At the Altar of Treason

Posted on June 7, 2014June 7, 2014 by Denise Simon

All dedicated patriots across America have questioned the loyalty of Barack Obama and those past and present in his administration. Much has been written challenging his allegiance to what really is America and what she stands for.

Perhaps it would be a good time for reference purposes to list some profound work by others that have worked diligently to teach the undisputed facts.

Frank Gaffney offers a course that requires you to enroll.

Clare Lopez spells out the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government.

Robert Spencer and David Horowitz published a short book providing tangible evidence of Barack Obama’s outside loyalties.

Andrew McCarthy accomplished prosecutor and author spells out Barack Obama’s Sharia agenda.

While America has listed proven enemies that include al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, it is important to pull back the curtains now on the recent Taliban 5 release from Gitmo and what role Qatar played. Below are the reasons why we cannot trust Barack Obama, his inner circle but most especially Qatar to control the Taliban 5.

Of particular note is an organization called the Union of Good. The deep relationship that has ties inside the United States and spreads to other global destinations that includes Qatar. There are countless members of the Obama administration that were/are involved with Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas and the back-channels of al Qaeda, including previous Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. She willingly agreed to Barack Obama’s edict to cooperate with Qatar.

This is chilling and a warning for Americans located anywhere in the world, with particular attention to our soldiers that proudly display the American flag on their shoulders.

Qatar, at the core of Barack Obama’s hidden loyalty.

Following joint military operations during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Qatar and the United States concluded a Defense Cooperation Agreement that has been subsequently expanded. In April 2003, the U.S. Combat Air Operations Center for the Middle East moved from Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia to Qatar’s Al Udeid airbase south of Doha, the Qatari capital. Al Udeid and other facilities in Qatar serve as logistics, command, and basing hubs for the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. In spite of serving as the host to a large U.S. military presence and supporting U.S. regional initiatives, Qatar has remained mostly secure from terrorist attacks. Terrorist statements indicate that energy

infrastructure and U.S. military facilities in Qatar remain potential targets. U.S. officials have described Qatar’s counterterrorism cooperation since 9/11 as significant; however, some observers have raised questions about possible support for Al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups by some Qatari citizens, including members of Qatar’s large ruling family.

Qatari officials have taken an increasingly active diplomatic role in recent years, seeking to position themselves as mediators and interlocutors in a number of regional conflicts. Qatar’s deployment of fighter jets and transport planes to support NATO-led military operations in Libya signaled a new assertiveness, as have Qatari leaders’ calls for providing weapons to the Syrian opposition. Qatar’s willingness to embrace Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Taliban as part of its mediation and outreach initiatives has drawn scrutiny from some U.S. observers. Unrest in Syria and Hamas-Fatah reconciliation attempts have created challenging choices for Qatar, and Qatari leaders now host Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal following his split with the Asad regime. The Obama Administration has not voiced public concern about Qatar’s multidirectional foreign policy and has sought to preserve and expand military and counterterrorism cooperation with the ambitious leaders of this wealthy, strategically located country.

The emir visited Washington, DC, in April 2011 for consultations with President Obama and congressional leaders. In the wake of the visit, U.S. Ambassador to Qatar Joseph LeBaron referred to “a deepening of the relationship in political terms” and stated his belief that President Obama’s consultation with Shaykh Hamad moved the U.S.-Qatari relationship “in a direction that is qualitatively different from the past 10 years.”2 The Administration has not elaborated on what new political arrangements or agreements, if any, were concluded during the emir’s visit. In the months since, Qatar has continued its bold responses to unrest in various Arab countries by backing opposition movements in Libya and Syria and offering sanctuary to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal after his departure from Damascus.

Multilateral diplomacy aimed at ending the insurgency in Afghanistan entered a new phase in late 2011, culminating in an announcement by the Afghan Taliban that the movement is ready to open a political office in the Qatari capital, Doha, to engage with third parties.3 The announcement signaled a formal return to the international diplomatic stage by the Taliban, which operated embassies in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates prior to its ouster by U.S.-backed Afghan militias in 2001. Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr Al Thani has said, “A solution in Afghanistan requires the participation of the Taliban in a way that must be decided by the Afghans. That requires talking to them.”4 The Doha office was part of a package of U.S. proposals for confidence building measures with the Taliban; Afghan authorities reportedly had preferred Saudi Arabia or Turkey as a proposed site for the office, presumably out of concern that Qatar might not adequately monitor or limit the activities of senior Taliban personnel.

