WSJ: Is Nancy Pelosi Un-American?

8/18/2010

Source

Is Nancy Pelosi Un-American?
By JAMES TARANTO

We were only kidding last week when we headlined an item "Bring Back HUAC." The reference was to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, disbanded in 1975, and we were poking fun at the tendency of today's liberals to label anyone who disagrees with them "un-American." In the case of the Ground Zero mosque, that would mean the vast majority of Americans are un-American.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, seems to have taken our little joke seriously. Politico reports that "Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation of groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York":

Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."

"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"

The Washington Post's crack mosque reporter Greg Sargent swung into action and obtained a "clarification"

from Pelosi's office:

It was a bit unclear what she was referring to, and now her office sends over a statement from her clarifying what she meant and sort of standing by what she said:

"The freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.

"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.' . . ."

Sargent, who has a preternatural ability to find clarity amid mud, adds: "Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right." Nothing to see here, just move along.

But wait. What is this about "a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center"? Pelosi agrees with Rick Lazio, a Republican candidate for governor of New York, who last month called on his Democratic rival, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, to investigate the mosque's funding. The Associated Press reported last month on the reaction to Lazio's call for transparency:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says it would be un-American to investigate a mosque that is planned for construction near where the World Trade Center once stood.

Perhaps when Pelosi reconstitutes HUAC, its first order of business will be to look into Bloomberg's allegation that the speaker of the House is engaging in un-American activities.

Russia: Iran's nuclear plant to start next week

8/13/2010

Source

Russia: Iran's nuclear plant to start next week
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's nuclear agency said Friday that it will load fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant next week, defying U.S. calls to hold off the start of the launch.

Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said Friday that uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning the startup process.

"From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation," he told The Associated Press.

The United States has called for Russia to delay the startup until Iran proves that it's not developing nuclear weapons. Russian officials said that the latest U.N. sanctions against Iran won't affect the Bushehr project.

Russia signed a $1 billion contract in 1995 for building the Bushehr plant, but it has dragged its feet on completing the project for years.

Moscow has cited technical reasons for the delays, but analysts say Moscow has used the project to press Iran to ease its defiance over its nuclear program.

Novikov said that Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko will travel to Bushehr in southern Iran for the Aug. 21 ceremony, which will also be attended by the Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in March that the Bushehr plant would begin operating this summer. Some Iranian lawmakers have accused Russia of delaying the project under the Western pressure.

Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened by Pete Hegseth

7/21/2010

Source

Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened
Her intellectually dishonest opposition to our armed forces during a time of war shows bad judgment. She doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

By PETE HEGSETH

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Republican Senators should use every measure possible to defeat her confirmation.

There are several reasons why she does not belong on the Supreme Court. But for this Iraq war veteran, the crucial one is that Ms. Kagan used her position of authority as dean of Harvard Law School to impede, rather than empower, the warriors who fight, and have fallen, for our freedoms. These actions make her an unacceptable replacement for the court's only remaining military veteran, Justice John Paul Stevens.

Three weeks ago, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her antimilitary actions. Ms. Kagan and her supporters have whitewashed her drastic attempts to block recruiters from Harvard. Allow me to dispel the misinformation.

At her hearing on June 29, Ms. Kagan testified that "The military had full access to our students at all times." To the contrary, Ms. Kagan persistently blocked its access to the law school's Office of Career Services and the wide array of services it provides. Almost all students use this office to identify employers, so it's hard to imagine how Ms. Kagan believes the military had "full access."

Moreover, she encouraged students in speeches to protest, and obstruct, the presence of military recruiters. The Army called her actions "stonewalling;" I call them downright discriminatory.

Her backers say Ms. Kagan supports the military because she has praised them publicly and hosted dinners for veterans. A handful of veterans have defended her, and I concede that she has had good things to say about our troops, which I appreciate. But actions always speak louder than words. Ms. Kagan's actions toward recruiters while wars were raging trump her rhetorical support.

Gen. David Petraeus calls counterinsurgency "a thinking man's war," and defeating our enemies on the battlefield and in the courtroom takes America's best minds. Ms. Kagan's action to block military recruiters happened to coincide with my deployment to Guantanamo Bay, itself a legal maze of graduate-level proportions. Would not the legal situation there be better off with more participation from lawyers of Harvard caliber?

Ms. Kagan has repeatedly stated that, despite her decision to bar recruiters from the Office of Career Services, the number of military recruits actually increased during her tenure. But this happened in spite of Ms. Kagan, not because of her. The number would have been even higher had she supported recruiters, rather than actively opposing them. The numbers are useless, except as a testament to the students who proactively sought out a military career in her hostile environment.

Ms. Kagan's opposition to military recruiters was based on her opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I do not begrudge Ms. Kagan's opposition to the federal law that prohibits homosexual conduct or activity in the armed forces, and that also requires separation from the armed forces for individuals who engage in this conduct or activity. Reasonable people disagree with it. However, in emails to students and statements to the press, Ms. Kagan fiercely slammed "the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." As a legal scholar, she knows better.

She knows that the policy she "abhors" is not the military's policy, but a policy enacted by Congress and imposed on the military. In fact, after the law was passed in 1993 Ms. Kagan went to work for the very man who signed it into law—President Bill Clinton. Her calling it "the military's policy" is intellectually dishonest, and she knows it.Likewise, while Ms. Kagan sought to block full access to military recruiters, she welcomed to campus numerous lawmakers who voted for the law she calls "a moral injustice of the first order." Additionally, Harvard Law School has three academic chairs endowed by money from Saudi Arabia—a country where being a homosexual is a capital offense. So, rather than confront the congressional source of the policy—or take a stand against a country that executes homosexuals—Ms. Kagan zeroed in on military recruiters for a policy they neither authored nor emphasized.

We are a nation at war with a vicious enemy, on multiple fronts. I've seen this enemy first hand, as have a precious few from my generation. The real "moral injustice" would be granting a lifetime appointment to someone who, when it mattered most, treated military recruiters, and by extension all veterans, like second-class citizens.

Mr. Hegseth, a captain in the Army National Guard and executive director of Vets for Freedom, served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005-2006. He is currently a graduate student in public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

kagan scotus

Holder: Osama bin Laden will never face US trial

3/17/2010

Source

Holder: Osama bin Laden will never face US trial

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer Tue Mar 16, 7:05 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared terrorists to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden" not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

Holder sternly rejected criticism from GOP members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, who contend it is too dangerous to put terror suspects on trial in federal civilian courts as Holder has proposed.

The attorney general said it infuriates him to hear conservative critics complain that terrorists would get too many rights in the court system.

Terrorists in court "have the same rights that Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer," the attorney general said. "It doesn't mean that they're going to be coddled, it doesn't mean that they're going to be treated with kid gloves."

The comparison to convicted killer Manson angered Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who said it showed the Obama administration doesn't understand the American public's desire to treat terrorists as wartime enemies, not criminal defendants.

