Thursday, January 18, 2007

Court to monitor spying program - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Court to monitor spying program - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Court has already approved one surveillance request from government

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:01 p.m. ET Jan 17, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has agreed to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government’s controversial domestic spying program, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps placed on people with suspected terror links.

“Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” Gonzales wrote in the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

“Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires,” the attorney general wrote.

The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.

The White House said it is satisfied with new guidelines the FISA court adopted on Jan. 10 to address administration officials’ concerns about national security.

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said.


Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts.

The secret panel of judges, known as the FISA court, was established in the late 1970s to review requests for warrants to conduct surveillance inside the United States. The Bush administration had resisted giving the court final approval over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, even when communications involved someone inside the country.

A federal judge in Detroit last August declared the program unconstitutional, saying it violates the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision.

Additionally, the Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating the agency’s use of information gathered in the spying program. In testimony last fall in front of the Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was not allowed to discuss classified details that could show whether it has curbed terrorist activity in the United States.

Congressional intelligence committees have already been briefed on the court’s orders, Gonzales said in his letter. It was sent to the committee the day before he is set to testify before the panel, which oversees the Justice Department.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16673270/

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq

BBC NEWS Middle East Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq

Iran has accused the US of kidnapping five of its citizens who were arrested in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil.

The US has denied the men were diplomats - it says they were linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and were arming Shia fighters in Iraq.

Iran's ambassador to Iraq called last week's arrests "a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and an insult to the Iraqi people". He demanded the men's release.

Hassan Kazimi Qomi denied Iran has been involved in the violence in Iraq.

He said the "kidnapped" men were diplomats engaged in legitimate tasks.

"These actions are against international conventions which guarantee diplomatic immunity and they are also against the framework of the agreement between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr Qomi told the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad.

He denied Iran had any interest in destabilising Iraq, saying the unrest and a flood of refugees could spill over Iran's border.

Diplomatic row

Mr Qomi's comments follow a similar statement made to the BBC on Wednesday by one of Iraq's most powerful Shia politicians, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who condemned the arrests as an attack on Iraq's sovereignty.

The five men were detained - along with one other who has now been released - at the Iranian liaison office in Irbil, in the northern, Kurdish part of Iraq.

Iran said the building was a consulate, but the US disagreed, saying it had no official diplomatic immunity, and nor did the men.

This undoubtedly signals a ratcheting up of pressure on the Iranians

Mr Qomi said it was not the first such incident targeting Iranians in Iraq.

Late last year, US troops descended on Mr Hakim's residential compound in Baghdad and detained two Iranian officials. They were later released.

He said other diplomatic staff and Iranian businessmen had been detained in the past.
Washington has often accused Iran, or factions within the Iranian government, of aiding Shia groups in Iraq militarily and politically.

US Vice-President Dick Cheney said on Sunday that Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" by aiding attacks on US forces and backing Shia militias involved in sectarian violence.
President George W Bush has accused Iran of destabilising Iraq and warned that the US would make a tough response.

Tehran denies the claims and has demanded to see proof.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6274837.stmPublished: 2007/01/18 13:39:59 GMT

BBC NEWS | Americas | US 'to halve' no-fly watch list

BBC NEWS Americas US 'to halve' no-fly watch list

The US is reviewing the list it uses to bar suspected terrorists from travelling on airliners, saying it hopes to halve the number of names.
A revised list and new passenger screening system should prevent cases of travellers wrongfully stopped, the Transportation Security bureau said.

The number on the list is not known but estimates vary from 50,000 to 350,000.

The US will also introduce a complaints system to allow travellers to have wrong information corrected.

Cat Stevens

The head of the Transportation Security Administration, Kip Howley, told Congress he hoped a new screening programme, due in 2008 and called Secure Flight, would make cases of travellers being wrongfully stopped from flying "a thing of the past".


Cutting a list of 350,000 names is not all that impressive
Barry Steinhardt
Civil liberties lawyer

A "no-fly" list has been in operation for decades but the number of names has greatly increased since the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

Politicians at the Senate Commerce Committee brought up the issue of complaints with Mr Hawley.

