Levitt Letter Extra News

by Robert Spencer
www.frontpagemagazine.com

On January 5, 2005, a drug runner named Noel Exinia, who was engaged in transporting over five hundreds pounds of cocaine from Mexico to New York City, revealed in a telephone conversation that he was interested in other kinds of cargo as well. He spoke about twenty Iraqis, all between the ages of 25 and 33, who would pay $8,000 to get past the Mexico-U.S. border and into the United States. These Iraqis were, he said, in the Mexican cities of Monterrey, Chiapas and Puebla, and were ready to cross into Texas; ultimately, they hoped to get to the Northeast. According to Exinia, they were “la gente de Osama” — Osama’s people. What’s more, they were “dangerous…really bad people.” Even Exinia, with all his experience in the drug underworld as part of the Gulf Cartel, admitted he was afraid of them.

No one would have known any of this, at least until these Iraqis committed a terrorist act on American soil, had it not been for the fact that Exinia’s call was recorded. The recording was permissible under the U.S. Patriot Act.

And that, says Exinia’s lawyer, John Blaylock, is why no one should ever have heard anything about Exinia’s phone call. “This is an example,” he maintains, “of a lot of hot air with a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing….Terrorism is the flavor of the week. If they could have, they would have charged him with terrorism to justify the Patriot Act that is coming up for renewal.” However, Exinia’s previous lawyer, William May, said that he thought the terrorism allegations against his former client were true.

Meanwhile, Henry Crumpton, the State Department’s new counter-terrorism chief, has said: “I rate the probability of terror groups using WMD [to attack Western targets] as very high. It is simply a question of time. And it is not just the nuclear threat that bothers me. I think, if anything, the biological threat is going to grow.”

The FBI has declined all comment on the Exinia case; no one will even say whether “Osama’s people” made it into the United States or were headed off. But in any case, if any of them succeeded in carrying out a terrorist attack in the United States, particularly a nuclear or biological attack, would anyone be relieved that their rights had not been infringed by illegal wiretapping?

Apparently the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) would be, among others. With the five-week extension on the Patriot Act due to expire on February 3, they have filed suit against another, closely related and just as controversial element of President Bush’s anti-terror program: the recently-revealed program of domestic surveillance conducted without a warrant or other authorization. The names of the plaintiffs do not inspire confidence in the merits of the suit. The ACLU’s long-standing antagonism to America’s common defense is well documented; for its part, CAIR has had several of its officials arrested and convicted on various terrorism-related charges, and has never answered questions about where it really stands on jihad violence. The Fiqh Council of North America’s condemnation of terrorism that CAIR endorsed with much fanfare (and a great deal of mainstream media attention) was flawed, inadequate, and loaded with weasel words.

That such groups would come out against the Administration’s policies may be the strongest argument in their favor. However, thoughtful and patriotic Americans with a healthy understanding of the global jihad threat — notably Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation — have also expressed reservations about various aspects of the Patriot Act. Weyrich notes: “Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, after 9/11, said if we gave up our way of life in order to catch terrorists the terrorists would have won.” Suspension of some civil liberties in wartime is nothing new: Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; during World War I, Woodrow Wilson had enacted numerous provisions that would make ACLU lawyers blanch today. But in this era of an ever-expanding and ever-encroaching federal government, Rumsfeld’s warning is not just empty rhetoric.

If Judge Samuel Alito is confirmed as expected and takes a seat on the Supreme Court so that the Court again has its full complement of justices, the High Court should consider questions regarding the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping as quickly as possible. The proper balance must be found between Constitutional protections and national security, such that the plans of the men who made Noel Exinia afraid are discovered and foiled well before they have any chance to come to fruition, but not in a manner that compromises any legitimate Constitutional freedom. Otherwise, we would simply be opposing one tyranny with another. The struggle against global jihad, although few yet realize it, is a great struggle, perhaps the last great struggle, to defend and safeguard the principles of universal human rights and the equality of dignity of all people that have been one of the greatest gifts that Judeo-Christian civilization has given to the world. Upon those principles our defense must be founded, or all is lost.

This is an interesting take on the upcoming election. –Editor

By Micah Halpern
www.micahhalpern.com

I am here to say, loud and clear, plain and simple, that no matter what happens on January 25th, Hamas has already won in the Palestinian election.