"My constituents and I just have a deep-seated and profound philosophical difference with the Obama administration," Culberson said.

Holder, his voice rising, charged that Culberson's arguments ignored basic facts about the law and the fight against terrorists.

"Let's deal with reality," Holder said. "The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom."

Pressed further on that point, Holder said: "The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can't be captured by us."

Much of the hearing centered around the Obama administration's stalled plan to put the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on trial. Last year, Holder announced the trial would take place in federal civilian court in New York City, not far from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

In the face of resistance from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other local politicians, that plan was shelved and the White House is now considering putting KSM and four alleged co-conspirators into a military commission trial.

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., bemoaned what he called a "cowardly" desire to avoid a civilian terror trial in a major city.

If a terrorist had killed thousands of Philadelphians, Fattah said, "we would expect him to come to Philadelphia" to face trial "if he would live long enough."

"It doesn't befit a great nation to hesitate or equivocate on the question of following our own laws," he said.

In other testimony:

• Holder defended the interrogation of the suspect in the attempted Christmas bombing of an airliner at it approached Detroit. He said the questioning produced very valuable intelligence and disputed the notion that reading the suspect his Miranda rights prevented further intelligence-gathering. The suspect resumed cooperating later, officials have said.

Holder's remarks led to an angry exchange with Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who claimed "there was an opportunity that was missed and we will never get it back again."

Holder shot back: "That is simply not true."

• The attorney general also acknowledged an ongoing probe into whether defense teams representing Guantanamo Bay detainees may have wrongly obtained photographs of CIA interrogators — pictures that could, some fear, endanger those interrogators.

• Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., offered support for Holder's now-dormant plan to try the Sept. 11 suspects in New York. But Serrano himself acknowledged he was the only elected New York official who still supported the idea.

terrortrials

Gitmo's Indefensible Lawyers

3/15/2010

Source

Gitmo's Indefensible Lawyers
Legal counsel to some of the detainees went far beyond vigorous representation of their clients. Doesn't the public have a right to know?
By Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn

On the evening of Jan. 26, 2006, military guards at Guantanamo Bay made an alarming discovery during a routine cell check. Lying on the bed of a Saudi detainee was an 18-page color brochure. The cover consisted of the now famous photograph of newly-arrived detainees dressed in orange jumpsuits—masked, bound and kneeling on the ground at Camp X-Ray—just four months after 9/11. Written entirely in Arabic, it also included pictures of what appeared to be detainee operations in Iraq. Major General Jay W. Hood, then the commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo, concurred with the guards that this represented a serious breach of security.

Maj. Gen. Hood asked his Islamic cultural adviser to translate. The cover read: "Cruel. Inhuman. Degrades Us All: Stop Torture and Ill-Treatment in the 'War on Terror.'" It was published by Amnesty International in the United Kingdom and portrayed America and its allies as waging a campaign of torture against Muslims around the globe.

"One thread that runs through many of the testimonies from prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, and from Guantanamo," the brochure read, "is that of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, and other racist abuse."

How did the detainee get it? More importantly, who gave it to him?

Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi, the detainee in whose cell the brochure was first found, told guards he received the brochure from his lawyer. An investigation by JTF-GTMO personnel revealed that Julia Tarver Mason, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, had sent it to Al Joudi and eight of the firm's other detainee clients through "legal mail"—a designation for privileged lawyer-client communications that are exempt from screening by security personnel. Worse, the investigation showed that Ms. Mason's clients passed it to other detainees not represented by Paul, Weiss lawyers. In all, more than a dozen detainees received a copy.

At Guantanamo, "legal mail" is strictly limited to correspondence between counsel and a detainee that is related to representation of the detainee, privileged documents and publicly filed legal documents. But even "legal mail," according to the rules mandated by Judge Joyce Hens Green in a 2004 protective order, prohibits lawyers from giving detainees information relating to military operations, intelligence, arrests, political news and current events, and the names of U.S. government personnel. Lawyers are forbidden from discussing other detainee cases not directly related to the representation of their own client.

The Amnesty International brochure, handed out at a human rights conference in London, was a political advocacy screed in clear violation of that order, which was formulated to protect force security. Maj. Gen. Hood made a command decision. He banned the Paul, Weiss lawyers from access to Guantanamo. The DOJ notified the firm.

Paul, Weiss immediately went on the offensive, backed by what one former Defense Department official, who requested anonymity, called "an armada of habeas attorneys." They sued the government, demanding that it defend the decision to eject lawyers from Gitmo, making the straight-faced claim that the Amnesty International brochure was a legitimate "report" that was "directly related" to their clients' defense. But their bottom line argument amounted to this: A military commander at a secure overseas military facility in a time of war couldn't remove disruptive lawyers who were inciting captured enemy detainees and endangering the safety and security of military personnel unless he first got permission from a federal judge.

In a sworn affidavit submitted to the D.C. District Court and obtained by the writers of this article in a Freedom of Information Act request, Maj. Gen. Hood did not equivocate when it came to the Amnesty International pamphlet. "The very nature of this document gives tremendous moral support to those who would strike out against our country," he stated. "It is not a factual report. Instead it is filled with second and third hand accounts, photos of protests that were staged, inflammatory photos from Iraq and provocative story captions."

Maj. Gen. Hood noted that many of the captured al Qaeda terrorists held at the camp had been "specifically trained on the Manchester Manual [an al Qaeda training manual discovered at a safe house in Britain]," which "encourages detainees to claim torture and abuse." He warned that "[e]xamples and vignettes of alleged abuse of other detainees" could be used "to fabricate their own claims of abuse and torture."

In fact, from al Qaeda's perspective, the Amnesty International brochure was better than the Manchester Manual. It cued detainees that the abuses at Abu Ghraib "were not an aberration." The brochure told them that images from the Iraqi prison were consistent with "numerous allegations of torture and ill-treatment reported from detention centres in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay."

The message to the detainees was clear: If you want to claim you are being tortured, here is a vast menu of examples from which to choose.

But Maj. Gen. Hood's immediate concern about the magazine's "propaganda and misinformation" was the strong potential that it would incite detainees to act out against U.S. personnel in his facility. The Islamic cultural adviser agreed, telling Maj. Gen. Hood that "the tone of the magazine was highly inflammatory" and "would cause a negative reaction, especially amongst the more hard-core terrorist factions within the camp."

That was an understatement. Four months earlier, a core group of detainee leaders recruited as many as 131 detainees to engage in a coordinated hunger strike. The self-starvation was intended to make the detainees look like victims, win sympathy for their cause, and force the U.S. government to choose between letting them die or letting them go. The tactic worked to perfection. Human rights activists created a media firestorm with completely fabricated reports about Guantanamo medical staff using "forced feedings" to "torture" detainees.

