Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Tracking W's war on terror

New York Daily News
Tracking W's war on terror
Insiders debate author's account of Al Qaeda hunt
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The severed head brought here on a Learjet in 2002 supposedly belonged to Al Qaeda's No.2, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Afghan tribesmen hoping to collect $25 million said the prayer callous on the forehead was proof of Zawahiri's identity.

President Bush even joked that he hoped agents would show him the skull, according to the new book, "The One Percent Doctrine."

But DNA tests proved that it wasn't the hoped-for victory against terrorists, just a mud-covered head of some hapless Afghan. It was quietly shipped off to an FBI warehouse on Staten Island.

Author Ron Suskind's account of Bush's war on terror has added to the catalogue of exasperating dead ends, suspects that turned out to be ghosts, and scrambles to thwart crank threats in the murky war on terror.

The book also has sparked debate among shadow warriors about incidents Suskind reveals, such as the 2003 plot to pump cyanide gas into New York City subways.

Few top U.S. counterterrorism officials knew about the plot and many deny Suskind's claim that a panicky Bush White House sent "alerts through the government."

One reason for the lack of alarm was that soon after discovering Al Qaeda blueprints for a homemade cyanide sprayer, the feds learned Zawahiri had nixed the plot because "it wasn't big enough," a former CIA official told the Daily News.

The device was also an unreliable weapon of mass destruction. "Cyanide is sexy, but difficult to weaponize," a senior counterterrorism official said.

The cyanide plot demonstrates that Al Qaeda also goes down a lot of dead ends, but the U.S. often responded to rumors of plots by mobilizing its agents or with unnerving public alerts.

"They have fantasies of poisoning a water supply. You can't imagine how difficult that would be. Did they fantasize about a cyanide attack? Most likely," the counterterrorism official said.

Al Qaeda, while lethal, is like a think tank concocting countless ways to kill Americans - yet few ideas go "operational," which became plain once top terrorists were captured and interrogated after 9/11.

"There was frequently a blurred distinction between reality and myth because a lot of Al Qaeda 'ideas' were simply that - ideas," said an official who monitored interrogations.

Some ideas that reached the planning stage - like a plan to cut the Brooklyn Bridge's suspension cables - often seem absurdly difficult to pull off. One official said, "The difference between planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a cable cutter and doing it is a distance of considerable imagination."

Suskind also claims terrorist Abu Zubaydah, caught in 2002, was built up by the Bush administration as a top Al Qaeda planner. In actuality, Suskind claims, Zubaydah was a midlevel associate who was quite insane and fed the CIA bogus plots.

But sources with direct knowledge of his interrogation insist Zubaydah was lucid and difficult to crack.

"He was tough and smart," said an agency veteran.

Sources concede Zubaydah knew about ideas, but not operations and fed the CIA disinformation. But he eventually revealed Al Qaeda's interest in a nuclear bomb and gassing subways.

Read More...

Lieberman Plans Independent Bid if Primary Fails

The New York Times
Lieberman Plans Independent Bid if Primary Fails
By WILLIAM YARDLEY

HARTFORD, July 3 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said on Monday that he would run as an independent Democratic candidate if he loses the state Democratic primary next month. The announcement by Mr. Lieberman, a political moderate and longtime party leader seeking his fourth term, underscores the increasing vulnerability he feels over his support for the Iraq war.

Reacting to a strong challenge from Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman and political newcomer who has criticized him for supporting President Bush on the war and other issues, Senator Lieberman said that he would begin gathering the 7,500 petition signatures necessary to put his name on the ballot should he lose the primary on Aug. 8.

He said that even if elected as a petition candidate, he would remain "a proud Democrat" and would caucus with other Democratic senators. Still, the prospect that Mr. Lieberman may challenge his own party's nominee is a startling turn for the senator, who has spent his entire three decades in politics within the Democratic Party and ran as its vice-presidential nominee in 2000 alongside Al Gore.

The senator's announcement signaled his growing concern over Mr. Lamont's candidacy. Left-leaning Internet bloggers have marked Mr. Lieberman for defeat, drawing national attention and money for Mr. Lamont — and posing a difficult choice for Democratic leaders, who have vigorously backed Mr. Lieberman.

But Mr. Lieberman's move also reflected his apparent belief, hinted at in his remarks and borne out by polls, that his popularity with independents and Republicans would make him a strong challenger in the fall if Mr. Lamont were to win the primary.

"While I believe that I will win the Aug. 8 primary, I know that there are no guarantees in elections," Mr. Lieberman said at a brief news conference at the State Capitol with his wife, Hadassah, beside him. The results, he said, could be skewed by a low turnout in a sultry August, or a last-minute media barrage by his opponent, who has already spent more than $1 million on his campaign.

"My friends," the senator said, "after 18 years of working for, fighting for and delivering for all the people of Connecticut, I want the opportunity to put my case before all the people of Connecticut in November."

For months, Senator Lieberman, 64, has refused to rule out an independent run as his support in the party waned. Mr. Lamont, who announced his candidacy in March, won a surprising one-third of the votes at the party's state convention in May; a June 8 Quinnipiac University poll found him drawing to within 15 percentage points of the senator among likely primary voters.

Senator Lieberman's decision to announce that he would gather signatures was determined in part by the tight election calendar this year: Petitions must be submitted by 4 p.m. on Aug. 9, just a day after the primary.

