The Talk Show American

THE TALK SHOW AMERICAN: 07/17/2005 - 07/24/2005

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Lt. gov. crashed Marine's funeral, kin say

handing out her business card and then saying ''our government'' is against the war.

The family of a Marine who was killed in Iraq is furious with Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll for showing up uninvited at his funeral this week, handing out her business card and then saying "our government" is against the war.

Rhonda Goodrich of Indiana, Pa., said yesterday that a funeral was held Tuesday at a church in Carnegie for her brother-in-law, Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, 32.

She said he "died bravely and courageously in Iraq on July 10, serving his country."

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people "who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives."

Then, suddenly, "one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll."

She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, "Who are you?" Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has.

"Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us," Goodrich said. "I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign."

Goodrich said she is positive that Knoll was not invited to the funeral, which was jammed with Marines in dress uniform and police officers, because the fallen Marine had been a policeman in McKeesport and Indiana County.

"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."

What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war,' " Goodrich said.

She said she is going to seek an answer from Gov. Ed Rendell's administration if it opposes the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Report: Justice Department Probing Durbin, Rockefeller CIA Leak

The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into whether Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden leaked details about a secret "black ops" CIA satellite program last December in a move that may have seriously compromised national security, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said on Saturday.

"The CIA made a request to the Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring criminal charges against these three [senators]," Babbin told WABC Radio host Monica Crowley. "My information is that investigation is ongoing."

Media reports on the satellite leak last December indicated that the Bush administration was concerned about public comments by Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden and that the CIA had requested a Justice Department probe.

"The formal request for a leaks investigation would target people who described sensitive details about a new generation of spy satellites to The Washington Post, which published a page-one story about the espionage program Saturday [Dec. 11, 2004]," a Justice Department official told The Associated Press at the time.

But the same official told the AP that Justice "has not decided whether to investigate."

Former Deputy Undersecretary Babbin's comments on Saturday were the first indication that such a probe was actually launched and is ongoing.

"The fact of the matter is that [Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden] divulged something that was above and beyond top secret and frankly, they probably blew the strategy and the hundreds of millions of dollars that were being spent to pursue it," Babbin told Crowley.

"The acknowledgement of [the "black ops" program's] existence is not even proper and the acknowledgement of them and the details of them can very well damage national security," Babbin added.

Asked if he thought the three Senate Democrats should have their security clearances revoked for the duration of the leak probe, the former Defense Department official said: "Absolutely and forthwith. I mean, they should have been revoked at the time of the leak."

"There's really not much doubt about the leak having occurred," Babbin told Crowley. "It's in the press records, it's in the Congressional record. We know what they did."

"The only question," he explained, "is how much damage was done by the leak. And that's part of the criminal investigation right now - to do a damage assessment, to figure out how much this is going to cost us strategically and militarily."

Calif. Warned of Hospital Terror Threat

A California television news program has obtained a memo that warns California hospitals they should consider themselves potential al-Qaida targets.

Sacramento's KCRA reported Friday that earlier this month, the U.S. government learned that hospitals across the country could be terror targets.

As a result, the California Hospital Association sent a letter to hospitals statewide, warning them of the threat.

In the letter, the California Department of Homeland Security warns that al-Qaida may be planning attacks on hospitals in September or October of this year.

Although the government says the information is uncorroborated, it is urging hospital employees to be vigilant.

The source specifically mentioned the Los Angeles and San Diego areas, but emergency centers nationwide have been warned.

"Hospitals are a key piece of infrastructure," said California Homeland Security spokesman Gary Winuk. "If there is to be an attack somewhere, particularly biological or chemical, they're the first line of defense. So, we're very concerned about them and a number of other sectors."

The government source told homeland security officials that nuclear facilities and military and civilian airports are also possible targets.

Blasts kill 83 in Egyptian Red Sea resort

At least 83 people were killed and 200 injured when car bombs ripped through shopping and hotel areas in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Saturday in the worst attack in Egypt since 1981.

Shaken European tourists spoke of mass panic and hysteria as people fled the carnage in the early hours, with bodies strewn across the roads, people screaming and sirens wailing.

