Reports on Pentagon's New Spy Units Set Off Questions in Congress

The New York Times
January 25, 2005
Reports on Pentagon's New Spy Units Set Off Questions in Congress
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - Senior members of Congress said Monday that they would seek to determine whether the Pentagon had overstepped its bounds by creating new secret battlefield intelligence units within the Defense Intelligence Agency.

A senior military officer and a senior Defense Department official confirmed at a hastily called Pentagon briefing on Monday, after news reports had disclosed the existence of the expanded intelligence operations, that small teams of civilian intelligence specialists were being created to work with Special Operations forces and other troops worldwide on secret missions, including counterterrorism operations.

The officials said the teams had been formally established in the fiscal year 2005 defense budget using existing authority to replace ad hoc defense intelligence units that had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for more than two years.

In interviews, however, members of Congress from both parties questioned whether the secret missions being carried out by the units might amount to covert actions - a legal definition for missions in which the United States government denies any role and that can be undertaken only by presidential directive and with formal Congressional notification.

Some members also said the House and Senate intelligence committees had not been fully informed about the new approach, even though they oversee the Defense Intelligence Agency.

"To cut out Congress and set up an under-the-radar capability which Congress doesn't know about is not O.K.," Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said in an interview.

But Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the intelligence teams were "vital to our national security interests" and that their existence was included in Pentagon budget documents that the committee reviewed and approved.

The Pentagon officials said Congress had been informed about the teams during the budget discussions late last year, but they said the names of the units had been changed during the budget process, to Strategic Support Teams from Human Augmentation Teams, possibly explaining the confusion.

The teams are financed with Defense Department money in the National Foreign Intelligence Program, a portion of the Pentagon budget administered by the director of central intelligence, the officials said. But they declined to give exact budget figures.

Officials said the units would have about 10 members each, consisting of case officers, linguists, interrogators and other specialists from the Defense Human Intelligence Service, a branch of the Defense Intelligence Agency. While the missions they would take up would be secret, the intelligence units would not use covert methods like false identities or nationalities, the senior military officer said.

The briefing was organized late Monday in response to an article in The Washington Post on Sunday and an article in The New York Times on Monday. The Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said officials giving the briefing on Monday must stay unidentified because intelligence matters were being discussed.

Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, and Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, were sent to Capitol Hill on Monday afternoon to answer a flurry of questions from lawmakers of both parties.

In general, Democrats and Republicans expressed support for the idea of assigning intelligence officers from the D.I.A. to work alongside Special Operations forces in wartime situations like the ones in Iran and Afghanistan. They said the Pentagon could also contribute much needed additional resources to the task of recruiting spies, traditionally the domain of the Central Intelligence Agency.

"Simply put, enhancing human intelligence will save American lives," Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a written statement. "The notion by some that various steps taken by the Department of Defense to enhance such intelligence is somehow sinister and illegitimate is nonsense."

In a telephone interview, Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said, "Everybody in the intelligence community must be a major player; no one has a monopoly." While saying the Pentagon had kept the committee staff "well informed" about its plans, Senator Roberts said the panel would seek "additional briefings sooner rather than later."

But Ms. Harman and others said the size and scope of the Pentagon operation remained murky. Some expressed concern that the Pentagon would define the battlefield in a broad way, as part of the larger global struggle against terrorism, to justify spying operations far outside combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan and to carry out operations in which the American role would be disguised.

"I'm not at all convinced that they have properly informed us, and I'm deeply concerned about the fact that they are potentially undertaking things which we have an absolute responsibility to know, and that we don't," Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said in a telephone interview.

A Republican Congressional official said the Pentagon had "done a good job of keeping us informed of efforts to expand human intelligence operations." But the official said Congressional committees were aware that more aggressive intelligence-gathering by the Pentagon might "cross into the realm of covert action," which has historically been carried out primarily by the C.I.A. instead of the military.

In general, the secret missions carried out by the military have been defined as clandestine operations, which are not intended to be officially deniable and are subject to less rigorous rules for approval and oversight.

In interviews, Congressional officials declined to discuss the precise operations being undertaken by the new units, saying the details were classified. But they said the Pentagon had defined them all in such a way that they did not require explicit presidential approval or Congressional notification.

Before the news accounts of the program were published this weekend, to the extent that the Pentagon had informed Congress at all about the effort, it did so in briefings provided to committee staff members, including sessions held earlier this month, Congressional officials said.

Some members of Congress, including at least one member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, received their first classified briefing on the issue on Monday, the officials said.

In the telephone interview, Senator Rockefeller expressed concern that the Pentagon's approach was too dismissive of the need for formal Congressional notification. "I don't take lightly the distinction between clandestine and covert," Senator Rockefeller said. "It makes all the difference in the world."

Senator Roberts, the Kansas Republican, said he believed that the military's intelligence-gathering responsibilities should extend beyond current combat zones. "In today's environment, basically what you want to have is the groundwork for intelligence operations in any country which you deem to be a national security threat," he said. "I don't think the military should be wandering all over the globe, but I don't think they're doing that."

Read More...

Summary only...

A.C.L.U. Presents Accusations of Serious Abuse of Iraqi Civilians

The New York Times
January 25, 2005
DETAINEES
A.C.L.U. Presents Accusations of Serious Abuse of Iraqi Civilians
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - The American Civil Liberties Union released documents on Monday describing complaints of serious abuse of Iraqi civilians, including reports of electric shocks and forced sodomy, and accused the military of not thoroughly investigating the cases.

The documents list dozens of allegations of abuse at American detention centers - the use of cigarettes to burn prisoners, aggressive dogs, electric shocks, sexual humiliation and beatings - that began at about the same time such acts were occurring at Abu Ghraib prison.

But it is not always clear whether every case described is a new incident; many details, including the names of victims and of the accused, were blacked out before the documents were provided to the A.C.L.U. as part of its litigation.

Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the organization, said gaps in the files made it difficult to draw any definite conclusions about a particular case. "But overall there does seem to be a clear pattern here, and that is that it is difficult to say the government was aggressive in investigating these allegations of abuse," he said.

Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman, declined to discuss any particular case mentioned in the documents. But she said, "The Army has aggressively investigated all credible allegations of detainee abuse and we've held soldiers accountable for their actions."

The documents list several sites where abuses are reported to have taken place, many of them at the detention center at Adhamiya Palace, one of Saddam Hussein's villas in Baghdad. The documents contain allegations from detainees about being abused and statements from American contractors who said they saw the effects of beatings.

In one case, a detainee said that while at Adhamiya Palace, his nose was pinched while water was poured down his throat, a wooden stick was inserted forcefully into his anus and electric shock was applied to his genitals. Some of the allegations were directed against Iraqi policemen. One contractor who said he was assigned to screen detainees brought to Abu Ghraib said that many who had come from Adhamiya arrived with serious injuries, including one boy with a bleeding rectum. He said the boy had told him that an Iraqi policeman had sodomized him with a soda bottle and that American soldiers were present.

Most of the previously undisclosed allegations concern the early months of last year, while some are said to have occurred as recently as July. The more than 4,000 pages of documents were released by the Army in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that have accused American forces of serious abuse, even torture, in treating detainees.

The new documents show that some allegations of assault were investigated and soldiers were disciplined. Mr. Jaffer, of the A.C.L.U., said that in the more than 50 cases mentioned, military investigators had ruled in all but a few that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

The new accusations generally concern the behavior of American Special Forces, as opposed to prison guards or interrogators, who have been accused at Abu Ghraib.

The files released on Monday concerned only cases that had been resolved by military investigators; there may be other cases still under investigation.

Colonel Hart said that more than 300 criminal investigators had looked into accusations of mistreatment of detainees and that more than 100 military members had been disciplined. "The Army's record of investigating detainee abuse continues to be thorough and fair," she said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions

The New York Times
January 25, 2005
Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions
By PATRICK D. HEALY

ALBANY, Jan. 24 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find "common ground" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.

"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate - we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.

Her speech came on the same day as the annual anti-abortion rally in Washington marking the Roe v. Wade anniversary. [Page A17.]

Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.

Mrs. Clinton, widely seen as a possible candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008, appeared to be reaching out beyond traditional core Democrats who support abortion rights. She did so not by changing her political stands, but by underscoring her views in preventing unplanned pregnancies, promoting adoption, recognizing the influence of religion in abstinence and championing what she has long called "teenage celibacy."

