Category Archives: terrorism

Medical Experimentation on Gitmo Detainees

02 Thursday Dec 2010

Posted by in Obama administration, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Paging Dr. Mengele, Dr. Josef Mengele.

Truthout has a report taken from Department of Defense documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo were given massive doses of an anti-malarial drug which was known to have serious psychological side effects before they had even been tested for malaria, and in spite of the non-existence of malaria in Cuba:

“The Defense Department forced all “war on terror” detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison to take a high dosage of a controversial anti-malarial drug, mefloquine, an act that an Army public health physician called “pharmacologic waterboarding.”

The US military administered the drug despite Pentagon knowledge that mefloquine caused severe neuropsychiatric side effects, including suicidal thoughts, hallucinations and anxiety. The drug was used on the prisoners whether they had malaria or not.

All detainees arriving at Guantanamo in January 2002 were first given a treatment dosage of 1,250 mg of mefloquine, before laboratory tests were conducted to determine if they actually had the disease…The 1,250 mg dosage is what would be given if the detainees actually had malaria. That dosage is five times higher than the prophylactic dose given to individuals to prevent the disease.

The drug was administered to Guantanamo detainees without regard for their medical or psychological history, despite its considerable risk of exacerbating pre-existing conditions. Mefloquine is also known to have serious side effects among individuals under treatment for depression or other serious mental health disorders…In 2002, when the prison was established and mefloquine first administered, there were dozens of suicide attempts at Guantanamo. That same year, the DoD stopped reporting attempted suicides.”

But never mind all that, let’s look forward, not back. Speaking of looking forward:

“The Obama administration went to the mat to defend its predecessors from a torture prosecution in Spain last year, a leaked State Department cable shows.

The cable, released by WikiLeaks this week, shows that senior US diplomats teamed with Republican lawmakers — including a former Republican Party chairman — to put pressure on Spanish officials to drop a criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Ain’t bi-partisanship great.

Drone Strike Kills 28 in Pakistan

22 Wednesday Sep 2010

Posted by in drone strikes, Pakistan, Pentagon, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

We have met the terrorists and they are us:

“Pakistan’s remote tribal agencies of North and South Waziristan are in a state of virtual panic tonight as US drones continue to loom in the air and three attacks against separate towns across the region killed at least 28 people and wounded an unknown number of others.

Officials have so far failed to identify any of the targets of the attacks, but reports from the ground suggest that one of the US drones attacked a funeral procession that was carried out for people killed in a previous attack.

Reports suggested that the targets hit were related to one of the militant factions which has an existing cease-fire with the Pakistani government, and it does not appear that any of the victims of the attacks were “high value” targets.”

Winning hearts and minds—one corpse at a time.

What Hath 9/11 Wrought?

11 Saturday Sep 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama administration, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 11, 2001 has been dubbed ‘The Day That Changed America’ and indeed it did. Indeed it did—and not for the better. It changed America from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the increasingly less free and the home of ‘do whatever it takes to keep us safe.’ It changed us from a country governed by the founding principles of due process, equal justice, and the rule of law to a country where indefinite detention without charges or trials are an accepted practice. Where the Executive Branch, aided and abetted by the Judicial Branch, can be exempted from accountability from what were once considered war crimes simply by invoking the vague and all-encompassing claims of “state secrets” and “national security interests.”

These changes were exemplified in a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday when it dismissed a suit by five men who allege they were imprisoned and tortured under the Bush administration’s rendition program. The decision was also considered a “major victory” for the Obama administration, who appealed an earlier ruling which said the suit should go forward.

“In a 6-5 ruling issued this afternoon, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Obama administration a major victory in its efforts to shield Bush crimes from judicial review, when the court upheld the Obama DOJ’s argument that Bush’s rendition program, used to send victims to be tortured, are “state secrets” and its legality thus cannot be adjudicated by courts.  The Obama DOJ had appealed to the full 9th Circuit from last year’s ruling by a 3-judge panel which rejected the “state secrets” argument and held that it cannot be used as a weapon to shield the Executive Branch from allegations in this case that it broke the law.”

Not that this is any shift in direction. It’s just the latest effort by the current administration to continue, and in some cases expand upon, the policies of the former administration—policies candidate Obama denounced but President Obama embraces:

“Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.”

The reaction to the decision from the ACLU:

“This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court. If today’s decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish:

“The case yesterday is particularly egregious because it forbade a day in court for torture victims even if only non-classified evidence was used. Think of that for a minute. It shreds any argument that national security is in any way at stake here. It’s definitionally not protection of any state secret if all that is relied upon is evidence that is not secret. And so this doctrine has been invoked by Obama not to protect national security but to protect war criminals from the law. There is no other possible interpretation.