The regional governor said two car bombs and possibly a suitcase bomb had rocked the resort, popular with divers and European holidaymakers, as well as diplomats who have convened world summits. Egypt has called it "the city of peace."

One blast tore the front off the Ghazala Gardens Hotel in Naama Bay, the site of most of the resort's luxury hotels. People were feared trapped in the rubble of the lobby.

A car broke into the hotel compound and exploded in front of the building, South Sinai Governor Mustafa Afifi said.

"There was a huge ball of smoke that mushroomed up. It was mass hysteria," Charlie Ives, a London policeman on holiday, told BBC World television.

Said Abdel Fattah, the head of the ambulance service in Sharm el-Sheikh, said the emergency services had 62 complete bodies and parts identifiable as coming from 21 others. A senior security source said 23 people were in critical condition from among 35 casualties taken to Cairo for treatment.

Most of the victims were Egyptians but the Tourism Ministry spokeswoman said seven non-Egyptians were dead, including a Czech and an Italian, and 20 were injured.

The injured foreigners were nine Italians, five Saudis, three Britons, a Russian, a Ukrainian and an Israeli Arab, spokeswoman Hala el-Khatib told reporters. But the British Foreign Office in London said eight Britons were injured.

A group claiming links to the al Qaeda organization said it carried out the bombings in retaliation for "crimes committed against Muslims," according to an Internet statement.

The statement, which was not carried on major al Qaeda Web sites, was signed by the Abdullah al-Azzam Brigades of the al Qaeda Organization in the Levant and Egypt. It was not possible to authenticate the claim.

Egyptian Interior Minister Habib el-Adli said it was too early to say whether al Qaeda or other Islamist groups had any connection with the bombings but there was probably a link with attacks further north last October.

In the October bombings, 34 people were killed, most of them at the Taba Hilton on the Israeli border.

Egyptian authorities blamed them on a Palestinian leading an unaffiliated group. Last month Israel stepped up warnings to its own citizens, saying the risk of another such attack had risen.

Security sources said at least one car that blew up on Saturday had special plates indicating it had come over the Israeli border at Taba on the Sinai peninsula.

One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists

The group portrait of British Muslims painted by YouGov's survey for The Daily Telegraph is at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming.

The vast majority of British Muslims condemn the London bombings but a substantial minority are clearly alienated from modern British society and some are prepared to justify terrorist acts.

Most Muslims are evidently moderate and law-abiding but by no means all are.

YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

YouGov also asked whether or not its Muslim respondents agreed or disagreed with Tony Blair's description of the ideas and ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous".

Again, while a large majority, 58 per cent, agree with him, a substantial minority, 26 per cent, are reluctant to be so dismissive.

The responses indicate that Muslim men are more likely than Muslim women to be alienated from the mainstream and that the young are more likely to be similarly alienated than the old.

However, there are few signs in YouGov's findings that Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin are any more disaffected than their co-religionists from elsewhere.

The sheer scale of Muslim alienation from British society that the survey reveals is remarkable. Although a large majority of British Muslims are more than content to make their home in this country, a significant minority are not.

For example, YouGov asked respondents how loyal they feel towards Britain. As the figures in the chart show, the great majority say they feel "very loyal" (46 per cent) or "fairly loyal" (33 per cent) but nearly one British Muslim in five, 18 per cent, feels little loyalty towards this country or none at all.

If these findings are accurate, and they probably are, well over 100,000 British Muslims feel no loyalty whatsoever towards this country.

The proportion of men who say they feel no loyalty to Britain is more than three times the proportion of women saying the same.

Equally remarkable are YouGov's findings concerning many Muslims' attitudes towards Western society and culture.

YouGov asked respondents how they feel about Western society and how, if at all, they feel Muslims should adapt to it. A majority, 56 per cent, believe "Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end".

However, nearly a third of British Muslims, 32 per cent, are far more censorious, believing that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".

Among those who hold this view, almost all go on to say that Muslims should only seek to bring about change by non-violent means but one per cent, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence.

Radical Muslim Cleric Says Attacks on UK To Continue

Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.

"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.

Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.

He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as "pro-life" and justified.

