A few days ago I linked to this Christian Science Monitor article about the Rise and Fall of Ansar al-Islam. It explains how Ansar was modelled after al-Qaeda, was connected to al-Qaeda, but fell apart in its original form after the Americans bombed their bases during the Iraq war. It also quotes Kurdish intelligence officials who believe that Ansar has now split and formed smaller cells, the cells that may have been involved in recent terrorist attacks in Iraq, (though there is no evidence of this).

Dagbladet's Jan-Erik Smilden and Carsten Thomassen read the same article as I did, but arrived at some different conclusions. Mixing quotes from the article with an interview with ex-leader Mullah Krekar, they explain how "new investigations raise doubt about the American allegations that Krekar's former soldiers are behind terrorist attacks in Iraq", that the US has "overrated [Ansar's] significance", thus revealing the American's "bluff". The original article was good and interesting - Dagbladet's version is heavily spinned and unreliable. It uses Mullah Krekar to back up their thesis that Ansar is weak and inactive. Wouldn't he say that anyway? Krekar has also claimed that Ansar never had connections with al-Qaeda - former members interviewed in the article say they did. What does that tell us about Krekar's reliability? Is it Dagbladet's view that people with al-Qaeda connections generally speak freely to the press about their group's activities?

Krekar's been doing very well in the Norwegian media this week. His brother Khalid Faraj Ahmad spoke to VG a few days ago of his concern about being branded a terrorist, after his and his brother's name showed up in a Spanish investigation of an al-Qaeda cell. In 1995, Khalid tried to get one of its members a visa to Norway. His defense: "- In 1995, there were no al-Qaeda and no Taliban. How can the Spanish police eight years later claim they've discovered a terrorist cell? .. Nobody in 1995 knew this man was an extremist, and I certainly didn't." He "points out that Muslims in the West travelled a lot before September 11, and had extensive contact with each other." As Krekar and Khalid are themselves extremists, who ran an extremist Mosque in Oslo in the 90's, their views about who is or isn't an extremist shouldn't be taken seriously. Though if what he meant to say is that extremist Muslims in Europe have been in contact with each other and help each other out a lot, on both sides of the law, and that investigations into the al-Qaeda network have reduced this contact, I believe him. The claim that al-Qaeda didn't exist in 1995 is ridiculous. Why didn't VG challenge him on that?

Mullah Krekar himself scored a major media victory this week. First, TV2 Nettavisen reported that the Norwegian Foreign Ministry misinformed Dutch authorities about Krekar, resulting in his arrest on Schiphol Aiport, September 12, 2002. They claimed he were a high-ranking al-Qaeda member. The Foreign Ministry's defense is that Iran told them an unnamed al-Qaeda member was on his way to Norway through the Netherlands, so it was an honest mistake. That sounds fair enough.

There's more meat on TV2 Nettavisen's other revelation, that the Jordanian drug charges against Mullah Krekar were probably fabricated. The charges were used to try to extradite Krekar, first from the Netherlands, then Norway. Nettavisen is overstating their case, but they do have one. After looking at the documents, they've found that:

- Jordan sent two requests to the Netherlands. The first cited merely a "criminal conspiracy to commit crimes against individuals". The second, arriving a few hours laters, cited drug trafficking as Krekar's crime - which, as it happens, is the only charge for which the Netherlands would be able to extradite Krekar.

- The request was short on details, and contained errors. It refers to an arrest order which did not exist at the time, and was written two weeks later.

- According to Jordan, three men in their custody have testified that Krekar was the main man in their drug ring, but they have not provided Krekar's Dutch lawyer with the sentences for these men, and they're listed with unknown height, hair color, etc., and unknown passport numbers.

- Jordanian authorities repeatedly failed to reply to Dutch inquiries about the request.

- New, more detailed information given to the Norwegian authorities contradict earlier information given to the Dutch. (Nettavisen doesn't say how.)

- Anonymous journalists are quoted as having felt it "unsafe" to investigate the Krekar case in Jordan.

It sounds plausible to me that Ansar al-Islam might have financed their operation with drug trade, (though I say that without knowing anything about the realities of drug trade in the area, such as whether they'd have access to a good drug route.) For all their puritanism, the Taliban did the same thing. But Nettavisen's allegations should be taken seriously. Krekar's defense has always been that Jordan made up the drug charges at the request of the US, which is pure speculation, but if Jordan did fabricate these charges, they must have had a reason. If the US spoke to Jordan about grabbing hold of Krekar, did they know Jordan would fake a case against him? Did they want to know?

There are too many unanswered questions here, (and it may just as well be attributed to Jordanian incompetence as Jordanian malevolence), but this matters - prosecuting anyone, even a person with al-Qaeda connections, based on false evidence is wrong.

In this case, it's also unnecessary. Norway has what it needs to kick Krekar out of the country - he visited Northern Iraq while claiming protection from the same place, a violation of his residency permit. And there should be more than enough evidence for a case against him in an Iraqi court for the things he did when he was in power. There's also little doubt that Krekar shares Taliban's extremism and has sympathy for al-Qaeda's cause, (even if he were only indirectly involved in it). This is not illegal, but it settles an issue Norway's media continues to keep open, of whether he's a good guy or a bad guy, a victim or an oppressor, reliable or unreliable. Wake up - people who run small totalitarian safe havens for al-Qaeda members are generally evil.

Thanks for bringing an update on this embarrassing case.

