By Lisa Bryant
May 16, 2012

PARIS, France – War crimes tribunals in The Hague are hearing cases against former Bosnian-Serb military commander Ratko Mladic and former Liberian president Charles Taylor.

Radko Mladic is facing 15 charges:

Counts 1, 2: Genocide, Complicity in Genocide for a campaign to destroy Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.
Count 3: Persections on political, racial and religious grounds.
Counts 4, 5, 6: Extermination and Murder of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats or other non-Serbs.
Counts 7, 8: Deportation and Unlawful Attacks for the forcible transfer of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats or other non-Serbs.
Counts 9 to 14: Terror and Unlawful Attacks.
Count 15: Taking of U.N. Hostages.
??Two decades after the start of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s civil war, Ratko Mladic — the man accused of some of its worst atrocities — went on trial Wednesday in The Hague.

Mladic’s trial started with opening arguments by the prosecution. The former Bosnian-Serb general faces 11 counts of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. He strongly rejects the accusations, and the court has entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf.

Dressed in a grey suit, the 70-year-old Mladic gave a thumbs-up as he entered the court room. He appeared defiant as prosecutor Dermot Groome related some of the war’s bloodiest atrocities in graphic detail, using pictures and video clips.

One of the crimes of which Mladic is accused is a 1995 bombing of a Sarajevo market that killed more than 30 people and wounded more than 70 others. Groome read out a witness account of the incident.

“When I got to that place, or rather a few steps before, I saw a great mess and commotion,” said Groome. “There was blood all over the place, flowing in the streets. Bits of human flesh scattered around. Bits of clothing torn and scattered all over.”

The prosecution claims Mladic helped mastermind a brutal “ethnic-cleansing” campaign to drive Bosnian Muslims and Croats from land that the perpetrators wanted only for Serbs. Among the most horrific charges against him relates to the killing of roughly 8,000 men and boys in the city of Srebrenica.

Captured a year ago, Mladic is the last of the major figures to face trial for the Bosnian conflict. Mladic’s boss, former Bosnian-Serb political leader Radovan Karadzic, is already on trial before the Hague tribunal.

The opening of the Mladic trial coincided with the appearance of former Liberian president Charles Taylor before another court in The Hague. In a rambling address, Taylor claimed witnesses for the prosecution had been paid and coerced to testify against him.

Judges found Taylor guilty last month of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone.

Judges are scheduled to sentence Taylor later this month. Both the defense and prosecution are expected to appeal.
Source: http://www.voanews.com/content/mladic_trial_opens_in_the_hague/666720.html

May 16, 2012
By ERIC BELLMAN

JAKARTA—American pop star Lady Gaga will likely have to cancel her Indonesian concert scheduled for next month after police declined to give the necessary permit following protests by some Islamic groups who say she dresses provocatively.
Though the June 3 “Born This Way Ball” concert had already sold out of its more than 50,000 tickets, national police spokesman Boy Rafli Amar said the event had been denied the police permit necessary for such a large gathering.

“Their permit had been denied,” he said Tuesday. “They have no permit to do the show, so it would be illegal” if organizers tried to proceed.

Big Daddy Entertainment Group, the Indonesian company promoting the concert, couldn’t be reached to comment Tuesday.

Associated Press

Lady Gaga is scheduled to perform in Jakarta on June 3.
.While Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country, the Southeast Asian nation of 240 million has long been seen as moderate and largely secular. A small but vocal—and sometimes violent—minority has at times sought to impose its will, serving as a sort of moral police for the country.

Some have been protesting since last week that Lady Gaga’s skimpy clothing and suggestive dance moves and lyrics shouldn’t be promoted in Indonesia because it is a Muslim nation. Hard-line groups with a history of violent protest have even threatened to use physical force to keep the artist out of the country. Worried that they couldn’t guarantee security, Jakarta police recommended the permit for the show be denied, and Tuesday the National police decided to comply, said Mr. Amar.

While fringe groups are often able to disrupt or even block smaller gatherings in Indonesia, their move to derail the Lady Gaga concert looks likely to be the first time they have been able to stare down a big Western star. In the past year, top names such as Stevie Wonder, Justin Bieber and Kylie Minogue have performed in Indonesia without incident.

