LONDON- Recently discovered documents by the World Jewish News Agency in London revealed that leading British jurists and lawyers told the British government that the " U.S. and British bombing of Iraq in the months before the 2003 war was illegal under international law." For the 10 years prior to the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the United States and Great Britain enforced  the policy of no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq. And a year before the war began, both, great Britain and the U.S. began to strike more frequently. The ordnance dropped on Iraq rose from 272 kilograms in April 2002 to nine tonnes in June and 50 tonnes in September,  according to official British government figures. Leaked minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and top government officials cite U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as saying: "The U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." The Sunday Times newspaper said British Foreign Office lawyers cautioned in 2002 aircraft could only patrol the no-fly zones to deter attacks by Iraqi forces and were not authorized to put pressure on the Iraqi government. The United Nations had not yet passed Resolution 1441, which was used to justify military action, and the U.S. Congress did not authorize the use of force until October 2002. The newspaper quoted Lord Goodhart, vice-president of the International Commission of Jurists, as backing the Foreign Office lawyers' view. Goodhart said if "the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority," the Sunday Times reported. The Sunday Times story was written by Michael Smith, who previously revealed a series of leaked British government memos from the months before the war. A senior British official who reviewed them said the content of those memos appeared authentic. The latest story said the legal advice was appended to a briefing paper for a July 2002 meeting on Iraq of top government officials. The leaked 2002 memos have reignited debate over the decision to go to war. They indicate Blair was committed to supporting U.S. President George W. Bush on Iraq but show British officials worried the White House was rushing to war on thin evidence and without sufficient planning.

Secret Memos Show British Worried About Bush Administration Rush To War. By Thomas Warner

Toby Dodge: " Soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq,"

PROFESSORS OF STATISTICS AND MATH FROM U. OF PENN, HEBREW U. & TEMPLE U SAY: CONCLUSION OF ADL POLL THAT AMERICANS SUPPORT GAZA PLAN IS NOT VALID. By Dr. Aaron Lerner

New York - Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a new poll on Israel's Gaza Withdrawal Plan claiming it shows that 71% of Americans support the Plan. But two distinguished professors of statistics and one distinguished professor of mathematics unequivocally state that ADL's "conclusion that most Americans support the Gaza Plan is not valid."  The mathematics professor added that it was clear to him that the poll question was written in a way that was "politically motivated" and that the "conclusion that most Americans support the Gaza Plan is untrue and certainly cannot be stated based on the ADL Poll." The professors who analyzed the results of the ADL poll include Professor Abba Krieger, Chairman of the Department of Statistics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania; Professor Moshe Pollak, Department of Statistics, Hebrew University; and Professor Louis Raymon, Department of Mathematics, Temple University. (Prof. Raymon is former Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, and former Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, where he teaches both mathematics and statistics). Professors Krieger and Pollak, of U. of Penn and Hebrew University respectively, said, "We reviewed the question asked of the respondents and determined that the conclusion that most Americans are in favor of withdrawal is not valid, according to ADL's survey questions and answers. At best the survey obfuscates the conclusion because the focus of the statements seems to be on Israel's reason for withdrawal and not on the opinion of the respondent and because only 2 options for Israel's decision to withdraw are indicated," neither one asking if respondents support the Plan.  Professor Raymon of Temple University said: "The ADL poll only addresses Israel's apparent motivation, but does not address at all the question of Americans actual support for the Gaza withdrawal to take place. The question ADL asked had nothing to do with whether the respondent was for or against the withdrawal.  Seventy-one percent of the respondents could and did choose the #2 option in the ADL poll that 'Israel's decision to withdraw from Gaza is a bold step to advance the peace process,' agreeing that this may be a 'bold step' that Israel apparently believes will 'advance the peace process'; yet the respondent does not necessarily have to support the actual withdrawal him/herself.  By picking this #2 option, the respondent only has to agree that Israel believes this will advance the peace process - the respondent does not necessarily have to believe that it will, in reality, advance the peace process or that Israel should, in fact, withdraw from Gaza."  Raymon added, "It seems clear to me that the phrasing and construction of this survey question is politically motivated and the ADL conclusion that Americans support this Plan is unreliable, inaccurate and invalid." Professor Raymon further added, "In contrast to the ADL poll, the McLaughlin & Associates poll, which showed by a margin of 63% - 16%, that Americans strongly opposed the Gaza Plan, asked a straightforward question of a representative sample of 1000 Americans (June 26-27, 2005) prefaced by objective facts necessary for an informed decision.  The results would seem to be unquestionably accurate, valid and meaningful."

