Somalia Mission Expands: EU To Target Pirates Up to Two Kilometers Inland

Last week, the European Union agreed to expand its anti-piracy mission to include land-based targets in Somalia. SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that air attacks up to two kilometers inland will be allowed. But an expansion of the mandate could face obstacles in Berlin, where opposition politicians warn that EU forces could get dragged into fighting on the ground.

Until now, the European Union’s Operation Atalanta, which targets pirates off the coast of Somalia, has been restricted to purely maritime operations. But that could soon change, now that the EU has agreed on a controversial expansion of the mission.

Last Friday, EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels agreed to expand the operation to include the coastal region. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the ministers agreed that Atalanta units should be able to target pirates and their infrastructure up to a limit of two kilometers (1.2 miles) inland. If the expansion is approved, it will be the first time that Western forces are allowed to target pirates on the Somali mainland.The expanded Atalanta mandate is aimed mainly at the pirates’ infrastructure, and the use of ground troops has been specifically ruled out. The operations will be limited to air strikes against targets such as storage tanks, boats and radio facilities. Initially, the EU wanted to keep secret the limit for how far forces could penetrate into the country, amid concerns that the pirates could simply shift their facilities further inland.

The limit itself was the subject of prolonged debate in Brussels. Military representatives had originally proposed a limit of four kilometers, but this met with considerable resistance from Germany and Spain. In the end, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle succeeded in arguing for strict limits on the land-based operations.

Avoiding Civilian Casualties

An expansion of the mission could have significant consequences for the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, which is currently taking part in the Atalanta mission with 291 soldiers and the combat support warship Berlin, stationed off East Africa. Germany is one of the few contributing countries that has helicopters on board its ships which could be used to attack targets along the coast of Somalia from the air. Military experts argue that such attacks should ideally be carried out with cannons mounted on helicopters, to hit the targets as accurately as possible and avoid civilian casualties. The helicopter cannons are considered particularly accurate, and the gun operators also have the advantage of having the target directly in front of them.

But if the German navy is to play a role in the expanded mission, then Berlin will need to get a new mandate for the operation approved by the German parliament, the Bundestag. The original plan was to get the mandate approved by Chancellor Merkel’s cabinet this week in a fast-track process. Now, however, sources in Berlin say that the cabinet will not vote on the mandate until mid-April. After that, the Bundestag will debate the extension.

There are already signs that Germany’s two main opposition parties, the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens, will not support expanding the mandate to allow air strikes on the mainland. That could make things tricky for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s administration. Although the government doesn’t technically need opposition support to get the mandate through parliament, the German government traditionally aims to achieve cross-party support for the Bundeswehr’s foreign missions, the idea being that such missions should enjoy broad support among the German population.

But even before that debate gets started properly, German politicians are already expressing doubts about the EU’s new approach. Even if the operation excludes the use of ground troops, if a helicopter were to have a technical problem, or be shot down from the ground, then soldiers might suddenly need to go ashore. Western nations still have painful memories of a 1993 incident in Somalia — later the subject of the book and film “Black Hawk Down” — when two US helicopters crashed in the Somali capital Mogadishu and an angry mob dragged the bodies of the pilots through the streets of the city.

A Militarization of the Problem

Critics such as SPD defense expert Rainer Arnold also oppose what they describe as a further militarization of the piracy problem. Arnold argues that piracy should be fought by targeting the flows of the millions of dollars the pirates earn in ransoms for kidnapped Westerners. In the run-up to the EU foreign ministers’ decision, Arnold had already announced that his party might oppose such a mandate in the Bundestag.

It remains unclear, however, whether the whole SPD parliamentary group would follow his lead in rejecting the expansion. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, for example, the party’s floor leader in parliament, was involved in setting up the mission while German foreign minister, a position he held from 2005 to 2009. It would be hard for him to now reject the mission out of hand.

It’s not just politicians who have misgivings about expanding the operation, either. There are also people in Germany’s law enforcement agencies who doubt whether the planned attacks against pirates’ infrastructure will yield real successes. In a recent closed-doors discussion, experts from Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), argued that the pirates’ small bases could hardly be distinguished from fishermen’s facilities from the air. Such air attacks, they said, carried a high risk of so-called collateral damage — in other words, civilian casualties.

