U.S. military deaths declined in the Iraq war for a fifth straight month in March even as insurgent attacks continue unabated with Iraqis increasingly the targets.
There have been 2,327 U.S. military deaths in the war, and another 17,381 troops have been wounded in action, the Pentagon said on Friday. But the monthly U.S. military death toll has steadily dropped since reaching 96 last October, the fourth deadliest month of the war.
There were at least 29 U.S. military deaths in March, according to a count of fatalities announced by the military. That would represent the smallest monthly death toll since 20 in February 2004, the lowest of the three-year war.
U.S. officers in Iraq said several factors have contributed to the decline, including that insurgents are now directing their attacks toward civilians and U.S.-trained Iraqi government security forces who are assuming more security responsibilities previously handled by U.S. and allied forces.
Asked to explain the dropping U.S. fatalities, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Thurman, responsible for security operations in the Baghdad area, cited the growing capabilities of Iraqi security forces, who number around 242,000.
"I just returned today from being out in one of the toughest spots in Baghdad, where we've had numerous drive-by shootings, IEDs (improved explosive devices), kidnappings and intimidation from terrorists," Thurman, commander of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, told reporters at the Pentagon by teleconference from Baghdad.
"And what I saw today was a true Iraqi force in the lead with Iraqi army, Iraqi national police and Iraqi police, with coalition assistance, performing a great job out there."
Read more here >>>
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.
Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.
U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.
Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.
But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Read More Here >>>
Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.
U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.
Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.
But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Read More Here >>>
UK in secret talks about strike against Iran...
The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.
A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.
Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.
The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran's programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.
The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.
Read More Here >>>
A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.
Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.
The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran's programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.
The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.
Read More Here >>>
Hosatge Journalist Jill Carroll Disavows Statements Against U.S.
Protected by the U.S. military and far from the country where she had been held hostage, Jill Carroll strongly disavowed statements she had made during captivity in Iraq and shortly after her release, saying Saturday she had been repeatedly threatened.
In a video, recorded before she was freed and posted by her captors on an Islamist Web site, Carroll spoke out against the U.S. military presence. But in a statement Saturday, she said the recording was made under threat. Her editor has said three men were pointing guns at her at the time.
"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. So I agreed," she said in a statement read by her editor in Boston.
"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not."
Carroll arrived in Germany on Saturday on a U.S. military transport plane on her way back to the United States and was expected in Boston on Sunday. The Islamic headscarf she wore as a hostage was gone, and she instead wore jeans and a gray sweater.
In the statement, Carroll also disavowed an interview she gave to the party shortly after her release. She said the party had promised her the interview would not be aired "and broke their word."
"At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear, I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times," she said. "Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One - that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military, and two - that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true."
In her statement Saturday, she condemned her captors, although she did not address the war in Iraq.
"I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes," she said.
The Monitor's editor, Richard Bergenheim, said Friday that Carroll's parents told him the video was "conducted under duress."
"When you're making a video and having to recite certain things with three men with machine guns standing over you, you're probably going to say exactly what you're told to say," Bergenheim told ABC television.
In a video, recorded before she was freed and posted by her captors on an Islamist Web site, Carroll spoke out against the U.S. military presence. But in a statement Saturday, she said the recording was made under threat. Her editor has said three men were pointing guns at her at the time.
"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. So I agreed," she said in a statement read by her editor in Boston.
"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not."
Carroll arrived in Germany on Saturday on a U.S. military transport plane on her way back to the United States and was expected in Boston on Sunday. The Islamic headscarf she wore as a hostage was gone, and she instead wore jeans and a gray sweater.
In the statement, Carroll also disavowed an interview she gave to the party shortly after her release. She said the party had promised her the interview would not be aired "and broke their word."
"At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear, I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times," she said. "Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One - that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military, and two - that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true."
In her statement Saturday, she condemned her captors, although she did not address the war in Iraq.
"I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes," she said.
The Monitor's editor, Richard Bergenheim, said Friday that Carroll's parents told him the video was "conducted under duress."
"When you're making a video and having to recite certain things with three men with machine guns standing over you, you're probably going to say exactly what you're told to say," Bergenheim told ABC television.
Blacks, Hispanics, Poor Favor Immigration Crackdown
Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities and the poor overwhelmingly favor a get tough approach on illegal immigration - as they proved just two years ago by supporting Arizona's Proposition 200 in a landslide.
As the 2004 election approached, the immigration crackdown, which proposed denying state services to anyone who couldn't prove they were in the country legally, was decried by critics as "draconian" and "xenophobic."
The proposal was trashed by Arizona's business community. All the state's big newspapers came out against it. Governor Janet Napolitano, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl echoed their opposition. The Chamber of Commerce and the labor unions opposed Prop 200 as well.
Proponents of the measure were outspent by almost two to one in the final days of the campaign.
And yet Prop 200 passed by a landslide - 56 to 44 percent, with the measure garnering its strongest support from minorities and the poor.
Exit polls showed that 65 percent of blacks, Native Americans and Asians backed Prop 200. But they were pikers compared to the working poor.
Among those with family incomes of $15,000 or less, 72 percent wanted Arizona to use Prop 200 to crackdown on illegals.
What about Hispanic voters, who pundits repeatedly warn will punish illegal immigration foes in Washington by withdrawing their support?
Almost half of Arizona's Latino voters - 47 percent - cast their ballots for Prop 200.
As the 2004 election approached, the immigration crackdown, which proposed denying state services to anyone who couldn't prove they were in the country legally, was decried by critics as "draconian" and "xenophobic."
The proposal was trashed by Arizona's business community. All the state's big newspapers came out against it. Governor Janet Napolitano, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl echoed their opposition. The Chamber of Commerce and the labor unions opposed Prop 200 as well.
Proponents of the measure were outspent by almost two to one in the final days of the campaign.
And yet Prop 200 passed by a landslide - 56 to 44 percent, with the measure garnering its strongest support from minorities and the poor.
Exit polls showed that 65 percent of blacks, Native Americans and Asians backed Prop 200. But they were pikers compared to the working poor.
Among those with family incomes of $15,000 or less, 72 percent wanted Arizona to use Prop 200 to crackdown on illegals.
What about Hispanic voters, who pundits repeatedly warn will punish illegal immigration foes in Washington by withdrawing their support?
Almost half of Arizona's Latino voters - 47 percent - cast their ballots for Prop 200.
Citizens to salute troops over airwaves
Ham-radio operators will make equipment available in public places
During National Military Appreciation Month in May, amateur radio operators from all over the world will allow people in their communities to express gratitude to members of the U.S. armed forces over two-way radios.
The event, called ARMAD, Amateur Radio Military Appreciation Day, will take place May 27.
Founded in Fort Wayne, Ind., the organization will have operators around the world meet in public locations, such as shopping centers, parks, hospitals and sporting events, to allow people in their communities to thank and express support to members of the military � as well as veterans, members of the reserves, the National Guard and coalitions forces.
ARMAD also hopes to educate our youth about the sacrifices present and past generations have made to secure America's freedom.
ARMAD has been involved in Rally For America, in Fort Wayne. The event attracted more than 25,000 attendees.
For more information, see the group's website.
During National Military Appreciation Month in May, amateur radio operators from all over the world will allow people in their communities to express gratitude to members of the U.S. armed forces over two-way radios.
The event, called ARMAD, Amateur Radio Military Appreciation Day, will take place May 27.
Founded in Fort Wayne, Ind., the organization will have operators around the world meet in public locations, such as shopping centers, parks, hospitals and sporting events, to allow people in their communities to thank and express support to members of the military � as well as veterans, members of the reserves, the National Guard and coalitions forces.
ARMAD also hopes to educate our youth about the sacrifices present and past generations have made to secure America's freedom.
ARMAD has been involved in Rally For America, in Fort Wayne. The event attracted more than 25,000 attendees.
For more information, see the group's website.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Poll Analysis: Large Majority Favors �Guest Workers�
With the immigration debate raging in Congress and immigration supporters spilling out into the streets, the latest Time Poll finds a lopsided majority of the American public, 72%, favor a "guest worker" program in a head-to-head match-up over a House bill that would criminalize illegal immigration.
Only 1 in 4 (25%) support the more drastic House version that would make illegals felons, allowing no illegals into the country, with no guest worker provisions.
The latest Time Poll of 1,004 adults, conducted March 29-30, finds that even a large majority of border state residents, 78%, favor the guest worker approach over expelling illegals. Large majorities of Republicans (66%), Democrats (75%), and Independents (73%) favor the guest worker approach.
Favor Tougher Border Security Too
As a fractured Congress debates immigration reform, two-thirds (68%) say that illegal immigration is an extremely/very serious problem in the United States. A large majority believe the U.S. is not doing enough to secure its borders (82%).
While Americans overwhelmingly favor the guest worker option, they also want a crackdown at the border and stiff penalties for employers who hire illegals.
82% say that the United States is not doing enough to keep illegals from entering this country.
62% favor taking whatever steps are necessary at the borders, including the use of the military, to cut the flow of illegals into this country.
56% favor building a security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
71% support major penalties for employers who hire illegals. Contradictions and Limits to Illegals' Access to Services
The debate has Americans voicing sometimes contradictory opinions. A small majority (51%) still think the U.S. would be "better off" by deporting all illegal immigrants compared to a little less than two-in-five (38%) who think the U.S. would be "worse off."
Americans would also limit illegals' access to government services, such as driver's licenses (69% not allow), health care/food stamps (75% not allow), and attending public schools (51% not allow). Support Beyond Guest Workers Most Americans would allow illegal immigrants to gain citizenship under certain circumstances.
About 7-in-10 (72%) favor granting temporary visas to immigrants not currently in the United States to do seasonal or temporary work here and then return to their own countries;
About 3-in-4 (78%) favor allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. citizenship if they learn English, have a job and pay taxes;
A majority (55%) think illegal immigrants are taking jobs that U.S. citizens do not want or cannot do.
Demonstrations Backfire?
About 2 in 3 (67%) are aware of this week's demonstrations by immigrants and immigrant rights activists in a number of cities. The demonstrations likely had little effect currying support for their pro-immigrant position. Among the people who were aware of the demonstrations, only 14% reported that the protests made them more supportive of rights for illegal immigrants, while almost three times as many, 40%, said that the demonstrations make them less supportive. Almost half (44%) said that the demonstrations had no effect on their stance.
Partisanship and Geography Differences
Partisan differences complicate the issue further. However, these are mainly differences in degree:
Republicans more than Democrats believe illegal immigration is a very serious problem (79% - 64%), as do white, born-again Christians (76%).
Republicans are more in favor than Democrats of providing and enforcing major penalties for employers convicted of hiring illegals (77% - 66%), stopping illegals at the border from entering the U.S. by whatever steps necessary (71% - 54%) and deporting all illegals back to their home countries (58% - 42%).
Read More Here >>>
Only 1 in 4 (25%) support the more drastic House version that would make illegals felons, allowing no illegals into the country, with no guest worker provisions.