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as "a sincere man who fights against evil forces."

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.

Terrorist attack at U.S. air base?

3 spotted aiming rocket launcher at B-1 Bomber

Three men described as Middle Eastern-looking were seen aiming a rocket launcher at a low-flying B-1 Bomber near Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma.

Air Force security pursued the suspects, who got away, but left behind their rocket launcher, according to a July 14 Air Force staff directive obtained by WND.

The three suspects were observed outside the perimeter of the air base, looking through binoculars and aiming the weapon at chest level, according to the report.

The FBI and Air Force security are investigating the incident, which suggests a threat to military and commercial flights within the U.S. from rocket launchers � or MNAPADS, Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, as they are called.

According to Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center, "MANPADS form part of the arsenal of weapons available to almost 30 insurgent and terrorist groups worldwide, their apparent proliferation on the black market making them relatively easy and, depending on the model in question, cheap to acquire."

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Bush's choice:John Roberts

Judge wrote high court brief arguing Roe wrongly decided

President Bush has selected appeals court Judge John Roberts to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

Notably, Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief for the first Bush administration arguing the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that overturned state laws banning abortion was wrongly decided.

With interest groups from both left and right poised for action, speculation in Washington earlier today centered on Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Roberts, 50, was appointed to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 by Bush. He also was nominated by the president's father but never received a Senate vote.

Before his appointment, he practiced at Hogan & Hartson from 1986 to 1989 and 1993-2003.

He served as principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration.

During the Reagan administration, he served as a special assistant to the attorney general from 1981 to 1982 and as associate counsel to the president from 1982 to 1986.

Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the 2nd Circuit and for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Roberts, 50, is married with two children.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Reaction From The Left to Supreme Court Nominee

Reactions to President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court:

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness." � Senate minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade." � NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." � Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." � Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." � Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way.

"Without prejudging the nominee, I do believe Judge Roberts' record raises questions about his commitment to the right to privacy, protection of the environment and other important issues." � Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

"The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process." � Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

"This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law." � Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Who Is John G. Roberts Jr.?

Bush appointee John G. Roberts Jr., 50, was confirmed to a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, and was sworn in by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whom he had previously served as a law clerk.

Despite being called the "best Supreme Court advocate of his generation," there had been speculation that Roberts' lack of time on a federal bench � and thus his relatively small paper trail � might scare Bush away from nominating him to the Supreme Court, but that was proven not to be an issue.

Roberts is considered to be well-liked on Capitol Hill, and members of both parties have praised him as a man who possesses a keen intellect and a sharp legal mind.

Born in Buffalo, N.Y., Roberts is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School who argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and won 25. He was a partner with Hogan & Hartson in Washington, D.C, where he developed a civil litigation practice, with an emphasis on appellate matters.

Roberts was principal deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, who first nominated him for the D.C. Circuit Court in 1992. He was opposed by Democrats and never received a vote. He was re-nominated in 2001, and his nomination languished until a third nomination by Bush in 2003, when he won unanimous confirmation.

He also was special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith and served as associate White House counsel for four years under President Reagan.

While deputy solicitor general, Roberts co-signed a brief in Rust v. Sullivan that argued for a ban on federal money for clinics that provided abortions, counseled women about the procedure or referred them to a facility for an abortion. The brief went further than the question presented in the case, arguing that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

In a second abortion-related case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts signed a "friend of the court" brief arguing that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of their constitutional rights.

Roberts co-authored a brief that argued in favor of clergy-led prayer at public school graduations. The case was Lee v. Weisman, and the government lost.

Bush's choice:John Roberts

Judge wrote high court brief arguing Roe wrongly decided

President Bush has selected appeals court Judge John Roberts to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

Notably, Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief for the first Bush administration arguing the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that overturned state laws banning abortion was wrongly decided.

With interest groups from both left and right poised for action, speculation in Washington earlier today centered on Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Roberts, 50, was appointed to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 by Bush. He also was nominated by the president's father but never received a Senate vote.

Before his appointment, he practiced at Hogan & Hartson from 1986 to 1989 and 1993-2003.

He served as principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration.

