IRAN ‘SHOOTS DOWN’ U.S. SPY DRONE

THE MEDIA LINE

The Iranian army has shot down an American spy drone, according to a member of Iran’s parliament.

The drone, said to belong to the United States army, was downed while crossing the border into the country, MP Seyed Nezam Mola Hoveizeh told the Iranian Fars News Agency.

It was downed “during the last few days,” he said.

He pointed out this was not the first time the Americans had sent a spy drone to the region.

The report comes amid heightened tension between Iran and the U.S. over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program.

The United States Navy is denying the claim. "There has been no loss of any of our drones or UAVs and as a result, the claim that the Iranian government is making is false," said the Dubai-based U.S. Central Command spokesman, Capt. Frank Pascual.

Members of Iran’s parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Committee said more regional diplomatic efforts should be exerted to force American warships out of the Persian Gulf, according to the Iranian daily Siyasat-e Ruz.

Iran is concerned that the U.S. is beefing up forces in the region for a possible military attack.

Their unease was increased after the U.S. sent a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf this week.

The USS John C. Stennis, with its 3,200 sailors, left the U.S. on Tuesday and is expected to arrive in the Middle East in a matter of weeks.

This is the first time two U.S. aircraft carriers will be stationed in the Persian Gulf since the war on Iraq began in 2003. The carrier will significantly boost the U.S.’s airpower in the region.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan has said it will not allow the U.S. to wage military attacks on Iran. Afghani Foreign Minister Rengin Dadavar Sabanta said there was a “friendly and historical relationship” between Iran and Afghanistan.

Iran is helping rebuild Afghanistan and there are no disagreements between the two countries, he told the London-based A-Sharq Al-Awsat.

Washington is concerned that Iran intends to manufacture a nuclear weapon, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Tehran is denying reports that the head of its Supreme National Security Council ‘Ali Larijani has requested Saudi Arabia’s help to defuse tension between Iran and the U.S.

Saudis Endorse New U.S. Strategy for Iraq

NEWYORK TIMES

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 16 — Saudi Arabia endorsed the goals of President Bush’s new strategy for Iraq today. But in carefully worded comments, the Saudi foreign minister indicated deep concern about whether the Shiite-led government in Baghdad can halt sectarian violence and protect Sunni interests.

“We agree fully with the goals set by the new strategy, which in our view are the goals that — if implemented — would solve the problems that face Iraq,” said Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister.

During a joint news conference here with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the prince said he could not comment on specifics of the plan, which Bush administration officials acknowledge is built around support for the current Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite political leader.

Saudi Arabia is a predominantly Sunni state. Ms. Rice met late on Monday with King Abdullah and other officials at a hunting lodge in the desert outside the capital, after arriving from Egypt.

Although Prince Saud’s endorsement of Mr. Bush’s new Iraq plan was lukewarm at best, the prince declined to be drawn into a discussion of potential Saudi actions in the event that Iraq slides into full-blown sectarian civil war.

“Why speculate on such dire consequences? Why not speculate on the positive side?” he said, urging unity among Iraq’s Shiites, Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, the main groups in its population. “I cannot for the life of me concede that a country like that would commit suicide, given the goodwill and the desire of all to help in this.”

Ms. Rice announced in Egypt on Monday that she intends to call together Israeli and Palestinian leaders within the next month for what she described as a high-level but informal three-way meeting, in hopes of giving new impetus to moribund peace efforts.

That announcement was the one tangible development to emerge from her visit to Israel and the Palestinian areas earlier on her Middle East trip. She held talks with the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Sunday and with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel early Monday before moving on to Egypt.

“I will soon meet with Prime Minister Olmert and with President Abbas to have discussions about the broad issues on the horizon, so that we can work on the road map to try and accelerate the road map and to move to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Ms. Rice said, referring to the stalled peace plan for the region.

Both men have been weakened politically lately. Mr. Olmert’s approval ratings are dropping after what many viewed as the clumsy military offensive during the summer to counter Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon. As for Mr. Abbas, he has been battling for his political survival since the militant group Hamas swept to power a year ago and took control of the Palestinian legislature away from his Fatah allies.

Ms. Rice was pressed on Monday to cite any cause for optimism in resolving an Israeli-Palestinian dispute that has defied both Republican and Democratic administrations — and at a time when the region is roiled with conflict.

“Before we say that this is going to end in frustration, let’s be glad that after six years and a long time that the parties want to engage in an informal set of discussions about the future between them,” Ms. Rice said.

Ms. Rice is now trying to rally support among America’s Sunni Arab allies in the region for President Bush’s new military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq. The Gulf states are next on her itinerary.

While Ms. Rice and her senior aides said there was no quid pro quo, Arab governments want to show their populations that some progress is being made in resolving Palestinian grievances before they endorse the Bush administration’s new efforts in Iraq, let alone offer concrete support for them.

Ms. Rice spoke several times of how the two sides could discuss a “political horizon” to energize their peace efforts. The Palestinians have used this phrase on occasion to emphasize the need for some sort of timetable for achieving statehood.

American and Israeli officials declined to define what might be viewed on this distant “political horizon.” But the new language seems to be an effort to cast talks on the future course of Israeli-Palestinian relations in a hopeful light even before the two sides fulfill specific, intermediate steps required by the internationally agreed “road map” framework to resolve their disputes.

The road map is a 2003 plan backed by the United Nations, Russia, the United States and the European Union that lays out sequential steps to be carried out by Israelis and Palestinians on the way to reaching a final political settlement. Neither side has met its obligations under the plan, which stalled immediately after it was introduced.

In the first phase, Israel is to freeze settlement activity and the Palestinians are to break up militant groups. But on Monday, the Israeli government published plans to build 44 additional homes in Maale Adumim, the largest West Bank settlement, just east of Jerusalem.

Officials for all three governments to be involved in the informal meeting said those broader discussions to energize their peace efforts would not be allowed to replace the international “road map” agreement.

“I am very clear that the one thing that you do not want to do is to try to rush to formal negotiations before things are fully prepared, before people are fully prepared,” Ms. Rice said. “But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be progress as we’re moving along.”

There was no immediate decision about when or where the three-way meeting would take place, or what the agenda might be.

David Baker, an official in the Israeli prime minister’s office, said Mr. Olmert and Ms. Rice “spoke about ways to generate momentum between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Ms. Rice’s subsequent meetings here with President Hosni Mubarak and his senior aides were held along the Nile, not far from the ancient temple complex of Luxor. The ruins date to the greatest era of the pharaohs, but their delicately carved walls and heroic statues have been reshaped over the centuries by designs of other conquering powers — including empires that likewise have fallen to history, including those of Alexander the Great and Rome.

Ms. Rice’s schedule did not allow time for a visit to the site, though.

Joining Ms. Rice and Mr. Mubarak at a news conference in Luxor on Monday, the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, acknowledged that his nation shared a regional interest in stabilizing Iraq, and he expressed support for the new Bush strategy.

“We are supportive of that plan, because we are hopeful that that plan would lead to, ensure, the stability, the unity and the cohesion of the Iraqi government,” he said.

Obama Takes First Step Toward Running in ‘08

NY TIMES

WASHINGTON – Senator Barack Obama took his first step into the Democratic presidential race today by opening an exploratory committee to raise money and begin building a campaign designed “to change our politics.” He said he would make a formal declaration Feb. 10 in Illinois.

“Running for the presidency is a profound decision – a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone,” Mr. Obama said in a video address e-mailed to his supporters. “So before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country.”

Mr. Obama disclosed his decision on his Web site and was not planning to make other statements today. Instead, he was making a series of telephone calls to key Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states with early contests on the party’s 2008 nominating calendar.

Mr. Obama, 45, was elected to the Senate two years ago. He becomes the fifth Democrat to enter the race, joining Senators Joseph R. Biden of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut as well as former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Tom Vilsack, who stepped down this month as governor of Iowa.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is expected to join the Democratic field soon and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would make his decision known by the end of the month. Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts also is weighing another run.

By now, the rapid trajectory of Mr. Obama is a well-established tale, rising from law professor to state senator to U.S. senator in less than a decade. He is the only African-American serving in the U.S. Senate and could be the only black presidential candidate this year.

