Tuesday, May 29, 2012

The ‘Amen Corner’ in the Capitol Hill



With the U.S. presidential election only five months away, the Capitol Hill is behaving more and more like a cheer-leading ‘Amen Corner’ for the rogue state of Israel these days than a body of wise law-makers that care about what is best for the USA and her people. Two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a resolution H. Res.568 that was designed to tie the president’s hands on Iran policy. 

The resolution was the usual boilerplate denouncing the Islamic Republic of Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism” that is on the road to nuclear weapons capability, and “urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.” This was like telling the president that any U.S. response to that “threat” other than war was unacceptable.

Just reflect on the audacity of the resolution! Everyone knows that America cannot afford another war now. And these law-makers at the Capitol Hill ought to know better than ordinary Joe, Dick or Harry. Thus, why this madness to rush into another war, and at whose behest? The answer is: AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). The all-powerful pro-Israeli Jewish lobby has been trying hard to push the USA to start a war with Iran since the fall of the Shah. It played a vital role for the USA’s illegal war against Iraq claiming that Iraq had WMDs. And now AIPAC’s target has shifted to Iran but its very methodology - the scaremongering tactics mixed with lies and deceptions – has remained virtually the same.

Through its mouthpieces in the Capitol Hill (and there are too many of these parrots), back in 2002, just months before invasion of Iraq, we were told, “Saddam Hussein is not far from developing and acquiring the means to strike the United States, our friends and our allies with weapons of mass destruction. Thus, if we do not act now, when?” (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Oct. 9, 2002) And as we know, Ileana, like her many pro-Israeli hawks, was wrong. Now she would like us to believe that “The Iranian regime continues to pose an immediate and growing threat to the United States, to our allies, and to the Iranian people.  We are running out of time to stop the nightmare of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran from becoming a reality...We must meet our responsibility to the American people and protect the security of our Nation, our allies, and the world from this threat of a nuclear capable Iran.” (May 15, 2012) Why should America believe her kind?

Ten years ago, Howard Berman (D-CA), another puppet and unabashed supporter of the rogue state of Israel, said, “But under today’s circumstances, the best way to give peace a chance and to save the most lives, American and Iraqi, is for America to stand united and for Congress to authorize the President to use force if Saddam does not give up his weapons of mass destruction. Confront Saddam now, or pay a much heavier price later.” And he misled the country on Iraqi-WMDs. On May 15, 2012 Berman said, “What better time for this body to send an unambiguous message that Iran must never be allowed to achieve a nuclear weapons capability and that its nuclear weapons program must end once and for all?”


The list of these AIPAC-parrots for the state of Israel is too long to waste our time reading about what they said.[i] They can lie without feeling embarrassed.

There was a time when the AIPAC was not as power-wielding as it is today, and thus, there were lawmakers in the Capitol Hill that stood their ground for what they considered morally right. But those days are a distant memory now. Having seen how their courageous colleagues have been routed out for simply being critical of the apartheid policies of the pariah state of Israel, there are very few today that are willing to speak out and take the risk, especially in an election year. Over the last three decades, even the realists in the images of George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft and Jimmy Carter-Zbigniew Brzezinski within either of the major two parties have been simply purged out. As recently lamented by political commentator Pat Buchanan, “[If you] Refuse to toe the neocon line on Israel, and you have no future in the Republican Party.” Ninety-nine percent of Congress now votes almost 100% pro-Israel. They live in “fear of the Israeli lobby.”

So, I was not too shocked to learn that the pro-war Resolution passed in the House with a vote of 401 in favor with only 11 opposing. Amongst the brave ones that voted against this Resolution were: Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Among the nine cowards that decided to abstain were Keith Ellison and John Conyers.

As Nima Shirazi noted, it is better to be a coward than to be in the bloody pocket of the AIPAC. Well, that sums it up for all of us as to where the Capitol Hill has slid down to in the moral compass. One can only pity these spineless and warmongering members of the ‘Amen Corner.’ A sad day in deed for all those who voted them into the Capitol Hill!



[i] An interested reader may like to browse the collections of Nima Shirazi.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

My letter to a U.S. Congressman to stop temptation for an unnecessary war with Iran

Dear Congressman,
I strongly urge you to do everything in your power to stopping another war 
with Iran which would be suicidal for our country, that is already a 
debtor country, courtesy of two wars started by President Bush and 
continued by President Obama. 

