'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members

Do you like Ron Paul or oppose abortion? You may be a member of a militia, according to a new report by a government information collection agency.

By Joshua Rhett Miller

If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

That's according to "The Modern Militia Movement," a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

"Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created," the Feb. 20 report reads. "Unemployment rates are high, as well as costs of living expenses. Additionally, President Elect Barrack [sic] Obama is seen as tight on gun control and many extremists fear that he will enact firearms confiscations."

MIAC is one of 58 so-called "fusion centers" nationwide that were created by the Department of Homeland Security, in part, to collect local intelligence that authorities can use to combat terrorism and related criminal activities. More than $254 million from fiscal years 2004-2007 went to state and local governments to support the fusion centers, according to the DHS Web site.

During a press conference last week in Kansas City, Mo., DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano called fusion centers the "centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing" in the future.

"Let us not forget the reason we are here, the reason we have the Department of Homeland Security and the reason we now have fusion centers, which is a relatively new concept, is because we did not have the capacity as a country to connect the dots on isolated bits of intelligence prior to 9/11," Napolitano said, according to a DHS transcript.

"That's why we started this.... Now we know that it's not just the 9/11-type incidents but many, many other types of incidents that we can benefit from having fusion centers that share information and product and analysis upwards and horizontally."

But some say the fusion centers are going too far in whom they identify as potential threats to American security.

People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr are cited in the report, in addition to anti-abortion activists and conspiracy theorists who believe the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union.

"Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups," the report reads. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material."

Other potential signals of militia involvement, according to the report, are possession of the Gagsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag or the widely available anti-income tax film "America: Freedom to Fascism."

Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, told FOXNews.com that he's taking steps to get his name removed from the report, which he said could actually "dilute the effectiveness" of law enforcement agencies.

"It can subject people to unwarranted and inappropriate monitoring by the government," he said. "If I were the governor of Missouri, I'd be concerned that law enforcement agencies are wasting their time and effort on such nonsense."

Barr said his office has received "several dozen" complaints related to the report.

Mary Starrett, communications director for the Constitution Party, said Baldwin, the party's 2008 presidential candidate, was "outraged" that his name was included in the report.

"We were so astounded by it we couldn't believe it was real," Starrett told FOXNews.com. "It's painting such a large number of people with a broad brush in a dangerous light."

Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the report "crosses the line" and shows a disregard for civil liberties.

"It seems to implicate people who are engaging in First Amendment protected activities and suggest that something as innocuous as supporting a political candidate for office would mean that you're harboring some ill-intent," German told FOXNews.com. "It's completely inappropriate."

German, who claims the number of fusion centers nationwide is closer to 70, said the centers present several troubling concerns, including their excessive secrecy, ambiguous lines of authority, the use of data mining and military participation.

"No two are alike," German said. "And these things are expanding rapidly."

But MIAC officials defended their report, saying it's not a basis for officers to take enforcement action.

"These reports sometimes mention groups or individuals who are not the subject of the document, but may be relevant to describing tendencies or trends concerning the subject of the document," MIAC said in a statement.

"For example, a criminal group may use a particular wire service to transfer funds, but the mention of that wire service does not imply that it is part of that group, or a criminal enterprise.

Nor does it imply that all individuals who use that service are engaged in criminal activity."
The statement continues, "We are concerned about the mischaracterizations of a document following its recent unauthorized release and we regret that any citizens were unintentionally offended by the content of the document."

Donny Ferguson, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said he was concerned by the report's "poor choice of words," among other things.

"Unfortunately it is so broadly worded it could be interpreted as saying millions of peaceful, law-abiding Americans are involved in dangerous activities. These mistakes happen and we hope Missouri officials will correct the report," Ferguson wrote in an e-mail. "The Libertarian Party promotes the common-sense policies of fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. We are the only party in America who makes opposition to initiating violence a condition of membership."

Bob McCarty, a St. Louis resident who blogged about the MIAC report, said he's afraid he may be targeted, since he's previously sold Ron Paul-related merchandise.

"[The report] described me, so maybe I need to get a gun and build a shack out in the woods," McCarty said facetiously. "It's certainly an attempt to stifle political thought, especially in Missouri. It definitely makes me pause, if nothing else. Maybe Missouri is just a test bed for squelching political thought."