But the next phase of his political development presents an even more intriguing storyline – as well as inviting closer scrutiny – as he discovers whether it is a blessing or curse to embark on a presidential race carrying the expectations of a country that is searching for something new and different.

In his video statement today, Mr. Obama presented himself as a fresh face – and voice – for Democrats. The message was crafted in blue-sky optimism, but did not delve into specific details for the challenges facing all candidates in the 2008 presidential campaign. Aides said the announcement speech next month would outline more specifics.

“For the next several weeks,” Mr. Obama said in the video, “I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together.”

Even before Mr. Obama opened an exploratory committee, his flirtations at a presidential bid changed the contours of the 2008 campaign. Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin were among those to fold their cards, fearful that what had been seen as a wide-open fight for the nomination suddenly seemed like nothing of the kind.

But for all of his anointment as a beacon of hope for Democrats, it remains an open question whether he can turn a boomlet into a movement. Privately, even longtime friends wonder if he can meet such lofty expectations, which have elevated him beyond a politician’s normal realm, thanks to his celebrity, ambition and biography.

Mr. Obama intends to open his presidential campaign headquarters in Chicago, which also would provide a key fund-raising base. As he made his decision, he convened a series of private meetings with longtime advisers and friends, ensuring that he had their support before entering the toughest political race of his life.

After one of the meetings, Abner Mikva, a White House chief counsel in the Clinton administration and a longtime friend of Mr. Obama’s, was asked to assess the senator’s biggest challenge in a presidential race. He didn’t hesitate.

“First off, there is Hillary Rodham Clinton. And that’s not going to be easy to handle,” Mr. Mikva said in an interview last month. “He says he’s not going to run against her, which is fine, but if they are the two front-runners, it’s going to be awfully hard not to. He needs to work on managing Hillary’s head start without antagonizing her supporters and shore up the notion that this is something more than just hype.”

In the field of prospective Democratic hopefuls, Mr. Obama stands apart from Mrs. Clinton and some candidates because of his unwavering opposition to the Iraq war. But he has declined to say whether he supports the current liberal position of blocking funding for sending more troops to Iraq.

And in his statement today, he did not dwell on Iraq, saying only: “We’re still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged.”

Donna Marsh O'Connor Begs the Media to Re-Examine 9/11

This is a clip from a press conference where Donna Marsh O'Connor, a mother who lost her daughter in the south tower on 9/11, pleads with the media to re-examine 9/11 and ask the real questions. She is asking all of us to give this press conference exposure.

After watching this, I'm not feeling very patient. I wish people would examine their illusions, and stop believing whatever makes them feel good. Sometimes things make you feel bad, and they should! 95% of the people don't care enough about human life to stand up for it! That SHOULD make you feel bad! Just goes to show you their dehumanization schemes work. They're fucking brilliant...

Absolute Power

The real reason the Bush administration won't back down on Guantanamo.

slate



Why is the United States poised to try Jose Padilla as a dangerous terrorist, long after it has become perfectly clear that he was just the wrong Muslim in the wrong airport on the wrong day?

Why is the United States still holding hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, long after years of interrogation and abuse have established that few, if any, of them are the deadly terrorists they have been held out to be?

And why is President Bush still issuing grandiose and provocative signing statements, the latest of which claims that the executive branch holds the power to open mail as it sees fit?

Willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I once believed the common thread here was presidential blindness—an extreme executive-branch myopia that leads the president to believe that these futile little measures are somehow integral to combating terrorism. That this is some piece of self-delusion that precludes Bush and his advisers from recognizing that Padilla is just a chump and Guantanamo merely a holding pen for a jumble of innocent and half-guilty wretches.

But it has finally become clear that the goal of these foolish efforts isn't really to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo, or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terror. The object is a larger one, and the original overarching goal of this administration: expanding executive power, for its own sake.

Two scrupulously reported pieces on the Padilla case are illuminating. On Jan. 3, Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio interviewed Mark Corallo, spokesman for then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, about the behind-the-scenes decision-making in the Padilla case—a case that's lolled through the federal courts for years. According to Totenberg, when the Supreme Court sent Padilla's case back to the lower federal courts on technical grounds in 2004, the Bush administration's sole concern was preserving its constitutional claim that it could hold citizens as enemy combatants. "Justice Department officials warned that if the case went back to the Supreme Court, the administration would almost certainly lose," she reports, which is why Padilla was hauled back to the lower courts. Her sources further confirmed that "key players in the Defense Department and Vice President Cheney's office insisted that the power to detain Americans as enemy combatants had to be preserved."

Deborah Sontag's excellent New York Times story on Padilla on Jan. 4 makes the same point: He was moved from military custody to criminal court only as "a legal maneuver that kept the issue of his detention without charges out of the Supreme Court." So this is why the White House yanked Padilla from the brig to the high court to the federal courts and back to a Florida trial court: They were only forum shopping for the best place to enshrine the right to detain him indefinitely. Their claims about Padilla's dirty bomb, known to be false, were a means of advancing their larger claims about executive power. And when confronted with the possibility of losing on those claims, they yanked him back to the criminal courts as a way to avoid losing powers they'd already won.

This need to preserve newly won legal ground also explains the continued operation of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Last week marked the fifth anniversary of the camp that—according to Donald Rumsfeld in 2002—houses only "the worst of the worst." Now that over half of them have been released (apparently, the best of the worst) and even though only about 80 of the rest will ever see trials, the camp remains open. Why? Civil-rights groups worldwide and even close U.S. allies like Germany, Denmark, and England clamor for its closure. And as the ever-vigilant Nat Hentoff points out, new studies reveal that only a small fraction of the detainees there are even connected to al-Qaida—according to the Defense Department's own best data.

But Guantanamo stays open for the same reason Padilla stays on trial. Having claimed the right to label enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely without charges, the Bush administration is unable to retreat from that position without ceding ground. In some sense, the president is now as much a prisoner of Guantanamo as the detainees. And having gone nose-to-nose with the Congress over his authority to craft stripped-down courts for these "enemies," courts guaranteed to produce guilty verdicts, Bush cannot just call off the trials.

The endgame in the war on terror isn't holding the line against terrorists. It's holding the line on hard-fought claims to absolutely limitless presidential authority.

Enter these signing statements. The most recent of the all-but-meaningless postscripts Bush tacks onto legislation gives him the power to "authorize a search of mail in an emergency" to ''protect human life and safety" and "for foreign intelligence collection." There is some debate about whether the president has that power already, but it misses the point. The purpose of these signing statements is simply to plant a flag on the moon—one more way for the president to stake out the furthest corners in his field of constitutional dreams.

Last spring, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer profiled David Addington, Vice President Richard Cheney's chief of staff and legal adviser. Addington's worldview in brief: A single-minded devotion to something called the New Paradigm, a constitutional theory of virtually limitless executive power, wherein "the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it," Mayer describes.

Insiders in the Bush administration told Mayer that Addington and Cheney had been "laying the groundwork" for a vast expansion of presidential power long before 9/11. In 2002, the vice president told ABC News that the presidency was "weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years." Rebuilding that presidency has been their sole goal for decades.

The image of Addington scrutinizing "every bill before President Bush signs it, searching for any language that might impinge on Presidential power," as Mayer puts it, can be amusing—like the mother of the bride obsessing over a tricky seating chart. But this zeal to restore an all-powerful presidency traps the Bush administration in its own worst legal sinkholes. This newfound authority—to maintain a disastrous Guantanamo, to stage rights-free tribunals and hold detainees forever—is the kind of power Nixon only dreamed about. It cannot be let go.

In a heartbreaking letter from Guantanamo this week, published in the Los Angeles Times, prisoner Jumah Al Dossari writes: "The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I have been destroyed." I fear he is wrong. The destruction of Al Dossari, Jose Padilla, Zacarias Moussaoui, and some of our most basic civil liberties was never a purpose or a goal—it was a mere byproduct. The true purpose is more abstract and more tragic: To establish a clunky post-Watergate dream of an imperial presidency, whatever the human cost may be.

Somalia: Ethiopia Rides The Tiger

blackstar news

The Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, must have been studying the magnificent successes of the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and Israel's recent foray into Lebanon.

He has clearly decided to emulate them. His argument is exactly that which was given by George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert. We must attack our neighbor because we have to keep Islamic terrorists from pursuing their jihad and attacking us.