She called on abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion campaigners to form a broad alliance to support sexual education - including abstinence counseling - family planning, and morning-after emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault as ways to reduce unintended pregnancies.

"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State. "The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."

Leading anti-abortion campaigners, in both New York and nationwide, pounced on Mrs. Clinton as a suspect spokeswoman for compromise and common ground.

"I think she's trying to adopt a values-oriented language, but it lacks substance, at least if you compare it to her record," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington. "If you look at Senator Clinton's voting record on this issue, it's like Planned Parenthood's condoms - it's defective."

Mrs. Clinton's address came as the Democratic Party itself engages in its own re-examination of its handling of the issue in the wake of Senator John Kerry's loss in the presidential race.

Democratic senators such as Harry Reid of Nevada and Dianne Feinstein of California have also pressed for a greater focus on reducing unintended pregnancies, and some Democratic consultants have urged that party leaders mint new language to reach voters who identified moral values as a top issue for them in last November's election.

"Our focus in the speech was to make sure that she still communicated that she was pro-choice - she doesn't want to undermine that - but she also thinks we can have some common ground among all sides and make abortion rare," Neera Tanden, legislative director for Mrs. Clinton, said in a telephone interview.

Before the election, Mrs. Clinton was a visible and public defender of abortion rights, appearing at a huge rally in Washington last spring and denouncing what she called Republican efforts to demonize the abortion rights movement.

And in her remarks, she seemed to acknowledge that this image of her was well known by anti-abortion campaigners while adding that, to her, it did not tell the full story about her views. "Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion and I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," Mrs. Clinton said, going on to assert that even some critics still support abortions in some cases, such as when the life of the mother is at risk.

The senator also made a nod to the values issue on Monday in praising faith-based and religious organizations for promoting abstinence.

"Research shows that the primary reason teenage girls abstain from early sexual activity is because of their religious and moral values," Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton made clear that she did not favor abstinence-only programs of sexual education.

"We should also recognize what works and what doesn't work and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs," Mrs. Clinton said. "I don't think this debate should be about ideology - it should be about facts, and evidence. We have to deal with the choices that young people make, not just the choices we wish they would make."

Mrs. Clinton's remarks drew some gasps and head-shaking from those gathered here when she offered a string of statistics and data that, her aides said, were meant to show that preventing unwanted pregnancies could be a unifying issue for supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

Several audience members inhaled sharply, for instance, when Mrs. Clinton said that 7 percent of American women who do not use contraception make up 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies. She also cited research estimating that 15,000 abortions a year are by women who have been sexually assaulted, one of several reasons, she said, that morning-after emergency contraception should be made available over the counter.

After the speech, several members of the audience said they viewed Mrs. Clinton as a "hero" of the abortion rights movement, but also noted that her address seemed intended to reach more conservative and religious voters as well as perhaps in hopes of broadening her base of support for a possible 2008 run.

"I understood what Senator Clinton meant when she said abortion could be a sad and tragic choice, but we see women express relief more than anything else that they have the freedom to choose," said Martha Stahl, director for public relations and marketing for Northern Adirondack Planned Parenthood. "Mrs. Clinton really seemed to be reaching out here."

Christina Fitch, legislative director of the New York State Right to Life Committee, said: "She's talking about common sense, common ground, but we have yet to see her reach out her arms like a lot of other people have and support things like a partial-birth abortion ban. We want to see her extending olive branches on protecting life."

Mrs. Clinton supported a proposed ban on late-term abortions as long as it included an exception to protect the health of the mother; in turn, she has opposed such a ban when it lacked that exception. She has also supported some state parental notification laws under which a teenager must involve at least one parent in the decision - but only when there is an exception in the laws that allows the judge to bypass the law and let the teenager obtain an abortion on her own - a process known as "judicial bypass," which Mrs. Clinton has also supported before.

Mrs. Clinton also weaved several jabs at the Bush administration into her remarks, at one point saying that the White House had put the lives of many women and girls worldwide "at risk" by restricting abortion counseling services.

Read More...

Summary only...

A fantasy of freedom

guardian.co.uk

A fantasy of freedom

If Bush wanted to tackle tyranny, he could start with regimes under US control. But liberty clearly has limits, says Gary Younge.

Monday January 24, 2005
The Guardian

There is one tiny corner of Cuba that will forever America be. It is a place where innocent people are held without charge for years, beyond international law, human decency and the mythical glow of Lady Liberty's torch. It is a place where torture is common, beating is ritual and humiliation is routine. They call it Guantánamo Bay.

Last week the new United States secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, listed Cuba, among others, as "an outpost of tyranny". A few days later President Bush started his second term with a pledge to unleash "the force of freedom" on the entire world. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," he said

You would think that if the Americans are truly interested in expanding freedom and ending tyranny in Cuba, let alone the rest of the world, Guantánamo Bay would be as good a place to start as any. But the captives in Guantánamo should not ask for the keys to their leg irons any time soon. Ms Rice was not referring to the outpost of tyranny that her boss created in Cuba, but the rest of the Caribbean island, which lives in a stable mixture of the imperfect and the impressive.

In short, while the US could liberate a place where there are flagrant human rights abuses and over which they have total control, it would rather topple a sovereign state, which poses no threat, through diplomatic and economic - and possibly military - warfare that is already causing chaos and hardship.

Welcome to Bush's foreign policy strategy for the second term. His aim is not to realign the values at Guantánamo so that they are more in line with those championed by the rest of the world. It is to try and realign the rest of the world so that it is more in keeping with the values that govern Guantánamo, where human rights and legal norms are subordinated to America's perceived interests.
Advertiser links
Orbitz - Save on Travel

Find more travel options at a glance. Orbitz makes it easy...
orbitz.com
Fly for Less with Cheapfares

Travel with Cheapfares.com. Discount fares from all major...
cheapfares.com
Travel Smarter with SmarterTravel.com

SmarterTravel.com is the comprehensive solution for your...
smartertravel.com

Under this philosophy, the Bush administration understands the words "tyranny" and "freedom" in much the same way as it understands international law. They mean whatever the White House wants them to mean. Bush is happy to support democracy when democracy supports America, just as he is happy to dispense with it when it does not. Likewise, when tyranny is inconvenient, he will excoriate it; when it is expedient, he will excuse it.

Take Uzbekistan, one of the most repressive regimes in central Asia. In April 2002, a special UN rapporteur concluded that torture in the country was "systematic" and "pervasive and persistent... throughout the investigation process". In the same year, Muzafar Avazov, an opposition leader, was boiled alive for refusing to abandon his religious convictions and attempting to practise religious rites in prison. In 2003, Bush granted a waiver to Uzbekistan when its failure to improve its human rights record should have led to its aid being slashed. In February 2004 the US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, visited the country's dictator, Islam Karimov, and said: "The relationship [between our countries] is strong and growing stronger. We look forward to strengthening our political and economic relations."

Yet the US continues to shower the country with aid, docking a mere $18m last year (around 20% of the total) after expressing its "disappointment" that Mr Karimov had not made greater strides towards democracy. Pan down the shopping list of tyrannical states in Ms Rice's in-tray (Iran, Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Cuba) and you will find no mention of Uzbekistan. Why? Because Uzbekistan, with an estimated 10,000 political prisoners, hosts a US military base that offers easy access to Afghanistan and the rest of the region.

So for every tenet that Mr Bush claimed last week to hold dear, it was possible to pick out a country or place he is bankrolling or controlling that is in flagrant violation, and where he could improve conditions immediately if he wished. The point here is not that the US should intervene in more places, but that it should intervene consistently and honestly or not at all.

Bush's inauguration speech was packed with truisms, axioms, platitudes and principles that appear reasonable at first glance. The trouble is they are contradicted by the reality he has created and continues to support.

As he delivered his address, you could almost whisper the caveats. "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains [apart from in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay], or that women welcome humiliation and servitude [apart from in Saudi Arabia] or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies [apart from Uzbekistan and Israel]."

Such hypocrisy is not new. When Mr Bush said "Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way", nobody imagined he was referring to the Bolivian peasants fighting oil price hikes and globalisation or the landless Venezuelans taking over farms.

