The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying program, Justice officials said Friday.
The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The Justice Department's investigation was being initiated after the agency received a request for the probe from the NSA.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Ex-CIA Big: Bill Clinton Authorized Extralegal Interrogations
The man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency's Bin Laden desk during the 1990s is accusing President Clinton of giving the CIA carte blanche to circumvent U.S. law and interrogate terrorist suspects in any way the agency saw fit - a directive that led to the establishment of secret CIA prisons on foreign soil.
"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture," recalled Michael Scheuer, who headed up the agency's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, in an interview Wednesday with the German newsmagazine Die Zeit.
Scheuer said Clinton replied: "That's up to you."
According to an Agence France Press summary of the Die Zeit interview, Scheuer explained that the Clinton administration "had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system."
The top Bin Laden hunter recalled that the extralegal directive came after "President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda."
The secret CIA interrogation process became known as "renditioning," Scheuer said, explaining that it included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.
"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," he told Die Zeit. "The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."
Scheuer's revelations contradict a much ballyhooed Nov. 2, 2005 report in the Washington Post, which insisted that "the secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
After mistakenly claiming that renditioning began under President Bush, the Post noted that "considerable concern lingers [within the CIA] about the legality, morality and practicality" of the program.
"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture," recalled Michael Scheuer, who headed up the agency's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, in an interview Wednesday with the German newsmagazine Die Zeit.
Scheuer said Clinton replied: "That's up to you."
According to an Agence France Press summary of the Die Zeit interview, Scheuer explained that the Clinton administration "had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system."
The top Bin Laden hunter recalled that the extralegal directive came after "President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda."
The secret CIA interrogation process became known as "renditioning," Scheuer said, explaining that it included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.
"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," he told Die Zeit. "The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."
Scheuer's revelations contradict a much ballyhooed Nov. 2, 2005 report in the Washington Post, which insisted that "the secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
After mistakenly claiming that renditioning began under President Bush, the Post noted that "considerable concern lingers [within the CIA] about the legality, morality and practicality" of the program.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Bush Most Admired Again
President George W. Bush is the clear choice as the most admired man in Gallup's annual poll on this topic. This marks the fifth straight year that Bush has been most admired man.
Gallup's Dec. 19-22 poll asked Americans to name, without prompting, the man and woman, living anywhere in the world, whom they admire most. Nineteen percent of Americans named Bush as the most admired man.
Gallup's Dec. 19-22 poll asked Americans to name, without prompting, the man and woman, living anywhere in the world, whom they admire most. Nineteen percent of Americans named Bush as the most admired man. Former president Bill Clinton, with 5%, and former president Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates (each of whom garners 3%) round out the top five. The remainder of the top 10 includes the Rev. Billy Graham, former South African President Nelson Mandela, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Dalai Lama, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and rock singer Bono. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, and former president George H.W. Bush also received mention from at least 1% of Americans.
Gallup's Dec. 19-22 poll asked Americans to name, without prompting, the man and woman, living anywhere in the world, whom they admire most. Nineteen percent of Americans named Bush as the most admired man.
Gallup's Dec. 19-22 poll asked Americans to name, without prompting, the man and woman, living anywhere in the world, whom they admire most. Nineteen percent of Americans named Bush as the most admired man. Former president Bill Clinton, with 5%, and former president Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates (each of whom garners 3%) round out the top five. The remainder of the top 10 includes the Rev. Billy Graham, former South African President Nelson Mandela, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Dalai Lama, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and rock singer Bono. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, and former president George H.W. Bush also received mention from at least 1% of Americans.
Bush Was Right to Reject Kyoto 'Fiasco'
George Bush suffered heavy international criticism for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, but it now appears he was exactly right: The treaty is a "fiasco,� Forbes magazine declares.
The treaty was negotiated in 1997 as a way to slow global warming, and formally took effect in February, without U.S. participation.
The Clinton administration agreed to the protocol, but the Senate refused to ratify it, in part because developing countries that were major polluters and trade competitors, particularly China and India, refused to participate in the Kyoto accord.
So right now "Kyoto is essentially a western European proposition,� Forbes reports.
But "China and India together send more tons of carbon into the atmosphere than all of western Europe combined, and the U.S. accounts for more than China and India together.�
Therefore it has become "painfully obvious that the treaty was a fiasco,� Dan Seligman writes in Forbes.
Even Britain�s Tony Blair, a supporter of the protocol, seemed to admit defeat for the treaty when in a recent speech at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, he conceded: "No country is going to cut growth� � which is the only known way to cut emissions, according to Forbes.
Ironically, even western Europe is not reducing emissions. According to the protocol, western European nations must reduce their emissions to levels 8 percent lower than those of 1990. But in the years since the treaty was negotiated, carbon dioxide levels increased by 7 percent in France, 11 percent in Italy and 29 percent in Spain. Overall, the increase for western Europe was 5.4 percent.
"After many years of European chatter about the monstrous evil perpetrated by George W. Bush in rejecting Kyoto,� Forbes concludes, "it is of possible interest that the increase in carbon emissions in the U.S. during those years was slightly lower (4.7 percent).�
The treaty was negotiated in 1997 as a way to slow global warming, and formally took effect in February, without U.S. participation.
The Clinton administration agreed to the protocol, but the Senate refused to ratify it, in part because developing countries that were major polluters and trade competitors, particularly China and India, refused to participate in the Kyoto accord.
So right now "Kyoto is essentially a western European proposition,� Forbes reports.
But "China and India together send more tons of carbon into the atmosphere than all of western Europe combined, and the U.S. accounts for more than China and India together.�
Therefore it has become "painfully obvious that the treaty was a fiasco,� Dan Seligman writes in Forbes.
Even Britain�s Tony Blair, a supporter of the protocol, seemed to admit defeat for the treaty when in a recent speech at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, he conceded: "No country is going to cut growth� � which is the only known way to cut emissions, according to Forbes.
Ironically, even western Europe is not reducing emissions. According to the protocol, western European nations must reduce their emissions to levels 8 percent lower than those of 1990. But in the years since the treaty was negotiated, carbon dioxide levels increased by 7 percent in France, 11 percent in Italy and 29 percent in Spain. Overall, the increase for western Europe was 5.4 percent.
"After many years of European chatter about the monstrous evil perpetrated by George W. Bush in rejecting Kyoto,� Forbes concludes, "it is of possible interest that the increase in carbon emissions in the U.S. during those years was slightly lower (4.7 percent).�
Environmental 'Political Machines' Getting EPA Grants
The same environmental groups that lobby and sue the government over protecting air, water and human health also are collecting federal grant money for research and technical work, documents show.
More than 2,200 nonprofit groups have received grants from the Environmental Protection Agency over the past decade, including some of the Bush administration's toughest critics on environmental policy.
"It may be confusing to the public that with the right hand we're accepting government money and with the left hand sometimes we're beating up the government," said Charles Miller, communications director for Environmental Defense. The group has received more than $1.8 million from the EPA since 1995.
"But the government is a complicated beast. Some of the things they're doing we think are wrong. A lot of the things they're doing we think are right. We're using the grant money to further the environmental cause," Miller said.
One recipient, the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently was cited by auditors for failing to properly document more than one-third of the $3.3 million it received in three EPA grants.
The group used the money to conduct research and education on storm water pollution, and to develop and encourage energy-efficient technology, according to the EPA's inspector general, the agency's internal watchdog.
The council acknowledges record-keeping errors dealing with benefits, timesheets and indirect costs. It cited in part erroneous direction from the EPA about what was required.
"We're not running away from that and that's why we've offered to pay back the money," amounting to some $75,000, once the documentation was corrected, said the council's lawyer, Mitch Bernard. He noted there was no criticism of NRDC's research. The case is not finalized.
Asked about potential conflicts between their watchdog role and their financial connections to EPA, the groups say grants for specific technical, research and education projects do not interfere with their advocacy, which they conduct with separate funds.
Others see such grants posing at least an appearance problem.
"It raises the specter of a conflict of interest. It's an ethical question," said Roberta Baskin, executive director for the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity, an investigative organization that accepts no government, union or corporate money.
"They're supposed to be watchdogs. Does it make you a lap dog if they're funding you? Is your loyalty to - the environment - or is it to the bottom line?" Baskin said.
The grants have drawn fire in recent years from conservatives, including Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Last year, he said environmental groups were "simply Democrat political machines."
The EPA does not turn away grantees because of their criticism or lawsuits, spokesman Bob Zachariasiewicz said. A new policy requires competitive bidding for any grant over $15,000 and the money cannot be spent on lobbying, political or litigation work.
More than 2,200 nonprofit groups have received grants from the Environmental Protection Agency over the past decade, including some of the Bush administration's toughest critics on environmental policy.
"It may be confusing to the public that with the right hand we're accepting government money and with the left hand sometimes we're beating up the government," said Charles Miller, communications director for Environmental Defense. The group has received more than $1.8 million from the EPA since 1995.
"But the government is a complicated beast. Some of the things they're doing we think are wrong. A lot of the things they're doing we think are right. We're using the grant money to further the environmental cause," Miller said.
One recipient, the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently was cited by auditors for failing to properly document more than one-third of the $3.3 million it received in three EPA grants.
The group used the money to conduct research and education on storm water pollution, and to develop and encourage energy-efficient technology, according to the EPA's inspector general, the agency's internal watchdog.
The council acknowledges record-keeping errors dealing with benefits, timesheets and indirect costs. It cited in part erroneous direction from the EPA about what was required.
"We're not running away from that and that's why we've offered to pay back the money," amounting to some $75,000, once the documentation was corrected, said the council's lawyer, Mitch Bernard. He noted there was no criticism of NRDC's research. The case is not finalized.
Asked about potential conflicts between their watchdog role and their financial connections to EPA, the groups say grants for specific technical, research and education projects do not interfere with their advocacy, which they conduct with separate funds.
Others see such grants posing at least an appearance problem.
"It raises the specter of a conflict of interest. It's an ethical question," said Roberta Baskin, executive director for the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity, an investigative organization that accepts no government, union or corporate money.
"They're supposed to be watchdogs. Does it make you a lap dog if they're funding you? Is your loyalty to - the environment - or is it to the bottom line?" Baskin said.
The grants have drawn fire in recent years from conservatives, including Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Last year, he said environmental groups were "simply Democrat political machines."
The EPA does not turn away grantees because of their criticism or lawsuits, spokesman Bob Zachariasiewicz said. A new policy requires competitive bidding for any grant over $15,000 and the money cannot be spent on lobbying, political or litigation work.
Evidence indicates 'torture' worked
Moral and legal aspects aside, conventional wisdom is that torture simply isn't practical: that someone who is being tortured will say anything to make the torture stop, and that information gleaned through torture is therefore not reliable.
Some former military and intelligence officers say, however, that physically aggressive interrogation techniques that some human rights groups consider torture can be effective in the short term. When asked for specifics, the technique they cite is "waterboarding," in which water is poured over a subject's face to create the sensation of drowning.
Consider Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 39-year-old former al-Qaida operative who was the Sept. 11 mastermind and bearer of many al-Qaida secrets.
If anyone had a motive for remaining silent it was the man known to terrorism investigators as "KSM." But not long after his capture in Pakistan, in March 2003, KSM began to talk.
He ultimately had so much to say that more than 100 footnoted references to the CIA's interrogations of KSM are contained in the final report of the commission that investigated Sept. 11.
Not that everything KSM said was believable. But much of his information checked out in separate questioning of other captures al-Qaida figures.
What made KSM decide to talk? The answer may be waterboarding, to which KSM was subjected on at least one occasion, according to various accounts.
Intelligence operatives point out that while waterboarding can break through a suspect's initial resistance, it isn't effective for long-term interrogation.
Once a suspect begins to communicate, however, an interrogation specialist can put into action a wide range of far more subtle techniques, which include playing to a subject's ego or pretending to be his friend.
It could not be learned exactly when KSM was "waterboarded," or whether the technique was used more than once. But only 12 days after being captured in Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, KSM made his first reported major revelation.
As part of his initial proposal for the attack on America, he had "considered targeting a nuclear power plant," KSM said. But al-Qaida chieftain Osama bin Laden "decided to drop that idea," evidently concerned about a Chernobyl-type fallout that might threaten countries adjacent to the United States.
There are no footnotes keyed to the next 12 days. But on March 24 KSM began talking again, this time about assistance provided by al-Qaida to Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in Minnesota three weeks before Sept. 11 and later pleaded guilty to planning to fly a hijacked airplane into the White House as part of a separate plot.
On April 17, KSM spoke about the abortive 1995 plot in which several U.S. airliners were to have been brought down simultaneously over the Pacific by bombs smuggled onboard.
On May 15, KSM began divulging something of the inner workings of al-Qaida. From that point onward, according to the commission's footnotes, KSM became a veritable fountain of information.
It was Osama bin Laden, he said, who had argued for increasing the number of Sept. 11 targets and planes beyond the four ultimately selected.
