DOCSLIB.ORG

Homeland Security Implications of Radicalization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Homeland Security Implications of Radicalization THE HOMELAND SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF RADICALIZATION HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, INFORMATION SHARING, AND TERRORISM RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 Serial No. 109–104 Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35–626 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman DON YOUNG, Alaska BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LORETTA SANCHEZ, California CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JOHN LINDER, Georgia JANE HARMAN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon TOM DAVIS, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Columbia ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut ZOE LOFGREN, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, INFORMATION SHARING, AND TERRORISM RISK ASSESSMENT ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut, Chairman CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania ZOE LOFGREN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LORETTA SANCHEZ, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California JANE HARMAN, California JIM GIBBONS, Nevada NITA M. LOWEY, New York STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) PETER T. KING, NEW YORK (Ex Officio) (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS The Honorable Rob Simmons, a Representative in Congress From the State of Connecticut, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment .......................................................... 1 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment .................................... 60 The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress Frome the State of New York, and Chairman, Committe on Homeland Security ...................... 6 The Honorable Charlie Dent, a Representative in Congress From the State of Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 6 The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress From the State of New York .......................................................................................................... 5 WITNESSES Mr. Javed Ali, Senior Intelligence Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 Mr. Randall Blake, Al-Qa’ida Group Chief, National Counterterrorism Center: Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 Mr. Don Van Duyn, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigations: Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 11 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 PANEL II Mr. Frank Cilluffo, Director, Homeland Security Policy Institute, The George Washington University: Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 31 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 Mr. Steven Emerson, Executive Director, The Investigative Project on Ter- rorism: Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 45 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47 Dr. Walid Phares, Senior Fellow, Foundation for the Defense Democracies: Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 25 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 Mr. John D. Woodward, Associate Director, RAND Policy Institute: Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 39 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 FOR THE RECORD Dr. M. Saud Anwar, Chairman, American Muslim Peace Initiative: Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 2 (III) THE HOMELAND SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF RADICALIZATION Wednesday, September 20, 2006 U.S.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, INFORMATION SHARING, AND TERRORISM RISK ASSESSMENT, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:32 p.m., in Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rob Simmons [chair- man of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Simmons, King, Dent, Lofgren, Lowey, and Langevin. Mr. SIMMONS. [Presiding.] A quorum being present, the Com- mittee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Intelligence, Infor- mation Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment will come to order. Today the subcommittee meets to hear testimony on the home- land security implications of radicalization. For some time, members of this subcommittee have been inter- ested in this issue, but this hearing began to take shape last July when members of the subcommittee travelled with me to Toronto, Canada, to learn more about the alleged plot involving a group of individuals in the Toronto area who were arrested for conspiring to attack their own homeland using approximately three tons of am- monium nitrates. We visited the neighborhoods, we saw the schools, and these were not disadvantaged individuals. In fact, as we observed the neighborhood, we were told that the homes were $300,000 homes. It was an integrated neighborhood. The schools looked like the same sorts of schools that I have back in my hometown in Stonington, Connecticut. And so, the question that I had in my mind and that we had in our minds was, what exactly caused these young, second-genera- tion Muslims, many of whom were of Pakistani background, to be- come radicalized? What were the conditions that were at work here? And how can we better understand this issue? This is not an issue just for Canada or just for Great Britain. This is an issue for us as Americans, here within the continental United States. This is an issue for us as people concerned about the homeland security. This is an issue for us who have Muslims in our districts and in our communities, who want to better understand what the forces might be at play that could cause this radicalization to take place. (1) 2 Not testifying today but submitting testimony is a friend and a colleague of mine from Connecticut, Dr. Saud Anwar, who has writ- ten a paper on the subject and who has shared with me his thoughts on the subject. And I just want to mention a few of the conclusions and recommendations, and then I will ask that his whole paper be put in the record for future reference. But one of the things he says is that the American Muslims are more integrated and assimilated into U.S. society than perhaps their European or Canadian counterparts. They are working to counter current challenges by being more socially and politically ac- tive. They are looking for better integration within our political community and increasing communication and coordination. And so on and so on and so forth. And I can tell you that, from my own experience in dealing with Dr. Anwar, his family and his community, we have had many long and very constructive discussions about the issues that might give rise to radicalization. And I would hope that this hearing, in a way, would become the beginning of a conversation—a conversation that we might initiate here in this subcommittee but that we can then extend out into our districts and into our states, to talk with our friends and neighbors in the Muslim community, to meet in their meeting places, to gath- er to exchange views, so that we can attempt to better understand what their issues might be and then attempt to better understand what the issues of other Muslims elsewhere in the world might be. And so, it is with that in mind that I have called for this hearing. [The statement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— Extensions Of