The ADL Poll question was as follows: Israel recently decided to unilaterally evacuate its communities in the Gaza Strip without reaching a formal peace agreement with the Palestinians. Which of the following statements are closer to your views:
            1.  Israel's decision to withdraw from Gaza is capitulation to violence and terror.  Israel is forced to leave because it couldn't curb terror.

            2.   Israel's decision to withdraw from Gaza is a bold step to advance the peace process.

ZOA President Morton A. Klein, who is himself a statistician, having worked for many years with two-time Nobel Laureate Dr. Linus Pauling at the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine, explained that, "In addition to the previous comments made by the professors, one must also understand that option #1 in the ADL poll was so extreme and untrue that few people (in fact, only12%), even those against the Gaza Withdrawal Plan could or would choose it.  Even those opposing the Plan likely don't believe option #1 that "Israel is forced to leave Gaza because it couldn't curb terror." If, in fact, not being able to curb terror is the reason Israel is leaving Gaza, it would also be leaving Tel Aviv, Gilo, Netanya, Kfar Saba, Sderot and Jerusalem where Palestinian Arab terror has been rampant.  It is also important to note that Israel has done a relatively good job protecting the Jews of Gaza. After all, 80% of all Israelis killed by Palestinian Arab terror since September 2000 live within Israel's '67 borders, only 20% of those killed live outside these borders in Gaza, Judea or Samaria. "Another factor in more people choosing option #2 (71% did) over #1 is that negative phrases and images like "capitulation to violence and terror" and "forced to leave" and "couldn't curb terror," are all in #1; while #2 has positive phrases and images like "bold step" and "advance the peace process."  These are strong phrases that will make #2 a more comfortable choice than #1. "But what is most troubling about this poll is that it doesn't even ask the question at hand,  whether Americans approve or disapprove of the Gaza Plan.  To more clearly show why ADL's poll does not answer the critical question of whether Americans support this Plan, consider the following fictitious poll question: "A man who needs money for his impoverished family has been offered $1000 by some gamblers to play Russian roulette.  After some soul searching he decides to play the game.
    1.   Is he doing it because he is afraid of the gamblers?  Most people would probably say no.
    2.  Is his decision a "bold" one to help the financial condition of his family?  Most people would probably say yes."  "Yet, even if most people chose option #2 and only a minority chose #1, one could not state that most Americans support this man's decision to play Russian roulette.  You would need a third question that directly asks "Is it a wise decision for this man to play Russian roulette and do you support him doing it?"  Likely, most people would say no to this question. In any event, you need option #3 to get the answer to the major question of whether this man should play Russian roulette or not."

ZOA President Morton A. Klein respectfully requests of ADL, "in light of the rigorous analysis performed by three distinguished statistical and mathematical scientists of the ADL poll, showing that ADL's conclusion that most Americans support Israel's Gaza Withdrawal Plan  is invalid, the ZOA calls on Abe Foxman and ADL to stop promoting and disseminating their poll's results and immediately issue a public retraction of their erroneous conclusion."
 

Special Dispatch - Jihad & Terrorism

Director of London's Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i: There are No "Civilians" in Islamic Law; The Bombing is a Great Victory for Al-Qa'ida, Which "Rubbed the Noses of the World's Eight Most Powerful Countries in the Mud"

The following are excerpts from interviews with the Director of London's Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i. The first aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 8, 2005; in it, Al-Siba'i discussed the London bombings. It is followed by an interview he gave on AMB TV which aired on February 22, 2005.