During the Reagan administration, he served as a special assistant to the attorney general from 1981 to 1982 and as associate counsel to the president from 1982 to 1986.

Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the 2nd Circuit and for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Roberts, 50, is married with two children.

NO THANKS, CHINA: UNOCAL BACKS CHEVRON BID!

U.S. oil producer Unocal Corp. endorsed a sweetened $17 billion takeover offer from Chevron Corp., preferring it to a higher bid from China's state-run CNOOC Ltd. <0883.HK>.

Chevron , the second-largest U.S. oil company, raised its stock and cash bid to $63.01 per share from roughly $60, turning up the heat in an international battle for energy assets as strong demand and tight supply hold crude oil prices near record levels.

The improved offer for Unocal, which has assets stretching from Myanmar to the Gulf of Mexico, was forced on Chevron by an all-cash, $67-a-share bid from CNOOC worth $18.5 billion.

"Our increased offer has been driven by competitive circumstances," said Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly.

Unocal's board has favored Chevron's bid partly due to concern U.S. regulators might reject the CNOOC deal based on national security grounds or the deal may be stuck in long review process. It recommended shareholders accept the sweetened offer at a shareholders' meeting already scheduled for Aug. 10.

A CNOOC spokesman said the company remained "comfortable" with its $18.5 billion bid and believed its offer had a "distinct advantage."

A person familiar with the matter said CNOOC had anticipated a higher Chevron bid and was reviewing options on how to react. The source declined to elaborate, but said CNOOC would strive to explain to Unocal shareholders this month that its deal would be approved by the U.S. government.

"Price is only one issue on shareholders' minds. The other issue is to make people understand the 'certainty issue'," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "CNOOC is absolutely committed to the transaction and determined to win."

CNOOC has made some concessions in an attempt to woo Unocal. It agreed to set aside $2.5 billion in a U.S. escrow account that could be tapped by Unocal shareholders if CNOOC walked away from a deal. CNOOC also put $500 million in escrow to pay a break-up fee attached to the Chevron-Unocal deal.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Press Fudges Bush Plamegate Pledge

The press is claiming that President Bush has changed his pledge to fire anyone in his administration involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name - saying he's now added the qualifier, "If someone committed a crime."

But that's exactly what Bush said when he was first asked about the Plame case on Sept. 30, 2003.

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," the president told reporters back then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN.

On Monday, Bush made it clear his position hadn't changed one bit. Asked about the Plame case, he explained: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Still, that didn't stop the Associated Press from charging: "On Monday, however,[Bush] added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed."

The AP cited a June 10, 2004, news conference, where according to the wire service, a reporter simply asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name. Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

But the full June 10, 2004 exchange was somewhat more complicated:

REPORTER: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]

Any honest reading of that exchange would acknowledge that when Bush answered, "Yes" - he meant he was standing by his earlier statement, not the reporter's distorted version: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"

Bush hadn't offered any such pledge.

But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had "violated the law," he'd be "taken care of."

Monday, July 18, 2005

Did the CIA �Out� Valerie Plame?

What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won�t tell you.

Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade � i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

You see, if you really want to know what the media think of the Plame case � if you want to discover what a comparative trifle they actually believe it to be � you need to close the paper and turn off the TV. You need, instead, to have a peek at what they write when they're talking to a court. It's a mind-bendingly different tale.

Cliff May has already demonstrated the bankruptcy of the narrative the media relentlessly spouts for Bush-bashing public consumption: to wit, that Valerie Wilson, nee Plame, was identified as a covert CIA agent by the columnist Robert Novak, to whom she was compromised by an administration official. In fact, it appears Plame was first outed to the general public as a result of a consciously loaded and slyly hypothetical piece by the journalist David Corn. Corn's source appears to have been none other than Plame's own husband, former ambassador and current Democratic-party operative Joseph Wilson � that same pillar of national security rectitude whose notion of discretion, upon being dispatched by the CIA for a sensitive mission to Niger, was to write a highly public op-ed about his trip in the New York Times. This isn't news to the media; they have simply chosen not to report it.