The latest Time Poll of 1,004 adults, conducted March 29-30, finds that even a large majority of border state residents, 78%, favor the guest worker approach over expelling illegals. Large majorities of Republicans (66%), Democrats (75%), and Independents (73%) favor the guest worker approach.
Favor Tougher Border Security Too
As a fractured Congress debates immigration reform, two-thirds (68%) say that illegal immigration is an extremely/very serious problem in the United States. A large majority believe the U.S. is not doing enough to secure its borders (82%).
While Americans overwhelmingly favor the guest worker option, they also want a crackdown at the border and stiff penalties for employers who hire illegals.
82% say that the United States is not doing enough to keep illegals from entering this country.
62% favor taking whatever steps are necessary at the borders, including the use of the military, to cut the flow of illegals into this country.
56% favor building a security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
71% support major penalties for employers who hire illegals. Contradictions and Limits to Illegals' Access to Services
The debate has Americans voicing sometimes contradictory opinions. A small majority (51%) still think the U.S. would be "better off" by deporting all illegal immigrants compared to a little less than two-in-five (38%) who think the U.S. would be "worse off."
Americans would also limit illegals' access to government services, such as driver's licenses (69% not allow), health care/food stamps (75% not allow), and attending public schools (51% not allow). Support Beyond Guest Workers Most Americans would allow illegal immigrants to gain citizenship under certain circumstances.
About 7-in-10 (72%) favor granting temporary visas to immigrants not currently in the United States to do seasonal or temporary work here and then return to their own countries;
About 3-in-4 (78%) favor allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. citizenship if they learn English, have a job and pay taxes;
A majority (55%) think illegal immigrants are taking jobs that U.S. citizens do not want or cannot do.
Demonstrations Backfire?
About 2 in 3 (67%) are aware of this week's demonstrations by immigrants and immigrant rights activists in a number of cities. The demonstrations likely had little effect currying support for their pro-immigrant position. Among the people who were aware of the demonstrations, only 14% reported that the protests made them more supportive of rights for illegal immigrants, while almost three times as many, 40%, said that the demonstrations make them less supportive. Almost half (44%) said that the demonstrations had no effect on their stance.
Partisanship and Geography Differences
Partisan differences complicate the issue further. However, these are mainly differences in degree:
Republicans more than Democrats believe illegal immigration is a very serious problem (79% - 64%), as do white, born-again Christians (76%).
Republicans are more in favor than Democrats of providing and enforcing major penalties for employers convicted of hiring illegals (77% - 66%), stopping illegals at the border from entering the U.S. by whatever steps necessary (71% - 54%) and deporting all illegals back to their home countries (58% - 42%).
Read More Here >>>
Leiberman Attacked for Iraq War Support
Sen. Joe Lieberman�s strong stand on national security has so rankled some fellow Democrats that they actually booed him at a political dinner on Thursday night.
The rude response to his speech came even as he was being endorsed by popular Sen. Barack Obama.
Lieberman is under attack from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War, and is facing a primary challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered for the $175-per-plate fund-raiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf.�
But scattered boos greeted Lieberman when he took the podium, and "he had to stop three times during his remarks to shush the crowd so he could deliver key points,� the Stamford Advocate reported.
Lieberman is also under fire from the left-wing blog Daily Kos, which is helping Lamont raise money for his campaign.
In a posting headlined "Sen. Lieberman: big whiner,� Kos quotes a press release from the Lieberman campaign regarding Lamont�s tactics:
"Attacking Senator Lieberman�s character and integrity was a predictable but dishonorable way to begin this campaign. Mr. Lamont is clearly going to run a very negative and angry campaign where the truth doesn�t get in the way.�
Kos then opines: "The Lieberman campaign isn�t engaging, it�s whining. What strikes me about Lieberman�s thin skin is how unnecessary it all is. He�s a decent guy with a good record in many areas.�
Kos also notes: "It�s a sad, pathetic sight seeing Lieberman scramble for respect despite his long years of incumbency.�
But former Connecticut Democratic Congressman Jim Maloney, who voted against the war while he served in the House, said he thinks Lieberman's record will overshadow the concerns about his stance on the Iraq War.
"I'm still confident my position was correct, but I just as strongly believe that Senator Lieberman voted his conscience," Maloney said.
"Even those of us who don't agree with him on that one issue have to credit him for doing what he thinks is the right thing."
The rude response to his speech came even as he was being endorsed by popular Sen. Barack Obama.
Lieberman is under attack from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War, and is facing a primary challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered for the $175-per-plate fund-raiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf.�
But scattered boos greeted Lieberman when he took the podium, and "he had to stop three times during his remarks to shush the crowd so he could deliver key points,� the Stamford Advocate reported.
Lieberman is also under fire from the left-wing blog Daily Kos, which is helping Lamont raise money for his campaign.
In a posting headlined "Sen. Lieberman: big whiner,� Kos quotes a press release from the Lieberman campaign regarding Lamont�s tactics:
"Attacking Senator Lieberman�s character and integrity was a predictable but dishonorable way to begin this campaign. Mr. Lamont is clearly going to run a very negative and angry campaign where the truth doesn�t get in the way.�
Kos then opines: "The Lieberman campaign isn�t engaging, it�s whining. What strikes me about Lieberman�s thin skin is how unnecessary it all is. He�s a decent guy with a good record in many areas.�
Kos also notes: "It�s a sad, pathetic sight seeing Lieberman scramble for respect despite his long years of incumbency.�
But former Connecticut Democratic Congressman Jim Maloney, who voted against the war while he served in the House, said he thinks Lieberman's record will overshadow the concerns about his stance on the Iraq War.
"I'm still confident my position was correct, but I just as strongly believe that Senator Lieberman voted his conscience," Maloney said.
"Even those of us who don't agree with him on that one issue have to credit him for doing what he thinks is the right thing."
Iran Says It Won't Use Oil As a Weapon
Iran's foreign minister said Friday his country would not use oil as an economic weapon against those countries pressing Tehran over its suspect nuclear program.
Iran is second to Saudi Arabia as an oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran had medium- and long-term obligations to supply oil to different countries, especially in Asia.
"We are not going to use oil as political leverage in conducting our foreign policy," Manouchehr Mottaki said during an appearance at a security think tank in Geneva. "We will respect our obligations in energy."
Mottaki, who was in Geneva for a speech to the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament, made similar comments earlier this month, casting doubts on a statement by Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi.
In noting that Iran is rich in oil and natural gas supplies, Pourmohammadi had said his country would "use any means" to defend itself in the nuclear dispute.
Iran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity, but the United States and its European allies suspect Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Tehran halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.
Iran has rejected that demand.
Iran is second to Saudi Arabia as an oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran had medium- and long-term obligations to supply oil to different countries, especially in Asia.
"We are not going to use oil as political leverage in conducting our foreign policy," Manouchehr Mottaki said during an appearance at a security think tank in Geneva. "We will respect our obligations in energy."
Mottaki, who was in Geneva for a speech to the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament, made similar comments earlier this month, casting doubts on a statement by Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi.
In noting that Iran is rich in oil and natural gas supplies, Pourmohammadi had said his country would "use any means" to defend itself in the nuclear dispute.
Iran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity, but the United States and its European allies suspect Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Tehran halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.
Iran has rejected that demand.
Most say they're better off than 4 years ago
New poll finds Americans of all types sense progress
Ahead of mid-term elections this fall, most Americans believe they are better off today than they were four years ago, according to a new poll.
A Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey of 5,000 adults found 55 percent agree they're doing better while 36 percent believe they are not.
The sense of progress is felt across demographic lines, Rasmussen said.
The poll comes as good news for Republicans who with declining support for President Bush and division in the party over key issues such as immigration fear they could lose their majorities in the House and Senate.
Among men, the Rasmussen poll found 56 percent say they are better off while 54 percent of woman believe the same. The view is shared by 55 percent of white Americans, 52 percent of black Americans and 58 percent of all other Americans.
Rasmussen found, however, retired Americans are less likely than working-age Americans to say they are better off.
The pollster found partisan differences are less pronounced than on many issues.
Among Republicans, 72 percent say they are better off than four years ago, while 40 percent of Democrats say the same.
Fifty-one percent of those who are not affiliated with the two leading parties say they are better off.
Rasmussen noted the sense of progress comes at a time when only one-third of Americans rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent.
Ahead of mid-term elections this fall, most Americans believe they are better off today than they were four years ago, according to a new poll.
A Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey of 5,000 adults found 55 percent agree they're doing better while 36 percent believe they are not.
The sense of progress is felt across demographic lines, Rasmussen said.
The poll comes as good news for Republicans who with declining support for President Bush and division in the party over key issues such as immigration fear they could lose their majorities in the House and Senate.
Among men, the Rasmussen poll found 56 percent say they are better off while 54 percent of woman believe the same. The view is shared by 55 percent of white Americans, 52 percent of black Americans and 58 percent of all other Americans.
Rasmussen found, however, retired Americans are less likely than working-age Americans to say they are better off.
The pollster found partisan differences are less pronounced than on many issues.
Among Republicans, 72 percent say they are better off than four years ago, while 40 percent of Democrats say the same.
Fifty-one percent of those who are not affiliated with the two leading parties say they are better off.
Rasmussen noted the sense of progress comes at a time when only one-third of Americans rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent.
Iran tests missile able to avoid radar
Iran on Friday successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously, the airforce chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards said.
"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defence forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Gen. Hossein Salami said on state-run television.
Salami said the Iranian-made missile, which he did not name, was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea.
"This missile can simultaneously hit several targets, has near stealth capabilities with a high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features," Salami said.
The general said the range of the missile would depend on the weight of its warhead.
"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," he said.
The television screened a brief clip of the launch of the missile.
Iran already has the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,250 miles and is capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. The Shahab-3 is also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Last year, former defence minister Ali Shamkhani said that Iran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military industries.
Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.
"Today, a remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defence forces was realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced," Gen. Hossein Salami said on state-run television.
Salami said the Iranian-made missile, which he did not name, was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea.
"This missile can simultaneously hit several targets, has near stealth capabilities with a high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features," Salami said.
The general said the range of the missile would depend on the weight of its warhead.
"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike the target," he said.
The television screened a brief clip of the launch of the missile.
Iran already has the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,250 miles and is capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. The Shahab-3 is also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Last year, former defence minister Ali Shamkhani said that Iran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military industries.
Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.
60 MINUTES: BIN LADEN'S FORMER BODYGUARD CERTAIN AL-QAEDA LEADER PLANNING NEW ATTACK AGAINST U.S.
In the First Television Interview of an Al-Qaeda Member Close to Osama Since 9/11, Abu Jandal Offers First-Hand Details About the Most-Wanted Man in the World.