Ms. Mason herself inflamed tensions with the hunger strikers during a visit to Guantanamo in October 2005. She told one of the detainees, Yousef Al Shehri, that the U.S. government had no court authority to feed him using a nasal tube, according to Justice Department documents. As a result, Al Shehri pulled out his feeding tube, persuaded detainees in his cell block to do the same and exhorted them to physically resist efforts to reinsert the tube. DOJ lawyers would later argue that Ms. Mason's advocacy "resulted in a disruption of camp security and a potential threat to the health of eight hunger-striking detainees."

Despite this history, Paul, Weiss attorneys were apparently so confident that the DOJ could be cowed into submission that they provided the court with exhibits—letters, emails and court filings—documenting gross violations of the protective order by other habeas attorneys whose access was not cut off, ostensibly to show that Paul, Weiss was being treated unfairly.

We obtained Justice Department accounts of some of those incidents under a Freedom of Information Act request. Examples included an incident in which a lawyer sent his detainee client the transcript of a virulently anti-American speech that compared military physicians to Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor of Auschwitz, called DOJ lawyers "desk torturers" and suggested that the "abuses carried out by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib . . . could involve the President in the commission of war crimes."

Other incidents listed in the FOIA material included: a lawyer who was caught in the act of making a hand-drawn map of a detention camp's layout, including guard towers; a lawyer who sent a letter to his detainee client telling him that "we cannot depend on the military to do the right thing" and conveying his message of support to other detainees who were not his clients; lawyers who posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet; lawyers who provided news outlets with "interviews" of their clients using questions provided in advance by the news organization; and a lawyer who gave his client a list of all the detainees.

If the stated intent was to show that the government had singled out Paul, Weiss attorneys, the unstated purpose was to demonstrate something even more significant to the government's lawyers. They were outnumbered and outgunned. The Gitmo bar had grown to include some 400 lawyers from as many as 50 law firms that were subsidized by the millions of dollars earned from their paying corporate clients. They had the legal talent, the support of the international press and the judicial wind at their backs. They could bury the DOJ in paper. If one lawyer was taken out, she could be replaced by another.

"They were beaten down by the litigation," said the former Defense Department official who asked to remain anonymous. "If I'd gotten caught passing war news to detainees, my security clearance would have been pulled."

But why would American lawyers, after 9/11 and the brutal slaughter of 3,000 fellow citizens, hand members of al Qaeda information about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The records indicate that attorneys were printing news off the Internet and passing it to detainees at the same time that U.S. forces in Iraq were sustaining devastating casualties from IED attacks.

"They would bring contraband in their briefcases, in manila envelopes," an active-duty officer familiar with Defense Department records on attorney access violations told us. "They did it because they knew the detainees were hungry for news and they wanted to establish trust."

The desire to establish trust is evident in Ms. Mason's own affidavit to the D.C. court concerning the status of her firm's representation of Saudi detainees in habeas cases. The attorneys couldn't remain as attorney of record and go forward with a habeas case if the detainees wouldn't cooperate with them. "While we have made substantial progress in developing rapport and trust with our clients," she stated, "we have not yet been able to secure from all of them written acknowledgment of our representation." She attributes this to "torture and abuse . . . at the hands of the American military" as opposed to the Islamist mindset that sees no distinction between American attorneys in suits and American personnel in uniform. Indeed, court records reveal that Yousef Al Shehri wrote to the court, "expressing in no uncertain terms that he desires neither representation, nor a lawsuit on his behalf."

Ultimately, the government would reach a settlement with the Paul, Weiss lawyers. Ms. Mason and her team were allowed to resume their trips to Guantanamo in May 2006. But the DOJ's surrender emboldened the Gitmo bar even further. Last August, the Washington Post reported that three lawyers defending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his 9/11 co-conspirators showed their clients photographs of covert CIA officers in an attempt to identify the individuals who interrogated them after they were captured overseas. Lawyers working for the John Adams Project, formed to support the legal team representing KSM and his cohorts, provided the defense attorneys with the photographs, according to the Post. None of the attorneys under investigation were identified in the Post report.

In the last several days, the debate has taken a detour about what some have called a "shameful attack" on the "noble attorneys" who have chosen to defend "unpopular people." A national security organization, Keep America Safe (of which Ms. Burlingame is a board member), used the phrase "Al Qaeda 7" in an Internet ad to describe seven unnamed Department of Justice political appointees who previously represented or advocated on behalf of terrorists.

The purpose of the ad was to prod Attorney General Eric Holder to disclose to the public which detainee attorneys he has hired to work on behalf of the American people, and whether they are involved in the policy-making decisions that will affect the nation's safety and security while we are at war. He was asked for this information by several members of the U.S. Senate, and he was stonewalling.

The attorney general has the right to select whomever he chooses to work in his department, and to set policy as he sees fit. He does not, however, have the right to do it in the dark. The policies he advances must face the scrutiny of the American people, his No. 1 client.

The public has a right to know, for instance, that one of Mr. Holder's early political hires in the department's national security division was Jennifer Daskal, a former attorney for Human Rights Watch. Her work there centered on efforts to close Guantanamo Bay, shut down military commissions—which she calls "kangaroo courts"—and set detainees who cannot be tried in civilian courts free. She has written that freeing dangerous terrorists is an "assumption of risk" that we must take in order to cleanse the nation of Guantanamo's moral stain. This suggests that Ms. Daskal, who serves on the Justice Department's Detainee Policy Task Force, is entirely in sync with Mr. Holder and a White House whose chief counterterrorism official (John Brennan) considers a 20% detainee recidivism rate "not that bad."

It is entirely legitimate to ask who else among Mr. Holder's hires from the Gitmo bar is shaping or influencing national security policy decisions. Meanwhile, the public can decide whether the lawyers at Paul, Weiss who are volunteering at Guantanamo are an example of the legal profession's noblest traditions.

We spoke to Ms. Mason's executive assistant on Friday seeking her comments. Multiple calls and emails had not been returned as this paper went to press last night.

On Feb. 20, 2007, a post on the Paul, Weiss Web site proudly announced "Paul, Weiss achieves more victories for Guantanamo detainees." Two detainees were released from Gitmo to their home in Saudi Arabia. One was Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi, a recipient of the Amnesty International "report." The Web site needs an update. The Pentagon has identified Al Joudi as a "confirmed" recidivist who is "directly involved" with the facilitation of "terrorist activities."

Yousef Al Shehri, the detainee who led his cell block in the feeding tube rebellion, was also released in November 2007. In early 2009 he was listed on the Saudi Kingdom's list of 85 "most wanted" extremists. Yousef was killed last October during a shootout with Saudi security forces on his way to a martyrdom operation. He and another jihadist, disguised as women and wearing suicide vests, killed a security officer in the clash. Yousef's brother-in-law, Said Al Shehri, also released from Gitmo, is currently the second in command of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the branch that launched the Christmas Day airline attack last year.

Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She is a co-founder of Keep America Safe. Mr. Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Sen. Nelson: ‘I Don’t Support Closing Guantanamo Bay’ At This Point

3/10/2010

Source

Sen. Nelson: ‘I Don’t Support Closing Guantanamo Bay’ At This Point
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter


(CNSNews.com) -- Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com that he does not support closing Guantanamo Bay at this time after visiting the prison and looking at the issue.