The hypocrisy, though, only starts there. It turns out that the media believe Plame was outed long before either Novak or Corn took pen to paper. And not by an ambiguous confirmation from Rove or a nod-and-a-wink from Ambassador Hubby. No, the media think Plame was previously compromised by a disclosure from the intelligence community itself � although it may be questionable whether there was anything of her covert status left to salvage at that point, for reasons that will become clear momentarily.

This CIA disclosure, moreover, is said to have been made not to Americans at large but to Fidel Castro's anti-American regime in Cuba, whose palpable incentive would have been to "compromise[] every operation, every relationship, every network with which [Plame] had been associated in her entire career" � to borrow from the diatribe in which Wilson risibly compared his wife's straits to the national security catastrophes wrought by Aldrich Ames and Kim Philby.

Just four months ago, 36 news organizations confederated to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. At the time, Bush-bashing was (no doubt reluctantly) confined to an unusual backseat. The press had no choice � it was time to close ranks around two of its own, namely, the Times's Judith Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper, who were threatened with jail for defying grand jury subpoenas from the special prosecutor.

The media's brief, fairly short and extremely illuminating, is available here. The Times, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration, encouraged its submission. It was joined by a "who's who" of the current Plame stokers, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch).

The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public's right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp � details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.

Though you would not know it from watching the news, you learn from reading the news agencies' brief that the 1982 law prohibiting disclosure of undercover agents' identities explicitly sets forth a complete defense to this crime. It is contained in Section 422 (of Title 50, U.S. Code), and it provides that an accused leaker is in the clear if, sometime before the leak, "the United States ha[s] publicly acknowledged or revealed" the covert agent's "intelligence relationship to the United States[.]"

As it happens, the media organizations informed the court that long before the Novak revelation (which, as noted above, did not disclose Plame's classified relationship with the CIA), Plame's cover was blown not once but twice. The media based this contention on reporting by the indefatigable Bill Gertz � an old-school, "let's find out what really happened" kind of journalist. Gertz's relevant article, published a year ago in the Washington Times, can be found here.


THE MEDIA TELLS THE COURT: PLAME'S COVER WAS BLOWN IN THE MID-1990s
As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.

But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.

Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn).


THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."

And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article � you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage � Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove � who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment � one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.


A COMPLETE DEFENSE?
The defense in Section 422 requires that the revelation by the United States have been done "publicly." At least one U.S. official who spoke to Gertz speculated that because the Havana snafu was not "publicized" � i.e., because the classified information about Plame was mistakenly communicated to Cuba rather than broadcast to the general public � it would not available as a defense to whomever spoke with Novak. But that seems clearly wrong.

First, the theory under which the media have gleefully pursued Rove, among other Bush officials, holds that if a disclosure offense was committed here it was complete at the moment the leak was made to Novak. Whether Novak then proceeded to report the leak to the general public is beside the point � the violation supposedly lies in identifying Plame to Novak. (Indeed, it has frequently been observed that Judy Miller of the Times is in contempt for protecting one or more sources even though she never wrote an article about Plame.)

Perhaps more significantly, the whole point of discouraging public disclosure of covert agents is to prevent America's enemies from degrading our national security. It is not, after all, the public we are worried about. Rather, it is the likes of Fidel Castro and his regime who pose a threat to Valerie Plame and her network of U.S. intelligence relationships. The government must still be said to have "publicized" the classified relationship � i.e., to have blown the cover of an intelligence agent � if it leaves out the middleman by communicating directly with an enemy government rather than indirectly through a media outlet.


LINGERING QUESTIONS
All this raises several readily apparent questions. We know that at the time of the Novak and Corn articles, Plame was not serving as an intelligence agent outside the United States. Instead, she had for years been working, for all to see, at CIA headquarters in Langley. Did her assignment to headquarters have anything to do with her effectiveness as a covert agent having already been nullified by disclosure to the Russians and the Cubans � and to whomever else the Russians and Cubans could be expected to tell if they thought it harmful to American interests or advantageous to their own?

Wilson Stonewalls on Wife's Status

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson repeatedly refused to say yesterday whether his CIA employee wife Valerie Plame had been stationed overseas in the five years prior to having her name revealed in the press in 2003 - a stipulation necessary for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to have been violated.

