National Security Online Resource Center

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia offered a royal pardon to a journalist who was accused of helping air a tv show where a man bragged about his sexual escapades. The journalist had previously faced sixty lashes and a two-year travel ban. The man who bragged on the show received 1,000 lashes and five years imprisonment. Apparently, the King has earned a reputation for his mercy for occasionally overturning lashing sentences.

Saudi Arabia is a country that subscribes to Sharia law, an Islamic legal code that critics believe oppresses women. According to CNN, citizens of Saudi Arabia will find that “Pre-marital sex is illegal, and unrelated men and women are not permitted to mingle.”

Reading about Saudi crime and punishment should really put our system in perspective. Whereas Americans can only be put to death for premeditated first degree murder, Saudis can be put to death for crimes such as homosexuality, adultery, sexual misconduct, blasphemy, and even witchcraft or idolatry. And what is the method of execution in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? According to this article, beheading is not uncommon.

I normally end these posts by hoping that countries such as these move closer to becoming democracies. Perhaps Saudi Arabia should take the following baby steps for now:

1. No beheadings.

2. No lashing.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has once again released an updated list of its top ten most wanted fugitives:

1. Joe Luis Saenz-wanted for murdering three L.A. gang members and his girlfriend.

2. Eduardo Ravelo-wanted for racketeering and drug trafficking.

3. Seimon Mogilevich-wanted for defrauding investors.

4. James Bulger-wanted for contract killings in the Boston area during the 1970s-80s.

5. Glen Stewart Goodwin-wanted for murder and escape from a Mexico prison.

6. Robert Fisher-wanted for murdering his wife, two children, and blowing up his house.

7. Osama bin Laden-wanted for orchestrating and financing 9/11 and countless other terrorist attacks worldwide.

8. Victor Manuel Gerena-wanted for armed robbery.

9. Jason Derek Brown-wanted for murder and armed robbery.

10. Alexis Flores-kidnapping and murder of a small girl in Pennsylvania.

Obviously, if you see any of these people or have any knowledge of their whereabouts, you should contact the FBI. If you read detailed descriptions of these men, they are not typical run-of-the-mill criminals, but they are often highly-skilled individuals who are cut-out for the life of a fugitive. Among this group are avid outdoorsmen,  linguists, and successful scam artists. It will take a strong effort from the FBI to find futivies like these, so hopefully the FBI is up to the task. They appear to be, considering they captured three major fugitives last year.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced that he is placing a three minute time limit on showers in his country. Chavez tells his citizens that he “counted” the amount of time that he spends in the shower and he could therefore conclude that three minutes was plenty of time: “No kids, three minutes is more than enough. I’ve counted, three minutes, and I don’t stink.”

While even democratic nations place restrictions on water use during droughts, which Chavez claims Venezuela is currently facing, it is disheartening to hear of even more regulations being placed on the Venezuelan people. They have already lost their economic, social, and political rights, but now anyone who saw a long morning or evening shower as a silver lining in their daily routine does not have that comfort anymore.

Perhaps this Chavez quote will further illuminate how this is not simply a water restriction, but how this shortage is being spun with anti-Western rhetoric to promote his leftist ideological agenda: “If you are going to lie back, in the bath, with the soap and you turn on the what’s it called, the Jacuzzi … imagine that, what kind of communism is that? We’re not in times of Jacuzzi…” “Jacuzzi” is used as an example of a Western bourgeois luxury, a lifestyle that Chavez has fiercely opposed.

In the interest of full disclosure, I got the idea for this feature from this website that stopped updating in 2007. I will now feature a current dictator from time-to-time on NSORC.

This Month’s Winner? King Mswati II of Swaziland. As a son of the royal family of Swaziland, a small former British colony located on the border of South Africa and Mozambique, he became ruler of Swaziland at age eighteen. His rule sheds light on the methods that this nation uses to choose its leader. An independent council will decide which of Mswati’s wives will be the “she-elephant.” If she only has one son who is in good character, he will become the next king. For more details, read this publication from a Swazi website.

While Swaziland appears to be relatively stable under Mswati’s rule, he has been criticized for his wealth, which is estimated to be between 100 million-10 billion dollars, depending on whether his late father’s trust fund is counted. He has also been criticized for his failure to respond to the African AIDS crisis, as he had proposed that children under 18 be forced into chastity.

Mswati appears to be a relatively benign dictator in comparison to others that I have highlighted on this blog, and little evidence exists that his rule will end any time in the near future. Hopefully he will respect the human rights of his citizens despite his status as an absolute monarch.

Although significant efforts have been made by the United States in its attempt to cut off the money supply to the Afghan Taliban, American officials admit: they have barely made a dent. A NYTimes article dwells into the subject and reveals that the Taliban is running a complicated and diversified financial operation. The primary source of funding include donations from abroad and revenues from opium production and trade. American officials are surprised to learn that the former has been a larger source of funds in the recent months as oppose to conventional wisdom that opium finances the Taliban. Even if the United States is successful in cutting off funds, one analyst argues that it might not make much of a difference as the low cost operations can be run with locally generated funds.

There is much to be concerned about in this story. 1. How will this affect the Obama administration’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, 2. How will these revelations change public opinion on possibility of success in Afghanistan? 3. Obama and his aides have already begun using their favorite line of defense as they blamed the Bush administration on Sunday. However this is Obama’s war now. He has said that Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Can he back away now as he is failing to win? Can he simply divert responsibility to the Bush administration?

