Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Baghdad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baghdad. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Justice Iraqi Style

Court Hands Down Devastating Punishment for ‘ISIS Brides’

 Print
Sixteen Turkish women who fled their country to join their terrorist husbands in Iraq were sentenced by an Iraqi court Sunday to death by hanging, Deutsche Welle reported.
The death sentences were the latest in a series of controversial, fast-tracked trials involving foreign women who entered the country while the Islamic State group controlled a wide swath of it.
Courts in Baghdad are currently in the midst of trying hundreds of foreign women who were taken into custody after the collapse of the last Islamic State strongholds in Iraq during the past year.
“Some of the women, between the ages of 20 and 50, were accompanied by young children,” Deutsche Welle noted.
“The women told the court that they had entered Iraq illegally to be with their husbands who had left to join (the Islamic State group), which at the time was gaining significant ground in Iraq and Syria. One woman told the judge that she had actively taken part in the fighting.”

Conservative Tribune Daily Email

Facebook
 
“It was proven they belong to the Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group,” Judge Abdul-Sattar al-Birqdar said in his ruling, according to Fox News.
The women “confessed to marrying Daesh elements or providing members of the group with logistical aid or helping them carry out terrorist attacks,” the judge said.
The sentence comes one week after another Turkish woman was given a death sentence for her involvement with the Islamic State group. Ten other foreign women were sentenced to life behind bars at that time.
Last month, a German woman was sentenced to death as well.

Do you think these ISIS brides should be sentenced to death?

 
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
While officials in Baghdad are trying to clear the docket as quickly as possible — there are over 500 foreign women in custody among an estimated 1,500-1,700 women associated with the Islamic State group — human rights groups have expressed outrage over the severity of the sentences.
In a statement, Human Rights Watch called the sentences some of the women were receiving “unfair.”
“Iraq’s courts are sentencing women to life in prison and even to death for non-violent crimes,” Human Rights Watch stated. “It is just one indicator of how people viewed as colluding with ISIS are receiving unfair trials. The women have been charged with illegally entering Iraq and, in some cases, aiding, abetting or having membership in ISIS, which carries the penalty of life in prison or death under Iraq’s counterterrorism law.”
Judge Abdul-Sattar al-Birqdar noted that all the verdicts are subject to appeal, but Human Rights Watch remained unconvinced that would make the process more fair.
RELATED: Rapper-Turned-Jihadi Killed in US Airstrike
“A courtroom observer said that the women’s lawyers contended that the defendants’ husbands or others had tricked them into going to ISIS territory, but maintained that none of the women had been implicated in any violent acts,” read the statement, issued after last week’s sentences.
“One woman said in court that her husband took their 2-year-old son and told her to follow him to Iraq or she wouldn’t see her son again.”
“The observer said the prosecution did not present evidence contesting the defense. Yet, the judges found all the women guilty of ISIS membership. The woman sentenced to death was found to have knowingly travelled to ISIS territory to join the group with her husband,” the statement added.
While Human Rights Watch is certainly not the most unbiased source — the group notes that it “opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as an irreversible, degrading, and cruel punishment” — other sources have raised questions about whether the fast-tracked Iraqi trials are actually punishing innocent civilians.
The Washington Post reported a case where two Turkish men who professed their innocence were sentenced to death after a trial that lasted less than 20 minutes.
“Appearing in court for the first time since being arrested in August on charges of belonging to that group, they professed their innocence, telling the judge they were simply plumbers who migrated to Iraq from Turkey looking for work,” The Post reported in December.
“After an 18-minute trial, they were sentenced to death by hanging.”
Turkey is currently one of the few nations actively trying to reclaim citizens that were detained by Iraqi officials on suspicion of ties with the Islamic State group.
“We are in touch with the Iraqi authorities in terms of finding out their whereabouts and ensuring their repatriation,” read a 2017 statement from Turkey’s foreign ministry.
Please like and share this story on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on whether these death sentences are just.
What are your thoughts on these ISIS trials?

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The World Is Getting Closer To Armageddon With Iran And North Korea Having Nukes