If Hamas wins the 30 percent of the Palestinian electorate that they are expected to win, a percentage that puts them in a close race with the governing Fatah, it will be a big win. If Hamas wins even more than 30 percent of the electorate, if they outstrip Fatah, it will be an even bigger win.

Whatever happens, just being on the ballot, is a win for Hamas. Becoming the plurality is one of their dreams come true. Their other dream, of course, will never come true. That dream is the elimination of Israel.

So what happens if/when Hamas actually wins in the Palestinian elections scheduled for January 25th? The Palestinian people, as we have come to know them, will disappear. Hamas will create a new Palestinian culture, a more religious, less economically developed culture, a safer place for Palestinians to live, a more dangerous spot on the world map.

It sounds ridiculous, even absurd, it seems counterintuitive, even beyond belief, but in certain ways, a victory for Hamas also benefits those Palestinians who are non-Hamas supporters. Why? Because a victory for Hamas is a victory of extremists over corruption.

The Palestinian Authority, since its inception, has been a hotbed of corruption, ineptitude and greed. It is a legacy handed down by founding father Yasser Arafat and embraced by his successor Mahmoud Abbas.

Simply put, casting a vote for Hamas is voting to oust corrupt Palestinian political leaders. For the Palestinian voter this election is not about Israel, it is not even about a Palestinian state. Only Westerners think otherwise. For Palestinians, January 25th is a day devoted to very personal and very local issues. It is a day to say “ENOUGH” to monies that were misappropriated, to billions of dollars in foreign aid that never trickled down to the people, to leaders who stole and pocketed gargantuan sums intended for the people. It is a day of empowerment.

A vote for Hamas on election day is a vote to end the true legacy of Yasser Arafat.

A vote for Hamas on election day is a vote to censure the United States, Europe and all Westerners involved in policy decisions that ignored the people of the Palestinian Authority and, instead, trusted in Palestinian leadership.

The United States and her allies are truly to blame for much of the economic plight of the Palestinian people. Where were the bean counters? Where was the demand for fiscal accountability? The EU and the U.S. just threw money at an ephemeral entity called the Palestinian Authority and hoped that it would some how, some way find its way and do some good. Instead, it found its way under Fatah mattresses and into Fatah cookie jars.

Abbas has already said he will not run again. In truth, it does not matter one little bit what Abbas does. Abbas has been irrelevant from the beginning. Abbas has played little role in forging any change for the people he promised to protect.

A vote for Hamas on election day is a voting turning the Palestinian Authority into an entity akin to a Little Iran.

The biggest difference between true Iran and Little Iran is that Iran had educational, scientific and technological infrastructures in place before they had ruling religious leaders. The Mullahs did not rip down that infrastructure, and so a thriving economy continues. Palestinians have never reached that level of advancement.

So what will the Palestinian Authority look like after Hamas wins 30 percent or more of the Palestinian popular vote on January 25th? How will the Palestinian state be run?

• Educational institutions and curriculum will have no chance for reform. Israel will never be seen as a neighbor or written into texts
• Science and tech schools will be replaced with religious schools
• There will be no chance of economic growths and gains in the new generation
• Attitudes toward the West will grow ever more negative
• Religious police will be instituted, and anyone who does not conform to Shari’a will be punished publicly
• A female dress code will be instituted and enforced
• TV and radio will revert to Muslim-only programming
• PA culture will be exclusively Muslim
• There will be an exodus of wealthy, successful, future-oriented liberal Palestinians
• The nation will spiral downward
• Palestinians will get more safety on the streets and less corruption. There will be no more kidnappings. Anyone who breaks the law will be publicly humiliated or executed.

After the election there will be a proud public display of a change in policy and attitude toward Israel and the West.

And then there will be an inevitable attack. Israel will counter attack and search out terrorist leaders, even PA political leaders, and cut off major sections of this new state. Israel will react in the way they know best: they will cut the Palestinians off and protect themselves.

For Israel, Palestinians under Hamas will be more dangerous in the short run, but much more manageable. It will be much clearer for Israel to understand the new state of Palestinians and to create a strategic response to the new threat facing them. Actually, they have already worked out the scenarios. Israelis like security to be black and white, clear cut. A Hamas-led Palestine is the textbook example of a clear cut situation.

