Thursday, January 18, 2007

Bird flu mutations in Egypt suggest antiviral resistance - USATODAY.com

Bird flu mutations in Egypt suggest antiviral resistance - USATODAY.com

Posted 1/18/2007 8:44 AM ET

LONDON (AP) — Mutations in the bird flu virus have been found in two people in Egypt, in a form that might be resistant to the medication most commonly used to treat the deadly disease, according to laboratory tests approved by WHO.
The mutations in the H5N1 virus strain were not drastic enough to make the virus infectious enough to spark a pandemic, said officials with the World Health Organization. But more such mutations could ultimately prompt scientists to rethink current treatment strategies.

Samples taken from two bird flu patients in Egypt — a 16-year-old girl and her 26-year-old uncle — were not as responsive as regular H5N1 viruses to Tamiflu, a drug also know as oseltamivir that is used to treat the disease, WHO officials said.

The girl and her uncle died in late December, as well as the man's 35-year-old sister, though she has not yet been confirmed as having had H5N1. The three — who lived together in Gharbiyah province, 50 miles northwest of Cairo — fell ill within days of one another after being exposed to sick ducks.

"Based on the information we have, we can't yet rule out human-to-human transmission," said Dr. Fred Hayden, a WHO bird flu and anti-virals expert. "We need to better understand the dynamics of this outbreak."

Though people have passed the virus on to other people in the past, such infections are rare, and most patients have been infected by direct contact with sick birds.

Scientists fear, however, that the virus could mutate into a form more easily passed between people, which could spark a flu pandemic.

The drug-resistant strains found in Egypt likely developed after the patients were hospitalized and treated with Tamiflu, with the virus responding directly to the drug, Hayden said. It was not proven, however, that that was the case, and a more worrying scenario would be if drug-resistant strains were already circulating among birds.

Though Tamiflu remains the drug of choice to treat H5N1, experts may have to consider other options if they find more resistant viruses.

Because flu viruses evolve constantly, mutations are only worrisome if they are linked to the virus' transmissibility, lethality or drug susceptibility.

"What the resistance tests look for are markers associated with antiviral resistance," though finding the markers did not necessarily mean Tamiflu would not work, said Dr. Angus Nicoll, flu director at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Hayden said the mutations found in Egypt were different from Tamiflu-resistant H5N1 viruses found in patients two years ago in Vietnam. The Vietnamese strains were definitely resistant to Tamiflu, whereas the Egyptian viruses have only proven they are not as susceptible to the drug, he said.

Tamiflu-resistant viruses such as those found in Vietnam are often treatable with an older, less expensive class of anti-virals, known as amantadanes. Some bird flu virus strains from Indonesia and China have also proven susceptible to amantadanes.

H5N1 first hit Egypt last year, and has since infected 18 people, 10 of whom have died.

Since the H5N1 outbreak first began in late 2003, it has decimated the Asian poultry industry and infected at least 265 people worldwide, 159 of whom have died, according to WHO.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-01-18-bird-flu-mutations_x.htm

Pentagon Sets Rules for Detainee Trials - washingtonpost.com

Pentagon Sets Rules for Detainee Trials - washingtonpost.com

By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 18, 2007; 3:59 PM



WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's rules for upcoming detainee trials would allow terrorism suspects to be convicted and perhaps executed using hearsay evidence and some coerced testimony.

The rules are fair, said the Pentagon, which released them Thursday in a manual for the expected trials. However, they could spark a fresh confrontation between the Bush administration and the Democratic-led Congress over treatment of terror suspects.

According to the 238-page manual, a detainee's lawyer could not reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government had a chance to review it. Suspects would be allowed to view summaries of classified evidence, not the material itself.

The new regulations are intended to track a law passed last fall by Congress restoring President Bush's plans to have special military commissions try terror-war prisoners. Those commissions had been struck down earlier in the year by the Supreme Court.

At a Pentagon briefing, Dan Dell'Orto, deputy to the Defense Department's top counsel, said the new rules will "afford all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he planned to scrutinize the manual to ensure that it does not "run afoul" of the Constitution.

"I have not yet seen evidence that the process by which these rules were built or their substance addresses all the questions left open by the legislation," Skelton said.

Officials think that with the evidence they have now, they could eventually charge 60 to 80 detainees, said Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, legal adviser to the Pentagon's office on commissions.