The agenda for a second Bush term represents not a change in direction but an acceleration of the colossal and murderous folly that he, and most of his predecessors, have pursued.

The damage that this selective notion of liberty inflicts on the rest of the world should by now be pretty clear. According to the independent website Iraqbodycount.net, reported civilian deaths in Iraq have already reached between 15,365 and 17,582 since the war started, while the recent study for the Lancet estimated the death toll at 100,000 at least, and probably higher; meanwhile, the number is growing remorselessly. Next weekend's elections in Iraq - which take place in the midst of a war against foreign occupiers with most candidates too scared to campaign, the location of polling sites kept secret until the last minute and key areas unable to participate - have become not an example of democracy but an embarrassment to the very idea of democracy.

Meanwhile, a global poll for the BBC last week showed the US more isolated than ever, with people in 18 out of 21 countries saying that they expect a second Bush term to have a negative impact on peace and security.

What is less clear is whether most Americans understand that this isolation leaves them more vulnerable to attack. Ms Rice last week promised "a conversation, not a monologue" with the rest of the world. But as the situation in Iraq shows, conversations that start with "D'you want a piece of this?" rarely end well for anybody.

Both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban have shown that the tyrants the US supports today can easily turn against it tomorrow while fostering resentment among their victims. Yet the idea that the US is a civilising force endowed with benevolent intentions is still as prevalent within the US as it is rejected outside it.

Indeed, Tony Blair seems to be the only foreign leader who still holds to the mixture of wishful thinking, wilful ignorance and warped logic behind the idea that Bush is leading humanitarian interventions at the barrel of a gun.

When questioned about the prospects for Bush's second term, the British prime minister was upbeat. "Evolution comes with experience," he said. The fact that Bush does not believe in evolution has long been known. Only now are we discovering how little Blair learns from experience.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bin Laden moves toward economic terror

The Daily Star

Monday, January 24, 2005
Bin Laden moves toward economic terror
By Mohammed Alkhereiji

The shootout almost a week ago in Kuwait between the security forces and an Islamist group in the town of Umm al-Haiman highlighted an apparent new trend in the behavior of Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in the Arabian Peninsula: the movement of Saudi militants across the border into neighboring countries. Indeed, the cell operating in Umm al-Haiman apparently included Saudi militants on the run from the massive clampdown at home, as well as Kuwaiti militants returning from fighting U.S. forces in Fallujah.

The fact that the Kuwaiti cell was discovered in an oil-producing region of the emirate and that, the Kuwaiti authorities stated on Sunday, the group planned to attack vital installations, allows us to look back on recent Al-Qaeda statements, and what they bode for the future of the Gulf.

As a recent Al-Qaeda-affiliated website put it: "We call on all the mujahideen in the Arabian Peninsula to unify their ranks ... and target the oil supplies that do not serve the Islamic nation but the enemies of this nation." The statement echoed the sentiments of Osama bin Laden and came at a time when he has greatly increased his media presence. Bin Laden's rhetoric has changed of late. His recent messages have been tailor-made to capitalize on the current economic and political climate in the Middle East. Although support for he and his terror network seems to be dwindling, Al-Qaeda's threat to regional and international stability has not.

In a recent address bin Laden declared: "Targeting America in Iraq economically and through loss of life is a golden and unique opportunity - one of the most important reasons that our enemies control our land is the pilfering of our oil - Prevent them from getting the oil and conduct your operations accordingly, particularly in Iraq and the Gulf."

From an economic standpoint any disruption of Saudi Arabian oil supplies would probably mean an immediate spike in oil prices, easily within the range of $100 a barrel or more. Such an increase would have a devastating effect on the livelihood and economies of all nations, developed and otherwise. Rampant inflation and unemployment would sweep many countries. The bin Laden message was seen by many "experts" as a clear reversal of a 1990 fatwa that avoided advising such action. However, in reality Al-Qaeda has had its sites set on the region's oilfields for a number of years.

For example, in 2002, long before bin Laden delivered his message, Al-Qaeda saboteurs attacked a French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen. In summer of that same year, a counterintelligence operation by Saudi security forces led to the arrest of more then 20 individuals in connection with a plot to blow up the Ras Tannura oil terminal and refinery - a complex that transfers five million barrels of oil a day. Only last year, Islamist militants attacked an oil company and housing compounds in Khobar in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, leading to the death of seven Saudi policemen and 22 civilians. These events suggest that oil has been an Al-Qaeda target for at least several years.

Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure is made of five large oil fields connected by a network of pipelines. The pre-eminent need to protect these is something Saudi security officials have long recognized. According to a report by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Saudi authorities have put together special units compromised of various military and security forces to guard wells and installations. Members of the Special Emergency Forces and the kingdom's National Guard, as well as regular police units, protect the perimeters of the installations. Navy and coast guard units protect terminal docks and offshore fields, while the air force provides round-the-clock surveillance and protection from the air.

With this in mind, it is important to assess where Saudi Arabia's branch of Al-Qaeda is today. As 2004 came to a close, Saudi security forces had managed to capture or kill up to 500 militants, including the leaders of five cells. As noted, the Umm al-Haiman cell was a hybrid cell that included Saudi militants on the run. When it comes to border security, according to Reuters, in 2004 the kingdom's border guards were successful in detaining close to a million people trying to gain illegal entry into Saudi Arabia. Border patrols seized over 10 tons of drugs and 2,000 weapons. All in all 19,000 smuggling operations were thwarted, and 8,000 smugglers arrested.

However, when addressing the issue of terrorist funding the results are mixed.

In 2004 the mammoth Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation was dissolved, along with other private charity groups. Saudi Arabia also froze the assets of bin Laden associates believed to be financial middlemen for Al-Qaeda. And during Ramadan, when Muslims are most charitable, a ban on collection boxes outside of mosques and shopping centers was put into strict effect.

In July 2004,the G-7's Financial Action Task Force released an evaluation of Saudi Arabia's laws and measures in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. According to the report, Saudi authorities "have taken action to increase the requirements for financial institutions on customer due diligence, established systems for tracing and freezing terrorist assets, and tightened the regulation and transparency of charitable organizations."

But a Sept. 29, 2004, U.S. Senate Banking Committee report painted a different picture. The report claimed that the kingdom has yet to fully implement its new counterterrorism financing laws and regulations. The report also claimed that opportunities for the "witting or unwitting" financing of terrorism still existed.

Another important facet of the kingdom's war against terrorism will be defeating the sympathy factor. Bin Laden's rhetoric about Western exploitation of the oil of Muslim nations hits a sympathetic nerve with Saudis, particularly those who are unemployed or are hurting financially. While an independent survey in 2003 conducted by the Saudi National Security Assessment Project saw bin Laden's popularity drop to 4.7 percent, an alarming 48.7 percent of respondents still approved of his rhetoric.

Bin Laden's latest fatwas no longer call merely for violence. The Al-Qaeda leader has also issued a clearer vision for political and economic terrorism. If such a plan is realized, it could spell disaster for the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Mohammed Alkhereiji is a journalist for the pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat. He was a correspondent during the Iraq war and is frequent contributor to Time magazine.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. Foresaw Terror Threats in 1970s

Yahoo! News
U.S. Foresaw Terror Threats in 1970s

Sun Jan 23,12:26 PM ET

By FRANK BASS and RANDY HERSCHAFT, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - Nearly three decades before the Sept. 11 attacks, a high-level government panel developed plans to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological "dirty bombs" to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"Unless governments take basic precautions, we will continue to stand at the edge of an awful abyss," Robert Kupperman, chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote in a 1977 report that summarized nearly five years of work by the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.

The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show.

"It is vital that we take every possible action ourselves and in concert with other nations designed to assure against acts of terrorism," Nixon wrote in asking his secretary of state, William Rogers, to oversee the task force.

"It is equally important that we be prepared to act quickly and effectively in the event that, despite all efforts at prevention, an act of terrorism occurs involving the United States, either at home or abroad," the president said.

The full committee met only once, in October 1972, to organize, but its experts did get together twice a month over nearly five years to identify threats and debate solutions, the memos show.

Eventually, the group's influence waned as competing priorities, a change of presidents ushered in by Watergate, bureaucratic turf battles and a lack of spectacular domestic attacks took their toll.