In each case, the invader was sure of his military superiority and of the fact that the majority of the population would hail the attackers as liberators. Zenawi asserts he is cooperating in the U.S. worldwide struggle against terrorism. And indeed, the United States has offered not only its intelligence support but has sent in both its air force and units of special troops to assist the Ethiopians.

Still, each local situation is a bit different. And it is worth reviewing the recent history of what is called the Horn of Africa, in which countries have switched geopolitical sides with some ease in the last forty years. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Ethiopia was a symbol of African resistance to European imperialism. The Ethiopians defeated the Italian colonial troops at Adowa in 1896 and the country remained independent. When Italy tried again in 1935, Emperor Haile Selassie went to the League of Nations and pleaded for collective security against the invasion. He received no help.

Ethiopia then became the symbol of Africa throughout the Black world. The colors of its flag became the colors of Africa. And at the end of the Second World War, Ethiopian independence was restored. In the difficult genesis of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963, Haile Selassie used his prestige to play a key role as intermediary between differing African states. The OAU established its headquarters in Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa. But if Ethiopia served this symbolic role throughout Africa, it also had an oppressive and aristocratic state machinery. And when acute famines began to plague the country in the 1970s, internal discontent
mounted rapidly.

In 1974, an army officer, Mengistu Haile Mariam, led a revolution against the "feudal" monarchy and established a military government which soon proclaimed itself Marxist-Leninist. Before Mengistu, relations between the United States and Ethiopia had been warm. Ethiopia's neighbor, Somalia, had strained relations with the United States. It also had a military government under Siad Barre. However, it called itself "scientific socialist" and had fairly close relations with the Soviet Union, offering it a naval base.

After the 1974 coup, when Mengistu proclaimed his government Marxist-Leninist, the Soviet Union dumped Somalia and embraced the larger and more important Ethiopia. So the United States embraced Somalia in turn, and took over the naval base. To understand what happened next, a few words of ethnic analysis of the two countries is needed. Ethiopia is an ancient Christian kingdom, long dominated by Amhara aristocrats. There is another large Christian group, the Tigre, who speak a different language. There are two other quite large groups -- the Oromo (half of whom are Muslim) and the Muslim Somalis. In addition, at the end of the Second World War, Ethiopia absorbed the coastal Italian colony of Eritrea. Under Haile Selassie, only the Amhara counted, and Eritrea was waging a war for its independence. Without Eritrea, Ethiopia is landlocked.

Somalia was quite different. There had been two colonies -- Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland. Italian Somaliland became independent in 1960 in the course of liquidating Italian colonies, and British Somaliland was added onto it. In the 1960s, when ethnic conflicts began to plague many African states, it was commonly said that the one African country that would never know ethnic conflict was Somalia, since almost everyone in the country was ethnically Somali, spoke Somali, and was a Moslem.

People in both countries chafed under the respective dictatorships. And when the Cold War ended, neither government could survive. Both Mengistu and Barre were overthrown in 1991. What replaced Mengistu was a Tigre liberation movement, which at first spoke a “Maoist” nationalist language. As a way of distinguishing itself from the Mengistu regime, it acceded to Eritrea's independence, only to regret this later. Christian, if not Amhara, dominance soon became the major theme and Oromo and Somali uprisings began. Human rights activists do not consider Zenawi’s government much better than Mengistu’s.

In Somalia, the "perfect" ethnic state fell apart, as Somali clans began to fight each other for power. After 1991, the United States began to embrace the new leader of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, who abandoned his “Maoism” altogether. Somalia was left out in the cold.

When the United States sent in troops on a “humanitarian” mission to quell disorders the United States got the brutal drubbing we now call "Blackhawk down," and it withdrew its troops. A long multi-sided civil war continued. In 2006, a group called the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took over the capital, Mogadishu, and expelled the feuding clan leaders, restoring relative peace for the first time in more than a decade.

The United States saw the UIC as a replica of the Taliban and allied to Al-Qaeda. So did Zenawi. So Ethiopia decided to invade, oust the UIC, and prop up the powerless central government that had existed on paper since 2004 but had been unable even to enter the capital city.

There we went again. Of course, Ethiopia (with the United States) has won the first round. The UIC has abandoned Mogadishu. But the Somalis aren’t welcoming the Ethiopians as liberators. The clan leaders are fighting each other again, and Mogadishu is again in turmoil. The Ethiopia government is facing troubles not only in Somalia but now increasingly at home as well.

As Israel had to withdraw from Lebanon, and as the United States is going to have to do in Iraq, so Ethiopia will have to pull back soon from Somalia. The situation within Somalia will not have been improved because of its preventive attack. Preventive attacks are always a potential boomerang. Either one wins overwhelmingly or one loses badly.

Report: Israel and Syria had secret talks

AP

JERUSALEM A new report about secret peace talks in the Middle East.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz (hah-ah-REHTS') says Israeli and Syrian representatives quietly held two years of talks on a framework for peace before last summer's war in Lebanon.

The report doesn't identify its sources. Officially, Israel says it isn't aware of any meetings, while Syria calls the report "absolutely baseless."

But an Israeli official who doesn't want to be named says there were unofficial talks that the government didn't sanction.

Official peace talks between Israel and Syria broke down in 2000 amid disagreements over an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, a strategic plateau overlooking northern Israel.

FOXNews.com - Government Surveillance a Troubling Growth Trend, Say Anti-War Activists

FOXNews.com - Government Surveillance a Troubling Growth Trend, Say Anti-War Activists

Monday , January 15, 2007

Kelley Beaucar Vlaho
WASHINGTON —

The arrest of a political activist in Connecticut two weeks ago is fueling the ongoing debate over how far the federal government can and should go in monitoring groups and individuals it suspects may be planning criminal activities.


Legal experts say the monitoring is perfectly legal, particularly under post-Sept. 11 rules. While authorities are required to obtain warrants to access personal records, in most instances anything in the public domain is fair game.


But critics say the Jan. 3 arrest of freelance journalist Kenneth Krayeske went way beyond the pale.


Krayeske, 34, was taking pictures of Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell's inaugural parade in Hartford when he was approached by police and detained for 12 hours on charges of breach of peace and interfering with an officer.


Hartford police say they recognized Krayeske, a critic of Rell with a record of civil disobedience in anti-war protests, from a photo and briefing they received before the parade from state police and the Connecticut Intelligence Center, which is located at the local FBI office.


During the parade, according to police spokeswoman Sgt. Nancy Mulroy, "our officers observed [Krayeske's] behavior and in their opinion, based on his behavior, they considered him a threat."


The police report says Krayeske sped up to the parade route on his mountain bike "at a high rate of speed," dumped the bike and ran up to the procession "directly in front of where the governor was passing by."


He was "recognized … from the photograph provided by the state police," said Det. Jeff Antuna. He said officers intervened and "escorted him away from the governor and the parade route, which he resisted by attempting to pull away."


But Krayeske and some others tell a different story. Krayeske says he was taking pictures of other dignitaries when he rode over to catch a shot of the governor. He was able to snap a picture of her smiling before he was grabbed by police.

Click here to see Krayeske's parade photos.


Witnesses said Krayeske's behavior was not out of the ordinary, and they confirmed that he was taking pictures when he was surrounded by police. According to his attorney, Norm Pattis, Krayeske was surprised by their approach but did not struggle. He was put in handcuffs immediately, Pattis said.


"He pulled his arm back because he was startled. He was shocked." Pattis said Krayeske asked why he was being grabbed and told the police, "You're not supposed to arrest anybody with an absence of probable cause."


Krayeske was initially held on $75,000 bond and detained until 1 a.m., after which he was released on a promise to appear in court. Pattis suggests the high bond for the misdemeanor charges was used to keep him there until after the evening's inaugural ball.


The attorney said the charges will likely be dropped. And if the case goes to court, "There is no question in my mind that he will be acquitted."


Democratic lawmakers, the city's mayor and the Republican governor herself are demanding an explanation of the situation, and two Democratic state senators have scheduled a Jan. 23 hearing in the General Assembly's Public Safety Committee to investigate.


Other elected officials are looking for an explanation of the so-called "list" that was distributed and named Krayeske and others as threats on that day.


"There is nothing about what this category of peace activists does that poses an actual threat," said state Rep. Mike Lawlor, referring to the types of activism that has earned Krayeske's "in your face" reputation around Hartford circles.


