OPINION
The New Reality in Iraq
By FREDERICK W. KAGAN , KIMBERLY KAGAN AND JACK KEANE
July 16, 2008; Page A17
All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq's development.

AP
A boy enjoys a ride at a park in Baghdad, Wednesday, July 9.
The result is that we have an extraordinary – but fleeting – opportunity to advance America's security and the stability of a vital region of the world.

As far as the civil war is concerned, there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia.

The fighters have not simply hidden their weapons and gone to ground to await the next opportunity to kill each other. The Sunni insurgency, as well as AQI, has been severely disrupted. Coalition and Iraqi forces have killed or detained many key leaders, driven the militants out of every one of Iraq's major cities (including Mosul), and are pursuing the remnants vigorously in rural areas and the desert.

The Shiite militias have also been broken apart, sending thousands of their leaders scurrying for safety in Iran. Iraqi forces continue to hammer Iranian-backed Special Groups and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al Mahdi that have been fighting with them in Sadr City, Maysan Province and elsewhere. At this time, none of these networks can conduct operations that could seriously destabilize the Iraqi government. But both al Qaeda and the Iranians are working hard to refit their networks.

The larger strategic meaning of these military and political advances must be kept clearly in mind. Iraq remains a critical front in al Qaeda's war against the U.S.

Discussions in the American media about whether AQI is "really" al Qaeda are puerile. AQI's leadership, largely foreign, is part of the global al Qaeda network operating in support of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden and his lieutenants in Pakistan and around the world send support (including foreign fighters) to Iraq and closely follow the situation there, as their repeated public pronouncements show no less than their actions. Al Qaeda's central leadership is not prepared to lose in Iraq, and has been seeking ways to regain lost ground.

Within Iraq, AQI operatives are still seeking aggressively to re-establish bases from which they can launch more substantial operations in the future. They are failing because of the continuous pressure American and Iraqi forces are putting on them from Baghdad to Mosul. If that pressure is relaxed, they will begin to succeed again.

The Iranian leaders responsible for Iranian policy in Iraq – principally Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Brigadier General Qassim Soleimani, commander of the Qods Force – also remain determined. They are retraining and re-equipping thousands of fighters who fled the most recent Iraqi and Coalition operations in Basra, Baghdad, and Maysan Provinces.

Past patterns suggest those fighters will return to Iraq and attempt to restart attacks against Coalition Forces in time to disrupt Iraqi elections and to affect America's voting. Their attacks are likely to be more spectacular, but less effective at disrupting Iraqi government and society.

If America remains firm in its commitment to success in Iraq, success is very likely. The AQI and Shiite militias at present do not have the capacity to drive Iraq off course – unless both the U.S. and the Iraqi government make a number of serious mistakes.

The most serious error would be to withdraw American forces too rapidly. That would strengthen the resolve of both al Qaeda and Iran to persevere in their efforts to disrupt the young Iraqi state and weaken the resolve of those Iraqis, particularly in the Iraqi Security Forces, who are betting their lives on continued American assistance.

The blunt fact is this. In Iraq, al Qaeda is on the ropes, and the Shiite militias are badly off-balance. Now is exactly the time to continue the pressure to keep them from regaining their equilibrium. It need not, and probably will not, require large numbers of American casualties to keep this pressure on. But it will require a considerable number of American troops through 2009.

Recent suggestions in Washington that reductions could begin sooner or proceed more rapidly are premature. The current force levels will be needed through the Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and consideration of force reductions makes sense only after those elections are over and the incoming commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, has evaluated the new situation.

The benefits to the U.S. from seeing the fight through to the end far outweigh the likely costs. For one thing, Iraqis have shown their determination to increase their oil output, currently averaging 2.5 million barrels a day, as fast as they can – something that can only happen if their country is secure.

Far more important is the opportunity in our hands today to work with a Muslim country in the heart of the Arab world to inflict the most visible and humiliating defeat possible on al Qaeda. Success in Iraq also makes it possible to establish a strategic partnership with a legitimate, democratic majority-Shia state that is aligned with the U.S. against Iran.

Recent comments by some Iraqi leaders about the current negotiations for a status-of-force agreement – made in the context of an increasingly heated election season in Iraq, and with the desire to improve Iraq's bargaining position in the negotiations – do not call the U.S. partnership into question. As we recently found in Baghdad, even the most outspoken advocates of rapid American force reductions strongly insist on a strategic partnership with America that helps Iraq stand up to Iran. Most of Iraq's military leaders are unequivocal about the need for a continued U.S. force presence.