During an interview on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Nelson, “Do you support closing Guantanamo Bay?”

Senator Nelson said, “Not at this point. We haven’t had the hearing so I don’t know what they’re going to bring up, but I don’t support closing Guantanamo Bay.”

“I’ve been there,” said Nelson. “I’ve viewed it and I’ve looked at the issue. But I’m anxious to hear what the hearing has to say and promote one way or another because I think it will be a fairly – it will be a strong hearing in terms of what the impact is of keeping, what the costs are in closing, and what you would do as an alternative. And that’s what I’m anxious to find out.”

On May 24, 2009, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Senator Nelson if he thought the Guantanamo Bay prison would be open or closed by the following January 2010.

“Well, the president said it should be closed,” Nelson told Wallace. “John McCain said it should be closed. President Bush before he left said it should be closed. Secretary Gates said it should be closed. And former secretary Colin Powell, I believe, has also said it should be closed.”

“And whether it's closed or not, we have to have a plan in place that outlines how we deal with the, the people who are incarcerated there, the combatants,” said Nelson. “We have to find a way to do that. That's why I think we're -- people are jumping on the president right now. I think what they ought to do is wait until a plan comes out. Then there's plenty of time. I'm sure they'll find another reason to jump on him at that point.”

Jihad Jane, American who lived on Main Street

3/10/2010

Source

Jihad Jane, American who lived on Main Street

The Pennsylvania woman who dubbed herself Jihad Jane is an American who lived literally on Main Street in an apartment where she spent much time online, posting messages saying she was "desperate to do something" to help Muslims.

Colleen LaRose, a 46-year-old who converted to Islam, has been indicted, accused of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and kill a person in a foreign country, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

She was not well known in her neighborhood in Pennsburg, an hour north of Philadelphia. One of her neighbors reacted to the news by saying, "It scares the hell out of me."

LaRose was arrested October 15, officials say, but that was kept under wraps to protect another ongoing investigation. She's in custody in Philadelphia and faces arraignment in a week.

The Justice Department has said LaRose and five co-conspirators recruited men on the Internet "to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the Internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad."

LaRose, who is reportedly divorced, was very active online, authorities say.

In one posting on a social networking site, she wrote about marrying a Muslim man overseas.

In February 2008, she wrote: "Asalamalakum [peace be unto you]. You make me so happy, I cannot put into words. Inshallah [God willing] one day I will be at your side as your wife and never leave your side."

Four months later, she called herself Jihad Jane in a message saying she was "desperate to do something somehow to help" Muslims.

From December 2008 to October 2009, LaRose engaged in electronic communication with the five co-conspirators about their shared desires to wage jihad and become martyrs, according to the indictment.

LaRose is also linked to the online organization Revolutionmuslim.com -- where she was a subscriber, again using the name Jihad Jane. The site is run by an American Muslim who has called the Army psychiatrist accused of a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, a hero.

A posting on the site Wednesday said: "Sisters -- please consider sending her [LaRose] a message of support and hope and let's remind her she isn't alone. It's likely she's the only Muslimah there. As always, use discretion when writing, don't ask pointed questions, and of course don't say anything that could create problems for her or yourselves."

LaRose had a boyfriend whom she lived with until August of last year. The man's initials are in her indictment.

Records show she was arrested twice in 1997: once for DWI and once for passing a bad check in the San Antonio, Texas, area. She moved from Texas to Pennsylvania in 2004.

In 2005, LaRose attempted to commit suicide, according to a police report filed at the time. She was depressed about the death of her father, the report from Pennsburg Police Officer Michael Devlin says.

She told Devlin she swallowed as many as 10 pills of cyclobenzaprine, a muscle relaxant. The pills were mixed with alcohol.

"Colleen was highly intoxicated and having difficulty maintaining her balance," Devlin wrote. I "questioned LaRose about harming herself, at which point she stated she does not want to die."

Devlin was dispatched to check on LaRose in response to a 911 call made by LaRose's sister in Texas, who was worried LaRose might try to kill herself.

CNN's Susan Candiotti contributed to this report.

Graham Would Support Obama to Close GITMO

3/8/2010

Source

Graham to Obama: scrap New York terror trial, I'll stand with you



On Sunday, two moderate senators defended President Obama’s apparent willingness to reconsider his administration’s decision to use a civilian New York terror trial for the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The first, Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, is seen as the architect behind the Obama administration’s potential change in plans. He has promised to help Obama close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility if Obama gives up his plans of trying Mohammed and other sensitive terror suspects in a civilian court.

“We need a legal system that gives due process to detainees while recognizing” that there are sensitivities to national security in such a case, said Senator Graham, a former military lawyer, on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

He wants the trials to be held as military tribunals.

The second, retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, backed Graham's plan. “Everybody has got to check their ideology at the door in order to get to practical solutions,” said Senator Bayh, also appearing on “Face the Nation.”

An about face?

At issue is the treatment of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay.

Civil libertarians have alleged that the Bush-era policy of detaining some terror suspects indefinitely without trial was a violation of American values. They held that closing Guantánamo and trying Mohammed and others in a civilian court would be the strongest demonstration possible of the strength of America’s rule of law.

The Obama administration appeared to validate this viewpoint when Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year his plans to put Mohammed on trial in a New York federal court.

But critics of the plan have gained traction in recent weeks. The sheer logistics of holding such a trial in a civilian court, in particular, have suggested that the plan might not be practically feasible.

The two senators suggested Sunday morning that Obama is merely searching for a compromise, dropping one goal – a civilian trial – in order to advance his more deeply held wish – closing Guantánamo.

Graham's promise

If this happens, Graham pledges to stand beside Obama in the president’s quest to shutter Guantánamo. “We will never win this war unless we understand the effect that Guantánamo Bay has had on our war effort,” said Graham Sunday, suggesting that the facility has become synonymous with torture – a key selling point of anti-American rhetoric in Islamic countries.

Charles Stimson, a former Pentagon detention official, told The Los Angeles Times that such a deal could work: "You are going to see national security hawks like me get out in front and support the administration and try to convince skeptics, members of the conservative caucus, that they need to get behind this."

Graham’s past as a military lawyer puts him in a unique position to persuade Obama that military tribunals would offer sufficient rights to defendants and not merely be a kangaroo court.

“We need to win the war within our values system, but realize that this is a war,” said Graham, who has held hearings with Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona to uncover and curtail the torture of detainees. “Detainee policy is hard, but we have to get it right.”

GITMO TerrorTrials

Former Gitmo detainee said running Afghan battles

3/4/2010

Source

Former Gitmo detainee said running Afghan battles
By KATHY GANNON (AP) – 15 hours ago



LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan — A man freed from Guantanamo more than two years ago after he claimed he only wanted to go home and help his family is now a senior commander running Taliban resistance to the U.S.-led offensive in southern Afghanistan, two senior Afghan intelligence officials say.