The Bush executive is therefore now a part of the American system of government, a system that increasingly bears no resemblance to the constitutional limits allegedly placed upon it, and with a judiciary so co-opted by the executive it came up with this ruling yesterday. Obama, more than anyone, now bears responsibility for that. We had a chance to draw a line. We had a chance to do the right thing. But Obama has vigorously denied us the chance even for minimal accountability for war crimes that smell to heaven.

And this leviathan moves on, its budget never declining, its reach never lessening, its power now emboldened by the knowledge that this republic will never check it, never inspect it, never hold its miscreants responsible for anything, unless they are wretched scapegoats merely following orders from the unassailable above them.”

To those who would “look forward” and give the Obama administration a pass here, ask yourself a few questions. If it were the Bush administration would you be so lenient? Let’s be very honest. If one administration is guilty of authorizing and condoning war crimes, is not the following administration, as evidenced by its actions, guilty of being an accessory to the commission of war crimes? I don’t see how any other conclusion can be reached.

Another thing to consider for those who may trust this far-reaching and unchecked expansion of Executive Branch power in the hands of President Obama—the power doesn’t leave with him when he leaves office. Would you trust it in the hands of President Palin? Think about it.

First they came for the suspected terrorists, and I didn’t care because I wasn’t a suspected terrorist………

Politicization of the DOJ Hasn’t “Changed”

06 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Justice Department, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A trip down memory lane:

“Remember the plaintive cries of Democrats and progressives about the wrongful politicization of the Department of Justice by the Bush/Cheney Administration? Remember the stunning chart Sheldon Whitehouse whipped out at a Senate judiciary hearing on Alberto Gonzales’ tenure as AG showing how politicized the hallowed independent prosecutorial discretion of the DOJ had become under Bush, Cheney and Gonzales? The one that Pat Leahy called “the most astounding thing I have seen in 32 years?

That was in late April of 2007, little more than three years ago.”

Fast forward to Sunday (emphasis added):

…the decision on where to hold the high-profile trials of Mohammed and four others accused of being Sept. 11 conspirators has been put on hold and probably will not be made until after November’s midterm elections, according to law enforcement, administration and congressional sources.

In an unusual twist, the matter has been taken out of the hands of the Justice Department officials who usually make prosecutorial decisions and rests entirely with the White House, the sources said.

“It’s a White House call,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “We’re all in the dark.”

Attorney General Eric Holder says it ain’t so:

“Holder, at a June 17 news conference, denied any political motive. “The conversations that we are having are ongoing,” he said. “The political thing . . . the fact of the elections, is not a part of the conversations at all.”

And if you’ll buy that…..

In Defense of Michael Steele—Sort Of

03 Saturday Jul 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Obama, Politics, Republicans, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I can’t believe this, but I’m going to defend the remarks of RNC Chairman Michael Steele, at least in part. Which is more than I can say for the response from the DNC.

Of course Steele’s accusation that Afghanistan is “a war of Obama’s choosing” is ridiculous. Afghanistan was a war of no one’s choosing, it was a response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. And the reason Afghanistan deteriorated into the situation President Obama inherited was because of the choices of the Bush administration, who neglected Afghanistan for 7 years in the misguided pursuit of the “war of their choosing” in Iraq.

But to be fair, President Obama has made some significant choices in relation to Afghanistan. He chose to increase the number of troops there soon after taking office. He chose to replace Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal, which included a choice to shift strategy from McKiernan’s more conventional approach to McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan. Because of this change in strategy the president chose to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by another 30,000.

When Obama replaced McChrystal recently, the president chose to bring in Gen. Petraeus and stick with counterinsurgency despite a growing number of indications, including the grumblings by McChrystal and his staff included in the Rolling Stone piece, that it isn’t working.

Steele was right on the money with this part of his remarks:

“Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed, and there are reasons for that.”

That brought this reaction from the DNC:

“Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They’d also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

“And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are ‘comical’ and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.”

As Greg Sargent at Plum Line points out, (and Glenn Greenwald at Salon agrees) these charges are a tactic straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook, and one which the Bush administration often leveled at Democrats over the war in Iraq. That anyone who criticizes any aspect of the war is advocating for “cutting and running” and doesn’t “support the troops.”