Mr. Lamont's campaign seized on the announcement as evidence that Senator Lieberman was both vulnerable in the primary and disloyal to his party.

"If he wants to run as a Democrat then run as a Democrat — stop trying to game the system," Mr. Lamont said in a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Meriden. "I don't see why he needs the extra insurance policy."

He added, "I think he is trying to have it both ways, and on an awful lot of important issues over the last 18 years, he's tried to have it both ways."

Mr. Lamont, 52, said he was confident that Democratic voters would remain loyal to the winner of the August primary and that if Mr. Lieberman were to run as an independent candidate he would only split the Republican vote.

Still, Senator Lieberman so far has the public support of every prominent elected Democrat in the state, and he said that many had promised to redouble their support in a round of phone calls he made to state and national party leaders on Monday morning.

He remains ahead in primary polls, although his lead has steadily slipped, according to Quinnipiac's polls. He led 55 percent to 40 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in the June poll, and his lead was wider, 57 to 32, among all registered Democrats. But a month earlier, a poll showed a spread of 65 to 19 among all Democrats.

If the senator loses in August, he will be in a three-way race in November, facing Mr. Lamont and the Republican nominee, Alan Schlesinger, a relatively little-known former state representative.

The June poll showed that Senator Lieberman had a higher approval rating among Republicans and independents, the state's largest voting bloc, than he did among Democrats. And in a potential three-way race, with Mr. Lieberman running as an independent, the poll showed the senator winning 56 percent of the vote, compared with 18 percent for Mr. Lamont and 8 percent for Mr. Schlesinger.

Some Democrats said on Monday that Mr. Lieberman would damage his standing with Democratic voters, and perhaps others, by effectively saying he would ignore the primary results if he lost.

"He's going for two bites at the apple," said George Jepsen, the immediate past chairman of the State Democratic Party, who recently endorsed Mr. Lamont. "It violates people's fundamental sense of fairness."

But in his announcement, Senator Lieberman described the primary as an incomplete reflection of voter will, hinting that he feared a strong turnout from the impassioned supporters of Mr. Lamont.

"If 30 percent of the Democrats come out and vote, that's about 210,000 people," Mr. Lieberman said. "That means 105,000 plus one will win the primary. There's 2 million voters, registered voters, in the state of Connecticut. That would mean that 5 percent of the registered voters would have the opportunity to decide whether I continue to be Connecticut's senator or not."

Democratic Party leaders said they supported the senator in the primary, but would not say much more.

"We aren't going to speculate about what happens next because that would undermine our candidate," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Nancy DiNardo, the current chairwoman of the state party, said that she supported Senator Lieberman, the party's endorsed candidate, but that in the general election she would back whoever won the primary.

One longtime supporter of Mr. Lieberman said on Monday that the senator should have announced his petition bid weeks ago.

"I think he never should have played with the unelectable lefties to begin with," said John F. Droney, who was chairman of the state party in 1988, when Senator Lieberman won his seat by upsetting Lowell P. Weicker Jr., the three-term Republican incumbent. "The thought of having your fate decided by 5 percent of voters is absurd."

Senator Lieberman and Mr. Lamont are to have their first debate on Thursday. Mr. Lieberman has portrayed his rival as a rich man trying to buy a Senate seat and running on only one issue, the war.

Mr. Lamont, however, says the senator's support for the war is simply the most egregious of his betrayals of the Democratic Party. Mr. Lamont has accused Mr. Lieberman of failing to push for universal health care, of supporting privatizing some aspects of Social Security, and of backing school vouchers and other plans Democrats frequently oppose.

Mr. Weicker, who helped galvanize opposition against the senator in December when he said he would consider running for his old Senate seat, said Monday that Senator Lieberman was putting his personal interests above those of his party.

"We all know that the business of politics is that we make decisions and then we're held accountable for those decisions," said Mr. Weicker, who left the Republican Party and was elected governor in 1990 as an independent. "Now Mr. Lieberman's being held accountable and he doesn't like it."

Jennifer Medina contributed reporting for this article.





Read More...

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Anti-war protesters begin July 4 fast

Reuters
Anti-war protesters begin July 4 fast
By Amanda Beck

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About 150 protesters sat in front of the White House on Monday to savor their last meal before starting a hunger strike that some said will continue until American troops return from Iraq.

The demonstration marking the Independence Day holiday was organized by CodePink, a women's anti-war group that called on volunteers to abstain from eating for 24 hours from midnight on Monday.

Some protesters said their fast would continue beyond July 4th.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, said she would drink only water throughout the summer, which she said she would spend outside President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

"This war is a crime," Sheehan told a crowd of clapping, cheering protesters. "We represent millions of Americans who withdraw their support from this government."

The demonstrators crouched in the muggy evening next to a piece of pink plastic, spread down the road as a table and table-cloth in one. It was covered with wilted pink sunflowers and plates of vegetarian curry, white rice, and beans.

The demonstration aimed at highlighting the costs of the war, in which more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died, said CodePink spokeswoman Meredith Dearborn.

"We have to put our own lives on the line, and I'm willing to do that," said activist Diane Wilson, who pledged to fast until the United States withdraws from Iraq.

Dearborn said 2,700 other activists nationwide, including actors Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, would work as a relay team passing the fast daily from one to another.




Read More...

Monday, July 03, 2006

Britons tire of cruel, vulgar US: poll

Yahoo!News
Britons tire of cruel, vulgar US: poll

People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.