The Iraqi government and people – whose surging anti-Persian feeling is more obvious every day – have already shown their willingness to push back against Iranian intervention. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attack on Iranian-backed forces in Basra, followed by Iraqi-led operations in Baghdad, central Iraq and Maysan, is proof of Baghdad's willingness. Helping Iraq to succeed is our best hope of finding a way of resolving our differences with Iran over the long term without coming to blows.

It is time for Americans to recognize it's a whole new ballgame in Iraq. The civil war is over, American troops are not an "irritant" fueling the unrest, and far from becoming dependent upon us, the Iraqi government and the army show more determination every day to run their country and to protect it. But they continue to want and need our assistance.

While victory in war is never certain until the war is over, the odds are strongly with us for once – provided we do the right thing. That is to stand by our best ally in the war against al Qaeda, and the struggle to contain Iran.

Mr. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Ms. Kagan is president of the Institute for the Study of War. Mr. Keane is a former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army. All have just returned from their most recent visit to Iraq.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

The Demise of Islam?

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/15/2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. He writes from Sydney, Australia and can be reached at nirribilli@gmail.com .

FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: Good to be here Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to discuss the potential demise of Islam and the fact that the Prophet Muhammad actually predicted this demise himself – a fact that sounds somewhat odd and that many are unaware of. What is the best way to start a discussion of this issue?

Kasem: Well, I would start by asking this question: could the current civilization ever imagine a world without Islam?

To many, this might sound like a dim-witted question. After all, Islam has been with us for fifteen hundred years. It just doesn’t even seem thinkable that Islam could possibly die out. Currently, after all, Islam is the raging storm afflicting every part of the world, especially with the mayhem of the Islamist terrorists and the escalating oil prices – and oil largely flows from a few Islamic lands. The leaders of the un-Islamic world are busy pleasing Islam in whatever manner. Even the United Nation’s Human Rights Organisation has just passed a resolution disallowing discussion of how Islam violates fundamental human rights in many Islamic paradises. In this context, it seems almost impossible to imagine a world free of Islam.

FP: Absolutely, and it is totally unrealistic to think that Islam will ever disappear.

Kasem: No. Despite the world situation that I just painted, what you say is not true at all.

FP: Please explain.

Kasem: We learn from the annals of Islamic history that Islam is not that powerful and that it is actually very vulnerable. Much evidence suggests that it may very well die under its own weight.

FP: Fair enough, please expand.

Kasem: There is a secret life of Islam and it may very well lead to the death of Islam. The history of Islam, for instance, tells us that Islam needs blood to thrive. Human blood is the life-line of Islam, violence its hallmark, and hate its foundation. In the beginning, Islam lives on the blood of infidels. When that is unavailable, or becomes difficult, Islam must cannibalize itself. As a car needs gasoline to run, so does Islam need human blood just to run its own course, set by Muhammad, its Prophet.

FP: Sounds very much like communism. It starts off extinguishing the “class enemy” and then when there are no more external “enemies” to slaughter, the killing machine turns on itself. Terror takes on a life of its own and the killing machine devours its own children and then ultimately engages in suicide. This totalitarian impulse ultimately stems from a death wish.

Kasem: Precisely. And so the demise of Islam is inherent in the very seed of Islamic cannibalism. And so to understand why Islam, eventually, will self-destruct we must first learn a few lessons from the annals of Islamic history. Let me briefly paint the picture:

During the last few decades we have witnessed Islamic cannibalism right, front and center. The most recent event was the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of Muslims were killed, not by the infidels (kafirs) but by Muslims. Undoubtedly, in not-too-distant a future, we are bound to witness many such events of Islamic cannibalism.

FP: Is Islamic cannibalism theologically rooted?

