Author Archives: Denise Simon

Pakistan Terror Cells and Nuclear Weapons, the Nightmare

Posted on by

What is at issue with Pakistan? India, Khorasan or Islamic State or all of that and more?

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. paid $100 million to secure Pakistan’ nuclear weapons. This included materials, warheads and laboratories. The full details are here. The big question now is how will Obama handle the new demands of Pakistan and their ultimatums?

Pakistan to tell U.S. it won’t accept limits on tactical nuclear arms

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will tell U.S. President Barack Obama this week that Islamabad will not accept limits on its use of small tactical nuclear weapons, Pakistani officials said on Wednesday.

Pakistan insists smaller weapons would deter a sudden attack by its bigger neighbor India. But the United States worries tactical weapons may further destabilize an already volatile region because their smaller size makes them more tempting to use in a conventional war.

Sharif and Obama are due to meet on Thursday.

The United States wants Pakistan to commit to not using tactical nuclear weapons but Islamabad wants to keep its options open as a way of deterring a potential Indian attack, said Maria Sultan, head of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute. More here.

Nightmare: Pakistan To Deploy Small Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is coming to the United States next week on an official visit, and the New York Times reports that ahead of the visit the Obama administration is holding talks with Pakistani officials about Pakistan’s plan to deploy a small tactical nuclear weapon which would be more difficult to monitor and secure than Pakistan’s arsenal of larger weapons. According to Home Land Security News Wire, the White House has not yet commented on the issue. Experts doubt Pakistan would agree to any limits on its nuclear arsenal. “If Pakistan would take the actions requested by the United States, it would essentially amount to recognition of rehabilitation and would essentially amount to parole,” George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the Times.

“I think it’s worth a try,” Perkovich added. “But I have my doubts that the Pakistanis are capable of doing this.” Other officials and outside experts said the main component of the proposed deal would be the loosening of strict controls imposed on Pakistan by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an affiliation of nations that try to control the creation of weapons. The Times reports that the Bush administration spent as much as $100 million on a secret program to help secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, helping with physical security and the training of Pakistani security personnel. Those efforts continued in the Obama years. Administration officials have told Congress that most of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is under good safeguards, with warheads separated from delivery vehicles and a series of measures in place to guard against unauthorized use. These officials fear, however, the smaller weapons are easier to steal, or would be easier to use should they fall into the hands of a rogue commander.

The nightmare:

In part from CTC: In March 2014, nine members of al-Qa`ida, who were active with the group in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, defected to the group that now calls itself the “Islamic State.”[1] The defections took place months before the Islamic State formally announced its Caliphate and at that time little public attention was given to the shift in allegiances of those al-Qa`ida men, despite one of them being the brother of famed jihadi ideologue Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi.[2] The defections, at the time, seemed more like an outlier, but in hindsight they were an early sign of broader developments affecting Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s militant landscapes. The Islamic State’s formal declaration of its “Khorasan” chapter in January 2015 is another indicator of the changes that are taking place. These changes are being pushed by what currently appears to be a fairly loosely configured, but noteworthy, network of groups and individuals who are trying to alter the direction of South and Central Asia’s multiple jihads.


A useful starting point are those individuals and groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan who have publicly pledged bay`a to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-described “Caliph,” and whose pledge has been officially recognized by the Islamic State. The individual appointed in January 2015 as ISK’s leader is Hafiz Khan Saeed, a former Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) commander responsible for that group’s operations in Orakzai, an agency in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) that is very close to the important city of Peshawar.[4] After the death of Hakimullah Mehsud, Khan Saeed was also considered a front-runner–along with Maulana Fazlullah, then the TTP head for Malakand–to replace the deceased TTP leader. Fazlullah, as is well known, won out and assumed the TTP’s leadership position in November 2013. Close to one year later, in October 2014, Khan Saeed and four other prominent TTP commanders, as well as the group’s main spokesman, Shahidullah Shahid, left TTP and pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State.

The other commanders who did so at the time were “Hafiz Quran Daulat, TTP chief in Kurram Agency; Gul Zaman, TTP chief in Khyber Agency; Mufti Hassan, TTP chief in Peshawar; and Khalid Mansoor, the TTP chief in the Hangu district.”[5] These were significant losses for the TTP, and a win for the Islamic State, as in one fell swoop al-Baghdadi’s group gained the allegiance of the individuals the TTP had designated to control the central FATA, a strategic block of land that stretches from the settled city of Peshawar to the Khyber pass and the immediate areas surrounding it.