Abdul Qayyum is also seen as a leading candidate to be the next No. 2 in the Afghan Taliban hierarchy, said the officials, interviewed last week by The Associated Press.

The story of Abdul Qayyum could add to the complications President Barack Obama is facing in fulfilling his pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo by sending some prisoners back to their home countries or to other willing nations, while putting others on trial.

U.S. intelligence asserts that 20 percent of suspects released from the Guantanamo Bay prison have returned to the fight and the number has been steadily increasing.

Qayyum's key aide in plotting attacks on Afghan and international forces is another former Guantanamo prisoner, said the Afghan intelligence officials as well as a former Helmand governor, Sher Mohammed Akundzada. Abdul Rauf, who told his U.S. interrogators he had only loose connections to the Taliban, spent time in an Afghan jail before being freed last year.

He rejoined the Taliban, they said. Akundzada said he warned authorities against releasing both him and Qayyum.

Like Qayyum, Rauf is from Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. During the Taliban's rule, which ended in late 2001, Rauf was a corps commander in the western province of Herat and in the Afghan capital, Kabul, said Akhundzada.

The intelligence officials were interviewed in Helmand, where the Taliban control several districts, and spoke on condition of anonymity lest they attract the militia's attention.

They said Qayyum was given charge of the military campaign in the south about 14 months ago, soon after his release from the Afghan jail to which he had been transferred from Guantanamo. That includes managing the battle for the town of Marjah, where NATO troops are flushing out remaining militants.

Qayyum, whose Taliban nom de guerre is Qayyum Zakir, is thought to be running operations from the Pakistani border city of Quetta. A Pakistani newspaper report that he was recently arrested was denied by Abdul Razik, a former governor of Kajaki, Qayyum's home district, which is under extensive Taliban control.

One of the intelligence officials also questioned the report. He said a house Qayyum was in was raided about two weeks ago and three assistants were arrested but he escaped. A week ago he was seen in Pishin, a Pakistani border town about 30 miles (50 kilometers) from Quetta, the official said.

"He's smart and he is brutal," said Abdul Razik. "He will withdraw his soldiers to fight another day," he said, referring to the Marjah campaign.

Qayyum, who is about 36 years old, is close to the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. He has been tipped as a candidate to replace the militia's second-in-command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was among several Taliban leaders arrested recently in Pakistan.

A Taliban commander in the 1990s who was notorious for brutality and summary executions, Qayyum was captured in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo. According to interrogation transcripts, he identified himself to his American captors by his father's name, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, and said he had been conscripted by the Taliban but left at the first opportunity.

According to a military transcript of his subsequent hearing, he said, "I want to go back home and join my family and work in my land and help my family." In December 2007 he was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government and held in Pul-e-Charkhi jail, on the eastern edge of the Kabul.

A year later he was set free, despite warnings he would return to the Taliban, said Akundzada.

Afghanistan's deputy attorney general said Qayyum went before an Afghan court, which ruled he had served his time. The U.S.-backed Afghan government generally gets a promise from former Guantanamo prisoners that they won't join the armed opposition. Qayyum made no such promise.

"The court decided time served was enough," said Faqir Ahmed Faqiryar. "When the court is involved there is no need to promise anything."

Abdul Razik, who knows the family well, said he wrote to Qayyum's father warning him to keep his son under control. "He told me, 'I have no control over him.' "

Through interviews from Kabul to Helmand province, the AP traced Qayyum's steps from the Afghan prison, across the border into Pakistan, through Peshawar to Quetta, back into Afghanistan to his village of Soply, and then to Quetta again.

A loner who trusts few people, his only company was a driver known to the Taliban and who has since been arrested, Razik said.

In Soply, his native village in Helmand, Qayyum stayed for two days with his sister, according to a neighbor who saw him outside the house and was quickly warned to "say nothing." He returned to Quetta, from where he oversees four southern provinces: Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan and Zabul, said Sharifuddin, a former Taliban official who lives near Soply, Qayyum's village. His information was confirmed by Razik and the intelligence officials interviewed by the AP.

"From his houses in Quetta he appoints the (Taliban) governors, the district governors," Sharifuddin said. "Nothing happens in these provinces without his approval."

Associated Press Writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report from Washington.

GITMO

Dems Want to Give Lawyers who Represented Terrorists Jobs in the DOJ ?

3/4/2010

Source

Conservatives raise ruckus over Justice appointees' prior work with detainees
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 4, 2010; A02

Conservatives who are unhappy with the decision to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have trained their fire on an unusual target: political appointees in the Obama Justice Department who represented detainees earlier in their careers.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) has been demanding for months the names of nine appointees who previously advocated for or represented detainees in their private law practices. Grassley has argued that the lawyers' backgrounds could pose "conflicts of interest" and complained that the department had been "nonresponsive" to his requests.

The rhetoric reached new levels this week when Keep America Safe, a group affiliated with Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of former vice president Richard B. Cheney, released a YouTube video that featured the headline "DOJ: Department of Jihad?" and asked, "Who are these government officials? . . . Whose values do they share?"

The video triggered fierce complaints from political progressives and even some veterans of the George W. Bush years. Critics say the argument fails to consider that government lawyers' portfolios often overlap with their prior practice and that all lawyers are obligated to do free legal work for the poor and others.

In a blog post on the Volokh Conspiracy legal Web site, George Washington University professor Orin S. Kerr, who has worked for GOP lawmakers, likened the video to something that "former Senator Joseph McCarthy would have used . . . if he were alive today."

"Members of Congress made a reasonable request for information about senior DOJ lawyers' past work and possible conflicts, but the video is truly offensive," said former Bush White House lawyer Reginald Brown. "It's beyond a cheap shot to suggest that a lawyer is an al-Qaeda sympathizer because he advocates a detainee's position in the Supreme Court."

None of the nine Justice attorneys are involved in individual prosecution decisions about terrorism suspects, a department official said, and each of them "understands that their client is the United States," Assistant Attorney General Ronald H. Weich wrote in a letter to Grassley last month.

Fox News identified the attorneys on its Web site Tuesday. Justice Department officials confirmed that some of the lawyers represented individual terrorism suspects on a pro bono basis; others signed friend-of-the-court briefs on policy issues, sometimes for conservative legal organizations. They include appointees who work in the offices of the three highest-ranking officials in the department, as well as the Office of Legal Counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General and the civil division.

"Politics has overtaken facts and reality," Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement. "We will not participate in an attempt to drag people's names through the mud for political purposes. . . . Department of Justice attorneys work around the clock to keep this country safe and it is offensive that their patriotism is being questioned."

Democratic political analysts pointed out that high-level Bush administration officials who worked in the Justice Department, the State Department and the White House last year joined law firms that represent terrorism suspects who are challenging their prolonged detention at Guantanamo.

Nonetheless, Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday asserting that "the decision to allow attorneys who advocated for terrorists held at Guantanamo to craft detainee policy during the war on terror would be akin to allowing attorneys for the Mafia to draft organized crime policy during the 1960s."