The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll in The Daily Telegraph.

The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is "a beacon of hope for the world".

As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.

A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.

US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a "great leader" against 77 percent who deemed him a "pretty poor" or "terrible" leader.

More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world tion. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.

US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.

A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.

"We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still izing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders," the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.

"With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.

"But frankly, so do you (the British press)."

In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) ted by big business.


Read More...

Supreme Court ruling reminds voters of Republican administration's desire to ignore the law

Yahoo! News
Supreme Court ruling troubles GOP senators
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

Of all the steps the Supreme Court could have taken to undercut President Bush's legal position in the war on terror, applying international law to al-Qaida probably would have been the worst.

That development came to pass Thursday and now Republicans are rushing to protect the cornerstone of Bush's thinking: Suspected terrorists are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Accords.

Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham said Sunday that Congress must address the Supreme Court ruling embracing Article 3 of the conventions in the military commission case of Osama bin Laden's former driver.

Article 3 prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, "in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," and bars violence, including murder, mutilation and torture.

In an election year, declaring that international law governs the war on terror reminds voters of some of the Republican administration's lowest moments: controversies over Justice Department "torture" memos and allegations of abuse against detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

McConnell, R-Ky., the second-ranking GOP leader in the Senate, said the 5-3 court decision "means that American servicemen potentially could be accused of war crimes."

"I think Congress is going to want to deal with that," McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He called the ruling "very disturbing."

The Geneva Conventions' Article 3 is "far beyond our domestic law when it comes to terrorism, and Congress can rein it in, and I think we should," said Graham, R-S.C., assigned as a Reserve Judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Graham spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., also expressed concern about the decision, saying it "is somewhat of a departure, in my view, of people who are stateless terrorists." McCain appeared on ABC's "This Week."

McConnell wants Congress to deal with the Geneva Accords issue at the same time it addresses the court's overturning of the military commissions created to try a limited number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Addressing the commission issue, McCain and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Congress might devise broader changes than the White House wants in trials of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

As a starting point for debate, McCain said Congress should embrace the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the bedrock of military law protecting the rights of accused soldiers. The Bush administration has skirted the code for nearly five years in dealing with Guantanamo Bay prisoners it has classified as enemy combatants.

Specter said "we have to reconcile" what the Bush administration thinks it can do and what the Supreme Court decision says. Specter spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Many Republicans in Congress say detainees in the war on terror should not have the same legal protections as those in the military. Congress, they say, should give its imprimatur with little or no change to the Pentagon's military commissions.

McCain agreed that justice afforded to enemy combatants "shouldn't be exactly the same as applied to a member of the military." He added, however, that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is "a good framework."

The Supreme Court said Bush's military commissions violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

Under military commission rules, the court noted, such panels may block an accused and his civilian lawyer from ever learning of evidence the prosecution presents that is classified. In addition, commissions can permit the admission of any evidence it deems to have probative value to a reasonable person.


Read More...

Sunday, July 02, 2006

"I'm The Decider!"

Read More...

Constitutional Limits

Read More...

There are certain things Nixon doesn't do!

Read More...

Extinguished

Read More...

Time To Rededicate Ourselves To Independence

Read More...

Not Giving Away My Inheritance, Is He?

Read More...

Free Market Health Care

Read More...

Red Cross laptop with donor data — including Social Security numbers and medical information — stolen

USA TODAY
Red Cross laptop with donor data stolen

DALLAS (AP) — A laptop containing personal information from thousands of blood donors — including Social Security numbers and medical information — was stolen from a local office of the American Red Cross, but officials said the information was encrypted.

The data included matching names and birth dates of donors from Texas and Oklahoma, as well as donors' sexual and disease histories.

"We haven't viewed this as a security breach at this point," Darren Irby, spokesman for the national American Red Cross office, told The Dallas Morning News for its Saturday editions.

The laptop was one of three stolen from a locked closet in the Farmers Branch office of the American Red Cross in May, but the two others did not contain the personal information. There was no sign of forced entry, said Red Cross spokeswoman Audrey Lundy.

Local officials alerted police and national Red Cross offices, Lundy said. Donors were not notified about the missing information, and the Red Cross had no legal obligation to do so.

The laptops disappeared on two separate occasions in May, according to police reports. They could have been gone as long as a week before being reported missing.

Gordon Bass, acting chief information security officer for the national Red Cross, said supervisors have their own user names and passwords. Access is time-and-date based, so information can be accessed only during blood drives or when new information is uploaded to a central database.

The Farmers Branch Red Cross also lost a laptop with encrypted donor information in June 2005, Lundy said, but she could provide no details on circumstances of that incident or any follow-up investigation.

Security in the Farmers Branch office was tightened after the most recent disappearances, Lundy said.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-01-redcross-laptop_x.htm?csp=34





Read More...

Publishing "Secrets" : June 30, 1971 US Supreme Court abolished the government's power to censor the press

The New York Times
When Do We Publish a Secret?
By DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times

SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents. Each of us has, on a number of occasions, withheld information because we were convinced that publishing it could put lives at risk. On other occasions, each of us has decided to publish classified information over strong objections from our government.

Last week our newspapers disclosed a secret Bush administration program to monitor international banking transactions. We did so after appeals from senior administration officials to hold the story. Our reports — like earlier press disclosures of secret measures to combat terrorism — revived an emotional national debate, featuring angry calls of "treason" and proposals that journalists be jailed along with much genuine concern and confusion about the role of the press in times like these.