Greenwald:

“Two points about this:   (1) there’s nothing “tough” or “rough” about the DNC statement; it’s actually lame, desperate and ineffective.  As I noted above, the 2006 and 2008 GOP-crushing elections both proved that these rhetorical insults do not work any longer.  Beyond that, attacking people for criticizing the War in Afghanistan is as dumb as when the Republicans attacked people who criticized the Iraq War.”

As Dave Dayen at Firedoglake points out, an amendment to the war supplemental in the House which called for a withdrawal timetable in Afghanistan got 162 votes, a majority of the Democratic caucus.

Greenwald concludes:

“I wonder what the DNC has to say about the fact that a majority of their Party’s House caucus are cowardly, solider-hating traitors who are betting against the Troops.”

Operation Enduring Insanity

28 Monday Jun 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Obama administration, Pakistan, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

CIA Director Leon Panetta appeared on ABC’s This Week yesterday, where he laid out some of the “problems” we face in Afghanistan along with our “fundamental purpose” there and what “winning” might look like. From Think Progress:

Too bad most, if not all, of what Panetta describes is not based in reality.

“There are some serious problems here. We’re dealing with a tribal society. We’re dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency.”

We’re dealing with a country that isn’t a country. Afghanistan combat veteran Wes Moore was on Meet the Press yesterday where he gave this account:

“…one of the things we did–I was with a team in Afghanistan, you go out and you give out gifts to people. And one of the things that we would, we would give out to some of the tribal leaders were cutout–were maps, which were cutouts of Afghanistan.  And literally, the most popular question was, “What is this?” And we’d say, “It’s your country.”

Problems with governance, corruption, and narcotics trafficking? The problem is that the Karzai government and his family are at the root of the corruption and narcotics trafficking. From stealing last year’s election, to his brother’s (alleged) involvement in the heroin trade, to the same brother awarding security sub-contracts to a company owned by 2 of Karzai’a cousins, to this:

“In recent months…Afghan prosecutors and investigators have been ordered to cross names off case files, prevent senior officials from being placed under arrest and disregard evidence against executives of a major financial firm suspected of helping the nation’s elite move millions of dollars overseas.

Afghanistan is awash in international aid and regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Indeed, even as the United States and its allies pour money in, U.S. officials estimate that as much as $1 billion a year is flowing out as part of a massive cash exodus.

The money, as first reported in The Washington Post in February, is often carried out in full view of customs officials at Kabul’s airport, where such transfers are legal as long as they are declared. Officials suspect much of the cash is going to the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, where elite Afghans, including Karzai’s older brother, have villas.”

How do we on the one hand acknowledge that government corruption is a major problem while we continue to prop up the government and the president that is hip-deep in corruption?

Back to Panetta: “But I think the fundamental key, the key to success or failure is whether the Afghans accept responsibility, are able to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability. If they can do that, then I think we’re going to be able to achieve the kind of progress and the kind of stability that the president is after…it is going to take the Afghan army and police to be able to accept the responsibility that we pass on to them. That’s going to be the key. ”

The size of the Afghan security forces our generals say are needed to provide that stability, about 450.000, would cost about $3 billion a year to maintain. The annual budget of Afghanistan is $600 million. They can’t do it. Care to guess who will be expected to pick up the tab?

Panetta’s definition of “winning”:

“Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safe haven for Al Qaida or for a militant Taliban that welcomes Al Qaida…Our purpose, our whole mission there is to make sure that Al Qaida never finds another safe haven from which to attack this country. That’s the fundamental goal of why the United States is there.”

Earlier in the interview Panetta admitted that there are only 50 to 100 members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, “maybe less.”

Emptywheel has it exactly right:

“So 1,000 US troops per al Qaeda member, at a cost of $1 million each. That’s $1 billion a year we spend for each al Qaeda member to fight our war in Afghanistan.

This sort of adds a new twist to that old Einstein quip about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Because we’re doing the same thing over and over again–at a cost of $1 billion a year per nominal opponent–and expecting anything other than bankruptcy.”

It all comes down to this, from a McClatchy article about Iraq but it applies to Afghanistan as well:

“…a nearly inviolable rule governs this arena: Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation unless its people and its leaders all are asking for it. Otherwise the nation’s oligarchy will fight to restore the old order of things, to protect their positions and perquisites. It happens every time.”

The Afghan Protection Racket

23 Wednesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Obama administration, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I thought part of the strategy of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan was to stop corruption by officials in the Karzai government, not become an active participant in it. Turns out I was wrong, there’s a Mafia-style protection racket going on there, funded by you and me, which even includes payments to our supposed enemies–-the Taliban. And of course, Hamid Karzai and some more of his crooked relatives have their hands in the pie as well. What a surprise:

“The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country, according to congressional investigators.