The Defense Department is currently planning trials for at least 10.

There are almost 400 people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban being held at the military's prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. About 380 others have been released since the facility was opened five years ago.

Last September, Congress _ then led by Republicans _ sent Bush a new law granting wide latitude in interrogating and detaining captured enemy combatants. The legislation prohibited some abuses of detainees, including mutilation and rape, but granted the president leeway to decide which interrogation techniques were permissible.

Passage of the bill, which was backed by the White House, followed more than three months of debate that included angry complaints by Democrats about the administration's interrogation policies, and a short-lived rebellion by some Republican senators.

In outlining the maximum punishment for various acts, the new manual includes the death penalty for people convicted of spying or taking part in a "conspiracy or joint enterprise" that kills someone. The maximum penalty for aiding the enemy _ such as providing ammunition or money _ is lifetime imprisonment.

As required by law, the manual prohibits the use of statements obtained through torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the Constitution. It allows some evidence obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge.

The Detainee Treatment Act, separate legislation championed in 2005 by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., prohibited the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of military and CIA prisoners.

Congress and the White House agreed last year that hearsay _ a witness quoting someone else _ can be allowed as evidence if a judge rules the testimony is reliable. According to the manual, this is necessary because witnesses _ such as military personnel or foreigners _ may not be available to testify.

"As a general matter, hearsay shall be admitted on the same terms as any evidence," the manual states.

The Pentagon's Dell'Orto said that since both sides of the case can admit hearsay evidence, that "levels the playing field."

The Pentagon manual is aimed at ensuring that enemy combatants _ the Bush administration's term for many of the terrorism suspects captured on the battlefield _ "are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized by civilized people," according to the document.

Under the rules, the accused will be allowed to know about all evidence that is provided in the trial, Dell'Orto said. They will not be allowed to see classified material, but will be given an unclassified summary or substitute, with the judge first determining whether the summary sufficiently represents the classified material.

"When you're in the middle of a war against this enemy, you need to be particularly concerned about the disclosure of that evidence," Dell'Orto said of classified materials.

The manual states that the defense must notify the judge if it expects to disclose classified information and give the government reasonable opportunity to respond. Also, the government can object to any questions of witnesses that would require the disclosure of classified information.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and some Democrats have said the legislation is likely to be thrown out by the courts as unconstitutional because it bars detainees from legally protesting their detentions. Under the law, only individuals selected for military trial are given access to a lawyer and judge; other military detainees can be held until hostilities cease.

Bloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison

INFOWARS
You'd be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction on free speech in Communist China. But it isn't. The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress in the latest astounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.

Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."

In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.

Under current law any 'lobbyist" who 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report." quarterly to the government faces criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year.

The amendment is currently on hold.

This latest attack on bloggers comes hot on the heels of Republican Senator John McCain's proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards.

McCain's proposal is presented under the banner of saving children from sexual predators and encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.



Despite a total lack of any evidence that children are being victimized en mass by bloggers or people who leave comments on blog sites, it seems likely that the proposal will become legislation in some form. It is well known that McCain has a distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.

In recent months, a chorus of propaganda intended to demonize the Internet and further lead it down a path of strict control has spewed forth from numerous establishment organs:

During an appearance with his wife Barbara on Fox News last November, George Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an "adversarial and ugly climate."

- The White House's own recently de-classified strategy for "winning the war on terror" targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to "diminish" their influence.

- The Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.

- In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills." Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

- A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web - and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.

- A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.

- The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down "terrorists" who use the Internet to spread propaganda.

- The EU also recently proposed legislation that would prevent users from uploading any form of video without a license.

- We have also previously exposed how moves are afoot to clamp down on internet neutrality and even to designate a highly restricted new form of the internet known as Internet 2.

Make no mistake, the internet, one of the greatest outposts of free speech ever created is under constant attack by powerful people who cannot operate within a society where information flows freely and unhindered. All these moves mimic stories we hear every week out of State Controlled Communist China, where the internet is strictly regulated and virtually exists as its own entity away from the rest of the web.

The phrases "Chinese government" and "Mao Zedong" have even been censored on China's official Web sites because they are "Sensitive phrases". Are we to allow our supposedly Democratic governments to implement the same type of restrictive policies here?