"The purpose of this situation was to intimidate," Lawlor said.


Krayeske reportedly confronted Rell publicly over the Green Party's non-access to the gubernatorial debates last year. But supporters say he has never been physically confrontational or threatened anyone.


State Rep. John Geragosian questions the motivations of the police in this case, and said he believes the arrest speaks to broader concerns.


"If this is going to be a threshold for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest — questioning what an officer is doing — it undermines the entire freedom of the press as well as general freedom of speech," Geragosian said. "It's a scary turn of events in this country at this time."


But Hartford police are standing by the arrest, and state officers insist they do not maintain a list of activists for surveillance. Lt. J. Paul Vance said police compile information on individuals who — based on past actions — may demonstrate a proclivity to "disrupt an event or act unlawfully."


"Law enforcement are always told if [these individuals] are observed, to simply give them scrutiny … any arrest will have to be based on probable cause," Vance said. He said it was "the officer's decision" to arrest Krayeske, and he declined to say whether probable cause had been demonstrated in the case.


Vance said that police have often been assigned to protect protesters as well.


"We recognize and understand that people have their right to free speech and to demonstrate, and we are obligated by law to protect everyone's right and that includes protesters," he said.


A Push Toward Surveillance?


Anti-war activists say they have long been tracked by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, but such activity has increased since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.


“I do believe that it is more pervasive than most people realize. Legal or not, the government will take whatever steps it feels necessary to insure their paranoid visions of security are realized,” said Jack Bussell, a member of Maine Veterans For Peace, which was tracked by the FBI in 2003, according to documents released last year through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Maine office of the American Civil Liberties Union.


The documents apparently intercepted by the FBI included copies of e-mails detailing the group's activities as well as the names of individuals involved in local protests. Paul Bresson, spokesman for the FBI in Washington, said the agency does not track groups or individuals unless it has cause to believe they are likely to commit a criminal act.


“By no means are we spying on groups and intimidating them in a way as to deny them of their rights,” Bresson said. Nonetheless, he said, “there are situations where there is a potential for violence, and we know there are people who have been at such gatherings and have broken the law. We would be remiss as a law enforcement agency if we didn’t pay any attention to that potential problem.”


Other recent complaints from activists across the country have included:


— Local and federal law enforcement monitoring last year of anti-war groups like the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker pacificist organization, and Raging Grannies in Seattle before the annual Seafair summer festival;


— Inclusion in the Pentagon’s Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database — established to monitor terrorist threats — of protest activities organized or supported by the American Friends Service Committee;


— A "pretext interview" by four FBI agents and two Denver police officers at the home of a female member of the American Friends Service Committee before the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in 2004.


Some civil libertarians say the federal government is exploiting the threat of terrorism to monitor and intimidate anti-war demonstrators across the country.


"It is extremely pervasive and very dangerous for a democracy," said Michael McConnell, regional director of the American Friends Service Committee.


"That kind of surveillance and spying of our own citizens, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly," he said.


But Scott Silliman, director of the Center for Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University, said the line between tracking terrorists and intimidating peaceful dissenters is thin, and sometimes a balance is difficult to achieve.


Silliman said law enforcement officials occasionally go over the line, but he said he does not consider it systematic or as bad as the domestic surveillance against liberal groups in the 1960s and 1970s.


“Do we get it right 100 percent of the time? No. Are we striving to do that? Yes,” he said.

White House: Can't rule out attack on Iran - CNN.com

White House: Can't rule out attack on Iran - CNN.com

Story Highlights•

White House says no attack planned against Iran, but won't rule out possibility

• National security adviser Stephen Hadley says diplomacy should resolve issues
• Hadley won't say whether he believes move on Iran would need congressional OK
• Iran says U.S. detention of Iranians in Iraq is "illegal"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said Sunday it is not planning military action against Iran, but refused to rule out the possibility, bucking pressure from several senators who said the administration is not authorized to do so.

Asked whether the United States is preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran, President Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley told NBC's "Meet the Press," "No, the president has said very clearly that the issues we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically."

But, on ABC's "This Week," Hadley would not rule out the possibility of such an attack and would not say whether he agrees with those senators who say that the Bush administration would need congressional backing for such a move.

The sharp questioning about U.S. plans for Iran followed Bush's address to the nation Wednesday night announcing his strategy for Iraq, in which he vowed the United States "will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." (Full story)

The Bush administration accuses Iran of sending fighters into Iraq and attacking U.S. troops. Tehran denies the charges.

"The priority is what's going on in Iraq," Hadley told ABC. "That's the place where the activity's occurring. That's the best place... for us to take this on."

Asked repeatedly whether the United States has the authority to enter Iran if it believes doing so would help prevent attacks, Hadley did not answer. Then came this exchange:

Host George Stephanopoulos: "So, you don't believe you have the authority to go into Iran?"

Hadley: "I didn't say that. This is another issue. Any time you have questions about crossing international borders, there are legal issues."

Several senators have voiced opposition to the idea of the United States entering Iran.

Last week, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a hearing on Iraq, "I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that."

Rice did not rule out entering Iran or give a position on whether the Bush administration would need congressional approval.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, told Rice, "No one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border."

Comparisons to Vietnam war
"When our government lied to the American people and said, 'We didn't cross the border going into Cambodia,' in fact, we did," Hagel said, referring to the Vietnam war. "So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

During the Vietnam war, the Nixon administration denied U.S. troops were conducting raids into neighboring Cambodia to stop the flow of weapons to South Vietnam's communist insurgency.

The Bush administration says dramatic action must be taken in Iraq to halt alleged Iranian meddling.

Vice President Dick Cheney took that message to "Fox News Sunday," saying, "It's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters, if you will, inside Iraq. And the president has responded to that. ... I think it's exactly the right thing to do."

Tehran: U.S. violates 'diplomatic norms'
Iranian officials portray the U.S. assertions as trumped-up lies aimed at fomenting tension and backing "illegitimate" actions against Iranians in Iraq.

Tehran's complaints follow several steps by the U.S. military against Iranian officials in Iraq, including the detention last week of five people who the United States said are linked to the Iranian military. (Full story)

Seyed Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, called the U.S. actions "illegal."

He accused the United States of violating "international conventions and diplomatic norms," and called on the United States "to immediately release the Iranian consular employees and pay for damages" that the military action caused to the building, Iran's government-run media outlet IRNA reported.

But the U.S. military, in a news release, said preliminary information revealed the five detained Iranians "are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - Qods Force, an organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack coalition forces."

Iraqi FM cites 'brotherly relations'
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he phoned his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, on Friday to assure him that steps were being taken to free the five.

In a written statement, Zebari said he told Mottaki that he hoped the incident "would not affect the brotherly relations between the two peoples and the two neighbor countries."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he does not believe Bush is looking to open a front in Iran.

"But I think it's very, very important that if Iranians are in Iraq paying people to be suicide bombers, to help the training and equipping them ... it's vital that we go after them too. Everybody knows the Iranians are playing in Iraq and they are trying to drive us out of Iraq so they can assert their age-old ambitions for influence in the Middle East. Everybody knows that. If there's Iranians in Iraq who are doing bad things, go after them, and let's get them."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iran.us/index.html

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Data plan 'not like Big Brother'

BBC NEWS - Data plan 'not like Big Brother'

Plans to make it easier for government departments to share information on people are not a move towards a "Big Brother" state, a minister has said.

Pensions Secretary John Hutton said the plan was to stop "overzealous data sharing rules" being "an obstacle to improving public services".

The government was not creating a giant database and people would not have to allow details to be shared, he added.

The Conservatives and Lib Dems called the plans a threat to privacy.

'Good place'

A change in data-sharing rules between government departments is one of the options put forward by policy reviews which Tony Blair announced last October.

It will be put to 100 people taking part in a series of five "citizen's panels", whose views will be reported back at a "citizen's summit" in March.

Research by Ipsos Mori, commissioned by Downing Street, and published as the review on data-sharing was launched, suggested that 81% of people wanted public services to treat people and the public "as customers".

But the research also suggested that a majority of people disagree that "in the long term the government's policies will improve the state of Britain's public services".