Afghanistan withdrew its ambassador from Doha for consultations in mid-December 2011, in apparent protest of what it implied were Qatari efforts to circumvent Afghan government participation in discussions concerning the proposed office and a negotiated settlement to the conflict. The Afghan ambassador returned to Doha in early 2012, in line with Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s acceptance of the Doha office concept. Still, Karzai has insisted that his government remain fully involved in all aspects of any negotiations, in Doha or elsewhere.

Afghan Foreign Minister Dr. Zalmai Rassoul visited Doha in early April 2012 and said that Qatar and the United States can help Afghans negotiate peace by “providing the appropriate environment for success,” but such peace talks should be “between Afghans.” Rassoul told the April 22 NATO Foreign and Defense Ministers Meeting in Brussels that, “we’re today closer to the opening of an address in Qatar for the purpose of facilitating direct negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban and other armed opposition groups than at any other point in the past. We hope to finalize an understanding on this in Kabul soon.

Qatar has supported the Arab League position backing internationally supported negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.6 In April 2011, Shaykh Hamad bin Khalifa said during a visit to the White House that “the most important issue for us in the region is that Palestine-Israeli conflict and how to find a way to establish a Palestinian state.” He signaled his support for President Obama’s goal of “supporting the existence of two states peacefully living side by side.” Qatari leaders also have criticized recent Israeli decisions on settlements and Jerusalem that they feel undermine prospects for a two-state solution. Qatar has been in the forefront of Arab-Israeli talks on expanding economic ties during periods of progress in the peace process. However, Qatar’s position regarding the Arab boycott of Israel is governed by the September 1994 decision by the GCC to terminate enforcement of the indirect boycotts, while maintaining, at least in theory, the primary boycott. An Israeli trade office in Doha was shuttered by the Qatari government in response to the January 2009 Gaza war and has not been reopened.

Qatar offered $50 million in financial support to the then-Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government and has hosted Hamas officials for numerous talks and consultations since January 2006. Israel’s then-Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni declined a Qatari invitation to participate in an October 2006 democracy conference in Doha because of the presence of Hamas representatives, but an Israeli delegation participated in the conference, led by lower-ranking Foreign Ministry officials.8 Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres visited Qatar in February 2007 and declined the emir’s reported suggestion that Israel negotiate directly with Hamas.

Some observers speculate that Qatar may be encouraging Libyan militia groups to provide weaponry or volunteers to support counterparts in the Syrian opposition. Qatari leaders have called for Syrian rebels to be armed, but no public confirmation of any connection to Libya has been established.

Qatar has pursued a policy of engagement with Iran in recent years, probably based on the countries’ shared energy reserves and Qatar’s calculation that engagement may help deter Iranian reprisal attacks on U.S. and Qatari targets in the event of any regional conflict involving Iran.

Qatari and Iranian officials signed a defense and security cooperation agreement in February 2010, and, in April 2010, Qatari military officers reportedly were invited to observe Iranian military drills in the Persian Gulf. In February 2010, Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr Al Thani reportedly encouraged the United States to engage directly with Iran in order to resolve the ongoing dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

In early 2011, Qatar attempted to resolve a government crisis in Lebanon and was rebuffed by Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian supporters. This precipitated the fall of the government of then-Prime Minister Saad Hariri and paved the way for a more confrontational Qatari approach to its relations with the government of President Bashar al Asad in Damascus. During the Syrian uprising, Qatar has taken an increasingly direct approach to insisting on a halt to violence against protestors, organizing multilateral Arab sanctions on Syria while quietly lending political support to opponents of Asad’s regime.