ACLU officials blasted a Texas fusion center last month for distributing a "Prevention Awareness Bulletin" that called on law enforcement officers to report activities of local lobbying groups, Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.

Soon there may be nobody left to lend to America

by Irwin Stelzer

Anyone who thought Ben Bernanke and his Federal Reserve Board colleagues were out of ammunition received a rude, or pleasant, shock last week. Rude, if you worry that a few extra trillions sloshing around the economy might one day trigger a wave of inflation; pleasant, if you worry that the economy is sinking fast, and the Obama administration and Congress haven’t a clue what to do about it.

The Fed plans to buy $300 billion of Treasury IOUs in the next six months (more to come if needed), pour $1.45 trillion into the mortgage market, and keep interest rates close to zero for “an extended period”. There’s more in the Fed’s “do whatever it takes” arsenal if these steps don’t bring interest rates down so people can borrow more cheaply to buy houses, cars and other durable goods. But so far, so good: interest rates on 30-year mortgages fell below 5%. Whether that will encourage enough creditworthy borrowers to sop up the huge inventory of unsold homes, much less trigger new construction, is difficult to predict.

But the dollar dropped like a stone. Earlier, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said he was “a little bit worried” that America might cheapen its currency and pay back the $1.2 trillion it owes in depreciated dollars. Now that the Fed has moved, he must be a lot worried.

The Fed’s decision to pump trillions into the money markets comes on top of President Barack Obama’s proposal to drive the federal deficit to 12% of GDP by borrowing trillions to fund a few stimulus projects, universal healthcare, a green energy system and a host of other programmes on his wish list. Obama’s assurance that America will never default on its debt hasn’t completely soothed the markets: The Wall Street Journal reports that it now costs seven times as much to buy insurance against an American government default as it did only a year ago. Besides, America can always inflate its way out of its obligations.

Not to worry, says the president. The economy will soon be growing at an annual rate of about 4%. Along with the tax increases to be imposed on the top 2% of earners, billions from the sale of carbon-pollution permits and reductions in age-related entitlements, the growth will drive the deficit down to 3% of GDP in 2013. Unfortunately, 2% of earners can’t or won’t carry the entire burden, the carbon-permit programme might not produce the predicted revenues after Democratic congressmen from coal-producing states chop away at it, and Congress has told the president that any proposal to reduce the huge entitlement payments due the ageing baby-boomers will be DOA – dead on arrival.

Where China’s Wen sees problems, Paul Paulson (no relation to former Treasury secretary Hank) sees opportunity. Paulson, you will recall, is the hedge-fund manager who made $10 billion in 2007 betting that the subprime mortgage market would implode. The day before Bernanke’s announcement, Paulson made another wager. He shelled out $1.28 billion for a stake in the gold-mining company AngloGold Ashanti. He is betting that by debasing their currencies, governments will trigger inflation that will cause a flight from paper currencies to gold. Within 24 hours of Paulson’s bet, it paid off, thanks to the Fed: the price of gold jumped 7%, one of the many commodities to experience large increases.

So here is where we are at. The combination of the Fed’s surprise attack on the credit markets and the president’s decision to borrow-and-spend will give the economy a lift. My own guess, and that of many economists with whom I have spoken, is that by the middle of next year, if not sooner, the economy will start growing again at a decent rate.

At that point, Bernanke will have to decide whether to start pulling money out of the system by selling off some of the assets on his swollen balance sheet, and the Obama administration will have to decide how to bring down the fiscal deficit. Bernanke is keenly aware that during the Great Depression the Fed tightened the money supply prematurely, nipping a nascent recovery in the bud. So he is likely to stall.

Meanwhile, there is little prospect that Congress will do what is necessary to bring spending and borrowing down to levels that do not trigger inflation. Politicians just don’t worry as much about inflation as about catering to their multiple constituencies. So the Treasury will have more trillions in IOUs to peddle.

But its best customers just might be unenthusiastic about adding significantly to their holdings. Wen already owns trillions in Treasury bills that are depreciating in value. Besides, China’s mounting needs for infrastructure and an improved safety net will sop up funds once used to buy American securities. Japan, another large customer, is now running a current-account deficit, and so it won’t have as many dollars to recycle. Nor will Middle East buyers, no longer receiving a flood of dollars from $140-a-barrel oil. Little wonder that Larry Lindsey, former economic adviser to President George W Bush, says he “cannot figure out what combination of foreign buyers is going to acquire . . . [the] debt” that Obama’s plans will generate.