People are most pessimistic about the NHS - and the environment - improving in future years. Education is the only area where more people think things will get better than think things will get worse.

Mr Hutton said the public's "increasingly high expectations" of public services meant the services needed to be "more light-footed and flexible" - and data-sharing was needed to help this happen.

He said: "We are not proposing a new database. We are not proposing new IT systems here."

"I think it would be a good place to get to if we were asking people 'is it OK to share your information with other government departments?'

"That should be a routine part of the process of engaging with the public services."

Mr Hutton said departments already stored "vast amounts of data about individual citizens" but this was not usually shared, often to the detriment of the public.

For example, one family had had to contact the government 44 times to confirm various details after a relative died in a road accident, he said.

'Confident'

Cabinet Office minister Hilary Armstrong told the BBC's Daily Politics information shared by departments would be handled "professionally and sensitively".

She added: "What we want to do is explore with members of the public what we think needs to happen in order to make sure that we are confident about the quality of services that we are going to get."

Shadow constitutional affairs secretary Oliver Heald accused the government of "moving one step closer to a 'Big Brother' state".

He raised concerns that ministers could "set up a database from the cradle to the grave".

The Liberal Democrats accused the government of "snooping".

Phil Booth, coordinator of anti identity card campaign group No2ID, said: "For a government that can't look after its own employees' personal information, and that is so plainly incompetent at linking computer systems, to imagine this will increase efficiency is ludicrous."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6262455.stm

Iran, Venezuela offer aid to U.S. rivals - Americas - MSNBC.com

Iran, Venezuela offer aid to U.S. rivals - Americas - MSNBC.com

Leaders pledge billions in foreign investments to counter U.S. ‘imperialism’

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:59 p.m. ET Jan 13, 2007
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — fiery anti-American leaders whose moves to extend their influence have alarmed Washington — said Saturday they would help finance investment projects in other countries seeking to thwart U.S. domination.

The two countries had previously revealed plans for a joint $2 billion fund to finance investments in Venezuela and Iran, but the leaders said Saturday the money would also be used for projects in friendly countries throughout the developing world.

“It will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the (U.S.) imperialist yoke,” Chavez said.

“This fund, my brother,” the Venezuelan president said, referring affectionately to Ahmadinejad, “will become a mechanism for liberation.”

“Death to U.S. imperialism!” Chavez said.

Planning to cut oil production
Ahmadinejad, who is starting a tour of left-leaning countries in the region, called it a “very important” decision that would help promote “joint cooperation in third countries,” especially in Latin America and Africa.

Iran and Venezuela are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and Chavez said Saturday that they had agreed to back a further oil production cut in the cartel to stem a recent fall in crude prices.

“We know today there is too much crude in the market,” Chavez said. “We have agreed to join our forces within OPEC ... to support a production cut and save the price of oil.”

OPEC reduced output by 1.2 million barrels a day in November, then announced an additional cut of 500,000 barrels a day, due to begin on Feb. 1. Dow Jones Newswires reported Friday that OPEC is discussing holding an emergency meeting later this month to reduce output by another 500,000 barrels a day. Venezuela and Iran have been leading price hawks within OPEC.

Ahmadinejad’s visit Saturday — his second to Venezuela in less than four months — comes as he seeks to break international isolation over his country’s nuclear program and possibly line up new allies in Latin America. He is also expected to visit Nicaragua and Ecuador, which both recently elected leftist governments.

Allies growing closer
Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been increasingly united by their deep-seated antagonism toward the Bush administration. Chavez has become a leading defender of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, accusing the Washington of using the issue as a pretext to attack Tehran.

Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, has called Chavez “the champion of the struggle against imperialism.”

U.S. officials have accused Chavez — a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro — of authoritarian tendencies, and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said recently in an annual review of global threats that Venezuela’s democracy was at risk.

The U.S. also believes Iran is seeking to use its nuclear program to develop an atomic bomb. Tehran says its program is peaceful and geared toward the production of energy.

The increasingly close relationship between Chavez and Ahmadinejad has alarmed some Chavez critics, who accuse him of pursuing an alliance that does not serve Venezuela’s interests and jeopardizes its ties with the United States, the country’s top oil buyer. Venezuela is among the top five suppliers of crude to the U.S. market.

Chavez vows to end term limits
In a speech earlier Saturday, Chavez called for the U.S. government to accept “the new realities of Latin America,” as he brushed aside restrictions that limit presidents to two consecutive terms. He vowed to stay in office beyond 2013, when his term expires, saying he would revise the constitution to get rid of presidential term limits.

But Chavez also said in his state of the nation address to government officials and legislators that he had personally expressed hope to a high-ranking U.S. official for better relations between their two countries.

Chavez said he spoke with Thomas Shannon, head of the U.S. State Department’s Western Hemisphere affairs bureau, on the sidelines of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s inauguration earlier this week.

“We shook hands and I told him: ’I hope that everything improves,”’ Chavez said. “I’m not anyone’s enemy.”

Venezuela nationalizing industries
Chavez prompted a crash in Venezuelan share prices this past week when he announced he would seek special powers from the legislature to push through “revolutionary” reforms, including a string of nationalizations and unspecified changes to business laws and the commerce code.

He also announced plans for the state to take control of the country’s largest telecommunications company, its electricity and natural gas sectors and four heavy crude upgrading projects now controlled by some of the world’s top oil companies.

He said Saturday, however, that private companies would be allowed to own minority stakes in the lucrative Orinoco River basin oil projects.

The government has already taken majority ownership of all other oil-producing operations in the country through joint ventures controlled by the state oil company. Most companies have shown a willingness to continue investing despite the tightening terms, which have also included tax and royalty increases.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16616372/

Russian Admiral Says U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran

mosnews

U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon’s military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.

“The presence of U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region means that the Pentagon has not abandoned plans for surprise strikes against nuclear targets in Iran. With this aim a group of multi-purpose submarines ready to accomplish the task is located in the area,” Admiral Baltin said.

He made the comments after reports that a U.S. submarine collided with a Japanese tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

“American patience is not unlimited,” he said. “The submarine commanders go up to the periscope depth and forget about navigation rules and safety measures,” the admiral said.

Currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the Persian Gulf area, he said. So far they only control navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and in the Arabian Sea, he said. They might receive different orders in future: to block off the Gulf of Oman, that is the Iranian coast, and, if need be, launch missile strikes against
ground targets in Iran, he said.

U.S. says to "go after" Iran, Syria networks in Iraq

U.S. says to "go after" Iran, Syria networks in Iraq

Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:40 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States plans to "go after" what it said were networks of Iranian and Syrian agents in Iraq, U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said on Monday.

"We're going after their networks in Iraq," he told a news conference, as he laid out the new U.S. and Iraqi strategy to end sectarian violence at what Khalilzad called a "defining moment" for Iraq.

U.S. forces are holding five Iranians following a raid on an Iranian government office in Arbil last week -- the second such operation in recent weeks.

Presidential Candidate Fears "Gulf Of Tonkin" To Provoke Iran War

prisonplanet

Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.

Writing in his syndicated weekly column, the representative of Texas' 14th district warns of "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident (that) may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

The August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, was cited by President Johnson as a legitimate provocation mandating U.S. escalation in Vietnam, yet Tonkin was a staged charade that never took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.

Should a staged provocation take place in an attempt to justify striking Iran it would not be the first time the current administration has considered such a ploy.

In February 2006, documents were leaked of a conversation between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush in which different scenarios to try to provoke Saddam into making a rod for his own back were discussed. One included painting a U.S. spy plane in UN colors and flying it low over Iraq in the hope it would be shot down and the incident exploited as a means of enlisting international support for the 2003 invasion.

Paul, who on Friday announced his intention to run for President in 2008, has resolved to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to head off the drift towards war, encouraging a commitment to policies of dialogue as outlined by the Iraq Study Group.

Commentators largely agree that the furore surrounding President Bush's speech in which he ordered the deployment of a further 20,000 troops to Iraq is a manufactured distraction to divert attention away from alarming developments that grease the skids for an inevitable conflict with Iran.



