A Guide To Islamic Extremist Groups

Organization	Location	Mission	Links to other organizations
Al  Qaeda	Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Somalia, Indian subcontinent (recently announced)	According to the writings of Sayyid Qutb, a vanguard movement of righteous Muslims is needed to establish "true Islamic states", implement sharia, and rid the Muslim world of any non-Muslim influences	In February 2014, Al Qaeda announced that it was cutting all ties with Islamic State for its brutality.
Islamic State	Iraq and Syria	Sunni extremist group. As a self-proclaimed caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control.	Formed from the consolidation of Al Qaeda Iraq with other Sunni insurgent groups
Khorasan	Syria	Not clear.  It seems to comprise a dozen Afghanistan veterans who are all wanted by the U.S.	Cell backed by Jabhat al-Nusra; “affiliated” with Al Qaeda (according to our State Department)
Jabhat al-Nusra	Syria	Sunni movement that calls for overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad’s government.	Has declared allegiance to Al Qaeda; has fought with IS but at least one al-Nusra branch has pledged allegiance to IS.
Boko Haram	Nigeria	Sunni movement that seeks the establishment of an Islamic state in Nigeria. Kidnapped nearly 300 schoolgirls, most of whom are still missing.	Declared support for the IS caliphate.  The Obama administration does not consider Boko Haram to be affiliated with central al Qaeda leadership.

I created the table above for my own knowledge.  Since the United States has committed to military involvement in Syria and Iraq, I should at least know who we are fighting and what they stand for. So I compiled some information in papers released by the Congressional Research Service on the organizations that pose a threat to the United States. 

America's ambassador to the UN, Samantha power, argued that Iraq had asked our country to assist in defending itself from Islamic State; that the group was staging attacks from Syria; and that the government of Syria was either unable or unwilling to prevent this.  But rather than striking Islamic State, our first round of attacks were against the Khorasan group, which seems to be one cell of the Jabhat al-Nusra.  As I have discussed previously, the U.S. use-of-force declaration authorizes military force for the threat posed by Iraq.  Islamic State arguably fits that definition.  Although I have only a cursory understanding of the groups involved, Khorasan seems to be distinct from Islamic State.  So our strikes may not have been authorized under our own use-of-force declaration. 

Should all extremist Islamic groups be treated as one? Or should we pay more attention to the differences between groups in deciding who to strike?  

Little Sisters vs. Big Government

Last week, the government announced that it would continue to fight over contraceptive coverage with the Little Sisters of the Poor.  The Little Sisters filed suit to obtain injunctive relief from a federal mandate requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage for their female employees.  I say “federal mandate” because this requirement was not part of the text of the Affordable Care Act.  Rather, the ACA required  any “group health plan” to provide coverage for certain “preventive care” without “any cost sharing.” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a).  A federal agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration, defined “preventative care” to include FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, including abortifacient “emergency contraception” such as Plan B (the “morning-after” pill) and ella (the “week-after” pill).

The Little Sisters maintain that this mandate would require them to violate their religious beliefs, since they cannot appear to condone practices that they view as life-ending. So they asked the court in Denver to declare that applying the contraceptive mandate violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.  The government has offered them a couple of avenues of accommodation, rather than providing the contraceptive coverage themselves: the Little Sisters can notify their third-party insurance administrator, they can fill out a federal form notifying HHS that they are objecting on religious grounds, or they may write a letter to HHS. In January, the Supreme Court ruledthat during litigation on the merits, the Little Sisters need not use the government form or notify their third-party administrators directly: they could simply notify HHS.  But HHS has since promulgated interim rules that dictate exactly what must be in the Little Sisters’ letter to HHS: their name, the basis of their objection, what they object to, the insurance plan name and type, and the name and contact information for any of the third-party plan administrators.

The Little Sisters say that this “accommodation” changes nothing in their appeal—they are still forced to comply with the mandate in violation of their religious beliefs.  According to them, the government could have given them a religious exemption (as it does for churches, but not Catholic hospitals or schools).  The government could have exempted church insurance plans, like the one carried by the Little Sisters.  It could have simply provided contraceptives to women itself, through Title X, tax incentives, or allowing the Little Sisters’ female employees to purchase subsidized coverage on the government’s own healthcare exchanges. Rather than do any of this, though, the government requires a letter identifying the third-party administrators, which the government will use to “offer those entities incentives to take action contrary to the terms of the plan and religious beliefs of the Little Sisters.” The government responds that the Little Sisters don’t need to notify their plan administrators of their objections; after they send the letter to the HHS, the government will do all of the notification for them. The government is also fighting against any injunctions during litigation, since it is imperative that female employees of the Little Sisters receive contraceptive coverage without delay.