Iran and North Korea: Two Peas in a Nuclear Pod



BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 566, August 22, 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Much separates Iran and North Korea, but the two have plenty in common when it comes to nuclear ambitions. Whenever they move to appease the West, they somehow get closer to realizing their goals, while the world fumbles to curtail them.
The world recently marked two years since Iran and the West signed a landmark nuclear agreement, and much has been said on the issue.
Those who support the deal celebrated it, saying it was the best alternative and that Iran’s compliance with the terms of the agreement, apart from several minor violations, proves its success. Those who opposed the deal (myself included) have pointed out that it has enabled Iran to be readmitted into the family of nations, and the alliance it has since formed with Russia, which I believe was forged only because of the deal, has allowed it to become a regional power. Iran’s control of the axis between Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut will one day lead to a bloody struggle, both with Israel and with the Sunni Arab states, which see Iran’s expansionist aspirations as a threat to their very existence.
Recently, ostensibly in an unrelated move, North Korea took a major step towards creating a nuclear balance of terror toward the US by testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially hit the American heartland. Pyongyang saw this move as necessary to ensure that under no circumstances would Washington pressure it to change its ways, thus ensuring the isolated nation’s complete freedom in navigating its future course.
Over the past few decades, North Korea’s leaders have assumed that the US would be wary of pressing a nuclear state capable of threatening major American cities. It was the North’s way of insuring itself against any use of force by the West.
The North Korean case is interesting because over the past 25 years, the West had held negotiations with it in various fora, and several agreements have been signed with the aim of halting the nuclear project launched by Pyongyang in the mid-1980s. North Korea’s violations of the agreements always earned condemnation, but it never suffered any real penalties. Economic sanctions proved futile, and Pyongyang forged ahead even when it was made to pay a heavy economic price (which it still pays today). UNSC resolutions against the rogue nation proved equally fruitless.
Still, there have been a few moments of optimism along the way. The North’s 2005 deal with the US, for example, was lauded as a breakthrough, and some in Israel had hoped similar efforts would lead to an effective nuclear deal with Iran. But the US and the international community’s feeble reaction to the country’s first nuclear test in 2006 made by then-leader Kim Jong Il, the father of current leader Kim Jong Un, proved that violating the deal harbored no risk. The “breakthrough agreement” turned into yet another step towards North Korea’s becoming a nuclear threshold state.
The strong correlation between the North Korean and Iranian cases is clear. It was underscored further in 2007, when Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said, “Pay attention to North Korea’s conduct. What has come of two years of negotiation with North Korea? It led to [the West’s] acceptance of North Korea’s nuclear technologies in the field of uranium enrichment. So now, they [the West] will accept ours.”
One would have to be blind not to see the astounding resemblance between the international processes opposite Iran and North Korea. Both have undergone the same stages of dialogue with the global community, led by the US.
One would also have to be incredibly naive to think that Iran, which is far more powerful than North Korea, would not exploit the weakness shown by the international community, again led by the US. It is clear Iran is biding its time and will not hesitate to break free of the restrictions imposed on it by the toothless 2015 agreement. It will continue on its nuclear path as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
That said, there are major differences between Iran and North Korea and the spheres in which they operate.
The first is the position and international standing of South Korea, the North’s wealthy neighbor, versus the position and standing of Iran’s neighbors. South Korea’s capital, Seoul, is less than 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the border with North Korea – a border along which thousands of artillery guns are deployed, ready to strike Seoul instantly. There are also massive North Korean armored forces on the border, ready to march through the huge tunnels running underneath it to take the South.
In stark contrast, Iran’s Persian Gulf neighbors and even Israel would take severe measures against the Islamic Republic, including the use of military force, though the Islamic Republic would certainly mount a forceful response.
The second difference stems from the relative power wielded by North Korea and Iran. While the former is insignificant in terms of the global economic system, the latter is a regional power with a prominent position in the international energy market, especially for China and India. This makes North Korea a country against which it is relatively easy to mobilize the international community, as opposed to the real difficulty of garnering global support to pressure Iran.
In retrospect, it is clear that one of the reasons the international community came together to pressure Iran stemmed from the shared concern that without such pressure, Israel would potentially have no choice but to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. It seems the world wanted to curb Israel, and to an extent the US, far more than it wanted to curtail Iran.
Once it became clear that under the Obama administration the military option was off the table and Israel had accepted (under protest) the American move toward a nuclear deal, global concern waned. It is clear that without this constraint, the international community will do nothing to stop Iran once it crosses the nuclear threshold. Anyone who fails to see this is ignoring the lessons learned from the North Korean precedent.
Meanwhile, Iran is promoting the development of an envelope scheme that will allow it to embark on a path towards nuclear power. Assisted by Russia, it is intensively building its air defense systems. It is cultivating a solid economy that can better withstand potential future sanctions and other means of economic pressure, which was what brought it to the negotiation table on its knees – an achievement wasted by the American negotiators as soon as they allowed the Iranians to see that Washington was as eager to strike a deal as they were. It is developing missiles that would allow it to launch nuclear weapons to any range, as well as the next generation of centrifuges, which would allow it to make the leap to enriched uranium at peak speed.
Israel must learn the lessons of the nuclear agreement with Iran as well as study how North Korea became a nuclear power that threatens the US. Iran must not be allowed to duplicate the success of its friend on the Korean peninsula.
This article was originally published in Israel Hayom on August 7, 2017.
Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror is the Anne and Greg Rosshandler Senior Fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He is also a distinguished fellow at JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy. 