A former personal bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden says he is certain the al-Qaeda leader is planning an attack on the U.S. In the first television interview with an al-Qaeda member close to bin Laden since 9/11, Abu Jandal tells Bob Simon first-hand details about the world's most wanted man for a 60 MINUTES report to be broadcast Sunday, April 2 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Abu Jandal, who was with bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2000, says bin Laden's last tape on which he threatened consequences to the U.S. is not a threat, but a promise. "When Sheik Osama promises something, he does it�.So I believe Osama bin Laden is planning a new attack inside the United States, this is certain," he tells Simon in the interview conducted in Yemen earlier this month.
It's been long speculated that bin Laden is hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but Abu Jandal says Afghanistan is the place. "Not Pakistan. I know the Pakistani tribe along the border very well. Yes, they can be very trustworthy and faithful to their religion and ideology, but they are also capable of selling information for nothing," he says.
Even if found, bin Laden will not be captured, says Abu Jandal, who says the al-Qaeda leader gave him the authority to kill him if he was surrounded. "If he was going to be captured, Sheik Osama prefers to be killed than captured," he tells Simon. "There was a special gun to be used if Sheik Osama bin Laden was attacked and we were unable to save him, in which case I would have to kill him," says Abu Jandal.
The closest the Americans came to getting bin Laden before 9/11, recounts Abu Jandal, was the U.S. missile attack on al-Qaeda training camps near Khost, Afghanistan -- a retaliatory strike for the al-Qaeda bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. It was luck that saved him the night before the strike. "There was a fork in the road," remembers Abu Jandal, "one road leading to Khost and the training camps and another one leading to Kabul. I was with Sheik Osama in the same vehicle with three guards... he turned to us and said, 'Khost or Kabul?' We told him, 'Let's just visit Kabul.' Sheik Osama said, "Okay, Kabul.'" So the missile strike the next day failed to get bin Laden, but the man they think provided information that led to it was discovered. "It was the Afghan cook," said Abu Jandal. He says he would have killed the man who betrayed bin Laden himself, but bin Laden forgave him and sent him home. "Sheik Osama even gave him money and told him, 'Go provide for your children.'"
A former personal bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden says he is certain the al-Qaeda leader is planning an attack on the U.S. In the first television interview with an al-Qaeda member close to bin Laden since 9/11, Abu Jandal tells Bob Simon first-hand details about the world's most wanted man for a 60 MINUTES report to be broadcast Sunday, April 2 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Abu Jandal, who was with bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2000, says bin Laden's last tape on which he threatened consequences to the U.S. is not a threat, but a promise. "When Sheik Osama promises something, he does it�.So I believe Osama bin Laden is planning a new attack inside the United States, this is certain," he tells Simon in the interview conducted in Yemen earlier this month.
It's been long speculated that bin Laden is hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but Abu Jandal says Afghanistan is the place. "Not Pakistan. I know the Pakistani tribe along the border very well. Yes, they can be very trustworthy and faithful to their religion and ideology, but they are also capable of selling information for nothing," he says.
Even if found, bin Laden will not be captured, says Abu Jandal, who says the al-Qaeda leader gave him the authority to kill him if he was surrounded. "If he was going to be captured, Sheik Osama prefers to be killed than captured," he tells Simon. "There was a special gun to be used if Sheik Osama bin Laden was attacked and we were unable to save him, in which case I would have to kill him," says Abu Jandal.
The closest the Americans came to getting bin Laden before 9/11, recounts Abu Jandal, was the U.S. missile attack on al-Qaeda training camps near Khost, Afghanistan -- a retaliatory strike for the al-Qaeda bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. It was luck that saved him the night before the strike. "There was a fork in the road," remembers Abu Jandal, "one road leading to Khost and the training camps and another one leading to Kabul. I was with Sheik Osama in the same vehicle with three guards... he turned to us and said, 'Khost or Kabul?' We told him, 'Let's just visit Kabul.' Sheik Osama said, "Okay, Kabul.'" So the missile strike the next day failed to get bin Laden, but the man they think provided information that led to it was discovered. "It was the Afghan cook," said Abu Jandal. He says he would have killed the man who betrayed bin Laden himself, but bin Laden forgave him and sent him home. "Sheik Osama even gave him money and told him, 'Go provide for your children.'"
Why Was American Hostage Journalist Jill Carroll Released Unharmed?
The recent release of American hostage, journalist Jill Carroll has called into question why she was released unharmed by her captors after threatening to kill her if all women prisoners in Iraq were not released. The kidnappers demands were not met yet she was released unharmed. The question of why may be found in a recently released video interview of her by the "Mujahideen of Iraq"......
The following is a trancript of the video released this morning on the internet by the "Mujahideen of Iraq", showing a pre-release interview that the jihadis did with American hostage Jill Carroll:
Male speaker: Dear Carroll. We are from the mujahideen in Iraq.
(Jill Carroll nods her head)
Male speaker: Please we want to ask you some questions.
Jill Carroll: mmmK
Male speaker: How did the mujahideen treat you?
Jill Carroll: They treated me very well, they treated me very well. Like a guest. I was given very good food, kept very safe, treated very, very well,"
Male speaker: Did you think the American army or the CIA would save you at any time?
Jill Carroll: I thought maybe they might. Sometimes I thought maybe that they might come, they might find me, they might find a way to know where I am and come, and come get me. I did think maybe they might.
Male speaker: Why did not they save you?
Jill Carroll: Well, I think the mujahideen are very, are very, are very smart and even with all the technology and even with all technologies and all the people that the American army has here, they still are better at knowing how to live and work here, and more clever, despite all the technology of the American army, they are still more clever, and better at being here than the American army, they are still better at what they do.
Male speaker: Does this mean anything to you?
Jill Carroll: Well I think it makes it very clear that the mujahideen are the ones that will win in the end, in this war, I think it makes it very clear that even with thousands of troops and airplanes and tanks and guns that that doesn't mean anything here on the ground in Iraq, I think it shows over time, over time, maybe, however many months are left in the Iraqi occupation, that its pretty clear that the mujahideen are the ones that will have the victory at the end of the day. It shows that no matter what the Americans try to say is happening here, or try to do with all there weapons, they are mistaken, the are not going to be able to stop the mujahideen here in Iraq.
Male speaker: What will you tell the American people about the mujahideen when you go back to America?
Jill Carroll: Well, first of all I want them to understand the mujahideen truly. There are a lot of lies that come out of the American government calling the mujahideen terrorists, I think it is important that the American people hear from me that the mujahideen are only trying to defend their country, it's only a jihad to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation. I think its important to see that the mujahideen are people like we've seen throughout history resisting an occupation, trying to fight a foreign force in their land. It's their country and they have a right to fight for their own freedom. So I think, I want people to understand that. That its not people that like to kill, not people that like violence, but people that love their country, and that want to see their country free of occupation.
And also I want them to understand that the situation in Iraq in general, how difficult it is here. People don't have electricity, they don't have water. Children don't have good safe streets to walk in. Women and children are always in danger here. Houses are always destroyed. People are killed left and right in the street without any reason, people die every day from the bombings and the shootings that go on and all these things, so I think people need to understand in American how difficult life is here for normal average Iraqis, how every day is a matter of survival, life or death for most Iraqis and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lot their lives here because of the occupation. I think Americans need to think about that and realize day to day how difficult life is how terrifying it is for most people to live here every day under the occupation.
Male speaker: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush.
Jill Carroll: (smiles, laughs, and nods her head) Yeah. He needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong He knows it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it is built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home. And he doesn't care about his own people and he doesn't care about the people here in Iraq. He needs to wake up and the people in America need to wake up and tell him what he's done here is wrong so hopefully somehow he'll get the message that this war is wrong, that this continued occupation is wrong. That he can change his policies. It's as dangerous for Iraqis as it is for Americans and he needs to accept it and admit that to the people.
Male speaker: You have said the Mujahideen will win the war against the American army.
Jill Carroll: Oh definitely, definitely. It is very clear to see even now they are already winning every day there are soldiers killed, every day humvees blown up, helicopters are shot down every day, it is very clear the mujahideen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight and for sure they will win.
Male speaker: What do you feel now that the mujahideen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad situations.
Jill Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the mujahideen and Americans, the mujahideen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't. I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that mujahideen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.
It shows the difference between the mujahideen and the Americans, it shows the mujahedeen are good people fighting an honourable fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very bad way
.....So it appears that the "Mujahideen of Iraq" are using her as a P.R. and Propoganda tool for their cause. To be fair, it could be that Jill Carroll had no choice or felt that she had no choice but to answer the "Mujahideen of Iraq" interviewers questions in the manner she did to obtain her release, I will try and ascertain if that was the case or not. If so, it is understandable, if not, then we know what side of the fence this journalist is on......
For more translations and news on terrorism, visit http://www.lauramansfield.com
The following is a trancript of the video released this morning on the internet by the "Mujahideen of Iraq", showing a pre-release interview that the jihadis did with American hostage Jill Carroll:
Male speaker: Dear Carroll. We are from the mujahideen in Iraq.
(Jill Carroll nods her head)
Male speaker: Please we want to ask you some questions.
Jill Carroll: mmmK
Male speaker: How did the mujahideen treat you?
Jill Carroll: They treated me very well, they treated me very well. Like a guest. I was given very good food, kept very safe, treated very, very well,"
Male speaker: Did you think the American army or the CIA would save you at any time?
Jill Carroll: I thought maybe they might. Sometimes I thought maybe that they might come, they might find me, they might find a way to know where I am and come, and come get me. I did think maybe they might.
Male speaker: Why did not they save you?
Jill Carroll: Well, I think the mujahideen are very, are very, are very smart and even with all the technology and even with all technologies and all the people that the American army has here, they still are better at knowing how to live and work here, and more clever, despite all the technology of the American army, they are still more clever, and better at being here than the American army, they are still better at what they do.
Male speaker: Does this mean anything to you?
Jill Carroll: Well I think it makes it very clear that the mujahideen are the ones that will win in the end, in this war, I think it makes it very clear that even with thousands of troops and airplanes and tanks and guns that that doesn't mean anything here on the ground in Iraq, I think it shows over time, over time, maybe, however many months are left in the Iraqi occupation, that its pretty clear that the mujahideen are the ones that will have the victory at the end of the day. It shows that no matter what the Americans try to say is happening here, or try to do with all there weapons, they are mistaken, the are not going to be able to stop the mujahideen here in Iraq.
Male speaker: What will you tell the American people about the mujahideen when you go back to America?
Jill Carroll: Well, first of all I want them to understand the mujahideen truly. There are a lot of lies that come out of the American government calling the mujahideen terrorists, I think it is important that the American people hear from me that the mujahideen are only trying to defend their country, it's only a jihad to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation. I think its important to see that the mujahideen are people like we've seen throughout history resisting an occupation, trying to fight a foreign force in their land. It's their country and they have a right to fight for their own freedom. So I think, I want people to understand that. That its not people that like to kill, not people that like violence, but people that love their country, and that want to see their country free of occupation.