We are rivals. Our newspapers compete on a hundred fronts every day. We apply the principles of journalism individually as editors of independent newspapers. We agree, however, on some basics about the immense responsibility the press has been given by the inventors of the country.

Make no mistake, journalists have a large and personal stake in the country's security. We live and work in cities that have been tragically marked as terrorist targets. Reporters and photographers from both our papers braved the collapsing towers to convey the horror to the world.

We have correspondents today alongside troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others risk their lives in a quest to understand the terrorist threat; Daniel Pearl of The Wall Street Journal was murdered on such a mission. We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism.

But the virulent hatred espoused by terrorists, judging by their literature, is directed not just against our people and our buildings. It is also aimed at our values, at our freedoms and at our faith in the self-government of an informed electorate. If the freedom of the press makes some Americans uneasy, it is anathema to the ideologists of terror.

Thirty-five years ago yesterday [June 30], in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people."

As that sliver of judicial history reminds us, the conflict between the government's passion for secrecy and the press's drive to reveal is not of recent origin. This did not begin with the Bush administration, although the polarization of the electorate and the daunting challenge of terrorism have made the tension between press and government as clamorous as at any time since Justice Black wrote.

Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.

In recent years our papers have brought you a great deal of information the White House never intended for you to know — classified secrets about the questionable intelligence that led the country to war in Iraq, about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the transfer of suspects to countries that are not squeamish about using torture, about eavesdropping without warrants.

As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of The Washington Post, asked recently in the pages of that newspaper: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?"

Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat.

How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?

Sometimes the judgments are easy. Our reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, take great care not to divulge operational intelligence in their news reports, knowing that in this wired age it could be seen and used by insurgents.

Often the judgments are painfully hard. In those cases, we cool our competitive jets and begin an intensive deliberative process.

The process begins with reporting. Sensitive stories do not fall into our hands. They may begin with a tip from a source who has a grievance or a guilty conscience, but those tips are just the beginning of long, painstaking work. Reporters operate without security clearances, without subpoena powers, without spy technology. They work, rather, with sources who may be scared, who may know only part of the story, who may have their own agendas that need to be discovered and taken into account. We double-check and triple-check. We seek out sources with different points of view. We challenge our sources when contradictory information emerges.

Then we listen. No article on a classified program gets published until the responsible officials have been given a fair opportunity to comment. And if they want to argue that publication represents a danger to national security, we put things on hold and give them a respectful hearing. Often, we agree to participate in off-the-record conversations with officials, so they can make their case without fear of spilling more secrets onto our front pages.

Finally, we weigh the merits of publishing against the risks of publishing. There is no magic formula, no neat metric for either the public's interest or the dangers of publishing sensitive information. We make our best judgment.

When we come down in favor of publishing, of course, everyone hears about it. Few people are aware when we decide to hold an article. But each of us, in the past few years, has had the experience of withholding or delaying articles when the administration convinced us that the risk of publication outweighed the benefits. Probably the most discussed instance was The New York Times's decision to hold its article on telephone eavesdropping for more than a year, until editors felt that further reporting had whittled away the administration's case for secrecy.

But there are other examples. The New York Times has held articles that, if published, might have jeopardized efforts to protect vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material, and articles about highly sensitive counterterrorism initiatives that are still in operation. In April, The Los Angeles Times withheld information about American espionage and surveillance activities in Afghanistan discovered on computer drives purchased by reporters in an Afghan bazaar.

It is not always a matter of publishing an article or killing it. Sometimes we deal with the security concerns by editing out gratuitous detail that lends little to public understanding but might be useful to the targets of surveillance. The Washington Post, at the administration's request, agreed not to name the specific countries that had secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons, deeming that information not essential for American readers. The New York Times, in its article on National Security Agency eavesdropping, left out some technical details.

Even the banking articles, which the president and vice president have condemned, did not dwell on the operational or technical aspects of the program, but on its sweep, the questions about its legal basis and the issues of oversight.

We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.

— DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times






Read More...

GOP Seeks Advantage In legal defeat Ruling On Trials; National Security Is Likely Rallying Cry, Leaders Indicate

washingtonpost.com
GOP Seeks Advantage In Ruling On Trials
National Security Is Likely Rallying Cry, Leaders Indicate
By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers

Republicans yesterday looked to wrest a political victory from a legal defeat in the Supreme Court, serving notice to Democrats that they must back President Bush on how to try suspects at Guantanamo Bay or risk being branded as weak on terrorism.

In striking down the military commissions Bush sought for trials of suspected members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the high court Thursday invited Congress to establish new rules and put the issue prominently before the public four months before the midterm elections. As the White House and lawmakers weighed next steps, House GOP leaders signaled they are ready to use this week's turn of events as a political weapon.

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's comment Thursday that the court decision "affirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." That statement, Boehner said, amounted to Pelosi's advocating "special privileges for terrorists."

Similar views ricocheted around conservative talk radio -- Rush Limbaugh called Pelosi's comments "deranged" on his show Thursday -- and Republican strategists said they believed that the decision presented Bush a chance to put Democrats on the spot while uniting a Republican coalition that lately has been splintered on immigration, spending and other issues.