Senator Ted Stevens said his wife Catherine was being identified as Cat Stevens - the folk singer now known as Yusuf Islam who was prevented from entering the US in 2004.

Mr Hawley said his department did send updated information to airlines but added: "Unfortunately, it depends airline by airline how their individual systems work."

Barry Steinhardt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, said the reduction was a start, but added: "Cutting a list of 350,000 names is not all that impressive."

On 20 February, the Homeland Security Department will begin a complaints system for people who feel they have been wronged by the no-fly list.

Passengers will be able to file an inquiry to have information on them checked.

They would have a "clearly defined process" to report problems, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6274221.stm

Published: 2007/01/18 12:37:35 GMT

Administration to let court monitor domestic spying


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Reversing a position it defended for more than a year, the Bush administration announced Wednesday that it has begun getting court approval before eavesdropping on the communications of suspected terrorists or their associates.

The Justice Department notified Congress that a court set up to specialize in wiretapping would oversee its "terrorist surveillance program," which the administration has said could operate without judicial review. Critics said that violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which set up a special court to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote that the administration still believes the program is legal, but that a judge on the court has set rules that preserve "the speed and agility necessary" to battle terrorism.

"The president is committed to using all lawful tools to protect our nation from the terrorist threat, including making maximum use of the authorities provided by FISA and taking full advantage of developments in the law," Gonzales wrote.

Neither Gonzales nor Justice Department officials disclosed details of the rules set by the court, arguing that details were classified. But Gonzales said President Bush would no longer authorize the existing program, which administration officials said was necessary because the court set up under FISA was too slow to respond to new terrorist threats. (Read Gonzales' letter to the Senate Judiciary Committeeexternal link)

"To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks," Bush said in December 2005.
Gonzales to face Senate committee

The administration's reversal comes a day before Gonzales was scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its chairman, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, said he welcomed the decision.

"As I pointed out for some time, and as other senators on both sides of the aisle pointed out, that was, at the very best, of doubtful legality," Leahy said. He said surveillance was needed to prevent terrorist attacks, "but we can and we should do it in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, called the move "a long-overdue recognition" that existing laws can protect the country.

"Although the judge's order announced today needs to be reviewed thoroughly, the fact that the president will no longer be authorizing unilaterally intrusive surveillance of people in the United States is good news," Pelosi said in a written statement.

Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called the decision "welcome news, if long overdue."

"It proves that this surveillance has always been possible under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that there was never a good reason to evade the law," Reyes said in a written statement.

The government now will ask the court to approve surveillance requests for 90 days, after which it must seek renewed permission. Justice Department officials said the court issued more than one order governing the program, but they refused to provide details of the still-classified program.

The officials also refused to comment on how the procedures could be implemented without damaging national security, as top administration figures insisted.

Gonzales wrote that the administration has been working with the court for two years to bring the program under FISA, even as it defended the program and resisted calls for greater oversight. But the White House dismissed suggestions that the announcement was influenced by political concerns.

"It's an example of a case where we take hits for doing what's right rather than getting credit for what seems to be expedient," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on calls to or from people suspected of having ties to al Qaeda shortly after the terror network's September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. The program remained secret for four years, and ignited a controversy once it was disclosed.

Sen. Arlen Specter, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said FISA "flatly prohibits" electronic eavesdropping without a judge's permission. A federal judge ruled the program unconstitutional in July.
ACLU skeptical of motives

The American Civil Liberties Union, which led the court challenge to the program, called the decision to submit the program to the FISA court "an effort to avoid judicial and congressional scrutiny."

"The legality of this unprecedented surveillance program should not be decided by a secret court in one-sided proceedings," said Ann Beeson, the lead attorney in the group's lawsuit. The group said it would urge the FISA court to release more information about its new orders, which Gonzales said were issued January 10.

Specter, now the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, said he wants to see more detail about how the program will now be run.

"I think we need to know more about the procedures on the determination of probable cause, whether it is on individualized warrants or it is a group program," he said. "And we will need to know more about the determination of the individual being an agent of al Qaeda."

