Homeland Security Today, 8 July 2010: . . . . A red team analysis brief provided to then-Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal in mid-2009 indicated an excess of 100 reported attempts at infiltration by anti-coalition forces each month throughout early 2009.
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the “Supreme Taliban commander,” and Sirajuddin Haqqani, the leader of the fiercely anti-US Haqqani network had both directed operatives to increase efforts to infiltrate ANSF, (Afghan National Security Forces), Afghan Police, Afghan security training centers, and of utmost importance, the ever-growing force of CAT I linguists who work most directly with and have the highest level of access to the command structures within coalition forces. The ultimate goal of such directives should be obvious. . . .
. . . . The vast majority of these applicants for the SIV program are of little risk to our security and will in fact in all likelihood be good US citizens. Some of them however have the type of connections, tribal affiliations, and philosophical leanings that combine to make them perfect for anti-US terrorist-type tasking once they are firmly established in the states.
The most effective means of identifying the dangers within the crowd of applicants is the required counterintelligence (CI) interview that takes place once the issuance of the visa is virtually a foregone conclusion. During this interview, an effective interviewer can uncover relationships and former affiliations that may radically influence an applicant.
The problem however is that once the applicant reaches this part of the process, they and their sponsor, normally a commander who has become enamored with ‘their’ linguist are convinced of acceptance and highly resistant to any undue reporting from the interviewer.
One CI interviewer reported, “Commanders who sign the letters of recommendation, are often ignorant of the details of the program. They can and do however, use their rank and influence to speed the process for an interpreter they’ve had only a passing, working relationship with, and about whose personal live they know nothing. Failure to give the thumbs up to their linguist can be met with hostility from their sponsor, most often a high ranking commander.”
This insistence on approval of their candidate stems additionally, from the fact that negative, anti-coalition associations their linguist may be shown to have had, indicates a lack of vigilance on their part. This can be embarrassing to the commander.
Another problem resulting from a rush to implementation is that little or no guidance for the CI interviewer has been forthcoming from Department of State or Department of Homeland Security. A lack of operating procedures and criteria guidance complicates this particular step in the process. An interviewer that doesn’t know what information is required is at a disadvantage before the interview even takes place. Most of these applicants have been plucked from the cradle of terrorism and detecting negative behavior, associates, and ideology even by experienced CI agents is extremely difficult at best. . . .
- – - – - – - -
NOT when you’ve attended these courses:
♦ CI CENTRE COURSE: 361–The Global Jihadist Threat Doctrine
♦ CI CENTRE COURSE: 515—Investigative Interviewing Techniques: Basic to Advanced
♦ CI CENTRE COURSE: 562–Counterterrorism Asset Validation Course
Daniel Pipes, 25 June 2010: Jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism and jihad.
Shahzad’s forthright statement of purpose stands out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining. Consider a few examples:
- Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish Federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that “one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan.” His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.
- Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court “”I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness.”
- Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car and issued a series of jihadi rants against the United States, later experienced a change of heart, announced himself “very sorry” for the crimes he committed, and asked for release so that he can “re-establish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society” in California.
These efforts fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle. Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11′s would-be twentieth hijacker, came close: his court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into “not guilty”) and then, one fine day, pleading guilty to all charges.
Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s many inquisitive questions (“And where was the bomb?” “What did you do with the gun?”) offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt. On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully, and informatively answered about his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.
The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all ten counts of his indictment, “Why do you want to plead guilty?” a reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in for long years in jail. He replied:
I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because – until the hour the U.S. pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions:
“I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks,” adding that “We Muslims are one community.”
Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and “injure people or kill people” because
“one has to understand where I’m coming from, because … I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”
When Cedarbaum pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May first were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied:
“Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same.”
His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocents.
However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad’s willingness to name his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters.”
Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non-Muslims, and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies. Ignoring this fact will not make it disappear.
♦ CI CENTRE COURSE: 361–The Global Jihadist Threat Doctrine
AP, 22 June 2010: Calling himself a Muslim soldier, a defiant Pakistan-born U.S. citizen pleaded guilty Monday to carrying out the failed Times Square car bombing and left a sinister warning that unless the U.S. leaves Muslim lands alone, “we will be attacking U.S.”
Wearing a white skull cap, prison smocks and a dark beard, Faisal Shahzad entered the plea in U.S. District Court in Manhattan just days after a federal grand jury indicted him on 10 terrorism and weapons counts, some of which carried mandatory life prison sentences. He pleaded guilty to them all.
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum challenged Shahzad repeatedly with questions such as whether he had worried about killing children in Times Square. “One has to understand where I’m coming from,” Shahzad calmly replied. “I consider myself … a Muslim soldier.”
The 30-year-old described his effort to set off a bomb in an SUV he parked in Times Square on May 1, saying he chose the warm Saturday night because it would be crowded with people he could injure or kill. . . . . Shahzad dismissed the judge’s question about the children by saying the U.S. didn’t care when children were killed in Muslim countries.
“It’s a war. I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people,” he said. “On behalf of that, I’m revenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.”
Cedarbaum also asked Shahzad if he understood that the people in Times Square might not have anything to do with what happened overseas. “The people select the government. We consider them all the same,” Shahzad said during the hour-long hearing.