And also I want them to understand that the situation in Iraq in general, how difficult it is here. People don't have electricity, they don't have water. Children don't have good safe streets to walk in. Women and children are always in danger here. Houses are always destroyed. People are killed left and right in the street without any reason, people die every day from the bombings and the shootings that go on and all these things, so I think people need to understand in American how difficult life is here for normal average Iraqis, how every day is a matter of survival, life or death for most Iraqis and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lot their lives here because of the occupation. I think Americans need to think about that and realize day to day how difficult life is how terrifying it is for most people to live here every day under the occupation.
Male speaker: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush.
Jill Carroll: (smiles, laughs, and nods her head) Yeah. He needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong He knows it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it is built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home. And he doesn't care about his own people and he doesn't care about the people here in Iraq. He needs to wake up and the people in America need to wake up and tell him what he's done here is wrong so hopefully somehow he'll get the message that this war is wrong, that this continued occupation is wrong. That he can change his policies. It's as dangerous for Iraqis as it is for Americans and he needs to accept it and admit that to the people.
Male speaker: You have said the Mujahideen will win the war against the American army.
Jill Carroll: Oh definitely, definitely. It is very clear to see even now they are already winning every day there are soldiers killed, every day humvees blown up, helicopters are shot down every day, it is very clear the mujahideen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight and for sure they will win.
Male speaker: What do you feel now that the mujahideen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad situations.
Jill Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the mujahideen and Americans, the mujahideen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't. I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that mujahideen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.
It shows the difference between the mujahideen and the Americans, it shows the mujahedeen are good people fighting an honourable fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very bad way
.....So it appears that the "Mujahideen of Iraq" are using her as a P.R. and Propoganda tool for their cause. To be fair, it could be that Jill Carroll had no choice or felt that she had no choice but to answer the "Mujahideen of Iraq" interviewers questions in the manner she did to obtain her release, I will try and ascertain if that was the case or not. If so, it is understandable, if not, then we know what side of the fence this journalist is on......
For more translations and news on terrorism, visit http://www.lauramansfield.com
Thursday, March 30, 2006
FISA judges say Bush within law
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
Read More Here >>>
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
Read More Here >>>
Iraqi commander says raid site not a mosque
An Iraqi commander who led a weekend raid with U.S. special forces says the target was a Baghdad office complex used by an armed militia and not a mosque, confirming a U.S. account of what happened, Time magazine reported on Wednesday.
A hostage freed in the operation also backed the U.S. version of the attack, Time said, contradicting some Shi'ite officials and local residents who said the U.S. and Iraqi troops targeted a Shi'ite mosque and killed at least 16 unarmed worshipers in Sunday's raid.
The U.S. military has insisted the raid involved an office complex and that those describing the raid as a massacre faked evidence by moving bodies of gunmen killed fighting the Iraqi troops.
"We didn't find a mosque," Time quoted an Iraqi special forces commander, whom it did not identify, as saying. "We only killed men who were armed and fired at us."
The Iraqi officer told Time his men found neither prayer mats or books or any of the usual elements of a mosque but they did find instruments of torture � drills, electrical wires and other "tools."
"It is a place used by a political party," the officer was quoted as saying. "Other rooms were offices."
The Iraqi told Time his troops retrieved weapons caches, bomb-making materials and other evidence that made it clear the site was used by an armed militia. According to the article, he said the evidence indicated some militia members were linked to security forces and others to a notorious kidnapping ring.
In his account, the freed hostage said his captors initially told him they were intelligence officers from the Interior Ministry, Time said.
The man told the magazine he was beaten and blindfolded and, at one point, his captors lifted the blindfold just enough to let him see bare electrical wires.
"They said they would take drugs and begin torturing me, that they'd go crazy" if a $20,000 ransom did not come by morning, he told Time.
According to the freed man, the attack came 12 hours into his ordeal. Once the firing stopped, he yelled out to the special forces, "I'm the guy kidnapped, I'm the guy kidnapped."
Time said the man's wrists still showed marks of his bondage and he told the same story as his rescuers about the disputed Baghdad complex.
"It's not a prayer place," he was quoted as saying.
A hostage freed in the operation also backed the U.S. version of the attack, Time said, contradicting some Shi'ite officials and local residents who said the U.S. and Iraqi troops targeted a Shi'ite mosque and killed at least 16 unarmed worshipers in Sunday's raid.
The U.S. military has insisted the raid involved an office complex and that those describing the raid as a massacre faked evidence by moving bodies of gunmen killed fighting the Iraqi troops.
"We didn't find a mosque," Time quoted an Iraqi special forces commander, whom it did not identify, as saying. "We only killed men who were armed and fired at us."
The Iraqi officer told Time his men found neither prayer mats or books or any of the usual elements of a mosque but they did find instruments of torture � drills, electrical wires and other "tools."
"It is a place used by a political party," the officer was quoted as saying. "Other rooms were offices."
The Iraqi told Time his troops retrieved weapons caches, bomb-making materials and other evidence that made it clear the site was used by an armed militia. According to the article, he said the evidence indicated some militia members were linked to security forces and others to a notorious kidnapping ring.
In his account, the freed hostage said his captors initially told him they were intelligence officers from the Interior Ministry, Time said.
The man told the magazine he was beaten and blindfolded and, at one point, his captors lifted the blindfold just enough to let him see bare electrical wires.
"They said they would take drugs and begin torturing me, that they'd go crazy" if a $20,000 ransom did not come by morning, he told Time.
According to the freed man, the attack came 12 hours into his ordeal. Once the firing stopped, he yelled out to the special forces, "I'm the guy kidnapped, I'm the guy kidnapped."
Time said the man's wrists still showed marks of his bondage and he told the same story as his rescuers about the disputed Baghdad complex.
"It's not a prayer place," he was quoted as saying.
Appeals Court: Rep. McDermott Violated Law in Leaking Taped Call
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.
In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was heard on the 1996 call involving then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs.
McDermott, D-Wash., has acknowledged leaking a tape of a 1996 cell phone call involving Gingrich to The New York Times and other news organizations.
The call included discussion by Gingrich and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader.
A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and said a ruling against him would have "a huge chilling effect" on reporters and newsmakers alike.
Lawyers for 18 news organizations � including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post � filed a brief backing McDermott.
But Boehner's lawyers said McDermott's actions were clearly illegal.
By leaking the tape, McDermott "chilled the free speech of others," namely Boehner and Gingrich, said Boehner lawyer Michael Carvin.
In a written statement, McDermott said he respectfully disagrees with the majority ruling.
"My position rightly defends freedom of the press and free speech in America," he said. "The American people have a right to know when their government's leaders are plotting to deceive them, and that is exactly what was happening during a telephone call in 1996 involving Republican House leaders."
McDermott's lawyers are studying the decision and will decide whether to appeal, the congressman said.
Boehner hailed the ruling, but said he expects the case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said he's spent between $600,000 and $700,000 in legal fees, but has made many efforts to resolve the issue out of court.
Three years ago, Boehner said, he spoke to McDermott and offered to drop his civil suit if McDermott promised to admit he was wrong, apologize to the House and donate $10,000 to charity.
"We could never come close to an agreement," Boehner said.
The case stems from a tape that a Florida couple made in December 1996 and later gave to McDermott.
McDermott, then the top Democrat on the ethics panel, leaked the tape to the Times and other newspapers, which printed partial transcripts in January 1997.
Gingrich was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House; he resigned his seat in November 1998. The Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, pleaded guilty to unlawfully intercepting the call and were each fined $500. McDermott resigned his seat on the ethics committee.
McDermott was never charged with a criminal offense, but Boehner later filed a lawsuit accusing McDermott of violating state and federal wiretapping laws. A federal judge ruled in Boehner's favor in 2004, a ruling that was upheld Tuesday by the appeals court.
"Because there was no genuine dispute that Representative McDermott knew the Martins had illegally intercepted the conversation, he did not lawfully obtain the tape from them," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in an opinion shared by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge David B. Sentelle called the majority ruling "fraught with danger." Just as McDermott knew the phone call had been illegally taped, so, too, did the newspapers that printed it, Sentelle said.
Under the majority ruling, Sentelle said, "no one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect in the chain of title."
In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was heard on the 1996 call involving then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs.
McDermott, D-Wash., has acknowledged leaking a tape of a 1996 cell phone call involving Gingrich to The New York Times and other news organizations.
The call included discussion by Gingrich and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader.
A lawyer for McDermott had argued that his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and said a ruling against him would have "a huge chilling effect" on reporters and newsmakers alike.
Lawyers for 18 news organizations � including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post � filed a brief backing McDermott.
But Boehner's lawyers said McDermott's actions were clearly illegal.
By leaking the tape, McDermott "chilled the free speech of others," namely Boehner and Gingrich, said Boehner lawyer Michael Carvin.
In a written statement, McDermott said he respectfully disagrees with the majority ruling.
"My position rightly defends freedom of the press and free speech in America," he said. "The American people have a right to know when their government's leaders are plotting to deceive them, and that is exactly what was happening during a telephone call in 1996 involving Republican House leaders."
McDermott's lawyers are studying the decision and will decide whether to appeal, the congressman said.
Boehner hailed the ruling, but said he expects the case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said he's spent between $600,000 and $700,000 in legal fees, but has made many efforts to resolve the issue out of court.
Three years ago, Boehner said, he spoke to McDermott and offered to drop his civil suit if McDermott promised to admit he was wrong, apologize to the House and donate $10,000 to charity.
"We could never come close to an agreement," Boehner said.
The case stems from a tape that a Florida couple made in December 1996 and later gave to McDermott.
McDermott, then the top Democrat on the ethics panel, leaked the tape to the Times and other newspapers, which printed partial transcripts in January 1997.
Gingrich was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House; he resigned his seat in November 1998. The Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, pleaded guilty to unlawfully intercepting the call and were each fined $500. McDermott resigned his seat on the ethics committee.
McDermott was never charged with a criminal offense, but Boehner later filed a lawsuit accusing McDermott of violating state and federal wiretapping laws. A federal judge ruled in Boehner's favor in 2004, a ruling that was upheld Tuesday by the appeals court.
"Because there was no genuine dispute that Representative McDermott knew the Martins had illegally intercepted the conversation, he did not lawfully obtain the tape from them," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in an opinion shared by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge David B. Sentelle called the majority ruling "fraught with danger." Just as McDermott knew the phone call had been illegally taped, so, too, did the newspapers that printed it, Sentelle said.
Under the majority ruling, Sentelle said, "no one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect in the chain of title."
Plans for US-Mexico border fence draw fire
Hurling himself over a steel fence into the no-man's-land between Mexico and California, an undocumented migrant sprints across a narrow strip lit by harsh arc lights and watched over by video cameras on tall posts.
Before he can shin up a second barrier of tall concrete pillars topped with seismic sensors and a layer of steel mesh more than an arm's-length wide, U.S. Border Patrol agents close in fast and arrest him .
