Friday, July 15, 2005

Feith Says Pentagon Overdid WMD Rationale

Yahoo! News
Feith Says Pentagon Overdid WMD Rationale

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

The top policy adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says the Bush administration erred by building its public case for war against Saddam Hussein mainly on the claim that he possessed banned weapons.

The comment by Douglas J. Feith, in an interview with The Associated Press, is a rare admission of error about Iraq by a senior administration official. Feith, who is leaving after four years as the undersecretary of defense for policy, said he remains convinced that President Bush was correct in deciding that war against Iraq was necessary.

"I don't think there is any question that we as an administration, instead of giving proper emphasis to all major elements of the rationale for war, overemphasized the WMD aspect," he said, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction.

The administration claimed the now-deposed Iraqi president possessed mass-killing chemical and biological weapons at the time of the March 2003 invasion and cited them most prominently as justification for attacking.

No such weapons have been found. In March, a bipartisan presidential commission said U.S. spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most of their prewar assessments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


One of the architects of the administration's strategy for the war on terror, Feith strongly defended the decision to invade Iraq.

"It would have been better had we done a better job of communicating in all of its breadth the strategic rationale for the war," Feith said in an hour-long interview this week at his home in suburban Washington.

The broader rationale, Feith said, included the danger posed by Iraq's potential to resume building chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons — know-how that the Iraqi regime developed before the 1991 Gulf War.

In his report to Congress on a CIA-led postwar search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer said none could be found and there was no evidence Saddam produced any after 1991. But Duelfer also said it was clear that Saddam hoped to revive his weapons programs if U.N. sanctions were lifted.

"Our intelligence community made, apparently, an error, as to the stockpiles" of weapons it assured President Bush existed in 2003, Feith said. Thus that part of the administration's argument for why war was necessary was overdone, he said, adding, "Anything we said at all about stockpiles was overemphasis, given that we didn't find them."

Feith has been accused by critics of having manipulated intelligence on Iraq to push the case for war, an accusation he vehemently denies. His chief critic in Congress on this point is Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., who is delaying Senate confirmation of Feith's replacement, Eric Edelman, a former ambassador to Turkey, by demanding the Pentagon produce more documents on the intelligence controversy.

Feith said he is irritated by the assertions of administration critics that the absence of WMD stockpiles in Iraq negates the rationale for going to war. They ignore the broader reasoning, he said, which included the dangers posed by Saddam's record of aggression against Kuwait, hostility toward the United States, a "rhetorical and financial support" for terrorism and a weakening of the world's resolve to contain his ambitions.

"One could fault the administration on the presentation of the rationale, but that is different from saying the rationale was actually extremely narrow and invalidated by the disclosure of the error" on WMD stockpiles, he said.

Another element of the administration's reasoning was a belief, still held, that if the tyrannical regime in Baghdad could be replaced with democratic institutions, it could have a beneficial effect in transforming the politics of the Middle East. That alone, however, was not a sufficient reason to go to war, Feith said.

"Had Saddam Hussein not been a supporter of terrorism and a guy who developed and used WMD, I don't think that simply saying he's a tyrant and we have a chance to replace a tyrant would have motivated the war," he said.

Feith, who served in the White House and at the Pentagon during the administration of President Reagan, said one of his most important contributions during his four years working for Rumsfeld was helping break down communication and cultural barriers between Pentagon civilian and military officials.

By working closely with Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and exposing scores of staff members to their example of cooperation and collegiality, the "great divide" between the civilian and military policy organizations and their "clash of memoranda" has been largely overcome, Feith said.

___

On the Net:

Feith official biography at http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/feith_bio.html

The Duelfer report on Iraq's WMD at http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Read More...

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Republicans agree to slight limits on Patriot Act

Reuters

Republicans agree to limits on Patriot Act

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans beat a slight retreat on Wednesday on the USA Patriot Act, agreeing that some controversial provisions in the terrorism-fighting law should be authorized for a limited period rather than being made permanent.

Sixteen provisions of the 2001 law, hastily enacted in response to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, are due to expire at the end of this year unless renewed by Congress. President Bush has repeatedly called on lawmakers to make the entire law permanent.

The act allowed expanded surveillance of terror suspects and gave the government the ability to go to a secret court to seize the personal records of suspects from bookstores, libraries, businesses, hospitals and other organizations -- the so-called "library clause."

Bills renewing the clauses due to expire were considered Wednesday by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter and California Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein produced their own bipartisan version. The three bills differed in key respects and will need to be reconciled before passage.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner introduced a bill to make the entire law permanent. He said last week's bomb attacks in London made it even more urgent to reauthorize the legislation.

"The security of the American people should not be subject to arbitrary expiration dates," said Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican.

However, during Judiciary Committee debate on Wednesday, California Rep. Dan Lungren suggested including 10-year "sunset provisions" to two key clauses, meaning they would need to be reauthorized by Congress once again in 2015.

That amendment was eventually adopted 26-2, with all but one Republican and all but one Democrat supporting it.

Sensenbrenner hopes to bring the bill to the full House for approval some time next week.

AMENDMENTS DEFEATED

Democrats had pushed for even shorter time limits on the key clauses. Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott offered an amendment calling for reauthorization in 2009. When that was defeated along party lines, New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler offered another for reauthorization in 2011. That too was defeated.

"Ten years is too long. Lots of things can happen in 10 years," Nadler said. "The liberties of Americans are worth focusing on a lot more than every 10 years."


Under the Lungren amendment, the two clauses that would not be permanent were the library clause and another dealing with so-called roving wiretaps, which allows the government to eavesdrop on suspects as they switch from phone to phone. Previously, law enforcement agents had to get a judge's permission for each phone number they wanted to monitor.

The House Intelligence Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the bill, approved it on Wednesday after agreeing to a five-year sunset provision on a clause that makes it easier for the government to monitor "lone wolf" suspects unaffiliated with a terrorist group or country.

The Specter-Feinstein bill in the Senate would extend all three of these sections only until the end of 2009 and add several new restrictions on their use. For example, the director or deputy director of the FBI would need to approve any orders concerning library records, book sales, firearms sales or medical records.

"This is a balanced bill. The times call for this bill," Feinstein said.

American Civil Liberties Union senior counsel Lisa Graves said she was encouraged by the day's developments but the bill still needed work.

"The fact that there was a bipartisan vote not to make some key provisions permanent was a small step forward but there still need to be important fixes to protect civil liberties," she said.

Read More...

U.S. Officials Worry About Sleeper Cells

Yahoo! News
U.S. Officials Worry About Sleeper Cells

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 51 minutes ago

The possibility that terrorist "sleeper cells" are working undetected in America is near the top of worries for counterterrorism officials. This concern is brought home by evidence that seemingly ordinary young men carried out the London bombings.

Particularly unnerving is that last week's bombings and those in Madrid last year suggest extremists already in place — in some cases, native-born citizens — can plan and execute an attack without attracting police attention.

The government raised the terror alert to high for mass transit systems after the London attacks. But officials said they have no credible, specific threats of an attack on America.

Even before the attacks on the London mass transit system, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the Madrid bombings "have heightened our concern regarding the possible role that indigenous Islamic extremists, already in the U.S., may play in future terrorist plots."

Some experts caution that there are vast differences between Muslim communities in Europe and the United States. Still, Mueller told Congress in February, "I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing."

The would-be attackers might al-Qaida operatives — sleeper agents who have been here for some time and are awaiting an order — or homegrown terrorists who are influenced, if not directed, by al-Qaida, Mueller said.

British investigators appear to be pursuing leads that suggest the suspected London bombers — at least three of whom are British citizens of Pakistani descent — fall into the latter category.

In his annual assessment of the terror threat, Mueller also said that some converts to Islam could be motivated to undertake attacks.


The Bush administration has moved aggressively against people suspected of training for and plotting attacks, Critics have said the charges have been overblown and unrelated to terrorism in many cases.

The administration has pointed to the convictions of six Yemeni-Americans from Lackawanna, N.Y., who were recruited to a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan shortly before the Sept. 11 attacks as a model in pursuing and prosecuting terrorism suspects. Prosecutors never charged the men with planning terrorist attacks.

In a pending case in Lodi, Calif., a U.S.-born Muslim and his father have been charged with lying to federal agents about his attendance at a terrorist camp in Pakistan in 2003 and 2004. The FBI alleged in an affidavit that Hamid Hayat returned to the U.S. in May intending to wage attacks, but said its agents had found no immediate threat or terrorist activity.

Steven Simon, a national security aide in the Clinton administration, said previously unknown groups of attackers "are coming out of the woodwork" in Europe, where Muslim communities tend to be less prosperous and integrated than they are in the U.S.

"It doesn't look like the kind of infrastructure that exists in Europe has been discovered here," said Simon, a senior Rand Corp. analyst who is co-author of the upcoming book, "The Next Attack."

He said he considers such attacks here unlikely in the near term, but said that could change if the Muslim population becomes as alienated as it is in Europe.

Still, Simon echoed Mueller when said, "It's often said that you don't know what you don't know. Things may be escaping our notice."

Read More...