Iranian leaders have repeatedly assured us that their nuclear program is 
for peaceful purpose, e.g., medical use. It is better to believe them than 
to start a war on false premises, much like we did with Iraqi invasion. 
The Iraqi war has bankrupted us, killed nearly 5000 of our forces and 
injured another 50,000. Was that necessary? Surely not. Let's not repeat 
the mistakes of the Bush era.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Hillary’s Hypocritical Comments in South Asia


Recently, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Bangladesh. It was a short visit. She flew into Dhaka from China after convincing Chinese leaders to free blind dissident Chen Guangcheng. The stop in Bangladesh was "personal" to renew old friendships with Bangladesh. Two of her “favorite men” in the world are Bangladeshis – Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammed Yunus, a pioneer in providing microcredit to the poor, and Sir Fazle Hasan Abed, founder of the world's largest development organization - BRAC.

Since 1995 when she visited Bangladesh with her daughter Chelsea, Ms. Clinton has been something of a household name in Bangladesh. That was quite obvious from the throngs of people that stood four to five rows deep along the motorcade route to welcome her recently. A sign along the motorcade route read, "Heartiest congratulation to our beloved U.S. foreign minister Hillary Clinton." Many in Bangladesh hopes that she would one day return to Bangladesh in Air Force One as President of the USA.

During her visit, Secretary Clinton met with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed and the Opposition Leader Khaleda Zia. The U.S. State Department has not been pleased with Hasina Government’s treatment of Professor Yunus over the past 18 months. Talks between Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Dipu Moni focused on Bangladesh’s potential to become an economic powerhouse. Goldman Sachs has listed Bangladesh among its “Next 11” countries that have potential to become major economies. Ms. Dipu Moni urged Ms. Clinton to assist Bangladesh in lowering U.S. tariffs on Bangladeshi imports while they explored a long-term trade and investment agreement. Ms. Clinton expressed hope that this visit will illustrate the U.S.’s commitment to Bangladesh’s transition to a peaceful democracy.

In India, Ms. Clinton stopped in Kolkata, a first for a U.S. Secretary of State, and met with West Bengal’s chief minister Mamata Banerjee. During her trip she cajoled India's leaders to reduce oil imports from Iran. She was asked why she was not tougher on Israel, which has its own undeclared nuclear arsenal. She tried to refute the premise and defend U.S. government policies. She called the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran "the principal threat" and said that U.S. ally Israel had “legitimate” worries.

"I think that Israel is very worried that if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, there might be a decision by some future leader and that would be devastating," Clinton said. Israel, she said, must protect itself from Iran — "a regime that has a history of aggressive behavior, and I don't think you deal with aggressors by giving in to them." She stressed that the United States has no quarrel with the Iranian people.

Clinton’s comments unfortunately belie truth and are simply ludicrous. If past history is any barometer to judge, in the last three centuries since the death of Emperor Nader Shah (d. 1747 C.E.), Iran has never been an aggressor; rather it has been a victim of aggression. Since the discovery of oil, Iran became a victim of Anglo-American aggression. In 1951, when the Iranian Parliament under the visionary leadership of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq nationalized the sprawling Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) after London had refused to modify the firm's exploitative concession, the British government wanted to punish Iran. It resorted to threats and sanctions.

After the loss of India, Britain's new prime minster, Winston Churchill, was committed to stopping his country's empire from unraveling further. The U.S. President Eisenhower and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, were dedicated to rolling back communism and defending democratic governments threatened by Moscow's “machinations”. In Iran's case, with diplomacy having failed and a military incursion infeasible (the Korean War was underway), they decided to take care of "madman Mossadeq" through a covert action under the supervision of the secretary of state's brother, Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Allen W. Dulles.

Allen Dulles approved $1 million on April 4, 1953 to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddeq." They found a traitor Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi as the man to spearhead a coup to topple Dr. Mosaddeq. And the rest is history!
On August 19, 1953, Dr. Mosaddeq was removed in that CIA-sponsored coup and Gen. Zahedi was appointed Prime Minister. Dr. Mosaddeq was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On August 22, the Shah returned from exile. Dr. Mosaddeq was sentenced to death, which was later commuted to three years’ solitary confinement in a military prison; he later died while in house arrest in 1967. His supporters were rounded up, tortured and killed.
Zahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and "restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities", giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and the notorious secret police force, SAVAK. Over the next several years tens of thousands of Iranians were killed by the agents of the Savak, which was created under the guidance of American and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957.
The puppet regime of the Shah was overthrown in a popular revolution in 1979, thus ending a quarter-century long history of Iranian hostage-taking by the U.S. government, courtesy of the CIA. And as the later evidences revealed from the documents seized in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the Carter Administration was involved in a conspiracy to unseat and sabotage the new revolutionary government.
In the post-revolutionary years, the US government "began to look more favorably toward Saddam Hussein as a potential counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini,” says Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter. Even Iraq’s invasion of Iran could not possibly have taken place without the US involvement. In his book, Saddam Hussein: The Politics Of Revenge, Said K. Aburish says that during Saddam Hussein’s visit to Amman, Jordan in 1979, there is "considerable evidence that he (Saddam Hussein) discussed his plans to invade Iran with the CIA agents."