“The fundamentalists get upset when an artist is going to dress sexy,” said Hasief Ardiasyah, Jakarta-based associate editor of Rolling Stone Indonesia. “In the past year or so, there has been an increase in high-profile acts that have come to Indonesia, but none of them have had problems like this.”

The frequent public demonstrations of some conservative Muslims against what they see as Western influences in Indonesia, and their support of new laws—such as prohibitions on pornography and local-government initiatives to restrict gambling, alcohol and other activities frowned upon by more religious residents—have brought them occasional victories with local governments and in the courts, Parliament and other public offices.

In February 2011, one of Indonesia’s biggest local stars was sentenced to prison for making sex tapes that triggered a national outcry and a public debate about morals when they were leaked onto the Internet. Nazril Irham, lead singer of a popular band called Peterpan, was sentenced to 3½ years in jail and fined $28,000 for two blurry, homemade sex videos seen by Internet users across Indonesia. Meanwhile in 2010, the editor in chief of Playboy Indonesia started a two-year prison term for publishing pictures of scantily clad women.

Despite those episodes, foreign direct investment has continued to flow into the country, which is widely seen among Western investors as one of the world’s most promising emerging markets.

—Yayu Yuniar contributed to this article.
Write to Eric Bellman at eric.bellman@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 16, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Indonesia Blocks Gaga After Islamists Protest.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303505504577405850044767754.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

By Perry Chiaramonte
Published May 14, 2012
A New York police officer seeking to rename a Harlem street for a cop gunned down inside a Manhattan mosque 40 years ago was told by local leaders to seek the blessing of area Muslims.

NYPD Officer Philip Cardillo was shot dead in an infamous 1972 incident in which police responded to a fake “officer down” call from Muhammad Mosque No. 7, the New York headquarters for the Nation of Islam. The accused gunman was later acquitted, and the city’s perceived unwillingness to back the police has long been seen as a low point in relations between city government and the police department. After four decades, NYPD Inspector and local Precinct Commander Rodney Harrison wants a section of 123rd St. named after Cardillo.

“It’s been 40 years,” retired NYPD cop Randy Jurgensen, who was at the mosque when Cardillo was killed, told FoxNews.com. “It would be closure for the Cardillo family and the police officers there that day.”

“I think they have to give the Inspector some sort of answer.”

- Randy Jurgensen, former NYPD cop

In New York, the City Council typically approves street namings on the recommendation of local Community Boards. But members of Community Board 10, which represents the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, have effectively blocked Harrison’s plan by telling him to seek the approval of local Muslim leaders.

“The biggest concern is you are opening up old wounds,” one board member told Harrison, according an observer at the hearing. “This [incident] was explosive. Harlem was split down the middle,” one board member said to Harrison as he was making his proposal, according an observer at the hearing.

With the proposed street renaming in limbo, the irony of requesting local mosque leaders’ permission to honor a fallen cop is not lost on police.

“I think they have to give the Inspector some sort of answer,” said Jurgensen, who wrote “Circle of Six,” a book about the incident. “They have to answer the request.”

Jurgensen said the board seems to be trying to avoid landing in the middle of a controversy. “They are understandably playing it safe,” he said.

When Harrison attended the meeting with several retired NYPD officers, the board told him he should get a letter of support for the project from local imams. He said he had spoken to several and had been assured they would not object, but he did not get letters expressing their support.

“While he had letters of support, he did not have any from any imams,” said one person from CB 10 who is familiar with the matter. “The letters aren’t required for the proposal to go through, but we feel that those involved with the proposal should reach out to them.”

Harrison, who could not be reached for comment, told the board he doesn’t think it is likely imams will openly back the plan.

“They are not going to come in here and say, ‘thumbs up,’” Harrison said.

CB 10 Chairwoman Henrietta Lyle told FoxNews.com Harrison had not completed his application properly. But at the public meeting, she said the board needs to hear from the mosques and that it is up to the NYPD to arrange a meeting with the imams, according to an observer at the meeting.