That is what will happen when/if Hamas wins the Palestinian election. And the United States will get the blame.

www.nysun.com

UNITED NATIONS – The American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, recently upped the ante in an escalating confrontation between America and Turtle Bay on the issue of Israel’s place at the world body. In a sharply worded letter to Secretary-General Annan, Mr. Bolton threatened to cut funding to the United Nations if it continues to promote anti-Israel events.

Mr. Bolton’s January 3 letter, which was seen yesterday by The New York Sun, is a response to a November event celebrating an annual “International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People.” At the event, which was attended by Mr. Annan and other top diplomats, a map that “erases the state of Israel,” as Mr. Bolton wrote, was displayed.

“Given that we now have a world leader pursuing nuclear weapons who is calling for the state of Israel to be wiped off the map, the issue has even greater salience,” Mr. Bolton wrote.

A photo of Mr. Annan standing below the map — several days after President Ahmadinejad of Iran made his statement – was carried last month on the Web site eyeontheun.org, creating a storm of criticism. The site also highlighted the seven-figure budget of U.N. bodies dedicated to promoting what Israel and America consider one-sided, anti-Israel propaganda in the guise of solidarity with Palestinian Arabs.

A U.N. spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, told the Sun yesterday that Mr. Annan was “grateful” to Mr. Bolton and others who have alerted him to the map, and that he “much hopes” that the U.N. body that organized the annual event will “consider not displaying the map in the future.” Mr. Dujarric stopped short of saying that Mr. Annan would cancel his participation in future events that display such maps.

Mr. Dujarric said that Mr. Annan plans to answer Mr. Bolton, but 10 days after sending the letter, which contained very specific questions, Mr. Bolton’s spokesman, Richard Grenell, yesterday said, “We have not received an answer as of yet.”

“Who is the high-level official within the secretariat who approved use of the map for the event?” Mr. Bolton asked in the letter. “Does the United Nations intend to use the map in future U.N.-sponsored functions and events?”

Most ominously for the United Nations, Mr. Bolton wrote, “In light of prohibition under U.S. law to fund events such as this one, do you consider it appropriate for the United Nations to advertise and promote the event on its general Web site and other venues, which do in fact benefit from U.S. funds?”

Although America opposes funding for several U.N. bodies that one-sidedly promote Palestinian Arab rights, the threat to further cut its support for U.N. general advertising budgets is a matter of serious concern to Mr. Annan’s aides, who have been under intense pressure to reform the United Nations in the wake of last year’s scandals.

The Palestinian observer at the United Nations, Riad Mansour, defended the use of the map yesterday, telling the Sun that a pre-1948 date is clearly marked on it. “That map has been there for tens of years,” he said, adding that in 2004, one of the participants in the event was the American ambassador at the time, John Danforth.

Israel and America might object to funding for the pro-Palestinian Arab bodies, Mr. Mansour said, but the vast majority of member states “think they are useful” and vote annually to continue their activities.

Mr. Dujarric told the Sun that since 1977 the secretariat “has been mandated by the General Assembly” to promote the “Day of Solidarity.” He said in 1981, the “committee for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” decided that the map and the flag of “Palestine as it existed in 1948″ should be displayed in the room. Disregarding an official objection by Israel’s then ambassador, Yehuda Blum, “the practice has remained unchanged ever since,” Mr. Dujarric said.

The fact that the map has been displayed at the United Nations for such a long time and was only noticed this year “only strengthens our position,” Israel’s deputy ambassador, Daniel Carmon, said. “You can’t have a U.N.-sponsored event that displays a map that obliterates a member-state.” He added that even if the issue of the map is resolved, the central problem remains: the existence of “automatic” anti-Israel resolutions that provide funds for one-sided bodies at the secretariat.

The organizer of the “solidarity” event is the Division for Palestinian Rights, which in the 2004-2005 U.N. budget received $5,449,600. Other bodies include the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories,($254,500); the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, ($60,800), and the Information Activities on the Question of Palestine ($566,000).

Similar funding has just been approved for the next biannual budget. America “strongly opposes the use of scarce U.N. resources to support the biased and one-sided political activities” of these bodies, America’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Anne Patterson, said in October as the General Assembly was discussing the current budget. With the exception of America, Israel, and some small Pacific nations, the General Assembly approved their funding.