A senior Justice Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the department still believes the 1978 law should be modified to account for advances in electronic communication. Wednesday's announcement will "take some political heat off the debate," he said.

"These orders allow us to do the same thing that we've been doing, but we will be operating under the orders we've obtained from a FISA judge," the official said.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Al Jazeera English - Americas

Chavez and Iran unveil anti-US fund - Al Jazeera

The presidents of Iran and Venezuela have agreed to spend billions of dollars to help other countries free themselves from what they describe as US domination.

Hugo Chavez announced the plan in a speech on Saturday with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The two also called for Opec to cut oil production to support falling crude prices.

They had previously announced plans to establish a joint $2bn fund for projects in Venezuela and Iran but on Saturday they said that the money would also be used to help friendly third countries.

"This fund, my brother," Chavez said, "will become a mechanism for liberation."


Chavez said the fund "will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the [US] imperialist yoke ... Death to US imperialism."

Ahmadinejad, who is on a tour of Latin America, said that Tehran and Caracas had the task of "promoting revolutionary thought in the world".

"The reason for all the current problems is the erroneous direction of the powerful countries, where there is poverty, hate, enmity and war," he added.

Oil agreement

The two presidents announced that they would make a joint effort to obtain new oil production cuts.

"Today we know that there is too much crude in the market, that's why we support ... the decisions that have been taken to reduce production and protect the price of oil," Chavez said.

He emphasised that he was sending the message "to all the heads of state in the Opec countries to continue to strengthen our organisation in this direction".

Members of the 11-nation Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) have expressed concern about the falling price of oil, which has slid 14 per cent since the start of the year.

Ahmadinejad has praised Chavez for his outspoken support of Iran's nuclear programme, which the US and European governments say may be part of a project to build atomic weapons.

Vocal supporter

Facing the threat of international isolation and sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council over its uranium enrichment work, Iran is keen to demonstrate it has backing among a number of leaders in Latin America.

Chavez is the most vocal supporter in Latin America for Iran and its president, with both men calling each other "brother" and relishing their status as fierce opponents of Washington's influence.

"Hugo is my brother," Ahmadinejad said during his last visit to Venezuela in September. "Hugo is the champion of the fight against imperialism."

In September 2005, Venezuela was alone in opposing a resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that found Iran in violation of nuclear safeguards. Chavez has since backed Iran's right to enrich uranium.

Iran and Venezuela are both important players in Opec and have signed numerous co-operation agreements in the energy sector and other fields.

During a visit to Iran last September, Chavez came out in support of Iran's nuclear programme, as well as denouncing Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

The two presidents also signed deals covering iron and steel production, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and health care equipment and munitions.

Cultivating allies

While Ahmadinejad seeks to cultivate Latin American allies, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is in the Middle East to rally Arab support for a new US strategy in Iraq and counter Iran's alleged "interference" in Iraq

Ahmadinejad arrived in Nicaragua late on Saturday, where Daniel Ortega has just returned to power. The Iranian president was met at the airport by the new Nicaraguan president.

On Monday, Ahmadinejad will take part in the swearing-in ceremony of Ecuador's new president Rafael Correa, who has vowed to forge stronger ties with Venezuela and not to renew a lease for a US military air base on the country's Pacific coast.

The Iranian president will also hold meetings with other South American presidents including Bolivia's Evo Morales on the sidelines of the ceremony in Ecuador, before finishing his tour on Tuesday.

Gates to consider more troops for Afghanistan

reuters

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday he would consider sending more troops to Afghanistan where U.S. commanders say they expect the Taliban to step up attacks from Pakistani sanctuaries.

Gates, in Afghanistan to ensure commanders have the resources to counter an expected Taliban offensive in the spring, said it was very important the United States and its allies did not let the success achieved in Afghanistan slip away.

Violence in Afghanistan intensified last year to its bloodiest since U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001.

U.S. military commanders said attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan had surged, several-fold in some areas, and the violence was expected to increase in the spring and summer.

Gates said he had discussed the situation with the commander of Afghanistan’s NATO force, General David Richards, and others.

Asked if the commanders had made a case for more troops, he said: “Yes”.