Bush Passes on Public Endorsement of Rove

Yahoo! News
Bush Passes on Public Endorsement of Rove

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

President Bush passed up a chance Wednesday to express confidence in senior aide Karl Rove in a political fight over a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity. The lack of endorsement surprised some White House officials who had been told Bush would back his embattled friend.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, later asserted that Rove had "cooperated fully" in the federal investigation, had done nothing wrong and was prepared to provide additional information to a special prosecutor if needed.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, with Rove sitting just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."

Later in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Rove did have Bush's support. "As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the president," McClellan said.

Bush said he would not discuss the matter further until a criminal investigation is finished.

Across town, a federal grand jury heard more testimony in its probe into whether anyone in the administration illegally leaked the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame in July 2003. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's rationale for invading Iraq, has said the leak was an attempt to discredit him.


Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who wrote an article that identified Plame, appeared before the grand jury for 2 1/2 hours.

"I testified openly and honestly," Cooper said outside the courthouse, without divulging details. "I have no idea whether a crime was committed or not. That's something the special counsel's going to have to determine."

Wednesday evening, Luskin, Rove's attorney, issued a statement saying that Cooper's testimony would "not call into question the accuracy or completeness of anything Rove has previously said to the prosecutor or the grand jury."

"Rove has cooperated completely with the special prosecutor, and he has been repeatedly assured he is not a target of the investigation," said Luskin. "Rove has done nothing wrong. We're confident he will not become a target after the special prosecutor has reviewed all evidence."

If special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "seeks additional information from Rove in light of Cooper's testimony, Rove will promptly provide it," the lawyer's statement said.

The dispute has taken a toll on the White House and its allies, threatening to jeopardize the president's domestic agenda and leading to an aggressive GOP campaign to blunt Democratic calls for Rove's firing or resignation. With urging from the White House, Republican congressmen lined up in support of Rove and most GOP politicians outside Washington followed suit.

"It's a tempest in a teapot," said Denzil Garrison, former state GOP leader in Oklahoma. But some Republicans said Rove may need to go. "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."

Bush previously had suggested he'd fire anyone found to have been a leaker in the case.

Bombarded with Rove questions for a third straight day, McClellan said, "I think we've exhausted the discussion on this the last couple of days." Joking about the toll of the controversy, he said, "It may not look like it, but there's a little flesh that's been taken out of me the past few days."

McClellan said Bush had not expressed confidence in Rove in the Cabinet session because no one had asked him that directly. The question put to Bush was whether he had spoken with Rove about the Plame matter, whether he believed Rove had acted improperly, and whether it was appropriate for the White House to say in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak.

McClellan said Bush agreed with Laura Bush, who earlier Wednesday told reporters traveling with her in Africa that Rove was a good family friend.

"I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation," Bush said. "We're in the midst of an ongoing investigation and I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed."

The failure by Bush to publicly back Rove left some White House advisers privately wondering whether the president was distancing himself from his longtime adviser.

The White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the leak. But an internal Time magazine e-mail disclosed over the weekend suggested Rove mentioned to Time reporter Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

She was first publicly identified by name as an operative in a July 2003 opinion piece by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak. Rove, through his lawyer, has confirmed that he talked to Cooper but has denied providing Plame's name or leaking classified information.

Each political side intensified its attempts to discredit the other on Wednesday, producing a flurry of press releases and news conferences.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and three other Senate Democratic leaders — Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan — sent a letter to Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, asking him to release results of an initial internal investigation into the leak and to begin a new probe "to explain public inconsistencies."

MoveOn, a liberal advocacy group, announced its members would stage a protest in front of the White House on Thursday to demand Rove's firing.

Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, called Democratic attacks on Rove "out of control and entirely inappropriate ... accusations based on rumor and innuendo."

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Read More...

Report cites 'degrading' Guantanamo treatment

Yahoo! News
Report cites 'degrading' Guantanamo treatment

Guantanamo Bay interrogators degraded and abused a key prisoner but did not torture him when they told him he was gay, forced him to dance with another man and made him wear a bra and perform dog tricks, military investigators said on Wednesday.

The general who heads Southern Command, responsible for the jail for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also said he rejected his investigators' recommendation to punish a former commander of the prison.

A military report presented before the Senate Armed Services Committee stated a Saudi man, described as the "20th hijacker" slated to have participated in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, was forced by interrogators in late 2002 to wear a bra and had women's thong underwear placed on his head.

U.S. interrogators also told him he was a homosexual, forced him to dance with a male interrogator, told him his mother and sister were whores, forced him to wear a leash and perform dog tricks, menaced him with a dog and regularly subjected him to interrogations up to 20 hours a day for about two months, the report said.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, who headed the probe into FBI accounts of abuse of Guantanamo prisoners by Defense Department personnel, concluded that the man was subjected to "abusive and degrading treatment" due to "the cumulative effect of creative, persistent and lengthy interrogations." The techniques used were authorized by the Pentagon, he said.

"As the bottom line, though, we found no torture. Detention and interrogation operations were safe, secure and humane," Schmidt said.


The Pentagon identified the man as Mohamed al-Qahtani and said he ultimately provided "extremely valuable intelligence."

Schmidt said, "He admitted to being the 20th hijacker, and he expected to fly on United Airlines Flight 93," which crashed in Pennsylvania.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), himself abused by the North Vietnamese as a Vietnam War POW, noted, "Humane treatment might be in the eye of the beholder."

Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), an Oklahoma Republican, said terrorism suspects "are not to be coddled."

"What damage are we doing to our war effort by parading these relatively minor infractions before the press and the world again and again and again while our soldiers risk their lives daily and are given no mercy by the enemy?" Inhofe said.

PRISON COMMANDER

Army Gen. Bantz Craddock, head of Southern Command, rejected the recommendation by Schmidt and fellow investigator Army Brig. Gen. John Furlow that Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, jail commander at the time, be admonished for failing to monitor and limit that prisoner's interrogation.

Craddock said the interrogation "did not result in any violation of a U.S. law or policy," and thus "there's nothing for which to hold him accountable," but asked the Army inspector general's office to look into it.

Miller, who helped introduce Guantanamo-style questioning methods in Iraq ahead of the 2003 abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, would have been the highest-ranking officer punished in connection with the detainee abuse.

The report urged punishment of a Navy lieutenant commander, who wore a mask and was dubbed "Mr. X," for breaking military law by making death threats to another "high-value" detainee and telling him he would die on "Christian ... sovereign American soil."

The report faulted a female interrogator who smeared fake menstrual blood on a prisoner who had spit in her face, but said it part of an authorized interrogation technique. It also faulted interrogators over two unauthorized techniques -- wrapping duct tape around the mouth and head of a chanting detainee and chaining detainees to the floor.

McCain said, "I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America as to adhering to certain standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they might be."

The investigation, announced in January, followed the release by the American Civil Liberties Union of FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The documents described prisoners shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on a floor for 18 to 24 hours, and left to urinate and defecate on themselves. Others said military interrogators had used "torture techniques."

About 520 men are held at the prison. Many were detained in Afghanistan and have been held for more than three years. Only four have been charged. The United States has classified them as "enemy combatants" and denied them rights accorded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. (Additional reporting by Vicki Allen)

Read More...

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Deep Gloat





Deep Gloat

Read More...

Bill Clinton plans private summit on global woes

Reuters

Bill Clinton plans private summit on global woes

CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton says he is intent on finding ways the private sector can solve some of the world's most pressing problems from poverty to terrorism.

As host of a meeting in New York later this year of private and public sector leaders, Clinton said in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday there are plenty of problems governments simply cannot address.

"What I'm trying to do is figure out what private sector people can do," said Clinton, 58, who left office in 2001 after eight years in the White House which saw the longest-ever U.S. economic expansion but were dogged by personal scandal.

"It's unrealistic to think all the world's problems will be solved only by government actions," he said at his home in suburban New York.

"If I were president and I had a Congress that was two-thirds Democrat and we were starting with a budget surplus of prosperity, there would still be needs in the world I would like to see met that the American government could not meet entirely," he said.

"If you're a nongovernmental organization or a corporation, you can say, 'I'm going to do this and do it now."'

The Clinton Global Initiative, to be held Sept. 15-17 in New York to coincide with the United Nations' General Assembly, eyes four topics -- poverty, corruption, climate change and religious and ethnic reconciliation.

Everyone who participates must make a specific commitment to be fulfilled by the next annual meeting, he said. For example, a corporation might commit to building schoolrooms in Kenya or sending educational materials to Mexico.

Anywhere from 500 to 1,000 people might attend, he said.

People expected to attend run the gamut from British Prime Minister Tony Blair to News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch. Clinton also invited Arnold Schwarzenegger but the California governor's office said he would not be able to attend because of legislative business.


Clinton has said he got the idea for the meeting from Davos, where the World Economic Forum meets each year in Switzerland. That meeting has come under fire by critics who complain it is all talk and no action.

"If you come to my meeting, at the end I want you to make a commitment," Clinton said. "If we did one of these every year at the opening of the UN ... and these commitments were made and kept for a decade, I think it would change the world."