    April 10, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E725 have tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans united support in improving the safety and many of us in this country and sparked an than veterans benefits. Period. No other expla- welfare of our children. We cannot allow our emotional response from literally thousands of nation is plausible. It is almost impossible for law enforcement to lose step with an ever- people in all 50 states, including many of the me to believe that as the veterans population evolving electronic society. We cannot allow men and women who proudly wear the uni- rises and ages, that this House would elimi- these sexual predators to get away with the form of our military in defense of this great nate benefits. criminal acts they are committing against inno- country. Mr. Speaker, we have men and women on cent children. We cannot allow one of our Unlike so many of the speeches we hear in the field of battle in Iraq, fighting to make oth- greatest advancements to become a tool for this city, Beth Chapman’s remarks were not ers free. Should we not honor their sacrifice our biggest degenerates. The Cybermolester made with a particular slant that was either by keeping our promises to those that have al- Enforcement Act will ensure that these pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. Instead, ready served? Should we not eliminate these ‘‘cyberpredators’’ are suitably punished and Beth’s comments were simply ‘‘pro-American,’’ cuts in VA spending? The wealthy need a tax America’s children are properly protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Attorney General the Honorable Mitch Mcconnell
    February 3, 2010 The Honorable Mitch McConnell United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing in reply to your letter of January 26, 2010, inquiring about the decision to charge Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with federal crimes in connection with the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 near Detroit on December 25, 2009, rather than detaining him under the law of war. An identical response is being sent to the other Senators who joined in your letter. The decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab in federal court, and the methods used to interrogate him, are fully consistent with the long-established and publicly known policies and practices of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the United States Government as a whole, as implemented for many years by Administrations of both parties. Those policies and practices, which were not criticized when employed by previous Administrations, have been and remain extremely effective in protecting national security. They are among the many powerful weapons this country can and should use to win the war against al-Qaeda. I am confident that, as a result of the hard work of the FBI and our career federal prosecutors, we will be able to successfully prosecute Mr. Abdulmutallab under the federal criminal law. I am equally confident that the decision to address Mr. Abdulmutallab's actions through our criminal justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks. There are many examples of successful terrorism investigations and prosecutions, both before and after September 11, 2001, in which both of these important objectives have been achieved -- all in a manner consistent with our law and our national security interests.
    [Show full text]
  • TERRORIST TRIALS: a Report Card
    A P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E C E N T E R O N L A W A N D S E C U R I T Y A T N Y U S C H O O L O F L A W | F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 5 110 W E S T T H I R D S T R E E T , N E W Y O R K , N Y 10 0 12 | W W W . L A W . N Y U . E D U / C E N T E R S / L A W S E C U R I T Y TERRORIST TRIALS: A Report Card hen he announced his resignation in November 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared, “The objective of securing the safety of Americans W from crime and terror has been achieved.” He was referring to that part of the war for which he was largely respo n s i b l e : the legal and judicial record. Ei g h t e e n months prior to that, in testimony before Congress, Ashcroft summed up the pretrial, interim results of his war on terror. Ashcroft cited 18,000 subpoenas, 211 criminal charges, 47 8 [As a preliminary note to the findings, it is important to point deportations and $124 million in frozen assets. Looking to out that accurate and comprehensive information was almost document the results of these efforts, represented in the prose- impossible to obtain.
    [Show full text]
  • Jenny-Brooke Condon*
    CONDON_MACRO (8-25-08) 8/25/2008 10:31:18 AM EXTRATERRITORIAL INTERROGATION: THE POROUS BORDER BETWEEN TORTURE AND U.S. CRIMINAL TRIALS Jenny-Brooke Condon∗ I. INTRODUCTION The conviction of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a twenty-two-year-old U.S. citizen from Virginia, for conspiring to commit terrorist attacks within the United States1 exposes a potential crack in a long- assumed bulwark of U.S. constitutional law: that confessions obtained by torture will not be countenanced in U.S. criminal trials.2 ∗ Visiting Clinical Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law. The author served on the legal team representing Ahmed Omar Abu Ali in his habeas corpus petition filed against the United States while he was detained in Saudi Arabia, and contributed to the defense in his subsequent criminal case. The author is grateful to Seton Hall Law School and Kathleen Boozang, in particular, for generous support of this project. She would also like to thank the following people for their insightful comments on previous drafts: Baher Azmy, Elizabeth Condon, Edward Hartnett, and Lori Nessel. She thanks Sheik Shagaff, Abdolreza Mazaheri, and Katherine Christodoloutos for their excellent work as research assistants. 1. See News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Nov. 22, 2005), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/Pressreleases/2005/1105.html (last visited Feb. 13, 2008) (noting that a jury in Eastern District of Virginia found Abu Ali guilty on November 22, 2005 of nine counts, including conspiracy to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States, and conspiracy to commit air piracy and to destroy aircraft).