Which leaves Americans and the Fed as customers. Even if they save more, domestic consumers can’t absorb all the Treasury bonds that will be on offer. And if the Fed keeps buying, it will pour fuel on the inflationary fires.

I have never before doubted the resilience of the American economy – its ability to survive inevitable downturns after periods of excess, and to weather the burdens heaped on it by politicians. Obama, however, has me shaken, perhaps because I am not stirred by his rhetoric.

Fortunately, even some liberal Democrats are suffering from “bailout fatigue”. More important, Bernanke has so far shown a sure touch in managing monetary policy, and might head off a bout of inflation by shrinking the money supply when the economy is no longer too cold, has not yet gotten too hot, and is in just the right condition for such a move. If so, Goldilocks might just have a new life.

Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser and director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute.

In response to inflammatory editorial, Spencer listens and questions

by Robert Spencer

I haven't even left the Jihad Watch offices in Kalispell, Montana to make my way to St. Louis yet, but the editorial staff of Student Life, the independent paper of Washington University in St. Louis, has already decided that my speech there tomorrow is going to be "inflammatory," and they're taking action -- including calling on students to protest.

The editorial is called "In response to inflammatory speech, listen and question." It's in Student Life, March 23 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm). And in response to this inflammatory editorial, I'm going to listen and question.

Tomorrow evening, author Robert Spencer will speak in Graham Chapel about Islam and the threat of jihad.

Actually, no, I won't be speaking in Graham Chapel after all. I'll be speaking in a room called "Lab Sciences 300," where the event has been moved because of security concerns and indications that plans were afoot to disrupt the event. It's interesting that the paper is calling my talk, which they haven't heard, "inflammatory," while failing (so far) to notice the thuggery that is already coming from the other side.

He is, to say the least, a controversial figure.

We live in a sad age when simply telling the truth and reporting the facts accurately renders one "controversial," but that's the way it is.

To Spencer’s supporters, he is a voice of reason, willing to tell the truth about Islam and call attention to what he argues are the roots and goals of jihad violence as expressed in the source texts of Islam.

The "source texts of Islam" are public. They are open to inspection. What I "argue" about the "roots and goals of jihad violence as expressed in the source texts of Islam" can be easily verified or refuted. But it is easier just to call names:

To his detractors, he is an Islamophobe who incites hate through rhetoric and inaccurate research.

"Inaccurate" in what way? Unspecified, as always. And there's that manipulative neologism "Islamophobe" again. And yet the people who sling this word around never seem to ask themselves why there are no Buddhophobes, or Hindupohobes, or Sikhophobes. Why is it that the bigoted racists always seem to fasten on poor old misunderstood Islam?

Though his views are charged, Spencer—like every lecturer who visits campus—has an inalienable right to speak and express his views. The ultimate way to respect a person’s right to speak is to consider his ideas and their implications, and to engage with the speech by further developing the ideas presented or by criticizing them.

High-minded, this, but contradicted by their call for protests that comes a bit later in the piece. Read on.

Spencer’s arguments, like those of Daniel Pipes, who spoke at Washington University in October, have the potential to stir up hatred and bigotry in others.

This kind of criticism is symptomatic of our age of muddled thinking. The sole criterion for evaluating arguments should be whether or not they are true. For arguments like this, although they're always wielded by Leftists against those whose ideas they dislike, cut both ways: after all, the Student Life editor's arguments in this editorial have the potential to stir up hatred against me. But so what? The only thing that matters is whether or not it is accurate, which of course it is not, not remotely. The emotional effect it may have on those who read it is beyond the control of the author, and irrelevant to its quality.

In a book review posted on the Jihad Watch blog, Spencer writes, “traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements, and…its various schools unanimously teach warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers.”

Uh huh. And? Apparently the Student Life author thinks this is an inflammatory or patently inaccurate statement. Unfortunately for him or her, it happens to be perfectly accurate -- and no one can produce a recognized Islamic school of jurisprudence (madhhab) that does not indeed teach warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers. Once again, it's a sad age when simply stating an unpleasant fact gets you labeled an inciter of hatred and bigotry.