"It would be good politics to have a debate about this if Democrats are going to argue for additional rights for terrorists," said Terry Nelson, a prominent GOP political strategist who was political director for Bush's reelection campaign in 2004.

Mindful of this thinking, Democrats were measured in their comments about how to respond to the ruling, which held that Bush's policy was not authorized by law and violated the Geneva Conventions.

Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman, said Democrats "want to work with" the administration in fashioning new rules for terrorism suspects, and he dismissed Boehner's comments as a sign of desperation. "[Bush] is not a king -- he has to follow the law," Daly said. "That's all we're saying."

Democrats seemed to gain some support from a few Senate Republicans, who said politics should not dictate how Congress responds to the Supreme Court. "This should not be a party fight," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). "I'm a proud Republican senator, but my nation needs both parties working in collaboration with the executive branch to solve the military commission problem, and both parties will be rewarded by the public if we're seen as working for the common good."

The issue is not without complexity for Republicans. A Washington Post-ABC poll this week suggested that while Americans continue to favor holding suspects at the U.S. military installation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, they are leery of an administration policy that has resulted in almost all of the 450 detainees being held without charges. Of those polled, 71 percent said the detainees should be either given POW status or charged with a crime.

In many respects, the Guantanamo Bay facility has become an albatross for the Bush administration since its creation in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a prison for terrorism suspects picked up in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Bush signed an executive order in November 2001 establishing military commissions to try the inmates, but the process has been in a legal limbo and no suspect has gone through a full trial.

Meanwhile, the United States has attracted intense international criticism for holding the detainees in limbo, and Bush has said repeatedly that he wants to close the prison.

Some lawmakers want Congress to endorse a plan to have the commissions operate by the rules of a regular court-martial, which would give the detainees more rights than they would have under the current commission structure. But administration lawyers have been concerned that it would be difficult to win convictions under that scenario, in large measure because the standard of proof would be higher.

White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the administration is reviewing how to respond to the court.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is still being debated internally, seemed to hint at the potential political implications in Congress. "Members of both parties will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform," this official said.

The House and Senate Armed Services committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee have called for hearings as soon as Congress returns from the week-long Fourth of July break.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday outlined his plan to conduct military tribunals in a manner consistent with the court's decision.

Under the Specter bill, a three-judge panel of military lawyers would preside. Defendants would be present in court with their lawyers, who would be granted the right to gather evidence, cross-examine witnesses and review classified information after it had been reviewed by a judge. Defendants would be granted the right to appeal verdicts to a court of military appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

"I would suggest that the rhetoric be cooled at least long enough for people to read the opinion," Specter said of the Supreme Court decision. "We're going to have to dot all the i's and cross all the t's on this legislation to make sure it passes muster."

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), a key figure on detainee policy, noted that the court pointedly ruled that military tribunals had to comport with the Geneva Conventions, so any effort to simply grant Bush the power he wants would not pass the scrutiny of the court. If Republicans ignore the court's prescription, military lawyers would be quick to speak out, granting Democrats political cover, he predicted.

"That kind of excess, I think, backfires," Levin said of the House Republican broadsides. "The American public has too much common sense to put much stock in that kind of diatribe. Americans respect the Supreme Court."

But some GOP allies said they suspect that the decision will help energize a Republican base that has been angry at some Bush policies. Tom Liddy, a conservative talk show host in Phoenix, said that the decision has been a big topic on his show and that it could be another terrorism issue that works to the GOP's advantage.

Liddy noted that House Republicans pushed through a resolution Thursday, over Democratic objections, criticizing the news media for publishing classified information about a secret anti-terrorism program that monitors bank transactions.

"It will be worse for the Democrats to be seen as favoring the terrorists than favoring the New York Times," Liddy said.



Read More...

Secrecy, Security, the President and the Press

The New York Times
The Public Editor
Secrecy, Security, the President and the Press
By BYRON CALAME

THE Bush administration's unusually harsh attacks on The New York Times for exposing a secret banking-data surveillance program have turned a glaring spotlight on the paper's decision to publish the article.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Republican legislators have singled out The Times in recent days for disclosing the counterterrorism program, even though The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal published articles the same day. Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky called on the attorney general to investigate The New York Times for treason.

The flood of reader e-mails reacting to the June 23 article has left hundreds of messages in various newsroom in-boxes at The Times. Roughly 1,000 e-mails have come to me, about 85 percent of them critical of the decision to publish the story and a large fraction venomous. It was time to take a close look at the handling of the article in search of answers.

My close look convinced me that Bill Keller, the executive editor, was correct in deciding that Times readers deserved to read about the banking-data surveillance program. And the growing indications that this and other financial monitoring operations were hardly a secret to the terrorist world minimizes the possibility that the article made America less safe.

The banking-data surveillance program, set up in 2001, is run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department. It provided access to records of transactions routed through a Belgian consortium by banks and financial institutions around the world. More than 11 million transactions involving about $6 trillion are routed daily through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift.

So what were the most solid reasons to publish the story?

There was a significant question as to how secret the program was after five years. "Hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," Mr. Keller said he was told by an official who talked to him on condition of anonymity. The 25 bankers from numerous nations on the Swift board of directors, and their predecessors going back to 2001, knew about the arrangement. So did some consortium executives and staff members — a group that probably expanded during this period. Starting in 2003, Swift representatives had to be stationed alongside any government intelligence official searching the data.

