Al Qaeda calls for media war against America/some belated thoughts on the NY Times SWIFT expose’
Heh. As if Al Qaeda needed help.
As U.S. military losses mount steadily in Iraq, a document issued by a group linked to al Qaeda spells out new goals for America’s most determined enemies and calls for a media war against the United States.
The document, which began circulating on the Internet this month, illustrates the techniques Washington’s enemy is using in what President George W. Bush has called the “war of ideas.”
“The people of jihad need to carry out a media war parallel to the military war … because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations,” said the document, signed by Najd al-Rawi of the Global Islamic Media Front, a group associated with al Qaeda.
It lists targets for a public relations campaign ranging from the obvious — Internet chat rooms — to the surprising — “famous U.S. authors with e-mail addresses” and mentions New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and the academics Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington.
The author suggests that video of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq could be a weapon in the media war and sway U.S. public opinion…
What Al Qaeda’s PR machine doesn’t do for the jihad, Bill Keller’s New York Times will — like blow the SWIFT intelligence operation.
Read the entire Reuters article.
UPDATE: I know the NY Times’ “public editor” now says revealing SWIFT was a mistake. Sheesh. Then let’s get a special prosecutor to investigate the leaks.
Byron Calame’s Sunday October 22, 2006 “mea culpa” has been widely discussed on the Internet. (I’m late getting to it because of travel. Posts on the blog have been few and far between the last ten days.) Like Michelle Malkin I don’t know what Calame means by “vicious criticism from the Bush Administration.” I saw a lot of informed, concerned criticism after the Times published its SWIFT expose’. It seems Calame and Keller were neither informed enough nor concerned enough to understand the criticism. If Calame wants to see an example of persistent, hysterical, vicious criticism, read Paul Krugman on his own editorial page.
Key excerpt from Calame’s way-too-late column:
My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.
Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.
The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this country.
I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.
Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.
Calame’s column includes this admission, an admission of glaring stupidity:
My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a “secret” program was being exposed.
This comment suggests Calame lives in a bubble world:
I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column…
The NY Times exposed a legal, productive intelligence program in the midst of a war. That exposure damaged our ability to monitor terrorist finances. Finances fuel terrorist operations. The Times’ exposure increased the vulnerability of the United States. Why did they do it? I’ll hazard a guess. The NY Times is engaged in a political war with the Bush Administration.
And in the process of waging its political jihad it has harmed the war effort. The SWIFT expose’ proves it.
I wonder if Western media outlets and opinion leaders, such as those mentioned in the Al Qaeda document are comfortable being considered assets by those making war upon the very institutions which enable the free media, historians and pundits to write, publish and speak.
Comment by Vinny Vidivici — 10/27/2006 @ 3:34 pm
Comfortable? The BBC has a reporter embedded with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The relationship between the AP, Reuters, Hezbullah and the Palestinians is so blatant no one bothers even pretending it doesn’t exist. Of course, as soon as a Democrat makes it to the White House, all will be forgiven, the earth will magically return to its natural state of pre-9/11 bliss and jihadhis, who won’t be able to buy a minute of press, will sit and wonder just what the hell happened…
Comment by frankp_63 — 10/27/2006 @ 3:48 pm
The Justice Department should be able to handle this investigation without need for a special counsel. A special counsel was used in the Plame matter because of a perceived conflict of interest. There is no such impediment in this case, and I assume the Justice Department and the FBI are pursuing this matter vigorously.
Comment by Merv Benson — 10/27/2006 @ 4:46 pm
The American media have been staunch allies of anyone fighting the Bush Administration since day one - and alot of regular Americans can see it. That’s why, year after year, Bush defies their polls and pundits and predictions and wins. Because most of us understand, as the bottom line, that there is only one person standing up for us - and it’s not Bin Laden, the ACLU, or the New York Times.And until someone comes along to take the WOT seriously from the dems, there will be no democrat in the White House.
