Tag: Terrorism

The Brotherhood on US TV

I got home this evening after a day spent at NYU at a very interesting literary symposium (that I hope to blog about tomorrow). Flipping channels, I happened on a segment of the PBS series “America at a Crossroads” called “The Brotherhood.” It’s interesting but I can’t help finding parts of it a bit tendentious and alarmist–the show’s main question (“Does the Brotherhood support terrorism?”) seems to be largely rhetorical. One problem is that when Brotherhood members express support for Hamas and Hezbullah, this is taken as evidence that the organization may be “terrorist.” Typically, the narrators interview a Brotherhood member, saying something like “we do not support violence,” and then cuts to a shot of masked Hamas members waving guns. The other problem is that the Brotherhood’s goal of establishing “Islamic rule on earth” is seen as an actual practical aim (rather than an ideological statement) and as inherently troubling. The narrators show a document that mentions this goal, to a background of ominous music. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of establishing any religious rule on earth, but would people be equally concerned about an organization that said its goal was to establish “Christian rule on earth”?

I didn’t see the whole segment (I think I caught the last half). I do think it’s an interesting topic to cover–I’ve always wanted to find out more about the inner workings of the Brotherhood–and that it’s great that it’s being covered by a serious program on US TV. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, the show left me with more questions than answers.

‘125 Release Orders’ and Still Detained

When opposition politicians and rights groups complained that amendments to Egypt’s constitution would enshrine the Emergency Law in the Constitution by giving police free rein to arrest, search, and spy on citizens without judicial warrants, some government officials responded with the line, “You just need to trust us. These powers are only for legitimate investigations into terrorism cases” (paraphrasing here). It was a line the Bush administration had previously used to respond to criticisms of the PATRIOT Act.

Last week, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated MP Farid Ismail petitioned Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif and Interior Minister Habib al-Adli regarding a case that neatly illustrates why the “trust us” line doesn’t work. Security forces arrested five kids, some of them as young as 15, from the al-Sharqiyya governorate in the Nile Delta on suspicion of belonging to Islamic Jihad following the 1997 terrorist attacks in Luxor. In the 10 years since, Ismail said, magistrates have ordered their release 125 times each, saying there was no evidence to keep them detained. No matter. A decade later, they are still in prison.

Now, I’m in favor of locking up people who want to blow up innocent people. And I can understand that in the wake of a big terrorist attack, you might want to err on the side of caution. But you’ve got to do it in a way that ensures that you get the right people, and that lets innocent people caught up in the sweep get back to their lives, ideally with compensation (though how do you compensate someone who’s spent a week with electrodes on his tongue, nipples, and genitals? Mawlish doesn’t quite cover it). This is why the legal protections are so important. I have no idea if these five are innocent, but 125 release orders (times five is what? 625) from magistrates who have seen all the evidence strongly suggests that they are.

If the good people working for Egypt’s stability and security won’t respect what slender legal protections exist today, how are we supposed to “trust them” when those legal protections are gone?

Right. Apologies for the rant, but this is a particularly outrageous case.

Jack Bauer, torturing hero

For at least the last few years now, friends have been mentioning their suspicions that the popular US TV show “24” has a right-wing agenda of some sort, or at the very least legitimizes torture by showing its hero constantly “having to” torture terrorists to save LA from a nucler bomb or some such threat. Well, my conspiracy-minded friends, you were all right.

Not only has Human Rights Watch come out with a report that shows that 76 people (excuse me, terrorists) got tortured in “24” last season–and that there’s been a huge increase in torture scenes on American TV since 9/11. But a new article by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker profiles the show’s creator, Joel Surnow–a good friend of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who has been invited to the White House and who keeps on a wall of his office a framed American flag that was raised in Baghdad. And who sees no problem with the US torturning its enemies.

If you read the article, you’ll learn that the creators of “24” have actually been approached by army and intelligence officials concerned with the shows influence on soldiers and cadets and with the fact that it does not depict realistic interrogation techniques. You’ll also learn that the “ticking bomb” scenario–which we are all so familiar with–comes from a French novel set during the Algerian war, a conflict in which torture was endemic. Another example of fact and fiction intersecting.

Mauritanian hijacker foiled

Ouch:

Mauritanian hijacker gets in hot water
By JUAN MANUEL PARDELLAS, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 16, 2:12 PM ET

SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE, Canary Islands – A fast-thinking pilot with passengers in cahoots fooled a hijacker by braking hard upon landing, then accelerating to knock the man down. When he fell, flight attendants threw boiling water in his face, and about 10 people pounced on him, Spanish officials said Friday.

If there is one thing 9/11 has changed “forever” amidst all the hyperbole, it’s that you don’t hijack planes anymore! (Incidentally, the guy was reportedly only seeking political asylum — he wasn’t going to blow himself up.)