Kasem: Absolutely. The earliest example of Islamic cannibalism, after all, is found in the Qur’an itself -- in verses 9:108-110. These verses refer to the gutting of a rival mosque on the instruction of Muhammad, when he was returning after his expedition to Tabuk, a resourceful town in the Syrian-Byzantine territory. This Islamic incursion story goes like this:

Proceeding further from Tabuk on his way to Medina, Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan at Quba (about 4 kms. from Medina), an hour’s journey from Medina. There, an opposition Muslim group had built a mosque. Previously, while Muhammad was making preparations for the march to Tabuk, this group of Muslims approached him and said, “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us”(The History of al Tabari, vol.ix, p.61). Busy with his preparations for Tabuk expedition, Muhammad excused himself from visiting this newly-built mosque, but assured the dissident group that he would call on their mosque while returning to Medina (from Tabuk).

On his return journey from Tabuk and halting at Dhu Awan, Muhammad accused builders of this mosque of being unjust. Without any warning, he sent a band of jihadists to burn and destroy the freshly constructed mosque. He said to his band of hooligans, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it” (ibid, p.61). His band of raging arsonists stealthily entered the bustling mosque and set fire to it when it was filled with people assembled for the evening prayer. The worshippers dispersed in utter terror. Allah promptly sent down verse 9:107, 110, justifying the destruction of opposition mosques. To further validate his gutting of this mosque, Muhammad concocted the story that he suspected that the builders of the ‘Mosque of Dissent’ were planning to assassinate him.

FP: So what is this story in the Qur’an teaching? What is its message?

Kasem: Those verses of the Qur’an, when taken in true Islamic spirit, can only mean one thing: the call for the devastation of rival mosques. The most important question is: which mosques are genuinely Islamic and which mosques are not so Islamic? Since there is no central authority in Islam to decide on this, it becomes a moot-point. It is, therefore, a free-market in Islam when it comes to destruction and bloodshed.

FP: The consequences?

Kasem: The consequences are obvious and inevitable: Sunnis are free to destroy Shia mosques; the Shias are permitted to destroy Sunni mosques; both these groups are free to destroy Ahmedi or Kurdish mosques, and so on. Within each group there are sub-groups and they are also entitled to commit such atrocities on other groups. This is exactly what is going on in almost all Islamic Paradises.

In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shia mosques and murdering them. In Pakistan, Sunnis are killing the Shias and burning their mosques. Then the Shias are avenging this by destroying Sunni mosques. In Bangladesh, both the Sunnis and the Shias are occupying Ahmedi mosques and setting them on fire. This musical chair of mosque-burning and killing is proceeding unabated, each group claiming they are the true Muslims. Each group is adamant they are absolutely following the Qur’an and Sunna (Muhammad’s deeds and examples), the two principal sources of Islam.

Interestingly, this fratricide is unstoppable, as the Islamic Ummah is far from monolithic. No one knows the precise divisions among the Ummah. But Muhammad had predicted that the Muslims will be divided into seventy-two sects, each one killing one another, and together killing the infidels.

FP: So Muhammad actually himself predicted this cannibalism with Islam itself? Give us the theological evidence.

Kasem: Yes he did. There are many ahadith that discuss Muhammad’s prediction about his Ummah. Let me give a few:

Seventy-two of the seventy-three Muslim sects will go to hell; only one of the sects will be in Paradise; it is the majority group…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4580)

Islam has seventy branches…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4659)

Whoever creates disunity in the Islamic community kill him…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4744)

In a note (footnote 4153), the English translator of Sunaan Abu Dawud, Professor Ahmad Hasan admits that it is permissible to ‘cannibalize’ dissident Islamic group/s. He writes: ‘The Prophet (may peace be upon him) did not tolerate disunity and schism among Muslims. Therefore, he ordered that, instead of causing separation and disagreement in the community, it is better to kill the person who causes disunity.’

Another hadis (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 40.4747, Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.577) asks to murder those Muslims who are insincere in their faith. This hadis even tells that Allah loves the Muslims who kill those insincere Muslims.

FP: Tell us a few major sects and sub-sects of Islam:

Kasem: Here are some of the main ones:

Sunnis: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, Hanbal

Sufis

Wahabis

Salafists

Submitters (Qur’an only Muslims)

Khilafites

Deobandis

Shia: Jaffri, Islamilia, Zaidiah, Yazdis

Ashariyahs

Alawis

Qadianis

Ahmedis

Druzes

Dawoodis

Bohras

Kharizis

Kurds

Needless to say, each group (and sub group) thinks they are the true Muslims, and only they have the right to practice Islam. Thus often, they cannibalize one another. There is no tolerance, compromise or truce among these groups.

FP: Tell us about a few more cases of Islamic cannibalism that were perpetrated during the nascent stages of Islam.