One of the youngest former U.S. presidents when he left office, Clinton has established the William J. Clinton Foundation, opened his presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he was governor, written his autobiography and most recently served as a U.N. envoy for tsunami relief.

Discussions of ethnic and religious reconciliation will naturally include the issue of terrorism, as will discussions of governments' ability to operate effectively, he said.

"When governments don't have the capacity to deliver the goods, to operate efficiently, to generate economic opportunities, to bring in investment, to give people something to look forward to when they get up in the morning, then that makes them more vulnerable to terror," he said.

But he stressed that security remains a government issue.

Clinton travels next week to Africa for former South African President Nelson Mandela's 87th birthday celebration, then to Tanzania, Mozambique, Rwanda, Lesotho and Kenya.

While Clinton said his health was good after heart surgery last year and follow-up surgery this year, his plans to start jogging again have been postponed until after the Africa trip.

"When I was jogging, I didn't feel like maybe it was quite settled inside so I decided I'd walk another couple of months and then start, but I feel good," he said.

He was mum on any political plans by his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton who faces reelection in New York next year. She is considered a strong contender among the Democrats who want to retake the White House in 2008.

"The honest answer, which no one believes, is I don't know, and I don't want to know because I want her to focus only on getting reelected," he said. "I want her service to be ratified by the people of New York and, until that happens, I don't think she can afford to think about anything else."

Certain rules apply in the Clinton household, he added. "One of them is you never look past the next election because if you do, you might not get past the next election," he said.

Read More...

The Growing Rove Problem

Reuters

White House expresses confidence in top Bush aide

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House broke its silence and said on Tuesday that President Bush continued to have confidence in his top political adviser, Karl Rove, despite his involvement in a scandal over the leak of the identity of a CIA agent.

But Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan balked at answering key questions about the case, as some Democrats stepped up calls for Rove to be fired.

McClellan said the White House was asked to remain silent by prosecutors investigating who leaked the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, an act Plame's husband said was meant to discredit him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy in 2003.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the president's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the president's confidence," McClellan told reporters in answer to a question.

McClellan had previously refused to say whether Bush still had confidence in Rove.

The adviser, the architect of Bush's two presidential election wins, was reported earlier this week to have talked to at least one reporter about Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column in July 2003.

In September that year McClellan rejected as "ridiculous" any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak.

The key questions went unanswered by the White House for a second straight day. So far this week, McClellan has told reporters 23 times that he would not comment because of the "ongoing investigation."

The president also remained silent. In an Oval Office meeting with the prime minister of Singapore, Bush did not respond to a reporter's shouted question about whether he intended to dismiss Rove.

Bush had pledged to dismiss any leakers in the case, which is being investigated by a special prosecutor.

Plame's name was given to reporters and published in the media after her husband, U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, publicly questioned assertions by the Bush administration about Iraq's weapons programs, cited as a reason for the 2003 invasion.


REPUBLICANS RALLY ROUND

Several prominent Republicans rallied around Rove after some Democrats in Congress called for him to be fired. Democrats have also urged Bush to sideline Rove by suspending his access to classified information.

McClellan brushed aside the suggestion, saying: "There are a number of people at the White House that have various levels of security clearance and I'm confident that those individuals have the appropriate security clearance."

McClellan refused to discuss the issue in detail. "I don't want to do anything to jeopardize the investigation," he said. He added: "And just because I'm not commenting on a continuing investigation doesn't mean you should read anything into it beyond that."

The White House came under increasing pressure this week to explain Rove's role in the case after reports that Rove was one of the secret sources who spoke to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame and her husband. Rove's lawyer was quoted as saying his client did not mention Plame by name.

Faced with jail if he did not discuss his sources, Cooper agreed last week to testify in the investigation. New York Times reporter Judith Miller refused to testify about sources she spoke to on the story and was jailed.

"The White House's credibility is at issue here, and I believe very clearly that Karl Rove ought to be fired," said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, Bush's rival in the 2004 presidential election.

Joe Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "He should be fired first and prosecuted if he in fact leaked the name."

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Rove was a victim of a "political smear" by Kerry and other Democrats. "You're seeing a partisan smear by the other side," he said.

A top Senate Republican aide said, "I expect Rove to stay -- unless the special prosecutor steps forward and says he did violate the law."

Read More...

Democrats suggest Hispanics for Supreme Court

Reuters

Democrats suggest Hispanics for Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Democrats recommended to President Bush on Tuesday three Hispanic judges among potential Supreme Court nominees they view as able to win Senate confirmation without a partisan battle.

They include Judge Edward Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa of Texas, according to sources familiar with talks about a nominee between Bush and Democratic and Republican senators.

Their White House meeting was aimed at averting a drawn-out fight over a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing vote between the court's liberal and conservative wings.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who participated in the talks, declined to confirm the names offered at the meeting, but told reporters those mentioned could easily win Senate confirmation.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, without naming names floated at the meeting, said he planned to get back to the White House to recommend still another, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

"He's very, very smart," Reid told reporters.

Last month, Reid suggested that Bush consider four other Republicans senators -- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

Bush, who Reid said "didn't give us any names" of candidates he is considering, got suggestions from a number of people on Tuesday, even his wife.

First lady Laura Bush, on a trip to Africa, told NBC's "Today Show" that "I would really like for him to name another woman," a statement that caught the president a bit off guard.

"Listen, I get her advice all the time. I didn't realize she had put this advice in the press," Bush said.


FIRST HISPANIC

Bush is seen as interested in appointing the first Hispanic to the high court and is believed to be considering a personal friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Yet some conservatives have complained that Gonzales may not be conservative enough. Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, said he has requested an interview to "hear his overarching view of the Constitution."

Bush met at the White House with Reid and Leahy, along with Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Leahy is the top Democrat on that panel.

Bush heard out the lawmakers amid his review of the backgrounds and legal opinions of more than half a dozen potential candidates to the Supreme Court. He appears unlikely to make an announcement on his choice until the end of the month.

Criticized in the past for not consulting sufficiently with Congress, Bush said he asked the senators their opinions on who would be suitable for the high court, and how fast they could hold confirmation hearings so the new justice could start work when the court reconvenes in October.

DECISIVE VOTE

Democrats want Bush to appoint a moderate like O'Connor, who often cast the decisive vote on abortion and other contentious issues. Conservatives want Bush to use the opportunity to shift the court's majority firmly to the right.

"I feel comfortable and good that we're going to be able to have someone that is a consensus candidate," Reid said. But he added, "We have a long way to go."

Frist said he was concerned that "no amount of consultation will be sufficient for a few of our colleagues in this body," an apparent reference to Democrats.

"Co-nomination rather than consultation may be their ultimate goal," Frist said. "But that is not the way the system works, that is not the way the Constitution works."

Many of those mentioned as potential nominees are appeals court judges. Specter, Reid and Leahy said Bush should also consider some non-judges.

Read More...

US opposes UN Council reform plan

BBC NEWS
US opposes UN Council reform plan

The US has rejected a draft resolution by four countries asking for radical changes to the UN Security Council.

Brazil, Germany, Japan and India want to add 10 more seats to the 15-member Council, six of them permanent. These would go to the four states and Africa.

But Washington said 191 members of the UN General Assembly were too divided on the issue to vote for such a move.

"We urge you to oppose this resolution," top US State Department adviser Shirin Tahir-Kheli said.


"We will work with you to achieve enlargement of the Security Council, but only in the right way and at the right time," she said.

A vote on the proposal by the so-called Group of Four (G4) has not yet been scheduled.

The debate, which began on Monday, shows a majority in the General Assembly in favour of the resolution although not the required two-thirds majority needed for it to be passed.

Rival proposals

To come into effect, the G4's proposal also needs to be ratified by all existing permanent Council members.

At present, the US, the UK, France, Russia and China are the only permanent members of the UN body, with the power to veto. Ten other nations rotate in two-year terms.

Brazilian ambassador to the UN, Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg, said earlier the Council needed to become more balanced.

He said the realities of power had changed since 1945, when the UN was founded.

But critics argued that the G4 plan was a bid for power.

"The seekers of special privileges and power masquerade as the champions of the weak and disadvantaged," Pakistani UN ambassador Munir Akram said.

Pakistan backs a different plan from a group known as Uniting for Consensus, which proposes adding 10 new non-permanent members who would face re-election.

For its part, the African Union would like to see six new permanent seats - but the organisation wants them to have the veto, whereas the G4 has dropped this demand.

Washington is calling for two new permanent seats with no veto power, including one for Japan.

Sweeping reform

The BBC's Susannah Price at the UN says the debate has overshadowed other discussions on reform.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says he would like a decision on Council expansion before the UN summit of world leaders in September.

In March, he set out proposals for a number of sweeping reforms to the organisation, which he said were needed to meet "today's realities".

Other ideas include an agreed definition of terrorism, new guidelines for authorising military action and the streamlining of the General Assembly agenda.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4677545.stm

Read More...

Monday, July 11, 2005

News of the Week

huffingtonpost.com
Richard Valeriani: News of the Week

At the Olympics site vote in Singapore, France was represented by President Chirac, Great Britain by Tony Blair and the United States by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. This was the political equivalent of premature ejaculation. Hillary won't be head of government until 2009.