In addition, possible air strikes would probably only cause the pirates to move their infrastructure further inland or into villages inhabited by innocent Somalis. Such relocation would also make it harder for intelligence agencies to track down the pirates’ hostages.

International Operations

The sea off the Somalia coast is regarded as the most dangerous in the world. Last year alone there were around 230 pirate attacks. With Somalia still without a functioning government, scores of young men continue to set out to sea to hijack ships passing along the vital trade route. The vessels and their crews are then held hostage for ransom, a lucrative activity.

The EU launched Operation Atalanta in December 2008 in a bid to tackle the problem. Last week, EU foreign ministers decided to extend the operation until December 2014.

NOTE: They need to quit arguing and directly hit the ports and enclaves, enough messin with em. No prisoners either.

As well as EU member states, non-EU countries such as Norway, Croatia and Ukraine have also contributed to the operation. The force has around 1,500 military personnel at its disposal. Depending on the time of year, it typically has between four and seven surface warships and two or three reconnaissance aircraft deployed off the coast of Somalia and in the Indian Ocean. Military units are currently drawn from a core group of 13 contributing countries, including France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom, among others.In addition to Atalanta, there is a substantial international force in the area, including the US-led, multinational group called the Combined Maritime Forces. NATO, too, is present and ships from China, India, Japan, Russia and other countries also patrol the waters.

Until now, the fight against Somali piracy has been mainly restricted to targeting the boats used by pirates. In addition, Atalanta forces track the motherships that pirates use to operate hundreds of kilometers from the coast. The mission also provides escorts to World Food Program vessels delivering food aid to the Somali people.


FBI removes 876 pages of training material on jihad for being inaccurate or offensive to Muslims

The Obama Administration continues its war against the truth about Islam and jihad. If any of this material was really inaccurate, then certainly it should have been removed. One wonders, however, who was judging its accuracy — was it Muslim Brotherhood-linked operatives intent on whitewashing uncomfortable truths about Islam? Or was it an informed and patriotic analyst? And removing material deemed “offensive to Muslims” is unconscionable, especially since Islamic supremacist anti-freedom groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations find offensive any and all anti-terror material that is accurate at all about the source of the jihad threat.

“At FBI, 876 pages of agent training material related to Muslims found offensive or inaccurate,” by Pete Yost for the Associated Press, March 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON (AP) — An FBI review of agent training material critical of Islam uncovered 876 offensive or inaccurate pages that had been used in 392 presentations, including a PowerPoint slide that said the bureau can sometimes bend or suspend the law.The bureau has not released the material, but Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois described a few pages of it in a letter asking FBI Director Robert Mueller to institute five changes so that inappropriate FBI training on Islam doesn’t happen again. On Friday, the FBI confirmed the number of inaccurate or offensive pages and presentations.

The bureau also said the documents that are either offensive or inaccurate have been taken out of training presentations.

Every trainer was identified and interviewed by an FBI inspection team and the team determined that the problems were performance-related — poor judgment or inadequate training — rather than intentional misconduct, said FBI spokesman Michael Kortan.

As a result, instructors were counseled and in some cases removed from training positions.

Durbin said he’s disturbed that the FBI doesn’t plan to produce a written report on the six-month review. He said he wants the agents who received the bad training to be retained.

It began last September after the online publication reported that the FBI had discontinued a lecture in which the instructor told agent trainees in Virginia that the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to be violent. The analyst subsequently gave a similar lecture at an FBI-sponsored public-private partnership in New York City.

Kortan declined to address the issue of retraining.

Out of 160,000 pages of training material reviewed, just 876 pages — less than 1 percent — were “inconsistent with the FBI’s core values,” said Kortan. “We strongly disagree that the analysts being trained were led to believe that we actually bend or suspend the law in any way. The one reference used in the slide was poorly described.”…

Durbin is out for blood, and Stalinist reeducation:

Durbin’s letter said he wants the FBI to turn over the offending training material to the Senate Judiciary Committee and wants unclassified versions of the material to be released to the public; wants instructors responsible for the inappropriate training reassigned; and wants to retrain agents who received the bad training. Durbin also wants the bureau to undertake a review of FBI intelligence analyses of Islam, American-Muslims and Arab-Americans; and wants a detailed training curriculum on Islam that has been approved by experts on Islam.Earlier this month, the FBI posted on its website a set of training principles which said that training must emphasize that religious expression, protest activity and the espousing of ideological beliefs “are constitutionally protected activities that must not be equated with terrorism or criminality” in the absence of other information about such offenses.