Kasem: Well, I mentioned the very first Islamic cannibalism mentioned in the Qur’an. Ever since then, the practice of killing Muslims by Muslims is truly endemic. During the time of Khulafa Rashedin (the rightly guided caliphs) this cannibalism took a serious turn, sparing not even the two last caliphs, ‘Uthman and Ali. Both of them were murdered by savage Islamic cannibals. Among these two cases of Islamic cannibalism, perhaps the murder of ‘Uthman stands out to be the most aghast. Here is how it was carried out, as described by Tabari (The History of al Tabari, volume xv, pp.219 220):

…Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, accompanied by Kinanah b. Bishr b. ‘Attab, Sudan b. Humran and ‘Amr b. al-Hamiq, reached ‘Uthman by climbing over the wall from the house of ‘Amr b. Hazm. They found ‘Uthman, with his wife Na’ilah, reading the Surah of the Cow from the Qur’an. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr came up to them and seized ‘Uthman’s beard. “May God disgrace you, you hyena,” he said. ‘Uthman replied, “I am no hyena. I am God’s servant and the Commander of the Faithful.”Muhammad said, “Neither Mua’wiyah nor anyone else has been of any use to you.” ‘Uthman said, “Son of my brother, let go my beard. Your father would not have gripped like this.” Muhammad replied, “Had my father seen you doing these things, he would have denounced you for them, and I mean to do worse to you than grab your beard.” ‘Uthman said, “I seek God’s help and support against you.” Then Muhammad pierced his forehead with a broad iron-tipped arrow that he was holding. Kinanah b. Bishr raised some arrows of the same kind that he was holding, and plunged them into the base of ’Uthman’s ear down to his throat. Then he fell on him with his sword until he killed him.

According to ‘Abd al-Rahman—Abu ‘Awn:

Kinanah b. Bishr struck his forehead with an iron bar. He pitched forward, face down, and Sudan b. Humran al-Muradi beat him after he had fallen and killed him.…As to ‘Amr b.al-Hamiq, he jumped on ‘Uthman and sat on his chest—he was still barely alive—and stabbed him nine times. ‘Amr said, “I stabbed him three times for God’s sake and six times because of the anger in my breast against him.”

If we are troubled reading those passages, we must remember that all of those who ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman were impeccable Muslims—the most ardent jihadists, belonging to the stock of Muhammad the Hashim clan of the Quraysh.

This Islamic cannibalism did not end there. The cycle continued until Aisha (Prophet Muhammad’s dearest wife), along with two of her brothers-in-law, Talha and Zubayr set out to avenge ‘Uthman’s murder. When she reached al-Basrah, a rebel stronghold, she killed (by beheading) six hundred of the suspected rebels who had ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman. Ali, being sucked into the vortex of this cannibalistic cycle, set out to punish Aisha’s gang.

The result: ten thousand Muslims, including Talhah and Zubayr lay perished in al-Basrah, equal in proportion from both sides. Aisha’s life was spared by the cannibals, but her camel was hamstrung.

In Islamic history this is known as the Battle of the Camel. This is perhaps one of the most moving examples of how Islamic cannibalism really perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence and mayhem. This is the reason why we shall never observe a let up to the succession of Islamic cannibalism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt or Sudan.

The narration of this very important chain of cannibalism will remain incomplete till we learn the fate of all the participants sucked into this whirlpool of cannibalism and counter cannibalism.

The following passages, adopted from Tabari’s Tarikh al-Tabari (vol. xvii) illustrate very briefly how this cycle of Islamic cannibalism continued, and will continue:

Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria and a close relative of caliph ‘Uthman demanded from Ali the handing over of the killers of ‘Uthman. When Ali refused to comply with this request, Muawayiah b. Abi Sufyan, and his right-hand man, ‘Amr b. al-‘As (the deposed governor of Egypt), became open enemies of Ali. They gathered forces and set off to attack Ali. Ali met this force at Siffin. Fearful of defeat at the hands of Ali’s fierce and well-trained army, Muwayiah and ‘Amr devised quite an innovative trick. Their soldiers attached copies of the Qur’an at the tip of their lances and raised them high in air. Ali’s soldiers went in stupor and were hesitant to charge their enemy, lest they trample the Holy Qur’an. Both sides remained standstill—the battle became a stalemate. In the end, both parties agreed to stop fighting and decided on a speedy negotiated settlement by appointing an arbiter from each side. Having mutually reached this agreement, both sides separated and returned.