That scene is repeated dozens of times each day along a 14-mile (22-km) stretch of state-of-the-art fencing separating San Diego, California, from Tijuana, Mexico, that has become a model for no-nonsense policing of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Inspired by the San Diego fence, the U.S. House Representatives voted in December to build a similar barrier to stop illegal immigrants across one-third of the 2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexico border, seen as a weak spot in homeland security since the September 11 attacks.
It is the most controversial proposal in a debate in the U.S. Congress over immigration reform that has split Republicans and sparked protests by Hispanic immigrants in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Detroit.
Although the San Diego fence is seen as a success in cutting illegal immigration, the plan for the bigger barrier is struggling to win further support in Congress.
Critics compare it to the Berlin Wall and say it goes against the American spirit of openness, sending the wrong message to the rest of the world about the United States.
Calif. Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, who authored the fence plan and estimates it would cost about $2 billion, points to a sharp drop in the number of immigrants nabbed heading for the United States through San Diego in recent years as evidence the security barrier works.
In the early 1990s, some 550,000 immigrants were caught every year but with the addition of double fencing, high-tech surveillance systems and more border police, the number plunged to just 138,700 in 2004.
Read More Here >>>
Before he can shin up a second barrier of tall concrete pillars topped with seismic sensors and a layer of steel mesh more than an arm's-length wide, U.S. Border Patrol agents close in fast and arrest him .
That scene is repeated dozens of times each day along a 14-mile (22-km) stretch of state-of-the-art fencing separating San Diego, California, from Tijuana, Mexico, that has become a model for no-nonsense policing of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Inspired by the San Diego fence, the U.S. House Representatives voted in December to build a similar barrier to stop illegal immigrants across one-third of the 2,000-mile (3,200-km) U.S.-Mexico border, seen as a weak spot in homeland security since the September 11 attacks.
It is the most controversial proposal in a debate in the U.S. Congress over immigration reform that has split Republicans and sparked protests by Hispanic immigrants in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Detroit.
Although the San Diego fence is seen as a success in cutting illegal immigration, the plan for the bigger barrier is struggling to win further support in Congress.
Critics compare it to the Berlin Wall and say it goes against the American spirit of openness, sending the wrong message to the rest of the world about the United States.
Calif. Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, who authored the fence plan and estimates it would cost about $2 billion, points to a sharp drop in the number of immigrants nabbed heading for the United States through San Diego in recent years as evidence the security barrier works.
In the early 1990s, some 550,000 immigrants were caught every year but with the addition of double fencing, high-tech surveillance systems and more border police, the number plunged to just 138,700 in 2004.
Read More Here >>>
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
McKinney Allegedly Punches Cop
According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.
Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.
Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.
The officer called out, �Ma�am, Ma�am,� and walked after her in an attempt to stop her. When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.
Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.
McKinney�s office has not responded to requests for comment.
According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape.
Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjurns to arrest her, a source claims."
No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.
An unconfirmed statement attributed to McKinney has been released on the Internet, where she allegedly claims to have been harassed by Capitol Hill Police.
The statement's writer says that she has been harassed by white police officers she says do not recognize her due to her recently changed hairstyle.
"Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers," the statement says.
The writer details the incident, saying, "I was rushing to my meeting when a white police officer yelled to me. He approached me, bodyblocked me, physically touching me. I used my arm to get him off of me. I told him not to touch me several times. He asked for my ID and I showed it to him. He then let me go and I proceeded to my meeting and I assume that the Police Officer resumed his duties. I have counseled with the Sergeant-at-Arms and Acting Assistant Chief Thompson several times before and counseled with them again on today's incident. I offered also to counsel with the offending police officer."
Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.
Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.
The officer called out, �Ma�am, Ma�am,� and walked after her in an attempt to stop her. When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.
Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.
McKinney�s office has not responded to requests for comment.
According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape.
Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjurns to arrest her, a source claims."
No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.
An unconfirmed statement attributed to McKinney has been released on the Internet, where she allegedly claims to have been harassed by Capitol Hill Police.
The statement's writer says that she has been harassed by white police officers she says do not recognize her due to her recently changed hairstyle.
"Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers," the statement says.
The writer details the incident, saying, "I was rushing to my meeting when a white police officer yelled to me. He approached me, bodyblocked me, physically touching me. I used my arm to get him off of me. I told him not to touch me several times. He asked for my ID and I showed it to him. He then let me go and I proceeded to my meeting and I assume that the Police Officer resumed his duties. I have counseled with the Sergeant-at-Arms and Acting Assistant Chief Thompson several times before and counseled with them again on today's incident. I offered also to counsel with the offending police officer."
Syria's Assad Wants Better Relations with U.S.
Syrian President Bashar Assad has renewed his call for better relations with the United States but at the same time criticized President Bush's government, saying it does not care about peace.
In an interview with PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," Assad also warned that civil war in Iraq would reverberate throughout Central Asia and the Middle East.
"No one in the region wants bad relations with the United States. It is a great power and the most advanced country in the world," Assad said in the interview broadcast Monday, which he gave in English.
Assad indicated he felt that Washington had not given Syria enough credit for sharing intelligence on terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. He said Syria had helped Washington "because what happened in New York may happen in Syria."
Asked what he expected from the United States in return for Syrian intelligence on terrorism, Assad said: "At least do not be against us. We don't want anything from them. But not to be against Syria."
Assad has often called for a resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks, which broke down in early 2000 during his late father's presidency. Israel has rebuffed the call, saying Syria must first clamp down on Hezbollah and the Palestinian radicals.
Read More Here >>>Relations soured when the United States accused Syria of supporting Hezbollah and Palestinian radical groups and allowing militants to cross into Iraq to fight the U.S.-led multinational force there. The United States has placed limited economic sanctions on Syria.
In an interview with PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," Assad also warned that civil war in Iraq would reverberate throughout Central Asia and the Middle East.
"No one in the region wants bad relations with the United States. It is a great power and the most advanced country in the world," Assad said in the interview broadcast Monday, which he gave in English.
Assad indicated he felt that Washington had not given Syria enough credit for sharing intelligence on terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. He said Syria had helped Washington "because what happened in New York may happen in Syria."
Asked what he expected from the United States in return for Syrian intelligence on terrorism, Assad said: "At least do not be against us. We don't want anything from them. But not to be against Syria."
Assad has often called for a resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks, which broke down in early 2000 during his late father's presidency. Israel has rebuffed the call, saying Syria must first clamp down on Hezbollah and the Palestinian radicals.
Read More Here >>>Relations soured when the United States accused Syria of supporting Hezbollah and Palestinian radical groups and allowing militants to cross into Iraq to fight the U.S.-led multinational force there. The United States has placed limited economic sanctions on Syria.
U.N. Demands Iran Suspend Nuke Enrichment
The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
"Pressure and threats do not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation," Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said. He later added that "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right."
The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
"The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.
The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.
Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Read More Here >>>
Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
"Pressure and threats do not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation," Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said. He later added that "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right."
The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
"The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.
The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.
Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Read More Here >>>
Saddam curses own people
'It will make me happy if Iraq turns into ashes'
Saddam Hussein, in a telephone interview from prison, demanded that the ears and nose of former Iraqi vice president 'Izzat Al-Duri be cut off and declared: "It will make me happy if Iraq turns into ashes, Iraq is not worth two bits without Saddam Hussein."
In the interview, conducted today by Al-Fayhaa TV, the deposed Iraqi tyrant was responding to a taped message issued by his former vice president and loyalist 'Izzat Al-Duri, who addressed the Arab League summit in Sudan.
Readers may view and listen to the TV reporter interviewing Saddam by phone here. The interview was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East.
Here are excerpts of the interview:
Saddam: All 'Izzat Al-Duri ever wanted was to address the Iraqis as their leader, even if just for a few short minutes. Everybody remembers that he once addressed the Iraqi Women's Union without my knowledge. Do you know what I did to him?
Interviewer: We don't know. Tell us.
Saddam Hussein: The first thing I did when they brought him was to spit in his face.
Interviewer: Why?
Saddam Hussein: I said to him: "You despicable man, I spit on your owl's face. How do you address these glorious women without me knowing about it?" The only one who makes speeches in Iraq is the supreme leader � meaning me. At this point 'Izzat Al-Duri pulled out his handkerchief and cried. I said to him: "Look 'Izzat, this time I forgive you, but I swear by my honor, and the honor of the history of the Arab nation, that if you ever repeat this mistake I will cut your tongue off."
Interviewer: And now he has repeated this mistake, as you call it, and has published a statement addressed to the [Arab League] summit, as was mentioned on one of the television stations.
Saddam Hussein: I didn't hear the speech, because I'm in prison. � Even though I am in prison, I don't allow anyone to speak on my behalf, so long as I live. I am still the president. � I give speeches without fearing anyone. I give speeches face to face ...
Interviewer: You're in prison. How can you give speeches?
Saddam Hussein: That's a good question. You watch the court sessions. How many sessions have there been so far? Fifteen sessions?
Interviewer: Seventeen.
Saddam Hussein: I give a speech at every single session. � If I don't give speeches, I get heartburn. If 'Izzat Al-Duri is alive and he can hear me, I want to address him, through you, and to tell him to beware. � Isn't this a disgrace? The leader of the Arabs - 'Izzat Al-Duri speaks on his behalf?! 'Izzat Al-Duri doesn't even know how to stand at attention. He should speak on behalf of Saddam Hussein? Any speech that doesn't receive my signature is unofficial, illegitimate, and illegal. � He should beware and shut up. Why does he make speeches and exploit state funds? I left the funds under your responsibility. Billions of dollars ... I left you the funds and you should use them properly. He goes and blows up mosques, markets, and schools. �
I know that people who listen to me might think that Saddam Hussein has become apathetic in prison and stopped supporting terrorism. No. I'm not ashamed to tell you that Iraq without Saddam Hussein isn't worth two bits. Therefore, it will make me happy if Iraq turns into dust.
Interviewer: This reminds me that in one of your speeches, you said that you would leave Iraq a country without a people.
Saddam Hussein: What is the people worth without Saddam Hussein?! What is it worth? Iraq is entirely Saddam Hussein. "Long live Iraq" means "long live Saddam Hussein." What is Iraq worth without Saddam Hussein?
Interviewer: You keep on with those slogans? You still cling to them.
Saddam Hussein: I was brought up on it. How do you want me to go back on this? Iraqis hear these things about me as soon as they come out of their mothers' wombs. � I repeat: Iraq without Saddam Hussein isn't worth two bits. Therefore, it will make me happy if Iraq turns into ashes.
I call to punish 'Izzat Al-Duri, because he burned my heart.
Interviewer: Why, because he published a statement without your permission?
Saddam Hussein: He gave a speech without me knowing it. The punishment that I want for him is to cut off his tongue and ears.
Interviewer: Why cutting off his tongue and ears?