“They seem to be making a lot of excuses not to do this for a cop who died trying to protect that community,” said a source familiar with the issue.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/14/nypd-officer-told-to-get-muslim-leaders-blessing-to-honor-cop-killed-in-mosque/#ixzz1v8l5Vyjl

May 15, 2012

This event is meant to spread awareness of the ongoing hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. This is both a protest against the NEED for hunger strikes as a form of resistance to the Israeli occupation and a show of support in solidarity with the Palestinian hunger strikers.

Background:
As of today there are at least 6 hunger strikers close to death. As of May 11th, there are two prisoners, Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh, both being held without charge who are on their 74th day without food.

In April, over 1,200 from total 11,000 Palestinian prisoners began open-ended hunger strikes to protest the conditions of their imprisonment, including the practice of “administrative detention”. Under this form of detainment prisoners can be held without charge sometimes for years. This was the case with former prisoner Khader Adnan, who was finally released in April after a 66-day hunger strike (concluded in February), and only after significant international attention was given to his plight. Also of note this year was the similar 43-day hunger strike of Hana Al-Shalabi, who only ended her strike after agreeing to a 3-year expulsion in the Gaza Strip (she usually lives in the West Bank). Like Adnan, Al-Shalabi was fighting the practice of administrative detention.

Israel continues to detain children and has 1,600 of them who are all under 18.

by Linah Alsaafin on Sun, 05/13/2012
In Defense of Human Dignity
The General Federation of Independent Trade Unions in Palestine calls upon all Palestinians and those in solidarity with their cause throughout the world, to stop whatever they are doing for 10 minutes at 12 pm Jerusalem time (9am GMT) on Monday, May 14th, 2012, On the Twenty-Eighth Day of the Open Ended Hunger Strike of Palestinian Prisoners in Israeli Jails, leave their homes, cars, and workplaces and take a collective stand in solidarity with the ongoing Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike.

En defensa de la dignidad humana
La Federación General de los Sindicatos Independientes de Palestina exhorta a todos los palestinos y todos los pueblos y las personas solidarios con su causa en el mundo, de detener lo que están haciendo durante 10 minutos el lunes, 14 de mayo de 2012, a las 12 de la mañana, hora de Jerusalén ( 9 GMT) En el día 28 de la huelga de hambre abierta de los prisioneros palestinos en las cárceles israelís, , y a salir de sus casas, coches, y lugares de trabajo, para una manifestación colectiva de solidaridad con la huelga de hambre en curso de los prisioneros palestinos

A la défense de la dignité humaine

La Fédération Generale des Syndicats Indépendants en Palestine font appel à tous les Palestiniens et ceux qui sont solidaire avec leur cause autour du monde d’arrêter tout ce qu’ils sont en train de faire pendant 10 minutes à midi horaire de Jerusalem (10 GMT +1) ce Lundi, 14 Mai 2012, pour le 28ème jour de la grève de la faim des Prisonniers Palestiniens dans les prisons Israéliennes, et de quitter leurs maisons, leurs voitures, et leurs travail pour montrer leurs solidarité avec les grévistes de la faim.
Source: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/linah-alsaafin/international-action-day-palestinian-prisoners-hunger-strike-14-may?utm_source=EI+readers&utm_campaign=4d0169b5c2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

May 13, 2012
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) – A bill designed to prevent Kansas courts or government agencies from making decisions based on Islamic or other foreign legal codes has cleared the state Legislature after a contentious debate about whether the measure upholds American values or appeals to prejudice against Muslims.
The Senate approved the bill Friday on a 33-3 vote. The House had approved it, 120-0, earlier in the week. The measure goes next to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who hasn’t said whether he’ll sign or veto the measure.

The measure doesn’t specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says that courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can’t base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

But several supporters specifically cited the potential use of Shariah law in Kansas as their concern. Though there are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law, supporters of the bill cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law.

The bill’s supporters said it simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, said a vote for the legislation is a vote to protect women.

“In this great country of ours and in the state of Kansas, women have equal rights,” Wagle said during the Senate’s debate. “They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”

The bill passed both chambers by wide margins because even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn’t represent a specific political attack on Muslims.

“We don’t have any intolerance in this bill. Nobody’s stripped of their freedom of religion,” said Sen. Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican. “This is talking about the law — American law, American courts.”

But several senators noted that supporters of the bill have singled out Shariah law in talking about it.