The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa had cost less than $10,000, KSM continued, adding that after the success of those attacks al-Qaida had decided to focus on "soft targets" in the West like oil refineries, embassies and airliners.
The Sept. 11 report reflects five productive interrogation sessions during the last two weeks in May 2003, four in June, eight in July, four in August, three in September, three in October and four in November.
The interrogations continued through the winter and early spring of 2004, producing increasingly detailed information about al-Qaida.
KSM said bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, opposed the Sept. 11 attacks, disagreeing with bin Laden over whether to honor the request of Afghanistan's Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, not to attack the United States.
In early April 2004, KSM revealed that the 15 young men who joined the hijacking plot for the express purpose of subduing the airplanes' passengers and disabling their crews hadn't known they were to become part of a suicide mission until a month before Sept. 11.
The last footnote, dated June 15, 2004, reflected KSM's annoyance with hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar, who left the United States without al-Qaida's permission in the summer of 2000 to visit his family in Saudi Arabia.
The commission's report was published in July 2004. But for all the world knows, KSM may be talking still.
Some former military and intelligence officers say, however, that physically aggressive interrogation techniques that some human rights groups consider torture can be effective in the short term. When asked for specifics, the technique they cite is "waterboarding," in which water is poured over a subject's face to create the sensation of drowning.
Consider Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 39-year-old former al-Qaida operative who was the Sept. 11 mastermind and bearer of many al-Qaida secrets.
If anyone had a motive for remaining silent it was the man known to terrorism investigators as "KSM." But not long after his capture in Pakistan, in March 2003, KSM began to talk.
He ultimately had so much to say that more than 100 footnoted references to the CIA's interrogations of KSM are contained in the final report of the commission that investigated Sept. 11.
Not that everything KSM said was believable. But much of his information checked out in separate questioning of other captures al-Qaida figures.
What made KSM decide to talk? The answer may be waterboarding, to which KSM was subjected on at least one occasion, according to various accounts.
Intelligence operatives point out that while waterboarding can break through a suspect's initial resistance, it isn't effective for long-term interrogation.
Once a suspect begins to communicate, however, an interrogation specialist can put into action a wide range of far more subtle techniques, which include playing to a subject's ego or pretending to be his friend.
It could not be learned exactly when KSM was "waterboarded," or whether the technique was used more than once. But only 12 days after being captured in Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, KSM made his first reported major revelation.
As part of his initial proposal for the attack on America, he had "considered targeting a nuclear power plant," KSM said. But al-Qaida chieftain Osama bin Laden "decided to drop that idea," evidently concerned about a Chernobyl-type fallout that might threaten countries adjacent to the United States.
There are no footnotes keyed to the next 12 days. But on March 24 KSM began talking again, this time about assistance provided by al-Qaida to Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in Minnesota three weeks before Sept. 11 and later pleaded guilty to planning to fly a hijacked airplane into the White House as part of a separate plot.
On April 17, KSM spoke about the abortive 1995 plot in which several U.S. airliners were to have been brought down simultaneously over the Pacific by bombs smuggled onboard.
On May 15, KSM began divulging something of the inner workings of al-Qaida. From that point onward, according to the commission's footnotes, KSM became a veritable fountain of information.
It was Osama bin Laden, he said, who had argued for increasing the number of Sept. 11 targets and planes beyond the four ultimately selected.
The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa had cost less than $10,000, KSM continued, adding that after the success of those attacks al-Qaida had decided to focus on "soft targets" in the West like oil refineries, embassies and airliners.
The Sept. 11 report reflects five productive interrogation sessions during the last two weeks in May 2003, four in June, eight in July, four in August, three in September, three in October and four in November.
The interrogations continued through the winter and early spring of 2004, producing increasingly detailed information about al-Qaida.
KSM said bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, opposed the Sept. 11 attacks, disagreeing with bin Laden over whether to honor the request of Afghanistan's Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, not to attack the United States.
In early April 2004, KSM revealed that the 15 young men who joined the hijacking plot for the express purpose of subduing the airplanes' passengers and disabling their crews hadn't known they were to become part of a suicide mission until a month before Sept. 11.
The last footnote, dated June 15, 2004, reflected KSM's annoyance with hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar, who left the United States without al-Qaida's permission in the summer of 2000 to visit his family in Saudi Arabia.
The commission's report was published in July 2004. But for all the world knows, KSM may be talking still.
Clinton Started CIA Rendition Program: Ex-agent
Former US President Bill Clinton was the first to use the CIA's rendition program to capture, transfer and question terror suspects on foreign soil, a former US counterterrorism agent has revealed.
"President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda," Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, told Thursday's issue of the German newsweekly Die Zeit, reported Agence France Presse (AFP) Wednesday, December 28.
"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'."
The rendition program was first authorized by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.
Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, said that he developed and led the "rendition" program.
The program development, he added, included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.
"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee. The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."
Scheuer bashed European countries for what he said hypocrisy in criticizing the Bush administration for its anti-terror tactics while benefiting from them.
"All the information we received from interrogations and documents, everything that had to do with Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England was passed on," he said.
"President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda," Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, told Thursday's issue of the German newsweekly Die Zeit, reported Agence France Presse (AFP) Wednesday, December 28.
"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'."
The rendition program was first authorized by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.
Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, said that he developed and led the "rendition" program.
The program development, he added, included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.
"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee. The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."
Scheuer bashed European countries for what he said hypocrisy in criticizing the Bush administration for its anti-terror tactics while benefiting from them.
"All the information we received from interrogations and documents, everything that had to do with Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England was passed on," he said.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Most Americans back Bush-ordered wiretaps
Believe NSA should eavesdrop on suspects' calls without warrants
A new survey found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the National Security Agency should monitor communications between terrorist suspects overseas and contacts inside the U.S.
According to Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of respondents said the super-secret NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Just 23 percent disagreed, the survey found.
Meanwhile, 68 percent of those surveyed said they are following news reports about the NSA somewhat or very closely.
Barely one-quarter of those surveyed by Rasmussen, 26 percent, said they believe Bush is the first president to order warrantless eavesdropping. Forty-eight percent said he is not while 26 percent said they weren't sure.
Politically, 81 percent of Republicans said they believe the NSA should be authorized to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists and people living in the U.S. That view is also supported by 51 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of respondents who said they were not affiliated with either major political party.
A new survey found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the National Security Agency should monitor communications between terrorist suspects overseas and contacts inside the U.S.
According to Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of respondents said the super-secret NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Just 23 percent disagreed, the survey found.
Meanwhile, 68 percent of those surveyed said they are following news reports about the NSA somewhat or very closely.
Barely one-quarter of those surveyed by Rasmussen, 26 percent, said they believe Bush is the first president to order warrantless eavesdropping. Forty-eight percent said he is not while 26 percent said they weren't sure.
Politically, 81 percent of Republicans said they believe the NSA should be authorized to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists and people living in the U.S. That view is also supported by 51 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of respondents who said they were not affiliated with either major political party.
U.N. official: Iraqi elections credible
A United Nations official said Wednesday that Iraq's recent parliamentary elections, which have given a strong lead to the Shiite religious bloc dominating the current government, were credible and that there was there was no justification in calls for a rerun.
In violence Wednesday, an inmate in a Baghdad prison grabbed an assault rifle from a guard and opened fire, killing eight people, police said. One American soldier was injured in the attempted prison break, the U.S. military said.
The Shiite bloc held talks with Kurdish leaders about who should get the top 12 government jobs, as thousands of Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites protested what they say was a tainted vote. Two Sunni Arab groups and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's Iraqi National List have threatened a wave of protests and civil disobedience if fraud charges are not properly investigated.
In another of continuing political demonstrations across the country, more than 4,000 people rallied Wednesday in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, in favor of the major Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Accordance Front. Demonstrators carried banners say "We refuse the election forgery."
The United Nations official, Craig Jenness, said at a news conference organized by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq that the U.N.-led international election assistance team found the elections to be credible and transparent. "Turnout was high and the day was largely peaceful, all communities participated."
Iraqi officials said they had found some instances of fraud that were enough to cancel the results in that place, but not to hold a rerun. There were more than 1,500 complaints made about the elections, with about 50 of them considered serious enough to possibly result in the cancellation of results in some places.
"After studying all the complaints, and after the manual and electronic audit of samples of ballot boxes in the provinces, the electoral commission will announce within the next few days some decisions about canceling the results in stations where fraud was found," said Abdul Hussein Hendawi, an elections official.
He said fraud had been discovered in the provinces of Baghdad, Irbil, Ninevah, Kirkuk, Anbar and Diyala.
Jenness said the number of complaints was less than one in every 7,000 voters. About 70 percent of Iraq's 15 million voters took part in the elections. He added that the U.N. saw no reason to hold a new ballot.
"Complaints must be adjudicated fairly, but we in the United Nations see no justification in calls for a rerun of any election," he said.
In violence Wednesday, an inmate in a Baghdad prison grabbed an assault rifle from a guard and opened fire, killing eight people, police said. One American soldier was injured in the attempted prison break, the U.S. military said.
The Shiite bloc held talks with Kurdish leaders about who should get the top 12 government jobs, as thousands of Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites protested what they say was a tainted vote. Two Sunni Arab groups and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's Iraqi National List have threatened a wave of protests and civil disobedience if fraud charges are not properly investigated.
In another of continuing political demonstrations across the country, more than 4,000 people rallied Wednesday in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, in favor of the major Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Accordance Front. Demonstrators carried banners say "We refuse the election forgery."
The United Nations official, Craig Jenness, said at a news conference organized by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq that the U.N.-led international election assistance team found the elections to be credible and transparent. "Turnout was high and the day was largely peaceful, all communities participated."
Iraqi officials said they had found some instances of fraud that were enough to cancel the results in that place, but not to hold a rerun. There were more than 1,500 complaints made about the elections, with about 50 of them considered serious enough to possibly result in the cancellation of results in some places.
"After studying all the complaints, and after the manual and electronic audit of samples of ballot boxes in the provinces, the electoral commission will announce within the next few days some decisions about canceling the results in stations where fraud was found," said Abdul Hussein Hendawi, an elections official.
He said fraud had been discovered in the provinces of Baghdad, Irbil, Ninevah, Kirkuk, Anbar and Diyala.
Jenness said the number of complaints was less than one in every 7,000 voters. About 70 percent of Iraq's 15 million voters took part in the elections. He added that the U.N. saw no reason to hold a new ballot.
"Complaints must be adjudicated fairly, but we in the United Nations see no justification in calls for a rerun of any election," he said.
Civil-rights attorney: ACLU 'terrorizing' U.S.
Activist praises bill that would keep taxpayer funds from organization
An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.
Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square � such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.
Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
In the podcast, Hostettler explains that the 1976 statute was meant to help "the little guy" who is going up against a governmental entity so he won't be impoverished when working to guarantee the liberty to express or practice his faith. But, says the lawmaker, the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally.
Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty � a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State.
An attorney who once worked for the American Civil Liberties Union has slammed the organization for "perverting" federal law by successfully threatening government officials into getting rid of public expressions of religion.
Rees Lloyd made the comments in an online podcast hosted by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., in which the two discuss the congressman's legislation, the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square � such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal.
Lloyd, a California civil-rights attorney, is an officer with the American Legion who wrote a resolution passed by the national organization supporting Hostettler's bill.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
In the podcast, Hostettler explains that the 1976 statute was meant to help "the little guy" who is going up against a governmental entity so he won't be impoverished when working to guarantee the liberty to express or practice his faith. But, says the lawmaker, the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally.
Hostettler says some organizations have created a new civil liberty � a right to be protected "from religion, which is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights." The Indiana congressman blames "a very select group" for "perverting" the original statute, including the ACLU, People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separate of Church and State.
Consumer Confidence Surges Again
Consumer confidence surged in December as declining gasoline prices and improving job opportunities buoyed spirits, boding well for spending in the new year.
The Conference Board said Wednesday that its Consumer Confidence Index advanced to 103.6 this month, after recovering to 98.3 in November. Analysts had expected a reading of 103.0 for December.
December's rise put the index at its highest level since Hurricane Katrina struck on Aug. 29, devastating Gulf Coast states and disrupting fuel and trade for much of the nation. Last August, before the storm, the index registered 105.5.
Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center, said in a statement accompanying the report that "consumer confidence continues to bounce back" from the beating it took after the hurricane.
"The resiliency of the economy, recent declines in prices at the pump, and job growth have consumers feeling more confident at year-end than they felt at the start of 2005," Franco said. "Consumers are confident that the economy will continue to expand in 2006."
The consumer confidence index stood at 102.7 in December 2004.
The Conference Board said Wednesday that its Consumer Confidence Index advanced to 103.6 this month, after recovering to 98.3 in November. Analysts had expected a reading of 103.0 for December.
December's rise put the index at its highest level since Hurricane Katrina struck on Aug. 29, devastating Gulf Coast states and disrupting fuel and trade for much of the nation. Last August, before the storm, the index registered 105.5.
Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center, said in a statement accompanying the report that "consumer confidence continues to bounce back" from the beating it took after the hurricane.
"The resiliency of the economy, recent declines in prices at the pump, and job growth have consumers feeling more confident at year-end than they felt at the start of 2005," Franco said. "Consumers are confident that the economy will continue to expand in 2006."
The consumer confidence index stood at 102.7 in December 2004.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
EU states that berated Bush on Kyoto fail to hit emissions targets
MANY of the European nations responsible for coercing the United States to remain committed to combating climate change are named and shamed today as major polluters of the environment.
A remarkable report has discovered Britain stands almost alone among 15 EU nations in making strides towards honouring Kyoto commitments to cut greenhouse gases.
The London-based think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has found that ten of the 15 European Union signatories to the Kyoto Protocol will miss their targets by 2010 without urgent action.
The worst offenders are Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, each up to 20 per cent off target. Only Britain, Sweden and France are remotely on target.
The poorly performing nations are among the many who have criticised the US and President George Bush - who early in his presidency declared Kyoto "dead" - for refusing to sign up to the agreement because of fears it would limit economic growth.
However, earlier this month - after fierce negotiations at a United Nations conference in Montreal, Canada - the US did agree to a "non-binding dialogue to respond to climate change", aimed at setting new mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions after 2012, when the existing pact known as the Kyoto Protocol expires.
The research carried out by the IPPR, the Left-leaning think-tank, finds that Britain has the best record on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It projects that by 2010, with green policies still to be introduced, the UK will have reduced emissions by 20 per cent of the level recorded in 1990. Sweden will be just 1 per cent away from achieving its target of an increase on 1990 levels of just 4 per cent.
However, Spain will miss - by 13 per cent - its target of limiting emission levels to 15 per cent more than were recorded in 1990. Ireland will fail to hit its target of emission levels running at a rate of 13 per cent higher than the 1990 level by 20.4 per cent.
Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said last night he was surprised the IPPR had found the UK's projected performance would be so good, and he questioned its methodology.
However, he added: "We are not surprised to see the EU falling behind its Kyoto targets, and this is because nations are increasing the pursuit of economic growth rather than sustainable development."
A remarkable report has discovered Britain stands almost alone among 15 EU nations in making strides towards honouring Kyoto commitments to cut greenhouse gases.
The London-based think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has found that ten of the 15 European Union signatories to the Kyoto Protocol will miss their targets by 2010 without urgent action.
The worst offenders are Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, each up to 20 per cent off target. Only Britain, Sweden and France are remotely on target.
The poorly performing nations are among the many who have criticised the US and President George Bush - who early in his presidency declared Kyoto "dead" - for refusing to sign up to the agreement because of fears it would limit economic growth.
However, earlier this month - after fierce negotiations at a United Nations conference in Montreal, Canada - the US did agree to a "non-binding dialogue to respond to climate change", aimed at setting new mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions after 2012, when the existing pact known as the Kyoto Protocol expires.
The research carried out by the IPPR, the Left-leaning think-tank, finds that Britain has the best record on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It projects that by 2010, with green policies still to be introduced, the UK will have reduced emissions by 20 per cent of the level recorded in 1990. Sweden will be just 1 per cent away from achieving its target of an increase on 1990 levels of just 4 per cent.
However, Spain will miss - by 13 per cent - its target of limiting emission levels to 15 per cent more than were recorded in 1990. Ireland will fail to hit its target of emission levels running at a rate of 13 per cent higher than the 1990 level by 20.4 per cent.
Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said last night he was surprised the IPPR had found the UK's projected performance would be so good, and he questioned its methodology.
However, he added: "We are not surprised to see the EU falling behind its Kyoto targets, and this is because nations are increasing the pursuit of economic growth rather than sustainable development."
L.A. Times admits false claim about Falwell
A column by a rabbi published in the Los Angeles Times falsely asserted Rev. Jerry Falwell claimed lesbian actress Ellen DeGeneres played a role in the 9-11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina because she was the host of the Emmy Awards before both events.
The Times ran a correction explaining the Baptist minister "made no such claim."
In the Dec. 18 column, Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein wrote:
We've all heard about the rise of the evangelical movement and about some of the excesses of its leaders. For instance, the Rev. Jerry Falwell claimed that Ellen DeGeneres played a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina because she was the host of the Emmy Awards ceremony preceding both events. I only wish the situation was just comical. But when we realize how this movement has saturated the fabric of American culture, we cannot � we must not � remain indifferent to its effect on us, to our neighbors of other faiths and to the essence of what still makes this country a beacon of democracy to the world.
Stein is a rabbi at Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles and vice president of the Wilshire Center Interfaith Council.
The Times' correction Sunday said the column was "defending the separation of church and state."
The Times ran a correction explaining the Baptist minister "made no such claim."
In the Dec. 18 column, Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein wrote:
We've all heard about the rise of the evangelical movement and about some of the excesses of its leaders. For instance, the Rev. Jerry Falwell claimed that Ellen DeGeneres played a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina because she was the host of the Emmy Awards ceremony preceding both events. I only wish the situation was just comical. But when we realize how this movement has saturated the fabric of American culture, we cannot � we must not � remain indifferent to its effect on us, to our neighbors of other faiths and to the essence of what still makes this country a beacon of democracy to the world.
Stein is a rabbi at Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles and vice president of the Wilshire Center Interfaith Council.
The Times' correction Sunday said the column was "defending the separation of church and state."
Mass Grave Uncovered in Karbala, Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Municipal workers in the Shiite holy city of Karbala found remains believed to be from a massgrave dating to 1991, when Saddam Hussein's regime put down a Shiite uprising in the south.
The remains were discovered Monday and were sent for testing Tuesday in an effort to identify the bodies, said Rahman Mashawy, a Karbala police spokesman. He did not say how many bodies were found, and the police claim could not be independently verified.
Human rights organizations estimate that more than 300,000 people, mainly Kurds and Shiite Muslims, were killed and buried in massgraves during Saddam's 23-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003. Saddam and seven co-defendants are now on trial for the deaths of more than 140 Shiites after a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad.
The remains were discovered Monday and were sent for testing Tuesday in an effort to identify the bodies, said Rahman Mashawy, a Karbala police spokesman. He did not say how many bodies were found, and the police claim could not be independently verified.
Human rights organizations estimate that more than 300,000 people, mainly Kurds and Shiite Muslims, were killed and buried in massgraves during Saddam's 23-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003. Saddam and seven co-defendants are now on trial for the deaths of more than 140 Shiites after a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Have A Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year !
Here's wishing all our readers, listeners and their families a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR. HAPPY HANNUKAH to all our Jewish friends as well ! We at TALK SHOW AMERICA and THE TALK SHOW AMERICAN would like to thank all of you for your continued listener and readership loyalty throughout the years.
2005 was a banner year for both the show and the blog as we broke records for visitors to the website and listeners to the show. The show is now on two Radio station in Florida, WWPR 1490 AM and WTMY 1280 AM. The podcasting of Talk Show America this year has also taken off in popularity that we never dreamed possible. Everyday I receive email from listeners of the show and readers of the blog encouraging me and praising me for the continued battle we fight everyday against the Main Stream News Media and the Liberal Left and their attacks on America, the President and Our Military. I am humbled by your praise and support.
It takes more than one man behind a microphone or computer keyboard. It takes also, dedicated listeners and readers such as yourselves, who participate and assist daily in this battle to keep America Strong, Proud, and Free. Thank You one and all.
Please take the time during your busy holiday season to remember all of OUR BRAVE MEN and WOMEN serving in our military who keep us safe and free no matter where they are serving, and the sacrifices of their families as well. They deserve your prayers and thoughts especially during Christmas. GOD BLESS THEM ALL !
God Bless You, God Bless President Bush, God Bless the US Military, and God Bless The United States of America !
J.R.
Host/Producer Talk Show America
Editor/Publisher The Talk Show America
President Bush: Remember Troops During Holidays
In a Christmas Eve message, President Bush said the holidays are a time to mourn U.S. troops who have died in overseas missions and to find ways to help others in need, especially those whose lives were shattered by Hurricane Katrina.
In his Saturday radio address, Bush also recognized the burden military families endure when loved ones are abroad.
"During the holiday season and throughout the year, we think with pride of the men and women of our armed forces, who are keeping our nation safe and defending freedom around the world," he said. "In Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, they are protecting our liberty by spreading liberty to others, and all Americans are grateful to our troops for their courage and commitment."
Bush taped the address at the White House on Thursday before leaving for a long holiday weekend with family members at Camp David, Md.
Bush and his relatives planned a busy Christmas Eve. They were attending a candlelight service at the Camp David chapel with military families and watching the annual Christmas pageant put on by children of U.S. troops.
Among those joining the president and his wife, Laura, at the wooded compound in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains are Bush's parents, former President George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara; Mrs. Bush's mother, Jenna Welch; and the first couple's twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna.
The president and first lady fly to their ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Monday, returning to Washington on New Year's Day.
In his broadcast, Bush urged Americans to look for ways to volunteer their time and talents to those in need.
"There are many among us who are hurting and require a helping hand," he said, citing the victims of hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast. "We pray for their strength as they continue to recover and rebuild their lives and their communities."
The president said the holiday also is a time to remember heroic men and woman who died in war.
"We pray that God will comfort the loved ones they left behind," he said. "The sacrifices of these brave troops have rescued millions from lives of tyranny and sorrow, and made America more secure. We will always cherish the memory of each of our fallen servicemen and women, and count it a privilege to be citizens of the country they served."
In his Saturday radio address, Bush also recognized the burden military families endure when loved ones are abroad.
"During the holiday season and throughout the year, we think with pride of the men and women of our armed forces, who are keeping our nation safe and defending freedom around the world," he said. "In Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, they are protecting our liberty by spreading liberty to others, and all Americans are grateful to our troops for their courage and commitment."
Bush taped the address at the White House on Thursday before leaving for a long holiday weekend with family members at Camp David, Md.
Bush and his relatives planned a busy Christmas Eve. They were attending a candlelight service at the Camp David chapel with military families and watching the annual Christmas pageant put on by children of U.S. troops.
Among those joining the president and his wife, Laura, at the wooded compound in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains are Bush's parents, former President George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara; Mrs. Bush's mother, Jenna Welch; and the first couple's twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna.
The president and first lady fly to their ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Monday, returning to Washington on New Year's Day.
In his broadcast, Bush urged Americans to look for ways to volunteer their time and talents to those in need.
"There are many among us who are hurting and require a helping hand," he said, citing the victims of hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast. "We pray for their strength as they continue to recover and rebuild their lives and their communities."
The president said the holiday also is a time to remember heroic men and woman who died in war.
"We pray that God will comfort the loved ones they left behind," he said. "The sacrifices of these brave troops have rescued millions from lives of tyranny and sorrow, and made America more secure. We will always cherish the memory of each of our fallen servicemen and women, and count it a privilege to be citizens of the country they served."
Rumsfeld serves up Christmas dinner in Iraq
US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, garbed in a white chef's hat, served up a sumptuous Christmas repast for US troops at their base in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, according to an AFP journalist.
"What can I get you?" he asked the soldiers who had a choice between lobster, steak or crab and were proud to have their picture taken with the secretary.
"Let there be no doubt," he said to them later as they sat at their tables. "If the United States was to withdraw from Iraq today, the terrorists -- emboldened by victory -- would attack us elsewhere in this region and at home in the United States."
He warmly thanked the soldiers for their service in Iraq and to their country.
"In the long struggle between freedom and tyranny, freedom ultimately prevails. It prevails because of the dedication and perseverance of those wearing America's uniforms," he said.
Rumsfeld arrived in Iraq on Thursday.
"What can I get you?" he asked the soldiers who had a choice between lobster, steak or crab and were proud to have their picture taken with the secretary.
"Let there be no doubt," he said to them later as they sat at their tables. "If the United States was to withdraw from Iraq today, the terrorists -- emboldened by victory -- would attack us elsewhere in this region and at home in the United States."
He warmly thanked the soldiers for their service in Iraq and to their country.
"In the long struggle between freedom and tyranny, freedom ultimately prevails. It prevails because of the dedication and perseverance of those wearing America's uniforms," he said.
Rumsfeld arrived in Iraq on Thursday.
Businessman jailed for sale of chemicals to Saddam
A DUTCH businessman was given a 15-year prison sentence yesterday after he was found guilty of complicity in war crimes for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein's Iraq which were used to carry out gas attacks.
The court in the Hague said Frans van Anraat, 63, supplied the raw materials knowing they would be used to make poison gas during 1980-1988 war with Iran.
Poison gas was also used against Iraq's own Kurdish population, including an attack on the town of Halabja in 1988.
Roel van Rossum, the presiding judge told a packed court: "His deliveries facilitated the attacks and constitute a very serious war crime. He cannot counter with the argument that this would have happened even without his contribution.
"Even the maximum sentence is not enough to cover the seriousness of the acts."