But not everyone on Ali’s side was happy with his prompt decision. A faction of Islamist extremists thought judgment belonged to Allah and Ali’s decision to appoint arbiters for a peaceful settlement is contrary to Islamic principle. This dissident group of Ali was known as the Kharijites. They insisted that Ali resume fighting. But Ali could not renege on his treaty of a peaceful settlement. The Kharijites declared Ali to be a sinner and asked him to repent. Initial attempt by Ali for reconciliation with the Kharijites met with feeble success. So, ultimately, Ali had to cannibalize the cannibals. He had to fight a major battle at the canal of Nahrawan, east of river Tigris in Iraq. This battle ended with a merciless mass slaughter of the Kharijites. But this cannibalization did not completely eradicate the Kharijite problem. Many Kharijites survived this genocide, went into hiding, and some of them returned to Kufa (Ali’s headquarter in Iraq) stealthily. A few of them went to Egypt.

FP: Let’s get back to Muhammad. He gave the instructions for -- and paved the foundation to -- Islamic cannibalism. He also, in this context, made a prediction in regards to Islam’s demise, correct?

Kasem: Yes, he predicted the demise of Islam.

As strange and as unbelievable as it might appear in these days of unremitting Islamic terrorism and Islamic cannibalism, Muhammad himself had predicted the decline of Islam. Comparing Islam with a snake, he likened Islam to be confined between the mosques of Mecca and Medina. Please read these Sahih ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake...(Sahih Bukhari, 3.30.100)

There will be no trace of Islam in some believers...(Sahih Bukhari, 9.84.65)

Islam was initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange, and it would concentrate between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0270)

The Islamic faith will recede to Medina just as the serpent crawls into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0271, 0272)

Allah needs sinners… (Sahih Muslim 37.6620, 6622)

Muslims will diminish in number and they will go back to where they started…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.19.3029)

Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love world and dislike death…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 37.4284)

Muhammad’s contemporaries were the best Muslims; after three generations, the Muslims will be mainly treacherous and untrustworthy… (Sahih Bukhari, 5.57.2, 3)

Muslims will be destroyed through the hands of some Quraysh young men…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.87.180)

There will be much killing during the last days of the Muslims…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.88.183)

And here are a few excerpts from the greatest of all Islamic minds, al Ghazali:

Muhammad said Islam began with a few and will soon return to a few as it began. The few of those true Muslims are those who follow to purify Muhammad’s sunnah and follow strictly his traditions…(Ihya Ulum al Din by Ghazali, Tr. Fazl-ul-Karim. First edition. Darul Ishat, Urdu Bazar, Karachi, Pakistan, 1993. p.1.49).

Muhammad said, “The wealth of a Muslim in near future will be goats and sheep. He will roam in caves of hillocks and places of water. He will shift from one place to another with his religion and calamities.”…(ibid, p.2.142)

Muhammad said, “In near future such a time will come upon man when it will be difficult to save his religion. To save religion he will flee away like a jacket from one cave to another and from one hillock to another.”…(ibid)

FP: Ho do we understand Allah's mindset in all of this?

Kasem: It is impossible to understand Allah’s mind. In many verses He threatens infidels with severe punishment, including death if they do not convert to Islam. However the Qur’an also demonstrates Allah’s frustration. Allah is so disappointed with Muhammad’s performance that He promises to send a beast as a final messenger (27:82). In verse 68:51 Allah admits that the Qur’an had made Muhammad a mad man, thus implying that Muhammad, after all, could not be trusted to save Islam. To accentuate Muhammad’s mental instability Allah says in verse 41:36 that Allah let Satan confuse Muhammad. In verses 38:82 83 Allah admits that He let loose Iblis, the Satan; He did not want to control Iblis. This means Satan is more powerful than Allah. Thus, it is imperative that eventually, Satan will triumph and destroy Islam. This, of course, is the desire of Allah, as nothing may transpire without Allah’s wish. Allah even admits that He loves to sow discord about His Book (the Qur’an, 41:45).

FP: So what do we conclude from what you have demonstrated here today?