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Wilson was asked by Chicago Tribune reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg:

"Ambassador, I am just not clear on something. The law actually covers and protects covert agents who served abroad within the last five years. So if these conversations took place in 2003, does that law protect your wife? Did she serve abroad as an agent since 1998?"
Rather than answer Greenburg's query directly, Wilson responded: "Well, I'm not a lawyer, first of all. But the CIA would not have frivolously referred this to the Justice Department if they did not believe a possible crime had been committed."

Not satisfied, Greenburg pressed: "But had she served abroad in the time period from [1998 through 2003]?"

Wilson dodged the question again, saying: "I would just tell you that she was covered according to the CIA, and the CIA made the referral."

At that point "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer stepped in and changed the subject. But a few moments later, Greenburg returned to the topic, offering Wilson one more chance to clear up the mystery:

"Well, could we go back to the ambassador in this? You declined to say whether she served abroad within five years of those conversations, but did anyone know that she was working at the agency or driving to Langley? Did her friends or neighbors? Did anyone know that your wife worked for the CIA."

Wilson answered that his wife's friends had no idea about her CIA employment, but refused to offer any information about when she last stationed abroad.

Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets

Captured documents, terrorists reveal bin Laden's preferred dates, places for 'American Hiroshima'

Al-Qaida's prime targets for launching nuclear terrorist attacks are the nine U.S. cities with the highest Jewish populations, according to captured leaders and documents.

As first revealed last week in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND, Osama bin Laden is planning what he calls an "American Hiroshima," the ultimate terrorist attack on U.S. cities, using nuclear weapons already smuggled into the country across the Mexican border along with thousands of sleeper agents

At least two fully assembled and operational nuclear weapons are believed to be hidden in the United States already, according to G2 Bulletin intelligence sources and an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams.

The cities chosen as optimal targets are New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston and Washington, D.C. New York and Washington top the preferred target list for al-Qaida leadership.

The captured terrorists and documents also suggest smaller attacks may take place on American soil before the nuclear incidents. They may include some involving automatic weapons at schools and shopping malls, but will not include any airplane hijackings. Why? Because bin Laden does not want any failed efforts to overshadow "the success of Sept. 11." There will also not be any attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants. The rationale? The nuclear power plants can act as force multipliers when the weapons of mass destruction are detonated.

Another requirement dictated from the top at al-Qaida is that the attacks take place in daylight, so that the whole world will be able to see the images of a mushroom cloud over an American city.

One of the sources for the information is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, who is now in U.S. custody.

U.S. military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces "Spetznaz" troops to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons planted in the U.S. during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years. Al-Qaida sources indicate they would prefer to use Russian-made weapons for symbolic reasons.

FBI bulletin outlines possible terrorist plot at Texas border

The concern is buttressed by a confidential but unclassified FBI intelligence bulletin, obtained by The Dallas Morning News, that contains the vague outlines of a possible terrorist plot.

Officials from both sides of the border downplayed the possible threat but acknowledged that it is the sort of scenario they have to guard against. The prospect of terrorists crossing the southern border has been a rising concern among officials in Texas and Washington.

The plot, according to uncorroborated information provided by an FBI informant, involves a man, described as an Arab who goes by the nickname "El Espanol," and Ernesto Zatarin Beliz, also known as El Traca, a reputed Mexican drug trafficker and member of the Zetas, the feared enforcers of the notorious Gulf cartel.

"El Espanol is gathering truck drivers with knowledge of truck routes in the United States and explosive experts" in the state of Coahuila, according to the March 11 memo, which originated in the San Diego FBI office and was made available by a U.S. attorney's office. The informant "believes that the activity in Coahuila, Mexico, is terrorist related."

In exchange for the Zetas' help in recruiting drivers, the memo says, the Arab - who barely speaks Spanish - promised to help them fund and execute a plan to free Gulf cartel leader Osiel Cardenas from prison. The Gulf cartel is embroiled in a bloody turf war with rival traffickers for control of Nuevo Laredo, a key drug smuggling route into the United States.