Under section 220 of the lobbying reform bill, Infowars.net could be required to seek a license in order to bring this information to you. IF we were granted a license we would then have to report our activities to the government four times per year in order to bring you this information. Does that sound more like free speech or more like totalitarianism?

Take action:

As well as calling the Senate you should go to GrassrootsFreedom.com which has a petition that you can sign against Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill.

Has Bush Ordered Secret War on Iran? - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

Has Bush Ordered Secret War on Iran? - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

Newsweek
Jan. 22, 2007 issue - Has George W. Bush ordered up a "secret war" against Iran and Syria? Some administration opponents on Capitol Hill began asking this question after U.S. forces in recent weeks arrested two groups of Iranian government representatives inside Iraq. Bush particularly alarmed critics when, in announcing his new Iraq policy, he pledged to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" and to "seek out and destroy the networks." Sen. Joseph Biden, now Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman (and a Dem presidential contender), sent a letter to Bush after a question-and-answer confrontation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Biden said Rice had been evasive on whether Bush's statements meant that U.S. military personnel could cross into Iran or Syria in pursuit of insurgent support networks. He also asked whether the administration believes the president could order such action without first seeking explicit congressional approval—as Biden thinks he must. A White House aide declined to comment on Biden's letter. But the tough approach stunned even America's firmest Iraqi allies, the Kurds. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, told NEWSWEEK that one of the U.S. Special Forces raids on Iranians working in Iraq "caught everyone by surprise. We should have been alerted and informed."


In fact, administration officials (anonymous due to diplomatic sensitivities) concede that Bush's Iran language may have been overly aggressive, raising unwarranted fears about military strikes on Tehran. Instead, they say, Bush was trying to warn Iran to keep its operatives out of Iraq, and to reassure Gulf allies—including Saudi Arabia—that the United States would protect them against Iranian aggression. A senior administration official, not authorized to speak on the record, says the policy is part of the new Iraq offensive. "All this comes out of our very detailed, lengthy review of strategy from last fall," he says. Recent intel indicates the government of Iran, or elements in it, have stepped up interference in Iraqi political affairs and the supply of weapons to Iraqi Shiite insurgents, say several U.S. intel and national-security officials, anonymous when discussing sensitive material. "The reason you keep hearing about Iran is we keep finding their stuff there," Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace said Friday. Two of the officials, however, indicated Bush had not signed a secret order—known as an intel "finding"—authorizing the CIA or other undercover units to launch covert operations to undermine the governments of Iran and Syria.

—Mark Hosenball, Michael Hirsh, Babak Dehghanpisheh and Richard Wolffe

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16609996/site/newsweek/

Chinese anti-satellite test sparks concern - Space News - MSNBC.com

Chinese anti-satellite test sparks concern - Space News - MSNBC.com

U.S. and other countries react to reports about orbital weapon

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 12:20 p.m. ET Jan 18, 2007

WASHINGTON - The United States, Australia and Canada have voiced concerns to China over a test in space of a satellite-killing weapon last week, the White House said Thursday.

“The U.S. believes China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area,” National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. “We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese.”

Using a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile, the test knocked out an aging Chinese weather satellite about 537 miles (860 kilometers) above the earth on Jan. 11 through “kinetic impact,” or by slamming into it, Johndroe said.

Canada and Australia had joined in voicing concern, he said.

Britain, South Korea and Japan were expected to follow suit, an administration official told Reuters.

In recent days, satellite observers have been passing along reports about large amount of space debris detected in orbit. Late Wednesday, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported that the anti-satellite test was directed against China's Feng Yun 1C polar-orbiting weather satellite, which was launched in 1999.


The U.S. Air Force Space Command had been monitoring the weather satellite's orbit, and saw "signs of orbital distress" and debris, Aviation Week reported.

Military space policy has been increasingly in the spotlight since the White House released a new national space policy in October. The policy underscored the importance of protecting U.S. satellite assets and countering threats from other countries — touching off a round of criticism.