Chirac ridicules Brittish and Finnish food, says Britain's only contribution to the continent is mad cow disease. With Britain and Finland participating in the vote, favored Paris is not selected. Can you say foot-in-mouth disease in French?

New York Times reporter Judy Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal sources for a story she never wrote. Somewhere, Franz Kafka must be smiling.

Karl Rove appears to be the leaker in the case of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Reminds me of why I wanted to cover the Pope--so I could one day quote "an infallible source."

Arch conservatives rally to prevent AG Alberto Gonzalez from being named to the Supreme Court. Worried they won't be able to pronounce his name correctly?

At the G-8 Summit, the United States got everybody to agree not to take concrete steps against global warming. President Bush wants no reduction in the hot air emissions coming from his Administration.

Also at the Summit, Bush runs into a policeman while riding a bike. Bush unhurt. Policeman sent to hospital. Sounds like Bush's Iraq policy.


Chrysler is bringing back former company president Lee Iacocca to be a pitchman again, using the same slogan--"If you can find a better car, buy it!" Is this a good idea? Encouraging Chrysler customers to do more of what they obviously are already doing?

Fox anchorman Brit Hume reportedly reacted to the London bombings by thinking about buying stock market futures since the market had tanked. That's why he's on Fox.

ABC cancels reality show where offbeat couples compete to win a house by being judged by their would-be neighbors. The replacement show is rumored to be "Desperate TV Executives."

Roger Federer wins at Wimbledon. I thought you said this was news.

Read More...

No Surprise, New Terror Attack Quickly Is Grist of Politics

The New York Times

No Surprise, New Terror Attack Quickly Is Grist of Politics
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON — Just hours after last week's terrorist bombings in London, David Sirota, a liberal blogger, issued a missive titled "Iraq, London and America's Homeland Insecurity" - a pointed critique of President Bush's assertion that the United States is fighting terrorists overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan so that it does not have to face them at home.

"The awful bombing in London today," Mr. Sirota wrote, "shows just how silly, dangerous, short-sighted and truly dishonest this line of reasoning really is."

While Mr. Sirota was arguing that Mr. Bush had neglected homeland security at the expense of the war in Iraq, Representative Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, issued a statement with an entirely different take on the London attacks. "Today, we stand together in solidarity against terror," he said. "One day soon we will stand together in victory over it."

Terrorist attacks, as these divergent responses suggest, do not occur in a political vacuum. With recent polls showing a dip in public support for the way Mr. Bush is handling the war in Iraq - and to a lesser extent, the war on terror - and Congress returning Monday from a weeklong recess, the bombings in London are sure to have ripple effects for politicians on this side of the Atlantic.


Those effects may be felt in the Capitol as soon as Monday, when the Senate takes up a homeland security spending bill. Democrats are already arguing that the London bombings suggest a need for more spending on transit security.

The bombings are also altering the debate over American treatment of foreign detainees, and the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the broad anti-terrorism law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The House has already voted to strip the Patriot Act of a provision making it easier for investigators to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. The London bombings could force a rethinking of that move, as conservatives argue that it is essential to have strong laws protecting against terrorism.

"The London attacks, like the train bombings last year in Madrid, required a high degree of coordination and detail, suggesting a plot planned well in advance," wrote the editorial page of The Washington Times, the capital's conservative newspaper. "And yet here we are arguing whether to dismantle key provisions in the Patriot Act. Our hope is that July 7 will return Washington to the focus it had following September 11. If they can hit them there, they can hit us here."

If any politician benefits from the attacks, in the short term, Democrats and Republicans agree, it will be President Bush, who won election partly because Americans felt he would do a better job of protecting them against terrorism than his Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Despite Mr. Sirota's critique, elected Democrats are unlikely to cite the London bombings to fault the White House right now, for fear of seeming craven in the aftermath of a tragedy.

Republicans, meanwhile, say the bombings will only serve to remind Americans why they returned the president to the White House. "From the standpoint of who do you trust to keep you safe and secure, I think the American people, by and large, know that this president doesn't cow to terrorists," said Scott Howell, a Republican media consultant, adding, "Safety and security jumps right back up in people's minds when an event like this occurs."

Polls show that Mr. Bush's posture against terrorism remains his primary strength. A CNN/Gallup poll, released late last month, found that while Mr. Bush's approval rating on the war in Iraq was 40 percent, his approval rating on handling terrorism was 55 percent.

Still, Mr. Bush's numbers appear to have slipped over time. A survey in May by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found 57 percent approved of the way Mr. Bush was handling the war on terror, down from 62 percent in January. On Iraq, 37 percent approved, down from 45 percent in January.

Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster, said the numbers suggest a growing sense of unease that will increase over the long term. "Rather than being made to feel more safe and secure," Mr. Schoen said, "what I suspect will happen is that people will come to believe that we are facing a grave challenge that, however well meaning, the president has not successfully confronted."

Democrats will try to make that point in the context of the rail security debate this week.

"This shows that we have to fight a two-front war on terror," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "One is a war overseas - whatever people's opinion is on that - but the other is a war on terror here at home. I think there is a general feeling and consensus that the administration is not paying attention to the second front."

That consensus, though, does not extend to Republicans, and certainly not the White House. In the prepared text of his radio address for Saturday, Mr. Bush said federal, state and local officials "are doing everything possible" to prevent another attack. As to the criticism raised by Mr. Sirota, Mr. Bush was not backing down. "We will stay on the offense," the president's text read, "fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home."

Read More...

Why Dems Must Find the Guts to Ask the Big National Sercurity Questions

huffingtonpost.com
David Sirota
Why Dems Must Find the Guts to Ask the Big National Sercurity Questions

When I got back from Flathead Lake this Sunday and fired up my computer, a friend had emailed me this piece from the New York Times' Week in Review section [see above] that discusses the political/security implications of the horrible terrorist bombing in London. There are two particularly troubling dynamics laid out in the story: First, Democrats seem as yet unwilling to give voice to the very serious concerns these attacks raise about America's current national security policy. Second, Republicans seem willing to brazenly use this awful tragedy in an effort to pump up President Bush's poll numbers. The result will leave America far less safe than we should be.

The story leads off by quoting a blog entry I did about how the attacks call into question President Bush's whole argument that the war in Iraq means that there is a smaller terrorist threat on America's homeland. The blog post also questioned why, in the wake of 9/11, the President opted to spend more than $300 billion on a war in Iraq, while underfunding homeland security?

These are, of course, legitimate and important questions, especially as our country and England move forward in trying to prevent future attacks. Unfortunately, the Times piece says "elected Democrats are unlikely to cite the London bombings to fault the White House" right now on its national security policy, for fear of seeming too political. That is sad, and frightening.

It should be obvious that questions about misguided national security decisions after a tragic attack aren't political at all - they are substantive and absolutely necessary to securing this country and our allies. If, after an attack, there is no opposition party willing to ask very relevant questions about whether our country is making the right security decisions, how can we ever expect any changes in policy that might make us more safe and might prevent future attacks?

This Democratic cowering, which I wrote about on Friday, is coming at the very same time Republicans are doing everything they can to once again politicize national security, just as they did before the 2002 and 2004 elections. As the Times notes, GOP operatives are out there saying "the bombings will only serve to remind Americans why they returned the president to the White House." This willingness to exploit a tragedy is being legitimated by the likes of Brit Hume and others on Fox News. The right-wing knows that in the absence of Democrats asking serious substantive questions, they can try to turn the horrible tragedy in London into a brazen political opportunity for President Bush, without so much of a peep of criticism, and without anyone asking the substantive national security questions that these attacks raise.


It is true that the Times piece mentions that Democrats are going to raise questions about the Bush administration's negligent underfunding of transit security here in America - and those questions will be a positive step.

But in light of this attack and the Bush administration's CIA director admitting the Iraq War is helping the terrorists, Democrats need to start fundamentally challenging this administration on its entire national security strategy - not just nipping around the edges, and not retreating in fear as they have recently.

This is important not because of any political ramifications for Democrats, but because it is good policy. An America without an opposition party challenging those in power to re-evaluate a clearly dangerous and failing national security strategy is an America that is not doing its best to secure its homefront. And that should be unacceptable to all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Read More...

Russert Watch: You Can Lead Tim to the Truth, but You Can't Make Him Drink It

huffingtonpost.com
Arianna Huffington
Russert Watch: You Can Lead Tim to the Truth, but You Can't Make Him Drink It

Coming in the wake of the London bombings, today’s Meet the Press was a lot about resource allocation. Specifically, given the resources at our disposal, are we using them in the best way so as to maximize our safety?

The answer is clearly no. And part of the reason this looks unlikely to change is because of the resource allocation decisions of shows like Meet the Press.

Tim’s first guest today was Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Good guest to have on if you want to talk seriously about, say, our homeland security. But that’s not what Tim wanted. Instead, he decided to allocate a lot of his scarce 60 minutes' worth of resources to parlor game questions.

Chertoff came armed with the latest Bush-approved talking points, all designed to evade the obvious contradictions in how the administration is allocating our resources in the name of national security. And each time a pre-approved talking point came up, Tim was relentless -- in completely ignoring it and moving onto the parlor game question. The one he most favored today was: Do you think there will be another major attack on the United States?

