Combined Arms Center at Leavenworth noted in the NYT piece, moving in the SysAdmin direction raises fears that the Army and Marines will lose their ability for high-end traditional warfare, but that's where the transformed Leviathan force matters. That force should have a small ground footprint and be dominated by air and sea power superiority. No one on the planet has that power projection capability, so let's keep it strong but reasonably sized vis-a-vis the SysAdmin, which, so long as it has the Marines, will still know how to fight high-intensity as required.
Mattis's little pub is a neat gem that explains the new approach nicely. My favorite quote:
Marines need to learn when to fight with weapons and when to fight with information, humanitarian aid, economic advice, and a boost toward good governance for the local people.
Thus the Maslowian diagram on page 6 (which looks just like the one in my brief that I use to explain the Development-in-a-Box concept that Steve DeAngelis and I work hard to spread the gospel on) that details the "six lines of operation" includes not just info ops and combat ops, but also governance, "train and employ" local forces, essential services and economic development.
The mottoes for each are great:
Governance = "for the people"
Information Operations = "nothing but the truth" (getting out there on that 5GW ledge, methinks)
Combat Operations = "war of the stiletto"
Train and Employ = "breathing room" (echoing Abizaid's dictum that the military only buys you time)
Essential Services = "stop the bleeding"
Economic Development = "toward a better life" (or perhaps a "future worth creating"!).
Good stuff that speaks to both new opportunities (like the story on spinning records for the Taliban) and new challenges implied.
Mattis' piece ends with a series of force development implications:
--better collaboration with the rest of the US government
--training Marines to be "both fighters and peace builders"
--train Marines in cultural intell, foreign languages, negotiation and dispute resolution
--long-term planning capacity for COIN
Sounds like Mattis is building the SysAdmin from the inside out, just like I expected (the bucks and bodies are found in DoD--so go figure!)
Thanks to readers and fellow bloggers for sending me the links.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Defeating Internet Terrorists by Joshua Sinai
The Internet has become the "seductive hypermedia" for radical Islamic terrorists, with official and unofficial Web sites, forums and chatrooms that appeal to supporters worldwide. Most Web sites are intended to advance a group's propaganda to increase their supporting audience, while some have operational intentions. But how do we defeat such terrorism in cyberspace?
An eclectic group of international experts in terrorist use of the Internet and graphic design specialists met recently in Israel's southern resort city of Eilat to formulate a comprehensive response campaign that deserves wide attention.
As explained by Gabriel Weimann, of Israel's Haifa University, terrorists "narrow-cast" their messages to "trap" selected audiences of adherents. Taking this further, Boaz Ganor, of the Israeli Interdisciplinary Center, showed how the "captured" adherents are then indoctrinated into radicalization by emphasizing a problem, such as threats posed by a common enemy or humiliation suffered by Muslims at the hands of their adversaries. Emphasizing the religious obligation of Muslims to confront their enemies and the challenge to their faith is the common denominator that binds the audience into their new virtual community. Segments of this community are then activated into a variety of activities on behalf of the terrorist group, such as fund-raising, recruitment, training and warfare.
The different types of terrorist activities on the Internet require appropriately differentiated responses. As outlined by Mr. Weimann, one such response is based on what he terms a "MUD" approach (Monitoring, Using and Disrupting).
First, terrorist Web sites need to be monitored to learn about their mindsets, motives, persuasive "buzzwords," audiences, operational plans and potential targets for attack. These sites will also reveal whom they consider to be their political and religious authorities, as well as moderate religious clerics they regard as particularly threatening. Monitoring also reveals their inner debates and disputes.
Second, counterterrorism organizations need to "use" the terrorist Web sites to identify and locate their propagandists, chat room discussion moderators, Internet service provider (ISP) hosts, operatives and participating members.
Third, terrorist Web sites need to be "disrupted" through negative and positive means. In a negative "influence" campaign, sites can be infected with viruses and worms to destroy them, or kept "alive" while flooding them with false technical information about weapons systems, circulating rumors to create doubt about the reputation and credibility of terrorist leaders, or inserting conflicting messages into discussion forums to confuse operatives and their supporters. In a more positive approach, alternative narratives can be inserted into these Web sites to demonstrate the negative results of terrorism or, to potential suicide bombers, to suggest the benefits of the "value of life" versus the self-destructiveness of the "culture of death and martyrdom."
An effective "MUD" approach, however, depends on several conditions. It must be interdisciplinary, involving experts in communications and rhetoric, psychologists who understand the impact of influence campaigns on their targeted audiences' cognitive and behavioral responses, graphic designers who understand the type of graphic interface and layout that would appeal to such potential audiences, and civil liberty attorneys to ensure such influence campaigns do not infringe on constitutional rights of free speech and expression.
Finally, international cooperation is required to implement and coordinate such influence campaigns worldwide.
Above all, such a response requires new counterterrorism "armies" possessing new strategies, capabilities, tactics and cyber weapons to counteract the Jihadi Web sites.