Kenneth L. Wainstein, a former U.S. attorney and homeland security adviser in the Bush administration, drew a finer line.

"While it's legitimate for the public to inquire about the past work of DOJ political appointees, we need to recognize that our judicial system cannot function without pro bono counsel, and it doesn't make a lawyer less patriotic just because he or she has represented a criminal or terrorist suspect," Wainstein said.

DOJ TerrorTrials

Reuters: 4 GITMO Detainees Transferred to Albania and Spain

2/24/2010

Source

 U.S. sends 4 Guantanamo prisoners to Albania, Spain
Wed, Feb 24 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four detainees held at the controversial U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have been transferred to Albania and Spain, the Justice Department said on Wednesday.

Three detainees originally from North Africa were sent to Albania, the department said. They were identified as Saleh Bin Hadi Asasi, originally from Tunisia; Sharif Fati Ali al Mishad, a native of Egypt; and Abdul Rauf Omar Mohammad Abu al Qusin from Libya.

The fourth man, transferred to Spain, was not identified beyond that he was from the Palestinian Territories. Spain has said it is willing to take up to five prisoners from the Guantanamo prison.

The Justice Department said it worked with the governments of Albania and Spain to "ensure the transfers took place under appropriate security measures and consultations" regarding these individuals would continue.

There are still 188 prisoners at the facility that President Barack Obama has pledged to close. He has argued that anti-American militants have used it as a recruiting tool for their causes.

But the effort by his administration to shut it has been stymied by legal and political hurdles, including reluctance by other countries to take detainees when none are expected to be released in the United States.

Since the Obama administration took office in 2009, 48 detainees have been transferred overseas while one has been sent to New York to face criminal charges for the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa.

Separately, a U.S. judge in Washington rejected petitions by two Yemeni detainees -- Suleiman Awadh Bin Agil Al-Nahdi and Fahmi Salem Al-Assani -- to be released from the Guantanamo prison. The opinions by Judge Gladys Kessler were classified.

About 32 detainees have won release from the Guantanamo prison through habeas corpus petitions in U.S. court while 11 have had their requests for release rejected.

(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini; editing by Mohammad Zargham)

GITMO

CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

2/16/2010

Source

CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012
By Michael O'Brien - 02/16/10 01:35 PM ET
FULL STORY

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.

44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

The reelection numbers are slightly more sour than Obama's approval ratings, which are basically tied. 49 percent of people told CNN that they approve of the way Obama is handling his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

Still, the 2012 election is still a long way's away, with this fall's midterm elections looming large. Republicans are hoping to make inroads into Congress, while Democrats are hoping to hold onto gains won in the 2006 and 2008 cycles.

Respondents to CNN were split at 46 percent as to whether they preferred a generic Republican or Democratic candidate in this fall's elections.

At least one retiring lawmaker is confident Obama will sail to reelection, with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) predicting Monday the president would win "overwhelmingly" in 2012.

The CNN poll, conducted Feb. 12-15, has a three percent margin of error.

Click Here for a Link to the FULL POLLING REPORT in PDF

“Support Our Troops” slogan falls foul of Olympic rules *UPDATE* USA WINS!

2/16/2010

Source

“Support Our Troops” slogan falls foul of Olympic rules
Link to Full Article

Trouble is brewing over United States ice hockey goalie Jonathan Quick and the “Support Our Troops” slogan on his helmet. Slogans of this sort are banned under Olympic rules and Quick will be told to remove it, the International Ice Hockey Federation has told Reuters.

Ryan Miller has also been told to remove the slogan “Miller Time” from his helmet while the third American netminder Tim Thomas had already placed a sticker over a slogan on his mask for the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

IOC rules forbid political propoganda or advertisements being placed on equipment. “If the players don’t agree with the interpretation they can ask the USOC (United States Olympic Committee) to petition the IOC.”

Miller said he had agreed to remove “Miller Time”, which is also a popular beer company slogan, but might fight to keep “Matt Man”, a tribute to a dead friend from being taken off his helmet.

UPDATE!!! WE WIN! USA beats Switzerland 3-1!

Click HERE to Read More

McChrystal Says Situation in Afghanistan No Longer Deteriorating

2/4/2010

Source

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: Gen. Stanley McChrystal believes that the security situation in Afghanistan remains serious, but is no longer deteriorating, which is how he’d characterized it last summer. He also says that even though there’s been significant progress, he’s “not prepared to say we’ve turned a corner.”

McChrystal, the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan is in Istanbul for a meeting of NATO Defense Ministers, including Defense Secretary Gates. He made his comments to print and radio reporters traveling with Gates.

McChrystal says he has no official metrics to back up his assessment, but is basing it on intuitive metrics. “I’m not prepared to give you numbers,” he said. “But I’m prepared to tell you that what I see and what I feel gives me that sense. ”

He also says he’s not prepared to say that NATO is now winning in Afghanistan, though he’s confident “that we are going to see serious progress this year.”

Asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer in Afghanistan last month if momentum had shifted, McChrystal said, “ I believe were doing that now. I believe that we have changed  the way we operate in Afghanistan we changed some of our structures and I believe that we are on the way to convincing the Afghan people that we are here to protect them.”

Recent statements from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, have pointed to the Taliban’s expanding influence in Afghanistan.   McChrystal said he hadn’t seen Adm. Mullen’s statement, but he agreed that the Taliban are making a significant effort to expand their influence, though he noted the Afghan government, with US help, was mounting a similar effort as well.”

According to McChrystal the surge of 30,000 forces into Afghanistan this year is continuing because the military services “are working miracles” and “absolutely moving as fast as physically possible” to get the troops into the country.

McChrystal described the war in Afghanistan as “a war of perceptions” where influencing the Afghan population and insurgents was more important than Taliban body counts or how much land you capture.  The important thing is to influence Afghan perceptions because it could lead to a shift in momentum.

“This is all in the minds of the participants and I mean,  the Afghan people are the most important, but the insurgents are another one,” he said.

McChrystal indicated that was one reason why military officials in Afghanistan have not been shy in telegraphing that NATO forces are planning to take on the Taliban holdout of Marjah, in central Helmand Province.  He admitted it might be an unconventional approach, but that it was an  attempt to signal to the Afghan population that “we are expanding security where they live.”  

McChrystal added that word of a coming offensive was also a signal to the Taliban and druglords in the Marjah area, “that it’s about to change.  If they want to fight, then obviously that will have to be an outcome, but if they don’t want to fight, that’s fine too.”

He said he’d prefer  the Taliban see “the inevitability that things are changing” and that there’s an opportunity for them to make a choice about  what they’re going to do, “before suddenly in the dark of night they’re hit with an offensive.”