And here comes the best part, where the author explains that I don't actually say a number of inflammatory things, but, well, by golly, it's my fault that other people think them:

Though Spencer himself does not claim that the United States should discriminate against Muslims, many who engage with his argument reach that conclusion because of him. And though Spencer does not claim that Muslims uniformly embrace dangerous ideologies, this essentialization of Islam has the effect of essentializing all Muslims. And because this effect can quickly lead to hasty cultural discrimination, it is extremely important to challenge Spencer in this respect.

Righto. Challenge me on what I don't say because other people think things you don't like. And you say you're a university student?

As we said in our staff editorial published prior to Pipes’ appearance on campus, it is important to remember that the most effective challenges to essentialist, reductive arguments like Spencer’s are complex discussion and continuing dialogue.

Yes, and you appear to have mastered these skills beautifully!

Students ought not blindly accept Spencer’s opinions as fact.

Indeed not. I hope that every assertion I will make will be carefully checked by everyone in the audience. Then a few eyes would be opened.

Instead, they should make full use of the question-and-answer period following his speech and, if they deem fit, of any protests of Spencer’s visit, thereby ensuring that Tuesday’s event becomes a spark for a larger conversation about Muslims, the globe and our society.

The student paper here is calling upon students to protest against a talk they haven't heard, based on things I don't say, and they're calling me inflammatory!

Whatever one thinks about Spencer, it is important to weigh the larger context and implications of his remarks. Specifically, we must consider how global conflict—real or imagined—affects us, how our society plans to respond and what that response says about our social character. A gross, simplified dichotomy between Islam and the West is neither an advanced nor a productive framework, and in reality eschews the “Western” values of tolerance and liberty that such a division purports to defend.

Fine. Come on out tomorrow night, and let's talk it over. I'm all for opposing the "gross, simplified dichotomy between Islam and the West" proffered by the likes of Osama bin Laden, Anjem Chaudary, and the like. Are you? Or would doing so be "essentialist"?

As students listen to Spencer’s speech, it important that they remain focused on how his arguments fit into their vision for an ideal society.

Yeah, we all want peace, guys, so let's bury our heads in the sand, ignore this threat, and blame the messenger!

I expect better from the students at Washington University in St. Louis. Is a genuine discussion of the issues too much to ask? We'll see, but based on the intellectual quality of this editorial, I won't be going in expecting much.

Government and medicine: An unfortunate similarity

(Compiler's note: This is a must read editorial.)

BY ROBIN L. QUILLON

“Maggots no wonder cure for festering wounds.”

When I first saw this Reuters headline, I thought I was about to read an article about new Treasury Secretary Timothy “tax cheat” Geithner, or about other tax cheats President Obama seems to be offering up for positions in his administration.

Or I thought it was an article about the president’s ever-expanding and bloated stimulus plan. Or maybe even, I thought, an article about the political finger-pointing going on in both parties regarding the AIG bonuses.

But, no, the article was about how maggots at one time were placed in wounds to help the healing process, and how that really may not have been such a great idea after all.

I did, unfortunately, find some striking similarities between the maggots’ story and what goes on in Washington.

For example, as Reuters reported, maggots do clean wounds more quickly than do normal methods of treatment, but this does not lead to faster healing.

Correspondingly, it looks as if we have nothing more than a new crop of maggots in charge and on the Hill, and they are just not getting the job done.

Some patients, the story continued, also found so-called larval therapy more painful. That according to a study in the British Medical Journal.

My thoughts returned to D.C., where “tax cheat” larva Geithner needs to resign.

He is in way over his head.

Congress should have rejected his nomination. Then again, the president should never have submitted his name in the first place – especially in light of his tax-cheating.

Gruesome as it sounds, maggots have a long history in medicine. Napoleon’s battle surgeon was a maggot enthusiast. They were put to work during the American Civil War, and also in the trenches of World War I.

Our political leaders have a long history of doing the same things year after year while expecting different results. It’s time to clean house in Congress. And as the leader of his party, Obama needs to get his maggots wiggling to the same tune and get the job done for the American people.

More recently, medical experts have been looking again at the creatures’ healing powers, including their potential to prevent dangerous infections such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

Hmmm, the American people have been looking for a long time for our elected leaders to get the job done, only to be disappointed year after year.