The court in the Hague said Frans van Anraat, 63, supplied the raw materials knowing they would be used to make poison gas during 1980-1988 war with Iran.
Poison gas was also used against Iraq's own Kurdish population, including an attack on the town of Halabja in 1988.
Roel van Rossum, the presiding judge told a packed court: "His deliveries facilitated the attacks and constitute a very serious war crime. He cannot counter with the argument that this would have happened even without his contribution.
"Even the maximum sentence is not enough to cover the seriousness of the acts."
Stars turn backs on America's troops in Iraq
During world war two American troops away from home for Christmas were entertained by Marlene Dietrich, Bing Crosby and the Marx Brothers. Even in Vietnam Bob Hope was guaranteed to put in an appearance. But soldiers in Iraq are more likely to get a show from a Christian hip-hop group, a country singer you have probably never heard of and two cheerleaders for the Dallas Cowboys.
Just as the seemingly intractable nature of the war has led to a growing recruitment crisis, so the United Services Organisation, which has been putting on shows for the troops since the second world war, is struggling to get celebrities to sign up for even a short tour of duty.
It is a far cry from the days following the September 11 2001 attacks, when some of the biggest names in show business, from Jennifer Lopez to Brad Pitt, rallied to the cause. "After 9/11 we couldn't have had enough airplanes for the people who were volunteering to go," Wayne Newton, the Las Vegas crooner who succeeded Bob Hope as head of USO's talent recruiting effort, told USA Today. "Now with 9/11 being as far removed as it is, the war being up one day and down the next, it becomes increasingly difficult to get people to go."
Newton said many celebrities have been wary of going because they think it might be seen that they are endorsing the war. "And I say it's not. I tell them these men and women are over there because our country sent them, and we have the absolute necessity to try to bring them as much happiness as we can."
Some of the entertainers still willing to travel are die-hard true believers - rock musician Ted Nugent carried a Glock handgun to shows in Iraq last year and said in a radio interview that he manned a machine gun on a Humvee. But many of the USO's regular performers are fierce critics of the war, among them the comic and star of Good Morning Vietnam, Robin Williams, who told USA Today he would like to return to the Middle East in the spring for what would be his fourth tour since 2002. "I'm there for the [troops], not for W," he said in a reference to the president. "Go, man. You won't forget it. You'll meet amazing people," is his message to stars that ask him about the tours. But the comedian said he mostly tries to keep politics out of the show after he did a few jokes about Bush's brainpower at a base in 2003 and got a chilly reception.
Just as the seemingly intractable nature of the war has led to a growing recruitment crisis, so the United Services Organisation, which has been putting on shows for the troops since the second world war, is struggling to get celebrities to sign up for even a short tour of duty.
It is a far cry from the days following the September 11 2001 attacks, when some of the biggest names in show business, from Jennifer Lopez to Brad Pitt, rallied to the cause. "After 9/11 we couldn't have had enough airplanes for the people who were volunteering to go," Wayne Newton, the Las Vegas crooner who succeeded Bob Hope as head of USO's talent recruiting effort, told USA Today. "Now with 9/11 being as far removed as it is, the war being up one day and down the next, it becomes increasingly difficult to get people to go."
Newton said many celebrities have been wary of going because they think it might be seen that they are endorsing the war. "And I say it's not. I tell them these men and women are over there because our country sent them, and we have the absolute necessity to try to bring them as much happiness as we can."
Some of the entertainers still willing to travel are die-hard true believers - rock musician Ted Nugent carried a Glock handgun to shows in Iraq last year and said in a radio interview that he manned a machine gun on a Humvee. But many of the USO's regular performers are fierce critics of the war, among them the comic and star of Good Morning Vietnam, Robin Williams, who told USA Today he would like to return to the Middle East in the spring for what would be his fourth tour since 2002. "I'm there for the [troops], not for W," he said in a reference to the president. "Go, man. You won't forget it. You'll meet amazing people," is his message to stars that ask him about the tours. But the comedian said he mostly tries to keep politics out of the show after he did a few jokes about Bush's brainpower at a base in 2003 and got a chilly reception.
NY Times: NSA Spying Beyond What Administration Admits
The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls - without court orders - than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported on its Web site.
The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.
The story did not name the companies.
Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.
The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the Sept. 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.
The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.
The story did not name the companies.
Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.
The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the Sept. 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.
Clinton Official: Sen. Leahy Wrong on Domestic Spying
Claims by a top Senate Democrat that the Clinton administration's warrantless surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists was different from what the Bush administration has employed are being contradicted by a former Justice Department official who served under President Bill Clinton.
John Schmidt, who served as associate attorney general between 1994 and 1997, argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized presidents' "inherent authority" to bypass warrants in ordering the eavesdropping of U.S. citizens suspected of conspiring with foreign governments or terrorists to injure or kill Americans.
On Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, chided reporters for suggesting that Clinton ordered the same kinds of surveillance of U.S. citizens as Bush. Leahy claimed in a press conference that Clinton acted under an "entirely different power.
John Schmidt, who served as associate attorney general between 1994 and 1997, argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized presidents' "inherent authority" to bypass warrants in ordering the eavesdropping of U.S. citizens suspected of conspiring with foreign governments or terrorists to injure or kill Americans.
On Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, chided reporters for suggesting that Clinton ordered the same kinds of surveillance of U.S. citizens as Bush. Leahy claimed in a press conference that Clinton acted under an "entirely different power.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants
In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program.
Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of U.S. targets by the National Security Agency without court orders.
The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.
FBI officials expressed concern that discussion of the program would expose sensitive methods used in counterterrorism. Although NEST staffers have demonstrated their techniques on national television as recently as October, U.S. News has omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted. Officials from four different agencies declined to respond on the record about the classified program: the FBI, Energy Department, Justice Department, and National Security Council. "We don't ever comment on deployments," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages NEST.
In Washington, the sites monitored have included prominent mosques and office buildings in suburban Maryland and Virginia. One source close to the program said that participants "were tasked on a daily and nightly basis," and that FBI and Energy Department officials held regular meetings to update the monitoring list.
The question of search warrants is controversial, however. To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. "If a delivery man can access it, so can we," says one.
Officials also reject any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims. "We categorically do not target places of worship or entitles solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."
Among those said to be briefed on the monitoring program were Vice President Richard Cheney; Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration; and Richard Clarke, then a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council. After 9/11, top officials grew increasingly concerned over the prospect of nuclear terrorism. Just weeks after the World Trade Center attacks, a dubious informant named Dragonfire warned that al Qaeda had smuggled a nuclear device into New York City; NEST teams swept the city and found nothing. But as evidence seized from Afghan camps confirmed al Qaeda's interest in nuclear technology, radiation detectors were temporarily installed along Washington, D.C., highways and the Muslim monitoring program began.
Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree. News of the program comes in the wake of revelations last week that, after 9/11, the Bush White House approved electronic surveillance of U.S. targets by the National Security Agency without court orders.
The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.
FBI officials expressed concern that discussion of the program would expose sensitive methods used in counterterrorism. Although NEST staffers have demonstrated their techniques on national television as recently as October, U.S. News has omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted. Officials from four different agencies declined to respond on the record about the classified program: the FBI, Energy Department, Justice Department, and National Security Council. "We don't ever comment on deployments," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages NEST.
In Washington, the sites monitored have included prominent mosques and office buildings in suburban Maryland and Virginia. One source close to the program said that participants "were tasked on a daily and nightly basis," and that FBI and Energy Department officials held regular meetings to update the monitoring list.
The question of search warrants is controversial, however. To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. "If a delivery man can access it, so can we," says one.
Officials also reject any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims. "We categorically do not target places of worship or entitles solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."
Among those said to be briefed on the monitoring program were Vice President Richard Cheney; Michael Brown, then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration; and Richard Clarke, then a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council. After 9/11, top officials grew increasingly concerned over the prospect of nuclear terrorism. Just weeks after the World Trade Center attacks, a dubious informant named Dragonfire warned that al Qaeda had smuggled a nuclear device into New York City; NEST teams swept the city and found nothing. But as evidence seized from Afghan camps confirmed al Qaeda's interest in nuclear technology, radiation detectors were temporarily installed along Washington, D.C., highways and the Muslim monitoring program began.
Plans to 'top' 9/11 strikes
Three Algerians arrested in an anti-terrorist operation in southern Italy are suspected of being linked to a planned new series of attacks in the United States, interior minister Giuseppe Pisanu said Friday.
The attacks would have targeted ships, stadiums or railway stations in a bid to outdo the September 11 2001 strikes by al-Qaeda in New York and Washington which killed about 2 700 people, Pisanu said.
The Algerians, suspected of belonging to a cell established by an al-Qaeda-linked Algerian extremist organisation, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), were named as Achour Rabah, Tartaq Sami and Yasmine Bouhrama.
The first two were arrested on Friday in the Salerno area south of Naples, and in Curingia, in the southern Calabria region, respectively.
Bouhrama, 32, had been in jail in Naples since November 15 in connection with another investigation of the GSPC.
He is believed to be the head of the Salerno cell and to have liaised with other cells in Milan, Brescia and Naples.
The three in custody are also alleged to have procured false papers and funds to finance the GSPC, a hardline fundamentalist movement that rejects the Algerian government's attempt to draw a line under years of Islamist rebellion.
Pisanu said Friday's swoop was part of a wider operation involving other countries.
Links were uncovered between the GSPC's Italian activities and groups in Britain, the Italian news agency Ansa reported.
The attacks would have targeted ships, stadiums or railway stations in a bid to outdo the September 11 2001 strikes by al-Qaeda in New York and Washington which killed about 2 700 people, Pisanu said.
The Algerians, suspected of belonging to a cell established by an al-Qaeda-linked Algerian extremist organisation, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), were named as Achour Rabah, Tartaq Sami and Yasmine Bouhrama.
The first two were arrested on Friday in the Salerno area south of Naples, and in Curingia, in the southern Calabria region, respectively.
Bouhrama, 32, had been in jail in Naples since November 15 in connection with another investigation of the GSPC.
He is believed to be the head of the Salerno cell and to have liaised with other cells in Milan, Brescia and Naples.
The three in custody are also alleged to have procured false papers and funds to finance the GSPC, a hardline fundamentalist movement that rejects the Algerian government's attempt to draw a line under years of Islamist rebellion.
Pisanu said Friday's swoop was part of a wider operation involving other countries.
Links were uncovered between the GSPC's Italian activities and groups in Britain, the Italian news agency Ansa reported.
MSNBC On Line Poll 85 % Say Impeach Bush !
A Listener/Reader Emailed me The Following Poll:
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 132629 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%
Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
About our Live Votes and surveys
How 1,000 people can be more representative than 200,000
One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.
But MSNBC�s Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of national opinion. Instead, they are part of the same interactive dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with MSNBC writers and editors and with your fellow users.
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 132629 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%
Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
About our Live Votes and surveys
How 1,000 people can be more representative than 200,000
One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.
But MSNBC�s Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of national opinion. Instead, they are part of the same interactive dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with MSNBC writers and editors and with your fellow users.
President Bush Job Approval At 50 %
Fifty percent (50%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's up six points since the President's speech on Sunday night.
It's also the first time since July that the President's Job Approval has reached the 50% mark. He earns approval from 81% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 42% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Investor confidence has also jumped in recent days to the highest level in a year and a half. Consumer confidence reached the highest level in nine months.
The President's speech had a measurable impact concerning the War on Terror. Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the U.S. and its allies are winning. That's up from 44% immediately before the speech and the highest level of optimism measured in 2005.
Thirty percent (30%) of Americans say that they would definitely vote for Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Presidential Election. Thirty-seven percent (37%) will definitely vote against her.
Immigration is considered a more important voting issue than Iraq by 29% of Americans. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the situation in Iraq is more important to them. Republicans are evenly divided on this question.
The President's highest rating of 2005 was 54% on February 4. His lowest rating was 40% on October 28.
It's also the first time since July that the President's Job Approval has reached the 50% mark. He earns approval from 81% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 42% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Investor confidence has also jumped in recent days to the highest level in a year and a half. Consumer confidence reached the highest level in nine months.
The President's speech had a measurable impact concerning the War on Terror. Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the U.S. and its allies are winning. That's up from 44% immediately before the speech and the highest level of optimism measured in 2005.
Thirty percent (30%) of Americans say that they would definitely vote for Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Presidential Election. Thirty-seven percent (37%) will definitely vote against her.
Immigration is considered a more important voting issue than Iraq by 29% of Americans. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the situation in Iraq is more important to them. Republicans are evenly divided on this question.
The President's highest rating of 2005 was 54% on February 4. His lowest rating was 40% on October 28.
Alito Argued to Overturn Roe in 1985 Memo
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned, a finding certain to enliven January's confirmation hearings.
In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."
The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.