Saddam Hussein: To make him the same as all the renegades whose tongues and ears I cut off. And if 'Izzat Al-Duri continues giving speeches in sign language, like the deaf do, I demand that his hands be cut off. And so on and so forth, until 'Izzat Al-Duri is finished, and we get rid of this degenerate.
Saddam Hussein, in a telephone interview from prison, demanded that the ears and nose of former Iraqi vice president 'Izzat Al-Duri be cut off and declared: "It will make me happy if Iraq turns into ashes, Iraq is not worth two bits without Saddam Hussein."
In the interview, conducted today by Al-Fayhaa TV, the deposed Iraqi tyrant was responding to a taped message issued by his former vice president and loyalist 'Izzat Al-Duri, who addressed the Arab League summit in Sudan.
Readers may view and listen to the TV reporter interviewing Saddam by phone here. The interview was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East.
Here are excerpts of the interview:
Saddam: All 'Izzat Al-Duri ever wanted was to address the Iraqis as their leader, even if just for a few short minutes. Everybody remembers that he once addressed the Iraqi Women's Union without my knowledge. Do you know what I did to him?
Interviewer: We don't know. Tell us.
Saddam Hussein: The first thing I did when they brought him was to spit in his face.
Interviewer: Why?
Saddam Hussein: I said to him: "You despicable man, I spit on your owl's face. How do you address these glorious women without me knowing about it?" The only one who makes speeches in Iraq is the supreme leader � meaning me. At this point 'Izzat Al-Duri pulled out his handkerchief and cried. I said to him: "Look 'Izzat, this time I forgive you, but I swear by my honor, and the honor of the history of the Arab nation, that if you ever repeat this mistake I will cut your tongue off."
Interviewer: And now he has repeated this mistake, as you call it, and has published a statement addressed to the [Arab League] summit, as was mentioned on one of the television stations.
Saddam Hussein: I didn't hear the speech, because I'm in prison. � Even though I am in prison, I don't allow anyone to speak on my behalf, so long as I live. I am still the president. � I give speeches without fearing anyone. I give speeches face to face ...
Interviewer: You're in prison. How can you give speeches?
Saddam Hussein: That's a good question. You watch the court sessions. How many sessions have there been so far? Fifteen sessions?
Interviewer: Seventeen.
Saddam Hussein: I give a speech at every single session. � If I don't give speeches, I get heartburn. If 'Izzat Al-Duri is alive and he can hear me, I want to address him, through you, and to tell him to beware. � Isn't this a disgrace? The leader of the Arabs - 'Izzat Al-Duri speaks on his behalf?! 'Izzat Al-Duri doesn't even know how to stand at attention. He should speak on behalf of Saddam Hussein? Any speech that doesn't receive my signature is unofficial, illegitimate, and illegal. � He should beware and shut up. Why does he make speeches and exploit state funds? I left the funds under your responsibility. Billions of dollars ... I left you the funds and you should use them properly. He goes and blows up mosques, markets, and schools. �
I know that people who listen to me might think that Saddam Hussein has become apathetic in prison and stopped supporting terrorism. No. I'm not ashamed to tell you that Iraq without Saddam Hussein isn't worth two bits. Therefore, it will make me happy if Iraq turns into dust.
Interviewer: This reminds me that in one of your speeches, you said that you would leave Iraq a country without a people.
Saddam Hussein: What is the people worth without Saddam Hussein?! What is it worth? Iraq is entirely Saddam Hussein. "Long live Iraq" means "long live Saddam Hussein." What is Iraq worth without Saddam Hussein?
Interviewer: You keep on with those slogans? You still cling to them.
Saddam Hussein: I was brought up on it. How do you want me to go back on this? Iraqis hear these things about me as soon as they come out of their mothers' wombs. � I repeat: Iraq without Saddam Hussein isn't worth two bits. Therefore, it will make me happy if Iraq turns into ashes.
I call to punish 'Izzat Al-Duri, because he burned my heart.
Interviewer: Why, because he published a statement without your permission?
Saddam Hussein: He gave a speech without me knowing it. The punishment that I want for him is to cut off his tongue and ears.
Interviewer: Why cutting off his tongue and ears?
Saddam Hussein: To make him the same as all the renegades whose tongues and ears I cut off. And if 'Izzat Al-Duri continues giving speeches in sign language, like the deaf do, I demand that his hands be cut off. And so on and so forth, until 'Izzat Al-Duri is finished, and we get rid of this degenerate.
Al-Qaida Plotters Dismiss Moussaoui's Role
Two more high-ranking al-Qaida operatives cast doubt on whether Zacarias Moussaoui was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, with one portraying him as a misfit who refused to follow orders, in testimony Tuesday at his death penalty trial.
The testimony of both was read to the jury, in one case because the witness is a captive whom the U.S. government did not want to appear in court.
One terrorist, identified as Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al-Qaida's military committee, stated sometime between Sept. 1, 2001, and late July 2004, that Moussaoui was "a confirmed jihadist but was absolutely not going to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001, mission." The 9/11 Commission reported that the U.S. had recovered from a safehouse in Pakistan a letter written by al-Adl describing the various candidates considered for the Sept. 11 attacks.
The other - Waleed bin Attash, often known simply as Khallad - is considered the mastermind of the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole and an early planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, plot. He said he knew of no part that Moussaoui was to have played in the 9/11 attacks. Khallad was captured in April 2003.
Their testimony backs up the claims of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief organizer of the 9/11 attacks. He said in testimony read to the jury Monday that Moussaoui had nothing to do with the plot but was to have been used for a second wave of attacks distinct from Sept. 11.
The defense introduced an array of written testimony from these captives that was read to the jurors in an effort to undercut Moussaoui's dramatic testimony Monday that he was to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11 and fly it into the White House. His lawyers were trying to undo damage he might have done to himself when he testified against their wishes.
Khallad portrayed Moussaoui as something of a loose cannon during a trip to Malaysia in 2000, where he met members of a radical group affiliated with al-Qaida. Khallad said Moussaoui breached security measures and al-Qaida protocol.
For example, he called Khallad daily, despite instructions to call only in an emergency, to the point where Khallad turned his cell phone off.
Another witness, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who served as a paymaster and facilitator for the Sept. 11 operation from his post in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, said he had seen Moussaoui at an al-Qaida guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in the first half of 2001, but was never introduced to him or conducted operations with him.
Al-Hawsawi said he provided money and tickets to four of the Sept. 11 hijackers and to a fifth man, identified as Muhammed al-Qahtani, who was to be a hijacker but was denied entry to the United States before Sept. 11 in Orlando, Fla.
In the written statement, Al-Hawsawi quoted Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as describing al-Qahtani as the last hijacker for the mission who would "complete the group."
Thus it appeared al-Qahtani was the so-called missing 20th hijacker of Sept. 11, a role the government initially thought Moussaoui was to have played before his arrest a month earlier.
Also Tuesday, defense attorney Alan Yamamoto read a summary of three Federal Aviation Administration intelligence reports on hijacking from the late 1990s and 2000, reports that concluded a hijacked airliner could be flown into a building or national landmark in the U.S. However, this was "viewed as an option of last resort."
The FAA had reports of questionable reliability that Osama bin Laden had discussed suicide hijackings and had discussed hijacking a U.S. air carrier in an effort to free imprisoned Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel Rahman.
But the reports concluded that crashing a jetliner into a building appeared to be an unlikely option for the goal of winning Rahman's release because it offered no time to negotiate.
The FAA was more concerned that bin Laden might try to hijack a U.S. carrier and take the American passengers as hostages to Afghanistan to deter a U.S. military strike there.
Read More >>>
The testimony of both was read to the jury, in one case because the witness is a captive whom the U.S. government did not want to appear in court.
One terrorist, identified as Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al-Qaida's military committee, stated sometime between Sept. 1, 2001, and late July 2004, that Moussaoui was "a confirmed jihadist but was absolutely not going to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001, mission." The 9/11 Commission reported that the U.S. had recovered from a safehouse in Pakistan a letter written by al-Adl describing the various candidates considered for the Sept. 11 attacks.
The other - Waleed bin Attash, often known simply as Khallad - is considered the mastermind of the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole and an early planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, plot. He said he knew of no part that Moussaoui was to have played in the 9/11 attacks. Khallad was captured in April 2003.
Their testimony backs up the claims of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief organizer of the 9/11 attacks. He said in testimony read to the jury Monday that Moussaoui had nothing to do with the plot but was to have been used for a second wave of attacks distinct from Sept. 11.
The defense introduced an array of written testimony from these captives that was read to the jurors in an effort to undercut Moussaoui's dramatic testimony Monday that he was to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11 and fly it into the White House. His lawyers were trying to undo damage he might have done to himself when he testified against their wishes.
Khallad portrayed Moussaoui as something of a loose cannon during a trip to Malaysia in 2000, where he met members of a radical group affiliated with al-Qaida. Khallad said Moussaoui breached security measures and al-Qaida protocol.
For example, he called Khallad daily, despite instructions to call only in an emergency, to the point where Khallad turned his cell phone off.
Another witness, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who served as a paymaster and facilitator for the Sept. 11 operation from his post in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, said he had seen Moussaoui at an al-Qaida guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in the first half of 2001, but was never introduced to him or conducted operations with him.
Al-Hawsawi said he provided money and tickets to four of the Sept. 11 hijackers and to a fifth man, identified as Muhammed al-Qahtani, who was to be a hijacker but was denied entry to the United States before Sept. 11 in Orlando, Fla.
In the written statement, Al-Hawsawi quoted Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as describing al-Qahtani as the last hijacker for the mission who would "complete the group."
Thus it appeared al-Qahtani was the so-called missing 20th hijacker of Sept. 11, a role the government initially thought Moussaoui was to have played before his arrest a month earlier.
Also Tuesday, defense attorney Alan Yamamoto read a summary of three Federal Aviation Administration intelligence reports on hijacking from the late 1990s and 2000, reports that concluded a hijacked airliner could be flown into a building or national landmark in the U.S. However, this was "viewed as an option of last resort."
The FAA had reports of questionable reliability that Osama bin Laden had discussed suicide hijackings and had discussed hijacking a U.S. air carrier in an effort to free imprisoned Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel Rahman.
But the reports concluded that crashing a jetliner into a building appeared to be an unlikely option for the goal of winning Rahman's release because it offered no time to negotiate.
The FAA was more concerned that bin Laden might try to hijack a U.S. carrier and take the American passengers as hostages to Afghanistan to deter a U.S. military strike there.
Read More >>>
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Consumer Confidence Highest Since 2002
Americans' optimism in the economy rebounded in March, sending a widely followed barometer of consumer sentiment to a near four-year high, a private research group said Tuesday.
The Conference Board said that its consumer index shot up 4.5 points to 107.2, the highest level since May 2002, when the reading was 110.3. Analysts had expected a reading of 102.
