Posts tagged al-Qaida

The war on terror: taking Jihad Jane | Marina Hyde

A civilised justice system might have seen Colleen LaRose’s eccentricities as requiring help. Instead, she may face life in prison

Without wishing to undermine her twin commitments to holy war and talking to cats, the self-styled Jihad Jane might be the war on terror’s least effective bogeywoman. In fact, let’s not be gender specific. She might well be its least effective bogeyperson, making “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, as we refer to that chap who couldn’t even set a match to his own trainers, look like the KGB’s deadliest agent.

Jihad Jane’s real name is Colleen LaRose, and in between caring for her partner’s sick father, this suburban Pennsylvanian is alleged to have put postings on YouTube in which she made herself available for any fundamentalist situations vacant. Last year she travelled to Ireland, where she met some people allegedly plotting to kill a cartoonist, before flying home and being arrested on her return. She has been in custody since, according to federal documents unsealed this week – and when the news broke, LaRose’s neighbours forewent the usual cliches about her having “kept herself to herself”, declaring instead that she talked to cats a lot. Mm. As our leaders are given to telling us, tapping their nose in reference to their security clearance: if you saw what I saw, it would curdle your blood.

Even Lars Vilks – the Swedish artist whose sensationally witty cartoon of Muhammad’s head on a dog sparked the alleged plot with which LaRose is accused of being associated – appears dismissively amused, pitching the affair as a caper movie, “with this fantastic name Jihad Jane”. Vilks described his alleged nemeses as not exactly professionals and “rather low-tech”, hitting a note of ironic understatement indiscernible in what we know of his work.

The movie Colleen was presumably thinking about as she settled on her nickname was GI Jane, in which a super-buff Demi Moore trains as a Navy Seal and has to retrieve some weapons-grade plutonium from the Libyans. As a 4ft 11 Christine Hamilton lookalike so luminously inept she’d already been warned once by the FBI before she was finally arrested, you have to marvel at Colleen’s self-delusion. However, I’d prefer for the authorities to conjure up footage of her at one of those terrorist training camps in the Hindu Kush, where disaffected westerners have to scramble under rope nets and suchlike, even though their missions are only ever going to consist of doing something antisocial in an aisle seat. As a rare woman at boot camp, Colleen would be a shoo-in for Jihad Benjamin, a winsome modern reboot of the Private Benjamin franchise.

The trailer line for the Goldie Hawn original was “The army was no laughing matter till Judy Benjamin joined it”, and you might agree that the forces of evil ranked against us were similarly mirthless until a pint-sized cat-lady brought the funny. Yet according to the US justice department, the fact that “a woman from suburban America agreed to carry out murder overseas and to provide material support to terrorists, underscores the evolving nature of the threat we face”. Does it? I yield to no one in my admiration for the calibre of evildoers paraded before us in the cause of justifying ever higher anti-terrorism spending and the systematic erosion of individual liberties, but the LaRose business appears yet another instance of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut.

Just as in the case of Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon, and on a much smaller level in that of Jack Straw heckler Walter Wolfgang, one has to question the moral wisdom (and the PR nous) of deploying the full force of anti-terror laws against the demonstrably weak or eccentric. A truly strong society would have the sense merely to leave oddballs out there – partly because the world is full of them, and partly to undermine the myth of a crack network of brilliant extremists who walk among us.

Jurists have long been fascinated by the so-called doctrine of impossible attempt, the question of whether someone can really be punished for attempted crimes that have infinitesimal or no chance of succeeding. Classic examples are trying to pick an empty pocket, or an attempt to murder a man by voodoo. It remains to be seen precisely how cackhanded were LaRose’s bunglings in what she imagined to be the world of international terrorism, but it doesn’t exactly have the flavour of the Mossad’s recent trip to Dubai.