A U.S. embassy opened in Doha in 1973, but U.S. relations with Qatar did not blossom until after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. In the late 1980s, the United States and Qatar engaged in a prolonged diplomatic dispute regarding Qatar’s black market procurement of U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

The United States has provided limited counterterrorism assistance to Qatar to support the development of its domestic security forces (see Table 2 below), and the Export-Import Bank has provided over $2 billion in loan guarantees to support various natural gas development projects in Qatar since 1996. The Obama Administration has phased out limited U.S. foreign assistance and in recent years has requested military construction funds for facilities in Qatar. Since September 2005, Qatar has donated $100 million to victims of Hurricane Katrina in the U.S. Gulf states.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report and former U.S. government officials, royal family member and current Qatari Interior Minister Shaykh Abdullah bin Khalid Al Thani during the 1990s provided safe harbor and assistance to Al Qaeda leaders, including the suspected mastermind of the September 11 hijacking plot, Khalid Shaykh Mohammed.39 Several former U.S. officials and leaked U.S. government reports state that the late Osama Bin Laden also visited Doha twice during the mid-1990s as a guest of Shaykh Abdullah bin Khalid, who served then as Qatar’s minister for religious endowments and Islamic affairs, and later as minister of state for internal affairs.40 According to other accounts, Shaykh Abdullah bin Khalid welcomed dozens of so-called “Afghan Arab” veterans of the anti-Soviet conflict in Afghanistan to Qatar in the early 1990s and operated a farm where some of those individuals lived and worked over a period of several years.41

In January 1996, FBI officials narrowly missed an opportunity to capture Khalid Shaykh Mohammed in Qatar, where he held a government job at Qatar’s Ministry of Electricity and Water. Mohammed had been targeted for arrest in connection with an investigation of his nephew—1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef.42 The FBI dispatched team to arrest Mohammed, but he fled Qatar before he could be detained. Some former U.S. officials have since stated their belief that a high-ranking member of the Qatari government alerted Mohammed to the impending raid, allowing him to flee the country.

During the summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war and 2008-2009 Israel-Hamas war, Qaradawi publicly argued that Muslims should support the activities of Hezbollah and Hamas as legitimate resistance activities, based on Quranic injunctions to defend Muslim territory invaded by outsiders.55 Qaradawi hosts a popular weekly call-in television show on Al Jazeera and frequently delivers sermons in Qatari mosques.

Qaradawi has worked with a charitable umbrella organization, known as the Union of Good, that coordinates the delivery of relief and assistance to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In November 2008, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated the Union of Good as a financial supporter of terrorism pursuant to Executive Order 13224. According to the Treasury, “The Union of Good acts as a broker for Hamas by facilitating financial transfers between a web of charitable organizations—including several organizations previously designated under E.O. 13224 for providing support to Hamas—and Hamas-controlled organizations in the West Bank and Gaza.”56 Qaradawi has appeared at public events in Doha with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal since Meshaal’s relocation to Doha in early 2012.

Full text of this Congressional report with the citations is found here.

The core of the Barack Obama foreign policy carried out by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry with the help of Susa Rice, Samantha Power, along with foreign investments, donated monies and actions by USAID is now fully explained.

Clearly, this explains how the Taliban 5 are enjoying their new country-club setting and the revolving door of nefarious visitors and cards and letters of joy are now being exchanged.

National Security has been sacrificed at the hands of Barack Obama, who told us he is un-apologetic. The Altar of Treason, explained.

West Point Speech and Why

Posted on June 6, 2014June 6, 2014 by Denise Simon

Barack Obama has hidden his concern for terror threats and most often he has re-labeled it as an ‘overseas contingency operation’.

Then only recently did he give a speech at West Point explaining his foreign policy which he was forced to do for at least two reasons, the recent kidnappings and deaths at the hands of Boko Harem and the immediate release only a few days after the speech of the Taliban 5 from Guantanamo.

Okay, so where does that leave America for the next several years as Barack Obama has forced the shrinking of the United States footprint globally? Well, Barack Obama’s lack of policy and leadership with allies point to the very real possibility of NATO crumbling itself. This leaves China and Russia and especially the entire Shiite and Sunni world in a race for the top slots of globally power rankings.

In context, the lack of will and the aversion to colonialism at the hands of Barack Obama, simply removed the United States from the short list of the keepers of peace globally in six short years, something that experts predict will take at least fifteen years to ever begin to reverse, others predict as much as forty years and that is only if there is a collection of Reagan prodigies on the horizon. Not much hope so far.

One of the topic intelligence analyst with a real and candid background for saying what must be said is Michael Vickers. Here he is in his own assessment. Take it for your deep consideration.

WASHINGTON: If you want to understand why President Obama spoke so much about terrorism in his widely panned West Point speech, the head of Pentagon intelligence explained it pretty well today.