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Eagleton and the "Curse to Our Constitution"
    TOM EAGLETON AND THE “CURSE TO OUR CONSTITUTION” By William H. Freivogel Director, School of Journalism, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Associate Professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute This paper is scheduled for publication in St. Louis University Law Journal, Volume 52, honoring Sen. Eagleton. Introduction: If my friend Tom Eagleton had lived a few more months, I’m sure he would have been amazed – and amused in a Tom Eagleton sort of way - by the astonishing story of Alberto Gonzales’ late night visit to John Aschroft’s hospital bed in 2004 to persuade the then attorney general to reauthorize a questionable intelligence operation related to the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. No vignette better encapsulates President George W. Bush’s perversion of the rule of law. Not since the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate has there been a moment when a president’s insistence on having his way resulted in such chaos at the upper reaches of the Justice Department. James Comey, the deputy attorney general and a loyal Republican, told Congress in May, 2007 how he raced to George Washington hospital with sirens blaring to beat Gonzeles to Ashcroft’s room.1 Comey had telephoned FBI Director Robert S. Mueller to ask that he too come to the hospital to back up the Justice Department’s view that the president’s still secret program should not be reauthorized as it then operated.2 Ashcroft, Comey and Mueller held firm in the face of intense pressure from White House counsel Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Before the episode was over, the three were on the verge of tendering their resignations if the White House ignored their objections; the resignations were averted by some last-minute changes in the program – changes still not public.3 Before Eagleton’s death, he and I had talked often about Bush and Ashcroft’s overzealous leadership in the war on terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • 30 Terrorist Plots Foiled: How the System Worked Jena Baker Mcneill, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., and Jessica Zuckerman
    No. 2405 April 29, 2010 30 Terrorist Plots Foiled: How the System Worked Jena Baker McNeill, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., and Jessica Zuckerman Abstract: In 2009 alone, U.S. authorities foiled at least six terrorist plots against the United States. Since Septem- ber 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have Talking Points been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforce- • At least 30 terrorist plots against the United ment. The two notable exceptions are the passengers and States have been foiled since 9/11. It is clear flight attendants who subdued the “shoe bomber” in 2001 that terrorists continue to wage war against and the “underwear bomber” on Christmas Day in 2009. America. Bottom line: The system has generally worked well. But • President Obama spent his first year and a half many tools necessary for ferreting out conspiracies and in office dismantling many of the counterter- catching terrorists are under attack. Chief among them are rorism tools that have kept Americans safer, key provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire at including his decision to prosecute foreign ter- the end of this year. It is time for President Obama to dem- rorists in U.S. civilian courts, dismantlement of onstrate his commitment to keeping the country safe. Her- the CIA’s interrogation abilities, lackadaisical itage Foundation national security experts provide a road support for the PATRIOT Act, and an attempt map for a successful counterterrorism strategy. to shut down Guantanamo Bay. • The counterterrorism system that has worked successfully in the past must be pre- served in order for the nation to be successful In 2009, at least six planned terrorist plots against in fighting terrorists in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing for Majid Khan
    C05403115 o (b)(1) (b)(3) Verbatim Transcript of Combatant Status Review Tribnnal Hearing for ISN 10020 OPENING PRESIDENT: This hearing shall come to order. RECORDER: This Tribunal is being conducted at 08:42 on 15 April 2007 on board U.S. Naval Base Guantanarno Bay, Cuba. The following personnel are present: Colonel United States Air Force, President, Commander United States Navy, Member, Lieutenant Colonel United States Air Force, Member, Major United States Air Force, Personal Representative, Sergeant First Class United States Army, Reporter, Major_United States Air Force, Recorder. Lieutenant Colonel_is the Judge Advocate member ofthe Tribunal. OATH SESSION 1 RECORDER: All rise. PRESIDENT: The Recorder will be sworn. Do you, Major-swear or affirm that you will faithfully perform the duties as ~signed in this Tribunal, so help you God? RECORDER: I do. PRESIDENT: The Reporter will now be sworn. The Recorder will administer the oath. RECORDER: Do you, Sergeant First Class swear that you will faithfully discharge your duties as Reporter assigned in this Tribunal, so help you God? REPORTER: [ do. PRESIDENT: We'll take a briefrecess while the Detainee is brought into the room. RECORDER: The time is 08:43 on IS Apri12007. This Tribunal is now in recess. All rise. [All personnel depart the room.] CONVENING AUTHORITY RECORDER: [All personnel return into the room at 08:48.] All rise. PRESIDENT: This hearing will come to order. You may be seated. Good morning. DETAINEE: Good morning. How are you guys doing? ISN # 10020 Enclosure (3) Page1 of50 C05403115 PRESIDENT: Very good, fine, thank you. This Tribunal is convened by order ofthe Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunals under the provisions ofhis Order of 12 February 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • CRPT-108Hrpt724-Pt2.Pdf