“This bill will put Kansas in a light that says we are intolerant of any other faith,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican who voted against the bill. “I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning if I didn’t stand up and say I don’t want to be that kind of person and I don’t want to be in a community or a state that is that way.”

Both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the National Conference of State Legislatures say anti-Shariah proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.

“It is an effort to demonize Islam,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based council. “As Muslims are seen participating in a positive way in society, that really irritates some people.”

In Kansas, 45 House members, led by Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican sponsored a bill aimed at Shariah law last year. The House approved it overwhelmingly, but it stalled in the Senate; this year, the House pushed another version, and pressure built on senators.

Mast had a news conference Thursday to highlight the Sedgwick County case, in which Hussein Hamdeh, a Wichita State University physics professor, filed for a divorce in November 2010 from his wife, Hala.

Their Islamic marriage contract, made in Lebanon, promised her a $5,000 payment should they split. He argued that the contract settled property issues, while Islamic law limited spousal maintenance payments to her to three months. Her attorney said in a court document that following Islamic law would leave her “destitute.”

Hussein Hamdeh’s attorney declined to comment because the case is pending. Hala Hamdeh’s attorney did not return a telephone message seeking comment.

Sen. Garrett Love, a Montezuma Republican, said even if no Kansas court has yet based a decision on foreign legal codes, “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still protect Kansans from those foreign laws being used in the future — a future that really may not be that far away.”

But several senators questioned whether the legislation is necessary, arguing Kansas judges and officials already must adhere to the U.S. and state constitutions. Hooper derided it as “an anti-unicorn” bill.

“All it does is increase hostility toward Islam and suspicion of Muslims,” Hooper said.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-12/kansas-lawmakers-anti-islamic-law/54914292/1

May 12, 2012

By ANTOINETTE KELLY,
IrishCentral.com Staff Writer

An Irish American U.S. military officer who had been teaching that Islam in general is America’s enemy has had his class canceled.

U.S. officials has stressed repeatedly over the last decade that the U.S. is at war with Islamic extremists, but not the religion itself.

“They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit,” one course instructor, Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley reportedly said in a presentation last July at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia. The college teaches midlevel officers and government civilians on subjects related to planning and executing war.

In departure from military guidelines Dooley also presumed, for the purposes of his theoretical war plan, that the standards of the Geneva Conventions were “no longer relevant.”

Statements from the suspended course included:

- They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit.

- Islam as it currently defines itself is an ideology rather than solely a religion with the normally associated protections we afford such beliefs.

- It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.

- The United States has come to accept that radical ‘true Islam’ is both a political and military enemy to free people throughout the world.

- Possible outcomes of an anti-Islam campaign: ‘Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation, Mecca and Medina destroyed, Islam reduced to cult status.’

- The only solution for the United States might ultimately might be to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, just as the US had done in Hiroshima and the allied forces had firebombed Dresden

Dooley added: “This would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable…).”

A copy of the suspended course was posted online by Wired.com’s Danger Room blog. Dooley still works for the college, but is no longer teaching, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey told the press.

After generating outrage with his comments Dooley refused to talk to the Associated Press, saying “Can’t talk to you, sir,” and hanging up when reached by telephone at his office Thursday.

Dooley was commissioned as a second lieutenant upon graduation from West Point in May 1994. He served in overseas tours in Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait and Iraq and has numerous awards including a Bronze Star Medal, the fourth-highest military award for bravery, heroism or meritorious service.

In Dooley’s model campaign to force a transformation of Islam he called for “a direct ideological and philosophical confrontation with Islam,” presuming that Islam is an ideology rather than just a religion. Dooley also asserted that Islam has already declared war on the West, and on the US specifically.
Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-American-officer-stopped-from-teaching-that-Islam-is-Americas-enemy-151233525.html

May 12, 2012

By Al Arabiya with Agencies

A panel of federal judges grilled Justice Department lawyers on Friday over the U.S. government’s “no-fly” list, questioning whether those barred from commercial air travel for suspected terrorism ties are given any realistic avenue for appeal.

Government attorneys were asked to defend the process as lawyers for 15 Muslims in the United States who have been placed on the no-fly list sought to reinstate their constitutional challenge of the airline security measure.