But before that happened, the panel identified many of the same threats that would confront President Bush at the dawn of the 21st century.

The experts fretted that terrorists might gather loose nuclear materials for a "dirty bomb" that could devastate an American city by spreading lethal radioactivity.

"This is a real threat, not science fiction," National Security Council staffer Richard T. Kennedy wrote his boss, Kissinger, in November 1972.

Rogers, in a memo to Nixon in mid-1973, praised the Atomic Energy Commission's steps to safeguard nuclear weapons. Rogers, however, also warned the president that "atomic materials could afford mind-boggling possibilities for terrorists."

Committee members identified commercial jets as a particular vulnerability, but raised concerns that airlines would not pay for security improvements such as tighter screening procedures and routine baggage inspections.

"The trouble with the plans is that airlines and airports will have to absorb the costs and so they will scream bloody murder should this be required of them," according to a White House memo from 1972. "Otherwise, it is a sound plan which will curtail the risk of hijacking substantially."

By 1976, government pressure to improve airport security and thwart hijackings had awakened airline industry lobbyists.

The International Air Transport Association said "airport security is the responsibility of the host government. The airline industry did not consider the terrorist threat its most significant problem; it had to measure it against other priorities. If individual companies were forced to provide their own security, they would go broke," according to minutes from one meeting.

Thousands of pages of heavily blacked out records and memos obtained by the AP from government archives and under the Freedom of Information Act show the task force:

_discussed defending commercial aircraft against being shot down by portable missile systems;

_recommended improved vigilance at potential "soft" targets, such as major holiday events, municipal water supplies, nuclear power plants and electric power facilities;

_supported cracking down on foreigners living in and traveling through the United States, with particular attention to Middle Easterners and Arab-Americans;

_developed plans to protect U.S. diplomats and businessmen working abroad against kidnapping and attack.

Though the CIA routinely updated the committee on potential terrorist threats and plots, task force members learned quickly that intelligence gathering and coordination was a weak spot, just as Bush would discover three decades later.

Long before he was mayor and helped New York City recover from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Giuliani told the committee in May 1976 that he feared legal restrictions were thwarting federal agents from collecting intelligence unless there had been a violation of the law.

Giuliani, who at that time was the associate deputy attorney general in President Ford's Justice Department, suggested relaxing intelligence collection guidelines — something that occurred with the Patriot Act three decades later

Other committee members said that obstacles to intelligence gathering were more bureaucratic than legal.

Lewis Hoffacker, a veteran ambassador who served as chairman of the terrorism working group, told the AP that institutional rivalries, particularly between the FBI and CIA, were a constant source of frustration even in the 1970s.

"That was our headache, a quarter-century ago," said Hoffacker, now retired. "They all pulled back into their little fiefdoms. The CIA was always off by itself, and the FBI was dealing with the same situation they're dealing with today."

Finding the political will to fight terrorism in the absence of a major attack in the United States also quickly became a problem. Proposals for international penalties against countries harboring terrorists drew little support from the United Nations, the memos show.

"The climate at the 1974 General Assembly was such that no profitable initiative in the terrorism field was feasible," Ford heard from Kissinger, his secretary of state, in early 1975.

Two years later, the working group was absorbed by the National Security Council. In a 1978 report, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee worried that the Carter administration was not giving enough attention to terrorism.

"The United States will not be able to combat the growing challenge of terrorism unless the executive policy-making apparatus is more effectively and forcefully utilized," the Senate committee warned.

___

On the Net:

Documents related to this story are available at:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/nixonterror.html

Read More...

Summary only...

Turning Up the Heat on Bush

thenation.com

Turning Up the Heat on Bush

by ROBERT L. BOROSAGE

[from the January 31, 2005 issue]

For a nanosecond after November's election defeat, the Democratic unity forged by the radical provocations of George W. Bush seemed intact. From the corporate-funded Democratic Leadership Council to Howard Dean's new Democracy for America, Democrats drew similar conclusions from the election about what needed to be done: Challenge the right in the so-called red states and develop a compelling narrative that speaks to working people--don't simply offer a critique of Bush and a passel of "plans." Champion values, not simply policy proposals. Don't compromise with Bush's reactionary agenda. Expose Republican corruption, while pushing electoral reform. Stand firm on long-held social values, from women's rights to gay rights. Confront Bush's disastrous priorities at home and follies abroad.

But this brief interlude of common sense and purpose quickly descended into rancor and division. Peter Beinart of The New Republic and Al From of the DLC rolled out the tumbrels once more, calling on Democrats to purge liberalism of the taint of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and the antiwar movement. Apparently anyone who worries about the suppression of civil liberties at home, doubts that the reign of drug lords in Afghanistan represents the dawning of democracy, prematurely opposed the debacle in Iraq or isn't prepared to turn the fight against Al Qaeda terrorists into the organizing principle of American politics is to be read out of their Democratic Party. Then, normally staunch Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi floated for chair of the party former Congressman Tim Roemer, a New Democrat distinguished mostly for his opposition to women's right to choose, his vote to repeal the estate tax and his ignorance of grassroots politics. Consolidating its corporate backing, the DLC solemnly warned against "economic populism" or "turning up the volume on anti-business and class welfare schemes"--despite the corporate feeding frenzy that is about to take place in Washington and Bush's slavish catering to the "haves and have-mores," whom he calls "my base."

After a year in which progressives drove the debate, roused and registered the voters, raised the dough and knocked on the doors, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is trying to reassert control. Its assault on MoveOn.org and the Dean campaign--the center of new energy in the party--is reminiscent of 1973, when corporate lobbyist Bob Strauss became head of the party and tossed out the McGovern mailing list, insuring that the party would remain dependent on big-donor funding.

This time, however, the entrenched interests aren't likely to succeed, no matter who becomes party chair. That's because progressives have begun building an independent infrastructure to generate ideas, drive campaigns, persuade citizens, nurture movement progressives and challenge the right. It includes a range of new groups such as MoveOn.org, Wellstone Action, Progressive Majority, the Center for American Progress, Air America, Working America and America Coming Together, along with established groups that have displayed new reach and sophistication such as ACORN, the NAACP, the Campaign for America's Future (which I help direct) and the League of Conservation Voters. These groups--and their state and local allies--came out of this election emboldened, not discouraged. Just as the infrastructure that the right built drove the Republican resurgence, these groups and their activists--not the party regulars or the corporate retainers--will stir the Democratic drink.

The challenge to the electoral malfeasance in Ohio provided an early example. Inside the Beltway, protesting the President's electors was unimaginable. But progressive organizers, together with third-party activists, liberal lawyers, Internet muckrakers and civil rights groups, kept the heat on. Representative John Conyers responded with a report detailing the outrages in Ohio, where the Secretary of State--shades of Katherine Harris--was co-chair of the Bush campaign. The Rev. Jesse Jackson and others called on senators to support progressive House legislators who were demanding a debate. When Senator Barbara Boxer stood up, the public learned more about the shabby state of our democracy and the need for drastic electoral reform. The lesson is clear: When progressives move, Democrats will follow. "Don't expect this place to lead," says Representative George Miller. "Organize and force us to catch up."

As the buildup to his inaugural address shows, Bush's provocative agenda, which unified movement progressives and party regulars in the last election, will help organize the opposition in Bush's second term. By posing a continued threat to America's future, Bush also provides the opportunity for movement progressives to frame a large argument about the country's values and direction. Progressives should be mobilizing unremitting opposition to Bush's wrongheaded course, and demanding the same from their elected representatives.

A majority of Americans already express doubts about Bush's handling of foreign and economic affairs and the Iraq War. These doubts will increase as Bush pursues an economic policy that rewards the few while the many lose ground, fails to respond to the broken healthcare system, opposes a living wage and defends trade and tax policies that accelerate the flight of jobs abroad and the decline of incomes and security at home [see John Nichols, "A Fight We Can Win"].

Bush's drive to privatize Social Security, the centerpiece of his agenda, will expose the right and put Republicans at risk. Bush touts a fraudulent immediate crisis in a program that's in relatively good shape to rationalize deep cuts in benefits while borrowing $2 trillion so Wall Street can feed on the savings of citizens. Progressives will use the fight over privatization to contrast the benefits of shared security with the risks of the right's policies, which leave citizens on their own in a global economy of accelerating instability. Opposition will enable progressives to forge a broad coalition ranging from the Catholic Conference to the AARP and the AFL-CIO. This fight to defend America's most successful retirement and antipoverty program can and must be won.