He asked it three times.

And, of course, everybody basically said yes. But what’s the point of this question? Is anybody going to say no?

How about devoting more time to asking more questions about how to prevent a possible attack and holding Chertoff accountable for the huge holes and contradictions in the administration's homeland security strategy.

The biggest contradiction involves resource allocation. The president loves to conflate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. But when it comes to resources, there is a Chinese wall between the two wars.

Russert asked Chertoff about a passage from America the Vulnerable (by Stephen Flynn, who was the show's next guest): "The president's 2006 budget request asked for just $600 million for safeguarding all of the nation's seaports, mass transit systems, railways, bridges, tunnels and energy facilities. This is roughly what U.S. taxpayers are spending every three days on the war in Iraq."

Chertoff's response focused on the need "to be risk-based in our funding. We have got to move away from the idea of earmarking money for predetermined categories. And we've got to be able to use the money in a way that is nimble and responsive to the actual threats out there."

But shouldn't the next question have been: Why isn't Iraq part of the 'risk-based' pie -- except when Bush cynically refers to it as the latest battleground in the war on terror to justify why we're there?

Instead, Russert completely bought Chertoff's conveniently narrow definition and followed up with: "Risk-based, meaning locations like New York and Washington, which are higher risk than states like Utah or other places?"

Thanks, Tim. I’m sure Chertoff breathed a sigh of relief. But that wasn't Tim’s last chance to call Chertoff on this dangerous distortion. A few minutes later, Secretary Chertoff was at it again:

CHERTOFF: And as I say, we're going to welcome additional resources, but I want to just remind people, you know, everything's a tradeoff. We don't want to move money, for example, from ports into rail because then we're going to have an issue with ports.

Yes, exactly! It’s a tradeoff. One of the reasons we don’t have enough money to protect our ports and our railways is because of the tens of billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq. That’s the massive trade-off Russert failed to bring up.


Chertoff effectively claimed that the national security budget is a zero-sum game -- but only domestically. The use of the term "tradeoff" offered Russert the perfect opening to challenge this. But instead, he took it as the perfect time to get back to the parlor game:

RUSSERT: Here's another Gallup question: "Would you favor or oppose metal detectors in American public transportation?" Sixty-nine percent of Americans say metal detectors. Twenty-nine percent oppose. Is it workable to have a metal detector for buses and subways and railway cars?

Opinion polls and metal detectors -- what a perfect way to let Chertoff off the hook!

On to Stephen Flynn, who has referred to the state of the Coast Guard as a "Third World Navy." Flynn gave Russert yet another chance to raise the obvious point about resource allocation:

FLYNN: These are young men and women who are risking their lives . . . to safeguard our lives given the inevitability of these attacks. . . . The cost of basically upgrading the Coast Guard's ability -- and we're talking ships that are 30-plus years old that are breaking down routinely on patrol -- is about the cost of a new DDX Destroyer. . . . In terms of not getting a balance between national security and homeland security, we're not even close yet.

Flynn has just led Russert 90 percent of the way there. But Tim is stubborn. You’re not gonna trick this guy into the truth. He escapes at the last second, asking Flynn: "Based on everything you have learned and know, do you believe that there will be another major catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States?"

So you can lead Tim to the truth, but you can’t make him drink it. And where was he a few seconds earlier, when Flynn referred to "the inevitability of these attacks"?

In the second half of the show, the guests were Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer. Schumer mouthed the conventional wisdom about reaching a proper ratio of funding for Utah, Wyoming and New York. And of course Russert completely missed the opportunity to ask him and Hatch: How about a proper ratio of funding between Iraq and the homeland? How about the right ratio between combatting Al Qaeda at home and combatting Sunni insurgents in Iraq?

And when Hatch said of Chertoff that "we'll follow whatever he says," Russert failed to ask whether Sen. Hatch's understanding of the constitutional oversight that the Senate is charged with is to follow whatever the executive branch is saying. If that’s the case, why not just fold the Senate committees charged with oversight of Chertoff and give the money to our underfunded homeland security instead?

But instead of catching Hatch's surrender of authority to the executive branch -- after all, Tim surrendered his journalistic oversight long ago -- there he was, right back to the parlor game: "Justice William Rehnquist, the chief justice -- do you expect him to resign?"

After Hatch hemmed and hawed, lest the conversation go onto something meaningful, Russert came back with: "But your sense is this year he will retire."

With all due respect to Senator Hatch: who cares what his “sense” about this is? Why not just ask what the Senator’s “sense” is about when Hurricane Dennis will hit? Or his “sense” of who will win the American League East this year?

But that wasn’t even Tim’s silliest use of his airtime today. That came when he played up Tony Perkins's (the head of the Family Research Council) statement that Schumer "should recuse himself from the confirmation process" because he was overheard on his cell phone talking about "going to war" over the Supreme Court nomination. "I'm sort of flattered that Tony Perkins and others would say I should recuse myself," said Schumer, "but it's sort of silly."

RUSSERT: But you won't.

SCHUMER: I will not.

So Russert really thought that this was a question worth asking? If he did, I have a question for him: Tim, given that Russert Watch has shown you to be a complete suck-up to power and the conventional wisdom, again and again failing to ask questions and follow-ups that hold our politicians accountable, will you recuse yourself from hosting Meet the Press?

Looking forward to your answer.

Read More...

What a Difference a Year Makes

huffingtonpost.com
Harry Shearer
What a Difference a Year Makes

John Tierney's Saturday NYT column was a brave attempt to deflate the hysteria that surrounds US terrorism coverage. What caught my eye was this section, near the bottom, natch:

"I think that we'd be better off reconsidering our definition of victory in the war on terror. Calling it a war makes it sound like a national fight against a mighty enemy threatening our society.

But right now the terrorists look more like a small group of loosely organized killers who are less like an army than like lightning bolts -- scary but rarely fatal."

The lyrics are new, but the melody is faintly familiar. Wasn't that the gist of what John Kerry was saying in the very same newspaper's Magazine last October?


Don't get me wrong, Kerry was a horrible candidate whose explanation for his tardy response to the Swift Boat attacks -- basically, "I wanted to respond right away, but my staff wouldn't let me" -- tells you everything you need to know about his campaign, and his character.

But if "nuisance" is such a horrible way to want to regard terrorism, how come the conservatives aren't sharpening the knives for John "lightning bolt" Tierney?

===

The column referred to in the above article:

The New York Times
July 9, 2005
When Fear Stalks, Tune Out
By JOHN TIERNEY

Tony Blair was as eloquent as ever when he faced the press at the G-8 summit meeting yesterday, but what was most impressive was what he didn't say. After uttering three sentences of gratitude to the other leaders for their support after the London attacks, he dropped the subject of terror.

Instead of giving murderers publicity on worldwide television, he talked about poverty in Africa and global warming. When a reporter tried to distract him by asking what "went wrong" in London, he said it was the terrorists' fault and went right back to the business of the G-8.

The prime minister was a blessed relief after the talking heads in America the past two days. As politicians vowed to win the war on terror and get more money for their districts in the process, security officials sent SWAT teams to protect commuters and divined that the terrorist threat was now orange instead of yellow (whatever that means).

Television and print editors rushed to assign what is known in the business as the "Fear Stalks" story, as in, "We need a 'Fear Stalks Suburban Bus Riders.' " The commuters' alarm was shared by local experts. South Dakota's homeland security officials were reported to be "monitoring the situation closely."

I don't mean to minimize the bloodshed in London. I lived in New York in 2001 and later in Baghdad during months of car bombings. But I got the most useful lessons about terrorism when I moved to suburban Maryland just in time for the snipers to begin their famous spree near my home in 2002.

I could have written a "Fear Stalks" story about myself as I walked home from the subway the evening after the spree began. I was more tense than I had ever been in New York or Baghdad.

The assurances that the police were on the case meant nothing because there was obviously no way to stop one guy with a rifle from shooting me that evening.

That's the same situation we're in after the London attacks: it's clear that no one can stop terrorists from killing. Spending billions on airport security has simply diverted them to transit systems, and spending billions on transit systems could at best divert them somewhere else: stores, restaurants, sidewalks. Terrorists don't even need bombs. They could simply adopt the snipers' technique for spreading fear.

President Bush briefly admitted last summer to Matt Lauer that the war on terror couldn't ever be won, but he got so much criticism that he promptly backtracked. It was a textbook Washington gaffe: perfectly true but terribly inconvenient.

It was inconvenient because politicians like to promise a cure for any problem in the news, especially if the cure means dispensing money to constituents and campaign contributors.

Promises to halt terror have turned homeland security spending into the biggest porkfest in Washington, and the London attacks have inspired calls for still more spending.

Washington obviously has a role in hunting terrorists and protecting the borders, but it can't stop small-scale attacks like the ones in London, no matter how much money it gives to each Congressional district.

If subway riders like me in Washington and New York want to pay for better security in the hope that terrorists will attack someone else instead, we should pay for it ourselves.

But I think that we'd be better off reconsidering our definition of victory in the war on terror. Calling it a war makes it sound like a national fight against a mighty enemy threatening our society.