First, fighting against the injunction seems disingenuous to me.  While so many parts of the Affordable Care Act have been delayed in their implementation, why is contraceptive coverage for the employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor such an urgent need? 

Second, I was familiar with this fight earlier, but I did not know that the contraceptive mandate was not in the statutory text.  This speaks to the vast administrative power that was delegated by the Affordable Care Act.  We should be especially wary of this, since the people promulgating these regulations were not elected.

Third, I tend to err on the side of religious freedom.  So what if it’s a one-page form?  Or a letter that names plan administrators?  If the government wants to force a religious group to violate their beliefs, it better be for a compelling interest and the law better be narrowly tailored.  As the Little Sisters point out, there are several different ways of serving the interest of providing contraceptive coverage to their employees that do not require them to provide it themselves. 

September 11th and the Islamic State

So Proudly We Hailed would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the terrorist attacks on our nation thirteen years ago and the brave men and women who gave their lives for our country in the years since.  Last night, President Obama honored our fallen by outlining his plan to fight the Islamic State.  He made a brave choice.  Although he campaigned on ending the war in the Middle East, abandoning Iraq’s fledgling democracy would be a mistake. Yes, people question whether he needs congressional approval for this sustained action. And people question whether we are truly assembling a broad international coalition.  But it would be irresponsible to let the Islamic State terrorists gain more territory. So thank you, President Obama, for showing strong leadership in the face of an extremist enemy. And thank you to the many men and women who have sacrificed so much for America over the last thirteen years.  

Letter to Congress

Welcome back from summer recess, Congress! I hope you're well-rested and reinvigorated. You have so much to do to improve our country! Here's what you should focus on:

1. Islamic State
President Obama is likely to ask you for funds to arm and train pro-Western Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State militants. This action would be narrower than a use-of-force vote, which we have discussed earlier. Islamic State is still threatening to quash democracy in Iraq.  It has beheaded two American journalists.  And it will continue its genocidal persecution of Yazidis and Christians.  The U.S. must continue to stabilize the region, for moral as well as national security reasons. 

2. Government Funding
Yes, I realize that this is an election year, so it's important for candidates to take memorable stands. But little, if anything, was accomplished by last year's shutdown. Pass the continuing resolution to keep the government running beyond the end of this month.  The same goes for the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Whether it is a job creator, free-market distorter, or both, the uncertainty of its short-term fate discourages transactions and destabilizes U.S. business interests abroad.

3. Immigration

President Obama told NBC recently that he will not pursue action on immigration until after the November elections. he admitted that politics shifted midsummer due to the influx of undocumented migrant children.  Shouldn't this influx mean something should be done?  That the status quo isn't working? President Obama's reluctance to take unilateral action creates an opportunity for Congress to create a bipartisan coalition and come up with thoughtful, durable legislation to address immigration.  As I have written earlier, I don't know what the solution is.  But shouldn't congresspeople want to start throwing ideas out for debate?

Now that we've identified priorities, here's what you shouldn't spend time on this week:

1. Militarization of local police forces in response to Ferguson

This is a matter of local concern. You work for the federal government. You have enough to deal with on a national and international level right now. I learned recently that the Department of Justice has the power to oversee local police practices, including patterns of stops, arrests, and use of force.  But creation of a "federal police czar," as some progressives are calling for, would simply mean greater federal intrusion into purely local matters.

2. Campaign finance constitutional amendment 

House Democrats are expected to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. This amendment would restrict political speech by allowing aggregate caps on political contributions.  As Ted Olson argues in today's WSJ, "Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office." Well said.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help.

The U.S. should lead the fight against Ebola

As I read about the various international crises currently going on—the rise of Islamic State, the Russian invasion of East Ukraine, the Syrian Civil War, Gazan ceasefires  that may or may not hold—it’s difficult to judge when and how the United States should get involved.  On which side should we intervene?  Are economic sanctions enough?  Do airstrikes in Iraq support the Assad regime in Syria?  This recent WSJ graphic highlights the strange alliances that the threat of the Islamic State has created.  Who should we be cautious of supporting now, should it come to haunt us in the future?