The London Bombings

Al-Siba'i: "I think that British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a grave error when he spoke before the investigation and claimed that the perpetrators of these acts were acting in the name of Islam. I think that he will pay the price for this grave error in the future. No possibility should be ruled out. We do not rule out the possibility that it was done by the intelligence agency of another Western country hostile to Britain. We do not rule out countries... or some Zionist Americans who wanted to overshadow the G-8 summit. But at the same time, we do not rule out the Al-Qa'ida organization. It's been claimed that Al-Qa'ida died in Afghanistan, and was buried in the caves there. And behold: it was resurrected after the American occupation of Iraq. Moreover, Al-Qa'ida controls the war agenda in Iraq. It is the Al-Qa'ida organization in the Land of the Two Rivers [Iraq], headed by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, that imposes its policies, to the extent that the Egyptian government was forced to.. It was forced to recall [its ambassador], and other countries are afraid to send ambassadors there."

Host: "He was not an ambassador, but rather a representative that was murdered, and then Egypt lowered its level of representation."

Al-Siba'i: "He previously worked in the so-called 'Israel.' What I want to ask is: Can this organization do this? Is it conceivable that it did it? Yes, it is. Why? In the year... We must not forget that on April 15, 2004, Sheik Osama bin Laden released a taped message, in which he said... He gave... He reached out for reconciliation..."

Host: "Just to recall, you are referring to the Madrid incidents, in which some 190 people were killed."

Al-Siba'i: "After the Madrid incidents, he addressed the Western and European nations. Obviously, he didn't address the leaders whom he does not recognize. He talked to the Western nations about reconciliation..."

Host: "Excuse me. He gave them three or four months. But, forgive me, targeting civilians... You, as a Muslim and as the director of a center for Islamic history... Is targeting wretched civilians considered brave or manly?"

Al-Siba'i: "I think... The man [bin Laden] addressed these peoples so that they would pressure their governments. He told them: We did not attack you. You have been attacking us for more than two centuries, and your campaign continues. He said to them simply: Withdraw your soldiers from the Arabian Peninsula, withdraw from Afghanistan and Palestine..."

Host: "Excuse me, Is Sheik Osama bin Laden a religious scholar, who issues fatwas, or is he the head of Al-Qa'ida?"

Al-Siba'i: "First of all, he is one of this [Islamic] nation. Allah... We have no clergy, or a pope, or anything like this. Anyone can carry out his religious duty, even if he is by himself."

Host: "Mr. Hani, issuing fatwas is done by religious scholars."

Al-Siba'i: "He has a Shura council, he has religious scholars... He wanted to debate with other scholars, but they refused. He asked to discuss matters with them, but they refused."

Host: "The question, in short, is whether the religious scholars... Sir, the religious law assembly in Mecca at the end of last month issued a fatwa forbidding the killing of civilians. Should we follow it or Osama bin Laden?"

Al-Siba'i: "These assemblies resemble the assemblies of the Church. These assemblies forbid young people from going to Iraq to fight the Jihad. These assemblies... The Higher Religious Authority [in Saudi Arabia] are the ones who allowed the presence of Crusader forces in the Land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia). These assemblies..."

Host: "Mr. Hani, make no mistake. The same assembly ruled that Jihad in Iraq is allowed against soldiers. Even Sheik Osama [sic.] Al-Makdisi, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi's mentor... Okay. Abu Hani, okay... He asked Al-Zarqawi not to kill civilians and to attack only the Americans... I mean, only soldiers..."

Al-Siba'i: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not. "These institutes, like the Islamic Association [of Britain], represent white-collar people, the effendis, people with 'prestige.' They only represent their own interests and do not mix in society. They don't know... Ask other Muslims... People see them only on their TV screens. They don't participate in the demonstrations for the poor. They are not interested in people's problems. We invite them, and they don't show up."