Enough is enough!

It’s time the American people rise up and take back their government, and we do that in the voting booth.

But back to the maggots’ story, which said that scientists have determined that “It doesn’t seem to be worth pursuing in this particular group of patients, if what you are aiming for is quicker healing.”

As things are running now, the same can be said of our leaders in Washington.

And the final striking similarity between the maggots in this study and those in Washington: When maggots run out of dead flesh to eat, they eat each other.

Yuk!

Orlando 'Tea Party' rally draws more than 4,000

Conyers suggests probe of ACORN

by S.A. Miller

In an startling partisan shift, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. on Thursday proposed holding hearings on claims the liberal activist group ACORN engaged in a pattern of crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style “protection” racket.

Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat and fierce partisan, suggested a congressional probe after scathing testimony about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) during a hearing on various voting issues related to the 2008 presidential election.

Mr. Conyers called the accusations “a pretty serious matter.”

“I think that it would be something that would be worth our time,” he said during Thursday's hearing. “We've never had one person representing ACORN before the committee. ... I think in all fairness we ought to really examine it.”

The testimony by Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh accused the nonprofit group of violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.

She also testified that the Democrat-allied group provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the “muscle for the money” program.

Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive committee of the Republican National Lawyers Association, spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year seeking a court injunction in Pennsylvania against ACORN's voter-registration drive for the 2008 presidential campaign. She appeared as a witness at the request of Republican committee members.

Mr. Conyers, who is known for his drive to continue investigating the Bush administration, previously defended ACORN. In October, he condemned an FBI voter fraud investigation targeting the group. He questioned whether it was politically motivated to hamper a voter-registration drive targeting groups likely to support Mr. Obama's candidacy.

But Mr. Conyers' shift was met by resistance from fellow Democrats on the committee, and it was unclear whether a hearing would be scheduled.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties that hosted Thursday's hearing, suggested there was not enough “credible evidence” to warrant a hearing focused exclusively on ACORN.

Rep. Melvin Watt said he would concede that ACORN and some of its members engaged in voter fraud. But he said voter fraud was already covered by existing law and Congress has not further role in the matter.

“I'm not coming to a hearing to have a trial on ACORN. That's not my job,” the North Carolina Democrat said.

Republican committee member Rep. Steve King of Iowa said getting the Democrat-led Congress to take action against ACORN “is going to be difficult but I am encouraged by John Conyers' request.”

The accusations against the group, which were based entirely on sworn court testimony late last year by ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

No ACORN officials testified at Thursday's hearing, but they have said none of the charges are true and dismiss Ms. MonCrief as a disgruntled, low-level employee who was fired for stealing money from the organization.

Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director, did not return a call for comment Thursday.

Ms. MonCrief worked for years as a clerk at the D.C. office of ACORN-affiliated Project Vote before being fired for charging about $2,000 in personal expenses on an ACORN credit card.

She said the hearing Thursday - she attended but did not testify - was an extremely partisan exercise except for Mr. Conyers' support for further hearings.

“I thought that was really wonderful because he took a stand that I really didn't think was going to come from that side,” Ms. MonCrief, a registered Democrat, said after the hearing.

U.S. missile strikes take heavy toll on Al Qaeda, officials say

By Greg Miller

Predator drone attacks in northwest Pakistan have increased sharply since Bush last year stopped seeking Pakistan's permission. Obama may keep pace as officials speak of confusion in Al Qaeda ranks.

Reporting from Washington -- An intense, six-month campaign of Predator strikes in Pakistan has taken such a toll on Al Qaeda that militants have begun turning violently on one another out of confusion and distrust, U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials say.

The pace of the Predator attacks has accelerated dramatically since August, when the Bush administration made a previously undisclosed decision to abandon the practice of obtaining permission from the Pakistani government before launching missiles from the unmanned aircraft.

Since Aug. 31, the CIA has carried out at least 38 Predator strikes in northwest Pakistan, compared with 10 reported attacks in 2006 and 2007 combined, in what has become the CIA's most expansive targeted killing program since the Vietnam War.

Because of its success, the Obama administration is set to continue the accelerated campaign despite civilian casualties that have fueled anti-U.S. sentiment and prompted protests from the Pakistani government.