Then on January 10, 2015, presaging things to come, these six individuals appeared in a video where they again pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This time they were also joined by an expanded network of individuals, all of whom pledged bay`a to the Islamic State’s leader. This group included Saad Emirati, a former Taliban commander allegedly active in Afghanistan’s Logar Province; Ubaidah al-Peshwari, leader of the al-Tawhid and Jihad Group in Peshawar; the Deputy to Sheikh Abd al-Qadir al-Khorasani;[6] Sheikh Muhsin, a commander from Afghanistan’s Kunar province; Talha, a commander from Lakki Marwat; and Omar al-Mansur, from Pakistan’s infamous Lal Masjid (Red Mosque).[7]

According to the statement, an even broader network of groups–which ranges from the Qambar Khel tribe in Khyber and the Hudhayfah group in Dir to Qari Harun’s group in Kunar province–have also pledged their support for Hafiz Khan Saeed and his position as the Amir of the mujahideen of Khorasan.[8] Less than one week after the release of the video, the ranks of Khan Saeed’s group in Pakistan were also bolstered by “50 hardcore militants of the Amr Bil Maroof group, led by Commanders Haya Khan and Waheed Khan,” from Khyber joining.[9] Then on January 26 the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, released a statement in which he formally announced the creation of ISK with Hafiz Khan Saeed serving as its leader. Unfortunately, despite these pronouncements and recent arrests of several alleged Islamic State members in Lahore, and the death of another one in Karachi, not much is known about ISK’s activities in Pakistan or its capabilities.[10] The same can be said for the linkages between ISK elements in Pakistan and the Islamic State, as well as South Asian foreign fighters who are operating on behalf of al-Baghdadi’s group in Syria and Iraq.

 

Hillary, Indictments and Whitewater Scandal Back in Court

Posted on by

CNN has reported this but one needed to look hard to find the published item.

Going back years and challenging the National Archives who appears to be protecting Hillary’s privacy may not last long. What and why is NARA protecting the information in the first place especially when as a presidential candidate, voters deserve to know the history and the truth?

Courtesy of Judicial Watch:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia seeking access to draft indictments of Hillary Clinton over what is popularly known as the Whitewater scandal (Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration (No. 15-cv-01740)).  The National Archives confirmed that draft indictments of Mrs. Clinton exist but refused to release the records, evidently in order to protect Mrs. Clinton’s alleged privacy in these law enforcement records.

Page 1: Response to Motion to Stay

On March 9, 2015, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request seeking all draft indictments of Mrs. Clinton in the files of Hickman Ewing, Jr., who served as Deputy Independent Counsel from September 1994 – January 2001.  In 1999, Ewing testified that he wrote a draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton in 1996.

On March 19, the National Archives admitted locating records responsive to the request, confirming that it found 38 pages of responsive records in a folder entitled “Draft Indictment,” and approximately 200 pages of responsive records in a folder entitled “Hilary Rodham Clinton/Webster L. Hubbell Draft Indictment.”  The Judicial Watch request was denied in full under Exemption (b)(7)(C), which provides protection for law enforcement information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Judicial Watch administratively appealed the denial on May 14.  Today (five months later), Judicial Watch finally received a response from the National Archives that acknowledges receipt of the administrative appeal, but makes no determination on the refusal to release the draft indictments.  .

Judicial Watch believes the records include an evolving set of draft indictments, written between 1996 and 1998.  The draft indictments reportedly arose out of the Office of Independent Counsel investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in an allegedly fraudulent transaction, Castle Grande, involving the assets of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan.  Mrs. Clinton was alleged to have drafted an option agreement that concealed from federal bank examiners a fraudulent $300,000 cross-loan to the Castle Grande project.  Mrs. Clinton’s grand jury testimony – and her alleged concealment of her role in this fraudulent transaction, including the hiding of her Rose Law Firm billing records concerning her legal work for Madison – reportedly became the subject of an obstruction of justice and perjury investigation.

In March 1999, Ewing testified that three years prior he had drafted and circulated but abandoned an indictment of Mrs. Clinton.  The New York Post reported:

Ewing said he “had problems” with some of her statements to investigators in April 1995 and drafted an indictment shortly after September 1996. He said he showed it to other prosecutors in Starr’s office but went no further.