During the Iran-Iraq war the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism so that the Dual-use technology could be sold. It also supported Iraq with several billion dollars worth of economic aid, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.

President Ronald Reagan announced that the US "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that it “would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.” He dispatched Donald Rumsfeld in 1983 and 1984 as his personal emissary to Saddam Hussein. The CIA Director William Casey personally spearheaded the effort “to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war… The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat. For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President George H. W. Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state” (quoted from the sworn court declaration of former NSC official Howard Teicher, dated 1/31/95, regarding 'Iraqgate’). 

At the height of war with Iran, the US government exported 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) of pathogenic (i.e., 'disease producing'), toxigenic (or 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Senator Riegle's investigators. It did not matter to the US government that Saddam Hussein was using 101,000 chemical munitions against Iran. When the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to hide Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting that the Iranians might have carried out the attack.

The U.S. Navy cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 within Iranian airspace which killed all 290 civilian passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The United States has never formally apologized for the attack, and instead in 1990, Captain William Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit by President George W. Bush for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes.
Even after all these years with Saddam Hussein killed, and the Iranian revolution 33 years old, the relationship between the USA and Iran has not improved an iota. The USA continues to provide material support for terrorist activities inside Iran and has been at the forefront of its all-out economic war, at the behest of Israel, against Iran, falsely accusing that the latter is trying to develop nuclear weapons.  This charge is absurd given the fact that Iran’s uranium enrichment program is for peaceful purposes and that both Israeli and US intelligence agencies have concluded that Tehran is not developing a nuclear bomb.

The Iranian leaders, since at least 1997, have maintained that they are not after nuclear bombs. In 2006 President Ahmadinejad declared that “Nuclear weapons have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine and Iran is not a threat to any country.”  In his interview with NBC’s Brian Williams he said, “We are against atomic bomb.” In 2009 the Iranian supreme leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei declared, “We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons and prohibit the use and production of nuclear weapons.” He even issued a fatwa.
Can Ms. Clinton cite a single such statement from any of the Israeli leaders about their own nuclear program? The State of Israel from day one of her illegitimate birth has been an aggressor and at war with all her neighboring countries. Who is threatening whom?
And yet, despite many such clear denouncements of nuclear weapons by Iranian leaders and repeated assurances, along with the unequivocal assessment by her own government’s intelligence agencies, Secretary Clinton had no bite of conscience to repeating lies against Iran.
During her visit to Bangladesh, Ms. Clinton advocated for “non-interference” in Grameen Bank, urging the Bangladesh government not to hamper the internal operations of the bank. One simply wishes if she is ready herself to walk the talk when it comes to Iran. Her behavior can be summed up by a single word - Hypocrisy!

Sunday, May 6, 2012

An excellent article on Bangladesh's Politics by M. Adil Khan

Politics in Bangladesh has been far from perfect for a plethora of reasons. Not the least of this long list is corruption. As I noted recently what was more like an exception during Bangabandhu Sk. Mujib's rule when he is blamed for mildly tolerating it, the vice got institutionalized during the Zia rule, and got a veneer of respectability during the Ershad rule. And ever since the restoration of civilian rule in 1991, there has not been a turn around. Corruption simply has blossomed to take it to new heights! And that is sad for a nation which gave so much blood to make things better. 


Is there an alternative - a third or fourth or fifth force (depending on how one counts major political parties) waiting in the sideline that is committed to take the nation in a new direction away from the politics of crime and corruption that seem to have shadowed people's true aspirations? Or is there even a hope that current major parties would learn, grow up and weed out bad apples from their lot? 


I like to believe in goodness of human soul that it craves for things better, and would do what is necessary when its threshold is reached. But when would that day be? In our lifetime or much later?