Comment by Christopher Rampley — 10/27/2006 @ 4:49 pm
Austin I fear that too many Americans lack the will to resist such blatant attempts to manipulate our emotions. Before this year, it appeared that Americans had the insight, intelligence and knowledge necessary to understand the level of media bias on Iraq reporting. Now, I confess that I’m questioning if American democracy and traditional values can survive the growing tyranny of the left wing media and institutions. After watching the NYT openly betray our government, the stark reality stuck, that perhaps our beloved right to freedom of speech has morphed into a dangerous animal that could destroy America. In truth, their abuse of the constitution could drive Americans under the right circumstances to accept laws limiting freedom of speech. It could happen, but not by the scenario the left wing loves to portray. If I could make the following comparison: The left loves to compare September 11th and Iraq to Nazis use of the Reichstag Fire to murder communists and establish their dictatorship. While historians believe that the Nazis used that fire as a staged attack to end civil liberties, what left wing pundits omit from their comparison is the political mayhem in Germany. Among the factors that finally motivated moderate Germans to allow the Nazis to gain power was fear of a Communist Revolution. Specifically, centralists Germans considered Communists their primary enemy after German Communists attempted a failed revolution, and gained significant seats in Reichstag. This alarm was magnified with the Soviet military gaining the ability to threaten Germany. In short, many moderate Germans were terrified of a Communist takeover of government. Hence, the centrists turned to an alliance with Hitler, as the “less horrible†of two very bad alternatives. Of course, history knows they were wrong to think that such a violent movement could be used, but controlled by moderates. My concern is whether the US could duplicate the German choice, if the political right and center comes to believes that it cannot halt the left wing abuse(and in some cases, tyranny) of American institutions: our courts, schools, universities, media legislative process, and bureaucracies. I am aware that these conditions pre-existed to a degree, but would you agree that this situation took a more severe turn during the post Sept 11th environment? Perhaps my concerns are too intensified by the potential horror of Speaker Pelosi which loams over the horizon. America has managed to survive the election of fools in the past, but not during our most dangerous moments in history. Would the continuation of such out of control left wing abuses eventually destroy our institutions? Six years ago, I would have laughed at these concerns and called them ludicrous. Yet, six years ago, I would have never expected to see our intelligence and military communities misuse their positions for political gains. Please forgive my pessimism, but tonight I am quite morose for our future. If the country wakes up and prevents the left from taking over the Congress, I’ll feel foolish for expressing such worries, but have a welcomed rebound of optimism
Comment by Ragnell — 10/27/2006 @ 6:56 pm
Ragnell: Interesting comments. I believe Mark Steyn is thinking along the same lines. We must control immigration in order to have a chance to remain true to the Founders. And, common sense demands that we deport as many illegals as feasible. Control the border + Aggresive deportments == Eventual Re-Americanization Re-Americanization == “Backbone” to withstand all enemies foreign and domestic
Comment by mockmook — 10/27/2006 @ 9:04 pm
We have the laws to handle what is happening with a media that aids and abets the enemy. They are the laws against treason. We have the laws to handle professors in our universities who aid and abet the enemy. They are the laws against treason. You have the right to say whatever you want, except when you advocate the overthrow of the constitution–which is what calling for sharia law does. It is past time that we call for our government to enforce the laws of the land against those who commit treason.