Bush's new budget will call for extending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans while cutting investment in education and healthcare. This offends the common sense of most Americans and offers progressives the opportunity to challenge the President's perverted priorities while making the case for public investment in areas that Americans agree are vital to their families and our country's future. Bush's pledge to pack the courts with zealots will mobilize progressives in defense of equal rights, women's right to choose and corporate accountability. (Spooked by Senator Tom Daschle's defeat in South Dakota, many Senate Democrats are skittish about this battle, and will need to feel the heat from the activist base of the party.) The debacle in Iraq indicts the militarist unilateralism of the Bush Administration and provides progressives with the obligation to push for an exit strategy from an occupation that a majority of Americans now oppose. In this effort, the antiwar movement can make strategic alliances with much of the realist establishment, from George Bush Sr.'s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft to growing portions of the uniformed military as well as intelligence and State Department professionals.

At the same time, progressives should develop and push positive ideas for change: minimum- and living-wage campaigns, progressive tax reform, strategic initiatives like the Apollo Project for good jobs and energy independence. A "blue-state strategy"--elaborating a state and local agenda on such issues as healthcare and education reform--can provide models and demonstrate the attractiveness of progressive ideas.

None of this will be led by the lobbyists and retainers of the Democratic Party machine, such as it is. In the House, minority leader Pelosi will keep the caucus generally unified in opposition to the Bush agenda, but House boss Tom DeLay brutally locks Democrats out of the room whenever he pleases. Progressive champions like Jan Schakowsky, Hilda Solis, John Conyers, new Black Caucus chair Mel Watt, Barney Frank and others will help guide and support outside progressive mobilizations. The barons of the Senate are less organized and more frightened, as illustrated by minority leader Harry Reid's bizarre public acceptance of the idea of Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice. Senators Dick Durbin, Jon Corzine, Barbara Boxer and newly elected Barack Obama will help define the debate, but external pressure will be vital.

All stripes of Democrats agree on the need to persuade voters, not simply mobilize the base. But persuasion requires committed activists, passionate in their cause, ready to enlist and challenge their neighbors. Progressives haven't yet made up for the decline of union halls, nor matched the right's ubiquitous media clamor. But the pathbreaking house parties organized by MoveOn.org and the Dean campaign, and the extraordinary training provided by Wellstone Action, provide new models for educating activists and encouraging them to organize their neighbors.

So forget about the chattering classes and the corporate wing of the party, now fantasizing about purging the new energies unleashed in the last election. What matters isn't what they say in Washington, but what progressives do on the ground across the country. We have just begun to build. The radical agenda of the Bush Administration--and its abject failure--will continue to set the stage not for a retreat to the center but for a fierce, passionate reform movement.

Read More...

Summary only...

Recap of Bush's tasteless inauguration week

thenation.com
The Daily Outrage
Ari Berman

Well, at least it snowed. Here's our choice recap of Bush's tasteless inauguration week.

** Remember when Tom Ridge upped the terror alert in the run-up to war in Iraq? Then again after Abu Ghraib and the 9/11 Commission hearings in May? Then three days after the Democratic Convention for New York and New Jersey? And it stayed orange all the way through the election. Finally, with Bush safely re-elected, Ridge lowered the alert a week before the inaugural. "In retrospect," the Washington Post wrote, "[the alerts] were based largely on faulty intelligence, dated information or...an educated guess." Thanks for informing us now.

** But just in case, the Department of Homeland Security shut down 100 square blocks of downtown and deployed 7,000 troops. Who footed the bill? The financially squeezed District of Columbia. Breaking with past precedent, the Bush Administration forced D.C. to cover $12 million in security costs with its own homeland security funds. Apparently taxation without representation wasn't harsh enough.

** While DC pays, who parties? Corporations and their executives. According to a report by Public Citizen, corporate fat cats donated 96 percent of the $24.9 million raised as of Tuesday, with the finance and investment sectors leading the way at $6.3 million. In no way did Bush's plan to privatize Social Security influence their charity.

** Of course, when cash flies, lobbyists follow. The top Washington law shops vied to party with guests from the White House and Congress as the parade wrapped around Pennsylvania Avenue. "I find it a celebratory time, regardless of who wins," said high-profile lobbyist Wright Andrews. We bet he does. Especially when the food, flowers and booze are tax-deductible.

** With all this money whirling around, it's important to keep a little faith. That's why the right-wing Family Research Council (FRC) threw a "Values Victory" party on Tuesday at the ageless Willard Hotel. Partisan preachers Gary Bauer, James Dobson and Tony Perkins honored the 106 Congressmen who earned a perfect 100 on the FRC scorecard by voting to ban gay marriage, raise broadcasting fines for wardrobe malfunctions and oppose bipartisan hate crime legislation. In all, Jesus would've appreciated the absurdity of throwing nine balls, three candelit dinners, a rock concert and fireworks, followed by an inaugural prayer service.

originally published Jan 21, 2005

Read More...

Summary only...

Media reformers cheer Powell’s departure

FreePress.net

January 21, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Josh Silver, (413) 585-1533 x21
Craig Aaron, (202) 265-1490

Media reformers cheer Powell’s departure

Free Press asks President Bush to appoint a new FCC chairman who will represent the public interest, not media moguls

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday morning that Michael Powell is resigning after four years as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Robert W. McChesney, founder and president of the nonpartisan media reform group Free Press, made the following statement:

"Michael Powell will not be missed by those of us concerned about creating a more democratic media system. His tenure was marked by some of the lowest moments in the history of the FCC — most notably the disastrous decision in June 2003 to further loosen media ownership rules. Powell’s record has been one of avoiding the public he was meant to serve. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the few public hearings he attended, yet he made countless appearances before industry groups and trade associations.

“However, Powell’s departure presents an opportunity for President Bush to reach out to the millions of Americans who have pleaded with Congress and the FCC to stop further media consolidation, enforce public interest obligations, increase the diversity of voices in the media, and create policies that will encourage universal, low-cost access to the Internet. President Bush should choose a new chairman who will represent the public, not just the largest media moguls.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Kerry votes switched to Bush and ballots pre-punched for Bush

freepress.org
Kerry votes switched to Bush and ballots pre-punched for Bush
by Dr. Werner Lange

Pre-punched ballots; touch-screen vote switching; more absentee votes than absentee voters; unfair provisional voter deletions; change of voting sites on Election Day; voter suppression; voter intimidation; double voting; malfunctioning machines; recalibrated machines; evidently rigged machines; and even 25 million negative votes registered in some races in Mahoning County!

Those were among the problematic incidents shared at a 3-hour public hearing on vote irregularities in the Mahoning Valley held on December 21 at the Warren-Trumbull Public Library. Panelists taking voter testimony included Rev. Rick Judy of Mahoning County; Rev. Werner Lange of Trumbull County; Ray Nakley, an officer of the Arab-American Community Center in Youngstown; and Russ Buckbee, Green Party coordinator for NE Ohio.

Many panelists and testifiers wore orange ribbonos symbolizing the ongoing fight for democracy. “The color orange was chosen to remember Florida, where the wishes of the voters were ignored in order to place George W. Bush in the White House in 2000”, read the attached explanation, “Here were are in 2004 and we allege it is happening again” Evidence that this was indeed, once again, a stolen election even comes from published reports regarding curious developments in the Mahoning Valley on Election Day. A December 15 article in The Washington Post reveals that Jeanne White, a manager of the Buckeye Review, an African-American newspaper in NE Ohio, pushed the button for Kerry and watched her vote jump to the Bush column. “We’ve never seen anything like this before” Mark Munroe, Chairman of the Mahoning County Board of Election is quoted as saying in the November 3rd edition of The Vindicator. Munroe confirmed that vote switching problems occurred in at least 16 precincts and involved some 20 to 30 ES&S machines that “needed to be recalibrated during the voting process because some votes for a candidate were being counted for that candidate’s opponent”.