Mr. M. Adil Khan, a retired senior UN official, recently wrote an excellent article in the Weekly Holiday, which also got posted in the News From Bangladesh, about the political trends in Bangladesh. He sees hope based on the recent local government elections "where people basically shied away from known political rogues and instead voted into power honest and committed independent or nominally aligned party candidates into victory are indications that at long last people are showing signs that they are fed up and are ready for change; and that given an opportunity they will prove it. The issue is how you connect the dots and mobilize the so-called third force."

He says, "Indeed, this is not going to be easy. There will be challenges; in fact very serious challenges both from within and outside. But a beginning, even if it is modest and no more than a murmur, has to be made and one day, perhaps sooner than later, victory will come and evil will be defeated, as Mahatma Gandhi once said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”


I recommend this to everyone interested about all things Bangladesh. I also hope that they would try their best  to make things better in whatever capacity and in whatever domain they work in - within or without the current political reality that they live in. 

The Kabilite Syndrome



The U.S. missile defense plans in Europe have been one of the thorniest topics in U.S.-Russian relations for years. Last week, Russia's top military officer threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if the USA goes ahead with her controversial plan to build a missile shield.
At an international conference last Thursday that was attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said, "A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens." Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are "close to a dead end.”
Russia rejects USA's claim that the missile defense plan is solely to deal with any Iranian missile threat. Russia has voiced fears that it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine her nuclear deterrent. The U.S.-NATO missile defense plans use Aegis radars and interceptors on ships and a more powerful radar based in Turkey in the first phase, followed by radar and interceptor facilities in Romania and Poland. To diffuse the crisis, Russia's Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev reiterated Moscow's offer to run the missile shield together with NATO, which "could strengthen the security of every single country of the continent" and "would be adequate for possible threats and will not deter strategic security."
As a countermeasure, Russia has just commissioned a radar in Kaliningrad, its western outpost near the Polish border, capable of monitoring missile launches from Europe and the North Atlantic. The U.S. Senator John McCain who has been visiting Lithuania lashed out at Russia's plans in Kaliningrad calling it an "excuse to have a military buildup in this part of the world, which is at peace, is really an egregious example of what might be even viewed as paranoia on the part of Vladimir Putin."
So, there again we have this modern paranoia with pre-emptive strikes amongst the powerful nations of the earth. They imagine the worst of their enemies and then justify their horrendous crimes associated with pre-emptive strikes by saying that ‘if we had not struck first, they (the ‘enemies’) could have killed us all.’ It is what I call the Kabil Syndrome, so beautifully put in the Qur’an.
Allah says, “Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "Allah doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.” (Qur’an 5: 27-30)
The slain son of Adam was Habil (Abel), and the slayer Kabil (Cain). Throughout history, since the time of Adam, there seems to be this warfare going on between the forces symbolizing the mindsets of Kabil – the exploiter, the tyrant, the arrogant, proud, selfish and the covetous one, the pre-emptive striker – and Habil (Abel) -- the exploited class, the victim, the undemanding, unselfish, humble and peaceful kind that is always concerned about its ultimate accountability before God.
The class of Kabil has 3 faces - Fir'aon (Pharaoh) and Haman (for power), Qarun (Korah) and Croesus (for wealth), and Balaam (for creed). Following this analogy, all the tyrannical and powerful governments of the world (from the time of Namrud (Nimrod) to our present time) symbolize the characteristics of Kabil. They control the UNSC to justify their crimes of embargo, invasion, occupation and plunder, much like what we witnessed with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq during George W. Bush’s presidency (to be continued by Barack Obama). The Trilateral Commission, the Bohemian Club, the Bilderberg, etc. - are all embodiments of that Kabilite evil force ensuring their authority on all things material. They control the IMF, the World Bank and many important agencies in our world so that further painful concessions can be extracted out of the Habilite nations or worse still, weakened badly, much like what we are witnessing today with their cruel measures to punish Iran in the international monetary circles. Iran’s crime: it has dared to pursue nuclear technology while such should have been the Vedic rite reserved for only the nuclear Brahmins of the Kabilite society!
-----=-----