New ICG report on Sinai

I haven’t had time to read it yet, but the ICG has just published a very interesting-looking report on Egypt’s Sinai question in light of the three bombings that have taken place there in the past three years and the subsequent indiscriminate crackdown on the Bedouin population:

Thus, beneath the terrorism problem is a more serious and enduring “Sinai question” which the political class has yet to address. Doing so will not be easy. Since this question is partly rooted in wider Middle East crises, above all the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a definitive solution depends on their resolution. But the solution also requires the full integration and participation of Sinai’s populations in national political life, which means it is also dependent on significant political reforms in the country as a whole, which are not at present on the horizon.

While a comprehensive solution of the Sinai question cannot be expected soon, the government can and should alter a development strategy that is deeply discriminatory and largely ineffective at meeting local needs. A new, properly funded plan, produced in consultation with credible local representatives and involving all elements of the population in implementation, could transform attitudes to the state by addressing Sinai’s grievances.

US judge okays lawsuit against terrorists’ bank

A question to any lawyer types out there: does the decision below set a precedent for any victim of terrorism to sue financial institutions whose clients were involved in those acts of terrorism? Would it apply to other types of violence, including state violence?

A Federal Court Judge in Brooklyn on Tuesday approved a lawsuit filed by victims of terror against the Arab Bank for alleged business links with terrorist organizations.

Judge Nina Gershon accepted the feasibility of the joint claim filed by 1,600 people living in Israel, the U.S. and other countries who were hurt in terrorist attacks orchestrated by some of the bank’s clients.

In their lawsuit, complainants claimed the Arab Bank’s Manhattan branch was used to channel funds to Hamas and other Palestinian militants.

Labidi on Tunisia’s Islamist problem

Our friend Kamel Labidi had an op-ed a few days ago in the Daily Star about the clashes last took place in December between Tunisian security forces and Islamists probably associated with the Groupe Salafiste pour le Combat et la Predication of Algeria. If you’ve followed this story you will remember that there was a total media blackout during which the Tunisian media pretended that those involved were a criminal gang rather than an Islamist group. The PR man for the government was later fired. Rumors abound on the Tunisian online opposition media and blogs that this might have been part of an assassination attempt, that French security services are currently in Tunis investigating, and that it’s possible that the brother of First Lady Leila al-Trabelsi (the biggest mafia in Tunisia and, many complain, the real power behind Ben Ali) used his clout to sneak in a weapon shipment that was delivered to the Islamists. Of course none of this is confirmed.

Kamel’s op-ed highlights the failure of the Ben Ali regime’s “tough stance” towards Islamists and the damage he has wrecked on political plurality and free speech in Tunisia.

Friday, January 26, 2007
Ben Ali’s dictatorship is creating more Islamists
By Kamel Labidi

Tunisian President Zein al-Abedin Ben Ali has on official occasions often referred to the legacy of the great Arab writer Ibn Khaldoun, born in Tunis in 1332. The last time he did so was nearly two months ago on the 19th anniversary of his coup against President Habib Bourguiba.

This frequent mention of Ibn Khaldoun is somehow designed to show that Ben Ali is committed to the writer’s legacy. This led Amnesty International to remind the Tunisian president in 2003 of one of Ibn Khaldoun’s most important sayings: “Since injustice calls for the eradication of the species leading to the ruin of civilization, it contains in itself a good reason for being prohibited.”

The deadly clashes in the suburbs of the Tunisian capital between security forces and Islamist gunmen at the end of December and in early January took by surprise those who were under the illusion that an Arab autocrat of Ben Ali’s ilk could learn anything from Ibn Khaldoun. According to official sources, the clashes left 12 gunmen dead and 15 under arrest, as well as two security officers killed and two others wounded. The episode dealt an unprecedented blow to the reputation of a state often publicized as one of the most effective in fighting Islamists and maintaining stability.

Continue reading Labidi on Tunisia’s Islamist problem

Debate on Hamas and terrorism

The Conflicts Forum held a debate about a week ago on “an elected Hamas is still a terrorist organization” in which, among others, Stephen Cook, Dan Ayalon, Mark Perry and Stanley Cohen participated. The point being debated is rather badly phrased — it’s obvious that Hamas has used terrorism as a tactic in its struggle for the liberation of Palestine — but the debate is lively and stimulating. It’s really a debate about one (really meaning the US or “international community” in this context) should embrace Hamas as a potential partner for peace rather than ostracize them. Since there are plenty of occasions where political groups that use terror tactics have been integrated politically (from the Zionist terrorist groups of the 1940s to the IRA to the PLO) that question should be moot. The really bigger question, it seems to me, is whether some partners on both sides are interested in peace at all. I don’t think that in Israel either Likud, Kadima, or a good part of Labor is really interested — hence the failure of Oslo and the continual race to expand West Bank settlements under various governments since the mid-1990s. On the Palestinian side Hamas has not resolved some of its ambivalence, although it is certainly seems more willing to consider a fair two-state settlement than a group like Islamic Jihad. Both sides have used, on purpose and with the intent to terrorize, unthinkable violence against civilians. But the Palestinians have done so largely out of self-defense against a foreign occupier while the Israelis have done so mostly to perpetuate an occupation internationally recognized as illegal and to crush a liberation movement.

Correction: The debate was not hosted by the Conflicts Forum but rather by Intelligence Squared, which also chose the phrasing of the question.