Yes, Krekar should not be persecuted on false accusations.

However, refuge in Norway is I see it a privilegue and not a right. If the authorities do not have the legal power to kick out an outspoken extremist, the laws should be updated!

The way the press supports Krekar is sick and absurd. Surely, he should be allowed to state his case, but the press should ask some hard questions.

Isn't it possible that granting him refugee status is just a way for Norwegian intelligence to keep him within reach?

mitch: He got that status more than ten years ago, as part of the UN quota refugee program. It's the Americans who want to speak to him, anyway, and as he's walking freely about at the moment there's not much they can do. He was held for suspicion of being involved with terrorism, but the charges have been dropped. Some smaller charges remain, but not enough to hold him, apparently.

I generally agree on what you have written about Mullah Krekar. I actually ran into him once (by pure accident) and he just seemed like the nicest guy. It was really difficult to imagine him doing seriously bad things. Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that a leader of an extremist organisation is very charismatic! We are not used to extremism in this country, and I believe Norwegian journalists are easily fooled by seemingly nice guys.

I do however disagree on one thing in your article: The use of the word "evil". Once you characterize anyone as evil, you take their humanity away, and objectivity too. I know it is tempting to use the word evil about things that in our own view are horrible, inhuman and sometimes disgustingly successful. But once you're into the "We're good, they're evil" argumentation you cannot solve any conflict. "Evil" is the word you use when you want support for an unjust war. Please use more objective words if you don't want a world of extremism and hatred.

Jørgen:

Churchill used "monstrous tyranny"
Reagan used "the evil empire"

I believe these were indeed objective words, and helped END extremism and hatred.

There is such thing as good and evil, but there are disagreements on exactly what acts and which people fall under those terms. We all know this.

But I've heard enough from the anti-war crowd about the "overuse" of the term "evil", as it relates to Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, etc. etc. Their argument generally goes like this -

"It's irresponsible to throw around the term 'evil, and use it to justify an 'unjust' war; but we KNOW that Bush is evil."

Hey Jorgen, 'unjust' is another subjective term, why do you throw it around so recklessly?

And p.s. - Reagan applied the "Evil Empire" term to the Soviet Union...was that appropriate and was the conflict solved?

Jørgen: A colleague of mine saw Krekar on the street once, and remarked how towering and eye-catching he was. I agree that he's probably a born charismat.

About calling him "evil": You're implying that there are no evil people - if there were, it would be possible to be objective and call someone evil at the same time, and you say it isn't. But do you agree that there are evil actions? (If not, we don't have much to talk about.) People are characterized by what they do. If I risk my life on the battle field and save my comrades, I'm a war hero. If I run away I'm a coward. If I smile to everyone I meet I'm friendly, if I scowl I'm unfriendly. These words don't imply that every action someone does is heroic, cowardly, friendly or unfriendly, but that enough of those actions have been to be a defining characteristic.

If you take a look at what Krekar has done as a guerilla leader, most of it is evil. That makes Krekar evil - or at least a very good candidate. He certainly doesn't see himself as evil, but then very few evil people do.

I'm not calling him evil because it's easy, on the contrary. Like you, perhaps, I've grown up in a peaceful, tolerant and somewhat culture relativistic society where evil was reserved for Satan and movie villains. I'm tempted not to call him evil, but _misguided_. That's what my instincts tell me. I don't _hate_ Krekar. I don't _feel_ that he is evil. But I also know that those emotions are irrational. That he is evil is something I believe rationally, something I believe despite my instincts.

You're absolutely right that calling someone evil is a bad way to solve a conflict. But I'm not interested in solving my conflict with Mullah Krekar. He can solve that conflict very easily by rejecting his evil past and the evil people he support, but _I'm_ not doing anything. Why do you believe I should, and how? If we frame it not in terms of me vs Krekar, but the West vs radical Islam, (an evil form of Islam), what steps precisely do you believe the West should take to solve its conflict with radical Islam?

Jorgen, this is black and white. EVIL. It's staring you in the face. Read healing Iraq today? It is western civ against islamism. You are projecting western mores onto a culture which is not western. It could literally be the death of you. And I'm not being dramatic.

Is kimmee's North Korea EVIL? They're eating human flesh there, you know. Or should we just continue to appease like we've done the last 10 years?

"But once you're into the "We're good, they're evil" argumentation you cannot solve any conflict."

On the contrary, saying that there is no absolute good and evil and everything is shades of grey is precisely the encouragement that fanatics need. As Fredrik pointed out, "We're good, they're evil" ended the Cold War and the European Communist terrorism of the 70's. Of course just because your enemy is evil doesn't mean that every diplomat has to remind the enemy of their evilness to their faces, provided that soothing words now help you to stab them in the back more easily later (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

Those of us willingly and eagerly performing
service in the US Armed Force to free counties like Iraq and Afghanistan from oppressive tyrannies would have an easier job if there weren't so many apologists for militant Islam and regimes like Saddam's.

In Oslo's Resistance Museum, a display of a cyanide cannister of Nazi-era German manufacture, brought to mind the more recent use of Saddam's poisonous gases against Iraqi Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers. Where have the sister canisters gone?

The world wants to know, but they might surface
in Europe first. I pray they don't.

Meanwhile, America will keep looking!

We Americans want Krekar because of what he knows about us... send him back to Iraq so we can silence him... Thanks!

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/508