As I hinted above, pre-emptive strikes against the perceived enemy is part of the strategic planning of the Kabilite forces of our world, whether it is carried out at an individual or a state level. So the Kabilite crime committed in Norway by the Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik has a justification! It did not matter to Breivik that the median age of his victims in the Labor Party youth camp in the Utoya Island was only 18.
In his trial Breivik said that Western Europe was gradually taken over by "Marxists and multiculturalists" after World War II and that his country was dying. He claims that the July 22 attacks were "necessary" and that the 77 victims had betrayed Norway by embracing immigration. He said that he acted out of "goodness, not evil" to prevent a wider civil war, and vowed, "I would have done it again." "The attacks on July 22 were a preventive strike. I acted in self-defense on behalf of my people, my city, my country," he said. He equated his pre-emptive strike against the youth camp with the atom bomb attacks on Japan during the World War II “to prevent further war.”
Closer to home, here in the USA, Jose Padilla, an American citizen has been detained as an ‘enemy combatant’ since May 2002 after he was arrested by the Bush administration on suspicion of plotting a ‘dirty bomb.’ As the New York Times editorial of May 3 noted, Padilla was denied contact with his lawyer, his family or anyone else outside the military brig for almost two years and kept in detention for almost four. His jailers made death threats, shackled him for hours, forced him into painful stress positions, subjected him to noxious fumes that hurt his eyes and nose and deafening noises at all hours, denied him care for serious illness and more. This treatment was torture and indisputably cruel, inhumane and shocking, in breach of the minimum standard required for anyone in American custody, especially a citizen.
Seeking monetary damages of only a dollar — to make a point about accountability — Mr. Padilla sued John Yoo who had drafted legal policies for President Bush’s war on terrorism. In 2009, a Federal District Court in California ruled that Yoo was not immune from the lawsuit. But this week, in a misguided and dangerous ruling, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that Mr. Padilla’s lawsuit cannot go forward because John Yoo is immune. What a mockery of justice!
What has been happening with Jose Padilla’s case, as NY Times (May 3, 2012) noted, is simply ‘beyond debate.’ It is outrageous and unacceptable. It shows the despicable hypocrisy of the American judicial system. The paper noted, “The Bush administration manufactured both ‘debates’ — about torture and enemy combatants. Any future government can rely on this precedent to pull the same stunt as cover for some other outrage. By using the ‘enemy combatant’ category, the Bush administration stirred debate that had not existed about whether rights of an American citizen in custody depend on how he is classified. By coming up with offensive rationalizations for torturing detainees, it dishonestly stirred debate about torture’s definition when what it engaged in plainly included torture.”
The accusations against Padilla are absolutely baseless and the government case weak. If there was fairness in justice, he should have been released long time ago. And yet, here again is an appalling case of Kabilite strategy where an innocent person has been relegated to rot within the prison walls on mere suspicion (much like pre-emptive attack). And compare this episode with two incidents from the Islamic history.
Muhammad (S), the Prophet of Allah, informed his close companion Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) about a man who would stain ‘Ali’s beard with the blood of his own head.  [Ref: al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak iii, 113; Musnad i, 102, 103, 148, 156; Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat.] ‘Ali (RA) had been informed by the Prophet of his assassination in such detail that he knew the man who was going to kill him, and identified him -- it was ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Muljam al-Sarimi, the Kharijite. And so was the case with Caliphs Umar and Uthman (RA). [Ref: Bukhari, Fada’il al-Ashab 5, 6, 7; Tirmidhi, Manaqib 19, no: 3697; Abu Da’ud, Sunna 9 (Bab: Fi’l-Khulafa’); Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahaba 6 no: 2417; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak iii, 450.]
Ali (RA) also saw in dreams of his martyrdom. One day Ali (RA) came across ibn Muljam in the streets of Kufa and told him, “I know for what purpose you have come to Kufa.”
As soon as Ibn-e-Muljam heard these words, he trembled and said to Ali (RA): “Oh Ali, when it is so (that you know) release the orders of my being killed or put me in the prison or banish me off.” Ali (RA) replied, “Although I can put into practice each one of your suggestions, but Islam does not deem pre-crime punishment as fair. So I am obliged to let you go free. Perhaps you may repent upon your decision.”
On the 13th day of Ramadan Ali (RA) told his son Husayn (RA) of his impending murder and that he won’t be able to participate in the hajj that year.