The plaintiffs, who are U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents, said they learned of their “no-fly” status when they were blocked from boarding a commercial flight without prior notice, and were later denied any effective means of petitioning the government to be removed from the list.

“They have been deprived of their rights without redress,” Nusrat Choudhury, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, said in court, adding that her clients “want the opportunity to be heard before a decision-maker.”

A U.S. district court judge in Portland, Oregon, dismissed the original lawsuit, filed in June 2010, ruling the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

The ACLU then asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the case and decide the proper legal venue for it. Oral arguments on that request were heard on Friday.

The “no-fly” list, established in 2003 and administered by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, includes some 20,000 people deemed by the agency as known to have, or reasonably suspected of having, ties to terrorism. About 500 of them are U.S. citizens, according to an agency spokesman.

The plaintiffs, who are residents of Oregon and other states and include four veterans of the U.S. armed forces, deny any terrorism links. “None of the plaintiffs pose any threat to airline security,” Choudhury told Reuters before Friday’s hearing.

The no-fly restriction has kept the 15 plaintiffs from visiting family and traveling for work or study, and several apparently were added to the list while abroad, where they ended up stranded as a result.

“They’re ordinary Americans like everyone else,” Choudhury said. “What happened to them could happen to anyone when the government operates a secret watchlist.”

Their suit argues that the government violated their constitutional rights to due process and the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act by failing to provide notice and the reasons for their inclusion on the list or any realistic procedure for contesting that status.

The suit was first filed in 2010 in Oregon, where a district court dismissed it due to lack of proper jurisdiction. At that time, the government gave each of the 10 travelers who were stranded a one-time waiver to fly home, but no explanation of why they were put on the list or if they were still on it, Choudhury said

The ACLU is seeking to remove the plaintiffs from the list immediately or allow them a chance to clear their names. The group argues that those seeking to question or challenge their no-fly status are confined to a dead-end process in which they fill out a form and receive no actual explanation in return.

The government argues there is an adequate appeals process in place and that all the plaintiffs have used it.

Friday’s hour-long proceeding before the three-judge 9th Circuit panel dealt mostly with issues of jurisdiction.

‘Too bad, you lose?’

But the judges also delved into the substance of the lawsuit, pointedly asking government lawyer Joshua Waldman to explain how a person denied permission to fly goes about contesting the restriction.

“How would you proceed? … What should the plaintiff’s do?” asked Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, adding that he wondered whether petitioners essentially faced the forgone conclusion of “too bad, you lose.”

Waldman described an administrative procedure in which individuals ultimately can take their case directly to a federal appeals court.

But the judges questioned whether this constituted a feasible avenue for challenging one’s no-fly status since appellate judges by definition are limited to reviewing the records established through lower-court proceedings.

Kozinski also pressed Choudhury, the ACLU lawyer, on how individuals could seek legal redress without knowing that they have been placed on the no-fly list. She replied that they know because “they have been denied boarding (a flight) in a very public manner.”

The suit was originally filed in Oregon because only one plaintiff – Mohamed Kariye, an imam at a large Portland mosque – was in the United States at the time.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Timothy Healy, director of the Terrorist Screening Center, are defendants in the suit.

The appeals court gave no indication when it would render a decision.

Source: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/12/213574.html

May 11, 2012
By Kari Huus, msnbc.com

Emerging details of inflammatory anti-Islam materials used in U.S. military training have prompted a chorus of outrage from civil rights and American Muslim groups, and growing demands for the dismissal of military leaders associated with the course, and for other actions to address the issue.

The materials, first detailed by Wired.com, used in an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., promoted “total war” against Muslims in order to stave off terrorism. The course, “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism,” raised the option of “taking war to a civilian population,” in disregard of the Geneva Convention of 1949, and possibly destruction of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s holiest sites.
“This is Abu Ghraib by power point and lectern,” said Mikey Weinstein, president of the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), referring to the scandal that erupted in 2004 after the surfacing of torrid pictures of U.S. troops abusing prisoners in Iraq. “It’s even worse than Abu Ghraib. What they are talking about is essentially genocide,” of Muslims.

——————————————————————————–

The military announced a review of its training materials and canceled the “Perspectives” course in late April. The action came after an FBI review resulted in the elimination of reams of materials that were found to be discriminatory against Muslims, treating the whole population with suspicion.