The latest measure was up from a revised 102.7 in February, which saw confidence fall 4.1 points from the previous month after enjoying a rebound that began in November following the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
"The improvement in consumers' assessment of present-day conditions is yet another sign that the economy gained steam in early 2006," Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement. "Consumer expectations, while improved, remain subdued and still suggest a cooling in activity in the latter half of this year."
The component of the consumer confidence index that assesses views of current economic conditions rose to 133.3 from 130.3. Another component, which measures consumers' outlook over the next six months, improved to 89.9 from 84.2 in February.
The improved outlook is an encouraging sign for retailers, whose sales of spring fashions have been uneven amid cool temperatures. Economists closely track consumer confidence because consumer spending accounts for two thirds of all U.S. economic activity.
The Conference Board said that its consumer index shot up 4.5 points to 107.2, the highest level since May 2002, when the reading was 110.3. Analysts had expected a reading of 102.
The latest measure was up from a revised 102.7 in February, which saw confidence fall 4.1 points from the previous month after enjoying a rebound that began in November following the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
"The improvement in consumers' assessment of present-day conditions is yet another sign that the economy gained steam in early 2006," Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement. "Consumer expectations, while improved, remain subdued and still suggest a cooling in activity in the latter half of this year."
The component of the consumer confidence index that assesses views of current economic conditions rose to 133.3 from 130.3. Another component, which measures consumers' outlook over the next six months, improved to 89.9 from 84.2 in February.
The improved outlook is an encouraging sign for retailers, whose sales of spring fashions have been uneven amid cool temperatures. Economists closely track consumer confidence because consumer spending accounts for two thirds of all U.S. economic activity.
Cold War Hero Caspar Weinberger Passes
Caspar W. Weinberger, who served in the Cabinets of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and was central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, died Tuesday at 88.
Weinberger had been hospitalized for about a week with a high fever and pneumonia brought on by old age, according to his son, Caspar Weinberger Jr. Weinberger's wife of 63 years, Jane, was by his side when he died, the son said.
"He gave everthing to his country, to public office and to his family," Caspar Weinberger Jr. said.
As Richard Nixon's budget director, Weinberger was such a zealous economizer he earned the nickname "Cap the Knife" for his efforts to slash government spending, largely by cutting or curtailing many of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society social programs.
Later, he became the consummate Cold Warrior as Ronald Reagan's secretary of defense and presided over $2 trillion in military spending - the biggest peacetime increase in U.S. history.
"I was deeply disturbed to learn of the death of a great American and a dear friend," said former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Cap Weinberger was an indefatigable fighter for peace through strength. He served his nation in war and peace in so many ways."
Patrick Buchanan, an aide and speechwriter in the Nixon White House, called Weinberg "a good friend."
"I think he was just about one of the best Cabinet officers that I've known in a lifetime," Buchanan said.
Weinberger was a lifelong Republican. He began his political career in 1952 in the California Legislature, where he took on and cleaned up a corrupt state liquor commission.
Weinberger, who called himself a "fiscal Puritan" and believed that budgets should always be balanced, first demonstrated his budget-trimming talents in the late 1960s when he helped solve California's budget problems as then-Gov. Reagan's finance director.
His tireless pursuit of Reagan's fiscal policies drew the attention of the Nixon White House and in 1969 Weinberger was recruited to head the Federal Trade Commission, where as chairman he instituted several high-profile reforms. He then moved on to run the president's Office of Management and Budget in 1970.
He also served as Nixon's secretary of health, education and welfare before returning to San Francisco in 1975 as special counsel to the Bechtel Corp., the huge worldwide construction company.
Weinberger was recalled to public service from Bechtel by Reagan.
It was his post as defense secretary that lead to Weinberger's greatest challenge: federal felony charges stemming from his alleged role in the sale of weapons to Iran to finance secret, illegal aid to the Nicaragua Contras. The "arms-for-hostages" affair poisoned the closing years of Reagan's administration, permanently stained the reputations of the insiders involved and cast a cloud over President George H.W. Bush throughout his four-year administration.
Caspar Weinberger's Accomplishments
Weinberger had been hospitalized for about a week with a high fever and pneumonia brought on by old age, according to his son, Caspar Weinberger Jr. Weinberger's wife of 63 years, Jane, was by his side when he died, the son said.
"He gave everthing to his country, to public office and to his family," Caspar Weinberger Jr. said.
As Richard Nixon's budget director, Weinberger was such a zealous economizer he earned the nickname "Cap the Knife" for his efforts to slash government spending, largely by cutting or curtailing many of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society social programs.
Later, he became the consummate Cold Warrior as Ronald Reagan's secretary of defense and presided over $2 trillion in military spending - the biggest peacetime increase in U.S. history.
"I was deeply disturbed to learn of the death of a great American and a dear friend," said former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Cap Weinberger was an indefatigable fighter for peace through strength. He served his nation in war and peace in so many ways."
Patrick Buchanan, an aide and speechwriter in the Nixon White House, called Weinberg "a good friend."
"I think he was just about one of the best Cabinet officers that I've known in a lifetime," Buchanan said.
Weinberger was a lifelong Republican. He began his political career in 1952 in the California Legislature, where he took on and cleaned up a corrupt state liquor commission.
Weinberger, who called himself a "fiscal Puritan" and believed that budgets should always be balanced, first demonstrated his budget-trimming talents in the late 1960s when he helped solve California's budget problems as then-Gov. Reagan's finance director.
His tireless pursuit of Reagan's fiscal policies drew the attention of the Nixon White House and in 1969 Weinberger was recruited to head the Federal Trade Commission, where as chairman he instituted several high-profile reforms. He then moved on to run the president's Office of Management and Budget in 1970.
He also served as Nixon's secretary of health, education and welfare before returning to San Francisco in 1975 as special counsel to the Bechtel Corp., the huge worldwide construction company.
Weinberger was recalled to public service from Bechtel by Reagan.
It was his post as defense secretary that lead to Weinberger's greatest challenge: federal felony charges stemming from his alleged role in the sale of weapons to Iran to finance secret, illegal aid to the Nicaragua Contras. The "arms-for-hostages" affair poisoned the closing years of Reagan's administration, permanently stained the reputations of the insiders involved and cast a cloud over President George H.W. Bush throughout his four-year administration.
Caspar Weinberger's Accomplishments
Scientist: Global warming not due to humans
According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.
Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.
The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.
The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.
Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."
As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.
Read More here >>>
Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.
The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.
The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.
Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."
As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.
Read More here >>>
Polls: Public Concerned About Immigration
Most people in the United States think illegal immigration is a
serious problem. A solid majority oppose making it easier for illegal
immigrants to become legal workers or citizens.
Some findings in recent polling:
_ Some 59 percent say they oppose allowing illegal immigrants to apply for legal, temporary-worker status, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found.
_ More than six in 10, 62 percent, say they oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. Nine in 10 in that poll say they consider immigration to be a serious problem _ with 57 percent of those polled saying very serious.
_ Three-fourths say the United States is not doing enough along its borders to keep illegal immigrants out, a Time Magazine poll found.
The NBC-WSJ poll was taken in March, Quinnipiac in February and Time in January. The NBC-WSJ and Time polls surveyed about 1,000 adults and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Quinnipiac poll of 1,892 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
serious problem. A solid majority oppose making it easier for illegal
immigrants to become legal workers or citizens.
Some findings in recent polling:
_ Some 59 percent say they oppose allowing illegal immigrants to apply for legal, temporary-worker status, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found.
_ More than six in 10, 62 percent, say they oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. Nine in 10 in that poll say they consider immigration to be a serious problem _ with 57 percent of those polled saying very serious.
_ Three-fourths say the United States is not doing enough along its borders to keep illegal immigrants out, a Time Magazine poll found.
The NBC-WSJ poll was taken in March, Quinnipiac in February and Time in January. The NBC-WSJ and Time polls surveyed about 1,000 adults and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Quinnipiac poll of 1,892 registered voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
Moussaoui Says He Was to Hijack 5th Plane
Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House.
Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom. His account was in stark contrast to his previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release an Egyptian sheik imprisoned on separate terrorist convictions.
On Dec. 22, 2001, Reid was subdued by passengers when he attempted to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. The plane was diverted to Boston, where it landed safely.
Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen.
"You lied because you wanted to conceal that you were a member of al- Qaida?" prosecutor Rob Spencer asked.
"That's correct," Moussaoui said.
Spencer: "You lied so the plan could go forward?"
Moussaoui: "That's correct."
The exchange could be key to the government's case that the attacks might have been averted if Moussaoui had been more cooperative following his arrest.
Moussaoui told the court he knew the attacks were to take place some time after August 2001 and bought a radio so he could hear them unfold.
Specifically, he said he knew the World Trade Center was going to be attacked, but he asserted he was not part of that plot and didn't know the details.
Nineteen men pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington in the worst act of terrorism ever on U.S. soil.
"I had knowledge that the Twin Towers would be hit," Moussaoui said. "I didn't know the details of this."
Before Moussaoui took the stand, his lawyers made a last attempt to stop him from testifying. Defense attorney Gerald Zerkin argued that his client would not be a competent witness because he has contempt for the court, only recognizes Islamic law and therefore "the affirmation he undertakes would be meaningless."
Moussaoui at first denied he was to have been a fifth hijack pilot but under cross examination spoke of the plan to attack the White House. He said Reid was the only person he knew for sure would have been on that mission, but others were discussed.
Moussaoui testified that at one point he was excluded from pre- hijacking operations because he had gotten in trouble with his al- Qaida superiors on a 2000 trip to Malaysia. He said it was only after he was called back to Afghanistan and talked with Osama bin Laden that he was approved again for the operation.
"My position was, like you say, under review."
Moussaoui testified for nearly three hours, ending his time on the stand by declaring his gratitude that he was an al-Qaida member. When Spencer asked him if he was also grateful to have been the fifth pilot, the defendant merely said: "I'm grateful."
Moussaoui's lawyer asked him whether he thought anything in his testimony or court proceedings would affect his fate. He replied: "I believe in destiny. God gives life and death. I just have to speak the truth and God will take care of the rest."
Read More Here >>>
Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom. His account was in stark contrast to his previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release an Egyptian sheik imprisoned on separate terrorist convictions.
On Dec. 22, 2001, Reid was subdued by passengers when he attempted to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. The plane was diverted to Boston, where it landed safely.
Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen.
"You lied because you wanted to conceal that you were a member of al- Qaida?" prosecutor Rob Spencer asked.
"That's correct," Moussaoui said.
Spencer: "You lied so the plan could go forward?"
Moussaoui: "That's correct."
The exchange could be key to the government's case that the attacks might have been averted if Moussaoui had been more cooperative following his arrest.
Moussaoui told the court he knew the attacks were to take place some time after August 2001 and bought a radio so he could hear them unfold.
Specifically, he said he knew the World Trade Center was going to be attacked, but he asserted he was not part of that plot and didn't know the details.