“Judicial Watch has confirmed the existence of draft indictments of Hillary Clinton for her lies and obstruction in the Whitewater bank fraud investigation,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  “The Obama administration is refusing to release these records out of concern for Hillary Clinton’s privacy.  Hillary Clinton’s privacy cannot be allowed to trump the public’s interest in knowing more about whether she obstructed justice and lied to a federal grand jury.”

The Assignment of the CIA Annex in Benghazi

Posted on by

We keep asking what the CIA annex was actually tasked with doing in Benghazi. It was nothing nefarious but more to control what Hillary and her team were doing. Remember, the CIA is subservient to the White House and State Department. The Hillary-Benghazi testimony on Thursday is not about emails or the server. That track has already been established. The thrust of the questions will center on exactly what Hillary’s State Department intended to do about Libya after Qaddafi. Questions will be about mission pieces coming into play and being installed for deposing Qaddafi with regard to buying back weapons and buying others that were NOT bound for Syria but for the Transnational Council to take over the Qaddafi regime with particular emphasis on Tripoli and Benghazi. As noted from Politico below, this is the posture taken by Gowdy as his team.

Politico: The seven GOP members of the panel aim to strike the right balance during Thursday’s hearing with the former secretary of state. They’re hoping a professional approach, coupled with tough questions about security in Libya, U.S. foreign policy under Clinton and her email practices will help put to rest accusations that they’re ideologues bent on hurting the Democratic front-runner in the polls — or that the panel is a waste of taxpayer money. The hearing, which could last, sources say, until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., will delve into U.S. policy toward Libya under Clinton, who encouraged U.S. support of the rebels fighting Qadhafi. Republicans want to know what the goal of that policy was and whether she was trying to make Libya a centerpiece of her foreign policy.

Gowdy said he’s particularly interested in asking Clinton about “the increase in violence juxtaposed with the decrease in security” at the mission that was attacked, because “it’s counterintuitive.”

A 1999 report after the East African embassy bombings recommended that the secretary of state take a “personal and active role” in security issues, Republicans — including Gowdy — have noted. Clinton, however, has testified previously that she was not aware of Stevens’ requests for more protection. And while it’s unclear whether the panel has any evidence suggesting that she was, Gowdy says there’s still the issue of “why” those pleas for help didn’t reach her.

When it comes to the machinery that Hillary’s team, it does involve weapons and the contracts and routes they took to reach the destination of Libya, all while doing so against rules and sanctions. Hillary may be actually guilty of much more than we can begin to define.

*** The facts begin to surface:

Washington Times – Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government. At least one of those shipments, kept in a file marked “arms deal,” was supposed to come from Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, California, according to an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing that was contained in the file.
The shipment was to include rocket launchers, grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition, much of it new and inexpensive hardware originally produced in the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, according to an itemized list included in the end use certificate.

Dolarian Capital, part of a small network of U.S. arms merchants that has worked with U.S. intelligence, confirmed one of its licensing requests to ship weapons via Kuwait to Libya was approved by the State Department in spring 2011 and then inexplicably revoked before the armaments were sent. “Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya. The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter,” one of its attorneys said in a statement issued to The Washington Times. “As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, the existence of the documents and the temporary approval of at least one U.S. arms shipment provides the most direct evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department was aware of efforts to get weapons into the hands of rebels seeking to oust Gadhafi.

Mrs. Clinton is set to testify Thursday during a highly anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been ambiguous about the exact role the United States played in arming the rebels who overthrew Gadhafi, even as arms merchants and former CIA officials have stated publicly that a covert program facilitated such weapons transfers through a network of friendly weapons brokers and third-party countries.

The issue is sensitive because a U.N. ban on weapons shipments to Libya was in place at the time, although the State Department had the authority to deem a specific shipment in the United States interest and permit its transference, officials said.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment Tuesday, as did the CIA public affairs office.

To date, the public evidence of U.S. involvement in weapons trafficking to Libya has been episodic.

Reuters reported in 2011 that President Obama signed a special presidential directive that authorized covert U.S. action to destabilize Gadhafi and stand up a new regime, up to and including facilitating weapons transfers if it was deemed in the U.S. interest.

The New York Times, quoting anonymous officials, reported a year later that the Obama administration gave its secret blessing to some weapons shipments to Libyan rebels routed through Qatar during the height of the country’s revolution.