There is one current crisis, though, that involves a clear-cut enemy, a true bad guy: Ebola.  The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has already killed more than 1,400 people.  The virus is mutating quickly, and risks rise as the epidemic continues to spread.  According to Charles Chiu, an infectious-disease physician at UC-San Francisco, “The longer we allow the outbreak to continue, the greater the opportunity the virus has to mutate, and it’s possible that it will mutate into a form that would be an even greater threat than it is right now.”

The World Health Organization has estimated that $490 million will be required to control the outbreak for the next six to nine months.  This is based on the estimate that 20,000 people will be infected.  WHO’s member states (194 members of the United Nations) have the opportunity to foot the bill. The agency’s three-part plan to fight Ebola involves the following: “First, governments and first responders must ensure that all affected geographic areas have adequate surveillance and health care in the next three months so that standard strategies for containment and tracking the spread of the disease will work. Second, countries need to contain any outbreaks in new regions within eight weeks; and finally, countries must strengthen their capacity to detect and respond to cases.”

This is a situation where the United States can and should intervene. Just as in our results-based cash influx for providing AIDS relief, our help is much more than just a humanitarian mission.  President George W. Bush described PEPFAR as a way of strengthening U.S. national security interests.  So, too, would our response to the Ebola outbreak.  If we assist West African nations not only when they are threatened by other countries, but also when they are threatened by disease, we build up international goodwill.  It is simply the right thing to do.  

Suing the Government over the Common Core

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is suing the Obama administration in federal court for its implementation of the Common Core academic standards.  Jindal claims that creation of educational curricula and assessment policy is the exclusive province of state and local government, and the federal government’s usurpation of this function violates federal law.  He bases his suit on several federal educational statutes: the General Education Provisions Act of 1965; the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. According to Jindal, these statutes add up to the proposition that state and local governments get to control academic curriculum, and the federal government doesn’t get a say.

Jindal says that the Race To The Top program and the Common Core impermissibly federalize education policy through economic incentives and duress.  Louisiana received over $17.4 million in education funding after it agreed to join a consortium of states and adopted the Common Core developed by those states.  Jindal argues that although the funding was greatly needed, “the loss of State and local authority over education curricula and assessment policy is unmeasurable (sic) and irreparable.”  He also says that the Tenth Amendment prohibits federalization of educational policy, and that the Spending Clause does not save it.

Will Jindal be successful in court?  Unlikely, in my opinion. The Spending Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government fairly broad discretion to condition receipt of federal funds on certain state actions.  A federal grant of funds need only be related to the particular national interest at issue.  Jindal says that educational curricula cannot be a national interest due to the statutes mentioned above.  But I’m sure the federal government will argue that having an educated workforce is in the national interest.  

Winning the lawsuit may not be Jindal’s motivation, though.  In fact, he might have won just by filing. A strong federalist stance would look pretty good on a Republican presidential candidate’s resume.  This lawsuit gives him the ability to campaign on a “keep the federal government out of our state affairs” platform later on.

This lawsuit says nothing about the outcomes of the Common Core curricula and assessments or whether students have benefitted.  Nor would I expect it to.  According to this line of argumentation, it doesn’t matter how good the outcome of a specific policy or program is.  If the federal government is not permitted to do something, it shouldn’t be done.  I’d love to hear from some teachers about their experiences with the Common Core, though. 

Ferguson: From an Unknown City, to a Household Name

I was initially hesitant to write this post.  Individuals in today’s society are quick to accuse, label, judge, and write-off those having a difference of opinion as ignorant, misinformed, or worse; indeed, if people were still able to engage in healthy discourse involving differing opinions, the necessity of this blog would likely be in doubt. Unfortunately, we, as a society, have moved far beyond the realm of healthy intellectual debate regarding sensitive topics.  So let us travel 100 miles south of my humble abode to Ferguson, Missouri.

It is hard to think of a more inflammatory subject right now than race.  In writing this post I can’t help but wonder if I choose to run for political office years from now, will a string of words be plucked from this article to brand me as a racist – a term I believe is used too loosely in today’s society. Race is a constant theme throughout news stories, often tainting the real facts and issues at hand.  This is not to say the racial divide in this country is a non-issue; however I believe race is exploited to demonize those with differing opinions.  In Ferguson, the narrative ranges from white individuals get away with murdering young black kids because the system wants it that way to black individuals should simply obey whatever orders an officer gives and they will not get hurt.