Abortion has become a wedge issue in connection with Alito's confirmation to take the Supreme Court seat held by Associated Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. The federal appellate court judge has been seeking to assure senators that he would put his private views aside when it came time to rule on the issue as a justice. O'Connor has been a supporter of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
The documents released Friday are the latest involving Alito and abortion.
In paperwork released earlier from Alito's time in the Justice Department's solicitor general's office, he recommended a legal strategy of dismantling abortion rights piece by piece. And as part of an application for a job as deputy assistant attorney general, Alito said the Constitution does not guarantee abortion rights.
The latest memo is certain to stir controversy as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings for Alito, slated to begin Jan. 9.
In the memo, Alito focused on a woman making an informed choice and states rights.
"While abortion involves essentially the same medical choice as other surgery, it involves in addition a moral choice, because the woman contemplating a first trimester abortion is given absolute and unreviewable authority over the future of the fetus," Alito wrote. "Should not then the woman be given relevant and objective information bearing on this choice? Roe took from the state lawmakers the authority to make this choice and gave it to the pregnant woman. Does it not follow that the woman contemplating abortion have at her disposal at least some of the same sort of information that we would want lawmakers to consider?"
Consistent with his previous writings, Alito said these arguments would be preferable to a "frontal assault on Roe v. Wade."
"It has most of the advantage of a brief devoted to the overruling of Roe v. Wade; it makes our position clear, does not even tacitly concede Roe's legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open," Alito wrote.
In his memo, Alito said the government, in its argument, might be able to nudge the court and "to provide greater recognition of the states' interest in protecting the unborn throughout pregnancy, or to dispel in part the mystical faith in the attending physician that supports Roe and the subsequent cases."
In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."
The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.
Abortion has become a wedge issue in connection with Alito's confirmation to take the Supreme Court seat held by Associated Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. The federal appellate court judge has been seeking to assure senators that he would put his private views aside when it came time to rule on the issue as a justice. O'Connor has been a supporter of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
The documents released Friday are the latest involving Alito and abortion.
In paperwork released earlier from Alito's time in the Justice Department's solicitor general's office, he recommended a legal strategy of dismantling abortion rights piece by piece. And as part of an application for a job as deputy assistant attorney general, Alito said the Constitution does not guarantee abortion rights.
The latest memo is certain to stir controversy as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings for Alito, slated to begin Jan. 9.
In the memo, Alito focused on a woman making an informed choice and states rights.
"While abortion involves essentially the same medical choice as other surgery, it involves in addition a moral choice, because the woman contemplating a first trimester abortion is given absolute and unreviewable authority over the future of the fetus," Alito wrote. "Should not then the woman be given relevant and objective information bearing on this choice? Roe took from the state lawmakers the authority to make this choice and gave it to the pregnant woman. Does it not follow that the woman contemplating abortion have at her disposal at least some of the same sort of information that we would want lawmakers to consider?"
Consistent with his previous writings, Alito said these arguments would be preferable to a "frontal assault on Roe v. Wade."
"It has most of the advantage of a brief devoted to the overruling of Roe v. Wade; it makes our position clear, does not even tacitly concede Roe's legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open," Alito wrote.
In his memo, Alito said the government, in its argument, might be able to nudge the court and "to provide greater recognition of the states' interest in protecting the unborn throughout pregnancy, or to dispel in part the mystical faith in the attending physician that supports Roe and the subsequent cases."
Rumsfeld Says U.S. to Cut Iraq Troop Levels
Just days after Iraq's elections, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Friday announced the first of what is likely to be a series of U.S. combat troop drawdowns in Iraq in 2006.
Rumsfeld, addressing U.S. troops at this former insurgent stronghold, said President Bush has authorized new cuts below the 138,000 level that has prevailed for most of this year.
Rumsfeld did not reveal the exact size of the troop cut, but Pentagon officials have said it could be as much as 7,000 combat troops. The Pentagon has not announced a timetable for troop reductions, but indications are that the force could be cut significantly by the end of 2006.
That could include substantial reductions well before the November midterm congressional elections, in which Bush's war policies seem certain to be a major issue.
Rumsfeld said two Army brigades that had been scheduled for combat tours - one from Fort Riley, Kan., the other now in Kuwait - would no longer deploy to Iraq. That would reduce the number of combat brigades in Iraq from 17 to 15.
"The effect of these adjustments will reduce forces in Iraq by the spring of 2006 below the current high of 160,000 during the (Iraqi) election period to below the 138,000 baseline that had existed before the most recent elections," the defense secretary said.
Rumsfeld aides said details were to be provided later at the Pentagon.
Further reductions will be considered "at some point in 2006," after the new Iraqi government is in place and is prepared to discuss the future U.S. military presence, Rumsfeld added.
The Pentagon sent an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq to bolster security during the recent elections, and Rumsfeld has previously said those 20,000 would be withdrawn in January to return U.S. force levels to a 138,000 baseline.
Rumsfeld, addressing U.S. troops at this former insurgent stronghold, said President Bush has authorized new cuts below the 138,000 level that has prevailed for most of this year.
Rumsfeld did not reveal the exact size of the troop cut, but Pentagon officials have said it could be as much as 7,000 combat troops. The Pentagon has not announced a timetable for troop reductions, but indications are that the force could be cut significantly by the end of 2006.
That could include substantial reductions well before the November midterm congressional elections, in which Bush's war policies seem certain to be a major issue.
Rumsfeld said two Army brigades that had been scheduled for combat tours - one from Fort Riley, Kan., the other now in Kuwait - would no longer deploy to Iraq. That would reduce the number of combat brigades in Iraq from 17 to 15.
"The effect of these adjustments will reduce forces in Iraq by the spring of 2006 below the current high of 160,000 during the (Iraqi) election period to below the 138,000 baseline that had existed before the most recent elections," the defense secretary said.
Rumsfeld aides said details were to be provided later at the Pentagon.
Further reductions will be considered "at some point in 2006," after the new Iraqi government is in place and is prepared to discuss the future U.S. military presence, Rumsfeld added.
The Pentagon sent an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq to bolster security during the recent elections, and Rumsfeld has previously said those 20,000 would be withdrawn in January to return U.S. force levels to a 138,000 baseline.
FISA Court Discouraged Moussaoui Warrant
Led by the New York Times, a chorus of administration critics have been insisting all week that there was no reason for President Bush to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when he sought to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. - since the FISA Court almost always approves such requests.
But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.
Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.
In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."
However, there was a problem. The paper explained:
"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."
"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."
The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.
Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."
"Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."
Sen. Charles Grassley is among those who think that the FBI might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if the FISA Court hadn't discouraged the Bureau from aggressively pursuing a warrant in the Moussaoui case.
In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, "Agents would have found information in Moussaoui�s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials."
But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.
Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.
In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."
However, there was a problem. The paper explained:
"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."
"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."
The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.
Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."
"Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."
Sen. Charles Grassley is among those who think that the FBI might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if the FISA Court hadn't discouraged the Bureau from aggressively pursuing a warrant in the Moussaoui case.
In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, "Agents would have found information in Moussaoui�s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials."
Al-Qaida Wanted to Kill Bush in White House
A top al-Qaida official close to Osama bin Laden wanted to kill President George W. Bush at the White House, according to a report in the N.Y. Daily News.
Abu Faraj Al-Libi - al-Qaida�s number three leader who was captured in Pakistan last May � also had plans to assassinate Pakistan�s President Gen. Pervez Musharaff.
The information has reportedly been corroborated by two senior U.S. counterterrorism officials.
"Al-Libi had one mission: Kill Bush and Musharraf," the Pakistani official told The News. "He wanted to kill Bush in the White House, preferably."
"It was clearly something they wanted to do. There's no question about that. It's the holy grail of jihad," a senior U.S. counterterrorism official confirmed.
Details of the plot to kill President Bush are highly classified, but word of the plans was disclosed earlier this week.
"It was not known if bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, personally ordered Al-Libi to hit the U.S. President,� writes The News.
BBC News, reporting in May after the capture of Al-Libi in Pakistan, said the low-key Al-Libi rose to the #3 Al-Qaida leadership spot when his mentor, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was captured in March 2003.
It was only through the interrogation of a number of suspects - arrested between January and August last year - that Pakistani authorities started taking note of his presence in the hierarchy, investigators told BBC News.
One security official said: "Every time we interrogate a militant linked to al-Qaida, al-Libbi's name pops up."
The Bush plot never made it past the initial stage of development, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials, and the president was never in imminent danger.
Abu Faraj Al-Libi - al-Qaida�s number three leader who was captured in Pakistan last May � also had plans to assassinate Pakistan�s President Gen. Pervez Musharaff.
The information has reportedly been corroborated by two senior U.S. counterterrorism officials.
"Al-Libi had one mission: Kill Bush and Musharraf," the Pakistani official told The News. "He wanted to kill Bush in the White House, preferably."
"It was clearly something they wanted to do. There's no question about that. It's the holy grail of jihad," a senior U.S. counterterrorism official confirmed.
Details of the plot to kill President Bush are highly classified, but word of the plans was disclosed earlier this week.
"It was not known if bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, personally ordered Al-Libi to hit the U.S. President,� writes The News.
BBC News, reporting in May after the capture of Al-Libi in Pakistan, said the low-key Al-Libi rose to the #3 Al-Qaida leadership spot when his mentor, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was captured in March 2003.
It was only through the interrogation of a number of suspects - arrested between January and August last year - that Pakistani authorities started taking note of his presence in the hierarchy, investigators told BBC News.
One security official said: "Every time we interrogate a militant linked to al-Qaida, al-Libbi's name pops up."
The Bush plot never made it past the initial stage of development, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials, and the president was never in imminent danger.
Bush Administration Defends Spying Program
The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored. In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States
"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."
President Bush has acknowledged he authorized such surveillance and repeatedly has defended it in recent days.
Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.
Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."
The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.
Moschella said the president's constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters.
Moschella said Bush's action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a "broad" exception if the spying is authorized by another statute. In this case, he said, Congress' authorization provided such authority.
The resolution didn't limit the president to going after al-Qaida only in Afghanistan, Moschella wrote.
Moschella also maintained the NSA program is "consistent" with the Fourth Amendment _ which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures _ and civil liberties.
For searches to be reasonable under law, a warrant is needed, Moschella said. But, outside criminal investigations, he said, the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances."
"Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement," Moschella wrote.
"Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."
"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."
President Bush has acknowledged he authorized such surveillance and repeatedly has defended it in recent days.
Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.
Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."
The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.
Moschella said the president's constitutional authority also includes power to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States. He said that power has been affirmed by federal courts, including the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. The FISA court was created in 1978 after public outcry over government spying on anti-war and civil rights protesters.
Moschella said Bush's action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a "broad" exception if the spying is authorized by another statute. In this case, he said, Congress' authorization provided such authority.
The resolution didn't limit the president to going after al-Qaida only in Afghanistan, Moschella wrote.
Moschella also maintained the NSA program is "consistent" with the Fourth Amendment _ which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures _ and civil liberties.
For searches to be reasonable under law, a warrant is needed, Moschella said. But, outside criminal investigations, he said, the Supreme Court has created exceptions where warrants are not needed, finding that the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstances."
"Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement," Moschella wrote.
"Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Iraqi Citizens Support Ongoing Anti-Terror Ops
As Iraq progresses militarily and democratically, citizens there are stepping forward to inform indigenous and coalition forces of terrorist operations and covert weapons caches, Multinational Force Iraq officials reported today. Iraqi citizens sometimes even are apprehending suspected terrorists themselves, officials noted.
For example, on Dec. 17, a group of Iraqi citizens near Kirkuk, in northern Iraq, captured two suspected terrorists who were observed digging up a weapons cache. The citizens reportedly subdued the suspects and called the Kirkuk Joint Coordination Center, which then relayed the information to a nearby patrol. The combined Iraqi and U.S. patrol responded and secured more than 20 artillery rounds, while detaining the terrorist suspects for questioning, officials said.
Also on Dec. 17, another group of Kirkuk residents flagged down a U.S. Air Force patrol and led the airmen to a small weapons cache. The airmen reportedly found two mortar rounds, two rocket-propelled grenade warheads and several anti-aircraft artillery rounds. An explosive ordnance disposal team destroyed the weapons in a controlled detonation, officials said.
A tip from a local citizen in the Tissa Nissan area of Baghdad Dec. 16 led a group of soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Brigade, to a large, buried mortar cache of seven 60 mm mortar rounds. The soldiers reviewed the site and reportedly discovered another suspicious site, which had 19 60 mm mortar rounds. An explosive ordnance disposal team destroyed the ammunition, officials said.
Iraqi soldiers, too, are stepping forward to take the lead, officials said. Iraqi army troops from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Intervention Force, reportedly found and cleared two weapons caches near Husaybah Dec. 17.
The first cache, northwest of the city, held six 40 mm rounds, three AK-47s, a single assault rifle and assorted small arms ammunition, officials said. The second cache of 50 82 mm fuses was found in a water tank, northeast of town. The ordnance was collected and slated for subsequent destruction, officials said.