Fox News this summer quoted a former CIA official as providing testimony in a court case that the U.S. almost certainly ran a covert weapons operation to help arm the Libyan rebels.
But to date, no evidence has emerged publicly that the State Department had direct knowledge or involvement in reviewing potential shipments.

The Benghazi documents, however, show that U.S. diplomats in the consulate were monitoring a series of potential exports in spring and summer 2011 to third-party countries and that one or more were likely to land in Libya.

For instance, a June 28, 2011, email chain contained in a file titled “arms deal” documents an exchange among State Department employees about eight export licensing application numbers, indicating one or more of the shipments involved Libya’s Transitional National Council.

“DRL recommends BA L181-11 T6-F RWA — need decision from higher level on TNC,” reads one of the notations in the email.

DRL stands for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and TNC is the interchangeable acronym for the Transitional National Council, the NATO-supported Libyan rebel government.

The email also references the office of defense trade controls licensing, the State directorate in charge of registering arms exports.

The Dolarian Capital papers, dated May 18, 2011, include an end-user certificate that outlines a long list of heavy former Eastern-bloc weaponry and artillery to be shipped from the California-based arms dealer first to Kuwait, and then to Libya.

“This is to certify the following items are to be delivered by Dolarian Capital, Inc. [of] Fresno, California, United States and secured by M/s Specter Consultancy Services G.T.C. [of] Kuwait City, Kuwait to the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya. The Ministry of Interior has agreed the items are for the exclusive disposition of the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya and will not be re-exported or transferred to any third countries,” the certificate reads.

Just one month earlier, Mrs. Clinton privately endorsed inside the State Department the idea of using arms merchants to help the Libyans. “Fyi. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to her most senior aides.

Dolarian Capital and other U.S. arms merchants — all legally registered with the State Department — have worked with U.S. intelligence over the years to move covert shipments into hot spots around the globe such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

It applied for several State Department licenses to ship weapons to Libya, but only one got approved and then only temporarily before being revoked. The one export listed in the certificate was among the smaller shipments the company proposed for Libya, according to people familiar with the applications. In each instance, State and other U.S. agencies were directly aware the end destinations for the weapons were in Libya.

Dolarian Capital also is listed in court records as the source of weapons for another U.S. arms dealer, Marc Turi, who sought permission to ship weapons to Libya during the same time frame. Mr. Turi since has been charged criminally with making false statements in his application for those shipments, and has publicly asserted that Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and other U.S. officials sanctioned his involvement.

His attorney, J. Cabou, told The Times on Tuesday his client intends to show the United States facilitated the possible weapons shipments to Libya, which never occurred.

Mr. Turi strongly believes he had the permission of the U.S. government to engage in the actions for which he is now charged with and he is vigorously trying to prove that fact,” Mr. Cabou said in a phone interview.

Supporting Mr. Turi’s case is a former CIA officer named David Manners, who has told a federal judge in the case that “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC).”
The end-user certificate for the one Dolarian transfer, obtained by The Times, details an itemized list of Soviet developed weapons including 10 Konkrus missile launchers, 6,900 RPK, AKM, SPG-9 machine guns and 100 grenade launchers. It also included two Soviet SVD sniper rifles and nearly 8 million rounds of ammunition.

An authorization letter signed by TNC Defense Minister Omar Hareery accompanied the certificate “call[ing] upon” TNC Interior Minister Esam M.T. Shibani and representatives from Specter Consultancy GTC to “supply all military surplus and hardware to the Transitional National Council of Libya [and] provide military and security consultancy for both civilian and government elements within Libya.”

The sensitivity of U.S. involvement in arming the Libya rebels stems from a U.N. embargo.

On March 17, 2011, the U.N. passed Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and also established a panel of experts to monitor the arms embargo.

However, on March 27, 2011, only days after the intervention began, Mrs. Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians, a claim that came under immediate fire from British defense officials who disagreed with her interpretation of international law.

“We’re not arming the rebels. We’re not planning to arm the rebels,” British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the same day Mrs. Clinton hinted otherwise.

In February, The Times published as part of a series on the 2011 NATO intervention classified Libyan intelligence reports including a 16-page weapons list corroborated by Gadhafi aide and U.S. intelligence asset, Mohammed Ismael.