One Mahoning Valley resident at the hearing stated she knew of at least two voters who, like Ms. White, saw their vote switch from Kerry to Bush. Similar problems occurred in neighboring Mercer County in Pennsylvania, which, like Mahoning County was among only a handful of BOEs in either state to use these problematic ES&S machines produced and managed by Bush supporters. Prof. Victoria Lovegren of Case Western Reserve University, an expert in computer programming, came to this hearing and cast very serious doubt on the validity of the Ohio vote recorded by any BOE using these electronic devices. Everyone present seemed to agree with this assessment of the problem which was read into the record:

“One pattern that has been documented based on the experience of voters in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and elsewhere (especially in swing states) is the machines appear to have been set with a default to Bush. Then if the voter successfully punched the ballot for another candidate, Bush was replaced by that candidate.”

The exact number of votes officially given to Bush and stolen from Kerry by such means is unknown. No explanation has, to date, been given and no serious investigation into this outrage against democracy has been launched.

Nor has there been any defensible explanation provided for the documented absentee vote inflation in Trumbull County. A careful review by Werner Lange and Maggie Hagan of nearly 200 precincts in Trumbull County revealed a considerable discrepancy between the number of certified absentee votes and the number of registered absentee voters identified in the poll books. The poll books are to contain not only the name of every registered voter, but also clearly identify who voted (either by regular, absentee or provisional means) and who did not. The Trumbull County investigation showed some 650 more absentee votes than there were absentee voters identified in the poll books examined. If the absentee vote inflation rate there were consistent statewide, then over 63,000 votes were up for grabs in Ohio. This unexplained problem would have been brought to light much earlier had it not been for an unlawful directive by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to prevent any public inspection of poll books prior to vote certification. A case filed in mid-November with the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas challenging the validity of this official denial of access to public records has not even been given a hearing date, let alone a ruling, from Judge Peter Kontos. Justice delayed continues to be justice denied.

A number of other irregularities came to light on this longest night of the year.

The unusually high number of Ohio votes discarded for double-punching remains unexplained. A possible reason was shared at this hearing by a voter from Cuyahoga County who stated that she inspected her paper ballot prior to voting and was shocked to notice that it was pre-punched for Bush. She also noticed another ballot had the same tampering problem. A voter from Niles came to the polls and noticed someone else had signed their name into her signature box. A voter in Precinct D of Warren Township came to the polls and discovered that someone else had already voted in her name. John Williams of Niles stated that after the election officials in Mahoning County refused to give him a precinct breakdown of the vote. Russ Buckbee noted that there seems to have been a pattern of expunging inactive registered voters from inner-city precincts but not the suburbs. Several testifiers complained about long lines at the polls causing many voters to leave in frustration. Maureen Lauer-Gatta, who observed the vote recount in Trumbull County, wondered how many votes where lost due to a last-minute change of voting sites on Election Day itself. She said there were “several” such voting site changes on November 2. Ariel Vegosan, who observed the vote recount in Mahoning County, noticed baskets full of votes not counted and wondered if there were “missing baskets of votes” in Mahoning County. She called this to the attention of election officials who seemed unconcerned about this irregularity. The legitimacy of the whole recount was called into question by Prof. Lovegren due to malfunctioning machines and other problems.

An email from a Cuyahoga County voter shared at the hearing echoed many of the problems discovered in the Mahoning Valley: “The election wasn’t fair, but trying to prove that any one method of fraud or ‘errors’ has caused a false outcome will be nearly impossible. Instead I feel that a combination of frauds or ‘errors’ has given Bush the tiniest of advantages in our winner-take-all system. Simply from surveying the 12 polls in Westlake the general climate of the roving bands of partisan police officers backed by Republican public officials who were threatening Democratic supporters and poll workers, removing legally posted Democratic messages, and chasing Democratic supporters from the polling places with the threat of arrest, all of this amounted to a fraud. The process was also tainted at the poll with militant Bush supporters serving as the Board of Election Poll Judges”

Finally, note was taken at the hearing of the curious fact that exit polls showed Kerry with a 4.2% lead over Bush in Ohio, but the vote results gave Bush an alleged 2.5% victory over Kerry, a 6.7% final vote tally percentage shift toward Bush. The chances of this enormous shift being legitimate and the exit polls so wrong are infinitesimal. Another explanation is much more likely, plausible and real. It was clearly expressed well before this rigged election by the CEO of Diebold, Walden O’Dell, brother of the top executive at ES&S: “I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral vote to the President next year”.That sentiment and intent were undoubtedly shared again on Election Day itself with President Bush personally by key Ohio election officials, including the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio who doubles as Ohio’s Secretary of State, when Bush came to his state headquarters on High Street in Columbus, site of what may be the crime of the century. It is unlikely that anyone there on that crucial day invoked the spirit of Joseph Stalin who is reputed to have said “those who vote determine nothing; those who count the vote determine everything”. But whether explicitly invoked or not, that anti-democratic spirit was clearly invited to Ohio.
--
Dr. Werner Lange (Werlange@earthlink.com) lives in Newton Falls, Trumbull County, Ohio.

originally published December 24, 2004

Read More...

Summary only...

To preserve, protect, ...

Read More...

Summary only...

I will now spread democracy around the world

Read More...

Summary only...

Reelection means . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Family Ties Playing A Big Role On the Hill

washingtonpost.com
Family Ties Playing A Big Role On the Hill
Some Offices Appear Inherited, Not Elected

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 23, 2005; Page A01

It came as little surprise last week when Doris Matsui announced, four days after her husband's funeral, that she would run for his seat in Congress.

If the widow is successful in succeeding her late husband, Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif.), she will join a long list of lawmakers to follow relatives into office. With at least 18 senators, dozens of House members and several administration officials boosted by family legacies, modern-day Washington sometimes resembles the court of Louis XIV without the powdered wigs.

In Alaska, for example, Lisa Murkowski (R ) was elected to the Senate in November after being appointed to that position by her father, who vacated the seat to become governor. And in Illinois, Rep. William O. Lipinski (D) announced his retirement too late for a primary to be conducted, allowing him to persuade party elders to select his son, Daniel, to represent the comfortably Democratic district.

With names such as Boren, Mack and Carnahan, at least seven of the 41 new House members are relatives of prominent politicians. These legacies take office along with the newly reelected president, who is the grandson of a senator, son of a president and brother of a governor.

Dynastic families, and whiffs of nepotism, have been a part of American politics since John Adams made his son John Quincy Adams his envoy to Prussia. But what is striking is the endurance of American political legacies and the growth of new ones -- witness Hillary Rodham Clinton's move to the Senate as her husband left the White House -- even as other democracies move away from the perception of familial privilege. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has thrown out more than 600 "hereditary peers" in the House of Lords who earned their positions because of their birth.

Here, a seat in Congress is not a birthright, but the name recognition and political connections that come from having an office-holding relative are often enough to propel a candidate to office. "We've always had members of the same family serving in Congress right back to the beginning, but I notice more than there have been," said David W. Rohde, a Michigan State University political scientist. "It's a combination of name recognition and access to money."

The Brookings Institution's Stephen Hess, author of a book on political dynasties, sees a third factor: Children of politicians are often to the manner born, growing up with an expectation that they will lead. Indeed, the offspring often exceed their predecessors' achievements, as is the case with current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), daughter of one-time congressman and Baltimore mayor Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. Likewise, former vice president Al Gore rose higher than his senator-father. "These people tend to be pointed in that direction," he said.

That is how Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) sees it. He is the sixth generation of Frelinghuysen to represent New Jersey in Congress, dating to 1794. "The link is the fact that one or both of your parents is very involved in the political system so you often would be a tag-along," he said, recalling parades and picnics with his congressman-father. "You sort of get it in your blood."

Blue blood is not required for political legacies; a number of those in Congress now are black or Hispanic: Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), son of former congresswoman Carrie Meek; Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), son of former congressman Harold Ford; Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Tex.), son of former congressman Henry Gonzalez; Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), daughter of former congressman Edward Roybal; Rep. William L. Clay Jr. (D-Mo.), whose father was a congressman; and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), daughter of former Georgia state representative Billy McKinney.

As new legacies appear, others vanish. History is full of political families whose bloodlines have dried up: the Roosevelts, the Harrisons (William Henry and grandson Benjamin), the La Follettes, the Stevensons and the Cabot Lodges -- whose scion was defeated by John F. Kennedy, launching a new political dynasty.