Click here to see the video of Vicker’s message.

Terrorism is and remains the top threat to the United States, Defense Undersecretary for Intelligence Mike Vickers said this morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The most interesting, and some would say anomalous, threat assessment he offered: China comes in at number seven after Al Qaeda and its affiliates, the Syrian civil war, Russian “revanchism,” Iran, North Korea and what he called the “persistent volatility” across South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa.

That’s right, China appears to come seventh when the Intelligence Community is planning and advising President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. It makes sense when you consider the long-range goals China appears to have set itself and the absence of a direct confrontation — so far — between the two powers.

Now folks in the Intelligence Community may well tut tut and profess that they examine each situation as it occurs, but budgeting requires prioritization and here it is.

What does all this mean in aggregate to the Intelligence Community and the Pentagon? Vickers said, “[as] senior intelligence officials, we haven’t seen this range of challenges on an administration’s plate in our careers.” Not only is the range of threats geographically enormous and conceptually varied, they are, as Vickers noted, “these are highly asymmetric challenges.” In Pentagon parlance that means the United States military isn’t necessarily well prepared to cope with them. And there are a lot of them.

Is Mike Vickers arguing that the Intelligence Community needs to remain very well financed, even in this age of declining defense budgets? Sounds like!

War to Luxury to War

Posted on June 4, 2014June 4, 2014 by Denise Simon

The Afghan villagers remember Bergdahl quite well mostly for the reason he was purposely heading into Taliban territory on a mission. While that State Department spokesperson is minimizing the words of the soldiers in Bergdahl’s unit, the State Department cannot ignore the words of the Afghanis.

“It was very confusing to us. Why would he leave the base?” said Jamal, an elder in the village of Yusef Khel, about a half-mile from the American military installation. (Like many Afghans, he goes by only one name). “The people thought it was a covert agenda – maybe he was sent to the village by the U.S.”

Locals remember Bergdahl walking through the village in a haze. They later told Afghan investigators that they had warned the American that he was heading into a dangerous area.

“They tried to tell him not to go there, that it is dangerous. But he kept going over the mountain. The villagers tried to give him water and bread, but he didn’t take it,” said Ibrahim Manikhel, the district’s intelligence chief.

So, let us turn to the home that the Taliban 5 left behind at Gitmo. Air conditioning, video games and recliners, soccer fields, first rate medical care and visitors were all part of the perks that the Gitmo detainees enjoyed. The Taliban 5 left this behind anxious to return to their jihad and Barack Obama aggressively and willingly delivered renewed inspiration and power to the enemy.

Military officials at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are attempting to make force-feeding a little more fun for detainees. Some longterm hunger strikers can now kick back in a plush recliner — well, not literally, since their ankles are restrained by shackles — and play video games or watch TV while being tube fed a liquid nutritional supplement.

Detainees can choose from hundreds of video games and movies, said Milton, the Guantanamo librarian who doesn’t give out his last name. They can watch Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland or play Portal 2. But, say, Call of Duty: Ghosts isn’t available — Milton said the library doesn’t carry violent video games or movies.

The Taliban specifically asked several years ago for these 5 Gitmo detainees as they were to lead the U.S. paid Taliban headquarters location in Doha. At first even those on the ‘Afghan Good Enough’ team pushed back. The office later closed and now it has a new home in Qatar under the support and approval of al Thani and Barack Obama.

On the Taleban side, it was, significantly, their (officially closed, but apparently still active) political bureau in Qatar that played the key role in negotiations, as the Taleban’s official statement acknowledged. An interview (in Pashto) with office member, Nek Muhammad, highlighted the role of the head of the office, Tayyeb Agha, as chief negotiator in the talks. (1) He said they had originally intended to negotiate directly with the Americans, but then decided it was better to go through Qatar given the complexity of the issues. (This also allowed the White House to say it “doesn’t talk to terrorists.”) One other interesting detail in Nek Muhammad’s interview is his hint that Na’im Kuchi played a role in the handover. Kuchi, a former senior mujahedin and Taleban commander, was detained in Guantanamo, but ‘reconciled’ on his release in 2004 and is now a member of the High Peace Council, although not a particularly active one. Nek Muhammad said Bergdahl had been transferred to the Americans at 6.30 in the evening on Saturday 31 May in the Bati area of Alisher district of Khost province, “near the home of Sardar Na’im Kuchi.” If Kuchi did play a role in the transfer, it looks most likely to have been in his personal capacity and kept secret from the High Peace Council (as news of the deal did not leak).