The New York Times and other establishment mouthpieces are busy regurgitating White House propaganda that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents that are killing U.S. troops. As columnist Larry Chin elaborates, "The Bush administration buildup towards Iran is strikingly similar to Hitler’s campaign against Poland, and the Third Reich’s eventual 1939 blitzkrieg. Hitler’s final act was to manufacture a "deliberate and cold-blooded provocation", to be blamed on the Poles, which would bring down the vengeance of German armed forces. He accomplished this by putting drugged prisoners from a nearby concentration camp into Polish uniforms and shooting them near a radio station inside the German border. The "Polish attack on the Gleiwitz transmitter" marked the official start of World War Two."

"In Hitler’s words, "I shall give the propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind if it is implausible or not."

In reality, the source of the IED technology being utilized by the insurgents goes back to the British security services, from whom it was acquired by the IRA and then sold around the world in the early nineties. Claims that Iran is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices is outright propaganda.

However, the only remaining justification that Neo-Cons cling to in an attempt to sell another conflict to a war-weary American public is the falsehood that American troops are being killed on the battlefield by insurgents with the direct assistance of Iran. This is the only rationale a majority of Americans will accept as grounds for war, overriding spurious warnings about weapons of mass destruction, a yarn they have seen spun once before.

As Chris Floyd points out, "Make no mistake: this is the marker that has now been put down; this is the card that's been laid on the table. The Bush Administration has openly accused Iran of killing American soldiers in Iraq. Again, this is a charge far more resonant, far more effective as a pretext for war than anything offered during the successful stampede to invade Iraq. Even a president as weakened and isolated as Bush is at the moment would be able to get support for an attack on a state that was "killing our soldiers in the field."

It is also now confirmed that the raid on the Iranian liaison office in Iraq, after which five Iranians were arrested and detained, was directly authorized by the White House in an attempt to provoke an Iranian response.

Whether Iran takes the bait or not, American aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are multiplying in the Persian Gulf and Bush recently appointed Adm. William Fallon, a Navy veteran, to oversee the ground war in Iraq, a contradiction many fear betrays preparation for an air strike on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities which could take place as soon as next month.

Whether the White House or the feverish Israelis will even feel the need to factor in a Gulf of Tonkin event remains to be seen, as the war drums beat ever louder and the next escalation of what the Neo-Cons call "World War Four" awaits final execution.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hanging of Saddam's aides filmed

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hanging of Saddam's aides filmed

Iraqi government officials have shown journalists video of the hanging of two of Saddam Hussein's aides, during which one of the men was decapitated.
The film shows Barzan Ibrahim - Saddam Hussein's half-brother - and Awad Hamed al-Bandar hanged side-by-side.

Barzan, former intelligence chief, and al-Bandar, former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, were convicted over the killing of 148 Shias in 1982.

The government said Barzan's beheading was accidental.

The BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says the video first shows both men being prepared for execution standing next to each other.

They were both dressed in orange boiler suits.


JUDICIAL HANGING
Execution intended to break the neck, not strangle
'Long drop' method developed in late 19th Century
Length of rope calculated using prisoner's weight
Drop is usually 4ft-10ft (1.3m-3m)
Too long a drop leads to decapitation


Executioners in balaclavas placed hoods round both men's heads, then the noose.

A short while later the footage, which is silent, shows both men fall.

Almost immediately the rope that was round Barzan's neck flicks upwards, the body dropping below.

The cameraman then shows the pit below and a headless body, bloodied at the neck and what officials say was Barzan's head still covered by a hood.

Bandar's body was still hanging above, said one official who was present at the execution.

Our correspondent says officials say they are not planning to release the footage publicly.

Both men's bodies are reported to have been flown to Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, 180 km (110 miles) north of Baghdad, for burial.

Mixed reaction

Witnesses said Barzan and Bandar were shaking with fear as they approached the gallows.

One of those present, public prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi, told the BBC that when the trap door opened, he could only see Barzan's rope dangling.





"I thought the convict Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti had escaped the noose. I shouted that he's escaped the noose, go down and look for him. I went down a few steps ahead of the others to see: I found out that his head had separated from his body."
The hangings took place at 0300 (0000 GMT), apparently in the same building in north Baghdad where Saddam Hussein was put to death on 30 December.

The manner of the former Iraqi leader's execution drew international criticism after unofficial mobile phone footage showing him being taunted and insulted in his final moments was released.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there were no such scenes at the hanging of his aides.

The BBC's world affairs correspondent Mike Wooldridge says reaction in Baghdad to Barzan and Bandar's executions has been mixed.

He says residents of Baghdad's largest Shia district, Sadr City, have celebrated the latest hangings, especially Barzan's.

But other Baghdad residents have said the executions have nothing to do with the problems Iraqis face every day, our correspondent adds.

In the Shia holy city of Najaf, residents beat drums and marched in the streets at news of the executions, AFP news agency reported.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6263787.stm

Published: 2007/01/15 15:40:53 GMT

WP: Pentagon probed citizens' finances - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

WP: Pentagon probed citizens' finances - washingtonpost.com/MSNBC.com

Using ‘noncompulsory’ authority, military seeks records for investigations

By Karen DeYoung
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:51 p.m. ET Jan 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Defense Department has used a long-standing authority to acquire the personal financial records of American citizens in military-related criminal and other investigations as part of an expansion of the Pentagon's gathering of counterterrorism intelligence at home, officials said yesterday.

"There are certainly types of information and transactions that are valuable to the department when conducting counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

Whitman emphasized that although the FBI can compel banks, credit card companies and other private institutions to produce such records by issuing a National Security Letter, the military is authorized only to request that the institutions turn them over.

The CIA has long had similar "noncompulsory" authority, although intelligence officials said that such requests are rare and tend to relate to espionage investigations of the CIA's own officials. The authority was used during the investigation of Aldrich Ames, the CIA operations officer who was convicted in 1994 of spying for the Russians.

More than 500 requests since 9/11
The military's expanded use of the records authority was first reported yesterday on the Web site of the New York Times, which said that military officials had made more than 500 such requests since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Quoting unnamed military intelligence officials, the Times said that the actual number of letters was probably well into the thousands, because a single investigation often resulted in requests to multiple institutions.

By law, the FBI is charged with conducting investigations of U.S. citizens and with counterterrorism activities in this country.

Domestic intelligence-gathering by the CIA and the military is sharply restricted. In the military's case, such activities have generally involved investigations of direct threats to military installations and personnel in the United States, as well as inquiries into possible criminal activities by uniformed or civilian Defense Department employees.

Under then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the Pentagon expanded its collection of intelligence within the borders of the United States -- a development that stirred concern among members of Congress and prompted stern criticism and lawsuits from civil liberties advocates.

Agency's work largely classified
These efforts are overseen by the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity agency, or CIFA, which was established in September 2002 by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz.

CIFA is charged with coordinating policy and overseeing the domestic counterintelligence activities of Pentagon agencies and the armed forces. The agency's size and budget are classified, but congressional sources have said that the agency spent more than $1 billion through October. One counterintelligence official recently estimated that CIFA has 400 full-time employees and 800 to 900 contractors working for it.

In written responses to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing last month, Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert M. Gates, pledged to look "in greater detail" at CIFA's activities.

Database under scrutiny
The agency was criticized in December 2005 after it was revealed that a database managed by CIFA, called TALON, contained unverified, raw threat information about people who were peacefully protesting the Iraq war at defense facilities, including recruiting offices. In August, CIFA Director David A. Burtt II and his top deputy, Joseph Hefferon, resigned in the wake of a scandal involving CIFA contracts that went to MZM Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade. Wade pleaded guilty last February to conspiring to bribe then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif).

In his confirmation responses, Gates said that an internal Pentagon review of the program "found procedural weaknesses" and that "steps are underway to correct these deficiencies."

Whitman, in a discussion of the financial-records requests, said that only four U.S. military entities are authorized to ask for them -- the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center, the Criminal Investigation Service of the Army and of the Navy, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

All of these entities are overseen by CIFA.

Source: Contractor's income probed
Whitman declined to discuss individual cases in which the authority had been used, although one U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue said it was utilized in an investigation of a contractor working at the Guantanamo Bay naval facility who appeared to have unexplained income.


In comments attributed to unnamed military intelligence officials, the Times said that the financial records of Capt. James Yee -- a Muslim chaplain at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who was charged with aiding prisoners there -- had also been obtained. Espionage charges against Yee were eventually dropped by the government.