    1 108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–724 " ! 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Part 2 TO PROVIDE FOR REFORM OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, TERRORISM PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION, BORDER SECU- RITY, AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 10 together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] OCTOBER 4, 2004.—Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 96–214 WASHINGTON : 2004 VerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Oct 05, 2004 Jkt 096214 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HR724P2.XXX HR724P2 congress.#13 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania IKE SKELTON, Missouri JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina JIM SAXTON, New Jersey SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York LANE EVANS, Illinois TERRY EVERETT, Alabama GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts MAC THORNBERRY, Texas SILVESTRE REYES, Texas JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana VIC SNYDER, Arkansas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JIM RYUN, Kansas ADAM SMITH, Washington JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LORETTA SANCHEZ, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas KEN CALVERT, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia BARON P. HILL, Indiana ED SCHROCK, Virginia JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut W. TODD AKIN, Missouri SUSAN A. DAVIS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia JAMES R.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Islamic Da'wah Narratives in the UK: the Case of Iera
    Online Islamic Da'wah Narratives in the UK: The Case of iERA by MIRA A. BAZ A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Religion and Theology College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2016 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis is an in-depth study into two of the UK charity iERA's da'wah narratives: the Qura'nic embryology 'miracle' and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. While the embryo verses have received scholarly attention, there is little to no research in the da'wah context for both narratives. Berger and Luckmann's social constructionism was applied to both, which were problematic. It was found that iERA constructed its exegesis of the embryo verses by expanding on classical meanings to show harmony with modern science. Additionally, it developed the Cosmological Argument by adapting it to Salafi Islamic beliefs. The construction processes were found to be influenced by an online dialectic between iERA and its Muslim and atheist detractors, causing it to abandon the scientific miracles and modify the Cosmological Argument.
    [Show full text]
  • 20121211 IACHR Petition FINAL
    TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF JOSE PADILLA and ESTELA LEBRON BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITH A REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING ON THE MERITS By the undersigned, appearing as counsel for petitioners UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Steven M. Watt Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY, 10004 F/(212)-549-2654 P/(212)-519-7870 Hope Metcalf Ingrid Deborah Francois, Law Student Intern Sheng Li, Law Student Intern Alaina Varvaloucas, Law Student Intern Allard K. Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic Yale Law School 127 Wall St. New Haven, CT 06520 P/(203)-432-9404 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3 I. Petitioner Estela Lebron ............................................................................................................................................. 3 II. Seizure, Detention, and Interrogation of Jose Padilla ................................................................................... 3 A. Initial Arrest and Detention Under the Material Witness Act .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Thepdf
    Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1395 Stanford Law Review KEEPING CONTROL OF TERRORISTS WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM Clive Walker © 2007 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, from the Stanford Law Review at 59 STAN. L. REV. 1395 (2007). For information visit http://lawreview.stanford.edu. KEEPING CONTROL OF TERRORISTS WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM Clive Walker* INTRODUCTION: THE DYNAMICS OF COUNTER-TERRORISM POLICIES AND LAWS................................................................................................ 1395 I. CONTROL ORDERS ..................................................................................... 1403 A. Background to the Enactment of Control Orders............................... 1403 B. The Replacement System..................................................................... 1408 1. Control orders—outline................................................................ 1408 2. Control orders—contents and issuance........................................ 1411 3. Non-derogating control orders..................................................... 1416 4. Derogating control orders............................................................ 1424 5. Criminal prosecution.................................................................... 1429 6. Ancillary issues............................................................................. 1433 7. Review by Parliament and the Executive...................................... 1443 C. Judicial Review..................................................................................
    [Show full text]