In one sweeping week under Barack Obama, the American military and the coalition forces of our allies has been dismissed, the blood and treasure spent is regarded with full disdain by the Commander-in-Chief.

While there have been countless scandals during the Obama administration, the Taliban being granted a new ‘win’ in the war on terror by the White House, the real tragedy is Obama’s misplaced loyalty to the Muslim Brotherhood where he clearly loves something else rather than the very America who put him in office only to betray and violate us all.

Andy McCarthy supports the sentiment, Barack Obama crossed over and makes the case on why. No signing statement, where Barack Obama decidedly took excessive power to finesse the law that he signed will or should give him the protection he thinks he built.

Snowden, Truthful Spy

Posted on May 29, 2014May 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

Each week there are media reports publishing additional nuggets with regard to the NSA, Edward Snowden and Obama administration policy alterations. Well at least something is coming out, where we can take these nuggets and go further.

Edward Snowden gave an interview about his job assignments and the fact they he did in fact attempt to raise some hard questions about what the NSA was doing without the knowledge or approval of common citizens.

In the interview he did raise an issue that spoke to the fact he sent an email to the NSA’s Office of Legal Council questioning the legality of USSID18, which is spying on U.S. citizens. Interestingly, this has not been mentioned before where it appears he was in fact seeking a response from the lawyers about the law versus Executive Orders.

Senator Dianne Feinstein confirmed the email exchange of which to date there has been only one released.

On Thursday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence posted on its website what it described as Snowden’s only correspondence with NSA’s Office of General Counsel. The email does not refer to any concerns about NSA surveillance programs. In the email, Snowden asks about a training session and whether presidential executive orders supersede federal laws.

The email was sent on April 5, 2013, at least three months after he first contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras and four months after he contacted journalist Glenn Greenwald. Rick Ledgett, the NSA’s deputy director who is leading the internal investigation of Snowden’s leaks, told Vanity Fair the he first illegally downloaded documents in the summer of 2012.

Given the notion that Snowden did try to reach out in some form before he bailed out of the United States does add a new twist to the order of actions.

See full story and email exchange here.

Now we need to look deeper at what USSID18 is.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE

ACTIVITIES OF
DOD INTELLIGENCE COMPONENTS
THAT AFFECT UNITED STATES PERSONS

This DoD regulation sets forth procedures governing the activities of DoD intelligence components that affect United States persons. It implements DoD Directive 5240.1, and replaces the November 30, 1979 version of DoD Regulation 5240.1-R. It is applicable to all DoD intelligence components.

Executive Order 12333, “United States Intelligence Activities,” stipulates that certain activities of intelligence components that affect U.S. persons be governed by procedures issued by the agency head and approved by the Attorney General. Specifically, procedures 1 through 10, as well as Appendix A, herein, require approval by the Attorney General. Procedures 11 through 15, while not requiring approval by the Attorney General, contain further guidance to DoD Components in implementing Executive Order 12333 as well as Executive Order 12334, “President’s Intelligence Oversight Board”.

Accordingly, by this memorandum, these procedures are approved for use within the Department of Defense. Heads of DoD components shall issue such implementing instructions as may be necessary for the conduct of authorized functions in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth herein.

This regulation is effective immediately.

PROCEDURE 3. RETENTION OF INFORMATION
ABOUT UNITED STATES PERSONS

A. APPLICABILITY

This procedure governs the kinds of information about United States persons that may knowingly be retained by a DoD intelligence component without the consent of the person whom the information concerns. It does not apply when the information in question is retained solely for administrative purposes or is required by law to be maintained.

B. EXPLANATION OF UNDEFINED TERMS

The term “retention,” as used in this procedure, refers only to the maintenance of information about United States persons which ,an be retrieved by reference to the person’s name or other identifying data.

C. CRITERIA FOR RETENTION

1. Retention of information collected under Procedure 2. Information about United States persons may be retained if it was collected pursuant to Procedure 2.