Nineteen men pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington in the worst act of terrorism ever on U.S. soil.
"I had knowledge that the Twin Towers would be hit," Moussaoui said. "I didn't know the details of this."
Before Moussaoui took the stand, his lawyers made a last attempt to stop him from testifying. Defense attorney Gerald Zerkin argued that his client would not be a competent witness because he has contempt for the court, only recognizes Islamic law and therefore "the affirmation he undertakes would be meaningless."
Moussaoui at first denied he was to have been a fifth hijack pilot but under cross examination spoke of the plan to attack the White House. He said Reid was the only person he knew for sure would have been on that mission, but others were discussed.
Moussaoui testified that at one point he was excluded from pre- hijacking operations because he had gotten in trouble with his al- Qaida superiors on a 2000 trip to Malaysia. He said it was only after he was called back to Afghanistan and talked with Osama bin Laden that he was approved again for the operation.
"My position was, like you say, under review."
Moussaoui testified for nearly three hours, ending his time on the stand by declaring his gratitude that he was an al-Qaida member. When Spencer asked him if he was also grateful to have been the fifth pilot, the defendant merely said: "I'm grateful."
Moussaoui's lawyer asked him whether he thought anything in his testimony or court proceedings would affect his fate. He replied: "I believe in destiny. God gives life and death. I just have to speak the truth and God will take care of the rest."
Read More Here >>>
White House Chief of Staff Card Resigns
White House chief of staff Andy Card has resigned and will be replaced by budget director Joshua Bolten, President Bush announced Tuesday amid growing calls for a White House shakeup and Republican concern about Bush's tumbling poll ratings.
Bush announced the changes in an nationally broadcast appearance in the Oval Office.
"I have relied on Andy's wise counsel, his calm in crisis, his absolute integrity and his tireless commitment to public service," Bush said. "The next three years will demand much of those who serve our country. We have a global war to fight and win."
Bush called Bolten a man with broad experience, both on Wall Street and in Washington, including the last three years as director of the Office of Management and Budget.
"Josh is a creative policy thinker," Bush said. "He is an expert on the budget and our economy. He is a man of candor and humor and directness. No person is better prepared for this important position."
"I'm deeply honored now by the opportunity to succeed Andy Card as White House chief of staff," Bolten responded. "I said, 'Succeed Andy Card, not replace him,' because he cannot be replaced."
Card came to Bush recently and suggested that he should step down from the job that he has held from the first day of Bush's presidency, said an administration official earlier.
Read More Here >>>
Bush announced the changes in an nationally broadcast appearance in the Oval Office.
"I have relied on Andy's wise counsel, his calm in crisis, his absolute integrity and his tireless commitment to public service," Bush said. "The next three years will demand much of those who serve our country. We have a global war to fight and win."
Bush called Bolten a man with broad experience, both on Wall Street and in Washington, including the last three years as director of the Office of Management and Budget.
"Josh is a creative policy thinker," Bush said. "He is an expert on the budget and our economy. He is a man of candor and humor and directness. No person is better prepared for this important position."
"I'm deeply honored now by the opportunity to succeed Andy Card as White House chief of staff," Bolten responded. "I said, 'Succeed Andy Card, not replace him,' because he cannot be replaced."
Card came to Bush recently and suggested that he should step down from the job that he has held from the first day of Bush's presidency, said an administration official earlier.
Read More Here >>>
Monday, March 27, 2006
Military force can't destroy our atomic program: Iran
Military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites would not destroy the Islamic republic's uranium enrichment activities, which could be easily moved and restarted, a senior Iranian official said on Monday.
"You know very well ... we can enrich uranium anywhere in the country, with a vast country of more than 1 million 600 square kilometers," said Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
"Enrichment can be done anywhere in Iran," he told a panel discussion on the possible use of military force to destroy what the West fears is Iran's atomic bomb program.
Soltaniyeh said that after Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osirak in 1981, then Iraqi-leader Saddam Hussein bombed Iran's Bushehr plant.
The Security Council then passed a resolution condemning the attacks and making it illegal for countries to strike nuclear facilities.
But Soltaniyeh said those U.N. documents were "just pieces of paper" today to the United States and Israel.
Soltaniyeh said Iran was hiding nothing from the world and that all of its nuclear fuel facilities were known to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. But he hinted that threats of possible military action against Tehran could change that.
"Any threat or potential threat will create a very complicated situation," he said, adding that Iran would never give up its enrichment program.
A retired U.S. Air Force colonel and well-known war gaming expert told the conference the United States was under increasing pressure to use military force to destroy Iran's atomic sites and would make a decision on this option soon.
Iran has completed a 164-machine "cascade" of centrifuges to enrich uranium at its Natanz plant and is expected to begin testing it soon, diplomats in Vienna say. Operating such a cascade would not enable it to fuel any atomic weapons but would enable Iran to master the difficult art of uranium enrichment.
"I think we may be looking at a (U.S.) decision in six to nine months," said Sam Gardiner, a military strategy expert who has taught at the U.S. Army's National War College.
Read More Here >>>
"You know very well ... we can enrich uranium anywhere in the country, with a vast country of more than 1 million 600 square kilometers," said Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
"Enrichment can be done anywhere in Iran," he told a panel discussion on the possible use of military force to destroy what the West fears is Iran's atomic bomb program.
Soltaniyeh said that after Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osirak in 1981, then Iraqi-leader Saddam Hussein bombed Iran's Bushehr plant.
The Security Council then passed a resolution condemning the attacks and making it illegal for countries to strike nuclear facilities.
But Soltaniyeh said those U.N. documents were "just pieces of paper" today to the United States and Israel.
Soltaniyeh said Iran was hiding nothing from the world and that all of its nuclear fuel facilities were known to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. But he hinted that threats of possible military action against Tehran could change that.
"Any threat or potential threat will create a very complicated situation," he said, adding that Iran would never give up its enrichment program.
A retired U.S. Air Force colonel and well-known war gaming expert told the conference the United States was under increasing pressure to use military force to destroy Iran's atomic sites and would make a decision on this option soon.
Iran has completed a 164-machine "cascade" of centrifuges to enrich uranium at its Natanz plant and is expected to begin testing it soon, diplomats in Vienna say. Operating such a cascade would not enable it to fuel any atomic weapons but would enable Iran to master the difficult art of uranium enrichment.
"I think we may be looking at a (U.S.) decision in six to nine months," said Sam Gardiner, a military strategy expert who has taught at the U.S. Army's National War College.
Read More Here >>>
Size of Immigration Legislation Protest Surpises Authorities
Thousands of immigration advocates marched through downtown Los Angeles in one of the largest demonstrations for any cause in recent U.S. history.
More than 500,000 protesters - demanding that Congress abandon attempts to make illegal immigration a felony and to build more walls along the border - surprised police who estimated the crowd size using aerial photographs and other techniques, police Cmdr. Louis Gray Jr. said.
Wearing white T-shirts to symbolize peace, the demonstrators chanted "Mexico!" "USA!" and "Si se puede," an old Mexican-American civil rights shout that means "Yes, we can."
In Denver, more than 50,000 people protested downtown Saturday, according to police who had expected only a few thousand. Phoenix was similarly surprised Friday when an estimated 20,000 people gathered for one of the biggest demonstrations in city history, and more than 10,000 marched in Milwaukee on Thursday.
"We construct your schools. We cook your food," rapper Jorge Ruiz said after performing at a Dallas rally that drew 1,500. "We are the motor of this nation, but people don't see us. Blacks and whites, they had their revolution. They had their Martin Luther King. Now it is time for us."
Many protesters said lawmakers were unfairly targeting immigrants who provide a major labor pool for America's economy.
Between 5,000 and 7,000 people gathered Saturday in Charlotte, carrying signs with slogans such as "Am I Not a Human Being?" In Sacramento, more than 4,000 people protested immigration legislation at an annual march honoring the late farm labor leader Cesar Chavez.
Read More Here >>>
J.R.'s Take:
With this many people protesting the legislation, count on many in congress waffling on their positions.
More than 500,000 protesters - demanding that Congress abandon attempts to make illegal immigration a felony and to build more walls along the border - surprised police who estimated the crowd size using aerial photographs and other techniques, police Cmdr. Louis Gray Jr. said.
Wearing white T-shirts to symbolize peace, the demonstrators chanted "Mexico!" "USA!" and "Si se puede," an old Mexican-American civil rights shout that means "Yes, we can."
In Denver, more than 50,000 people protested downtown Saturday, according to police who had expected only a few thousand. Phoenix was similarly surprised Friday when an estimated 20,000 people gathered for one of the biggest demonstrations in city history, and more than 10,000 marched in Milwaukee on Thursday.
"We construct your schools. We cook your food," rapper Jorge Ruiz said after performing at a Dallas rally that drew 1,500. "We are the motor of this nation, but people don't see us. Blacks and whites, they had their revolution. They had their Martin Luther King. Now it is time for us."
Many protesters said lawmakers were unfairly targeting immigrants who provide a major labor pool for America's economy.
Between 5,000 and 7,000 people gathered Saturday in Charlotte, carrying signs with slogans such as "Am I Not a Human Being?" In Sacramento, more than 4,000 people protested immigration legislation at an annual march honoring the late farm labor leader Cesar Chavez.
Read More Here >>>
J.R.'s Take:
With this many people protesting the legislation, count on many in congress waffling on their positions.
Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights�Scalia Speaks His Mind
During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.
"This is clearly grounds for recusal," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. "I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him�without hearing the arguments." Other experts said it was a closer call. Scalia didn't refer directly to this week's case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, though issues at stake hinge in part on whether the detainees deserve legal protections that make the military tribunals unfair. "As these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers, a legal-ethics expert.
Read More Here >>>
"This is clearly grounds for recusal," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. "I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him�without hearing the arguments." ....
J.R.'s Take:
If there were a jury hearing this case, I would agree with the above statement. But this is not the case. Is there anyone on the Supreme Court who would doubt what SCJ Scalia would have offered for an opinion anyway. If there were any grounds for a recusal at all I would think that it would be that Justice Scalia had a son who fought in the war on terror that may sway his thinking against the enemy combatants, although I believe he would feel the same way regardless.
"This is clearly grounds for recusal," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. "I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him�without hearing the arguments." Other experts said it was a closer call. Scalia didn't refer directly to this week's case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, though issues at stake hinge in part on whether the detainees deserve legal protections that make the military tribunals unfair. "As these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers, a legal-ethics expert.
Read More Here >>>
"This is clearly grounds for recusal," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. "I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him�without hearing the arguments." ....
J.R.'s Take:
If there were a jury hearing this case, I would agree with the above statement. But this is not the case. Is there anyone on the Supreme Court who would doubt what SCJ Scalia would have offered for an opinion anyway. If there were any grounds for a recusal at all I would think that it would be that Justice Scalia had a son who fought in the war on terror that may sway his thinking against the enemy combatants, although I believe he would feel the same way regardless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)