Host: "The Muslim Association of Britain represents 400 Islamic organizations..."

Al-Siba'i: "These are all interest groups. With all due respect, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sheik Moududi group do business with one another."

Host: "Are you claiming they are not Muslims?"

Al-Siba'i: "They are behind all these movements. They promote some people nobody has heard of. Then they promote some journalists."

Host: "Excuse me, who do you want to promote? Those who want the banner of 'There is no god but Allah' over the Queen of England and Buckingham Palace? Those who want to establish a caliphate and turn the Queen of England into a captive? Those who say [England] is Dar Al-Harb and property there can be plundered? Are those the kind of people you want?"

Al-Siba'i: "These associations do not represent the Muslim public. They collaborate with the British police for certain interests. They want an 'English Islam,' and not the Islam that was sent to the Prophet Muhammad. If Al-Qa'ida indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud. This victory is a blow to the economy..."

Interview on ANB TV

Al-Siba'i: "As for the slaughtering and the recordings used [by Al-Zarqawi] - we must consider these people's mentality. What is their source of authority? The problem is that our sheiks, our clerics, and the religious institutions - especially official ones - are constantly running away from the truth."

Host: "The truth? What is the truth?"

Al-Siba'i: "That is the question I'd like to answer. Do these people base themselves on Islamic law or not? They claim that they do, and to support it, they say that slaughtering appeared in a hadith by the Prophet, which was pronounced authentic by Sheik Ahmad Shaker. The Prophet told the Quraysh tribe: 'I have brought slaughter upon you,' making this gesture. But these are religious issues that may be disputed."

Al-Siba'i: "The Mujahideen say: 'This is the time for Jihad jurisprudence. Iraq is an occupied country, so we must study Jihad jurisprudence, which is exceptional law. In this case, there is no need to ask permission - a wife does not need to ask for her husband's permission to fight.'"

Host: "There is no consensus here... This is just one opinion."

Al-Siba'i: "This is the opinion of the greatest clerics."

Host: "But there are other clerics who criticize and condemn what is happening..."

Al-Siba'i: "The problem, Dr. Muhammad..."

Host: "Does the problem lie with Al-Zarqawi or with the religious scholars?"

Al-Siba'i: "The problem lies with the religious scholars. When they are asked to confront these [Mujahideen], to talk with them and respond to the evidence they present. [The Mujahideen] tell the Prophet drove nails into and gouged out the eyes of people from the 'Urayna Tribe. They were merely a group of thieves who stole from sheep herders, and the Prophet drove nails into them and threw them into the Al-Hrara area, and left them there to die. He blinded them and cut off their opposite legs and arms. This is what the Prophet did on a trifling matter - let alone in war. What else could they do when a 1000 lb. bomb lands on a house or a shack belonging to poor people, and the world doesn't shed a tear, but cries only about the slaughtering? All they have is a knife..."

Host: "Dr. Al-Siba'i, do you personally condemn anything they do? Can you say that even though you support these groups' case, they use such means? Is
there a single method you are willing to condemn?"

Al-Siba'i: "I, myself... I condemn the occupation, which is the cause of all these tragedies. The occupation caused all these disasters. The country was safe and peaceful, until the Americans came, and we are expected to blame those who fight in defense of their honor?! When people hear me say... I received a picture over the internet, and when I opened it I saw a woman being raped by seven men. An Iraqi woman in prison - this is on American websites now - and when I saw her, I couldn't sleep a wink. A woman being raped, completely naked, in prison."

Host: "This is a despicable picture, worthy of condemnation."

Al-Siba'i: "You expect me to criticize them for using a knife to slaughter some American?!"

Ali Al-Saraf, Iraqi Journalist: "Dr. Hani said the Prophet gouged out a man's eye, killed another, and threw..."

Al-Siba'i: "This is a true tradition in the collection of Al-Bukhari."