Shahzad made the plea and an accompanying statement as Cedarbaum began asking him a lengthy series of questions to ensure he understood his rights. She asked him if he understood some charges carried mandatory life sentences and that he might spend the rest of his life in prison. He said he did.
At one point, she asked him if he was sure he wanted to plead guilty. He said he wanted “to plead guilty and 100 times more” to let the U.S. know that if it did not get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, halt drone attacks and stop meddling in Muslim lands, “we will be attacking U.S.” . . . .
Times Square car bomber details his chilling plot (AP, 22 June 2010)
Admitted terrorist Faisal Shahzad was so eager to tell how he plotted to kill Americans in Times Square, he went to court with a prepared statement. U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum refused to hear him read it Monday, instead challenging the Pakistan-born American citizen to just say “what happened.” . . . Shahzad traced his plot to a 2009 trip to Pakistan that began only three months after he received his U.S. citizenship. . . .
Remorseless Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad warns: ‘We will be attacking the U.S.’ (New York Daily News, 22 June 2010)
A self-proclaimed “Muslim soldier” who bungled a plot to bomb Times Square promised Monday that others will succeed where he failed. A remorseless Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to the frightening scheme to blow up the Crossroads of the World on a busy Saturday night, when it was packed with New Yorkers and tourists. “It’s a war,” Shahzad, 30, said in a hateful screed to Manhattan Federal Judge Miriam Cedarbaum. . . . “One has to understand where I’m coming from,” Shahzad told the judge. “I consider myself … a Muslim soldier. And it’s a war to kill people,” he coldly declared.
Wearing a white knit skullcap and a blue shirt and pants, the former Elizabeth Arden account analyst-turned-Jihad Joe calmly detailed how he learned to make bombs in the militant Waziristan stronghold in Pakistan last year. He returned to the United States in early February, with $4,000 in Taliban cash. The terror group continued sending him money in two payments – $5,000 on Feb. 25 from a co-conspirator and $7,000 more on April 10. He used the money to buy a Nissan Pathfinder off craigslist and parts to turn the vehicle into a crude rolling bomb. He parked the SUV near a packed theater in the Marriott Marquis hotel – and tried to ignite the bomb. He says he still doesn’t know why the bomb didn’t explode. . . .
Intel: Times Square bomber was eager to attack US (AP, 22 June 2010)
The Pakistani-American who pleaded guilty to trying to bomb Times Square was determined to strike the U.S. even before he received training by the Taliban, but his time spent with militants close to the Afghan border steeled his resolve further, alleged accomplices detained in Pakistan have told investigators. . . .
Faisal Shahzad Pleads Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court to 10 Federal Crimes Arising from Attempted Car Bombing in Times Square (FBI, 21 June 2010)
♦ CI CENTRE COURSE: 361–The Global Jihadist Threat Doctrine
FBI, 9 June 2010: Syed Hashmi, aka. “Fahad,” was sentenced to 15 years in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda, Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today. On April 27, 2010, Hashmi pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support or resources to al Qaeda. Hashmi’s 15-year sentence, imposed today in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska, is the maximum penalty allowed by law.
Hashmi, 30, was arrested on June 6, 2006, at Heathrow Airport in the United Kingdom, shortly before boarding a flight to Pakistan. He was later extradited to the United States; Hashmi was the first individual to be extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States on terrorism charges.
According to the superseding indictment and statements made during the guilty plea proceeding:
In 2004, Hashmi provided material support or resources to al Qaeda by helping to provide equipment to others who then transported the equipment to a senior al Qaeda military commander in South Waziristan, Pakistan. Hashmi provided the equipment with knowledge that it would be used by al Qaeda militants who were fighting against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Hashmi also provided money to a co-conspirator who planned to deliver some of the equipment by hand to the al Qaeda military commander in Pakistan.
U.S. Attorney Bharara praised the investigative work of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), which principally consists of special agents and detectives of the FBI and the New York City Police Department. He thanked the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division and Office of International Affairs. Mr. Bharara also expressed his gratitude to the British authorities and law enforcement community, including New Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service, for their cooperation in the investigation.
“Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda depend upon a wide array of individuals across the world to accomplish their violent objectives. This support network includes individuals like Syed Hashmi who embrace al Qaeda’s violent ideology and stand ready to translate ideology into action,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara. “Today, Hashmi was held accountable for his conduct, and his sentence makes clear that individuals who provide material support to al Qaeda will be brought to justice.”
This case is being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brendan R. McGuire and John M. Hillebrecht are in charge of the prosecution.
NEFA Foundation, 25 May 2010: The NEFA Foundation has released its 25th report in the “Target: America” series, a PowerPoint presentation on the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009. The attempt was perpetrated by 23-year old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian raised in a well-to-do family who received a Western-style secondary school education in West Africa and attended university in London. The report details the attempted attack and describes Abdulmutallab’s background and his lifelong religious devoutness, providing insight into his sense of isolation, consequent radicalization, and his connections to Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
Target: America – “The Attempted Christmas Day 2009 Attack on Northwest Flight 253” (pdf)