But right now the terrorists look more like a small group of loosely organized killers who are less like an army than like lightning bolts - scary but rarely fatal. Except that the risk of being struck by lightning is much higher than the risk of being killed by a terrorist.

It may seem coldblooded to think in probabilities after a tragedy, but contemplating those odds made my walks home a lot easier during the snipers' spree. The other strategy that helped was turning off the television whenever the police and the politicians held press conferences detailing everything they were doing to protect the public.

Occasionally one of those officials urged people to keep their perspective and go on with life, but there was no one quite like Tony Blair. Instead of promising security at home, he discussed problems overseas that he could do something about. Instead of talking about the need for Britons to move on, he moved on.

E-mail: tierney@nytimes.com

Read More...

Sunday, July 10, 2005

10 States Bear Over 50% of US Casualties in Iraq

US Casualties in Iraq by State, as of July 9, 2005

Top 10

California: 191
Texas: 162
New York: 83
Pennsylvania: 82
Florida: 73
Illinois: 72
Ohio: 69
Virginia: 53
Michigan: 52
Louisiana: 45

Total for these 10 states: 882
Total US Caualties: 1753
Percentage of total US casualties from these 10 States: 50.3%



Source (plus some calculation):

The Iraq Coalition Casualties website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/



Read More...

We're there why?





We're there why?

Read More...

Announcing . . .





Announcing . . .

Read More...

Bush Gets Orders From The Right





Bush Gets Orders From The Right

Read More...

George, What's Your Idea?





George, What's Your Idea?

Read More...

Feds want 'don't ask, don't tell' challenge dismissed

USA TODAY

Feds want 'don't ask, don't tell' challenge dismissed

BOSTON (AP) — A federal prosecutor urged a judge Friday to dismiss a legal challenge to the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members, arguing that only Congress can change it.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan said the rule, passed in a bipartisan vote in 1993, was debated extensively before being approved by Congress and signed by President Clinton.

"To say the case should be dismissed is not to say the debate on Congressional policy ends," Quinlivan said, noting there is pending legislation to repeal the law. "It is only to say it should be returned to the branch of government where it should be appropriately decided."

But a lawyer for the 12 former service members dismissed from the military for being gay said the deference courts traditionally give lawmakers on military matters isn't required when constitutional rights are being violated.

"Don't ask, don't tell" denies gay service members their rights to privacy, free speech and equal protection under the law, attorney Stuart Delery said.


The plaintiffs argue that the matter should be revisited in light of a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law. That ruling extended a right to privacy to consensual adult sexual relationships. Quinlivan, however, says the Texas case is irrelevant to a rule that has no criminal penalty and is unique to military life.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy forbids the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members. But it requires the discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity if the person can't prove he or she is unlikely to engage in homosexual behavior again.

U.S. District Judge George O'Toole did not immediately rule on the government's request.

Plaintiff Megan Dresch, 22, of Phoenix, was discharged from the Army in September 2002, six months after she told an officer she was a lesbian.

"This is my country and I want to serve," Dresch said. "I want to be able to go out and defend the freedom that I enjoy so much."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-08-lawsuit-militarygays_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Bush's judges already making their mark

USA TODAY

Bush's judges already making their mark

WASHINGTON (AP) — No need to wait until President Bush appoints a Supreme Court justice to see how he will make his mark on the federal judiciary. One level down, dozens of conservative appeals court judges appointed by Bush already are helping to shape the law in ways that ultimately could have as much, and in some ways even more, impact than the nine justices of the nation's highest court.

Since Bush's appellate judges have only gradually taken their seats on benches around the country, and the cases that they draw run the gamut, it's still early to chart their impact on specific issues. But already it is clear that these judges make up a solidly conservative crowd that tends to lean Bush's way on the big issues of the day.

So far, Bush's appointees to the appeals court are showing patterns very close to judges of his Republican predecessors in ideologically contested cases, according to law professor Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago, where the Chicago Judges Project is tracking the federal judiciary.



"There's no discernible rightward shift by the Bush appointees compared to the Reagan and Bush I appointees," said Sunstein. Still, he rejected Bush's contention that the president looks solely for judges — and Supreme Court justices — who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than parsing their views on hot issues such as abortion.

"There may be no litmus test, but the president will appoint someone who is in the conservative mold," said Sunstein. "When the president talks about strict construction, everyone knows what he's talking about."

Because appeals courts rule on thousands of cases each year, compared to only about 75 a year decided by the Supreme Court, the impact of Bush's appellate judges could be far-reaching.

"There's a tremendous amount of space for circuit judges to interpret Supreme Court decisions," said Frank Cross, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. For example, he said, they have considerable latitude in interpreting the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

And according to NARAL Pro-Choice America, appeals court judges appointed by President Reagan and the two Bushes have been four times more likely to issue "anti-choice rulings" than judges appointed by other presidents.

On another matter, two of Bush's nominees to the D.C. Circuit are poised to have significant impact on a pair of cases involving challenges to the U.S. military's detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas B. Griffith, both just placed on the bench last month, were picked at random to sit on a three-judge panel that will hear the cases this fall.

Overall, in his four-plus years in office, Bush has pushed a Republican-leaning federal judiciary farther to the right with more than 200 appointments to appellate and district courts.

His district court appointees have been "dramatically conservative but not off the board — not so bizarre that the other judges wouldn't know them or speak to them," said Robert A. Carp, a political scientist at the University of Houston who has studied the federal judiciary extensively. Bush's district appointees stand out as particularly conservative on civil liberties cases such as abortion, freedom of speech and gay rights, Carp found.

On these matters, Bush's district judgeships were rated 28% liberal in Carp's study. That put them well to the right of jurists appointed by Presidents Nixon, at 38%, and Ford, at 40%, and slightly to the right of Reagan and the first President Bush, both of whom were rated 32% liberal.

By the end of his second term, Bush could eclipse Presidents Clinton and Reagan in the number of judges selected — and leave an ideological imprint on the courts for generations to come.

Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625. While many of the Bush appointees are replacing jurists named by previous Republican presidents, toward the end of his term Bush could have more opportunities to replace some of the Clinton judges, which would have even greater impact.

The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

Interest groups on the left and right, predictably, have alternately cast Bush's judicial appointees as either ideological extremists or principled jurists untainted by politics.

People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, titled its 2004 study of Bush's judicial appointees "Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears." It concluded that Bush appointees already have moved to limit significantly congressional authority and protection of individual rights.

"For many, many of the nominees in the lower courts, the Bush administration has been decidedly pushing toward judges with a pretty firm right-wing ideology," said Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director.

On the other end of the ideological spectrum, conservative groups have credited Bush for selecting judges who "adhere to an apolitical, non-results-oriented way of reading the law," in the words of Sean Rushton of the conservative Committee for Justice. Liberals, Rushton said, look at judges' rulings "through the lens of results rather than asking is it good law."

Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said that when it comes to the courts, Bush "gets it" in a way that even his father and Reagan did not. His nominees "understand the problems with the way the Constitution has been interpreted and will go about fixing that in their own decisions," she said.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2005-07-10-bush-new-judges_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

U.S. forces release American held in Iraq

Reuters

U.S. forces release American held in Iraq

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Iraq said they had freed an American citizen on Sunday whom they had been holding as a suspected insurgent.

[Besides the brief information in this article, more detailed information can be found in other articles posted earlier today on this subject.]


Iranian-born filmmaker Cyrus Kar was detained by Iraqi troops in May after a search of the taxi he was being driven in uncovered washing machine timers, a common component in improvised bombs, the military added in a statement.

The Pentagon disclosed last week they were holding five U.S. citizens, apparently including the Los Angeles-based U.S. Navy veteran Kar, among more than 10,000 detainees in Iraq.

Kar's relatives told U.S. newspapers that he had gone to Iraq in mid-May to work on a documentary. He was arrested when he was stopped in a taxi in Baghdad by Iraqi security forces.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California had said it had filed a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf.

"Kar was detained as an imperative security threat to Iraq under the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546," the military said on Sunday.

He was freed after an FBI investigation, which helped determine he was not an "enemy combatant."

"This case highlights the effectiveness of our detainee review process," Brigadier General Don Alston, a U.S. military spokesman, said in the statement. "We followed well established procedures and Mr. Kar has now been properly released."

Kar's cameraman was also released while the taxi driver was still in custody.

Alston said: "We understand this has been difficult for Mr. Kar and his family. However, we owe the coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians a thorough investigation."

Read More...

Democrats seek court nominee with 'big heart'

Reuters

Democrats seek court nominee with 'big heart'

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid urged President Bush on Saturday to say "no to the far right" and nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court someone who will rule with "an open mind and a big heart."

"We need an independent thinker who will follow the Constitution, not a knee-jerk conservative crusader who will march in lock-step to the tune of partisan pressure groups," Reid of Nevada said in his party's weekly radio address.

Bush intends to confer on Tuesday with Reid and other key Senate Democratic and Republican lawmakers as he moves toward naming a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor before the nation's highest court meets for its new term in October.

With the ideological balance of the court at stake, special-interest groups from the right and left have begun multimillion-dollar campaigns that will seek to shape public opinion and thus Senate votes on Bush's nominee.