The details coming to light from the the 8-week course at an elite military institution — taught to officers since 2004 — have shocked even those who have long complained about discrimination against Muslims.
Instructor Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, the main focus of the criticism, taught that the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict are “no longer relevant.”

Click here for a slideshow from the course published by Wired magazine.

“This would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable…).”

Dooley’s materials mock the notion of “moderate Muslims.” He taught that the growing number of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States would generate more adherents to use “violent jihad” in pursuit of Islamic domination.

The course materials admit that the actions and views included will not be seen as “politically correct.”

Indeed, the courses contradict U.S. government positions — as represented internally and to U.S. allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere — that while the country is fighting Islamic extremists, it is not at war with the religion or its adherents as a whole.

On Thursday, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey called the course “totally objectionable” and “against our values.”

Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon that Lt. Col. Dooley was no longer teaching, but has kept his job at the college, a top post-graduate professional military institution that serves students from around the world.

Among the organizations calling for Dooley’s dismissal from the college is the Council on American Islamic Relations.

“It is imperative that those who taught our future military leaders to wage war not just on our terrorist enemy, but on the faith of Islam itself be held accountable,” wrote CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad in a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “These shocking revelations are completely out of line with the longstanding values of one of our nation’s most respected institutions.”
The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee is urging the Pentagon to recall and retrain military personnel who have been subjected to the anti-Islam material.

“It’s very troubling,” Abed Ayoub, ADC legal director, told msnbc.com. “You’re sending American soldiers overseas with these trainings and these biases … I think there definitely should be a study as to what impact these trainings have had on their actions.”

Weinstein, from MRFF, asserts that Dooley and others in his chain of command who knew about the course materials or should have known about the material should face court-martial.

“MRFF calls for the immediate dismissal of Lt. Col. Dooley, as well as an immediate condemnation, deeply probing investigation, and swift trial by courts-martial of those responsible for allowing content advocating genocide to be used to indoctrinate future leaders within the U.S. armed forces,” he told msnbc.com.

MRFF has filed request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking to surface all communication and documentation about the Perspectives course. Weinstein, a former Air Force judge advocate general, or JAG, and lawyer in the Reagan White House, believes the course is merely a symptom of a larger problem. In recent years he has campaigned against the military’s invitation of speakers that are known for virulent anti-Islam views.

“This is simply a small cancer cell that is rapidly metastasizing,” he said. “This is representative of a larger more sinister force which is fundamentalist Christianity.”

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
•’Tripawed’ the 3-legged grizzly returns to Denali
•Video: Pier collapses during prom photo shoot
•Cities: Occupy protests cost taxpayers millions
•Plastic card makes landfall in Alaska after 33-year sea voyage
•Houston reporter fired for stripping files discrimination complaint
•Suspected kidnapper dead, 2 girls found unharmed
•Son defies odds to walk into returning soldier’s arms

Advertise | AdChoices

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook
Source: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/11/11659853-outrage-calls-for-action-over-anti-muslim-materials-in-military-training

May 10, 2012
By Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman
The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a “total war” against the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of “Hiroshima” to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the “civilian population wherever necessary.”

The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. It’s only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to make sure it doesn’t contain similarly hateful material, a process that is still ongoing. But the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college, pending an investigation. The commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley’s classroom, listening to the inflammatory material week after week, have now moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military.

For the better part of the last decade, a small cabal of self-anointed counterterrorism experts has been working its way through the U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement communities, trying to convince whoever it could that America’s real terrorist enemy wasn’t al-Qaida — but the Islamic faith itself. In his course, Dooley brought in these anti-Muslim demagogues as guest lecturers. And he took their argument to its final, ugly conclusion.

“We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,’” Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation (.pdf), which concluded with a suggested manifesto to America’s enemies. “It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.”

Dooley could not be reached for comment. Joint Forces Staff College spokesman Steven Williams declined to discuss Dooley’s presentation or his status at the school. But when asked if Dooley was responsible for the course material, he responded, “I don’t know if I would classify him [Dooley] as responsible. That would be the commandant” of the school, Maj. Gen. Joseph Ward.