Al-Saraf: "Excuse me, the Prophet did not do this to innocent people, like this riffraff in Iraq. They kill people who have nothing to do with..."

Al-Siba'i: "Do you mean the Americans?"

Al-Saraf: "I mean the riffraff - American or not - who kill innocent people."

Al-Siba'i: "The only riffraff I know are the Americans."

Al-Saraf: "If the Americans kill innocent people, they are riffraff, and if your guys, the Islamists, kill innocent people they are riffraff too."

Al-Siba'i: "Excuse me, don't say 'your guys.'"

Al-Saraf: "There are innocent people who are being murdered for no reason. Margaret Hassan shouldn't have been slaughtered, nor Kenneth Bigley, who was about to retire. He was put in a cage smaller then a chicken coop. I don't know what human sentiment has the audacity to call despicable actions 'resistance.'"

Al-Siba'i: "People believe lies and falsehoods. Allow me to disagree with Mr. Ali. Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi himself issued a communiqué - and I believe Mr. Kamil and people who follow the press know this - he issued a communiqué that appeared on all TV channels, in which he called upon the group that kidnapped Margaret Hassan to release her, and said she was innocent. She was slaughtered by [Iyad] Allawi's gang... They don't even acknowledge the term
'civilians.'"

Host: "Who decides what the term means?"

Al-Siba'i: "The religious legal authority. One reads in history... I have an historical religious source of authority. Islamic history has no term for 'civilian' in the Western sense. This is a Western term. In our Islamic rules of war, one can be a 'combatant', a 'non-combatant', or 'protected by an agreement.' A person can be a combatant even if he does not carry a weapon. In other words, a person who came to wash and cook for the American soldiers in order to free them to fight - like the Nepalese - such a person is considered a combatant." Source: MEMRI

CAN WE FULLY TRUST THE CIA AND THE FBI?

Photo: Muslim FBI Special agent, Gamal Abdel-Hafiz who refused to tape an undercover  anti-terrorism operation/conversation with a "brother Muslim!!"

DO YOU KNOW WHY THE CIA WOULD NEVER HIRE YOU?

The CIA claims that, "right now, it (CIA) has important, exciting jobs for US citizens, especially those with foreign language skills." Really? How truthful is this claim? I am not fully convinced. The big question IS: CAN WE TRUST THE CIA? And the answer is YES in general.  Some of the best people you will ever meet in your lifetime work for the CIA. But, can we FULLY trust the CIA? And the answer is NO, as long as the CIA is biased and "intelligently"  irresponsible in its hiring criteria and preferences. Don't worry if you are not clean as a whistle. Your criminal record has nothing to do with your employment application at the CIA. You can still qualify if you meet the agency criteria and show some "talents". Helas! The "apparent truth" is sometimes quite deceiving.  Some of the best of the best and most qualified persons  in the nation and from foreign countries who approached the CIA were turned down. This could happen to you. Do you know why the CIA would never hire you? We are exploring this alarming possibility on these very pages.

Alias actress Jennifer Garner, who stars as a CIA agent in the show, is now fronting a recruitment drive for the US spy agency.

She agreed to appear in a video for the CIA's website urging potential candidates to sign up.  Many did. I mean, many super qualified experts in the field applied to the CIA and were totally ignored.  So, do not take the word of the CIA for granted. The website of the CIA states that Garner's Alias character "embodies the integrity, patriotism and intelligence the CIA looks for in its officers". Garner, 31, was not paid for her appearance in the advert. A CIA spokesman said: "She did this out of patriotism." One the website Garner says the agency needs staff from a diverse range of backgrounds and with different talents." Right now, the CIA has important, exciting jobs for US citizens, especially those with foreign language skills.  Don't believe their statement. "Today, the collection of foreign intelligence has never been more vital for national security," Garner says. Agencies such as the CIA have been criticised since the 11 September attacks on America for not having enough staff who could speak Asian or Middle Eastern languages, which may have helped thwart attacks. As well as her role on Alias, Garner appeared as one of the hosts of last month's Oscars awards ceremony. She also appeared in the movie version of the comic strip Daredevil, alongside Ben Affleck

The CIA exclusively hires those who belong to their inner circle. Politics play major role in selecting and hiring agents, analysts, informers and spies.