The weapons list revealed where and when arms were brought to both terror and jihadi groups in Libyan cities including the rebel fortress of Benghazi by the country of Qatar. It did not detail the weapons’ point of origin, but in February 2012 Qatari officials sent a letter to the U.N. “categorically” denying they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunitions.”

Tape recordings obtained and released by The Times earlier this year depicting secret calls between a U.S. intelligence asset and members of the Gadhafi family revealed the then Libyan regime believed NATO was helping Qatar and other countries illegally smuggle arms across their country’s borders to aide rebel forces in an attempt to destabilize Libya.

In a May 2011 telephone call between U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and heir apparent Seif Gadhafi, Mr. Gadhafi alleged illegal arms shipments were coming into his country.

Mr. Kucinich, an outspoken critic against the Libyan intervention who has since retired from the Congress, told the Times he would not be surprised to learn the U.S. violated the arms embargo.

“Violating the arms embargo to send heavy weapons to Libyan rebels was a phase in engineering a crisis to establish a pretext for U.S. intervention and overthrow of the Libyan government, a very dirty business indeed,” Mr. Kucinich said.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously reinforced the embargo in May when the 15-member panel declined a request from the TNC for fighter jets, attack helicopters and munitions, fearing the weapons could get into the wrong hands.

This blogger has written about the operations in Benghazi, 3 days directly after the attack:

https://founderscode.com/look-who-hillary-hired-for-benghazi-help/admin/

https://founderscode.com/13-hours-of-benghazi-hat-tip-to-the-heroes-rip-to-the-heroes/admin/

https://founderscode.com/wall-street-and-5th-avenue-planned-for-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/tanto-explains-13-hours-of-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/the-chase-in-benghazi/admin/

 

 

Western Wall as Muslim territory….WHAT?

Posted on by

Does the Bible matter? Does archeology matter? Does history matter? Does the United Nations matter? Defund the United Nations…PERIOD.

Israel’s Ambassador to UNESCO says the resolution is “a total Islamization” of a site that is revered by both the Jewish and Muslim faiths.

JPost: Israel is working to thwart a draft UNESCO resolution which declares that the Western Wall in Jerusalem – the most holy site in Judaism – belongs to al-Aksa Mosque compound.

The draft text to be voted on Wednesday in Paris states that UNESCO “affirms that the Buraq Plaza is an integral part of al-Aksa Mosque/al-Haram al-Sharif.”

Israeli Ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama Hacohen called the resolution “a total Islamization” of a site that is revered by both Jews and Muslims.

The six-page draft resolution – submitted by Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Palestinian Authority to the UNESCO Executive Board – broadly condemns Israeli actions in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.

At no point does the resolution mention the Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem, which dates back to biblical times. Nor does it reference the Temple Mount or the Western Wall, which was part of the retaining wall King Herod built for the Temple Mount more than 2,000 years ago. It also relies solely on Arabic names for the holy sites on and around the Temple Mount. More here.

Arab nations ask UN to designate Western Wall as Muslim territory

FNC: False rumors about Israel’s designs on a site held sacred by both Jews and Muslims helped trigger the bloody wave of attacks plaguing Jerusalem, but a tangible plan by six Arab nations to purge the Jewish State’s claim to its holiest location will be voted on Wednesday by the United Nations’ cultural arm.

A UN draft decision circulated by Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates reviewed by FoxNews.com “affirms that the Buraq Plaza is an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque” –  a statement that would specifically fold the Jewish Western Wall into Islamic domain on the Temple Mount.

“This is a clear endeavor to distort history, in order to erase the connection between the Jewish People and its holiest site, and to create a false reality,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a Monday statement.

“This is a clear endeavor to distort history”

– Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement

The glut of recent attacks by Palestinian terrorists is partially a reaction to unsubstantiated rumors that Israel sought to change the status quo at the Temple Mount, a location of iconic Jewish and Muslim structures which is overseen by an Islamic trust known as the Waqf. Ironically, Arab countries responded to the rumors of a status quo shift with a concrete proposal for a status quo shift.

The Western Wall is a remnant of a retaining wall that supported the second Jewish temple. Jews are not permitted to pray on the Temple Mount by rabbinic decree, so the Western Wall is the closest they can venture to their most hallowed grounds.

 

A vote had initially been expected Tuesday in Paris, but UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova sought to delay it. The Bulgarian diplomat, who could be a candidate for UN Secretary General when the position opens up, issued a statement Tuesday saying she “deplores the recent proposals under discussion by the UNESCO Executive Board that could be seen to alter the status of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list, and that could further incite tensions.”