That makes the two-star general culpable for rather shocking material. In the same presentation, Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like “Islam reduced to a cult status” and “Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation.” (It’s an especially ironic suggestion, in light of today’s news that Saudi intelligence broke up the most recent al-Qaida bombing plot.)

International laws protecting civilians in wartime are “no longer relevant,” Dooley continues. And that opens the possibility of applying “the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki” to Islam’s holiest cities, and bringing about “Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.”

Dooley’s ideological allies have repeatedly stated that “mainstream” Muslims are dangerous, because they’re “violent” by nature. Yet only a few of al-Qaida’s most twisted fanatics were ever caught musing about wiping out entire cities.

“Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as ‘political correct’ in the eyes of many,” Dooley adds. “Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.”

Dooley, who has worked at the Joint Forces Staff College since August 2010, began his eight-week class with a straightforward, two-part history of Islam. It was delivered by David Fatua, a former West Point history professor. “Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldn’t have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself,” Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam.

Shireen Burki declared during the 2008 election that “Obama is bin Laden’s dream candidate.” In her Joint Forces Staff College lecture, she told students that “Islam is an Imperialist/Conquering Religion.” (.pdf)

Stephen Coughlin claimed in his 2007 master’s thesis that then-president George W. Bush’s declaration of friendship with the vast majority of the world’s Muslims had “a chilling effect on those tasked to define the enemy’s doctrine.” (.pdf) Coughlin was subsequently let go from his consulting position to the military’s Joint Staff, but he continued to lecture at the Naval War College and at the FBI’s Washington Field Office. In his talk to Dooley’s class (.pdf), Coughlin suggested that al-Qaida helped drive the overthrow of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. It was part of a scheme by Islamists to conquer the world, he added. And Coughlin mocked those who didn’t see this plot as clearly as he did, accusing them of “complexification.”

Coughlin titled his talk: “Imposing Islamic Law – or – These Aren’t the Droids Your Looking For!”

Former FBI employee John Guandolo told the conspiratorial World Net Daily website last year that Obama was only the latest president to fall under the influence of Islamic extremists. “The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep,” Guandolo alleged. In his reference material for the Joint Forces Staff College class, Guandolo not only spoke of today’s Muslims as enemies of the West. He even justified the Crusades, writing that they “were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.”

Guandolo’s paper, titled “Usual Responses from the Enemy When Presented With the Truth” (.pdf), was one of hundreds of presentations, documents, videos and web links electronically distributed to the Joint Forces Staff College students. Included in that trove: a paper alleging that “it is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians” (.pdf). So was a video lecture from Serge Trifkovic, a former professor who appeared as a defense witness in several trials of Bosnian Serb leaders convicted of war crimes, including the genocide of Muslims. A web link, titled “Watch Before This Is Pulled,” supposedly shows President Obama — the commander-in-chief of the senior officers attending the course — admitting that he’s a Muslim.

Dooley added the caveats that his views are “not the Official Policy of the United States Government” and are intended “to generate dynamic discussion and thought.” But he taught his fellow military officers that Obama’s alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. “By conservative estimates,” 10 percent of the world’s Muslims, “a staggering 140 million people … hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit” to Islam. He added, “Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.” It is unclear if Dooley’s “total war” on Muslims also applied to his “Muslim” commander in chief.

After the Pentagon brass learned of Dooley’s presentation, the country’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, issued an order to every military chief and senior commander to get rid of any similar anti-Islam instructional material. Dempsey issued the order because the White House had already instructed the entire security apparatus of the federal government — military and civilian — to revamp its counterterrorism training after learning of FBI material that demonized Islam.

By then, Dooley had already presented his apocalyptic vision for a global religious war. Flynn has ordered a senior officer, Army Maj. Gen. Frederick Rudesheim, to investigate how precisely Dooley managed to get away with that extended presentation in an official Defense Department-sanctioned course. The results of that review are due May 24.

Ironically, Dooley and his guest lecturers paint a dire picture of the forward march of Islamic extremism right as its foremost practitioner feared its implosion. Documents recently declassified by the U.S. government revealed Osama bin Laden fretting about al-Qaida’s brutal methods and damaged brand alienating the vast majority of Muslims from choosing to wage holy war. Little could he have known that U.S. military officers were thinking of ways to ignite one.
Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/3/