Stopping Islamist Intimidation of Authors

Threat and Response—Part Six

We’re fighting the Islamist intimidation of authors—and winning!

One of the weapons in the arsenal of stealth jihadists is called “libel tourism.”

They file lawsuits against American authors in countries like Great Britain, where authors don’t have the same protection against defamation lawsuits they enjoy in the U.S.

They know they can’t win their lawsuits in the U.S., but their goal is simple—intimidate authors who are writing about terrorism.

Rachel Ehrenfeld

This tactic was used against Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of the book Funding Evil. A wealthy Saudi won a judgment against Ehrenfeld in a British court.

Ms. Ehrenfeld fought back, getting a bill introduced in the New York state legislature in 2008 that became known as “Rachel’s Law.”

The legislation was designed to protect New York authors from the kind of intimidation lawsuit that targeted Ms. Ehrenfeld.

ACT! for America delivered thousands of names on a petition, and hundreds of phone calls and emails to legislators in support of the bill, and the bill passed. In 2010, we got a similar bill passed in Tennessee.

Why is this important?

If authors and their publishers fear lawsuits in foreign countries that don’t protect freedom of speech and the press like we do in America, they’ll be less likely to write the truth about terrorism. And that’s a victory for stealth jihad because it’s a victory for suppression of free speech. It’s another way that Islamists impose sharia law on Americans.

ACT! for America is now working in several states to pass what has become known as The Free Speech Defense Act—and a little over two weeks ago, South Dakota became the latest state to pass The Free Speech Defense Act.

With every state that passes this legislation we protect that many more authors from “libel tourism.” We win, free speech wins—and radical Islam and stealth jihad loses.

If you’ve been following our “Threat and Response” emails, you see the many ways in which radical Islam is trying to impose its will on the West and on America.

“Libel tourism” is just one of the tactics employed by our enemies.

With your help, we can shut down this tactic and ensure that authors can write the truth about radical Islam without fear from those who would use the courts of other countries against us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

How to Waste a Decade in Afghanistan

For Immediate Release   
Contact: Maggie Rackl   (202) 293-5550 x205   press@understandingwar.org

Leaving a bare-bones U.S. presence will risk a return of the Taliban—and civil war.

By Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan

Originally published in The Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2013

At the White House on Friday, President Obama will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Although Mr. Karzai will presumably take up his continuous complaints that America has "imposed" corruption on his country, the more vital subject for both parties will be the size of the U.S. military footprint beyond 2014.

Administration officials are already leaking that the U.S. presence will be smaller than that requested by Gen. John Allen. The U.S. commander in the region has said that a force of 6,000 to 20,000 troops is needed. The White House has floated that 3,000 to 4,000 may be sufficient.

The divergence mirrors a more general disjunction in U.S. policy and perceptions regarding Afghanistan. Americans think the war is going badly, and many think it is hopelessly lost. But the Obama administration says that the process of "transitioning" responsibility for security to the Afghan military is going well enough to justify dramatic reductions in American forces this year and after 2014.

Has the president decided to cut his losses or does he actually think that the U.S. will have succeeded in Afghanistan at the end of his second term? Does it even matter?

Success in Afghanistan has always meant driving al Qaeda out and preventing it from returning. The U.S. cleared al Qaeda from the country in 2001-02 quickly, and with few forces. American efforts have since aimed at creating conditions in which Afghanistan will be able to keep al Qaeda out with limited international assistance. This part of the task has always been the most difficult. Yet it remains as vital today as it was in 2001.

Failing at it means letting al Qaeda regain its footing in the land from which it launched the most devastating terror attack against the U.S. in history...

...If a much-reduced U.S. force level is announced, Afghans will say that the Americans have abandoned their country. They will be right. With a drastically reduced U.S. presence, the Afghan government and army will fracture, warlords will begin fighting each other and the insurgents and terrorists in ungoverned spaces. The conditions will be ideal for al Qaeda's return. That's failure. And it will matter.

Read the entire opinion editorial at The Wall Street Journal.

To speak with ISW President Dr. Kimberly Kagan, please contact Maggie Rackl at mrackl@understandingwar.org or at (202) 293-5550 x205.

For more, visit www.understandingwar.org and join us on Twitter and Facebook.

###

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization. ISW advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives.

ISW Discusses the Surge in Afghanistan with Recent Commanders

Institute for the Study of War ~                                    For Immediate Release ~

Washington, D.C. – On November 30, 2012, the Institute for the Study of War welcomed Major General (Promotable) James Huggins and Lieutenant Colonel (Promotable) J.B. Vowell to The Army and Navy Club to discuss the effects of the surge in Afghanistan and the challenges that remain.  

 

Huggins expressed hopes that Afghanistan is heading in the right direction saying, “I firmly believe that the Afghan security forces are on the right path, on the right azimuth.  I believe that the strategy we’re executing in accordance with the surge plan from ’09 is achieving the effects that we wanted it to.  It’s just that we have adjusted troop strengths, we have adjusted timelines, and we are moving as fast as we can and our soldiers are doing incredible work there.”

 

Huggins oversaw the retrograde of approximately eleven thousand forces from his area of responsibility, leaving two Stryker Brigade Combat Teams where originally there had been six BCTs.  “[A]s we downsize[d] to two Stryker brigade combat teams when I left, I told them [my higher headquarters] that was the bare minimum I think we could use and still conduct the mission as it is prescribed today.”

 

He acknowledged that difficulty remains, but stressed the importance of continuing the fight. “We face some tough decisions in what’s going to happen in the future, but I would reiterate as long as we can continue to work off of conditions that we are achieving with our Afghan security partners, to continue to cement the hard-fought gains and the sacrifices we’ll be in pretty good shape.”

 

LTC Vowell, former commander of Task Force No Slack in Kunar, Afghanistan, discussed the difficult operating environment in that province, where al-Qaeda and its affiliates continue to operate, and stressed the importance of continuing engagement in Afghanistan.

 

“I’m very happy with the mission that No Slack did, and I think there’s hope for the future in Afghanistan but I’m cautious as well that it could be reversed…We could lose what we’ve gained so far if we withdraw from our gains too precipitously and we don’t continue to support the Afghan government and the region in the roads ahead.”

Watch full video of the event and read transcripts here.

For media inquiries, please contact Maggie Rackl at mrackl@understandingwar.org
or press@understandingwar.org
(202) 293-5550 x205

For more, visit www.understandingwar.org  and join us on Twitter and Facebook.

###

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization. ISW advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives.

BREAKING NEWS: JIM DEMINT TO RESIGN

By Erick Erickson ~

Jim DeMint, the standard bearer of the conservative movement in America and conservative king maker, is resigning from the United States Senate at the end of the year.

He will succeed Ed Fuelner as President of the Heritage Foundation.

While my initial reaction was one of sadness that we are losing the clearest voice in the Senate for conservatives, the upside on Jim DeMint's departure from the Senate is mind boggling.

Please allow me to explain why and why you should be thrilled by this move →