President Bush, who rose to power with a famous political surname, has rewarded several children of his ideological allies. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's son became chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's daughter was made inspector general at the Health and Human Services Department, Justice Antonin Scalia's son was appointed to a top job in the Labor Department, and Vice President Cheney's daughter and son-in-law scored prestigious positions in the State and Justice departments.

Bush also chose the wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) to be his labor secretary, and the sons of Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn as his press secretary and Medicare director. And in 2001, he chose former House member Asa Hutchinson, brother of then-Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Family names also carry clout at the state and local levels, and not just in Jeb Bush's Florida or Richard Daley's Chicago. Newly elected Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R) is the son of U.S. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

The most extensive political pedigrees, though, are to be found in Congress.

In the Senate, no fewer than six current officeholders have followed their fathers in that body: Murkowski, Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.), Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn), Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Five others had famous relatives in other high places: John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), whose father was governor and White House chief of staff; Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), whose father was governor; Mary Landrieu (D-La.), whose father was New Orleans mayor; John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), whose uncle was vice president; James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), whose father was chief justice of the state supreme court; and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), whose father served in the House.

Nepotism became an issue in Alaska for the Murkowskis in 2004, but Frank H. Murkowski was unapologetic when he appointed his daughter to the seat he held for 22 years. "I felt the person I appoint to the remaining two years of my term should be someone who shares my basic philosophy, my values," Murkowski said in 2002.

According to the Center for American Women and Politics, 45 women have been elected to Congress to fill vacancies created by their husbands' death. There are least three widows of former congressmen now in the House: Reps. Mary Bono (R-Calif.), Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.). In the Senate, there are three wives of prominent politicians: Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Clinton and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), wife of former Maine governor John R. McKernan Jr.

Congress also has at least three pairs of brothers: the newly elected Rep. John T. Salazar (D-Colo.) and Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), and Reps. Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) (sons of a former Cuban senator). Then there are the Udall boys: Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is son of former congressman and presidential candidate Morris Udall, cousin of Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) -- whose father was a Cabinet secretary -- and cousin of Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).

Not all have been successful in their bids to follow relatives to Congress. The son of then-Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.), Brad, lost in a primary to succeed his father. Also last year, Republican Billy Tauzin III of Louisiana lost a race to succeed his retiring father, and in 2002, Scott Armey failed in the race to succeed his father, former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.).

But many in the House clearly benefited from political predecessors: Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), whose father was governor and mother was a senator; Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Connie Mack (R-Fla.) and Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), whose fathers were senators; Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), whose father is Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.); Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah), whose fathers were governors; Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.), whose grandfather was governor; and William Shuster (R-Pa.), Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), Charles Bass (R-N.H.), James T. Walsh (R-N.Y.), Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), whose fathers all served in the House.

"It certainly helps," to have his father's name and help, Lipinski said last week. But the new congressman, who has a doctorate in political science, notes that the legacy will get him only so far. "The primary comes up 14 months from now," he said. "If I'm not doing a good job, I'll be out."

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain to Raise Questions on Secret Spy Unit

washingtonpost.com
McCain to Raise Questions on Secret Spy Unit
Senator Says He Will Present Issue to Senate Armed Services Committee

Reuters
Sunday, January 23, 2005; 3:54 PM

WASHINGTON - A Republican lawmaker said Sunday his Senate committee would look into a reported move by the Pentagon to reinterpret U.S. law to give Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld broad authority over spy operations abroad.

Responding to the report in The Washington Post Sunday, Senate Armed Services Committee member John McCain, an Arizona Republican, told CBS's "Face the Nation" program he would raise the question at hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Post, citing Pentagon documents and interviews with participants, reported that Rumsfeld had created a unit called the Strategic Support Branch to end "near total dependence" on the CIA for human intelligence.

The unit, which has been operating for two years, deploys teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists with special operations forces, The Post said. The department contended the defense intelligence missions were subject to fewer legal constraints, the newspaper added.

Defense Department spokesman Lawrence DiRita, however, said there was "no unit that is directly reportable to the secretary of Defense for clandestine operations as is described in The Washington Post article."

"Further, the department is not attempting to 'bend' statutes to fit desired activities, as is suggested in this article," he added in a statement.

McCain said the move was "a product of the frustration with the CIA of a failure to have decent human intelligence."

"Should the Armed Services Committee look at it? Yes. And should we know more about it? Yes. And I'm always sorry to read about things in The Washington Post when they affect a committee that I'm a member of."

The Pentagon statement said the war on terrorism necessitated "a framework by which military forces and traditional human intelligence work more closely together and in greater numbers than they have in the past."

"These actions are being taken within existing statutory authorities to support traditional military operations and any assertion to the contrary is wrong," DiRita said.

A CIA spokesman said the agency had no immediate comment.

The unit has operated in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other undisclosed locations, the newspaper reported. The group's focus, according to an early planning document, was on Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, Philippines and Georgia, The Post said.

The Strategic Support Branch was established with "reprogrammed" funds and without explicit authority from the U.S. Congress, the newspaper reported, quoting unnamed Pentagon officials.

Read More...

Summary only...

California's Secession Letter to President Bush

California's Secession Letter to President Bush
(Humor)

Dear President Bush:

Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the North East.

We spoke to God, and she agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then.

So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzler. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.) We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Old Miss.' We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama. We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a
bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.

Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs. Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts.

Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war. Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of their kids' caskets coming home.

Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Seriously. Soon.

Sincerely,

California

Read More...

Summary only...

The Speech Misheard Round the World

The New York Times
January 22, 2005

The Speech Misheard Round the World
By ORLANDO PATTERSON

Cambridge, Mass. — SINCE 9/11, President Bush and his advisers have engaged in a series of arguments concerning the relation between freedom, tyranny and terrorism. The president's inaugural paean to freedom was the culmination of these arguments.

The stratagem began immediately after 9/11 with the president's claims that the terrorist attacks were a deliberate assault on America's freedom. The next stage of the argument came after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, thus eliminating the reason for the war, and it took the form of a bogus syllogism: all terrorists are tyrants who hate freedom. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom. Therefore Saddam Hussein is a terrorist whose downfall was a victory in the war against terrorism.

When this bogus syllogism began to lose public appeal, it was shored up with another flawed argument that was repeated during the campaign: tyranny breeds terrorism. Freedom is opposed to tyranny. Therefore the promotion of freedom is the best means of fighting terrorism.

Promoting freedom, of course, is a noble and highly desirable pursuit. If America were to make the global diffusion of freedom a central pillar of its foreign policy, it would be cause for joy. The way the present administration has gone about this task, however, is likely to have the opposite effect. Moreover, what the president means by freedom may get lost in translation to the rest of the world.

The administration's notion of freedom has been especially convenient, and its promotion of it especially cynical. In the first place, there is no evidence to support, and no good reason to believe, that Al Qaeda's attack on America was primarily motivated by a hatred of freedom. Osama bin Laden is clearly no lover of freedom, but this is an irrelevance. The attack on America was motivated by religious and cultural fanaticism.

Second, while it may be implicitly true that all terrorists are tyrants, it does not follow that all tyrants are terrorists. The United States, of all nations, should know this. Over the past century it has supported a succession of tyrannical states with murderous records of oppression against their own people, none of which were terrorist states - Argentina and Brazil under military rule, Augusto Pinochet's Chile, South Africa under apartheid, to list but a few. Today, one of America's closest allies in the fight against tyranny is tyrannical Pakistan, and one of its biggest trading partners is the authoritarian Communist regime of China.

Third, while the goal of promoting democracy is laudable, there is no evidence that free states are less likely to breed terrorists. Sadly, the very freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law are likely to shelter terrorists, especially within states making the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule. Transitional democratic states, like Russia today, are more violent than the authoritarian ones they replaced.

And even advanced democratic regimes have been known to breed terrorists, the best example being the United States itself. For more than half a century a terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, flourished in this country. According to the F.B.I., three of every four terrorist acts in the United States from 1980 to 2000 were committed by Americans.

The president speaks eloquently and no doubt sincerely of freedom both abroad and at home. But it is plain for the world to see that there is a discrepancy between his words and his actions.