Further support for the conclusion that the Swift program hasn't remained totally hidden from terrorists, or anyone else, emerged last week. A former State Department official who has served on a United Nations counterterrorism group pointed to a 2002 United Nations report noting that the United States was monitoring international financial transactions. Swift and similar organizations were mentioned in the publicly available report, although there were no details. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions," the report noted.

The Times's June 23 article "awoke the general public" to the Swift program and "in that sense, it was truly new news," Victor Comras, the former State Department official, wrote on The Counterterrorism Blog last week. "But," he added, "the information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002."

The administration has sometimes invited press attention to its effort to track terrorist financing. In September 2003, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and a team of his aides took reporters from The Times and other papers on a six-day tour on a military aircraft "to show off the department's efforts," Mr. Keller and Dean Baquet, the editor of The Los Angeles Times, noted in a joint Op-Ed commentary that appeared yesterday. The aides "discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat," according to the two editors.

Another reason Times editors were right to proceed with the 3,550-word Swift story was the skimpy Congressional oversight of the program. Secrecy is vital for intelligence and national security programs, but so is oversight by the courts or elected legislators. The Swift program, however, doesn't seem to have any specific Congressional approval or formal authorization. The Treasury Department has not provided a list of who in Congress was informed, or when, The Times has reported.

Eric Lichtblau, one of the two reporters who wrote the Swift story, told me the administration briefed a limited number of Congressional leaders — apparently from both parties, but not the full intelligence or banking committees — toward the beginning of the program. It wasn't until the Treasury Department learned that The Times was working on the story, Mr. Lichtblau said, that the administration apparently briefed all members of the intelligence committees. Whether there are official standards established for the Swift program or not, the weak Congressional oversight over the past five years deserved public scrutiny.

Temporary emergency measures cloaked in government secrecy can too easily become permanent shortcuts. That's why oversight is important. It is also a reason to publish the article. The reservations expressed by some of the 20 current and former government officials and industry executives who were disturbed enough to talk to The Times were based on this concern: "What they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization," in the words of the article.

The most fundamental reason for publishing the article, of course, was the obligation of a free press to monitor government and other powerful institutions in our society. "Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate," Mr. Keller wrote in a letter to readers posted online last weekend, "and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough." He added:

"The question we start with as journalists is not 'why publish?' but 'why would we withhold information of significance?' We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so."

What about the administration's reasons for demanding that The Times not publish?

Mr. Keller said the "central argument" senior officials gave against publishing the Swift article was that international bankers would stop cooperating. In his weekend letter, he cited two reasons that argument didn't stop him from publishing the story: First, the consortium provides data to comply with administrative subpoenas issued by the Treasury Department — a legal obligation. "Second, if, as the administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it." So far, Swift hasn't publicly indicated any intention to stop cooperating.

For me, the most substantial argument against running the story was the acknowledgment that the Swift program was letter-of-the-law legal, had helped catch some terrorists and had a clean record on privacy abuse. But full-bore oversight would have had to be part of that picture to make a convincing case that the program deserved to continue in secrecy, with its access to Swift's mother lode of financial data.

Often obscured in the past week's hot rhetoric over The Times's decision to publish the Swift article were the occasions when the paper's editors have chosen to hold or modify a story when warned by government officials that lives or national security might be endangered. "Few people are aware when we decide to hold an article," noted Mr. Keller and Mr. Baquet in their joint commentary. Apart from The Times's decision to hold the December story about the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping for more than a year, it turns out the paper has decided not to publish stories that "might have jeopardized efforts to protect vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material," according to the joint commentary. The Times has also held stories about "highly sensitive counterterrorism initiatives that are still in operation," the Op-Ed piece noted.

"There is no magic formula, no neat metric for either the public's interest or the dangers of publishing sensitive information," the two editors concluded. "We make our best judgment."

The best judgment of these two editors served their readers well in the case of the Swift story. In the face of intense administration pressure in a country that's unusually polarized politically, they correctly decided to make sure their readers were informed about the banking-data surveillance.





Read More...

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Florida Terror Suspects Had No Explosives and Few Contacts

washingtonpost.com
Terror Suspects Had No Explosives and Few Contacts
Sears Tower Plan Never Finished, Authorities Say
By Peter Whoriskey and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers

MIAMI, June 23 -- Federal authorities announced charges here Friday against seven men they described as "a homegrown terrorist cell" that planned to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower and other buildings. But officials conceded that the group never had contact with al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups and had not acquired any explosives.

The group, which operated from a small, warehouse-like building in Miami's impoverished Liberty City neighborhood, adhered to a vague and militant Islamic ideology, claimed the U.S. government had no authority over it, and was led by a charismatic Haitian American named Narseal Batiste, according to officials and the four-count indictment. All but one of the members were citizens or legal residents of the United States.

The case underscores the murkiness that has been common to many of the government's terrorism-related prosecutions since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, cases that often hinge on ill-formed plots or debatable connections to terrorism. It is also the latest in a series of FBI-run stings involving informants or government agents who pose as terrorists to build a case.

The indictment, which charges the men with seeking support from al-Qaeda to wage a "ground war" on the United States, is based primarily on Batiste's interactions with an unidentified government informant who posed as an al-Qaeda "representative" and discussed plans for bombings and assaults on the Sears Tower, the FBI office in Miami and other targets. Batiste and the six others also allegedly swore an oath of loyalty to al-Qaeda during meetings with the informant, according to the charges.