“They’ve indicated what they can do with different force levels,” Gates told reporters at the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, at Bagram, north of Kabul, adding he would take the those ideas back to the U.S. joint chiefs of staff for study.

“At that point I’ll make a recommendation to the president.”

Asked how many more troops might be sent, he said: “It depends on different scenarios and those are the kinds of decisions that we’re going to have to look at.”

There are more than 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the highest level since 2001, about 22,000 of them American.

Gates arrived in Afghanistan late on Monday on his first trip to the country since taking over as defense secretary.

PAKISTANI SANCTUARIES

The surge of violence last year and fears of more when the weather gets warmer this year have thrown the spotlight on infiltration from Pakistan and Pakistan’s efforts to stop it.

Gates said on Tuesday cross-border attacks from Pakistan were increasing.

U.S. military officials in Kabul told reporters command and control of the Afghan insurgency came from the Pakistani side of the border, where Pakistani forces have also been battling militants.

Training, financing, recruitment, indoctrination, regeneration and other support activities were also taking place in Pakistan, a U.S. military intelligence official said.

U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte said last week it would be necessary to eliminate the Taliban safe havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas to end the Afghan insurgency.

Pakistan was the main backer of the Taliban during the 1990s but officially stopped helping the hardline Islamists after the September 11 attacks, when it joined the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

But while Pakistan has arrested or killed hundreds of al Qaeda members, including several major figures, Afghanistan and some of its allies say it has failed to take effective action against Taliban leaders, their networks and sanctuaries.

Despite such doubts about Pakistani efforts, a NATO spokesman said on Wednesday efforts were being made to coordinate operations with Pakistan and the killing of a top Taliban commander in a U.S. air strike last month was an example of that.

The Taliban commander killed in the December 19 air strike in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, was the most senior Taliban leader killed by U.S. forces since 2001. “The Pakistanis shared intelligence with us that led to the successful attack on Osmani,” NATO spokesman Brigadier Richard Nugee told a news conference in Kabul.

He did not elaborate but also cited a Pakistani attack on a militant camp in its South Waziristan tribal region on Tuesday as an example of efforts to coordinate with Pakistan.

Gates said Pakistan was “an extraordinarily strong ally” of the United States in the war on terrorism but militancy on the Pakistani side of the border would have to be dealt with.

What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy

newyork times

The human mind isn’t very well equipped to make sense of a figure like $1.2 trillion. We don’t deal with a trillion of anything in our daily lives, and so when we come across such a big number, it is hard to distinguish it from any other big number. Millions, billions, a trillion — they all start to sound the same.

The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.

All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another:

The war in Iraq.

In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so.

These estimates probably would have turned out to be too optimistic even if the war had gone well. Throughout history, people have typically underestimated the cost of war, as William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, has pointed out.

But the deteriorating situation in Iraq has caused the initial predictions to be off the mark by a scale that is difficult to fathom. The operation itself — the helicopters, the tanks, the fuel needed to run them, the combat pay for enlisted troops, the salaries of reservists and contractors, the rebuilding of Iraq — is costing more than $300 million a day, estimates Scott Wallsten, an economist in Washington.

That translates into a couple of billion dollars a week and, over the full course of the war, an eventual total of $700 billion in direct spending.

The two best-known analyses of the war’s costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war. They include a number of indirect costs, like the economic stimulus that the war funds would have provided if they had been spent in this country.

Mr. Wallsten, who worked with Katrina Kosec, another economist, argues for a figure closer to $1 trillion in today’s dollars. My own estimate falls on the conservative side, largely because it focuses on the actual money that Americans would have been able to spend in the absence of a war. I didn’t even attempt to put a monetary value on the more than 3,000 American deaths in the war.

Besides the direct military spending, I’m including the gas tax that the war has effectively imposed on American families (to the benefit of oil-producing countries like Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia). At the start of 2003, a barrel of oil was selling for $30. Since then, the average price has been about $50. Attributing even $5 of this difference to the conflict adds another $150 billion to the war’s price tag, Ms. Bilmes and Mr. Stiglitz say.