"This last year has been a very hard year for them," a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said of Al Qaeda militants, whose operations he tracks in northwest Pakistan. "They're losing a bunch of their better leaders. But more importantly, at this point they're wondering who's next."

U.S. intelligence officials said they see clear signs that the Predator strikes are sowing distrust within Al Qaeda. "They have started hunting down people who they think are responsible" for security breaches, the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said, discussing intelligence assessments on condition of anonymity. "People are showing up dead or disappearing."

The counter-terrorism official and others, who also spoke anonymously, said the U.S. assessments were based in part on reports from the region provided by the Pakistani intelligence service.

The stepped-up Predator campaign has killed at least nine senior Al Qaeda leaders and dozens of lower-ranking operatives, in what U.S. officials described as the most serious disruption of the terrorist network since 2001.

Among those killed since August are Rashid Rauf, the suspected mastermind of an alleged 2006 transatlantic airliner plot; Abu Khabab Masri, who was described as the leader of Al Qaeda's chemical and biological weapons efforts; Khalid Habib, an operations chief allegedly involved in plots against the West; and Usama al-Kini, who allegedly helped orchestrate the September bombing of the Marriott Hotel in the capital, Islamabad.

Al Qaeda's founders remain elusive. U.S. spy agencies have not had reliable intelligence on the location of Osama bin Laden since he slipped across the Pakistan border seven years ago, officials said. His deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, remains at large after escaping a missile strike in 2006.

But the Predator campaign has depleted the organization's operational tier. Many of the dead are longtime loyalists who had worked alongside Bin Laden and were part of the network's hasty migration into Pakistan in 2001 after U.S.-led forces invaded neighboring Afghanistan. They are being replaced by less experienced recruits who have had little, if any, history with Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

The offensive has been aided by technological advances and an expansion of the CIA's Predator fleet. The drones take off and land at military airstrips in Pakistan, but are operated by CIA pilots in the United States. Some of the pilots -- who also pull the triggers on missiles -- are contractors hired by the agency, former officials said.

Predators were originally designed as video surveillance aircraft that could hover over a target from high altitudes. But new models are outfitted with additional intelligence gear that has enabled the CIA to confirm the identities of targets even when they are inside buildings and can't be seen through the Predator's lens.

The agency is also working more closely with U.S. special operations teams and military intelligence aircraft that hug the Pakistan border, collecting pictures and intercepting radio or cellphone signals.

Even so, officials said that the surge in strikes has less to do with expanded capabilities than with the decision to skip Pakistani approval. "We had the data all along," said a former CIA official who oversaw Predator operations in Pakistan. "Finally we took off the gloves."

The Bush administration's decision to expand the Predator program was driven by growing alarm over Al Qaeda's resurgence in Pakistan's tribal belt.

A 2006 peace agreement between Islamabad and border tribes had allowed the network to shore up its finances, resume training operatives and reestablish connections with satellite groups.

The Bush administration had been constrained by its close ties with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who argued against aggressive U.S. action. But by last summer, after a series of disrupted terrorist plots in Europe had been traced to Pakistan, there were calls for a new approach.

"At a certain point there was common recognition of the untenable nature of what was happening in the FATA," said a former senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, referring to Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas where Al Qaeda is based.

The breaking point came when Musharraf was forced to resign mid-August, officials said. Within days, President Bush had approved the new rules: Rather than requiring Pakistan's permission to order a Predator strike, the agency was allowed to shoot first.

The effect was immediate.

There were two Predator strikes on Aug. 31, and three more by the end of the week. CIA officials had suspected that their targets were being tipped by Pakistani intelligence to pending U.S. strikes; bypassing the government ended that concern.

It also eliminated delays. Former CIA officials said getting permission from Pakistani authorities could take a day or more, sometimes causing the agency to lose track of the target. The missed opportunities were costly because it often took months to assemble the intelligence necessary for a strike.

In 2006, for example, the CIA got word from Pakistani intelligence that Habib was staying at a compound in Miram Shah. A CIA officer involved said he spent weeks at a Pakistani military outpost near the compound, monitoring images from a Predator on a flat-screen device.

"We had a Predator up there for hours at a stretch, just watching, watching," the official said. The agency studied the layout of the compound, trying to determine who slept where, and scanning the surrounding roads for the arrival of Habib's truck.