Let us start with the facts about what happened in Ferguson.  Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson. The autopsy showed that he was shot six times, twice in the head and four times in the right arm, all in the front of his body.  The final and likely fatal shot was to the top of his head which, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden the medical examiner who conducted an autopsy at the Brown family’s request, indicated that Michael’s head was bent forward when the bullet struck him. Eye witness reports range from Michael having his hands up, to being shot in the back, to charging the officer.  Michael’s community, primarily black, immediately rallied in support for the unarmed teen.  Darren’s community, primarily white, rallied in support for the officer. Lines were drawn and the racial divide was (and still is) palpable.

First off, the looting is inexcusable and, to my understanding, being perpetrated mostly by non-residents of Ferguson. Those who support Michael should be outraged at how the looters are exploiting his death for their own well-being.  This abhorrent behavior should be no part of “seeking justice for Michael.”

The media coverage is overwhelming.  It is an important story to cover, but the amount of speculation, non-verified statements, and opinion presented as fact makes it difficult to ascertain what exactly is occurring in Ferguson.  Are cops in military vehicles harassing peaceful protesters and reporters, or are local officers being pelted with rocks and molotov cocktails while protecting the local Ferguson business owners by arresting looters?  Depending on which news station is reporting, this story lands somewhere between a non-story inflamed by the liberal media and Rodney King.  My guess is it is somewhere in the middle. 

Aside from the extremes, however, both sides are asking for the same thing: justice.  What is justice in this case?  I have a feeling I would get a different response depending on which “line” in Ferguson I asked. One side wants Darren arrested and has little faith in a legal system which has a record of disproportionately charging, convicting, and sentencing young black men. The other side, wants the people of Ferguson to quit protesting, accept their story, and conclude that Darren was just doing his job. 

Our criminal justice system is one of procedure.  Justice is not achieved in a day.  A grand jury has been convened and, to me, the process of achieving justice is underway.  The Attorney General of the United States has been to the area and ensured that his office will investigate the shooting and possibly bring civil rights violations.  Having  Mr. Holder, a well documented advocate of civil rights, present should provide added comfort that justice is being pursued.  Yet, the protests continue and whether justice will be served (and accepted by those disappointed in the result whatever it may be) remains to be seen.

If Darren had racism flowing through his blood and killed Michael with malice in his heart, I hope the legal system would prove this and he would be locked up forever.  If Darren used unnecessary force in killing Michael, not out of racial animus, but in a moment of heightened emotion, I would hope the legal system would prove this and he would be locked up accordingly.  If Darren killed Michael after a fight and in self-defense while being charged by Michael, I would hope the legal system would prove this and he would be released. Each of those results would be a just one, and I would feel that justice could be considered served if this matter ended in any one of the aforementioned ways.  The fact is, we have a legal system to determine these facts. I am not racist, nor am I choosing sides, in asking that we wait to see whether or not Darren is indicted and what facts come to light at trial.  If he is not indicted, the grand jury should not immediately be labeled racist. Likewise, if he is indicted, the grand jury should not be accused of caving to political and social pressure.  No media has all the facts.  I know nothing about Darren or Michael aside from what has been reported, and no one knows what Darren was feeling when he pulled the trigger except himself. Hopefully, all the rumors will be filtered out by a courtroom and we will gain a clear picture of what happened.  I hope that the legal system works as it should, and I refuse to condemn the process in this case before it even begins; however, I understand the mistrust some have about the legal process.

My honest hope is that this incident leads to healthy dialogue about race in this country.  It is one we need to have.  One where the term racist is not flippantly tossed around. One where an individual can address issues like the rate of children born out of wedlock and the disproportionate sentencing of crack and cocaine, without pointing fingers and instantly declaring that the other side is incapable of understanding.  We need to end the divide and begin working towards a solution.  I think it would have been good measure for the Attorney General to have met with both Darren’s family and Michael’s family, instead of just Michael’s.  I think it would have been a positive step for the local police in Ferguson and the local residents to stand together and ask for justice, whatever the result may be. Sadly, it appears our country is not ready to have this dialogue, and both “lines” in Ferguson are to blame.