Posted by Robert

Obama Administration won’t prosecute Muslim who threatened to blow up White House

Why not? Do you think they would have hesitated to prosecute if a “right wing extremist” had threatened to blow up the White House? “Obama Administration Won’t Prosecute Saudi It Claims Threatened to ‘Blow Up White House,’” by Edwin Mora for CNS News, March 29 (thanks to Barbara):

( – The Obama administration says it will not prosecute a Saudi Arabian national who the administration claimed in congressional testimony entered the United Stateson a student visa and then was arrested after threatening to blow up the White House.On March 6, top officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security in both written and verbal testimony that DHS had arrested a Saudi national who was “threatening to blow up the White House and the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to the United States.”

A U.S. anti-terrorism law–18 U.S.C. 113B–says that a “person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction … (3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States; or 4) against any property within the United States that is owned, leased, or used by a foreign government, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

The statute says “the term ‘weapon of mass destruction’ means … any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title.” Section 921 says: “The term ‘destructive device’ means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—(i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses.”

In a written statement provided to, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS division responsible for enforcing the immigration law inside U.S. territory, said it has had the Saudi national in custody since Jan. 10 and that he is undergoing deportation proceedings. The statement said that “federal and local authorities declined criminal prosecution.”

The March 6 congressional hearing at which the DHS officials said this Saudi national had threatened to blow up the White House was called to examine why the U.S. government had allowed Moroccan national Amine El Khalifi to live illegally in the United States for 13 years before he was arrested while allegedly attempting to commit a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol. The ICE officials who testified cited the January arrest of a Saudi national who they said had threatened to blow up the White House as evidence of ICE’s effectiveness in tracking foreign nationals whose visas had expired or been revoked.

The two DHS officials who testified were John Cohen, DHS’s deputy counterterrorism coordinator, and Peter Edge, the deputy executive associate director for investigations at ICE.

“More recently in January 2012, ICE Special Agents from the Washington, D.C. office arrested a Saudi Arabian national who was admitted as an F-1 nonimmigrant student and violated the terms and conditions of his admission,” Cohen and Edge said in written testimony they jointly submitted to the committee. “The individual was referred for investigation after his status was terminated in SEVIS for failure to maintain student status, as well as for possessing several indicators of national security concerns, including threatening to blow up the White House and the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to the United States.”

Edge told the committee about the Saudi national in his verbal testimony before the committee.

“In January 2012, for example,” Edge testified, “ICE special agents from our Washington, D.C., office arrested a Saudi Arabian national who was admitted as an F-1 nonimmigrant student and violated the term and condition of his admission.”

“The individual,” Edge said, “was referred for investigation after his status was terminated in SEVIS [Student and Exchange Visitor Information System] for failure to maintain student status as well as for possessing several indicators of national security concerns, including threatening to blow up the White House and the Saudi Arabian cultural mission to the United States.”

SEVIS is an Internet-based system created by DHS to house information about people who come to the United States on student visas.

After Cohen and Edge testified in the subcommittee, asked ICE a series of questions about the Saudi national the two officials said had threatened to blow up the White House: Has he, or will he, be charged with any crime? Is the individual in custody or has he been removed? Where and what was he studying? How long has he been in the United States?

ICE initially responded by directing to the local police department of Fairfax County, Va., saying that it was handling the investigation.

Fairfax County Police Spokeswoman Shelley Broderick confirmed that her department carried out an investigation of the Saudi national, but said that the police department could not provide any information about him because he had never been charged by them. Broderick added that federal authorities, not local ones, would be responsible for any terrorism-related charges….

When asked if an individual who threatens to blow up the White House can be prosecuted by federal authorities, a Department of Justice spokesman said in an e-mail, “Whether or not such a case would or could be charged in federal [court] depends entirely on the evidence available to investigators and prosecutors, the underlying facts/circumstances of the matter, and the law.”

“That’s all I have for you,” said the Justice Department spokesman.

According to the report of the 9-11 Commission, one of the Sept. 11
hijackers, Hani Hanjour, was a Saudi Arabian national who was admitted to the U.S. on a student visa.

Posted by Robert