This is a dynamic arena of continuous feedback loops in which our actions must ceaselessly anticipate and respond to the reactions of the targeted terrorist Web sites. For instance, when a Web site is brought down, it usually re-emerges in a different configuration elsewhere. Moreover, we need to prioritize the audiences to be targeted by such influence campaigns. For example, devoted activists may be considered a lost cause, while potential recruits who have not yet been activated into terrorism represent new opportunities for influence operations.
Such influence campaigns must be led by moderate political and religious leaders from Islamic communities to formulate alternative messages and narratives to the radical Islamic ideologies. Here, further differentiation is required because, for example, mainstream Islam in the Middle East will be different than its counterparts in Southeast Asia or Europe. It is crucial that whatever is being countered must be as authentically Islamic and close to the "ground" truth as possible. It is here that the root causes underlying the problems that the radical Islamists are exploiting for their own purposes must be resolved.
The Eilat workshop also proposed an institutional framework to carry out such influence campaigns. Joint governmental and independent nongovernmental organization (NGO) campaigns would be driven by coordinated official and "unofficial" international monitoring entities that would form a "Web site Interpol." Guidelines would be issued to define "Red Lines" in terrorist supporters' Web sites which, crossed, would trigger measures to cease their presence on the Internet.
An eclectic group of international experts in terrorist use of the Internet and graphic design specialists met recently in Israel's southern resort city of Eilat to formulate a comprehensive response campaign that deserves wide attention.
As explained by Gabriel Weimann, of Israel's Haifa University, terrorists "narrow-cast" their messages to "trap" selected audiences of adherents. Taking this further, Boaz Ganor, of the Israeli Interdisciplinary Center, showed how the "captured" adherents are then indoctrinated into radicalization by emphasizing a problem, such as threats posed by a common enemy or humiliation suffered by Muslims at the hands of their adversaries. Emphasizing the religious obligation of Muslims to confront their enemies and the challenge to their faith is the common denominator that binds the audience into their new virtual community. Segments of this community are then activated into a variety of activities on behalf of the terrorist group, such as fund-raising, recruitment, training and warfare.
The different types of terrorist activities on the Internet require appropriately differentiated responses. As outlined by Mr. Weimann, one such response is based on what he terms a "MUD" approach (Monitoring, Using and Disrupting).
First, terrorist Web sites need to be monitored to learn about their mindsets, motives, persuasive "buzzwords," audiences, operational plans and potential targets for attack. These sites will also reveal whom they consider to be their political and religious authorities, as well as moderate religious clerics they regard as particularly threatening. Monitoring also reveals their inner debates and disputes.
Second, counterterrorism organizations need to "use" the terrorist Web sites to identify and locate their propagandists, chat room discussion moderators, Internet service provider (ISP) hosts, operatives and participating members.
Third, terrorist Web sites need to be "disrupted" through negative and positive means. In a negative "influence" campaign, sites can be infected with viruses and worms to destroy them, or kept "alive" while flooding them with false technical information about weapons systems, circulating rumors to create doubt about the reputation and credibility of terrorist leaders, or inserting conflicting messages into discussion forums to confuse operatives and their supporters. In a more positive approach, alternative narratives can be inserted into these Web sites to demonstrate the negative results of terrorism or, to potential suicide bombers, to suggest the benefits of the "value of life" versus the self-destructiveness of the "culture of death and martyrdom."
An effective "MUD" approach, however, depends on several conditions. It must be interdisciplinary, involving experts in communications and rhetoric, psychologists who understand the impact of influence campaigns on their targeted audiences' cognitive and behavioral responses, graphic designers who understand the type of graphic interface and layout that would appeal to such potential audiences, and civil liberty attorneys to ensure such influence campaigns do not infringe on constitutional rights of free speech and expression.
Finally, international cooperation is required to implement and coordinate such influence campaigns worldwide.
Above all, such a response requires new counterterrorism "armies" possessing new strategies, capabilities, tactics and cyber weapons to counteract the Jihadi Web sites.
This is a dynamic arena of continuous feedback loops in which our actions must ceaselessly anticipate and respond to the reactions of the targeted terrorist Web sites. For instance, when a Web site is brought down, it usually re-emerges in a different configuration elsewhere. Moreover, we need to prioritize the audiences to be targeted by such influence campaigns. For example, devoted activists may be considered a lost cause, while potential recruits who have not yet been activated into terrorism represent new opportunities for influence operations.
Such influence campaigns must be led by moderate political and religious leaders from Islamic communities to formulate alternative messages and narratives to the radical Islamic ideologies. Here, further differentiation is required because, for example, mainstream Islam in the Middle East will be different than its counterparts in Southeast Asia or Europe. It is crucial that whatever is being countered must be as authentically Islamic and close to the "ground" truth as possible. It is here that the root causes underlying the problems that the radical Islamists are exploiting for their own purposes must be resolved.
The Eilat workshop also proposed an institutional framework to carry out such influence campaigns. Joint governmental and independent nongovernmental organization (NGO) campaigns would be driven by coordinated official and "unofficial" international monitoring entities that would form a "Web site Interpol." Guidelines would be issued to define "Red Lines" in terrorist supporters' Web sites which, crossed, would trigger measures to cease their presence on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)