The security arrangements, part of a $2.16 billion transport contract, violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations, and “dramatically undermine” larger U.S. objectives of curtailing corruption and strengthening effective governance in Afghanistan, a report released late Monday said.”

Not that any of this is news to the DOD:

“The report describes a Defense Department that is well aware that some of the money paid to contractors winds up in the hands of warlords and insurgents.”

What do they care, it’s our money, and there’s always plenty more where that came from.

“In testimony shortly after Obama’s strategy announcement, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that “much of the corruption” in Afghanistan has been fueled by billions of dollars’ worth of foreign money spent there, “and one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.”

It must have been a momentary case of amnesia that caused Secretary Clinton to neglect to mention that the US happens to be a major source of that “foreign money.” Just an unintentional oversight, I’m sure.

But not to worry, this is what Gen. McChrystal calls “entrepreneurship.”

“Unlike in the Iraq war, the security and vast majority of the trucks are provided by Afghans, a difference that Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has praised as promoting local entrepreneurship.”

And wherever there’s corruption the Karzai-leone crime family can’t be far behind:

“The report describes a system in which subcontractors — most of them well-known warlords who maintain their own militias — charge $1,500 to $15,000 per truck to supply guards and help secure safe passage through territory they control. The most powerful of them, known as Commander Ruhullah, controls passage along Highway One, the principal route between Kabul and Kandahar, under the auspices of Watan Risk Management, a company owned by two of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s cousins.

Overall management of who wins the security subcontracts, it said, is often controlled by local political powerbrokers such as Karzai’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, head of the Kandahar provincial council.”

The Afghan warlords, the Taliban, and the Karzai family would like to express their appreciation to the American taxpayers for their continued support. And they hope we hang around another 10 or 20 years.

Supremes Refuse to Hear Torture Appeal

15 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama administration, Supreme Court, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

That old-fashioned notion of equal justice under the law was dealt another blow by the Supreme Court yesterday as they refused to hear the appeal of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was detained, tortured, and imprisoned for over a year, without charges, because he was labeled an “al-Qaeda suspect” by the Bush administration. And in what is become an all too familiar occurrence:

“…the Obama administration chose to come to the defense of Bush administration officials, arguing that even if they conspired to send Maher Arar to torture, they should not be held accountable by the judiciary.”

Have to look forward, dontcha know. Mother Jones has a synopsis of Mr. Arar’s ordeal:

“On Sept. 26, 2002, Arar was detained by American authorities during a layover at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport. He was interrogated. Less than two weeks later, he shackled and hooded and placed on a plane bound for Jordan. Once in Jordan, he was transferred overland to Syria. While in Syria, Arar was tortured at the behest of the American government, according to a 1,200-page report released by a Canadian government inquiry that concluded up in 2006.

Here’s how Arar describes a few of his first days in Syria:

Early in the morning on October 10 Arar is taken downstairs to a basement. The guard opens the door and Arar sees for the first time the cell he will live in for the following ten months and ten days.

It is three feet wide, six feet deep and seven feet high. It has a metal door, with a small opening which does not let in light because of a piece of metal on the outside for sliding things into the cell. There is a one by two foot opening in the ceiling with iron bars. This opening is below another ceiling and lets in just a tiny shaft of light. Cats urinate through the ceiling traps of these cells, often onto the prisoners. Rats wander there too.

Early the next morning Arar is taken upstairs for intense interrogation. He is beaten on his palms, wrists, lower back and hips with a shredded black electrical cable which is about two inches in diameter.

The next day Arar is interrogated and beaten on and off for eighteen hours. Arar begs them to stop. He is asked if he received military training in Afghanistan, and he falsely confesses and says yes [another testimony to the effectiveness of “enhanced interrogation techniques”]. This is the first time Arar is ever questioned about Afghanistan. They ask at which camp, and provide him with a list, and he picks one of the camps listed.

In October 2003—more than a year after he had been sent to Syria—Arar was finally returned to Canada. He was never charged with a crime.”

And for this no one will be held accountable. But hey, at least the DOJ has their priorities straight. A federal prosecutor is investigating allegations of blood doping in the Tour de France.

“Modernizing Miranda” by Gutting the Sixth Amendment

15 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

It’s becoming clearer what Attorney General Eric Holder meant when he spoke of the need to “modernize” Miranda. (Even though he also said that “giving Miranda warnings has not had a negative impact on our ability to obtain information from terrorism suspects” ). According to this latest proposal under consideration by the Obama administration, such a “modernization” includes doing away with the Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and to counsel.

