BABE HUGGETT: It may be hard to hear the drum of War beating over the hip-humping bleating of Lady Gaga but Britain just got a shot across its territorial bow once again by Argentina asserting control of all shipping between the contested Falklands and the Argentina coast. Argentina President Cristina Kirchner’s declaration of shipping lane control on Tuesday, February 16 constitutes the first steps towards a naval blockade of the Falklands referred to as “Las Malvinas” by Argentina.

Coming just 28 years after the first Falkland War, when an expansionist Argentina invaded the sleepy, sheep farming islands only to have its head royally handed back to it by British forces, Tuesday’s move by President Kirchner is this time not seen as a demand for the islands so much as a grab for the oil beds that are within Falklands territorial waters and said to be potentially greater than the output of the 40 billion barrel North Seas oil fields. The arbitrary declaration demands that all ships wishing to operate within the waters between the Falklands and Argentina may do so only after getting a new Argentinean permit, effectively stopped the next-day delivery and start of the year-long construction of the Ocean Guardian oil rig to the Falklands offshore oil beds.

The Director of the Falkland Islands Company, Roger Spink, tried to make light of the confrontation by saying, “There has been an economic blockade of the Falklands from Argentina for many years. It’s something we’ve come to expect.”

Anticipating the controversy, Cabinet chief, Aníbal Fernández, commented, “Any boat that wants to travel between ports on the Argentine mainland to the Islas Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. . . must first ask for permission from the Argentine Government.” Read more…

WHITE HOUSE: Gibbs reiterated today that sufficient information was obtained from the fizzled panty bomber Abdumutallab in the 50 minutes he was interrogated before he was read his Miranda rights. This gratuitous assertion withers under the most cursory of examinations.

One of the key components of any successful interrogation is allowing enough time. 50 minutes is not even enough to get started:

Investigators must remember that successful interrogations require a certain amount of time to complete. Some confessions or admissions come quickly, but most do not. Those involving a polygraph examination usually occur between the second and third hours of the interrogations session. Generally, the chances of obtaining a confession increase 25 percent for every hour (up to 4 hours) of interrogation.¹² Investigators spend up to the first hour of the session learning about the subjects, building rapport, obtaining background information, and discussing the crimes. Verbal and nonverbal responses form the basis of the investigators’ evaluations concerning the subjects’ degree of truthfulness and degree of criminal involvement. It takes time for investigators to observe these responses and relate them to the critical issues of the cases. Stopping after 30 minutes or an hour of interrogation dooms investigators to a 75 percent interrogation failure rate.¹³ The Art and Science of Criminal Investigation

Read more…

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

DETROIT: President Obama addressed the nation on January 5th in response to criticism of his handling of the Christmas day terrorist attack. Early in his speech he tried to squelch criticism of his initial 4 day delay by asserting now it was a matter “of the utmost urgency.” He found fault with screeners and every agency he could think of. He announced tightened restrictions on all US citizen passengers as a fix for the problem, as well as his assurance that “We will close Guantanomo prison.”

For all his fault-finding he glaringly failed to address his own failure. Obama is trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a mere criminal defendant in the courts of Detroit. If Abdulmutallab were charged as the unlawful combatant he is, the military would be able to gain intelligence that would be invaluable in fighting the war on terror.

Is the United States at war? President Obama claimed that we are. In his remarks Obama reaffirmed the fact that the country is at war with al-Qaeda. Yet, as we are now all aware, this is not a traditional war involving an enemy state and uniformed soldiers. Rather al-Qaeda members pose as airline passengers placing bombs in their underwear and shoes, hardly conventional tactics. So in kind, President Obama has adopted an unconventional policy in dealing with al-Qaeda that is mudding the waters in the fight against jihadism. Read more…

BABE HUGGETT: It’s such a little AP notice; hardly more than a blip on the news ticker but, as of January 4, 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer detain asylum seekers to the US if they can prove a credible fear of persecution in their home countries. ICE Director, John Morton, under the orders of the Obama Administration, said that if asylum seekers can meet certain conditions then they can temporarily enter the US.

At time of entry, the asylum seeker must be able to prove their identities, not be a danger to America, not be a flight risk and must fear for their lives or physical safety if they return home. As it stands now, any asylum seeker without documentation is deported immediately while many of the documented are detained until processed.

As with any so-called “improvement” by socialist dominated regimes in once free Western countries, it is always important to go beyond what looks good on their paper to see what such programs look like in practice in other nations. In spite of President Obama’s best efforts to totally alienate them, one need not look any further than our still closest ally, Great Britain. Read more…

WASHINGTON: When asked the question of what was “the most shocking, stunning thing” that she gleaned from the review on the fizzled panty bomber Napolitano replied:

I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence. It really emphasizes now the renewed importance on how different intelligence is integrated and analyzed, and threat streams are followed through. And, again, it will impact how we continue to review the need to improve airport security around the world.

Judging by her comment, the NIP is surprised that Napolitano had even heard of al Qaeda before the attack. She’s surprised at their determination? That’s the problem with the Obama administration, they don’t take al Qaeda seriously. Al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers, didn’t that take determination? What’s it going to take to wake up these people? We hesitate to even speculate. Read more…

James Simpson

Political Islam, i.e. radical Islam, is actually a cutout for continued communist aggession against the West. This is perhaps the most justifiable explanation for the resurgence of radical Islam in recent years, though it receives scant recognition.

We knew this to be true back in the 1970s and 1980s, when the communist-inspired PLO began its operations against Israel. We knew that Hezbollah and the other Muslim terrorist organizations got their training, weapons and support from Syria – a Ba’athist (Stalinist Arab Communist Party) country. We knew by extension that Syria, like all Soviet client states, was acting on behalf of the Soviet Union.

But after the Soviet Union “fell” in the 1990s, suddenly we were confronted with “Muslim” terrorism. Still the same actors, still the same support networks, still the same tactics, yet now it was supposedly a dire new threat. And if you think horrific public killings and suicide bombings – even using children – are an Islamic invention, ask anyone who served in Vietnam. Communist tactics, all. Even before the communists, Japanese frequently used this tactic in WW II. A very good article on Alternet.org, The Hard Truth About Suicide Bombers had this to say:

Martyr missions made their official twentieth-century debut in the Second World War with the Kamikazes; they showed up again in the 1960s, when Viet Cong sympathizers exploded themselves amidst U.S. troops. Their debut in the Islamic world was not until the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war.

If you listen to statements from jihadists like Osama Bin Laden, their justification for war against the West is based on the same tired slogans repeated by leftists since the 1930s, i.e. that America and its allies are “imperialist,” “greedy capitalists” “exploiting” the rest of the world, yada yada, only now it is the Muslim world we are supposedly oppressing.

Read more…