The statement adds: “The protection of cultural heritage should not be taken hostage.”

The five-page draft decision, which only acknowledges the Jewish state as “Israel, the Occupying Power,” was circulated by the six Arab states because Palestine is not a member of the UNESCO Executive Board. The portion that would push the Western Wall into Islam’s purview is only a sentence on the second page. Much of the rest of the document largely blames Israel for past and present violence and further stresses an Islamic claim to everything on the Temple Mount.

The final page attempts to strengthen Palestinian links to other contested areas by reaffirming traditional burial sites for several major biblical figures claimed by both Jews and Muslims “are an integral part of Palestine.”

UNESCO initially approved a resolution designating Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron as “integral” parts “of Palestine” in 2010. That decision prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ask, “If the places where the Jewish nation’s forefathers and mothers – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and Rachel – were buried 4,000 years ago is not part of the Jewish nation’s heritage, then what is a heritage site?”

Fox News’ Jonathan Wachtel contributed to this report.

54 in SW Border Detention Center from Terror Countries

Posted on by

ElPaso: Activists gathered Saturday to protest the treatment of 54 detainees who started a hunger strike at the El Paso immigration detention center.

Members of the Detained Migrant Solidarity Committee said they took issue with the alleged mistreatment of the 54 detainees from South Asia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are currently detained at the El Paso Processing Detention Center, 8915 Montana.

“The idea is to show solidarity for the hunger strikers,” said organizer Roxana Bendezu. “We had to communicate what was going on at the detention center very quickly. These people have stayed here for months. They are seeking asylum and should be processed and released right away.”

The 54 detainees started a hunger strike Wednesday. Organizers said all of the hunger strikers are seeking asylum and have passed the credible fear test, a measure immigration officials use when determining who is fleeing from danger and is in need of asylum. Some detainees have been held for as many as 11 months, organizers said.

Migrants from Terrorist Nations in Texas ICE Center Seeking Asylum

JudicialWatch: The Obama administration insists the southern border is secure, yet dozens of illegal aliens from terrorist nations entered the United States through Mexico and are being held in a Texas Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing center.

The detainees are nationals of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and they are seeking asylum in the U.S. This week the 54 migrants from terrorist nations started a hunger strike to protest their detention at an ICE facility in El Paso. A local news report reveals that the foreign nationals “refused to eat or drink water” and a leftist immigrant advocacy group blasted the government for jailing the Afghans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis without proper medical care.

One of the detainees released from the ICE processing center over the weekend said he arrived in El Paso after traveling from South America to Juarez, Mexico. He is a national of Bangladesh, his name is MD Nasir Uddin and he claims to be a refugee seeking asylum. In the news report Uddin complains that he was jailed for no valid reason and was not provided with an interpreter, legal documents or judgements against him. “We are not criminals and they don’t have any proof of criminals,” Uddin is quoted.

Just last month the U.S. issued a terrorism alert warning that militants in Bangladesh may be targeting westerners. “The U.S. government continues to receive information that terrorist groups in South Asia may also be planning attacks in the region, possibly against U.S. government facilities, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests,” the bulletin states. “Terrorists have demonstrated their willingness and ability to attack locations where U.S. citizens or Westerners are known to congregate or visit.” Afghanistan and Pakistan have long been known as the headquarters of Al Qaeda’s global leadership and the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism offers all the juicy details.

The fact that individuals from these three terrorist nations have made it all the way to the U.S. through the Mexican border is downright alarming. Judicial Watch contacted officials from several Homeland Security agencies—including ICE and the Border Patrol—but none would comment on the 54 Afghans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis held in El Paso. The reality is that it’s unlikely the story would have been covered if not for the hunger strike and involvement of a publicity-seeking immigrant advocacy organization. In fact, the focus of the El Paso news report is the “critical medical condition” of some of the detainees and the fact that one was held in solitary confinement.

The reality is that this is part of a very serious issue involving the dangerously porous southern border. Judicial Watch has covered this extensively and over the summer published a story detailing how Mexican drug cartels are smuggling foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso. To elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers, they use remote farm roads—rather than interstates—and they are being transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads located around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road. The foreigners are classified as Special Interest Aliens (SIA) by the U.S. government, which prefers to keep this from the American public.