Friday, March 31, 2017

Anyone Who Works With Foreign Intelligence Agents Should Face Jail



State Department Employee Charged With Working For Foreign Government

"... entrusted with Top Secret information ..."

 Print

The Department of Justice announced the arrest of a State Department employee Wednesday who has been charged with obstructing an FBI investigation into her contacts with foreign intelligence agents.
Candace Claiborne, 60, who has been with the State Department since 1999, was arrested Tuesday and charged with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both of which are felonies.
Claiborne appeared in court Wednesday and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

RELATED STORIES
Claiborne is accused of contacting two Chinese intelligence agents who “provided tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits to Claiborne and her family over five years,” according to a Department of Justice press release.
She served in Baghdad, Iraq, Khartoum, Sudan, and Beijing and Shanghai, China, the Justice Department said.
Claiborne was required to report her contacts, but did not, the release said.
00:00
00:57
The press release said Claiborne received cash as well as “an Apple iPhone and laptop computer, Chinese New Year’s gifts, meals, international travel and vacations, tuition at a Chinese fashion school, a fully furnished apartment, and a monthly stipend.”
Claiborne was allegedly recruited to provide China with internal U.S. comments on a U.S.-Sino Strategic Economic Dialogue that had just concluded.
The press release announcing her arrest said that once she was aware she was being investigated, she “instructed her co-conspirators to delete evidence connecting her to the (Chinese) agents.”
“Candace Claiborne is accused of violating her oath of office as a State Department employee, who was entrusted with Top Secret information when she purposefully mislead federal investigators about her significant and repeated interactions with foreign contacts,” said Andrew W. Vale, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office.

TRENDING STORIES
“The FBI will continue to investigate individuals who, though required by law, fail to report foreign contacts, which is a key indicator of potential insider threats posed by those in positions of public trust,” Vale added.
“As a State Department employee with a Top Secret clearance, she received training and briefing about the need for caution and transparency,” U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips said in a statement.
“This case demonstrates that U.S. government employees will be held accountable for failing to honor the trust placed in them when they take on such sensitive assignments,” she added.
Claiborne could face a maximum of 25 years in prison.

What do you think?

Monday, February 27, 2017

Iran Wants A Route To The Mediterean

Iran Wants to Leverage Aleppo into a Campaign Against the Gulf States and Israel

By December 30, 2016


BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 390, December 30, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Events in Aleppo are playing an important role in Iran’s strategic plan to establish an overland corridor that would give it access to the Mediterranean coast. Since the city’s fall, Tehran has been urging non-state groups to come under its wing in return for massive and comprehensive support. The intensification of the Shiite-Sunni conflict acts as a barrier between Iran and its potential clients.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has touted the decisive victory over the rebels in Aleppo, and the city’s return to the control of the Syrian government, as a turning point that will transform not only the crisis in Syria but also other centers of regional conflict. The leading adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, and the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, have declared that the Aleppo victory reflects Tehran’s triumph over the Western-Sunni coalition. Iran is portraying itself as ascendant over the Western states, led by the US, and the Sunni states in the region, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
The victory was of course largely achieved through the Russian military intervention, but Tehran appears to have benefited from the event more than Moscow. Aleppo is a crossroads on the overland corridor to the Mediterranean coast that Iran has been attempting to construct since 2014.  According to a Guardian report based on reliable sources, the envisaged corridor would pass through Baghdad, the Kurdish town of Sinjar, the Kurdish region of northeastern Syria, Aleppo, Idlib, and Homs, and culminate on the strategic coastal strip of Latakia.
It is therefore hardly surprising that Tehran has expressed great enthusiasm about the return of Aleppo to the bosom of the Syrian regime, which placed the city within the Iranian sphere of influence. During his Friday sermon (the platform for declarative pronouncements by the Islamic Republic), Tehran's prayer leader, Kazem Sediqi, proclaimed that the Aleppo victory meant not simply the liberation of the city but the triumph of the (Shiite) faith of the Islamic Revolution. Commander of the Revolutionary Guards Mohammed Ali Jafari also declared Aleppo to be Iran’s front line of defense. Ever since the formation of the Islamic Revolution, he said, Tehran has sought to establish the widest possible defense margins against the West, Israel, and the Sunni states in the region.
During the Aleppo campaign, Tehran relied on a network of Shiite militias acting under the auspices of the Revolutionary Guards. According to reports, campaign commander Javad Ghafari was appointed by the commander of the Quds forces, Qassem Soleimani. These forces included the Lebanese Hezbollah and other militias sponsored by Tehran, such as the Iraqi al-Nujba’a; the Afghani Fatemiyoun; the Pakistani Zainabiyoun; and local militias established by the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah. According to various estimates, Hezbollah’s role in these battles went far beyond its numbers (it sent approximately 5,000 troops to Syria). Naim Qassem, the organization’s Deputy Secretary-General, claims that five Hezbollah activists in Syria serve as commanders of 25 non-Lebanese armed groups.
Encouraged by the Aleppo victory, Tehran and Hezbollah began to leverage the event’s significance. It was a turning point, they argued, not only with regard to Syria but also with regard to other foci of conflict throughout the Middle East – first in Bahrain, but in Saudi Arabia and Yemen as well.
Ever since the Islamic Revolution, Tehran has applied a strategy of supporting Arab and other militias that agreed to accept its patronage as tools against Sunni, pro-American governments in the region, as well as against Israel and the US. At present, the inclination is to use the “Syrian model,” whereby militias and forces under Iranian auspices act in tandem with local forces against Sunni factions in the region.
On December 9, 2016, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah declared that the Aleppo victory would influence “all the campaigns in the region.” For his part, the Revolutionary Guards’ second-in-command, Hossein Salami, sent a public invitation to the Shiites in Bahrain to replicate the model used by Tehran in Aleppo, declaring that the victory was the “first step” towards the liberation of Mosul, Bahrain, and Yemen. Ramazan Sharif, the head of public relations for the Revolutionary Guards, also declared that the victory in Aleppo would have an impact on the solution of the crises in Yemen and Bahrain. Naim Qassem underscored Hezbollah’s significant role in Tehran’s subversive strategy by expressing Hezbollah’s readiness to help would-be liberation movements whenever he believed in the righteousness of their struggle.
Iran's policy of exporting the Islamic revolution thus continues at full strength, with Tehran using the threat of the Islamic State (IS) as a pretext for maintaining an offensive military presence in other countries and in Sunni areas. The nuclear deal, which is favorable to Iran, must be viewed in this context. Because the West considers IS a threat, it is prepared to tolerate Iranian and pro-Iranian forces in Sunni areas.
This is why Tehran expects the victory in Aleppo to encourage Shiite circles in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to be responsive to its subversive aid. The daily Kayhan, which is close to Supreme Leader Khamenei, anticipated that the victory would increase attraction to the Islamic revolution among non-state groups in the region.
However, Hamas’s harsh reaction to the systematic killing and massive eviction of Sunnis from Aleppo shows the challenge facing Iran’s attempt to export the revolution. Hamas expressed solidarity with the Sunnis of Aleppo, once again highlighting its dispute with Tehran over who is the oppressed party in Syria. This dispute dates back to Ayatollah Khomeini’s indifference to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood’s pleas in the face of Hafez Assad’s offensive that culminated in the 1982 Hama massacres.
Rejecting this type of criticism and other critiques leveled at Tehran following the Aleppo battle, including the accusation by Al-Jazeera that the Iranians had subjected the city’s Sunnis to a nakba similar to that experienced by the Palestinians in 1948, Iranian government officials and journalists launched a social media campaign entitled “From Aleppo to Jerusalem.” This campaign represented the anticipated victory of Iranian forces in Jerusalem as a continuation of Tehran’s accomplishment in liberating Khoramshahr in southern Iran in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq war and Aleppo in 2016. The second-in-command of the Revolutionary Guards, Salami, declared that the experience gained by Hezbollah in fighting in built-up areas of Aleppo would be extremely useful during its future campaign against Israel.
While Tehran appears to have turned its attention to other areas inside Syria since the fall of Aleppo, a prospective Iranian campaign against Israel is not unrealistic. Tehran looks forward to exploiting the Syrian crisis as a means of deploying on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights. This would widen the northern front facing Israel and threaten it substantially. Khamenei expressed this aspiration publicly, declaring that “Iran takes pride today in having forces near the borders of the Zionist regime and over its head,” as “the enemy must be destroyed in its own borders.”
In contrast to the proclamations of victory by leading lights of the Iranian regime, Mir Mahmoud Mousavi, formerly a senior official of the Iranian foreign ministry under Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005), has offered a more sobering prediction. According to Mousavi, joy in Tehran will be short-lived. Iran is likely to confront a considerable challenge for the foreseeable future, as it may be blamed for the fallout of the Syrian civil war with its hundreds of thousands dead and over 12 million refugees and displaced persons.
Yossi Mansharof is a doctoral student in the Department of History of the Middle East at Haifa University and a scholar at the Ezri Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family