CAN WE TRUST THE FBI?

I am not an expert on the FBI. But Daniel Pipes seems to know a lot about what it is happening over there.

Daniel pipes: "Americans cannot rest assured that the FBI is doing all possible to protect them."

Daniel Pipes wrote, Gamal Abdel-Hafiz  as an FBI agent could have a key role helping America's premier anti-terrorist force protect the United States from harm. But evidence from high-profile terrorism cases suggests that Abdel-Hafiz, an immigrant Muslim, twice refused on principle to tape-record his coreligionists, harming the investigations.  The first case concerns a now-defunct Secaucus, N.J.-based Islamic investment bank called BMI Inc. Founded in 1985, it was financed by known terrorists and by members of the bin Laden family. The FBI got a break in 1999, when a BMI accountant contacted it and relayed his suspicions that $2.1 million in BMI funds "may have been used" to finance Al-Qaeda's twin bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa in August 1998. When the president of BMI - a Muslim - learned of this communication, he contacted Abdel-Hafiz to ask for a meeting. On a conference call in April 1999, an assistant U.S. attorney dealing with the BMI case, Mark Flessner, encouraged Abdel-Hafiz to meet the BMI president and clandestinely record their discussion. Abdel-Hafiz refused. Why? "I fear for my life." But you have FBI protection, Flessner pointed out. No, Abdel-Hafiz scornfully replied: "The FBI can't protect me. The FBI, I don't trust them." Pressed further, Abdel-Hafiz blurted out another reason, one recalled by several participants on the call:

* "I do not record another Muslim. That is against my religion" (Flessner). * "A Muslim does not record another Muslim" (Robert Wright, FBI agent). * He "wouldn't have any problems interviewing or recording somebody who wasn't a Muslim, but he could never record another Muslim" (John Vincent, FBI agent).

Robert Wright informed a supervisor at FBI headquarters about this conversation and met with indifference: "Well, you have to understand where he's coming from, Bob." When ABC News inquired about Abdel-Hafiz's statement, the FBI bureaucracy exonerated him by saying that the clandestine recording would have taken place in a mosque. But this was a falsehood (there was no mosque involved) which the FBI later acknowledged and retracted. The second case concerns Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida professor recently indicted for his role financing and running the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. Al-Arian had been under criminal investigation for years; at one point, he met Abdel- Hafiz at a conference and pressed for details about his case. Abdel-Hafiz's then-colleague, Barry Carmody, says that he asked Abdel-Hafiz to learn more from Al-Arian by secretly recording a conversation with him. Abdel-Hafiz refused: He would make the call, but not record it. Wright reports another problem with Abdel-Hafiz: Agents at the FBI's Washington field office wrote of his "contacting subjects of their investigations and not disclosing these contacts" to the special agents running those cases. Carmody's repeated complaints about Abdel-Hafiz went nowhere. Worse, FBI headquarters promoted Abdel-Hafiz in February 2001 by sending him to terrorism central - to a sensitive, important, and prestigious posting at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Which makes one wonder: In a country whose nationals are close to 100 percent Muslim, did Abdel-Hafiz continue his practice of incompletely investigating anyone who is Muslim? Apparently he did continue, for there is now a special inspection underway into the Riyadh embassy's failure to actively pursue counterterrorism leads. And the FBI just days ago returned Abdel-Hafiz to the United States, put him on administrative leave and (according to Fox News) asked the Justice Department's much-feared Office of Professional Responsibility to review his conduct. (Among other things, that office investigates "allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel.") Special Agent Abdel-Hafiz's actions raise some urgent and important questions.