Elsewhere in Iraq, on Dec. 15, soldiers with the Task Force Band of Brothers discovered a large cache of improvised explosive device components near Hawijah. The components reportedly were found by a pair of scout helicopters from the 101st Airborne Division.
The helicopter pilots spotted suspicious activity by several individuals, officials said. They then relayed the suspects' location to a nearby patrol from the division's 1st Brigade Combat Team. The patrol found a weapons cache buried in several 55-gallon drums.
The cache consisted of 414 two-way radios, 48 circuit boards, and more than 100 timing devices -- all of which are used to manufacture IEDs. The cache also included small amounts of AK-47 ammunition, detonation cord, batteries and several bomb-making manuals, officials said.
This was the second time in less than a month that 1st Brigade Combat Team has uncovered a major cache in its area. The team discovered more than 4,200 mortar rounds in a single cache Nov. 27 near Kirkuk, officials said.
Meanwhile, at several locations near Tikrit on Dec. 17, soldiers from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade detained 15 suspected terrorists as part of Operation Eagle Watch.
The 101st soldiers reportedly were conducting an area reconnaissance near Forward Operating Base Speicher, when they observed the terrorist suspects at two separate sites. Unit UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters swooped down to investigate. They found several AK-47 rifles, two sniper rifles, an RPK Soviet machine gun, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, officials said.
The contraband was confiscated from the suspects, who then were taken to a nearby detention facility for questioning.
For example, on Dec. 17, a group of Iraqi citizens near Kirkuk, in northern Iraq, captured two suspected terrorists who were observed digging up a weapons cache. The citizens reportedly subdued the suspects and called the Kirkuk Joint Coordination Center, which then relayed the information to a nearby patrol. The combined Iraqi and U.S. patrol responded and secured more than 20 artillery rounds, while detaining the terrorist suspects for questioning, officials said.
Also on Dec. 17, another group of Kirkuk residents flagged down a U.S. Air Force patrol and led the airmen to a small weapons cache. The airmen reportedly found two mortar rounds, two rocket-propelled grenade warheads and several anti-aircraft artillery rounds. An explosive ordnance disposal team destroyed the weapons in a controlled detonation, officials said.
A tip from a local citizen in the Tissa Nissan area of Baghdad Dec. 16 led a group of soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Brigade, to a large, buried mortar cache of seven 60 mm mortar rounds. The soldiers reviewed the site and reportedly discovered another suspicious site, which had 19 60 mm mortar rounds. An explosive ordnance disposal team destroyed the ammunition, officials said.
Iraqi soldiers, too, are stepping forward to take the lead, officials said. Iraqi army troops from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Intervention Force, reportedly found and cleared two weapons caches near Husaybah Dec. 17.
The first cache, northwest of the city, held six 40 mm rounds, three AK-47s, a single assault rifle and assorted small arms ammunition, officials said. The second cache of 50 82 mm fuses was found in a water tank, northeast of town. The ordnance was collected and slated for subsequent destruction, officials said.
Elsewhere in Iraq, on Dec. 15, soldiers with the Task Force Band of Brothers discovered a large cache of improvised explosive device components near Hawijah. The components reportedly were found by a pair of scout helicopters from the 101st Airborne Division.
The helicopter pilots spotted suspicious activity by several individuals, officials said. They then relayed the suspects' location to a nearby patrol from the division's 1st Brigade Combat Team. The patrol found a weapons cache buried in several 55-gallon drums.
The cache consisted of 414 two-way radios, 48 circuit boards, and more than 100 timing devices -- all of which are used to manufacture IEDs. The cache also included small amounts of AK-47 ammunition, detonation cord, batteries and several bomb-making manuals, officials said.
This was the second time in less than a month that 1st Brigade Combat Team has uncovered a major cache in its area. The team discovered more than 4,200 mortar rounds in a single cache Nov. 27 near Kirkuk, officials said.
Meanwhile, at several locations near Tikrit on Dec. 17, soldiers from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade detained 15 suspected terrorists as part of Operation Eagle Watch.
The 101st soldiers reportedly were conducting an area reconnaissance near Forward Operating Base Speicher, when they observed the terrorist suspects at two separate sites. Unit UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters swooped down to investigate. They found several AK-47 rifles, two sniper rifles, an RPK Soviet machine gun, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, officials said.
The contraband was confiscated from the suspects, who then were taken to a nearby detention facility for questioning.
Letter to an American Soldier
Dear Soldier,
For some time now, we have sought to underplay the strife in Washington to reassure you that despite our differences we are all united behind your mission. It is no longer possible to do so. Sadly, there are some among us whose worldview is so skewed that in their minds you are worse than the murderous terrorists intent on our destruction. To them you are the bad one while they are freedom fighters. These people think we cannot and deserve not to win this war.
Such notions almost invariably come from the political Left, often from the highest echelons of the Democratic Party. Let me give you a few examples.
On June 14, 2005, Dick Durbin, the second highest ranked democrat in the U.S. Senate, compared the actions of our military personnel at Guant�namo Bay to those of the Nazi, Soviet and Pol Pot regimes.
Following the disclosure of the Abu Ghraib photos, Senator Kennedy kept pouring oil on fire for months through condemnatory speeches and denunciations. When the storm was abating at last, he reminded the world of it once again by speaking of �the first anniversary of Abu Ghraib.�
On December 6, 2005, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, asserted that �the idea that we are going to win this war is just plain wrong.� This only one day after John Kerry claimed on national television that you go �into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children.�
As a naturalized citizen and someone who grew up under communism, I am keenly aware of just how great and wonderful this country is. While living in America, I also became conscious of the all around goodness and big-heartedness of the American people. It therefore pains me greatly when I see someone throwing mud at America�s best.
I will not stand by when John Kerry and his ilk compare you to the Nazis and terrorists. John Kerry betrayed his comrades 30 years ago, and now he is trying to do it again to the latest generation of heroic Americans. There is only one word that can describe such a man: traitor.
When I kiss my little girl good night, I do so knowing that many have paid � and many are paying still � a heavy price so that I can partake in this wondrous moment in freedom and peace. The thought that so many laid their lives while making it possible is almost too painful to bear. Tied to you with a bond forged by your sacrifice, I acknowledge its lopsided nature � I get the benefits while you bear the cost.
The nature of our existence is such that for almost everything that is good and precious we depend on the labor and goodwill of others. Of this I become especially cognizant when I think of you. I do not know why our lives take the course they do, but of this I am certain: God is just and with Him no noble sacrifice is ever in vain.
You come from the greatest nation that has ever been and you defend the great idea on which it stands � that men may be free. You fight that others too may have the freedom to live up to their God-given potential and pursue happiness in the way they see fit. Freedom is after love the greatest gift a man can give. And you, dear friend, give both in a measure infinitely abundant.
However severe the hardships you now face or sharp the pain you now endure, one thing can never be in doubt: we will win this war. We will win it, because we have the best military in the world. We will win, because America does not cow before head-chopping terrorists. We will win, because win we must.
We will not let darkness prevail over light, and good will not run in the face of evil. Those whom you have liberated will stay free, and those who would enslave them will meet with the fate they deserve. Once your mission is accomplished, you will come home to a thankful nation leaving behind a country that will never be a threat again.
Embittered and seething with rage, those who speak ill of your toil loathe their own country and attack you, because it is you who makes America strong. Rarely angry with our vicious foe, they are always quick to chide and belittle our military. But do not let that disturb you. They only represent a small number in this land. America brims with grateful people who appreciate your sacrifice, who love you, and who pray for you.
I also want you to know this. We will hold the traitors accountable regardless of where they are or how high their office. We will not allow them to sully your honor or your service. We will not allow them to throw mud into the blood you have spilled. We will not allow them to smear the reputation or the memory of the bravest among us. We will call them on their lies, and we will call them for what they are. And in the end they will go down in shame that their words and actions rightly deserve.
May God bless you and keep you safe.
With abiding appreciation for your service and sacrifice,
I remain gratefully yours,
Vasko Kohlmayer
Vasko Kohlmayer defected from communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He lives in London and works in the publishing industry. He can be contacted at vasko_ kohlmayer@msn.com
For some time now, we have sought to underplay the strife in Washington to reassure you that despite our differences we are all united behind your mission. It is no longer possible to do so. Sadly, there are some among us whose worldview is so skewed that in their minds you are worse than the murderous terrorists intent on our destruction. To them you are the bad one while they are freedom fighters. These people think we cannot and deserve not to win this war.
Such notions almost invariably come from the political Left, often from the highest echelons of the Democratic Party. Let me give you a few examples.
On June 14, 2005, Dick Durbin, the second highest ranked democrat in the U.S. Senate, compared the actions of our military personnel at Guant�namo Bay to those of the Nazi, Soviet and Pol Pot regimes.
Following the disclosure of the Abu Ghraib photos, Senator Kennedy kept pouring oil on fire for months through condemnatory speeches and denunciations. When the storm was abating at last, he reminded the world of it once again by speaking of �the first anniversary of Abu Ghraib.�
On December 6, 2005, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, asserted that �the idea that we are going to win this war is just plain wrong.� This only one day after John Kerry claimed on national television that you go �into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children.�
As a naturalized citizen and someone who grew up under communism, I am keenly aware of just how great and wonderful this country is. While living in America, I also became conscious of the all around goodness and big-heartedness of the American people. It therefore pains me greatly when I see someone throwing mud at America�s best.
I will not stand by when John Kerry and his ilk compare you to the Nazis and terrorists. John Kerry betrayed his comrades 30 years ago, and now he is trying to do it again to the latest generation of heroic Americans. There is only one word that can describe such a man: traitor.
When I kiss my little girl good night, I do so knowing that many have paid � and many are paying still � a heavy price so that I can partake in this wondrous moment in freedom and peace. The thought that so many laid their lives while making it possible is almost too painful to bear. Tied to you with a bond forged by your sacrifice, I acknowledge its lopsided nature � I get the benefits while you bear the cost.
The nature of our existence is such that for almost everything that is good and precious we depend on the labor and goodwill of others. Of this I become especially cognizant when I think of you. I do not know why our lives take the course they do, but of this I am certain: God is just and with Him no noble sacrifice is ever in vain.
You come from the greatest nation that has ever been and you defend the great idea on which it stands � that men may be free. You fight that others too may have the freedom to live up to their God-given potential and pursue happiness in the way they see fit. Freedom is after love the greatest gift a man can give. And you, dear friend, give both in a measure infinitely abundant.
However severe the hardships you now face or sharp the pain you now endure, one thing can never be in doubt: we will win this war. We will win it, because we have the best military in the world. We will win, because America does not cow before head-chopping terrorists. We will win, because win we must.
We will not let darkness prevail over light, and good will not run in the face of evil. Those whom you have liberated will stay free, and those who would enslave them will meet with the fate they deserve. Once your mission is accomplished, you will come home to a thankful nation leaving behind a country that will never be a threat again.
Embittered and seething with rage, those who speak ill of your toil loathe their own country and attack you, because it is you who makes America strong. Rarely angry with our vicious foe, they are always quick to chide and belittle our military. But do not let that disturb you. They only represent a small number in this land. America brims with grateful people who appreciate your sacrifice, who love you, and who pray for you.
I also want you to know this. We will hold the traitors accountable regardless of where they are or how high their office. We will not allow them to sully your honor or your service. We will not allow them to throw mud into the blood you have spilled. We will not allow them to smear the reputation or the memory of the bravest among us. We will call them on their lies, and we will call them for what they are. And in the end they will go down in shame that their words and actions rightly deserve.
May God bless you and keep you safe.
With abiding appreciation for your service and sacrifice,
I remain gratefully yours,
Vasko Kohlmayer
Vasko Kohlmayer defected from communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He lives in London and works in the publishing industry. He can be contacted at vasko_ kohlmayer@msn.com
U.S. Army in Iraq let down by media & politicians
by Colonel Ken Allard
The Army that I saw last week in Iraq is a superbly competent, disciplined and overwhelmingly lethal force. While undergoing undeniable strains from four years of combat, it is far from the breaking point: but it is being badly let down by both the media and politicians back home.
First the media: The most frequent complaint I heard from the troops is that the war they are fighting in Iraq is not the one they see being reported on TV - and yes, those extensive base-camps are as fully "wired" as most American cities. The only casualties usually reported by the media are our own - but never the extensive destruction being visited upon the insurgent infrastructure. The only real question - are we winning? - is the only one not being analyzed.
The Politicians: Sometimes it's hard to know who's on your side. The Bush administration is belatedly engaging the war of ideas yet is also to blame for the chronic manpower shortages (active and reserve) that have bedeviled the ground forces ever since 9/11. Meanwhile, both Ted Kennedy and Jack Murtha seem oddly intent on doing what Zarkawi and Bin Laden have thus far been unable to do - breaking the will of the American people to sustain this fight.