Blair: Al Qaeda Attack on US Soil in 3-6 Months

2/3/2010

Source

FRONT-PAGE

‘Al Qaeda attack on US in three to six months’
By Anwar Iqbal
Thursday, 04 Feb, 2010 | 04:04 AM PST

WASHINGTON: Al Qaeda is poised to attempt an attack on the United States within three to six months, America’s top intelligence officials have warned Congress.

The intelligence chiefs also warned that militant groups in Pakistan were coordinating their attacks with Al Qaeda, which had led to an increase in terrorist attacks inside Pakistan as well as rising concerns the groups might expand their ambitions to attack outside Pakistan.

Director of US National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Al Qaeda and its affiliates had made it a high priority to attempt a large-scale attack on American soil.

Mr Blair said that Al Qaeda would remain intent on attacking in the US at least until Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al Zawahiri, were killed or captured.

Mr Blair, flanked by the directors of the CIA and FBI and the chief intelligence officers of the State and Defence departments, put Al Qaeda at the top of a threat list that included the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes, criminal cartels and the potential for economic collapse in developing countries hard-hit by recession.

CIA Director Leon Panetta told the congressional panel that the terrorist organisation was deploying operatives to the US, including so-called clean recruits with minimal terrorist ties and training, to carry out attacks.

Mr Panetta said Al Qaeda was also working to inspire home-grown extremists to trigger violence on their own.

The annual terror assessment highlights the growing concern that Al Qaeda is increasingly relying on these harder-to-detect militants who can use simple devices to carry out hastily planned attacks.

The intelligence officials and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said US counter-terrorism agencies had absorbed the lessons of the Dec 25 attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit, but all said future attempts were inevitable and could happen soon.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked Mr Blair to assess the possibility of an attempted attack in the United States in the next three to six months.

“The priority is certain, I would say,” he replied. Each of the four other officials, asked the same question, agreed with Mr Blair.

US intelligence chiefs also warned that Al Qaeda’s many affiliates were a great concern to the spy agencies. The Yemeni affiliate, which is believed to have directed the attempted Christmas Day attack on an American airliner, would continue to attempt additional attacks on the US, they said.The assessment was much starker than Mr Blair’s views last year, when he claimed a considerable progress in the campaign to debilitate Al Qaeda.

security

White House Considers Changing Venue of Terror Trial

1/29/2010

Source

White House Considers Changing Venue of Terror Trial
By DIONNE SEARCEY And PETER WALLSTEN

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the plan to try the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City.

The White House's revised stance comes amid calls from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others that the trial should be moved out of Manhattan due to security costs, traffic delays and fears of new attacks.

The White House is considering moving the 9/11 hijacker trial from Manhattan, after loud opposition from Mayor Bloomberg and New Yorkers, Doug Luzader reports. Courtesy Fox News.

In November, Attorney General Eric Holder said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be tried in the Southern District of Manhattan, just blocks from the World Trade Center site.

On Thursday, the White House reaffirmed that it wanted Mr. Mohammed tried in the U.S. "The president is committed to seeing that he's brought to justice. He agrees with the attorney general's opinion in November that he and others can be litigated successfully and securely in the United States of America, just like others have—like [alleged shoe bomber] Richard Reid," said White House spokesman Bill Burton.

But Mr. Burton seemed to leave the door open to moving the trial away from downtown Manhattan.

On Friday, an administration official said the White House and the Justice Department have discussed alternative locations should Congress or local courts make it impossible to hold the trial in lower Manhattan.

In recent days, a not-in-my-backyard spirit has been gaining momentum across lower Manhattan. Residents, businesses, real-estate groups and elected officials have aired new objections to the idea of hosting what could be a multiyear trial that they say could snarl traffic and invite more attacks. City officials have estimated police costs to secure the trial at more than $200 million.

Mr. Bloomberg, who initially supported holding the trial in the city, now says he hopes Mr. Holder and the president will change their minds and move the trial elsewhere. Thursday, he suggested holding it at a military installation "away from central cities" and said he had placed a call to the attorney general, apparently to discuss his sentiment.

Police officers outside the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in November. The court is just blocks from the World Trade Center.

"Would I prefer that they did it elsewhere? Yes, but if we are called on, we will do what we're supposed to do," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters, noting that he hadn't heard back from Mr. Holder.

A Justice Department spokesman said in a statement only that the agency is confident it can safely prosecute this case in the Southern District "while minimizing disruptions to the community to the greatest extent possible, consistent with security needs."

Meanwhile, Republicans are using opposition to the venue to build an argument for the 2010 congressional elections that Mr. Obama and his party are weak on national-security issues and terrorism.

The GOP, whose leaders believe that national security can be a top issue for many voters, has charged that the Obama administration's initial reaction to the attempted bombing of an airliner on Christmas Day—including a comment by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the "system worked"—shows the administration doesn't recognize the terrorist threat facing the U.S. Ms. Napolitano said her comment was misunderstood, and Mr. Obama has stressed that he sees the U.S. as being at war with al Qaeda.

The New York trial was an issue in this month's special Senate election in Massachusetts, with Republican Scott Brown declaring in his victory speech that "in dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

Republicans have recently been joined by others across the aisle in siding with Mr. Bloomberg. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) also took up the mayor's cause.

"I think he has a good point. I think the administration should listen to that point," she said recently on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." "If there is any evidence that this is going to either make New York City a target or present unusual expenses, and the mayor—and I've been a mayor—should be listened to."

On Wednesday, six senators—three Republicans, two Democrats and independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman—sent a letter calling on the administration not to hold the trial in lower Manhattan. One of the Democrats, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), is facing a difficult re-election campaign.

Locally, opposition from politicians, businesses and residents was becoming increasingly vocal. Democratic New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said in a statement Thursday that he was urging Mr. Holder "to assess the feasibility of alternative sites and choose one that will not further burden the residents and businesses of lower Manhattan."

The Real Estate Board of New York, set up a Web site, movethetrial.com, to rally support for pushing it out of lower Manhattan.

"The last thing we need is for small businesses and retail and restaurants that have opened downtown [since the 2001 attacks] to find they no longer have a clientele," said Steven Spinola, the board's president.

Also, a neighborhood committee of lower Manhattan residents passed a unanimous resolution to urge that the attorney general consider military installations in New York that could be more easily secured and less disruptive.

GOP Slams State of the Union Address for Little Attention to National Security

1/28/2010

Source

GOP Slams State of the Union Address for Little Attention to National Security

Republicans are slamming President Obama for glossing over national security in his State of the Union speech, and omitting any reference to how his administration is handling terror detainees.

Republicans are slamming President Obama for glossing over national security in his State of the Union speech, and omitting any reference to how his administration is handling terror detainees.

Obama spent about nine minutes on national security issues in a 70-minute speech dominated by talk on jobs and a recovering economy. He made little mention of the of failed Christmas Day bomb attack aboard a U.S. airliner or the administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York civilian court -- much to the dismay of Republicans.

"The president last night in his State of the Union speech ignored national security," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in an interview with Fox News. "He spent something like a page and a half on what was a 14-, 15-page speech on national security, as if it's an afterthought."