“President Obama’s legal advisers are considering asking Congress to allow the government to detain terrorism suspects longer after their arrests before presenting them to a judge for an initial hearing, according to administration officials familiar with the discussions.

If approved, the idea to delay hearings would be attached to broader legislation to allow interrogators to withhold Miranda warnings from terrorism suspects for lengthy periods, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. proposed last week.

The goal of both measures would be to open a window of time after an arrest in which interrogators could question a terrorism suspect without an interruption that might cause the prisoner to stop talking. It is not clear how long of a delay the administration is considering seeking.”

President Obama has been criticized by civil libertarians in the past for continuing the policies of the Bush administration. This one goes further, it’s beyond Bush:

“Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, assailed the Obama administration for considering such ideas. He noted that the administration of President George W. Bush, which was heavily criticized by civil-liberties groups, never proposed such modifications to criminal procedures.”

Marcy Wheeler points out how this denies the accused of their right to counsel:

“The way it works…is you’re arrested and you’re brought before the judge (either to be charged or arraigned) and if you don’t have a lawyer, the judge makes sure you have one.

[…]

“[T]he Administration wants to “modernize” Miranda. They want to postpone bringing alleged terrorists before a Court (though it’s not clear why). Are they, by delaying court appearances, trying to at the same time delay the time when alleged terrorists get assigned lawyers? Are they trying to dissuade alleged terrorists from having lawyers?”

And Jeralyn at Talk Left warns of the slippery slope:

“Taking rights taken from terror suspects today just makes it easier to take them from all of us tomorrow. It’s ironic that this is one right even the Bush Administration didn’t try and tinker with, and its our Democratic president showing so little respect for the rule of law.”

More constitutional rights and protections bite the dust in the course of carrying out the “war on terror.” But hey, whatever it takes to keep us safe, right President Bush Obama?

The Unintended Consequences of Lieberman’s Law

06 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in Politics, Republicans, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the ‘Be Careful What You Ask For You Just Might Get It’ Department comes this from Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog concerning Joe Lieberman’s proposal to strip citizenship from Americans affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations:

“Lieberman’s law would amend an earlier statute that details other things that can cost you citizenship: Serving in the army of a foreign state, pledging allegiance to a foreign state, and so on. In those cases the State Department decides whether your disloyalty merits loss of citizen status. Lieberman’s law would add involvement with a foreign terror organization — as opposed to a foreign state — to this list….

Who would determine whether you’re involved with a foreign terror group? The State Department. It already decides what is and isn’t designated as a terror organization. Lieberman’s law would also empower State to determine whether you are in league with one of these groups.”

Three of the organizations on the State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) are Hamas, Hezbollah, and Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Would any of these relationships count as “affiliation” with a terrorist organization?

“[Grover] Norquist is a founding director of the Islamic Institute, a socially conservative Muslim think tank that eschews international issues in favor of domestic issues such as tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. In addition, Norquist’s lobbying firm…was officially registered as a lobbyist for the Islamic Institute as well as for Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and former executive director of the American Muslim Council.

[At] an anti-Israel protest outside the White House on October 28, 2000. Alamoudi revved up the crowd, saying: ” I have been labeled by the media in New York as being a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here? ” The crowd cheered. ” Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas … I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. “

How about this interview of Tom Tancredo by John Hawkins of Right Wing News?:

John Hawkins: Let me ask you another question, it’s Iran related. I heard that you support the National Council of Resistance (NCR), a political arm of the Mujahedin-e Kalq (MEK)…

Tom Tancredo: Yes, I do.

Another MEK friend in high places:

“In June 2004 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “designated MEK members as civilian ‘protected persons’ under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention,”… Rumfeld’s “decision controverted [Department of State], International Committee of the Red Cross (IRC), and Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) recommendations…”

One more name on the State Department FTO list is the Real IRA:

“…during the 1980s and 90s, the NSA and CIA collected intelligence on financial transactions between the United States and Ireland and Northern Ireland involving Irish terrorist groups supported by Peter King. The group Irish Northern Aid (NORAID) funneled money to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) that was used to buy weapons used to blow up civilians and members of the British government, military, and police.

King was an active supporter of NORAID, a tax-exempt front for the IRA. Martin Galvin, King’s friend and former NORAID chief, rejected the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement and supports the agenda of the terrorist “Real IRA.”

Let the citizenship-stripping begin.