Kasem: We can conclude that there is a certain ending to Islam and that those who wish for it do not necessarily need to do anything. All that is needed is to let it run its own course. It is bound to self-destruct, if we are to learn from the lessons of Islamic history. The un-Islamic world just needs to protect itself with strict security measures, never letting the various groups of Islam unite to kill the infidels. Once the infidels learn the secret life of Islam, it is simply a matter to watch how Islam implodes. Once the Islamic oil runs dry, once the world secures a reliable source of energy to replace oil, once the infidels stand together, and once the infidels become iron-resolute to contain Islam in their lands, Islam will die a natural death.

FP: Abul Kasem, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: My pleasure Jamie.

A bitter debate over the revision of arcane rules in the House of Representatives could set a precedent for how the U.S. Congress may try to regulate social media and the blogosphere in the future. Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) ignited a storm of online fury this week when he announced on the microblogging service Twitter that House Democrats were poised to ban members of Congress from using social media tools or posting online without prior committee consent, and then only on designated “official” external websites.

Culberson referred to a letter of proposed rule changes by Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) sent to Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA), chair of the House Administration Committee. In a press release, Capuano heatedly denied that his proposals would result in censorship, asserted that they were limited to the posting of videos and were a “loosening” of the old rules, and stated that his primary concern was preventing “commercialization” and revising rules “without selling the House of Representatives to the highest bidder.” In turn, Culberson disputed Capuano and claimed the rules as written would result in drastic restrictions on the use of social media by representatives, arguing “Congress often regulates what they don’t understand.”

Capuano’s rule changes received mixed reviews from experts in the online community. While defended by Techdirt’s Mike Masnick, who accurately pointed out that the existing rules were actually worse, Shlok Vaidya, a Washington energy security analyst and blogger, dismissed them as a prescription for a “Congressional walled garden.” Mashable.com ’s Mark Hopkins flatly derided the intent, stating, “The upshot is that Michael Capuano is for some reason uneasy or afraid of the shift toward openness in access to our nation’s legislators made possible by social media and … he aims to have it cut off at the head.”

Nor was one of the leading Web 2.0 experts, Clay Shirky, reassured either, writing at Open House Project: “They can enforce it the way we enforce parking rules, which is to miss most violations, and then bring in draconian enforcement of enough violations to have a chilling effect. This will also allow the Rules Committee to wield enforcement selectively as a stick.” Representative Capuano, who has described the internet as “a necessary evil,” would be one of the enforcers and he is part of a larger Democratic House leadership whose speaker, Nancy Pelosi, also supports a revival of the long-defunct “Fairness Doctrine” that made it unprofitable for broadcast networks to permit robust political expression on air.

There is certainly a legitimate and longstanding interest in preventing the misuse of federal employees or funds by prohibiting them from having any connection to campaign activities, a point on which Republicans and Democrats can easily agree. Furthermore, Capuano is correct to call the current rules “antiquated” and more restrictive, on paper at least, than his proposals. However, the old rules have been widely ignored by congressmen and have never been enforced, which left members of the House free to post online and engage in virtual interaction as they pleased. Enforcing the new, somewhat milder restrictions, as Capuano intends to do, amounts to a severe regime of prior restraint on speech.

More ominous still would be the precedent of the U.S. government designating “official” external websites — imagine having the power to select “official” newspapers — that would have to hew to House regulations and be as free as possible from political or commercial advertising. Given the ubiquity of blogads, most blogs, bulletin boards, and discussion forums would be shut out of the conversation with our nation’s elected officials. Essentially, Capuano is demanding that the internet adapt itself to the House of Representatives instead of the House adapting to the reality of the internet.

--
An elaborate and exclusionary system to post official material from congressmen, with a partisan leadership serving as the gatekeepers, is not in the public interest. Congressmen and senators need new rules that will facilitate and encourage them to interact more freely with constituents using social media, not less. The U.S. Congress, whose public approval rating is at historic lows, would benefit from adopting more transparency and greater interactivity with the American public who live outside of the beltway.

Toward that end, Rep. Culberson has filed a letter of his own, with Speaker Pelosi, asking for new media to be treated no differently by the House than is the old media, which also carries commercial political advertising — in short, a “sunshine” policy. The power here, though, is entirely in the hands of House Democrats, but the decisions they make will have a lasting impact. There is no better route to regulating everyone’s political speech online than habituating our elected officials to accept such controls themselves.