Our forces may be stretched thin but if you really want to break them, just try bringing them home short of accomplishing their mission. We could get away with thinly disguised retreats in places like Vietnam and Somalia, which were strategic backwaters. But if we manage to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq - the Schwerpunkt of the fight with radical Islam - then our grandchildren will arise and curse our memories.
The Army that I saw last week in Iraq is a superbly competent, disciplined and overwhelmingly lethal force. While undergoing undeniable strains from four years of combat, it is far from the breaking point: but it is being badly let down by both the media and politicians back home.
First the media: The most frequent complaint I heard from the troops is that the war they are fighting in Iraq is not the one they see being reported on TV - and yes, those extensive base-camps are as fully "wired" as most American cities. The only casualties usually reported by the media are our own - but never the extensive destruction being visited upon the insurgent infrastructure. The only real question - are we winning? - is the only one not being analyzed.
The Politicians: Sometimes it's hard to know who's on your side. The Bush administration is belatedly engaging the war of ideas yet is also to blame for the chronic manpower shortages (active and reserve) that have bedeviled the ground forces ever since 9/11. Meanwhile, both Ted Kennedy and Jack Murtha seem oddly intent on doing what Zarkawi and Bin Laden have thus far been unable to do - breaking the will of the American people to sustain this fight.
Our forces may be stretched thin but if you really want to break them, just try bringing them home short of accomplishing their mission. We could get away with thinly disguised retreats in places like Vietnam and Somalia, which were strategic backwaters. But if we manage to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq - the Schwerpunkt of the fight with radical Islam - then our grandchildren will arise and curse our memories.
U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division finds "large cache"
As the piles of missiles and rockets dug from the desert floor grew, smiles on U.S. Army soldiers' faces turned to scowls of serious concern.
Working on a tip from an informant, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division on Tuesday dug up more than a thousand aging rockets and missiles wrapped in plastic, some of which had been buried as recently as two weeks ago, Army officials said.
"This is the mother load, right here," Sgt. Jeremy Galusha, 25, of Dallas, Ore., said, leaning on a shovel after uncovering more than 20 Soviet missiles.
As the sun set Tuesday, U.S. soldiers continued to uncover more, following zigzagging tire tracks across the desert floor and using metal detectors to locateweapons including mines, mortars and machine gun rounds.
But the growing piles of missiles and rockets were of primary concern for the soldiers in Iraq, where bombs made with loose ordinance by insurgents are the preferred method to target coalition forces.
"In our eyes, every one of these rockets represents one less IED," said 2nd Lt. Patrick Vardaro, 23, of Norwood, Massachusetts, a platoon leader in the division's 187th Infantry Regiment.
Vardaro would not comment on whether there were signs the caches had been used recently to make bombs, but the service records accompanying the missiles dated to 1984, suggesting they were buried by the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein.
Still, the plastic around some of the rockets _ of Soviet, German and French origins _ appeared to be fresh and had not deteriorated as it had on some of the older munitions.
An U.S. Air Force explosive ordinance team planned to begin destroying them as early as Wednesday morning.
Commanders in the 101st said knowing that an Iraqi tipped them off to the buried weapons could mean that residents in this largely Sunni Arab region about 240 kilometers (150 miles) north of Baghdad are beginning to warm up to coalition forces.
"The tide is turning," Vardaro said. "It's better to work with Americans than against us."
Army officials would not say who had informed them of the weapons caches or whether national security forces including Iraqi Army and police had helped.
"A good Samaritan told us about it," he said, reports AP.
Working on a tip from an informant, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division on Tuesday dug up more than a thousand aging rockets and missiles wrapped in plastic, some of which had been buried as recently as two weeks ago, Army officials said.
"This is the mother load, right here," Sgt. Jeremy Galusha, 25, of Dallas, Ore., said, leaning on a shovel after uncovering more than 20 Soviet missiles.
As the sun set Tuesday, U.S. soldiers continued to uncover more, following zigzagging tire tracks across the desert floor and using metal detectors to locateweapons including mines, mortars and machine gun rounds.
But the growing piles of missiles and rockets were of primary concern for the soldiers in Iraq, where bombs made with loose ordinance by insurgents are the preferred method to target coalition forces.
"In our eyes, every one of these rockets represents one less IED," said 2nd Lt. Patrick Vardaro, 23, of Norwood, Massachusetts, a platoon leader in the division's 187th Infantry Regiment.
Vardaro would not comment on whether there were signs the caches had been used recently to make bombs, but the service records accompanying the missiles dated to 1984, suggesting they were buried by the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein.
Still, the plastic around some of the rockets _ of Soviet, German and French origins _ appeared to be fresh and had not deteriorated as it had on some of the older munitions.
An U.S. Air Force explosive ordinance team planned to begin destroying them as early as Wednesday morning.
Commanders in the 101st said knowing that an Iraqi tipped them off to the buried weapons could mean that residents in this largely Sunni Arab region about 240 kilometers (150 miles) north of Baghdad are beginning to warm up to coalition forces.
"The tide is turning," Vardaro said. "It's better to work with Americans than against us."
Army officials would not say who had informed them of the weapons caches or whether national security forces including Iraqi Army and police had helped.
"A good Samaritan told us about it," he said, reports AP.
U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rises in Nov.
A widely watched measure of future economic activity rose in November as fewer people filed for jobless benefits, suggesting the nation's economy may grow moderately into the spring, a private research group said Thursday.
The Conference Board said its Index of Leading Economic Indicators, which tries to gauge future economic growth, rose 0.5 percent in November.
Much of last month's gains were tied to a drop in the number of applicants seeking unemployment benefits, which spiked soon after Hurricane Katrina devastated U.S. Gulf States.
The Conference Board's measure of current economic activity, the coincident index, rose 0.2 percent in November, following a 0.2 percent increase in October. The research group said that over the last six months, industrial production and employment have been the engines of growth in its coincident index.
"The 0.5 (percent rise) is a solid gain. It is a nice rise," said Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial.
The Conference Board said its Index of Leading Economic Indicators, which tries to gauge future economic growth, rose 0.5 percent in November.
Much of last month's gains were tied to a drop in the number of applicants seeking unemployment benefits, which spiked soon after Hurricane Katrina devastated U.S. Gulf States.
The Conference Board's measure of current economic activity, the coincident index, rose 0.2 percent in November, following a 0.2 percent increase in October. The research group said that over the last six months, industrial production and employment have been the engines of growth in its coincident index.
"The 0.5 (percent rise) is a solid gain. It is a nice rise," said Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Economy Grows at Fastest Pace in 1 1/2 Years
The U.S. economy turned in a remarkably strong performance in the summer despite surging energy prices and the battering the Gulf Coast states took from hurricanes, although business growth was slightly lower than the government previously estimated. The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that the gross domestic product, the nation's total output of goods and services, rose at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the July-September quarter. It was the fastest pace of growth in 1 1/2 years.
While down slightly from the 4.3 percent GDP estimate made a month ago, the new figure demonstrated that the economy kept expanding at a strong pace during the summer, led by solid increases in consumer demand, especially for autos, and business investment.
The third quarter performance was up substantially from a 3.3 percent GDP growth rate in the April-June quarter and was the best showing since the economy expanded at a 4.3 percent rate in the first three months of 2004.
The Bush administration, which has been on a concerted campaign to highlight the economy's strong points to bolster the president's approval ratings, said the 4.1 percent GDP growth rate was evidence of a vibrant economy.
"Today's GDP is more proof that businesses are booming and investors are confident," Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in a statement. "The U.S. economy demonstrated its resilience in the last several months."
Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting
In the cultural battle over whether to use the seasonal greeting "Happy holidays" or "Merry Christmas," the latter appears to be winning, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.
In the poll, which surveyed 1,003 adult Americans by phone, 69 percent said they prefer "Merry Christmas" over "Happy holidays," which garnered 29 percent.
Compared with the 2004 Christmas -- or holiday -- season, the number of people who said they use "Happy holidays" has dropped 12 percentage points, from 41 percent to 29 percent.(Test your holiday spirit)
That's bound to be good news for some Christian conservatives who've been pushing for advertisers and stores to wish patrons "Merry Christmas" rather than the more secular and inclusive "Happy holidays." (Full story)
Those who prefer "bah humbug" were not included in the survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
In the poll, which surveyed 1,003 adult Americans by phone, 69 percent said they prefer "Merry Christmas" over "Happy holidays," which garnered 29 percent.
Compared with the 2004 Christmas -- or holiday -- season, the number of people who said they use "Happy holidays" has dropped 12 percentage points, from 41 percent to 29 percent.(Test your holiday spirit)
That's bound to be good news for some Christian conservatives who've been pushing for advertisers and stores to wish patrons "Merry Christmas" rather than the more secular and inclusive "Happy holidays." (Full story)
Those who prefer "bah humbug" were not included in the survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation'
Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs Ten Commandments display
A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU's contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The county display the ACLU sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the national motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice.
Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."
The court said a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display appreciates "the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions."
A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU's contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The county display the ACLU sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the national motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice.
Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."
The court said a reasonable observer of Mercer County's display appreciates "the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions."
State Budgets Boosted by Bush Tax Cuts, Analysts Say
After battling red ink for the past few years, state officials are watching their revenues increase to create budget surpluses, a development some analysts attribute to the financial growth caused by the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2003.
According to the most recent Fiscal Survey of States released by the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), only three states had to scale back their originally budgeted amounts in 2005 when revenues failed to meet projections.
But that's far short of the number of states -- 37 -- that had to do the same thing during the 2003 and 2004 fiscal years combined. And whereas the three states in 2005 revised their budgets downward by $634.6 million, the 37 states in the previous two years had to find $14.5 billion in savings.
Dan Mitchell, senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service that "there's no question state government finances are very, very closely tied to the health of the national economy."
Forty-two states ended up collecting more revenue than they expected in the fiscal year that ended in June, the NASBO report states. Alabama, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and South Dakota saw their revenue projections match the FY 2005 amount budgeted, and only in three states -- Indiana, Missouri and Washington -- did the revenue come in short of the amount originally anticipated in fiscal year 2005.
The good news is expected to continue through the 2006 fiscal year, when proposed state budgets anticipate an average 5.2 percent increase in revenue and spending growth of about 3.8 percent.
One of the success stories of the past few years is Massachusetts. When Republican Gov. Mitt Romney came into office in January 2003, the state had a budget deficit of about $3 billion. Currently, Romney and the Democratic legislature expect to end the 2006 fiscal year with an estimated surplus of $850 million and a "rainy day" fund of $1.7 billion.
Across the country, Montana is using a record overflow of about $300 million to give its citizens property tax relief, while New Mexico is using part of its projected $1 billion surplus to build a 21st-century airport to launch passengers and cargo on suborbital spaceflights.
There's no question, Mitchell said, that the 2003 federal tax cut passed by Congress and signed by President Bush "had a very good effect on the economy." State governments, he said, "are benefiting immensely, albeit indirectly," from the $350 billion tax relief package.
"Ever since the 2003 tax cut, we've basically had 4 percent economic growth," Mitchell said. "That's very good by global standards. Countries like France and Germany are happy to get 1.5 percent growth, and we've had 4 percent growth for a multi-year period."
Since many states tie their tax codes to the federal definition of income, the Bush tax cuts produced "an inadvertent tax cut at the state level," Mitchell said. "But there's no question that the effect of that is small compared with that of faster economic growth."
According to the most recent Fiscal Survey of States released by the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), only three states had to scale back their originally budgeted amounts in 2005 when revenues failed to meet projections.
But that's far short of the number of states -- 37 -- that had to do the same thing during the 2003 and 2004 fiscal years combined. And whereas the three states in 2005 revised their budgets downward by $634.6 million, the 37 states in the previous two years had to find $14.5 billion in savings.
Dan Mitchell, senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service that "there's no question state government finances are very, very closely tied to the health of the national economy."
Forty-two states ended up collecting more revenue than they expected in the fiscal year that ended in June, the NASBO report states. Alabama, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and South Dakota saw their revenue projections match the FY 2005 amount budgeted, and only in three states -- Indiana, Missouri and Washington -- did the revenue come in short of the amount originally anticipated in fiscal year 2005.
The good news is expected to continue through the 2006 fiscal year, when proposed state budgets anticipate an average 5.2 percent increase in revenue and spending growth of about 3.8 percent.
One of the success stories of the past few years is Massachusetts. When Republican Gov. Mitt Romney came into office in January 2003, the state had a budget deficit of about $3 billion. Currently, Romney and the Democratic legislature expect to end the 2006 fiscal year with an estimated surplus of $850 million and a "rainy day" fund of $1.7 billion.
Across the country, Montana is using a record overflow of about $300 million to give its citizens property tax relief, while New Mexico is using part of its projected $1 billion surplus to build a 21st-century airport to launch passengers and cargo on suborbital spaceflights.
There's no question, Mitchell said, that the 2003 federal tax cut passed by Congress and signed by President Bush "had a very good effect on the economy." State governments, he said, "are benefiting immensely, albeit indirectly," from the $350 billion tax relief package.