What has come to light since the news broke, however, are police records of LaRose’s 2005 suicide attempt, reports of alcohol problems, and friends’ accounts of the depression caused by the death of her father. Presumably all of this was picked up by the FBI during their lengthy surveillance of her, and in a more civilised and intelligent justice system LaRose might have been identified as a person with a case of something or other, who could be reasonably handled by a couple of hours a week with a mental health professional. Yet she now faces life in prison if convicted.

Having said all that, I see I’ve made the textbook error of ignoring the fabled deterrent argument that governments like to advance. Do forgive me. If there are any troubled catwomen out there thinking of auditioning for Ocean’s Jihad, this case will no doubt give them pause.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Tortured logic of intelligence chief | Vikram Dodd

Former MI5 head Eliza Manningham-Buller says she did not know about mistreatment of terror suspects. Wasn’t she reading the papers?

To be fair to Britain’s security services, the gathering of intelligence can be the most difficult of jobs.

The claim on Wednesday from the former head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, that the US hid from the UK security services the torture they were meting out to the Muslim men they had labelled terrorists, comes as a bit of surprise. In a lecture given in the Palace of Westminster, she related:

“I said to my staff, ‘Why is he [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] talking?’ because our experience of Irish prisoners and terrorists was that they never said anything …
“They said the Americans say he is very proud of his achievements when questioned about it. It wasn’t actually until after I retired that I read that, in fact, he had been waterboarded 160 times.”

She went on to claim that “The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing.”

It did not require a high degree of James Bond-style espionage for MI5 to realise – much earlier than she says it did – that Guantánamo and other US sites were places where torture was practised.

Before her retirement in 2007, then, all that Ms Manningham-Buller needed to have been doing was read a decent newspaper or use a web search, either of which would have produced headlines and articles that would have pricked the curiosity of even the dullest of minds. Never mind those who see themselves as among the sharpest and brightest.

So, for the benefit of the former intelligence chief, the list of reporting of disturbing allegations and evidence of torture employed by the US and its allies in the war on terror starts here – but please add your own in the thread below:

Guardian: Father fears for son held by US in Afghanistan, 10 February 2003

Guardian: Briton held as terror suspect says CIA threatened torture, 4 October 2003

Guardian: Officials ‘knew of beatings at Guantánamo’, 15 May 2004

Observer: US guards ‘filmed beatings’ at terror camp, 16 May 2004

New York Times: Threats and responses: The interrogations; Account of plot sets off debate over credibility, 17 June 2004

Guardian: US abuse could be war crime, 5 August 2004

Times: Britons accuse US Government of ‘torture’ at Guantánamo Bay, 28 October 2004

Times: Guantánamo report reveals ‘torture’, 1 December 2004

Guardian: Guantánamo Briton ‘in handcuff torture’, 2 January 2005

Independent: My nightmare of torture and assault, by Briton held in Guantánamo, 30 January 2005

Washington Post: Va. terror suspect testifies to torture, 20 October 2005

Guardian: Hunger strikers allege ‘force feed torture’ at Guantánamo, 21 October 2005

Guardian: Torture claims ‘forced US to cut terror charges’, 25 November 2005

ABC News: History of an interrogation technique: Waterboarding, 29 November 2005

Telegraph: Torture law victory for terror suspects, 9 December 2005

Guardian: US accused of using gangster tactics over terror suspects, 25 January 2006

Washington Post: Guantánamo force-feeding tactics are called torture, 1 March 2006

Guardian: Evidence against terror suspect extracted by torture, hearing told, 10 May 2006

Times: Bush admits that terrorist suspects were held in secret prison network, 7 September 2006

Guardian: Cheney condemned for backing water torture, 28 October 2006


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Another hyped-up push in Afghanistan | Simon Tisdall

Operation Moshtarak is more a battle against time than against the Taliban, and risks displacing the problems facing allied forces

It has been quite a while since British troops have been involved in a ground offensive on the scale of Operation Moshtarak in Helmand province. Afghanistan has not seen anything like it since the Taliban were toppled in 2001. Nor, it seems, have Britain’s tabloid newspapers. Excited headlines such as “SAS take out top 50 Taliban” and editorials lauding “our boys” recall (for some) the heady days of the Iraq invasion, or even the unbridled media jingoism of the 1982 Falklands war.