The CIA declined yesterday to comment on its use of the financial-records authority. An intelligence official said that the CIA usually asks the FBI to obtain financial records involving U.S. citizens in terrorism investigations because the bureau has the authority to compel cooperation. "There have been a handful of instances, in very rare circumstances over the years, that the CIA has used" its authority to request such records on its own, the official said.

Staff writers Walter Pincus and Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16616833/

Bush vows to 60 Minutes that 'no matter what Congress wants' surge is on

RAW STORY

In an interview set to air on this Sunday's 60 Minutes, President George W. Bush vows to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq "no matter what" the Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do.

"Do you believe as Commander in Chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asks Bush in the short clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night.

"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said.

"Now I fully understand they will," Bush continued, "they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward."

In an address to the nation on Wednesday, Bush announced his new plan which calls for an increase in US troops to end ongoing violence in the country, which many believe is either at or approaching "civil war," with Iraqi civilian deaths tripling at the end of 2006, according to one report.

The plan, nicknamed "surge" by the administration but referred to as an "escalation" by most Democrats has drawn fire from both parties, and Congressional members have threatened to cut funding – though not for the troops that are already there.

"Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees military funding, said he will propose tying congressional approval of war funds to shutting the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba," the Associated Press reports. "Other conditions he said he is considering include not extending troop deployments and giving soldiers and Marines more time to train between deployments."

National driver’s license protested - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

National driver’s license protested - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Officials: ‘Flat out impossible’ to comply with Real ID Act’s 2008 deadline
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET Jan 12, 2006
An anti-terrorism law creating a national standard for all driver’s licenses by 2008 isn’t upsetting just civil libertarians and immigration rights activists.

State motor vehicle officials nationwide who will have to carry out the Real ID Act say its authors grossly underestimated its logistical, technological and financial demands.

In a comprehensive survey obtained by The Associated Press and in follow-up interviews, officials cast doubt on the states’ ability to comply with the law on time and fretted that it will be a budget buster.

“It is just flat out impossible and unrealistic to meet the prescriptive provisions of this law by 2008,” Betty Serian, a deputy secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, said in an interview.

Nebraska’s motor vehicles director, responding to the survey by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, said that to comply with Real ID her state “may have to consider extreme measures and possibly a complete reorganization.”

‘A nightmare for all states’
And a new record-sharing provision of Real ID was described by an Illinois official as “a nightmare for all states.”


“Can we go home now??” the official wrote.

States use a hodgepodge of systems and standards in granting driver’s licenses and identification cards. In some places, a high school yearbook may be enough to prove identity.

A major goal of Real ID — which was motivated by the Sept. 11 attacks, whose perpetrators had legitimate driver’s licenses — is to unify the disparate licensing rules and make it harder to fraudulently obtain a card.

The law also demands that states link their record-keeping systems to national databases so duplicate applications can be detected, illegal immigrants caught and driving histories shared.

State licenses that fail to meet Real ID’s standards will not be able to be used to board an airplane or enter a federal building.

The law, which was attached to a funding measure for the Iraq war last May, has been criticized by civil libertarians who contend it will create a de facto national ID card and new centralized databases, inhibiting privacy.

State organizations such as the National Governors Association have blasted the law as well. Many states will have to amend laws in order to comply.

Spokesman: Law will not be pushed back
Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Real ID’s principal backer, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said there is no chance states might win a delay of the 2008 deadline.

“We gave three years for this process,” he said. “Every day that we continue to have security loopholes, we’re at greater risk.”

The August survey by the motor vehicle administrators’ group, which has not been made public, asked licensing officials nationwide for detailed reports on what it will take to meet Real ID’s demands.

It was not meant to produce an overall estimate of the cost of complying with Real ID. But detailed estimates produced by a few states indicate the price will blow past a February 2005 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated Congress would need to spend $100 million reimbursing states.

Pennsylvania alone estimated a hit of up to $85 million. Washington state projected at least $46 million annually in the first several years.

Separately, a December report to Virginia’s governor pegged the potential price tag for that state as high as $169 million, with $63 million annually in successive years. Of the initial cost, $33 million would be just to redesign computing systems.

It remains unclear how much funding will come from the federal government and how much the states will shoulder by raising fees on driver’s licenses.

“If you begin to look at the full ramifications of this, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars. Congress simply passed an unfunded mandate,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty project at the American Civil Liberties Union. “Every motorist in America is going to pay the price of this, of the Congress’ failure to do a serious exploration of the cost, the complexity, of the difficulty.”


Existing licenses may still be acceptable
The survey respondents and officials interviewed by the AP noted that many concerns might be resolved as the Department of Homeland Security clarifies its expectations for the law — such as whether existing licenses can be grandfathered in — before it takes effect May 11, 2008.

As of now, however, it appears little has changed since the survey described a multitude of hurdles.

Some examples:

- The law demands that states mine multiple databases to check the accuracy of documents submitted by license applicants. Several states questioned how that will work, especially with confirming birth certificates. Iowa said it didn’t think the states would be able to make the required vital-records upgrades within three years.
Some states’ ancient computing systems will have to be overhauled in order to link to other networks. Minnesota runs a 1980s-era mainframe system; Rhode Island says its “circa 1979” COBOL-based network will require a $20 million upgrade.
- Many states don’t make drivers prove they are legally in the country, but the law will now demand such documentation. It also calls for states to run license applications through a federal database known as SAVE that was launched by a 1986 law aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits. One problem, though, is that the “SAVE database is notoriously unreliable ... months behind,” said South Carolina’s response to the survey.
- After drivers submit documents to prove their identities, states will have to retain paper copies of those documents for at least seven years or digital images for 10 years. Some states fretted about the storage costs; others worried about how to capture images of all those files. Alabama’s survey response called the project “massive,” saying that while the state had the proper equipment at six licensing centers, “we do not have the resources to equip all of our 79 offices.” Added Massachusetts: “This equipment is very expensive!”
- Real ID requires that a license show someone’s principal residence. But state officials object that a mailing address makes more sense for many people — for “snowbirds” who spend time in two states, for example or for public officials who want to protect their privacy. “What should the procedure be for a person who lives in a RV?” asks South Dakota’s report.
- The law calls for a person’s “full legal name,” no nickname or abbreviations, on licenses. Cards have to be redesigned and databases must be reprogrammed to make room for extremely long names, likely up to 125 characters. That’s not an easy process. By itself it accounts for $4 million of North Dakota’s $5.9 million estimated impact.
Motor-vehicle employees will be subject to background checks, but several officials said it was unclear what would disqualify someone from being able to process licenses. Maryland’s response said waiting for security clearances “could cause staffing shortage.”
- Real ID demands that all driver’s licenses or ID cards have pictures that can be read by facial-recognition technology. That would end many states’ practice of letting people with certain religious beliefs request not to have a picture. Tennessee, meanwhile, allows anyone older than 60 to get a “valid without photo” license.

“If you take any one of these things individually, you see a significant problem,” Steinhardt said. “There are literally hundreds of these problems embedded in Real ID, and the statute doesn’t give you a way out. It’s black and white. No exceptions, no reality check.

“In many respects it’s a statute that ignores reality.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10826523/

Keeping all eyes focused on Iraq while Bush and Israel plot attack on Iran

online journal

Even a cursory review of Bush’s speech shows that the president is less concerned with "security" in Baghdad than he is with plans to attack Iran. Paul Craig Roberts was correct in his article Wednesday when he questioned whether all the hoopla over a surge was just "an orchestrated distraction" to draw attention away from the real war plan. ("Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan")

Apparently, it is.

As Roberts noted, "The US Congress and the media are focused on President Bush’s proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran."

Roberts’ analysis is further supported by yesterday’s news that American troops stormed the "Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and arrested 5 employees." (Reuters)

Iran had set up the embassy at the request of the Kurdish governor-general who was not informed of US intentions to raid the facility and kidnap its employees. The American soldiers confiscated computers and documents just five hours after Bush had threatened Iran in his address to the nation.

Clearly, Bush is looking for a way to provoke a military confrontation with Iran. Now he has five Iranian hostages at his disposal to help him achieve that goal.

Will the mullahs overreact or will they show restraint and try to prevent a larger conflict?

Bush’s hostility towards Iran was evident in comments he made in Wednesday night’s speech:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"Seek and destroy"? Is that the plan?