The war has also guaranteed some big future expenses. Replacing the hardware used in Iraq and otherwise getting the United States military back into its prewar fighting shape could cost $100 billion. And if this war’s veterans receive disability payments and medical care at the same rate as veterans of the first gulf war, their health costs will add up to $250 billion. If the disability rate matches Vietnam’s, the number climbs higher. Either way, Ms. Bilmes says, “It’s like a miniature Medicare.”

In economic terms, you can think of these medical costs as the difference between how productive the soldiers would have been as, say, computer programmers or firefighters and how productive they will be as wounded veterans. In human terms, you can think of soldiers like Jason Poole, a young corporal profiled in The New York Times last year. Before the war, he had planned to be a teacher. After being hit by a roadside bomb in 2004, he spent hundreds of hours learning to walk and talk again, and he now splits his time between a community college and a hospital in Northern California.

Whatever number you use for the war’s total cost, it will tower over costs that normally seem prohibitive. Right now, including everything, the war is costing about $200 billion a year.

Treating heart disease and diabetes, by contrast, would probably cost about $50 billion a year. The remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations — held up in Congress partly because of their cost — might cost somewhat less. Universal preschool would be $35 billion. In Afghanistan, $10 billion could make a real difference. At the National Cancer Institute, annual budget is about $6 billion.

“This war has skewed our thinking about resources,” said Mr. Wallsten, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative-leaning research group. “In the context of the war, $20 billion is nothing.”

As it happens, $20 billion is not a bad ballpark estimate for the added cost of Mr. Bush’s planned surge in troops. By itself, of course, that price tag doesn’t mean the surge is a bad idea. If it offers the best chance to stabilize Iraq, then it may well be the right option.

But the standard shouldn’t simply be whether a surge is better than the most popular alternative — a far-less-expensive political strategy that includes getting tough with the Iraqi government. The standard should be whether the surge would be better than the political strategy plus whatever else might be accomplished with the $20 billion.

This time, it would be nice to have that discussion before the troops reach Iraq.

Microchips for mentally ill planned in shake-up

LONDON TELEGRAPH

Radical measures for tackling crime - ranging from monitoring the behaviour of the mentally ill with radio chips to hormone injections for sex offenders — are to be considered by the Government in a wide-ranging policy review ordered by Tony Blair.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that Labour had to renew its sense of leadership and energy as voters were getting bored with the party after 10 years in power.

He disclosed that he intended to stay in power until at least June to oversee a policy review aimed at ensuring that a "new New Labour" agenda would take the Government into the next election after he had left No 10.

The Cabinet Office published four policy review documents outlining the "big questions and choices" facing society in the next decade.

Cabinet ministers, civil servants and the public, through so-called citizen forums, will be asked to express a view.

Mr Blair asserted his grip on the Government's forward policy agenda as his most likely successor, Gordon Brown, flew to India for an official visit.

The Chancellor has indicated that he will not be bound by the reviews and has blocked Mr Blair's attempts to extend them to his own area of economic policy.

Mr Brown clearly wants a decisive break with the Blair legacy and has already started setting out his priorities, including spending more on education, a less overbearing state and a different style of government.

The policy review programme, which Mr Blair told his monthly Downing Street press conference had generated "real enthusiasm" across government, will be seen as his attempt to ensure that Mr Brown does not backtrack when he takes over.

The Prime Minister dismissed calls from some senior Labour figures to speed up his departure to allow Mr Brown to revitalise the Government before important elections in Scotland and Wales and English councils in May.

He gave the strongest indications yet that he intends to stay in office until the summer.

Asked whether he would be at a summit of European Union heads of government in Brussels on June 21, he responded without hesitation: "Of course."

His comments came after David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, told The Daily Telegraph that Labour would have to "defy political gravity" to win a fourth successive election and urged Mr Brown to adopt a "bold" agenda.

Mr Blair said he agreed with Mr Miliband's stark analysis of Labour's mid-term difficulties. But provide the Government did not retreat, "we will

come through this and come through it with the renewed sense of leadership and energy".

The options explored in the four documents dealing with public services, the role of the State, energy and the environment, and crime, justice and cohesion, are not Government policy but are intended to "facilitate discussion".