2. Retention of Information Acquired Incidentally. Information about United States persons collected incidentally to authorized collection may be retained if:

a. Such information could have been collected intentionally under Procedure 2;b. Such information is necessary to understand or assess foreign intelligence or counterintelligence;

c. The information is foreign intelligence or counterintelligence collected from electronic surveillance conducted in compliance with this Regulation; or

d. Such information is incidental to authorized collection and may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local, or foreign law.

3. Retention of information relating to functions of other DoD Components or non-DoD Agencies. Information about United States persons that pertains solely to the functions of other DoD Components or agencies outside the Department of Defense shall be retained only as necessary to transmit or deliver such information to the appropriate recipients.

4. Temporary retention. Information about United States persons may be retained temporarily, for a period not to exceed 90 days, solely for the purpose of determining whether that information may be permanently retained under these procedures.

5. Retention of other information. Information about United States persons other than that covered by subsections C.1. through 4., above, shall be retained only for purposes of reporting such collection for oversight purposes and for any subsequent proceedings that may be necessary.

D. ACCESS AND RETENTION

1. Controls on access to retained information. Access within a DoD intelligence component to information about United States persons retained pursuant to this procedure shall be limited to those with a need to know.

2. Duration of retention. Disposition of information about United States persons retained in the files of DoD intelligence components will comply with the disposition schedules approved by the Archivist of the United States for the files or records in which the information is retained.

3. Information acquired Prior to effective date. Information acquired prior to the effective date of this procedure may be retained by DoD intelligence components without being screened for compliance with this procedure or Executive Order 12333 (reference (a)), so long as retention was in compliance with applicable law and previous executive orders.

Stop With the al Qaeda Core Crap

Posted on May 29, 2014May 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

Just because Usama bin Ladin is dead does not translate to al Qaeda being decimated, in fact nothing is farther from the truth.

It should make one wonder why the CTC (Counter Terrorism Center) has only released 17 of the documents from the trove of evidence taken from the bin Ladin Pakistan compound. It also should be the question on why drone strikes have suddenly stopped in Pakistan and moved to other locations such as Yemen.

On the heels of the Barack Obama West Point speech yesterday on the foreign policy doctrine, both the White House and the State Department announced a $5 billion global counter-terrorism fund. Ah, why now? Why was there at least a two year delay in placing Boko Harem on the FTO by Hillary Clinton? Why was there a major delay in placing Ansar al Sharia on the FTO, which was not done until January of this year given the proof of their attack on our two locations in Benghazi?

—–

A Map of All the Countries That Now Have Al-Qaeda Affiliated Terrorist Groups

The United Nations decided late last week to add Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram to its list of terrorist organizations formally recognized as being associated with al Qaeda.

The UN said in its statement that Boko Haram—whose name loosely translates to “Western education is a sin”—has “maintained a relationship with the Organization of Al-Qaida [sic] in the Islamic Maghreb for training and material support purposes.”

Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan has been referring to the group as a terrorist organization since last year and arresting members accordingly. But his country’s battles with Islamism have been launched onto the international stage since Boko Haram abducted hundreds of schoolgirls last month. This has put Nigeria on the map in a way Jonathan would have done best to avoid.

It has also put Nigeria on this particular map of countries with recognized al-Qaeda affiliates.

—–

Obama’s $5 Billion Counterterrorism Fund Already in Trouble in Congress

by Josh Rogin

President Obama’s Wednesday announcement that he wants $5 billion more next year to fight terrorism came as a complete surprise to the congressmen who will have to give him the money, and they reacted Wednesday with confusion and skepticism.

The new fund, if Congress goes along, would be added to the administration’s Pentagon budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, inside what’s known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund. (That’s the cash that’s supposed to be used to help fight America’s wars, and is not considered part of the Defense Department’s core budget.) Experts and former officials warned that unless the administration comes to Congress with detailed plans of how the money will be spent and why those tasks can’t be completed inside the Pentagon’s already-huge budget, lawmakers are not likely to sign off on the idea. The total lack of administration outreach to Congress so far is not a good start.

At West Point, Obama said he was “calling on Congress to support a new Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries on the front lines”—from Yemen to Libya to Syria to Mali.

PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE

ACTIVITIES OF DOD INTELLIGENCE COMPONENTS THAT AFFECT UNITED STATES PERSONS

ACTIVITIES OF
DOD INTELLIGENCE COMPONENTS
THAT AFFECT UNITED STATES PERSONS