It would be an impressive achievement if partisanship could be set aside in an election year and the House hold hearings, inviting real experts in social media like Robert Scoble, Howard Rhinegold, Clay Shirky, Chris Brogan, and others to testify and offer their best advice. Together, Democrats, Republicans, and the online community could craft rules for the House that are simple, technologically adaptive, politically neutral, and most importantly, respectful of America’s constitutional traditions of democratic accountability and unfettered public debate.

Drug smugglers bribing U.S. agents on Mexico border
Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:08pm EDT
By Robin Emmott

HARLINGEN, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. Border Patrol agent Reynaldo Zuniga was arrested last month lugging a bag of cocaine up from the Rio Grande, one of a growing number of law enforcement officers accused of taking bribes from drug gangs.

Former colleagues say Zuniga used to wait until agents in the south Texas town of Harlingen were distracted with paperwork, then slip down to the river and help smuggle in drugs from Mexico.

The increasing use of bribes by Mexican drug cartels to corrupt U.S. agents comes as Washington is sending $400 million to help Mexico's army-led war on the trafficking gangs, whose brutal murders have surged to unprecedented levels.

"Zuniga was a good agent and a hard worker. I can't understand why he would do this. We're supposed to be protecting our borders," said Border Patrol agent Daniel Doty, a former colleague.

Data on agents convicted of graft are not made public, but the U.S. government is probing hundreds of border corruption cases where a decade ago it saw a few dozen a year. The FBI-led Border Corruption Task Force says it is busier than ever.

"We've seen a sharp increase in investigations along the border over the past three years," said Andy Black, who oversees the San Diego task force, near the busy border crossing of San Ysidro.

"We are talking about a minority of agents but they are a very significant threat, a weak link in efforts to secure the border."

Some put the rise in bribery down to a recent tightening of border controls and a jump in hiring new agents. Smugglers can offer hundreds of thousands of dollars to get past the heavily policed border with drugs and immigrants -- much more than a border agent or sheriff makes in a year.

Gangs also often use attractive women as bait, setting a "honey trap" to entice officials.

"I was offered sex to let a woman across the Rio Grande, but I have a family, I turned her down," one agent told Reuters as his sniffer dog searched a freight train for immigrants and drugs in the Texan borderlands, steamy with tropical rain.

"BAD AGENTS"

Corruption south of the border is a major hurdle to Mexican President Felipe Calderon's quest to crush drug gangs, with up to half the country's police thought to be crooked. Spiraling drug violence has killed 1,700 people in Mexico this year.

U.S. anti-drug officials have pointed to higher street cocaine prices as proof of tighter border controls.

But the campaign is weakened by cases like that of a border agent and his brother in Texas who netted $1.5 million by letting tonnes of marijuana through checkpoint inspection lanes from 2003 to 2005.

Trafficking drugs and people generates billions of dollars a year. Powerful gangs use crooked officials well beyond the border to open smuggling lanes into the United States.

In one case showing the breadth of the problem, two California-based employees of Wackenhut, a contractor that transports detained illegal immigrants, were charged last month with freeing them for $2,500 each.

Also in June, police arrested a Los Angeles attorney for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for allegedly accepting huge bribes to issue green cards and other papers.

"This was an amazing compromise of our system and its integrity," said Paul Layman, a special agent who oversees ICE's corruption investigations in the western United States.

"Smugglers are willing to do anything to get people into the country, they will move anything for a dollar."

U.S. Customs inspector Richard Elizalda, arrested in 2006, was paid $70,000 to let through hundreds of immigrants after a persuasive female smuggler he met at the San Ysidro crossing became his lover.

A sudden influx of Border Patrol agents may have worsened the problem. The number of agents along the border has jumped to more than 14,700 now from less than 9,000 four years ago.

Agents receive intense training and ethics courses, but some officials worry about the screening process.

"Just given the increases, the odds are you'll get more bad agents," said Paul Charlton, a former U.S. Attorney for Arizona.

(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix; Editing by Kieran Murray)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

July 4, 2008
Russia Presses U.S. Bank Over Money Laundering

By ANDREW E. KRAMER
MOSCOW — The Russian government sought Thursday to make Bank of New York Mellon liable under United States racketeering laws for $22.5 billion in damages arising from a money laundering scandal that helped undermine the Russian economy in the late 1990s.