A simply majority will be needed in the 100-member Republican-led Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, but 60 votes would be required to clear a procedural roadblock known as a filibuster that Democrats could raise.


The announced resignation of O'Connor on July 1 cleared the way for Bush to make his first nomination to the nine-member Supreme Court, and there is widespread speculation that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist may soon also step down.

With one and possibly two nominations, the conservative president will have an opportunity to shape the nation's highest court. And he and his aides are getting ready by reviewing a list of potential candidates and creating a team for the Senate confirmation process.

"On many important questions, Sandra Day O'Connor has been the deciding vote in favor of moderation and in defense of our basic rights," Reid said in his radio address.

"I hope that President Bush and the Senate can work together to nominate and confirm ... someone with enough common sense to know that Supreme Court justices should not impose a narrow partisan ideology, but make rulings with an open mind and a big heart."

Reid urged Bush to select "a mainstream justice who won't use their judicial robe as a cloak to impose their political ideology on the country."

"That's what (President) Ronald Reagan did (in 1981) when he chose Sandra Day O'Connor," Reid said. "Both parties cheered the decision. That can happen again if President Bush says 'no' to the far-right and instead follows in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan to choose a Supreme Court justice who will unite the country."

Former Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, a skilled communicator, will serve as "the public advocate on behalf of Bush's nominee," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday. "He will coordinate our efforts."

Read More...

Governor Bush gives up pursuit of Schiavo case

Reuters

Governor Bush gives up pursuit of Schiavo case

By Michael Peltier

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has dropped his pursuit of an investigation into the 1990 collapse of Terri Schiavo after a prosecutor said there was no indication of foul play that led to her irrevocable brain damage.

Bush, who worked hard to keep Schiavo on a feeding tube before her March 31 death, had ordered the probe after an autopsy confirmed she had been in the persistent vegetative state.

Gov. Bush, brother of President Bush and a devout Catholic convert, said there were indications of a 40- to 70-minute gap between the time Michael Schiavo discovered his wife after she collapsed 15 years ago and the time he called for medical assistance.

But Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, who conducted the probe, wrote Bush on June 30 that there were explanations "far more likely and logical than any involving criminal wrongdoing" surrounding Schiavo's collapse.

In a reply to McCabe dated July 7, Bush said he would stop the investigation. "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed," Bush wrote. The letter was distributed on Friday.

Schiavo died of dehydration 13 days after her feeding tube was removed. She was 41.

Her death came after years of legal battles between Michael Schiavo and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, over whether to remove the sustenance that was keeping her alive.

The Schindlers' cause was joined by the Vatican and by conservative U.S. politicians, anti-abortion campaigners and pro-life groups.

The autopsy conducted after Schiavo's death did not find what caused her heart to stop and starve her brain of oxygen. At the time of her death, her brain was half the size of a normal brain.


McCabe based his recommendations to Gov. Bush on a report by investigators that found that there was no indication of culpability and that Michael Schiavo's actions following her collapse appeared consistent with a distraught spouse trying to save his wife's life.

"Without proof of criminal agency, there can be no hope of prosecution," the investigators concluded.

Read More...

Missing people sought after bombs

BBC NEWS
Missing people sought after bombs

Relatives and friends of those missing since the London bomb attacks are continuing their desperate searches.

The Scotland Yard casualty hotline on 0870 156 6344 has received more than 120,000 calls.

A 24-hour Family Assistance Centre has opened at the Queen Mother Sports Centre on Vauxhall Bridge Road, near Victoria station in London.

Police have confirmed that 49 people died in the four blasts, 700 were injured and at least 25 are missing.

The reception centre opened in central London on Saturday afternoon to assist those still looking for friends and family members and for them to provide additional information to aid identification of the missing and dead.


It is staffed by social services, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and WRVS to give practical and emotional support to concerned friends and relatives.

Posters have appeared around the capital and people searching for news have gone to the four blast sites, displaying photos of the missing.

Nearly 60 family liaison officers have been allocated to the relatives of some of the missing and dead throughout the UK.

Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said those who had been killed and injured included people from Australia, China, Portugal, Poland and Sierra Leone.

Hospital search

The families and friends of those missing have been going to hospitals, hoping doctors and nurses would recognise their pictures.

BBC News correspondent Jane Hughes reported that there are only a couple of people being treated at the Royal London Hospital who have not been identified.

She said that fewer people are now making "the awful pilgrimage from one hospital to another" in their search for loved ones.

The family and friends of Laura Webb, 29, have looked for her at various hospitals.

Her brother David Webb, 38, said: "We are very upset about her disappearance, and all the options go through your mind."

Her boyfriend, Chris Driver, 28, said she would have taken a train from King's Cross to the Paddington area.

For relatives of Martine Wright, 32, who is thought to have been on a Liverpool Street to Aldgate Train at about 0900 BST, the search paid off when she was located in a London hospital, although in a critical condition.

But for many others the agony of not knowing goes on.

Yvonne Nash, 30, of Enfield, north London, fears partner Jamie Gordon, 30, was killed by the bomb that destroyed a bus in Tavistock Square.

"I just have to find him. I have to know what happened. You cannot sleep, cannot eat when you are that worried about somebody," she said.

Nazmul Hasan, 25, was trying to find his niece Akhter Islam, 20, from Plaistow, east London, saying she was on the Circle line going through Liverpool Street at the time of the blasts.

"Her mother and father have fallen to pieces over this," he said.

Meanwhile Trevor Ellery, from Southampton, Hampshire, has travelled to London with his 19-year-old son Timothy and their local vicar in a bid to find his son Richard.

Richard had texted his parents at 0830 BST on Thursday as he travelled from Ipswich into Liverpool Street Station on his way to work Kensington.

I just hope that everyone is praying for her wellbeing and that she will return home in good health
Shamsul Hasan, Shahara's father

In a statement the family said: "We have tried all means of getting in touch with Richard and would welcome news from anyone who may have seen him or knows where he is."

Friends' bid

And friends of Anthony Fatayi-William have been searching hospitals since he disappeared on his way to work in central London.

He is thought to have tried to make his way to work by bus after delays on the Northern Line prevented him getting to his job near Liverpool Street station.

His friend Amrit Walia said: "We understand the police have a job to, but it is agonising to sit and wait, which is all they have advised us to do."

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell has been put in charge of government support for the families of victims of the London bombings.

Mrs Jowell, who was made responsible for supporting British victims of the September 11 attacks and the Asian tsunami, has already liaised with the Metropolitan Police and voluntary agencies as part of her role.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said people were desperately trying to help.

Meanwhile floral tributes have been laid at King's Cross station, where at least 21 people have lost their lives.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4666679.stm

Read More...

Police appeal for bombing footage

BBC NEWS
Police appeal for bombing footage

Police are appealing to the public to hand over mobile phone images, video footage or photographs taken after Thursday's bomb attacks on London.

They believe the footage could provide vital clues as the search for bodies and forensic evidence continues.

As prayers were said for the 49 killed and 700 injured, police insisted "London is open for business".

Three people were arrested at Heathrow Airport under anti-terror laws, but no link to the attacks has been made.

Scotland Yard has set up a special e-mail address images@met.police.uk for the public to send their footage.


Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said: "We believe these images could contain vital information to assist us in the investigation."

He spoke as police revealed 1,700 people had already contacted the anti-terrorist hotline since Thursday's bombings.

Mr Paddick said some of the calls were "proving to be very, very valuable".

As for the police hunt for the perpetrators, Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter said: "Forces from across the country and the world are united in the effort to catch these murderers."

Meanwhile a number of bodies have been removed from the Russell Square site, but more could be found as officers work through the train, Scotland Yard said.

"We hope and pray that they don't find any more under there," said Andy Trotter, Deputy Chief Constable of the British Transport Police.

'Challenging and demanding'

It is an evil that cannot be justified and that we utterly condemn and reject
Sheikh Dr Zaki Badawi
Forensic teams are continuing their search of the sites of the three underground bombs and Tavistock Square where a bomb tore apart a bus.

Referring to the Russell Square blast site, Mr Trotter said: "Because of the difficult circumstances it is a slow painstaking and methodical task."

Despite tube closures around the affected lines and road closures around Tavistock Square, police said most transport would be working normally on Monday and urged people to return to work.

Responding to claims by former Metropolitan Police chief Sir John Stevens the bombers were "almost certainly" British, Mr Paddick said no lines of inquiry had been ruled out.

Lord Stevens had said the attackers would not "fit the caricature al-Qaeda fanatic from some backward village in Algeria or Afghanistan".

Earlier on Sunday religious leaders issued a statement condemning the bomb attacks.

Sheikh Dr Zaki Badawi, head of the Council of Mosques and Imams, said the assault was "totally contrary to Islam".

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said: "It is a huge fallacy to suppose that one community is somehow more intrinsically prone to violence or outrage than any another."


EMERGENCY NUMBERS
Anti-terrorist hotline: 0800 789 321
Missing relatives: 0870 156 6344

A service at St Pancras parish church, held near King's Cross underground station where at least 21 people died and Tavistock Square where 13 people were killed by the bus bomb, was attended by hundreds of people.