They show how the Government is thinking and its readiness to look at contentious and radical policies that have been tried abroad.

The most controversial paper dealing with law and order acknowledges that there will have to be "trade-offs" between liberty and security as technology and profiling are used to reduce crime.

It acknowledged that two thirds of the public believe crime is rising. People were less confident in the criminal justice system after experiencing it, while re-offending rates remained "stubbornly high".

While burglary had fallen, mugging had risen with the expansion of portable high-tech gadgets, and new crime opportunities such as identity theft and internet crime.

The policy paper confirmed the Government's objective of creating a surveillance society despite Mr Blair's denials of a "Big Brother" state. It said new anti-crime measures include face and voice recognition, a DNA database, identity cards, microchip monitoring and satellite surveillance — and confirmed that Britain has the most public CCTV systems in Europe.

It highlighted ways other countries have intervened to tackle crime and drug addiction — though it stresses such ideas "are not presently policies under consideration by the UK Government".

America is said to be "favourably disposed" towards preventing drug addiction through heroin and cocaine vaccination. It is also considering "more sophisticated" monitoring techniques, including a trial of "radio frequency identification chips" for the mentally ill.

Options for regulating behaviour include the use of legal restrictions on television beer adverts in use in over half of Europe. In Denmark, sex offenders are given hormone injections, while Dutch police recently sent text messages to warn citizens of an escaped paedophile.

Public sector unions are likely to be alarmed by suggestions of private and voluntary sectors playing an increasing role — such as the 14,000 bail bondsmen and thousands of bounty hunters who ensure defendants get to court.

AP: Iran gets army gear in Pentagon sale

AP

Fighter jet parts and other sensitive U.S. military gear seized from front companies for Iran and brokers for China have been traced in criminal cases to a surprising source: the Pentagon.

In one case, federal investigators said, contraband purchased in Defense Department surplus auctions was delivered to Iran, a country President Bush has branded part of an "axis of evil."

In that instance, a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran resumed business after his release from prison. He purchased Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents say those parts did make it to Iran.

Sensitive military surplus items are supposed to be demilitarized or "de-milled" — rendered useless for military purposes — or, if auctioned, sold only to buyers who promise to obey U.S. arms embargoes, export controls and other laws.

Yet the surplus sales can operate like a supermarket for arms dealers.

"Right Item, Right Time, Right Place, Right Price, Every Time. Best Value Solutions for America's Warfighters," the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service says on its Web site, calling itself "the place to obtain original U.S. Government surplus property."

Federal investigators are increasingly anxious that Iran is within easy reach of a top priority on its shopping list: parts for the precious fleet of F-14 "Tomcat" fighter jets the United States let Iran buy in the 1970s when it was an ally.

In one case, convicted middlemen for Iran bought Tomcat parts from the Defense Department's surplus division. Customs agents confiscated them and returned them to the Pentagon, which sold them again — customs evidence tags still attached — to another buyer, a suspected broker for Iran.

"That would be evidence of a significant breakdown, in my view, in controls and processes," said Greg Kutz, the Government Accountability Office's head of special investigations. "It shouldn't happen the first time, let alone the second time."

A Defense Department official, Fred Baillie, said his agency followed procedures.

"The fact that those individuals chose to violate the law and the fact that the customs people caught them really indicates that the process is working," said Baillie, the Defense Logistics Agency's executive director of distribution. "Customs is supposed to check all exports to make sure that all the appropriate certifications and licenses had been granted."

The Pentagon recently retired its Tomcats and is shipping tens of thousands of spare parts to its surplus office — the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service — where they could be sold in public auctions. Iran is the only other country flying F-14s.

"It stands to reason Iran will be even more aggressive in seeking F-14 parts," said Stephen Bogni, head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's arms export investigations. Iran can produce only about 15 percent of the parts itself, he said.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, found it alarmingly easy to acquire sensitive surplus. Last year, its agents bought $1.1 million worth — including rocket launchers, body armor and surveillance antennas — by driving onto a base and posing as defense contractors.