"On or about December 16, 2005, Narseal Batiste provided the 'al Qaeda representative' (actually the FBI informant) with a list of materials and equipment needed in order to wage jihad, which list included boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios and vehicles," the indictment said. The indictment said the group's aim was to " 'kill all the devils we can' in a mission that would 'be just as good or greater than 9/11.' "

But officials said the plot never progressed beyond the early planning stages and the group had no known contact with al-Qaeda. Batiste allegedly recorded video of the U.S. courthouse and other federal buildings in Miami as part of a casing operation, but the camera was provided by the government informant, the indictment said.

Deputy FBI Director John S. Pistole said at a news conference in Washington that the talk of attacking the 110-story Sears Tower -- the tallest building in the United States -- was "aspirational rather than operational." He said none of the men appeared on U.S. terrorism watch lists.

But Pistole and other U.S. officials said aggressive policing and early arrests were necessary to ensure that potential terrorist attacks -- no matter how improbable they may seem -- are thwarted. Prosecutors say that the group's alleged actions, including the video recordings and the requests for weapons and explosives, amounted to overt acts that can be prosecuted under federal anti-terrorism laws.

"Our philosophy is that we try to identify plots in the earliest stages possible, because we don't know what we don't know about a terrorism plot, and that once we have sufficient information to move forward with the prosecution, that's what we do," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said at the Washington news conference.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads the Washington office of the Rand Corp., said that the Miami plot appears to be "embryonic at best" but that "amateur terrorists can kill as effectively as the professional kind."

"It seems clear that their ambitions were serious; what's not clear is whether they had any real capabilities to pull it off," Hoffman said. "This is the difficult balance that we're trying to strike between being vigilant and not overreacting and equating this with 9/11 or something."

The group came to the attention of authorities when its members began to seek the aid of foreign agents who could help them, federal officials said at a Miami news conference. One of the people the group sought aid from tipped terrorism investigators. A federal informant then presented himself to the group as an al-Qaeda representative, officials said.

On Dec. 16, 2005, Batiste met in a hotel room with the informant and, around the same time, said he was trying to build an "Islamic Army" to wage jihad, according to the indictment. He also asked for boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios, vehicles and $50,000 in cash.

But the suspects received little other than military boots and the video camera from the false al-Qaeda representative, according to the indictment. By May, the indictment suggests, the plan had largely petered out because of organizational problems.

Batiste appeared in federal court in Miami on Friday along with four other defendants who had been arrested during the FBI raids Thursday: Patrick Abraham, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin and Rotschild Augustine. Another defendant, Lyglenson Lemorin, was arrested in Atlanta, while the seventh, Stanley Grant Phanor, was already in custody on a probation charge.

Five of the men are U.S. citizens. Abraham is a Haitian illegally in the country, and Lemorin is a Haitian with legal residency here, officials said. At least six of the seven appear to have faced criminal charges before, according to records, for marijuana possession, battery, assault and concealed weapons.

Phanor had worked in construction, his family said, and took up studying Islam at the warehouse-like building a year ago. He called it "the temple."

"He does not have the heart to kill people," his disbelieving mother, Elizene Phanor, said, falling to her knees. "I swear to God."

The men gathered daily at the building, neighbors said. It used to be a sandwich shop, but less than a year ago the men moved in and remodeled, a neighbor said.

The men sported a variety of dress -- sometimes they were seen in black fatigues, sometimes in ski masks, sometimes in fezzes and dashikis -- and at one point they arranged flags from a number of nations, including Jamaica, Haiti and Cuba, around the building, according to neighbors.

They were not well funded: Neighbors said the men drove old cars and some of them made money by selling shampoo and hair tonic on the street. At Friday's hearing, the defendants said they were self-employed, and all qualified to be represented by a public defender. Batiste, who did stucco work, told the judge he made about $30,000 a year.

"We used to wonder, 'What are they doing? Who are they?' " said Babalu Nesbitt, 67, an immigrant from the Bahamas who collects cans for recycling for a living and who lives close to the building. "But they were the kind that only wanted to talk to their own."

They held readings of the Koran at times, and at others could be seen practicing martial arts outside. After Hurricane Wilma knocked out the electricity in the area for days last fall, the group passed out water from a silver van, some neighbors recalled.

Christopher Johnson, 37, a bodyguard and former Navy SEAL, said he recalled watching the martial arts they were using and being surprised that it seemed to be less about self-defense and more about attack. "A little bell went off," he said. "I thought, 'There's got to be a bigger purpose.' But I let it ride."

In Chicago, Police Superintendent Philip J. Cline told reporters that Batiste used to live in Chicago and was once arrested on a misdemeanor property damage charge. But he said the Miami group never came close to mounting an attack there.

"There was never any imminent danger to the Sears Tower or Chicago," Cline said.

Eggen reported from Washington. Staff writer Peter Slevin in Chicago and researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.



Read More...

Ex-Homeland nominee and Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik pleads guilty to corruption

Reuters
Ex-Homeland nominee pleads guilty to corruption

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, whose Homeland Security nomination was withdrawn because of ethics questions, pleaded guilty on Friday to misdemeanor charges of accepting gifts while serving as a top city official.

Kerik was convicted of two charges in a deal that allowed him to avoid prison time. He acknowledged accepting $165,000 worth of renovations on his Bronx apartment while he was commissioner of New York's corrections department and failing to report a loan from a real estate developer as required by city law.