The appearance of a team of pastel-clad trial lawyers from Miami, representing Russia, capped a long effort to enforce civil liabilities here against the bank, which reached a settlement with the United States government in the case in 2005.

As Russia’s economy collapsed in the late 1990s, capital flight was one of the contributing causes. And at that time, about $7.5 billion was improperly transferred out of the country through Bank of New York accounts to a shell company owned by the husband of a bank employee, Lucy Edwards.

Both Ms. Edwards and her husband were later sentenced to five years of probation, and the bank, which admitted lax oversight, agreed to pay $14 million to the United States.

In a novel legal theory on choice of law, the lawyers — working on a contingency fee for the Russian Customs Committee — are seeking to apply the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, known as RICO, against the bank in a Russian court. The bank argues that the statute of limitations for new legal suits against it has expired.

One of the lawyers for Russia, Steven C. Marks of the Podhurst Orseck law firm, argued that a new lawsuit was valid because the bank’s 2005 settlement qualified as a criminal admission of guilt, making it liable for civil damages.

The case, being heard at Basmany Court in Moscow, has attracted the attention of prominent legal experts. Alan M. Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, prepared an affidavit in support of the Russian plaintiffs, and a former United States attorney general, Dick Thornburgh, prepared one on behalf of the bank.

On Thursday, the court heard testimony from experts on whether it had jurisdiction to decide American criminal law, and whether the RICO statute could be applied outside of the United States.

“I believe very strongly that in a time of globalization of banking and globalization of money laundering, it would be a terrible tragedy if RICO laws were confined to the United States border,” Mr. Dershowitz said in a telephone interview.

But Mr. Thornburgh said no foreign court should hear cases under the RICO statute, a 1970s law aimed at fighting organized crime that allows civil penalties for certain criminal acts. “Only U.S. courts can adjudicate RICO,” he said in an interview in Moscow.

Bank of New York Mellon also contends that the improper wire transfers did not amount to a precursor crime under RICO, and that Russia’s claim to damages was not supported by evidence.

The bank says the Basmany Court’s decision will never be upheld outside of Russia. The same court heard the politically tinged bankruptcy case against the Yukos oil company, which ended in dismantlement of the company and was criticized for what some saw as judicial irregularities.

Still, Mr. Dershowitz, arguing for the Russian customs agency, said the Bank of New York should observe the court’s ruling. “A great bank founded by Alexander Hamilton will not want to be perceived as running away from judgment,” he said. The plaintiffs are arguing that the widespread harm caused to Russian people by the collapse of the Russian ruble should be considered in the damage calculation.

In many other legal cases, officials in Russia and other countries have objected to applying American law to disputes outside of the United States.

The practice has drawn objections in several widely publicized cases, including Exxon Mobil’s dispute with Venezuela and Cuban exile suits against the island’s Communist government. In the Venezuela case, Exxon sued in United States, British and Dutch courts.

Courts around the world, however, routinely apply other countries’ laws in contract disputes.

Bruce Marks, a Philadelphia lawyer who filed RICO claims against an aluminum conglomerate controlled by the Russian billionaire Oleg V. Deripaska, testified in court Thursday for the customs agency. Mr. Marks said that the American racketeering law could be applied in a foreign court, though no foreign court had yet passed judgment on such a case.

At one point, with the spires of Moscow’s skyline outside the courthouse window, Mr. Marks was drawn into a discussion of United States Supreme Court precedent on the question of whether civil damages could be sought under the RICO law even if the defendant had not been convicted of a criminal offense. He said it could, telling Judge Lyudmila Pulova that Sedima v. Imrex clarified that point.

In that case, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1989, the court ruled that a fraudulent scheme, even one that is part of a legitimate company’s “regular way of doing business,” can establish proof of a racketeering violation.

Steven Marks, the lead plaintiff’s lawyer, who is not related to Bruce Marks, specializes in airline crash cases that fall under international law. He had also represented the governments of several South American countries seeking damages from American tobacco companies.

In Russia, Steven Marks was authorized to seek damages on the cigarette claims with a 29 percent contingency fee. That agreement, with the Russian customs committee, was later extended to the Bank of New York case.

Mr. Marks says his payment terms are not material to the case. He said the lawyers would seek to use the Russian court’s judgment to garnish Bank of New York reserves at central banks in some of the 90 or so countries where the bank does business.

Sara Rhodin contributed reporting.