"They took a shot at the compound a week after I left," the official said. "We got some bodyguards, but he was not there." It took more than two years for the agency to catch up to Habib again. He was killed in a Predator strike in South Waziristan in October.

Pakistan has repeatedly criticized the Predator campaign; the attacks are reported to have caused dozens of civilian casualties. "Drone attacks are counterproductive," said Nadeem Kiani, press attache at the Pakistan Embassy in Washington. Rather than firing missiles, Kiani said, the United States should provide intelligence to Pakistan "and we will take immediate action."

U.S. officials say that despite such complaints, the Pakistani government's opposition has been muted because the CIA has expanded its targeting to include militant groups that threaten the government in Islamabad.

The success of the Predator campaign has prompted some counter-terrorism officials to speak of a post-Al Qaeda era in which its regional affiliates -- in North Africa and elsewhere -- are all that remain after the center collapses.

"You can imagine a horizon in which Al Qaeda proper no longer exists," said Juan Zarate, former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush. "If you were to continue on this pace, and get No. 1 and No. 2, Al Qaeda is dead. You can't resuscitate that organization as we know it without its senior leadership."

How to achieve that without undermining the government in Pakistan is a key issue the Obama administration faces as it searches for a new strategy in the region. In a tour of the region, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta arrived in Islamabad Saturday for talks with Pakistani intelligence officials.

"There's a risk of driving [Al Qaeda and its allies] farther and farther into Pakistan, into cities," said Daniel Byman, a former CIA analyst and terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "There's a danger of weakening the government we want to bolster. It's already to some degree a house of cards."

In fact, the stepped-up strikes have coincided with a deterioration in security in Pakistan. Over the last six months, Taliban elements tied to Al Qaeda have carried out increasingly bold attacks, including in Islamabad, and a recent truce between the government and militants in the Swat Valley was seen by some observers as a capitulation to Islamic hard-liners.

But proponents of the strikes argue that the opportunity to cripple Al Qaeda, perhaps permanently, outweighs concerns over the strains being placed on Pakistan.

"Is this really helping when you have radical militants controlling more territory than ever before?" Zarate said. "That is a good question, but that is a different question from whether this is effective against Al Qaeda."

So far, that appears to be the prevailing view within the Obama administration. A strike in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province last Sunday was the second in four days, and the ninth this year.

Panetta, asked about the Predator attacks in a meeting with reporters last month, refused to discuss the program directly, but said, "Nothing has changed our efforts to go after terrorists, and nothing will change those efforts."

"There is essentially one battle going on, and it is a battle about Islam"

by Robert Spencer

So says former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. And he makes it all very simple and Manichaean: there are "two elements in Islam: one wanted to work with the West; the other did not." We just have to work with the one that wants to work with the West.

Of course! Why didn't anyone think of that before?

Anything in his talk about why the "extremists" are so popular, or is that assumed to be a simple matter of policy and reaction to Western foreign policy? Did Blair even get close to mentioning the fact that there is a traditional, deeply rooted idea in Islamic texts and teachings, that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate unbelievers -- regardless of what those unbelievers have done or not done? I am sure that he didn't, despite its relevance to his point.

But until analysts grapple with that fact, nothing is more certain than that the global jihad will continue, no matter which smiling moderate is feted in Western capitals today.

"Battle on Islam heart of Mideast crisis—Blair," by John Nery for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 23 (thanks to Wilkie):

MANILA, Philippines – Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in Manila for a series of leadership conferences, used an open forum at the Ateneo de Manila University to make what he called "a larger point" about the turmoil in the Middle East.

"There is essentially one battle going on, and it is a battle about Islam."...

He told a sympathetic audience that the "larger point" was the right framework with which to understand the pivotal, conflict-ridden region.

Blair said there were two elements in Islam: one wanted to work with the West; the other did not.

The right approach to peace and development in the Middle East, then, would be to "partner with the modernizing and moderate element," he said.

He made his remarks in answer to a question about how he made major decisions, such as joining the US-led Coalition of the Willing in invading Iraq.

He answered the Iraq question first, and then broadened his view to include the titanic struggle for the future of Islam.

Referring to the moderates doing battle with extremists, he said: "We gotta make sure those guys win."