"They helped us load our van," Kutz said. Investigators used a fake identity to access a surplus Web site operated by a Pentagon contractor and bought still more, including a dozen microcircuits used on F-14 fighters.

The undercover buyers received phone calls from the Defense Department asking why they had no Social Security number or credit history, but they deflected the questions by presenting a phony utility bill and claiming to be an identity theft victim.

The Pentagon's public surplus sales took in $57 million in fiscal 2005. The agency also moves extra supplies around within the government and gives surplus military gear such as weapons, armored personnel carriers and aircraft to state and local law enforcement.

Investigators have found the Pentagon's inventory and sales controls rife with errors. They say sales are closely watched by friends and foes of the United States.

Among cases in which U.S. military technology made its way from surplus auctions to brokers for Iran, China and others:

_Items seized in December 2000 at a Bakersfield, Calif., warehouse that belonged to Multicore, described by U.S. prosecutors as a front company for Iran. Among the weaponry it acquired were fighter jet and missile components, including F-14 parts from Pentagon surplus sales, customs agents said. The surplus purchases were returned after two Multicore officers were sentenced to prison for weapons export violations. London-based Multicore is now out of business, but customs continues to investigate whether U.S. companies sold it military equipment illegally.

In 2005, customs agents came upon the same surplus F-14 parts with the evidence labels still attached while investigating a different company suspected of serving as an Iranian front. They seized the items again. They declined to provide details because the investigation is still under way.

_Arif Ali Durrani, a Pakistani, was convicted last year in California in the illegal export of weapons components to the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia and Belgium in 2004 and 2005 and sentenced to just over 12 years in prison. Customs investigators say the items included Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran that he bought from a U.S. company that acquired them from a Pentagon surplus sale, and that those parts made it to Iran via Malaysia. Durrani is appealing his conviction.

An accomplice, former Naval intelligence officer George Budenz, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in July to a year in prison. Durrani's prison term is his second; he was convicted in 1987 of illegally exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran.

_State Metal Industries, a Camden, N.J., company convicted in June of violating export laws over a shipment of AIM-7 Sparrow missile guidance parts it bought from Pentagon surplus in 2003 and sold to an entity partly owned by the Chinese government. The company pleaded guilty, was fined $250,000 and placed on probation for three years. Customs and Border Protection inspectors seized the parts — nearly 200 pieces of the guidance system for the Sparrow missile system — while inspecting cargo at a New Jersey port.

"Our mistake was selling it for export," said William Robertson, State Metal's attorney. He said the company knew the material was going to China but didn't know the Chinese government partially owned the buyer.

_In October, Ronald Wiseman, a longtime Pentagon surplus employee in the Middle East, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison for stealing surplus military Humvees and selling them to a customer in Saudi Arabia from 1999 to 2002. An accomplice, fellow surplus employee Gayden Woodson, will be sentenced this month.

The Humvees were equipped for combat zones and some weren't recovered, Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Ingersoll said.

_A California company, All Ports, shipped hundreds of containers of U.S. military technology to China between 1994 and 1999, much of it acquired in Pentagon surplus sales, court documents show. Customs agents discovered the sales in May 1999 when All Ports tried to ship to China components for guided missiles, bombs, the B-1 bomber and underwater mines. The company and its owners were convicted in 2000; an appeals court upheld the conviction in 2002.

Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., called the cases "a huge breakdown, an absolute, huge breakdown."

"The military should not sell or give away any sensitive military equipment. If we no longer need it, it needs to be destroyed — totally destroyed," said Shays, until this month the chairman of a House panel on national security. "The Department of Defense should not be supplying sensitive military equipment to our adversaries, our enemies, terrorists."

It's no secret to defense experts that valuable technology can be found amid surplus scrap.

On a visit to a Defense Department surplus site about five years ago, defense consultant Randall Sweeney literally stumbled upon some that shouldn't have been up for sale.

"I was walking through a pile of supposedly de-milled electrical items and found a heat-seeking missile warhead intact," Sweeney said, declining to identify the surplus location for security reasons. "I carried it over and showed them. I said, 'This shouldn't be in here.'"