According to the FBI memo, Traca was attempting to recruit a security guard at a Mexican government explosives factory in Cuatro Cienegas, Coahuila, to assist with the Arab's plan. The region is known for producing nitric acid and ammonium nitrate, materials that are used for industrial and agricultural purposes and can also be ingredients for explosives.

The informant has "provided reliable narcotics intelligence in the past," the bulletin says, but adds that the informant also flunked two polygraph tests.

The San Diego FBI analyst who wrote the document declined to comment. The division's spokeswoman said publication of such sensitive information would undermine the bureau's mission.

"We are trying to protect national security," said Special Agent Jan Caldwell. "We can't do that when things like this are put in newspapers."

A senior Mexican intelligence official said the information in the memo had not been corroborated.

"The informant paved a road that led nowhere," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He added that Mexican federal agents spent "literally weeks chasing down the information, only to come up empty-handed."

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Egypt 'will not hand' over suspect

Egypt says it is not prepared to hand over a biochemist detained in connection with the London bombings, said Egyptian security officials, as British investigators attended sessions questioning him.

Magdy Mahmoud Mustafa el-Nashar, 33, was arrested on Thursday in Cairo after British officials supplied his name to Egyptian authorities.

Investigators in Leeds reportedly found traces of explosives in the bathtub in his flat.

An Egyptian security official said interrogating el-Nashar was a matter of "sovereignty" and would be carried out on Egyptian soil.

Egypt's Prosecutor General said Egypt's constitution bans the extradition of Egyptian citizens in connection to crimes committed abroad.

In the absence of an extradition treaty with Britain, Maher Abdel Wahed said the rule would be "quid pro quo"-- reciprocal treatment -- or diplomatic courtesy.

He didn't elaborate. However since the 1990s Egypt has repeatedly appealed to Britain to hand over wanted Egyptians living in Britain on asylum status or having British citizenship.

London has rejected the calls on the grounds that Egypt applies capital punishment, and in view of its human rights record, which human rights groups say includes the systematic use of torture.

MI5 judged bomber 'no threat'

ONE of the four suicide terrorists behind the London bomb attacks was scrutinised by MI5 last year, but was judged not to be a threat to national security, a senior government official said yesterday.
As a result, MI5 failed to put him under surveillance and his plans to become a suicide bomber remained undetected.



Mohammed Sidique Khan, a 30-year-old teaching assistant from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, who killed six other passengers when he blew himself up on a Tube at Edgware Road, was the subject of a routine threat assessment by MI5 officers after his name cropped up during an investigation in 2004.

That inquiry focused on an alleged plot to explode a 600lb truck bomb outside a target in London, thought to be a crowded Soho nightclub.

This weekend, as the death toll from the terrorist attacks rose to 55 and Scotland Yard released the first CCTV image of the four bombers, it emerged that MI5 found out in 2004 that Khan had been visiting a house used by a man who had met one of the suspected truck-bomb plotters. However, MI5 officers subsequently decided that because Khan was only �indirectly linked� to one of the bomb suspects he was not considered a risk. The intelligence service took no further interest in him.

The government official said a �quick assessment� had been made of Khan at the time. Like hundreds of others linked to the inquiry, he was judged to be �on the periphery� of the suspect cell�s network.

Revealed: British bomber had links with al-Qa'ida

Dramatic new evidence linking al-Qa'ida to the London attacks has emerged as a terrorist in US custody identified one of the bombers.

The al-Qa'ida aide, who attended a "terror summit" in the tribal areas of Pakistan last year, told investigators in America that he recognised Mohammed Sidique Khan, the 30-year-old who triggered a bomb at Edgware Road station. Mohammed Junaid Babar, 29, is reported to have picked out Khan after being shown photographs of the four suicide bombers who killed at least 55 people in the 7 July outrage.

Babar, a Pakistani-American computer expert, was arrested on his return to the US from the al-Qa'ida summit in Waziristan. He has admitted a string of charges, including helping a foiled plot to bomb restaurants, pubs and railway stations in Britain, and has subsequently provided authorities with valuable information about the worldwide terrorist network.