A region-wide conflagration with results as uncertain as they are in Iraq?

So far, there’s no solid evidence that Iran is "providing material support for attacks on American troops." All the same, the administration has consistently used "material support" as the basis for preemptive war. In fact, the so-called Bush Doctrine is predicated on the assumption that the US is free to attack whomever it chooses if it perceives a threat to its national security. The normal rules of self-defense or "imminent danger" no longer apply.

Bush knows that if Iran were seriously involved in arming the Iraqi resistance, we’d be seeing the Russian-made, armor-piercing rocket launchers that were used so effectively by Hezbollah during their 34 day war with Israel. That hasn’t been the case. Iran is undoubtedly active in Iraq, but in ways that are much subtler than Bush claims. In fact, Bush’s great ally, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who runs the feared Badr Brigade out of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, has strong ties to Iran (having lived there for 20 years.) He is probably using the US military to remove his enemies (the Sunni-backed resistance and al Sadr’s Mehdi Army) before he turns his attention to his US benefactors.

Iran clearly has interests in Iraq, but it is the Bush administration’s reckless war that has assured that Iran will be the "default" superpower in the entire region. Bush has shattered the fragile balance of power between Sunnis and Shiites while eliminating Iran’s main adversaries in Afghanistan (Sunni-Taliban) and Iraq (Saddam-Ba’athist Party). Bush now seems to think that the only way he can challenge Tehran’s ascendancy is by launching a Lebanon-type assault on military and civilian infrastructure in Iran.

If Iran is set back 20 years, Bush assumes, then our trusted-friend Israel will be the prevailing power in the Middle East. That, of course, was the plan from the get-go.

To that end, Bush averred: "We’re taking steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot Air Defense Systems to reassure our friends and allies . . . And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

All the pieces are being put in place for a much larger and more destructive conflict.

It’s an ambitious plan, but it has no chance of succeeding. The United States is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq and its actions in Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine have only ensured that the US's days in the Middle East are quickly drawing to a close.

As for Iraq, Bush’s speech provided few details of how the miniscule and incremental increase in troop-strength (only 17,000 to Baghdad over a four-month period) was expected to quell the raging violence that has gripped the capital since the last major operation in August. Operation "Forward Together" turned out to be a complete disaster, precipitating a sharp boost in attacks on US troops as well as an increase in sectarian violence.

Bush has enlisted some support for his "escalation" plan by committing to the "clear-hold-build" strategy promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR has been pushing their "model for counterinsurgency" for three years, but have been largely ignored by the Bush administration.

Despite Bush’s feeble defense of the policy, he has no intention of putting it into practice. He is merely pacifying other members of the political establishment who are demanding that their voices be heard.

The reality of the present strategy is manifest in military operations currently underway in Baghdad. These operations are being conducted in a way that is reminiscent of Rumsfeld’s activities in Falluja two years ago. The attacks on alleged "insurgent strongholds" on Haifa Street, (which is just a few hundred yards from the Green Zone) show that the military has returned to the policy of using overwhelming force to subdue the resistance. In this case, the US pounded the area with helicopter gun-ships and F-16s, while ground troops went rampaging door to door. The civilian casualties in these scattershot operations invariably skyrocket and further alienate the local population. In one day alone, US forces killed an estimated 50 Iraqis in the predominantly Sunni "residential" area.

Another catastrophic "hearts and minds" operation.

Sunni leaders are now accusing the US military of carrying out ethnic cleansing operations at the request of the Shiite militias.

Is that the plan, purging Baghdad of the Sunnis?

It appears so.

Certainly, the lynching of Saddam was intended to send a message to the Ba’athist-led resistance that there would be no more efforts at negotiations or compromise. The US is now pursuing Cheney’s "80-20" plan -- a strategy to throw their support behind the Shiites while eradicating the Sunnis (20 percent of the population).

Bush hinted at this new approach in his speech when he said, "Our efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principle reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure the neighborhoods that have been cleared of terrorists and insurgents AND THERE WERE TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE TROOPS WE DID HAVE."

"Too many restrictions"? (The respected British medical journal Lancet reported 650,000 casualties in the conflict so far with over 2 million Iraqi refugees. Is that "Too many restrictions"? )

Bush’s comments suggest that the "gloves are coming off" and we can expect a return to the scorched earth policy that was so savagely applied in Falluja and other parts of the Sunni Triangle.

Bush also intimated that he would strike out at other "armed militias" in Iraq; an indication that US forces are planning an offensive against Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army. The Shiite cleric, al Sadr, is despised by the Washington Warlords and is described by the Pentagon as "the biggest threat to Iraq’s security." Even so, al-Sadr has operatives placed strategically throughout the al-Maliki government (and within the Green Zone) and attacking him now would only make the occupation more perilous. In fact, an attack on the Mehdi Army could create a situation where Shiite militias cut off vital supply lines from the south making occupation virtually untenable.

Bush has decided to abandon all sense of caution and blunder ahead taking on all adversaries without concern for the consequences. It is a prescription for disaster.

Bush’s "Victory Strategy": more force, but no political solution

Bush's speech invoked none of the flashy slogans that he typically uses and which normally appear in headlines the next day. Nor did he make any attempt to elicit support for his planned "escalation" of troops. That idea has already been thoroughly rejected by the Iraq Study Group, the Congress, and the American people. Instead, he reiterated the same worn bromides (of "ideological" warfare, 9-11, and terrorism) that have long since lost their power to move public opinion.

The Bush administration has run out of gas. They have no plan for "pacification," security, reconstruction, or regional stability. Their "one-size-fits-all" solution requires ever-increasing levels of violence for an intractable Iraqi Resistance and which is now fated to spread mayhem throughout the entire Middle East.

Carl von Clausewitz said, "War is not a mere act of policy, but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means."

Bush and his fellow-neocons are incapable of thinking politically, so America’s decline in Iraq is likely to be precipitous. The crackdown in Baghdad and the anticipated bombing of Iran will have no significant affect on the war’s outcome. America has lost its ability to influence events positively or to arbitrarily assert its will. We’re now facing "death by a thousand cuts" and the steady erosion of US power.

Brute force alone will not produce a political solution in Iraq. Those who think it will are bound to fail.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Rice denies US 'escalating Iraq'

BBC NEWS Rice denies US 'escalating Iraq'

Ms Rice insists the US must stand firm over Iraqi security
Rice on Iraq
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has denied that the US intends to escalate the war in Iraq by confronting Iranian groups operating there.
Ms Rice backed a pledge by President Bush to run search and destroy missions against groups suspected of building bombs for use within Iraq.

"That's not an escalation, that's good policy," Ms Rice told the BBC.

Ms Rice spoke ahead of a visit to the Middle East, a visit that will focus on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The week-long tour will take in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as Israel and the Palestinian territories.

'Not escalation'

Speaking before leaving the US, Ms Rice insisted that the United States was not going to let either Iran or Syria continue activities that endangered US soldiers in Iraq.


"I don't think there is a government in the world that would sit by and let the Iranians in particular run networks inside Iraq that are building explosive devices of a very high quality that are being used to kill their soldiers.
"That's not an escalation, that's just good policy."

Earlier this week the US raided the Iranian consulate in Irbil, northern Iraq, detaining five people.

Both President George W Bush and Ms Rice have said this week that they intend to step up measures against those threatening to destabilise Iraq.

The president announced 21,500 extra troops for Iraq in an effort to dampen violence across the country, especially in the capital, Baghdad.

Last year an influential report led by former Secretary of State James Baker urged the Bush administration to begin negotiations with Iran and Syria in a bid to find a solution in Iraq.

Reasonable voices

As well as Iraq, Ms Rice will also discuss the Israel-Palestinian conflict during her stay in the Middle East.


I think anything that is an American plan is bound to fail
Condoleezza Rice
US Secretary of State

However, she admitted she was not travelling to the region with a plan to end the conflict.

"I think anything that is an American plan is bound to fail," she said.

"The United States is not going to succeed in this alone. This has to have an Arab voice - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia.

"It certainly has to have the voice of the reasonable factions among the Palestinians, like Abu Mazen [Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas]. And it has to have an Israeli voice."



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6258027.stm

Published: 2007/01/13 01:45:13 GMT