He claims that freedom must be chosen and defended by citizens, yet his administration is in the process of imposing democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq. At home, he seeks to "make our society more prosperous and just and equal," yet during his first term there has been a great redistribution of income from working people to the wealthy as well as declining real income and job security for many Americans. Furthermore, he has presided over the erosion of civil liberties stemming from the Patriot Act.

Is this pure hypocrisy - or is there another explanation for the discrepancy, and for Mr. Bush's perplexing sincerity? There is no gainsaying an element of hypocrisy here. But it is perhaps no greater than usual in speeches of this nature. The problem is that what the president means by freedom, and what the world hears when he says it, are not the same.

In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries.

But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds, freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance. Freedom is largely a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world.

Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the other. It is experienced most powerfully in mobility - both socioeconomic and geographic.

In many ways this is the triumph of the classic 19th-century version of freedom, the version that philosophers and historians preached but society never quite achieved. This 19th-century freedom must now coexist with the more modern version of freedom. It does so by acknowledging the latter but not necessarily including it.

It is not that Americans have rejected the formal model of freedom - ask any American if he believes in democracy and a free press and he will genuinely endorse both. Rather it is that such abstract notions of freedom are far removed from their notion of what freedom means and how it is experienced.

The genius of President Bush is that he has acquired an exquisite grasp of this development in American political culture, and he can play both versions of freedom to his advantage. Because he so easily empathizes with the ordinary American's privatized view of freedom, the president was relatively immune from criticism that he disregarded more traditional measures of freedom like civil liberties. In the privatized conception of freedom that he and his followers share, the abuses of the Patriot Act play little or no part. (There are times, of course, when the president must voice support for the modern liberal version of freedom. The inaugural is such a day, "prescribed by law and marked by ceremony," as he ruefully noted.)

Yet while these inconsistencies may not bother the president's followers or harm his standing in America, they matter to the rest of the world. Few foreigners are even aware of America's hybrid conception of freedom, much less accepting of it. In most of the rest of the world, the president's inaugural address was heard merely as hypocrisy.

Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard, is the author of "Freedom in the Making of Western Culture" and a forthcoming book on the meaning of freedom in the United States.

Read More...

Summary only...

Does Not Compute

The New York Times
January 22, 2005

Does Not Compute
By NICHOLAS G. CARR

Carlisle, Mass. — THE Federal Bureau of Investigation has officially entered what computer professionals call "software hell." After spending $170 million to create a program that would give agents ready access to information on suspected terrorists, the bureau admitted last week that it's not even close to having a working system. In fact, it may have to start from scratch.

Shocking? Not at all. A look at the private sector reveals that software debacles are routine. And the more ambitious the project, the higher the odds of disappointment. It may not be much consolation to taxpayers, but the F.B.I. has a lot of company. Software hell is a very crowded place.

Consider Ford Motor Company's ambitious effort to write new software for buying supplies. Begun in 2000, the goal of the project, code-named Everest, was to replace Ford's patchwork of internal purchasing systems with a uniform system that would run over the Internet. The new software was supposed to reduce paperwork, speed orders and slash costs. But the effort sank under its own complexity. When it was rolled out for testing in North America, suppliers rebelled; according to Automotive News, many found the new software to be slower and more cumbersome than the programs it was intended to replace. Last August, Ford abandoned Everest amid reports that the project was as much as $200 million over budget.

A McDonald's program called Innovate was even more ambitious - and expensive. Started in 1999 with a budget of $1 billion, the network sought to automate pretty much the entire fast-food empire. Software systems would collect information from every restaurant - the number of burgers sold, the speed of customer service, even the temperature of the oil in the French fry vats - and deliver it in a neat bundle to the company's executives, who would be able to adjust operations moment by moment.

Or so it was promised. Despite the grand goals, the project went nowhere. In late 2002, McDonald's killed it, writing off the $170 million that had already been spent.

Research by the Standish Group, a software research and consulting firm, illustrates the troubled fates of most big software initiatives. In 1994, researchers found, only 16 percent were completed on time, on budget and fulfilling the original specifications. Nearly a third were canceled outright, and the remainder fell short of their objectives. More than half of the cost overruns amounted to at least 50 percent of the original budget. Of the projects that went off schedule, almost half took more than twice as long as originally planned. A follow-up survey in 2003, however, showed that corporate software projects were doing better; researchers found that the percentage of successful projects had risen to 34 percent.

What happened between 1994 and 2003? The Internet boom went bust. Stung by wasted investments in complicated software systems, business executives began taking a more skeptical view of such projects. They scaled back their expectations, pursuing more modest software enhancements with narrower goals - and far higher chances of success.

Equally important, they stopped trying to be creative. Rather than try to customize their software, they began looking for cheaper, off-the-shelf programs that would get the job done with a minimum of fuss. When necessary, they changed their own procedures to fit the available software. Old, generic technology may not be glamorous, but it has an important advantage: it works.

It may well turn out that the F.B.I.'s biggest problem was its desire to be innovative - to build a new wheel rather than use an old one within easy reach. When it comes to developing software today, innovation should be a last resort, not a first instinct.

Nicholas G. Carr is the author of "Does IT Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage."

Read More...

Summary only...

Nautical Nonsense

The New York Times
January 22, 2005

Nautical Nonsense

"Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?"

"SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS!"

"Absorbent and yellow and porous is he ..."

... not to mention dopey and charming and more hugely overexposed than ever, thanks to an anti-homosexual attack from the Christian right. Because of a media fuss ignited by the American Family Association and Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, this cartoon character is well on his way to culture-war immortality, up there with those moral saboteurs Murphy Brown and Tinky Winky.

It's not that Dr. Dobson has a problem with Mr. SquarePants per se. He is angry, rather, about a video made for grade schools by the We Are Family Foundation that features SpongeBob and other TV characters. It doesn't mention sex. But the foundation's Web site says this: "I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own." How could anyone be against that?

Dr. Dobson is. He has denounced the video as a bait-and-switch, one that uses cartoons to legitimize a group that will corrupt children with a homosexual agenda.

We find it strange, actually, that the intolerant Dr. Dobson has not taken aim at SpongeBob himself, who is naughty and rude enough to give many parents pause. After "The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie" came out, a Christian family Web site made a long list of worrisome bits, including "cartoon rear male nudity, repeatedly," "pinching of banner staff between nude buttocks" and "suggestion of sadomasochism in transvestitism."

As any weary parent knows, America's children spend billions of hours watching movies and shows like that, absorbing underwear jokes, flatulence gags and mushy messages of tolerance until their brains run out their ears.

There may be a threat in all that, but Dr. Dobson and his allies seem to have missed it entirely.

Read More...

Summary only...

Marylanders' Right to Know

The New York Times
January 22, 2005

Marylanders' Right to Know

Gov. Robert Ehrlich of Maryland has pushed the public interest aside by promulgating an extraordinary ban forbidding tens of thousands of state employees from talking to two Baltimore Sun journalists whose coverage has displeased him. The gag order is a sweeping attempt to cut the two - the statehouse bureau chief and a columnist - from the flow of information vital to democracy. It is no surprise that The Sun has felt obliged to go to court to defend the journalists and accuse the governor of violating the First Amendment right of free speech.

No less does Mr. Ehrlich's order abuse state workers' rights by attempting to choke off information from them to taxpayers who need to know more about their government than the claims of the governor's press releases. We hope enough state workers are insulted by the lock-step edict to indulge even more their right to get truth out to the people.

Beyond citing minor errors across months of coverage, Mr. Ehrlich has not documented his blanket charges that the newspaper is fabricating both quotations and context in its stories. The governor's anger seems more rooted in The Sun's uncovering an attempt to sell state preservation lands to a developer, as well as the fact that its editorial page did not endorse him. It is not enough for Mr. Ehrlich to note that other Sun reporters are not being ostracized even as he seeks what he candidly calls a "chilling effect" on the two he has blacklisted.

It may seem good short-run politics to supporters of Mr. Ehrlich, a conservative Republican, to campaign against The Sun as elitist and biased. But in the long run, the governor, who faces re-election next year, is attacking a newspaper with a century-plus record of credibility. Cooler heads should prevail in settling the standoff short of the courthouse. Until then, Mr. Ehrlich's order stands as an embarrassing display of hubris.

Read More...

Summary only...