Sweeney, president of Defense and Aerospace International in West Palm Beach, Fla., sees human error as a big problem. Surplus items are numbered, and an error of a single digit can make sensitive technology available, he said. Knowledgeable buyers could easily spot a valuable item, he added: "I'm not the only sophisticated eye in the world."

Baillie said the Pentagon is working to tighten security. Steps include setting up property centers to better identify surplus parts and employing people skilled at spotting sensitive items. If there is uncertainty about an item, he said, it is destroyed.

Of the 76,000 parts for the F-14, 60 percent are "general hardware" such as nuts and bolts and can be sold to the public without restriction, Baillie said. About 10,000 are unique to Tomcats and will be destroyed.

An additional 23,000 parts are valuable for military and commercial use and are being studied to see whether they can be sold, Baillie said.

Asked why the Pentagon would sell any F-14 parts, given their value to Iran, Baillie said: "Our first priority truly is national security, and we take that very seriously. However, we have to balance that with our other requirement to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money."

Kutz, the government investigator, said surplus F-14 parts shouldn't be sold. He believes Iran already has Tomcat parts from Pentagon surplus sales: "The key now is, going forward, to shut that down and not let it happen again."

___

On the Net:

Pentagon surplus: http://www.drms.dla.mil/

Immigration and Customs Enforcement: http://www.ice.gov/

Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov/

Merkel warns on EU constitution

cnn

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country wants to revive the European Union's stalled constitution, warned on Wednesday of the risk of a "historic failure" to end the stalemate on the charter.

Merkel said Germany would aim by the end of its six-month presidency of the 27-nation bloc in June to offer a plan to resolve a deadlock over a constitution which supporters say is vital to the functioning of an enlarged EU.

"It is in the interest of Europe, its member states and its citizens, to bring this process to a successful conclusion by the next European Parliament elections in early 2009," Merkel told the assembly in Strasbourg.

"A collapse (of that process) would be a historic failure," she said of efforts to break a stalemate created in 2005 when French and Dutch voters rejected the proposed charter in referendums.

Merkel has sought to play down expectations for Germany's presidency, aware that her ability to relaunch a Union in the political doldrums may hinge on factors beyond her control.

With French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair set to leave office this year, Merkel has emerged as Europe's most influential leader.

But German officials say what she can achieve depends on who is elected French president on May 6, almost two years after French and Dutch voters stopped EU institutional reform in its tracks by rejecting the draft constitution in referendums.

Analysts and politicians said at the time the "No" vote, particularly in France, partly stemmed from concerns migrants from the new member states of the east would take away jobs in western Europe.

Merkel also signalled that efforts to reconcile the EU need to guarantee its energy supplies with policies to tackle global warming would be at the heart of Germany's presidency, and issued a call to Washington to help the EU begin work on a new international accord on climate change.

"The EU needs the United States...to lay the foundations for a post-Kyoto agreement on climate change," she said of an envisaged new accord to apply from 2012.

The EU executive Commission last week laid out a new energy strategy, in which it announced what it said were the world's most ambitious goals for fighting climate change, targeting a cut of greenhouse gases by at least 20 percent by 2020.

Merkel reiterated her calls for closer trade and investment ties with the United States, saying Brussels and Washington should continue to cut barriers in areas such as patent rights, industry standards and in stock market access.

"A common transatlantic market is of the utmost European interest," she said in the speech.

EU trade officials have previously said they and U.S. counterparts are already working on harmonising regulations to make it easier to do business across the Atlantic but creating a full free trade area would be fraught with difficulties.

Aside from difficulties with France and the Netherlands, Germany also faces an uphill struggle convincing governments elsewhere in the bloc to back its efforts on the constitution.

Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic, which promised referendums but never held them after the French and Dutch said no, have got cold feet about the treaty, diplomats say.

Behind the scenes, Germany is sounding them out on what would have to be removed from the treaty ratified by 18 member states so far to enable the remaining countries to endorse it, preferably without holding referendums, the diplomats say.

The aim is to agree in June on a timetable for producing an amended treaty with possibly some political guidelines on its content, which may entail dropping the word "constitution."

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.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

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.

Monday, January 15, 2007

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