British soldiers sent into combat overseas fully deserve the public’s support, all the more so given the consistent political failure over the years to equip them adequately, pay them properly, and care for them compassionately when they return home. But uncritical backing for Britain’s troops is a very different matter from uncritical backing for a US-devised strategy that is as shot full of holes as a Taliban compound after a visit by a helicopter gunship.

The linked offensives around Marjah, and Nad-e-Ali to the north-east, mark the first large-scale application of the counter-insurgency strategy developed by US commander General Stanley McChrystal and adopted by Barack Obama last autumn. About 15,000 Afghan, US and British troops are involved, plus increased civilian backup. As US national security adviser James Jones explained, “our plans call for clearing the area, holding the area, and then providing some building for the people there, better security, better economic opportunity, better governance, more of an Afghan face”.

The idea is that a civilian-led aid and development “surge” will follow close on the heels of the military advance and that local tribal leaders, enticed by promises of enduring, Afghan-run security and pre-funded assistance, will come on board. So too, it is hoped, will Taliban foot soldiers whose grievances are economic, not ideological.

The obstacles facing this overall approach, which has had mixed results elsewhere, are as obvious as they are numerous. So far the allied advance has met only sporadic, localised resistance. As in previous fights, Taliban commanders appear to have pulled back most of their men while they study their opponents’ tactics and look for weaknesses. When they judge the time is right, the Taliban may hit back hard.

The contradictions inherent in a strategy that prioritises protection of civilians while placing them at mortal risk were illustrated early on by the killing of 12 non-combatants by stray Nato rockets. Then there is the key question of manpower. Marjah, a Talib stronghold that successfully defied the underpowered British last year, has now fallen, unsurprisingly, to a much larger force.

Assuming they don’t get bogged down (and that’s a big assumption), just how long US and British elements can and will stay in the field before moving to other fronts is unclear. Some reports say the Taliban are regrouping in Uruzgan, north of Helmand. The question thus arises: is the allied offensive merely displacing the problem? And what about the war’s hinterlands: the Talib and al-Qaida bases in Waziristan – where Pakistan perpetually prevaricates – hostile Baluchistan, and the northern borders, where a spreading war threatens fragile Uzbek supply routes?

Crucially, the willingness of tribal leaders and Afghan civilians to believe in a permanent transition from Taliban to Afghan government control relies on the still highly suspect quality of the Afghan police and local governance. Training continues apace in Kabul and elsewhere, funded by the EU and others. President Hamid Karzai has promised repeatedly to come down hard on corruption at national and provincial level. But timetables for transition to Afghan control in settled areas, let alone in the Helmand valley, remain vague, because nobody honestly knows how much time it is going to take.

Time is exactly what the allied forces don’t have. As the Taliban know well, electoral calculations are dictating the beginning of a US “drawdown” by mid-2011. Fighting Nato contingents such as the Canadians and Dutch are going, too. And Gordon Brown has shifted as far as he dares in indicating a similar timeline for the start of a British departure.

If and when warlords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Sirajuddin Haqqani meet Karzai in his mooted “grand shura” – possibly within the next few weeks – they know that if they can’t agree, they have only to sit and wait. Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s grand panjandrum, enthroned in Quetta, knows it too. They calculate, with good reason, that the Americans and their friends will not stay the course; that soon, relatively speaking, they will leave – just as, eventually, feringhees (“Franks”) have always left Afghanistan.

For all the media ballyhoo, the Marjah offensive is thus the starting gun in a race against time; a chance for Obama to escape his “war of necessity” with something approaching honour. But it is a race that the US and Nato, following current policy, appear doomed to lose. Britain’s soldiers are doing a great job. But soldiers are not the solution.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds