McCarthy – Hit List and the NY Times praise for Obama

Editor’s Note – “Andy, who put the Blind Sheik behind bars in the first World Trade Center bombing, ” PJM CEO Roger L. Simon writes, “was arguably the most important prosecutor in the War on Terror. He is among the most authoritative writers anywhere on the dangers of Jihad. His distinguished legal career and expertise on national security matters will be invaluable to PJ Media and our readers.”

From “Rule of Law” to Hit List: The Times Lauds Obama at War

by Andrew C. McCarthy – PJ Media

“The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen, and to him, that calls for a more judicious process.” Well, that’s certainly a judicious use of judicious by William Daley. The former White House chief of staff was addressing the inevitability of collateral damage inherent in President Barack Obama’s principal war strategy against al-Qaeda: killing suspected terrorists by firing missiles from unmanned drones that scour faraway skies over Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. This was about halfway through the New York Times‘ rambling 6,300-word testimonial to Obama’s unparalleled splendor as a wartime commander-in-chief.

You see, for all the precision of modern weaponry, it turns out error is simply unavoidable: sometimes the wrong targets get hit and the wrong people get killed by our armed forces and the presidents who command them. Fog of war, and all that. For many years — specifically, from October 2001 through January 19, 2009 — the Times saw this inevitability as grist for scandal. But suddenly, the Gray Lady has evolved, just like its heroically “pragmatic” commander-in-chief. Collateral killings are just the way it goes — and if Obama camouflages what the Left used to insist were civilian casualties by a post facto declaration that everyone killed was a “combatant,” the Times has suddenly decided that, far from crying out for a war crimes investigation, this just proves his lawyerly brilliance.

Obama and Brennan meet

After all, it is the end result of a “judicious process.” That’s judicious, not judicial. Of course, time was when candidate Obama, his campaign surrogates, and the Times would have scoffed at the notion that the executive branch was capable of judiciously prosecuting the battle, determining who was the enemy, and taking action to kill or capture and detain. Sure, from 1787 through 2001, presidents may have been trusted with plenary control over war-fighting. But that was then. Now, according to the Bush-deranged Left, the “rule of law” demanded a judicialprocess. Terrorists don’t wear uniforms — a willful violation of the laws of war that the Left converted into a presumption of innocence. Thus, progressives told us, to hold suspected terrorists, let alone kill them, based on nothing more than a unilateral executive branch determination, no matter how “judicious,” was a shredding of the Constitution and a profound violation of international law.

Now that the president’s name is Obama, though, “judicious” executive unilateralism is more than enough to justify killing — and not only in an emergency: the Times depicts Obama as the don, meeting weekly with his consiglieri to decide who lives and who dies.

Eleven years into post-9/11 combat operations and facing a tough reelection fight, it has conveniently dawned on the Obama Left that when the nation is threatened and takes up arms, the risk of error shifts from the government, which bears it in peacetime law-enforcement operations, to “the enemy.” For the Times — whose epic account of Obama at war begins with a portentous “This was the enemy” – enemy is the term now in vogue for what, heretofore, were known merely as “young Muslim men,” subjected either to indefinite detention without trial or to being slain under ambiguous circumstances in Bush’s “war on terror,” which was really a “war against Islam.” Now that those young Muslim men are being detained or killed by Obama, it is remarkable to discover what a mortal threat to the United States they really are. And it further turns out that, while our intelligence community does the best it can, warfare requires our combat forces to take action without the certainty of meticulously tested courtroom evidence — and that’s suddenly okay, too: When people are plotting to mass-murder Americans, the Times wants you to know that we can’t afford to wait until we have proof that will satisfy a jury; they need to be rubbed out, pronto.

What is most astonishing in the story co-authored by Jo Becker and Scott Shane is its rationalization of the president’s naivete and amateur-hour missteps. In the revisionist history, these are seen as emblematic of the Omniscient One’s duplicity — which the reporters, far from finding offensive, portray as the president’s most praiseworthy attribute. “Bush lied and people died”; Obama lies and … it is his unmatched attorney’s mind at work.

Obama signs Executive Order to close Gitmo after taking the oath of office in 2009

Thus does the Times celebrate what, in the retelling is Obama’s knowing deception — not his ideologically-driven recklessness — in ceremoniously pronouncing, on his second day in office, that Gitmo would be closed and that he would make good on other campaign commitments to turn the clock back — back to Clintonian courtroom counterterrorism, away from Bush-era reliance on the laws of war. Even as the Times and rest of the Left deliriously swooned, we now discover that Obama was furtively inserting “a few subtle loopholes” in his first executive orders, “already putting his lawyerly mind to carving out the maximum amount of maneuvering room to fight terrorism as he saw fit.” An outrage? No, the Times sees this as just “the deft insertion of some wiggle words” by “a realist who, unlike some of his fervent supporters [ACM: the Times, for one] was never carried away by his own rhetoric.” The Paper of Record, which spent years obsessing over 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address, now builds sleight-of-hand into the president’s job description.

And why not? Why shouldn’t the Times‘s preferred commander-in-chief be afforded the same loose acquaintance with the truth that the paper allows itself? For how else could it publish paragraphs such as this:

The care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets, and their reliance on a precision weapon, the drone, reflect his pledge at the outset of his presidency to reject what he called the Bush administration’s “false choice between our safety and our ideals.”

In point of fact, we learn in the course of the article (as if we did not know already) that the drone is not all that precise: It often takes lives and destroys property beyond its narrow targets. Furthermore, because the Obama administration, in its demagoguery against Gitmo and Bush detention policies, has nullified the options of capturing and interrogating jihadists, “our ideals” now apparently include killing people we could have taken alive — and whose intelligence we could have exploited to save American lives. And if those people happen not to be the people we were trying to kill, Obama just counts them as terrorists anyway — as long as they fit the administration’s profile for Muslim terrorists.

But a more overarching point: When Obama excoriated Bush for offering a “false choice between our safety and our ideals,” he was referring to the Bush wartime preference for executive processes over judicial ones. The Times well knows this, because it was leading the Obama cheering section. In what now passes for “our ideals,” however, Obama is not just unilateral judge and jury; he is executioner, as well. Bush was convinced the war model was necessary to protect the nation, but he left the war-fighting to the professionals. Obama, by contrast” is the “liberal law professor” who “insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding ‘kill list,’ poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre ‘baseball cards’ of an unconventional war.”

Not to worry about this seeming contradiction, though. The doctrinaire secularists at the Times want to assure you that The One even transcends what up until five minutes ago was the essential “wall of separation” between church and state. You see, our current commander-in-chief, that erudite protege of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a sharp departure from the Bible-thumping rube who last held the job. Obama is “a student writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas,” who is determined “to apply the ‘just war’ theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict.”

What Obama, or, for that matter, the Times, actually grasps about Christian just war theory is unclear. (If you actually want to know what it is, a few words from George Weigel are a better expenditure of your time than a few thousand words from folks who find virtue in not being “carried away by [their] own rhetoric.”) But we do learn that Obama-style “just war theory” bears a striking resemblance to Obama-style “pragmatism” — which somehow always manages to get to the result Obama finds politically expedient.

So we discover that Obama applies a strict moral imperative in his judicious application of just war drone-killing … except when he doesn’t. The target must be an imminent threat to the United States … except when he isn’t. There must be a “‘near certainty’ of no innocents being killed” … except when there isn’t. The Times concedes, for example, that Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud “did not meet the Obama administration’s criteria for targeted killing”: he was not a threat to the United States and, when located by the CIA, he was surrounded by innocents — staying with his wife at his in-laws home. But, hey, “Pakistani officials wanted him dead.” Obama rationalized that the drone program was necessary and the “drone program rested on [the Pakistanis’] tacit approval.” And, yes, killing Mehsud with a missile would necessarily entail killing those in his company, but them’s the breaks. The don gave the order.

Drone Strike with multiple missiles

And on it goes, at times sadly hilariously. The Times, for example, notes that “the president’s resolve” was “stiffened” by a “series of plots” that included “the killling of 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex. by an Army psychiatristwho had embraced radical Islam.” The Times does not note that, with this one passing reference tying Major Nidal Hassan’s jihadist rampage to Islamic supremacist ideology, the Gray Lady has surpassed the Pentagon in explaining what happened at Fort Hood. Applying the Obama-imposed conscious avoidance mandate, the armed forces did not refer to Islam or jihad in its 75-page report on the massacre, which the administration prefers to frame as a case of “workplace violence.”

In the main, though, the Times report is a study in the Left’s self-absorption. When modern progressives are out of power, warfare is unnecessary — a simplistic, “might makes right” resort to force when the Left’s brand of nuanced diplomacy would have done the trick. Reasonable suspicion is never enough: no one is to be assumed an enemy of the United States absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that will stand up in court; and if a Republican president resists the “transparency” of judicial review, or resorts to measures like military detention or immigration-law deportation in order to protect its intelligence secrets from exposure, it is chipping away at the very foundations of constitutional governance, such that the Republican administration should be understood as more of a threat to America than the terrorists. Only when the Left is in power does war become necessary, as well as excruciatingly complex and difficult. Only then must we learn to be understanding when irresponsible political rhetoric crashes into hostile reality, and when moral lines in the sand are constantly crossed and haphazardly redrawn … only to be crossed yet again.

This would all be easier to swallow if the evolution came with an apology. But it is packaged in the same smarm as original antiwar, anti-Bush indictment: the more events reveal Obama’s predispositions to be half-baked, inept and unrealistic, the more you are supposed to admire his savvy pragmatism in not merely abandoning them but pretending he never really held them in the first place — while the courtiers applaud.

_________________

Andrew C. McCarthy, is a former federal prosecutor and New York Times bestselling author of The Grand Jihad andWillful Blindness; he’s also a regular contributor at National Review and The New Criterion.

“Andy, who put the Blind Sheik behind bars in the first World Trade Center bombing, ” PJM CEO Roger L. Simon writes, “was arguably the most important prosecutor in the War on Terror. He is among the most authoritative writers anywhere on the dangers of Jihad. His distinguished legal career and expertise on national security matters will be invaluable to PJ Media and our readers.”

Outside of his legal and writing careers, Andy has been coaching little league baseball for the last few years. He’s been a hockey fan for more than 40 years, and he and his family watch sports all year round: mainly Mets, Jets, Knicks and Devils.

"Kill" List – Political Expediency vs. American Security

Editor’s Note – A test of ‘principles and will’, or a test of how to achieve political ends, without alienating your base, but to also look like a ‘hawk’? Rarely does any action this White House decides upon hinges on the former, but always hinges on the later.

The fact that ‘Gitmo’ is still open, yet no new prisoners end up there speaks volumes. He knows he cannot in good conscience close it, but he can prevent it from growing in population. The trouble is, this tactic does the country one major disservice, no new intelligence is being gathered through enhanced interrogations. As many have mentioned, we are now only able to  act upon information gleaned in the Bush Administration.

Reliance on old information is quickly reducing our ability to act strategically – therefore, we are acting only tactically now – drones, the weapon of choice that achieves all of the above, yet destroys information trails. The ‘trade craft’ so long relied upon, is now just a way of creating a list – a “kill list”!

If the party in power were reversed, the left would have long ago drummed the beat of impeachment for crimes against humanity, especially where American citizens were the target. To even try to argue otherwise would be the transparency we so thought we voted for…

Once again, politics trumps the security of America! Killing in theaters where war has not been declared…that is assassination! Especially since we are no longer in the “War on Terror”, and al Qaida is no longer a worry…

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

By  and   – NY Times

This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.

President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces. It was Jan. 19, 2010, the end of a first year in office punctuated by terrorist plots and culminating in a brush with catastrophe over Detroit on Christmas Day, a reminder that a successful attack could derail his presidency. Yet he faced adversaries without uniforms, often indistinguishable from the civilians around them.

President Obama in the Oval Office with Thomas E. Donilon, left, the national security adviser, and John O. Brennan, his top counterterrorism adviser.

“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.”

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

His first term has seen private warnings from top officials about a “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism; the invention of a new category of aerial attack following complaints of careless targeting; and presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers.

The administration’s failure to forge a clear detention policy has created the impression among some members of Congress of a take-no-prisoners policy. And Mr. Obama’s ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron P. Munter, has complained to colleagues that the C.I.A.’s strikes drive American policy there, saying “he didn’t realize his main job was to kill people,” a colleague said.

Beside the president at every step is his counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, who is variously compared by colleagues to a dogged police detective, tracking terrorists from his cavelike office in the White House basement, or a priest whose blessing has become indispensable to Mr. Obama, echoing the president’s attempt to apply the “just war” theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict.

But the strikes that have eviscerated Al Qaeda — just since April, there have been 14 in Yemen, and 6 in Pakistan — have also tested both men’s commitment to the principles they have repeatedly said are necessary to defeat the enemy in the long term. Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, “When the drones hit, they don’t see children.”

Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence until he was fired in May 2010, said that discussions inside the White House of long-term strategy against Al Qaeda were sidelined by the intense focus on strikes. “The steady refrain in the White House was, ‘This is the only game in town’ — reminded me of body counts in Vietnam,” said Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy service during that war.

Mr. Blair’s criticism, dismissed by White House officials as personal pique, nonetheless resonates inside the government.

William M. Daley, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff in 2011, said the president and his advisers understood that they could not keep adding new names to a kill list, from ever lower on the Qaeda totem pole. What remains unanswered is how much killing will be enough.

“One guy gets knocked off, and the guy’s driver, who’s No. 21, becomes 20?” Mr. Daley said, describing the internal discussion. “At what point are you just filling the bucket with numbers?”

‘Maintain My Options’

A phalanx of retired generals and admirals stood behind Mr. Obama on the second day of his presidency, providing martial cover as he signed several executive orders to make good on campaign pledges. Brutal interrogation techniques were banned, he declared. And the prison at Guantánamo Bay would be closed.

What the new president did not say was that the orders contained a few subtle loopholes. They reflected a still unfamiliar Barack Obama, a realist who, unlike some of his fervent supporters, was never carried away by his own rhetoric. Instead, he was already putting his lawyerly mind to carving out the maximum amount of maneuvering room to fight terrorism as he saw fit.

It was a pattern that would be seen repeatedly, from his response to Republican complaints that he wanted to read terrorists their rights, to his acceptance of the C.I.A.’s method for counting civilian casualties in drone strikes.

The day before the executive orders were issued, the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, had called the White House in a panic. The order prohibited the agency from operating detention facilities, closing once and for all the secret overseas “black sites” where interrogators had brutalized terrorist suspects.

“The way this is written, you are going to take us out of the rendition business,” Mr. Rizzo told Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Obama’s White House counsel, referring to the much-criticized practice of grabbing a terrorist suspect abroad and delivering him to another country for interrogation or trial. The problem, Mr. Rizzo explained, was that the C.I.A. sometimes held such suspects for a day or two while awaiting a flight. The order appeared to outlaw that.

Mr. Craig assured him that the new president had no intention of ending rendition — only its abuse, which could lead to American complicity in torture abroad. So a new definition of “detention facility” was inserted, excluding places used to hold people “on a short-term, transitory basis.” Problem solved — and no messy public explanation damped Mr. Obama’s celebration.

“Pragmatism over ideology,” his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only reinforced the president’s instincts.

Even before he was sworn in, Mr. Obama’s advisers had warned him against taking a categorical position on what would be done with Guantánamo detainees. The deft insertion of some wiggle words in the president’s order showed that the advice was followed.

Some detainees would be transferred to prisons in other countries, or released, it said. Some would be prosecuted — if “feasible” — in criminal courts. Military commissions, which Mr. Obama had criticized, were not mentioned — and thus not ruled out.

As for those who could not be transferred or tried but were judged too dangerous for release? Their “disposition” would be handled by “lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”

A few sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

But a year later, with Congress trying to force him to try all terrorism suspects using revamped military commissions, he deployed his legal skills differently — to preserve trials in civilian courts.

It was shortly after Dec. 25, 2009, following a close call in which a Qaeda-trained operative named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had boarded a Detroit-bound airliner with a bomb sewn into his underwear.

Mr. Obama was taking a drubbing from Republicans over the government’s decision to read the suspect his rights, a prerequisite for bringing criminal charges against him in civilian court.

The president “seems to think that if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war,” former Vice President Dick Cheney charged.

Sensing vulnerability on both a practical and political level, the president summoned his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to the White House.

F.B.I. agents had questioned Mr. Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes and gained valuable intelligence before giving him the warning. They had relied on a 1984 case called New York v. Quarles, in which the Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a suspect in response to urgent public safety questions — the case involved the location of a gun — could be introduced into evidence even if the suspect had not been advised of the right to remain silent.

Mr. Obama, who Mr. Holder said misses the legal profession, got into a colloquy with the attorney general. How far, he asked, could Quarles be stretched? Mr. Holder felt that in terrorism cases, the court would allow indefinite questioning on a fairly broad range of subjects.

Satisfied with the edgy new interpretation, Mr. Obama gave his blessing, Mr. Holder recalled.

“Barack Obama believes in options: ‘Maintain my options,’ “ said Jeh C. Johnson, a campaign adviser and now general counsel of the Defense Department. Read more "Kill" List – Political Expediency vs. American Security

Thrown under the bus – Obama's loose lips

Editor’s Note – How to destroy America’s reputation, friendships, economy, and exceptionalism in a few easy steps; that seems to be the theme of the Obama administration.

Bow to foreign potentates, apologize to everyone, bad-mouth America overseas, reveal friends’ secrets, appease enemies, throw allies under the bus, and spend your way into oblivion.

Could there be any greater clear and present danger to America?

                                                    (AP Photo/Journal Times, Mark Hertzberg)

Arrogance and appeasement. Could there be a worse recipe?

Loose Lips

New York Post

How’s this for astonishing: NBC News is reporting that Israeli spies have been involved in the assassinations of five Iranian nuclear scientists.

So far, not so bad. We’d say the engineers basically needed killing.

But here’s the astonishing part: The source for the story apparently is the Obama administration — albeit through anonymous leaks.

The network claims that Israel used members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), a dissident group the United States classified as a terrorist group in 1998, to ice the engineers. An Iranian spokesman told NBC the Mossad has been flying MeK members to Israel for training and sending them back home to carry out assassinations, which began in 2007.

The allegations are nothing new. What is new is that “senior US officials” are said to have confirmed the gory details. One must wonder why.

We understand that the Obama administration’s ties with Israel are strained — at best — and that the State Department has a particular allergy to the Jewish state. But Iran’s nuclear program is about much more than Israel alone.

A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a near-existential threat to US allies in the region — meaning a nuclear-arms race among its Arab neighbors would be inevitable. And, of course, the lion’s share of the world’s oil passes through the Persian Gulf.

So who cares whether the MeK is a designated terror group? (Britain and the European Union already removed it from their lists, and there is pressure on America to do the same.) And isn’t Iran itself the leading exporter of terrorism in the world?

Let’s be frank: Were the MeK to play the critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb, it would be far more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than a certain president of the United States we could mention.

So why is the administration making such details public?

President Obama did Israel no favors when he pressured it to join his love-peace-and-harmony nuclear summit in 2010, undermining a basic pillar of Israel’s security — its undisclosed nuclear program.

And his administration has done far worse damage now, which may make it much harder for Israel to operate in Iran. Trouble is, Israel won’t suffer the consequences alone. Everyone will.

America included.

SSNP – The World’s Assassination Party

Editor’s Note – This article was created by Kerry Patton who is also a member of the Stand Up America Kitchen Cabinet. It was first published at the American Thinker.

The Syrian Social Nationalist Party: The World’s Assassination Party

American Thinker

By Kerry Patton

Lebanon has seen its share of atrocities and murders, including the assassinations of many high-profile persons. For years, terrorism experts have pointed fingers to groups like Hezb’allah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization and their offshoots for heinous events against Israel and the few allies within Lebanon. But are the aforementioned terrorist groups just puppets to a greater evil?

Many would like to believe that Hezb’allah and Hamas are superior in their terrorist operations. Make no mistake, however: these terrorist entities are worthless without some form of assistance, in this case funded by either Iran or Syria. Nation-states cannot acknowledge their cooperation with such groups, so they must support terrorist operations clandestinely.

One of the greatest movers and shakers supporting Lebanese terror comes from a Syrian/Lebanese-recognized political party: the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Founded by social scientist academic Antun Saadeh in Beirut in 1932, Saadeh believed in a “distinct and naturally superior Syria” — a Syria which would include Lebanon, and one not consumed with religious domination, but rather power through fascism. Saadeh claimed that his philosophy was never influenced by Hitler or Mussolini, yet evidence proves otherwise.

SSNP members embrace a modified German Nazi flag and often render the Hitler salute to their leaders — even today. Many Nazi and Fascist sympathizers joined the ranks of the SSNP, giving it more power and prestige. Saadeh was often labeled as the Führer of the Syrian nation.

The SSNP has had its ups and downs in gaining acceptance throughout Lebanon and Syria. They rivaled the Syrian Communist Party for many years. With time however, they would surpass and actually take over numerous parties that were later destroyed, such as the Communist Party, the Syrian Social Cooperative Party, the Arab Liberation Movement, the National Party, and the People’s Party. The SSNP’s goal is to establish the Syrian caliphate, better known as “Greater Syria.”

While blacklisted since 1955, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) continues to thrive, carrying out a unique secretive mission for Syria — clandestine operations. Today, they are led by Assaad Hardan. Hardan enjoyed politically appointed seats as minister of state and labor within the Lebanese government. These appointments served to cover his criminal activities.

Multiple Lebanese sources state that Hardan is the mastermind behind the majority of high-valued target assassinations and conducts such operations under direct supervision of Syrian Intelligence. (These sources must remain anonymous — understandably, as the unveiling of their identities could cost them their lives.) The same sources state that there isn’t a single car bomb or assassination in Beirut without Hardan’s fingerprints. Besides assassinations, he masterminded all the bombings in Christian Lebanon after the withdrawal of the Syrian Army, and his militia stormed the future television station in Raoucheh, Beirut (Hariri TV) and burned it to the ground.

At least seven assassinations were conducted and or orchestrated by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party against Lebanese politicians. All of those killed were anti-Syria and/or pro-United States. This fact is not the only pattern noted among those assassinated.

  • Husni Zaim — former prime minister of Syria (executed in prison by the SSNP in 1949)
  • Riad Solh — former prime minister of Lebanon (assassinated in 1951)
  • Bachir Gemayel — former president of Lebanon (assassinated in 1982)
  • Gebran Tueni — former Member of Parliament in Lebanon (assassinated in 2005)
  • Rafiq Hariri — former Prime Minister of Lebanon (assassinated in 2005 — The Hague continues to investigate culprits)
  • Pierre Gemayel — former minister of industry in Lebanon (assassinated in 2006)
  • Antoine Ghanem — former Member of Parliament in Lebanon (assassinated in 2007)

Do not think that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party solely operates in Syria and Lebanon, or that they target only nation-state politicians. In fact, there are at least five international operations conducted by the SSNP — one of which occurred inside the United States.

  1. In 1989, eleven fighters were caught in Cyprus. An official named Adib al-Halabi commissioned another SSNP member, Sleiman al-Khafaji, to oversee the assassination of Prime Minister Michel Naim Aoun. Khafaji was told that he, along with four other people, would bring down a helicopter used by Aoun at Larnaca airport. “The weapons to be used in the assassination were Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM-7) … and machine guns and grenades in case of any emergency,” said the story in Arabic. Maalouf added that although Aoun and the SSNP are aware of the assassination attempt 22 years ago, neither wants the public to know about it. The individual in charge of that operation was Imad Khafaja, also known in Beirut as Kamal el Awar. He is Assaad Hardan’s chief of operations in the SSNP.
  2. Lt. Col. Charles Ray — U.S. military attaché in Paris was killed by Georges Ibrahim Abdallah from the Lebanese Armed Revolution Faction (LARF). The LARF itself is an assumed name for the SSNP.
  3. The 1986 Athens, Greece TWA bomb attack conducted by May Elias Mansour — an SSNP activist.
  4. The 1986 attempt to bomb an El Al fight in London — the Nizar Hindawi case. Despite Hindawi’s recruitment by the Syrian Air Force Intelligence agency, then headed by Gen. Muhammad El Kholi, only those familiar the Syrian Intelligence’s relationship to the SSNP will understand how the SSNP were actually involved in this foiled attack.
  5. In 1988, three Lebanese members of the SSNP were caught in Vermont transporting explosives from Canada. Their mission was to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C.

There should be no question that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party is indeed either a terrorist organization or an actual component of the Syrian Clandestine Service. The U.S. State Department Terrorist List fails in identifying them as a terrorist organization. So what does that leave one to assume?

The Hague has recently released its indictments against four suspected Hezb’allah operatives allegedly involved in the Rafiq Hariri case. There is no question, after analyzing the phone network consisting of multiple color-coded tele-analyses — that these operatives were involved. But are these just low-hanging fruit?

Hezb’allah is not that good. When they succeed in such high-profile terror activities, they simply serve as puppets to their puppet-masters. In this case, the puppet-masters are Assaad Hardan and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

———-

Kerry Patton, a combat service disabled veteran, is a senior analyst for WIKISTRAT. He has worked in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, focusing on intelligence and security and interviewing current and former terrorists, including members of the Taliban. He is the author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies and the children’s book American Patriotism. You can follow him on Facebook.