This report includes material from Reuters and MSNBC.com.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16689558/

Terror Official: 'We're Going to Get Hit' - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

Terror Official: 'We're Going to Get Hit' - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

Newsweek

Jan. 22, 2007 issue - Intel director John Negroponte gave Congress a sobering assessment last week of the continued threats from groups like Al Qaeda and Hizbullah. But even gloomier comments came from Henry Crumpton, the outgoing State Department terror coordinator. An ex-CIA operative, Crumpton told NEWSWEEK that a worldwide surge in Islamic radicalism has worsened recently, increasing the number of potential terrorists and setting back U.S. efforts in the terror war. "Certainly, we haven't made any progress," said Crumpton. "In fact, we've lost ground." He cites Iraq as a factor; the war has fueled resentment against the United States.

Crumpton noted some successes, such as improved joint efforts with foreign governments and a weakening of Al Qaeda's leadership structure. But he warned of future attacks. "We don't want to acknowledge we're going to get hit again in the homeland, but we are," he said. "That's a hard, ugly fact. But it's going to happen." Crumpton cited no specific intel, but said the most worrisome scenarios involve lone operatives who slip into the country and take directions through cyberspace. "How do you penetrate that?" he asked. Citing family financial pressures, Crumpton leaves office in two weeks. A State official, anonymous when discussing personnel matters, said no one has been nominated to replace him, so it could be a while before the post—a top counterterror job—is filled.

—Michael Isikoff

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16609997/site/newsweek/

WP: Protesters found in Defense database - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

WP: Protesters found in Defense database - washingtonpost.com/MSNBC.com

ACLU questions entries in tracking system

By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Updated: 11:35 p.m. ET Jan 16, 2007

A Defense Department database devoted to gathering information on potential threats to military facilities and personnel, known as Talon, had 13,000 entries as of a year ago -- including 2,821 reports involving American citizens, according to an internal Pentagon memo to be released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Pentagon memo says an examination of the system led to the deletion of 1,131 reports involving Americans, 186 of which dealt with "anti-military protests or demonstrations in the U.S."

Titled "Review of the TALON Reporting System," the four-page memo produced in February 2006 summarizes some interim results from an inquiry ordered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after disclosure in December 2005 that the system had collected and circulated data on anti-military protests and other peaceful demonstrations.

The released memo, one of a series of Talon documents made public over the past year by the ACLU under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, said that the deleted reports did not meet a 2003 Defense Department requirement that they have some foreign terrorist connection or relate to what was believed to be "a force protection threat."

The number of deleted reports far exceeds the estimate provided to The Washington Post just over a year ago by senior officials of Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the Defense Department agency that manages the Talon program. At that time, then-CIFA Director David A. Burtt II said the review had disclosed that only 1 percent of the then 12,500 Talon reports appeared to be problematic.

The ACLU said in its own report that past disclosures about Talon "cried out for congressional oversight yet Congress was silent." It said the new memo indicated there "may be even more disturbing" information to discover and declared "it is time for Congress to act."

The ACLU noted the memo showed that Talon reports had a much wider circulation than previously disclosed, with about 28 organizations and 3,589 individuals authorized to submit reports or have access to the database. The organizations with access include various military agencies as well as state, federal and local law enforcement officials.

In early 2006, Burt also said CIFA had not devised a formal way to notify its users when it decided to delete a Talon report on American citizens. The newly released memo says that a software enhancement was being initiated to permit users to edit and delete entries from the database and that it was scheduled for completion in April 2006.

Layers of review
A Pentagon spokesman said there are 7,700 reports in the Talon database. Some involve U.S. citizens, but the spokesman declined to say how many. Over the past year the program has instituted multiple layers of review for screening which reports should go into the database, the spokesman said.

CIFA has instituted a process for analysts to review materials to make sure they fit the program's criteria before being uploaded and made available to Talon users. CIFA was established in 2002 in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, originally to coordinate the counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations of the various branches and agencies of the Defense Department. It has grown rapidly over the past four years, but not without problems. Along with discovery of the Talon data collection, CIFA was linked to the lobbying and earmarking activities that led to the conviction of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.). Burtt and his top deputy retired in August 2006, and federal investigators are still looking at CIFA contracting activities.

Last week, the New York Times disclosed that CIFA had been using national security letters to gather financial data on U.S. citizens, but a Pentagon spokesman yesterday said such information was for particular investigations and not made part of the Talon database.

Talon was instituted in May 2003 to capture raw, non-validated information about suspicious activity or potential terrorist threats to military personnel or facilities at home and abroad.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16660848/

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.”