"Ever since the 2003 tax cut, we've basically had 4 percent economic growth," Mitchell said. "That's very good by global standards. Countries like France and Germany are happy to get 1.5 percent growth, and we've had 4 percent growth for a multi-year period."
Since many states tie their tax codes to the federal definition of income, the Bush tax cuts produced "an inadvertent tax cut at the state level," Mitchell said. "But there's no question that the effect of that is small compared with that of faster economic growth."
President had legal authority to OK taps
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.
The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.
But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."
FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.
The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.
But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."
FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
Wicker says Bush acted within the law
U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker, R-Tupelo, says President Bush acted on the best possible legal advice and was within the law when he began ordering domestic anti-terror spying by the National Security Agency after Sept. 11, 2001.
Wicker, an 11-year member of the House, said Bush fully explained his reasons in Sunday night's televised address to the nation.
Some lawmakers in both parties have criticized the spying order and say Bush acted outside the Constitution.
"I applaud the president," Wicker said.
Wicker said appropriate oversight committees in both houses of Congress were apprised of the action when it was taken.
"This has been done on a very limited basis. It reflects the reality we are in in a very difficult kind of war," he said.
The surveillance was disclosed Friday by The New York Times.
The newspaper, Wicker said, should not have published the story.
"I have to wonder why they chose to do it so soon after the elections in Iraq," Wicker said. "I am glad the president went ahead and made clear what his motivations were."
Wicker, an 11-year member of the House, said Bush fully explained his reasons in Sunday night's televised address to the nation.
Some lawmakers in both parties have criticized the spying order and say Bush acted outside the Constitution.
"I applaud the president," Wicker said.
Wicker said appropriate oversight committees in both houses of Congress were apprised of the action when it was taken.
"This has been done on a very limited basis. It reflects the reality we are in in a very difficult kind of war," he said.
The surveillance was disclosed Friday by The New York Times.
The newspaper, Wicker said, should not have published the story.
"I have to wonder why they chose to do it so soon after the elections in Iraq," Wicker said. "I am glad the president went ahead and made clear what his motivations were."
50% Say U.S. Winning War on Terror
The President's Sunday night speech has increased the nation's confidence concerning the situation in Iraq and the War on Terror. Confidence is up among Republicans and unaffiliateds, but not among Democrats.
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's up from 44% immediately preceding the speech. It's also the highest level of confidence in more than a year.
Just 25% of Americans believe the terrorists are winning. Rasmussen Reports has asked this survey question more than 70 times over the past two years. Just once, in April 2004, has a smaller percentage of Americans believed that the terrorists were winning. When December began, 28% believed the terrorists were winning.
Forty percent (40%) of Americans now give the President good or excellent marks for handling the situation in Iraq. That's up from 35% before the speech.
The number giving the President poor marks on Iraq declined to 39% from 42%. This is the first time all year that the number giving the President good or excellent marks has matched the number saying poor.
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's up from 44% immediately preceding the speech. It's also the highest level of confidence in more than a year.
Just 25% of Americans believe the terrorists are winning. Rasmussen Reports has asked this survey question more than 70 times over the past two years. Just once, in April 2004, has a smaller percentage of Americans believed that the terrorists were winning. When December began, 28% believed the terrorists were winning.
Forty percent (40%) of Americans now give the President good or excellent marks for handling the situation in Iraq. That's up from 35% before the speech.
The number giving the President poor marks on Iraq declined to 39% from 42%. This is the first time all year that the number giving the President good or excellent marks has matched the number saying poor.
Resigned FISA Judge a Committed Clintonista
The press is breathlessly reporting that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - "apparently" in a fit of conscience over news that President Bush was using the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of terrorists.
If the reports are correct, Judge Robertson's conscience has evolved considerably since the days when he was dismissing one criminal case after another against cronies of Bill Clinton - the man who appointed him to the bench in 1994.
Old Arkansas media hand Paul Greenberg has long had Robertson's number. In a 1999 column for Jewish World Review, Greenberg described the honorable judge as "one of the more prejudiced Clintonoids on the bench."
As Accuracy in Media noted in 2000, Judge Roberston's conscience wasn't particularly troubled by the crimes committed by one-time Clinton Deputy Attorney General Webb Hubbell.
In two cases involving Hubbell, AIM reported, "Judge James Robertson threw out a tax charge and another for lying to federal investigators. Appellate courts overruled in both cases, and Hubbell then plead guilty to felonies in each case."
Judge Robertson's conscience also seemed to go AWOL when it came to the case of Archie Schaffer, an executive with Tyson Chicken - the company that had showered Mr. Clinton with campaign contributions and helped steer Mrs. Clinton to her commodities market killing.
Critics said Judge Robertson was merely returning the favor on behalf of the man who appointed him, when - as CNN reported in 1998, he "threw out the jury conviction of Tyson Foods executive Archie Schaffer for providing gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy."
Robertson had "granted a motion by Schaffer to overturn the verdict which found him guilty of giving Espy tickets to President Bill Clinton's first inaugural dinner and gifts at a birthday party for the firm's chief executive, Don Tyson."
In the context of his past performance on the bench, Judge Robertson's media fans will surely understand why some of us aren't buying their claims that he stormed off the FISA court in a fit of outrage over perceived law breaking.
If the reports are correct, Judge Robertson's conscience has evolved considerably since the days when he was dismissing one criminal case after another against cronies of Bill Clinton - the man who appointed him to the bench in 1994.
Old Arkansas media hand Paul Greenberg has long had Robertson's number. In a 1999 column for Jewish World Review, Greenberg described the honorable judge as "one of the more prejudiced Clintonoids on the bench."
As Accuracy in Media noted in 2000, Judge Roberston's conscience wasn't particularly troubled by the crimes committed by one-time Clinton Deputy Attorney General Webb Hubbell.
In two cases involving Hubbell, AIM reported, "Judge James Robertson threw out a tax charge and another for lying to federal investigators. Appellate courts overruled in both cases, and Hubbell then plead guilty to felonies in each case."
Judge Robertson's conscience also seemed to go AWOL when it came to the case of Archie Schaffer, an executive with Tyson Chicken - the company that had showered Mr. Clinton with campaign contributions and helped steer Mrs. Clinton to her commodities market killing.
Critics said Judge Robertson was merely returning the favor on behalf of the man who appointed him, when - as CNN reported in 1998, he "threw out the jury conviction of Tyson Foods executive Archie Schaffer for providing gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy."
Robertson had "granted a motion by Schaffer to overturn the verdict which found him guilty of giving Espy tickets to President Bill Clinton's first inaugural dinner and gifts at a birthday party for the firm's chief executive, Don Tyson."
In the context of his past performance on the bench, Judge Robertson's media fans will surely understand why some of us aren't buying their claims that he stormed off the FISA court in a fit of outrage over perceived law breaking.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
FISA Court Approved Bush Spy Program
Contrary to claims by Democrats currently hyperventilating on Capitol Hill over President Bush's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor communications among terrorists, Bush's so-called "illegal" spy program has indeed undergone judicial review.
And a special foreign intelligence surveillance appeals court set up to review the case confirmed that such "warrantless searches" were completely legal.
Notes OpinionJournal.com today:
"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."
But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
The court's decision went on to say: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
What's more, notes the Journal: "The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about" the Bush surveillance program.
And a special foreign intelligence surveillance appeals court set up to review the case confirmed that such "warrantless searches" were completely legal.
Notes OpinionJournal.com today:
"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."
But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
The court's decision went on to say: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
What's more, notes the Journal: "The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about" the Bush surveillance program.
How Bush Tried to Kill Snoopgate Story is B.S.
Johnathan Alter of Newsweek published this story on 12/19/2005 about the President personally summonsing the NY Times Editor and Publisher to the White House to ask them not to print the so called "Snoopgate Story".
Well, even if that's true, and I emphasize "IF", so what. The NY Times already printed that the administration had asked them not to print the story. So why is this news?
It's news folks because the MSNM isn't getting the milage out of this that they hoped for. It's news because many Americans are not alarmed by the "Snoopgate" story and understand that the President ordered the surveillance of persons overseas linked with Al-Qaeda having conversations with someone in the US. Not any and all US Citizens.
Just read the following paragraph, especially the opening sentence:
Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate�he made it seem as if those who didn�t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda�but it will not work. We�re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
The MSNM was beside itself with glee when this story broke. They were jumping up and down in fits of joy. "Finally, we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex,corruption, and political intrigue..." It's like this is what we (MSNM) have been waiting for!.
and you just have to love this part:
I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president�s desperation.
Yes, Jonathan, that's right, one can only imagine, you admit here that the Times would not comment on the meeting, so how do you know what when on there ? The answer folks, is that he doesn't know and is just speculating.
If the Times would not comment on the meeting then how does he know what transpired between the Times and the President? So if he doesn't know how can he write an article saying that he does ?
ZERO crediblity !
Well, even if that's true, and I emphasize "IF", so what. The NY Times already printed that the administration had asked them not to print the story. So why is this news?
It's news folks because the MSNM isn't getting the milage out of this that they hoped for. It's news because many Americans are not alarmed by the "Snoopgate" story and understand that the President ordered the surveillance of persons overseas linked with Al-Qaeda having conversations with someone in the US. Not any and all US Citizens.
Just read the following paragraph, especially the opening sentence:
Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate�he made it seem as if those who didn�t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda�but it will not work. We�re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
The MSNM was beside itself with glee when this story broke. They were jumping up and down in fits of joy. "Finally, we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex,corruption, and political intrigue..." It's like this is what we (MSNM) have been waiting for!.
and you just have to love this part:
I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president�s desperation.
Yes, Jonathan, that's right, one can only imagine, you admit here that the Times would not comment on the meeting, so how do you know what when on there ? The answer folks, is that he doesn't know and is just speculating.
If the Times would not comment on the meeting then how does he know what transpired between the Times and the President? So if he doesn't know how can he write an article saying that he does ?
ZERO crediblity !
Democrats Say They Didn't Back Wiretapping
Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings. "I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."
Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop _ without warrants _ on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.
The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.
The White House brushed aside Democrats' contention that they weren't provided enough information on the program. "They were briefed and informed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, repeatedly refusing to address Democrats' specific complaints. "Congress has an important oversight role."
Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly cl conference that he was assuming unlimited powers.
"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."
Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress' top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he and other top aides were now educating the American people and Congress. "The president has not authorized ... blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States," he said.
Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop _ without warrants _ on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.
The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.
The White House brushed aside Democrats' contention that they weren't provided enough information on the program. "They were briefed and informed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, repeatedly refusing to address Democrats' specific complaints. "Congress has an important oversight role."
Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly cl conference that he was assuming unlimited powers.
"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."
Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress' top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he and other top aides were now educating the American people and Congress. "The president has not authorized ... blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States," he said.
Report: Syria agrees to hide Iran nukes
Syria has signed a pledge to store Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles.
The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Iran and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.
Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon. Five Syrian officers have been questioned by the UN regarding the Hariri assassination, Middle East Newsline reported.
"The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis," Jane's said.
The accord also obligated Syria to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah with weapons, ammunition and communications. Iran has been the leading weapons supplier to Hizbullah, with about 15,000 missiles and rockets along the Israeli-Lebanese border.
The accord, negotiations of which began in 2004, was signed on Nov. 14 and meant to prepare for economic sanctions imposed on either Iran or Syria. Under the accord, Jane's said, Iran would relay financial aid to Syria in an effort to ease Western sanctions in wake of the UN determination that Damascus was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Iran also pledged to supply a range of military aid to Syria. Jane's cited technology for weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms, ammunition and training of Syrian military.
Teheran would seek to upgrade Syrian ballistic missiles and chemical weapons systems. Under the accord, Iran would also be prepared to operate "advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation." Jane's said.
"The new strategic accord is based on the existing military MoUs, with the addition of the sensitive chapter dealing with cooperation in times of international sanctions or military conflict," Jane's reported.
The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Iran and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.
Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon. Five Syrian officers have been questioned by the UN regarding the Hariri assassination, Middle East Newsline reported.
"The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis," Jane's said.
The accord also obligated Syria to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah with weapons, ammunition and communications. Iran has been the leading weapons supplier to Hizbullah, with about 15,000 missiles and rockets along the Israeli-Lebanese border.
The accord, negotiations of which began in 2004, was signed on Nov. 14 and meant to prepare for economic sanctions imposed on either Iran or Syria. Under the accord, Jane's said, Iran would relay financial aid to Syria in an effort to ease Western sanctions in wake of the UN determination that Damascus was responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Iran also pledged to supply a range of military aid to Syria. Jane's cited technology for weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms, ammunition and training of Syrian military.
Teheran would seek to upgrade Syrian ballistic missiles and chemical weapons systems. Under the accord, Iran would also be prepared to operate "advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation." Jane's said.
"The new strategic accord is based on the existing military MoUs, with the addition of the sensitive chapter dealing with cooperation in times of international sanctions or military conflict," Jane's reported.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)