Comment by saltydog — 10/28/2006 @ 12:00 am
I think that all military widows and relatives of US soldiers killed in Iraq should attempt a class action lawsuit against the NYT and WaPo, and demonstrate a prepoderance of evidence that their activities have contributed to deaths of the US military. Rule of law is crucial. For criminals, and treason, the evidence level is “beyond reasonable doubt.” For civil, monetary penalties, the level is less “predonderance of evidence.” I’m pretty sure a jury that can punish cigarrette makers could also punish the Times for violating the law and helping the murderers. $10 000 000 per death would be my suggested relief sought. But I’m not a lawyer. I also think Saudi Arabia should be sued for the WTC, both $14 bil for the buildings, and $300 bil. for the deaths. I even think the Dems should be pushing law suits against the states which support and allow terrorist murderers. The biggest problem in Iraq is that nobody is being punished when terrorists commit murder … but that’s a different rant. Collective punishment partial justice is better than no justice.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 10/28/2006 @ 3:31 am
Tom Grey: “Rule of law is crucial. For criminals, and treason, the evidence level is “beyond reasonable doubt.†For civil, monetary penalties, the level is less “predonderance of evidence.†I’m pretty sure a jury that can punish cigarrette makers could also punish the Times for violating the law and helping the murderers. $10 000 000 per death would be my suggested relief sought. But I’m not a lawyer. I’ll say. Perhaps families of the thousands of Iraqis killed in our invasion can also sue Mr. Bush.
Comment by gregdn — 10/28/2006 @ 3:11 pm
Someone mentioned “Zimbabwe” earlier. Not a bad example of the type of country America seems destined to turn into - a nation ruled and ruined by left-wing thugs. The question is, who will our Robert Mugabe be? My money is on Senator Russ Feingold. He is shrill demagogue who has pushed for a coup against the government (impeachment), allied himself with foreign enemies (Islamofascists in Iraq), and his signature issue happens to be the largest crackdown on civil liberties in American history so far (”campaign finance reform”). Once a President Feingold (or some other Democrat) grinds American democracy into the ground, then the battle between al Qaeda and the far Left begins in earnest. Allies for the present, they will turn on each other when ambition demands it (like Hitler and Stalin did). Count on it. And no matter who wins that battle, the rest of us lose.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 10/28/2006 @ 6:45 pm
Mwalimu, Allow me to float my pet theory: Marxism and other varients of far left radicalism failed to defeat capitalist democracies through direct conflict during the 2oth century. Now, they have a new strategy. By their alliance with radical Islamists they hope to help the jihadists destroy Western democracy for them. After their dream of destroying capitalism has been accomplished by another force, they hope to pick up the pieces. They believe that once radical Islam has brought the Western house down, and has its heel on the throat of the non-muslim world, society will rise to throw off their despotic yoke and turn to the marxists to lead them back into enlightenment. Does this speculation sound plausible? ED NOTE: I’ve heard it before — to explain George Galloway. Haven’t seen it written exactly this way, though. Have seen it expressed as a shared anarchistic vision, ie, the Communists and Islamists would tear everything down then implement (and enforce) their utopias.
Comment by Ragnell — 10/29/2006 @ 1:01 pm
“Have seen it expressed as a shared anarchistic vision” Interesting. Yet, how could both movements believe they could co-exist? Islam believes in a sense of shared community burdens, but it doesn’t forbid private property. Although, there does appear to be an acceptance of the government controlling all the utilities in many Islamic countries. Moreover, one could argue that Muslims find the idea of governmental control of land a familar concept. There is also an interesting historical pattern of very powerful rulers in the Ottoman Empire, who owned most of the land instead of their aristocratic class. Land was awarded to thier favorite nobles for their lifetime, but could not be passed onto their children. Hence, the Ottoman rulers were the greatest landlords in the world at one time. With this tradition, Muslims may not find the rule of governmental ownership of property an alien idea. Well I’m speculating of course. But, the question is fascinating and alarming. The most obvious obstacle would be the ban on religion. Marxists would not be willing to relinquish their abhorrance of religion. Therefore, each movement would have to plan on an the eventual war for dominance. We live in interesting times.
Comment by Ragnell — 10/29/2006 @ 6:54 pm
The AP’s terrorist connections… The Associated [with terrorists] Press has launched a campaign to free Bilal Hussein, a journalist in Iraq who turned out to have terrorist connections, and is now deservedly under arrest by the US military. But does the AP care? Apparently not…
Trackback by Tel-Chai Nation — 10/30/2006 @ 1:29 pm