Father Paul Hawkins said: "This will only make us more determined to live in peace and respect each other and we can all play our part in that."

Meanwhile, it is understood the UK's threat assessment has been returned to its highest level, having been lowered soon after the general election.

Overnight, up to 20,000 people were evacuated from Birmingham city centre following what West Midlands Chief Constable Paul Scott Lee called "a real and very credible threat". The area has now been fully re-opened

Other developments:

* A two-minute silence will be held at noon on Thursday to remember the victims
* A national memorial to the victims could be built, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell has said
* Hospitals are treating 65 victims, 15 of whom are in intensive care or described as "critical"
* More than 100 London schools are to reopen on Monday
* Passengers on public transport in London have been warned it is "intolerable" to leave unattended packages or parcels
* British Transport Police has dealt with 22 malicious bomb threats and 150 reports of suspect packages since the attacks
* A reception centre has been opened at the Queen Mother Sports Centre in Victoria, to help the families of people not seen since the explosions
* An emergency call centre has taken more than 120,000 calls.

Blasts occurred:
Between Aldgate and Liverpool Street tube stations
Between King's Cross and Russell Square tube stations
At Edgware Road tube station
On bus at Tavistock Square

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/4668675.stm

Read More...

Family sues to gain freedom of Los Angeles filmmaker detained in Iraq by U.S. military

Two articles on this subject follow.
-----

Family sues to gain freedom of Los Angeles filmmaker detained in Iraq by U.S. military

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ Associated Press Writer

(AP)—LOS ANGELES—Cyrus Kar’s family says his passion for a documentary film he was mak­ing about an ancient Persian ruler brought him to Iraq in May. Potential bomb parts found inside a taxi hired by the filmmaker have kept him there, locked up in a U.S. military jail outside Baghdad.

Now relatives of the 44-year-old Iranian-American have sued the U.S. government to gain his freedom. They contend his detention tramples his constitutional rights, and that FBI officials have cleared him of suspicion.

“I’m here to beg President Bush. . .to release an innocent boy,” Kar’s aunt, Parvin Modar­ress, said at a news conference Wednesday to announce the filing of the lawsuit in Washington, D.C. “He went to Iraq to do his dream work, to make a documentary.”

Born in Iran, Kar became as thoroughly immersed in American culture as any native-born citizen after immigrating here as a child, according to his family. The Los Angeles resident serv­ed in the Navy for several years. He studied marketing at San Jose State University, business at Pepperdine University, and worked in the computer industry during Silicon Valley’s tech boom.

And several years ago Kar decided to try his hand at filmmaking. With help from inde­pendent director-producer Philippe Diaz, he began working on a documentary about Cyrus the Great, a Persian king during the 500s B.C. He interviewed experts and scholars and shot up to 60 hours of footage at archaeological sites in Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan, according to his family and Diaz.

Diaz, chairman of the Los Angeles studio Cinema Libre, said Kar had spent close to $90,­000 in savings and loans so far to shoot the film. The studio had paid about $10,000 and planned to put up another $100,000 or more in post-production.

Diaz thought Kar’s detention was a mistake. A staunch supporter of the Iraq war, Kar was far more right of center than many left leaning colleagues and relatives, Diaz said. “It was always a joke because Cyrus is much more conservative,” Diaz said. “He always believed in everything which is American.”

Among Kar’s final tasks was shooting in and around the ancient city of Babylon, one of Cy­rus the Great’s conquests.

On May 17, officials and family say, he was traveling with an Iranian filmmaker after leaving a Baghdad hotel when their taxi was stopped at a checkpoint. Iraqi security forces allegedly seized several dozen washing machine timers found in the taxi—components fre­quently used in terrorist bombs.

“I think most people would agree that’s somewhat suspicious,” said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner. “All of the facts need to be thoroughly questioned. . . . These are life and death situations, and when it comes to issues of security you need to be extremely cautious.”

Kar’s relatives say that FBI agents searched his home and that Agent John D. Wilson in Los Angeles told them weeks ago that Kar’s story had checked out. The agent allegedly told the family that Kar had passed a polygraph test, been cleared of any charges, and that the washing machine timers belonged to the taxi driver, who was transporting them to a friend.


FBI spokeswoman Cathy Viray declined to comment.

Kar is among five Americans detained for suspected insurgent activity by the U.S. military in Iraq, according to his family and government officials. Others include three Iraqi-Americans and a Jordanian-American.

Incarcerated at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad International Airport, Kar spoke several times with his family during monitored 10-minute conversations. He sounded tired in the first call in May, irate in the second. He was frustrated that the military could hold him, saying “they had all the power,” according to his family.

When his aunt asked why he was detained, Kar said, “It’s because of the taxi driver,” when an eavesdropping American official told him not to discuss the case.

“I’m hurt by our government,” said Kar’s cousin Shahrzad Folger. “I’m hurt that they would do this to one of their own citizens, to one of their veterans.”

==============

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-captive6jul06,0,5027890.story?coll=la-home-headlines

July 6, 2005

U.S. Holds Filmmaker in Iraq

Family drafts suit to free L.A. man working on a Cyrus the Great project. Pentagon plans hearing to determine if director is a security threat.

By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer

Cyrus Kar’s family says he left his Los Feliz apartment for Iraq to make a documentary film about a Persian king who wrote the world’s first charter of human rights. But now they fear he may never get home.

On May 17, Kar was stopped at a Baghdad checkpoint in a taxi allegedly packed with a common component for improvised explosive devices, according to a Defense Department spokesman. Since then, he has been in U.S. military detention outside Baghdad.

Kar’s family says the detention is a mistake. Kar, 44, a U.S. citizen and Navy veteran who was born in Iran and came here during his childhood, is a patriotic American who supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, they said Tuesday. He has not been charged with a crime, the Defense Department spokesman confirmed.

“A search of the vehicle the men were traveling in revealed a large number of washing ma­chine timers, a device frequently used to make improvised explosive devices,” said the Pentagon spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Pentagon official said Kar would have a hearing to determine “whether he is a security threat, involved in the insurgency, has committed a crime or is found innocent after a thorough investigation…. In that environment, where you have frequent suicide bombings and frequent improvised explosive devices going off, one can understand the need to be extremely cautious any time you come across anyone with components that could be used to make IEDS.”

Kar’s relatives say they cannot understand why authorities won’t let him go, because they say Los Angeles FBI Agent John D. Wilson told them weeks ago that Kar’s story had checked out, that he had passed a government polygraph test and that he had been cleared of any charges. They say Wilson told them that the cameraman and the taxi driver also had been cleared.

During an interview Tuesday, Kar’s aunt, Parvin Modarress, and his cousin Shahrzad Folger played a voicemail they said Wilson left at their home weeks ago. On it the voice says Kar is “in custody. He’s fine. It’s just that we’re trying to get his release. . . . Be patient.”

Wilson acknowledged in a brief telephone conversation Tuesday that he had met with the women but said he could not speak further. Cathy Viray, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles FBI office, said she could not comment on the matter.

Today, the frustrated relatives, who say they have not been able to get answers from any U.S. government agency, plan to file a federal lawsuit in Washington challenging Kar’s contin­ued confinement in Iraq.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and other civil liberties lawyers are representing Kar, Modarress and Folger against President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Maj. William H. Brandenburg, overseer of military detention operations in Baghdad.

Mark D. Rosenbaum, the ACLU’s Southern California legal director, said the suit seeks Kar’s release on a writ of habeas corpus, the legal vehicle used in this country since its inception to seek release of an individual illegally confined by authorities.

“Mr. Kar is now imprisoned by the United States military in Iraq without the slightest hint of legal authority,” Rosenbaum said. “His arbitrary military detention is unaccompanied by any charge, any warrant, any writ or any process. So far as either the civilian or the military court sys­tem is concerned, Mr. Kar has simply disappeared into detention without a trace.”

According to a draft of the lawsuit, Kar has lived in the U.S. since he was 9. He attended high school in San Jose, served in the U.S. Navy for years, eventually attaining the rank of petty officer third class. He attended San Jose State, where he received an undergraduate degree in marketing, worked in the computer industry in Silicon Valley and in the mid-1900s received a master’s degree in technology management from Pepperdine University. He occasionally taught business courses for an online university.

About three years ago, Kar became interested in the history of ancient Persia, particularly the story of King Cyrus the Great, founder of Persia. He went to Iraq, over his family’s objections, to film near Baghdad. He also filmed in Iran, Tajikistan, Turkey and Afghanistan and consulted with scholars.

David Stronach, professor of Near Eastern archeology at UC Berkeley, has signed a sworn declaration to be filed with the lawsuit, stating that he has known Kar for more than two years and has “assisted him in making his documentary” about Cyrus the Great, whom he described as “one of history’s most extraordinary figures.”
Stronach said Cyrus “is mentioned many times in the Bible, not least because he liberated the captive Jewish community in Babylon—an event that allowed the Jews to return to Jeru­sa­lem, rebuild the temple, and arguably, provide the conditions that permitted the birth of Chris­tianity.

Both articles originally published July 6, 2005

Read More...