Kerik was ordered to pay $221,000 in fines, Bronx Supreme Court officials said. He waived his right to appeal the convictions.

Officials began an investigation into Kerik's dealings in December 2004 in connection with allegations he helped Interstate Industrial Corp., a New Jersey construction company, seek business with the city in exchange for renovation work to his apartment.

In his plea, Kerik admitted speaking with city officials about the company but did not acknowledge a link between the renovations and his support of the company.

Kerik, who as police commissioner led the New York Police Department's response to the September 11 attacks, previously denied any wrongdoing.

"We had an investigation, we looked into allegations and the charges that were brought were charges we believed we could sustain proof beyond a reasonable doubt," said Bronx District Attorney spokesman Steven Reed.

President George W. Bush nominated Kerik in 2004 for Homeland Security chief but Kerik withdrew after admitting he had failed to pay taxes for a family nanny alleged to be in the country illegally.

Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a close friend of Kerik's, said in a statement on Friday the guilty pleas did not diminish Kerik's accomplishments.

"This should be evaluated in light of his service to the United States of America and the city of New York," Giuliani said.




Read More...

Guantanamo ruling heralds political showdown

Reuters
Guantanamo ruling heralds political showdown
By Patricia Wilson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats see the Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling as repudiation of a power-hungry White House. Republicans say it shows how tough President George W. Bush is on terrorists and voters will eat it up.

Both parties face a contentious political debate over the decision declaring military tribunals illegal as they look to capitalize on a national security issue ahead of crucial congressional elections in November.

"How do you go back to Chicago, Illinois, or Las Vegas, Nevada, and say 'You know what? The president is just being too mean to these people," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. "That's a very difficult argument to make."

In Thursday's ruling, the nation's highest court found the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules.

The White House has been accused of using the war against terrorism to grab executive power at the expense of the U.S. Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney has spoken publicly about restoring the powers of the presidency after what he saw as "an erosion"' in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.

The Bush administration has turned that tide in many ways, ranging from the fight to keep secret the deliberations of its energy task force, to its assertion of authority after September 11, including secret domestic surveillance and financial tracking programs.

'LIPSTICK ON A PIG'

"The Guantanamo ruling is a repudiation of their entire governing philosophy," said Simon Rosenberg, founder of the centrist New Democrat Network. "This philosophy has failed. It's not only failed, it hasn't passed the test of the Supreme Court."

"Unless they address that, they're just putting lipstick on a pig."

The Supreme Court rebuff pushes the issue into Congress where the road ahead is likely to be long and hard, especially with four months to go before mid-term elections that will decide if Bush's Republican Party keeps control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The president, who is struggling with the lowest poll ratings of his term mostly because of the unpopular Iraq war, and his political architect Karl Rove have played the national security card to successfully trump Democrats in previous elections.

And Republicans believe the Supreme Court has dealt them another winning hand, especially with voters in middle America.

"The president's fighting and killing terrorists and we think he has to be more gentle?" Stewart said. "The Democrats are making a gigantic mistake by going out and talking about what will be translated into English as the president is too tough on terrorists."

Republican consultant Scott Reed said the court's decision served to "remind everybody what it was like right after 9/11."

"I think in raw politics, it is a net positive for Bush to bring clarity and remind people we're in this war," he said.

Democrats believe they're ready for any Republican onslaught and don't think voters will buy into the Democrats-are-weak argument again.

"They'll throw the biggest chunk of mud that they can come up with," a senior Democratic official said. "That we must be heartened by this ruling because we don't want to see any terrorists get prosecuted. That is just ridiculous."

Bush and Rove already have stepped up their attacks on Democrats in the past couple of weeks, accusing some of wanting to "cut and run" and "waving the white flag" in Iraq.

"They haven't worked," the official said, citing polls showing most Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq and think the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake.

"I just don't think people are going to buy it," Rosenberg said. "We've seen the movie before and we know what happens."



Read More...

IMF says terror finance oversight varies greatly

Reuters
IMF says terror finance oversight varies greatly

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund on Friday encouraged countries to improve monitoring of suspected terror financing and money laundering after an IMF report found significant differences in the quality of supervision.

The report showed the quality and consistency of national and regional banking supervisors' monitoring of such activities varied greatly, the fund said.

IMF executive directors "encouraged all assessor bodies to strengthen internal review procedures."

The IMF said a large majority of reports were of high or medium quality and IMF directors asked staff to keep providing technical assistance to banking supervisors to help improve their capacity to produce quality assessments.

"Directors expressed concern over the poorer quality of reports prepared by some other assessor bodies and the variability in quality across reports generally," it added.

Most directors agreed that reports by assessor agencies of IMF member countries should be reviewed in five years.

The report comes about a week after the U.S. Treasury acknowledged a secret program to uncover terror activity by tracking financial records of a Brussels-based consortium, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or SWIFT, a messaging system which is owned or controlled by nearly 8,000 commercial banks in 20 countries.

The Washington-based multilateral lender, which has 184 member countries, said it endorsed efforts to improve the quality and consistency of reports by all monitoring agencies.

The world's top financial regulator and standard setter, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, issued proposals in April to strengthen its global scorecard for banking supervisors, emphasizing the fight against terror finance.

It sought public comment before issuing a final version of those principles which would be used by the IMF and World Bank to rate the effectiveness of national banking supervisors.




Read More...