That would certainly be the cowardly option.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona might just be the most controversial law enforcement officer in the land. Known for conducting sweeps where he arrests those suspected of being illegal aliens, he is under renewed criticism from not just the ACLU and the typical array of Hispanic advocacy groups, but now the Obama administration opposes his efforts.

Arpaio is very frank when it comes to his attitude toward the federal government’s criticism: “It doesn’t bother me, because we are going to do the same thing…I am the elected sheriff. I don’t take orders from the federal government.” Arpiao claims his sweeps are perfectly legal because he only checks the immigration status of suspects after they have been arrested. Also, he claims to be complying with federal and state law regulating the detention of suspected illegal aliens. Despite this, his critics are investigating his practices, and his office is the subject of a series of lawsuits.

I have long been a fan of Arpaio’s work. Despite the national criticism he receives, his tough stance has won him many allies in Arizona. He won the most recent election with 55% of the vote despite the strong Democratic surge in Arizona as of late. Illegal aliens do not have the right to enter the United States, just as Americans do not have the right to enter and live in Mexico as we please. The Obama administration probably wants to please its Hispanic base, which gave him 66% of the vote in 2008.

Here is a roundup of Kim Jong-Il’s latest nonsense that he expects his subjects to believe.

Apparently, South Korean warships illegally entered North Korean waters. The North Korean military claims that these acts have occurred 3-4 times daily in October. According to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), “The south Korean military authorities’ intrusion of warships into the territorial waters of the north side is part of their premeditated moves to deliberately escalate tension in the waters, a hotbed of conflict, and deteriorate the north-south relations once again.” South Korea naturally called these claims “preposterous” in the New York Times.

While North Korea can test missiles as she pleases, Japan is denounced for its “space militarization.” Japan’s crime? Launching a “spy satellite.” Someone should teach the author of this particular piece that phrases like “The international community should take issue with this” should appear in opinion pieces, not news clips. Apparently, American satellite launches are also of concern to the communist North Koreans.

Rev. Billy Graham’s son also paid a recent visit to North Korea, as reported in the Times article above and this blurb here.

I have always enjoyed irony, which the KCNA seems to miss entirely. While they denounce satellite launches in foreign countries, routine acts that may have nothing to do with anything military related (we also use satellites for cell phones and television), they freely test their own missiles (which they probably claim are for direct tv installation).

I was thinking whether the President could potentially refuse the prize. My initial thoughts were that he could not. Not only would it be a massive snub on the Norwegian Nobel Committee, there is no precedent other than Jean Paul Sartre, a committed Marxist, who refused the prize on the grounds that he did not want to associate himself with a Western institution.

However, Ross Douthat, a NYTimes coloumnist makes a brilliant argument for refusing the prize. Essentially everyone, with the exception of the five Norwegians who selected Mr. Obama, believed he did not deserve the award. So refusing the award for peace as he is leading two major wars might have actually been an incredibly bold political move. For Mr. Obama’s enemies, they have pounced on the opportunity and will continue to point this out at his every failure.

Foxnews.com reports that the communist Democratic People’s Republic of Korea tested five missiles off its east coast Monday. This report is according to an unnamed South Korean government official who confirmed that the five missiles fired today were the first missiles tested since the July tests that drew international scrutiny. Both the United States and South Korea stressed that they would still strive to continue talks to disarm North Korea, but the South Korean government appears to have taken a stronger stance on the issue.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered the following statement according to Fox: “Our goal remains the same..Our consultations with our partners and our allies continues unabated. It is unaffected by the behavior of North Korea.”

However, the South Korean government, whose leadership is supposedly taking a tougher stance toward North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, is not backing down from pressing North Korea to disarm. This pressure comes despite recent meetings between the two countries to discuss flooding, and another mmeeting to allow separated families in the North and South to reunite. The article also mentions that the two countries officially remain at war because a formal treaty to end the 1950s war has never been signed.

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in part due to his work to promote nuclear disarmament. Now is a good time to put those skills to work and prevent a communist country from obtaining nuclear weapons. That will prove your doubters wrong, Mr. President…

It is official: The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke. I listed four people/groups of people who have dedicated their lives to a cause to help advance peace. Not only did they strive tirelessly for their cause, many of them achieved material success. The Colombian Senator who won the release of sixteen hostages is a perfect example of this.

But President Obama? His career has not been about promoting peace. He has spent his life climbing the political ladder, from the Illinois Senate to the White House. While he may have advocated a foreign policy dedicated to multilateralism and diplomacy, Obama is still fighting two wars and has achieved no diplomatic victory to this date. For example, his “talking” to Iran and Venezuela have achieved no positive results. Iran is still a theocracy developing nuclear capabilities and Hugo Chavez is still consolidating power and arresting dissidents.

Meanwhile, Obama has snubbed countless US allies. He returned a bust of Sir Winston Churchill for reasons unknown, and decided to cancel plans to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe, much to the Czech Republic’s chagrin.

It is clear that this prize is a repudiation of Bush. The committee that awards the prize (which has also been awarded to Al Gore and Jimmy Carter this decade) simply enjoys Obama’s ideal foreign policy because it portrays America as less powerful and righteous than they believe it should be. But if America is more powerful than other nations, and uses that power to spread democracy like President Bush did, these qualities are good for a nation to have. Too bad Obama wants to throw them away just to appease a few European leftists.