Some of Ali’s (RA) companions also heard of the conspiracy of the Khawarij. They requested him to name the would-be assassin. They sought permission to arrest him. Ali (RA) said: “How could I condemn a person who had not yet committed the murder?” When Ash’ath, a close companion of Ali (RA), met ibn Muljam and found out that he was preparing to murder Ali (RA) with a sword, he hastened to inform Ali (RA) of the matter. Ali (RA), however, replied that he couldn’t do anything against ibn Muljam since the latter had not committed the crime by then. He said that such actions would be contrary to Islam since pre-emptive strike before the crime is committed is unacceptable.
The night preceding his assassination Ali (RA) had come out, and gazed at the sky and said: "By Allah he (Muhammad – the Messenger of Allah) never told a lie, nor was a lie ever told to him."
The next day, early in the dawn of the 19th of Ramadan of 40 A.H., ibn Muljam’s sword struck Ali’s (RA) forehead, and his blood spilled down his beard, as the Prophet had described. The assassin was captured and Ali (RA) was carried to his home. When Ali (RA) was informed by his son Hassan (RA) about the capture of ibn Muljam, he told his son, “Oh Son! He is a prisoner. Treat him well and look after his comforts. If I recover from this wound it will be my business to deal with him. If I die, kill him with a single stroke of the sword, so that the divine law is carried out. Take care not to kill him with cruelty or torture, for I once heard your grandfather Muhammad (S) say: "Do not kill even a rabid dog with torture and pain."
Ali (RA) also instructed his family not to take revenge on anyone else, including the family of Ibn Mujlam, for his death. [Ref: Tabaqat: Ibn Sa’d; Michael M.J. Fischer, Iran: from religious dispute to revolution, University of Wisconsin Press (1980), p. 18.]
Ali (RA) did not survive the injury and died on the 21st of Ramadan, 40 A.H. at the age of 63 years. He was buried in Najaf, Iraq.
During the caliphate of Umar (RA), he recalled that Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Allah, himself on more than one occasion had referred to him as a 'Shahid' (martyr).  He, therefore, felt that he might be blessed with martyrdom even in the capital city of Madinah. When the year 644 C.E. dawned, that being the tenth year of his rule, Umar (RA) had the premonition that before the year ended, he would die.
Firoz alias Abu Lulu was Umar’s (RA) assassin. He once met Umar (RA) and complained that the tax which his master Mughirah was exacting from him was too high. He wanted the Caliph to reduce the levy. Umar (RA) enquired about his work and was told that he worked as a carpenter, painter, and an ironsmith. Firoz added that he could make windmills as well.  Umar (RA) next enquired as to the amount of the tax that he was required to pay to his master. Firoz replied that he had to pay two dirhams a day. Umar (RA) said that keeping in view the lucrative nature of the jobs done by  him, the levy of two dirhams a day was prima facie not excessive. He added that he would, however, write to Mughirah, and examine the question further in the light of what Mughirah said. That did not satisfy Firoz, and he went away sulking.
Umar (RA) wrote to Mughirah, and in reply Mughirah quoted facts and figures to establish that what he took from Foroz was by no means excessive. When Firoz called on Umar (RA) again, Umar (RA) explained to him that as the levy was not excessive, no reduction therein would be made. This made Firoz very angry. To soften his anger, Umar (RA) said to Firoz, "I understand that you make windmills; make one for me as well." In a sullen mood, Firoz threatened, "Verily I will make such a mill for you that the world would talk about it."
Firoz told other Persians living in Madinah that he would take Umar’s heart out. He made for himself a dagger with a very sharp edge and smeared it with poison.
Interestingly, Umar (RA) was also told by Ka’b al-Ahbar (a Jewish convert to Islam) that he had read in the Torah that Umar (RA) would die as a martyr. Umar (RA) also dreamt of his martyrdom. In spite of his knowledge that Firoz would assassinate him, and Firoz’s own statement which was an open declaration of war against him, Umar (RA), the Caliph, did not arrest Firoz for the latter had not yet committed his crime.
On the 3rd of November 644 C.E. at the time of the Fajr (dawn) prayer, Firoz went with his dagger to the Prophet's mosque and hid himself in a corner in one of the recesses of the mosque. When the faithful Muslims stood for prayer after straightening the lines, and Umar (RA) took up his position as the Imam to lead the prayer, Firoz emerged from his place of hiding and rushed at him. Firoz struck Umar (RA) six consecutive blows with his dagger, and Umar (RA) fell on the floor profusely bleeding.
Other persons rushed at Firoz, but he had the fury and frenzy of a desperate man striking  right and left, and thirteen Muslims were wounded, some of them fatally, before he could be  overpowered. At last realizing that he could not escape, Firoz stabbed himself to death with his own dagger.
Umar (RA) died of the wounds three days later on Sunday, 7 November 644 C.E. (23 A.H. of the Islamic calendar).

As can be seen from the above historical facts, there was no pre-emptive strike against known enemies, much in contrast to the criminal actions of the Kabilite powers of our time – the so-called civilized nations -- against their perceived foes! Probably something to ponder about and modify views about Islam and its Caliphate -- now a dirty-word in western lexicon!