"It was a footnote to the speech," he said.

But the White House on Thursday pushed back against such criticism, saying Obama has made national security a top priority during his first year in office.

"It should be obvious to those that watch the president that national security is critical to him," White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters. "He wakes up every morning thinking how to keep America safe. He laid out several things last night in the speech."

Obama made no reference in his address to the administration's decision to try Mohammed -- as well as four other Guantanamo Bay detainees with ties to 9/11 -- in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The controversial move will allow Mohammed and his alleged cohorts to be tried like American civilians, and the trial itself will make public classified information on U.S. intelligence gathering.

"I think it's one of the worst decisions he's made as president," Giuliani said.

Republican lawmakers on Thursday also blasted Obama for making only a brief reference to the failed Dec. 25 bomb attempt aboard American Airlines flight 253 -- which was carrying 300 people.

"We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives," Obama said of the plot.

"We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence," he said. "We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula."

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions criticized Obama for the brevity of his remarks, saying in a statement Thursday, "One of the biggest headlines from last night's speech is what the president did not say: a single word about the botched interrogation of the Christmas bomber and (Obama's) quest to provide foreign terrorists with the same legal rights as the Americans they target."

Guantanamo Bay prisoners transferred to Slovakia

1/25/2010

Source

Guantanamo Bay prisoners transferred to Slovakia

The US has missed a deadline that had been set to close the prison camp

Three inmates from the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have arrived in Slovakia, US officials say.

The detainees - who have not been identified - are the latest transfers as US President Barack Obama seeks to close the controversial facility.

Mr Obama set himself the 22 January 2010 closure deadline shortly after being sworn in a year ago.

He has subsequently said he wants the camp closed in 2010, without identifying a specific deadline.

More than 40 terror suspects have been transferred out of the prison during Mr Obama's first year in office, but nearly 200 remain at Guantanamo.

Diplomatic hurdles and domestic opposition to the government's plan to house detainees on US soil have hampered Mr Obama's plans to close down the facility completely.

Human rights groups say merely relocating suspects continues to violate the legal principle that people cannot be held without charge or trial.

Obama says 2010 will not be like 1994 because 'you've got me'

1/25/2010

Source

Berry: Obama said "big difference" between '10 and '94 is "me"

 Rep. Marion Berry's parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.

But the jaw-dropper is Berry's claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.

The retiring Berry, who doesn't say when the remarks were made, now scoffs at Obama's 50-or-below approval rating:

Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.” [snip]

“I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out,” said Arkansas’ 1st District congressman, who worked in the Clinton administration before being elected to the House in 1996... "I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and ’94. No one that was here in ’94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn’t a good feeling.”

Posted by Glenn Thrush 10:01 AM

Christmas Day bomber questioned for less than an hour

1/25/2010

Source

Details of arrest of bombing suspect disclosed
By Devlin Barrett

Sunday, January 24, 2010; A03

Badly burned and bleeding, the suspect in the attempted bombing of the Christmas Day flight to Detroit tried one last gambit as he was led away: He said there was another bomb hidden on board, officials said.

It wasn't true, federal agents learned after a tense search. But the Nigerian suspect's threat began hours of conversations that are now the subject of fierce political debate over the right way to handle terrorism suspects.

In interviews, U.S. officials described for the first time the details of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's arrest Dec. 25 at Detroit Metro Airport and the decisions that were made about how to interrogate him.

Captured after a bomb hidden in his underwear ignited but did not explode, Abdulmutallab initially spoke freely and provided valuable intelligence, officials said. Federal agents repeatedly interviewed him or heard him speak to others. When they read him his legal rights nearly 10 hours after the incident, he went silent.

Since the attempted bombing, several prominent lawmakers have argued he should have been placed immediately in military custody. The nation's top intelligence official said he should have been questioned by a special group of terrorism investigators, rather than by the FBI agents who responded to the scene.

The Justice Department has said those who argue the case should have been handled differently were silent when the Bush administration successfully prosecuted dozens of terrorists in federal court.

The officials who described the events said on-scene investigators never discussed turning Abdulmutallab over to military authorities. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose details of the investigation.

According to the officials, after being restrained and stripped bare by fellow passengers and by crew members, Abdulmutallab was handed over to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and local police. The officers decided that Abdulmutallab needed immediate medical attention, and an ambulance crew took him to the burn unit at the University of Michigan Medical Center.

Along the way, the officials said, Abdulmutallab repeatedly made incriminating statements to the Customs officers guarding him. He told them he had acted alone on the plane and had been trying to take down the aircraft, they said.

Abdulmutallab arrived at the hospital just before 2 p.m. Still under guard, he told a doctor treating him that he had tried to trigger the explosive, the sources said.

FBI agents from the Detroit bureau arrived at the hospital around 2:15 p.m., and were briefed by the Customs agents and officers as Abdulmutallab received medical treatment. Shortly after 3:30 p.m., FBI agents began interviewing the suspect in his hospital room, joined by a Customs officer and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

The suspect spoke openly, said one official, talking in detail about what he'd done and the planning that went into the attack. Other counterterrorism officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was during this questioning that he admitted he had been trained and instructed in the plot by al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

The interview lasted about 50 minutes. Before they began questioning Abdulmutallab, the FBI agents decided not to give him his Miranda warning providing his right to remain silent.

Although the Miranda warning, based on a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is a bedrock principle of the U.S. justice system, there is a major exception that could apply in Abdulmutallab's case. Investigators are allowed to question a suspect without providing a Miranda warning if they are trying to end a threat to public safety.

In a future trial in a federal court, prosecutors would probably seek to justify Abdulmutallab's questioning without a Miranda warning by arguing that the FBI agents needed to know quickly if there were other planes with bombs headed for the United States. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and other plots have shown al-Qaeda's penchant for synchronized attacks in multiple locations.

Abdulmutallab's interview ended when he was given medication and investigators decided it would be better to let the effects of the drugs wear off before pressing him further. He would not be questioned again for more than five hours. By that point, officials said, FBI bosses in Washington had decided a new interrogation team was needed. They made that move in case the lack of a Miranda warning or the suspect's medical condition at the time of the earlier conversations posed legal problems later on for prosecutors.

Based on the instructions from Washington, the second interview was conducted by different FBI agents and others with the local joint terrorism task force. Such a move is not unusual in cases in which investigators or prosecutors want to protect themselves from challenges to evidence or statements.

By bringing in a "clean team" of investigators to talk to the suspect, federal officials aimed to ensure that Abdulmutallab's statements would still be admissible if not giving him his Miranda warning led a judge to rule out the use of his first admissions.

Even if Abdulmutallab's statements are ruled out as evidence, they still provided valuable intelligence for U.S. counterterrorism officials to pursue, officials said.

In the end, though, the "clean team" of interrogators did not prod more revelations from the suspect. Having rested and received more extensive medical treatment, Abdulmutallab was told of his right to remain silent and his right to have an attorney.

He remained silent.