'Put al-Qaida in room with Hillary'

By Bob Unruh

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

A lawyer

who has been a watchdog on Washington for two decades has suggested a replacement for the so-called "torture" techniques used by the U.S. to obtain critical information about pending attacks from captured terrorists: Put them in a room with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After all, the lawyer said, that treatment prompted former President Bill Clinton to confess his misbehavior with Monica Lewinsky.

The suggestion comes from Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch. He started out his watchdog work with the organization Judicial Watch then left to pursue a seat in the U.S. Senate and subsequently launched Freedom Watch.

In a statement released today, Klayman said it's "politics as usual in the corrupt cesspool of Washington, D.C." He commented on President Obama's decision to release to the public some of the previously classified memos regarding "enhanced" interrogation techniques such as waterboarding that were used during the administration of President Bush.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has called for the release of other documents he says would verify the value of the information received from the enhanced techniques. One of the plots defused reportedly was a massive attack on Los Angeles.....

Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in '02 [UPDATED]

(Compiler's note: Stop the spin already! Must read.)

by Glenn Thrush

Nancy Pelosi denies knowing U.S. officials used waterboarding — but GOP operatives are pointing to a 2007 Washington Post story which describes an hour-long 2002 briefing in which Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques in graphic detail.

Two unnamed officials told the paper that Pelosi, then a member of the Democratic minority, didn't raise substantial objections.

Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen wrote:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

UPDATE: A Pelosi spokesman passes along her response to the article when it first appeared, claiming that Pelosi's successor on the intel committee -- Yep, Jane Harman -- lodged a protest with the CIA when she learned waterboarding was in use.

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

Lower down in the article, the authors and their sources acknowledge Pelosi & Co. were severely constrained in what they could do with the information — and had no way of knowing how the techniques would ultimately used or abused in a pre-Abu Gharaib era.

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"

Gates takes reform agenda to military officers

By Katherine McIntire Peters

Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week is lobbying what is arguably his most important constituency to accept his reform agenda as embodied in the Obama administration's 2010 defense budget proposal -- the men and women who will lead troops on tomorrow's battlefields.

"These recommendations are less about budget numbers than they are about how the United States military thinks about and prepares for the future," Gates told officers at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, on Wednesday. The officers are students at the Air War College, Command and Staff College, and School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.

Gates' budget proposals would significantly reprioritize investments in major weapons programs; increase spending on programs that benefit troops, notably in medical research, health care and family support; and reform contracting.

Fundamentally, the proposals reflect how Gates believes military leaders should prepare for future warfare and care for troops and their families. They would institutionalize support for the men and women on the battlefield, and compel the services to work together to buy the most effective weapons, he said.

"These are just the kind of basic questions you will be dealing with as you go on to staff and command positions," he told the audience. For that reason, Gates said he was visiting each of the service war colleges to explain his decision-making and address questions officers might have.

Gates said his budget decisions reflected his frustrations as Defense secretary during the past two years: "Whether the issue is fixing outpatient care, getting better armored vehicles or sending more [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] capability into the theater, I kept running into the fact that the Department of Defense, as an institution which routinely complained that the rest of government wasn't at war, was itself, not on a war footing, even as young Americans were fighting and dying every day."

The needs of combat troops were not much championed at the Pentagon, especially in comparison with the services' conventional modernization programs, which too often took precedence in the department's budget, according to Gates. The needs of combat troops were relegated mostly to supplemental funding requests to Congress, he said.

"One of the things I've learned since entering government 43 years ago is that the best way to ensure that an organization really cares for and fights for something, as a lioness does for her cubs, is to put that thing in its base budget," Gates said.

As such, he has moved funding for many items into the Pentagon's base budget that formerly were paid for through supplemental funding requests -- things such as medical research and brain injury and psychological health treatment programs. Likewise, investments in helicopters, transport aircraft for moving troops and equipment on the battlefield, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance -- resources that are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan -- will be shifted from supplemental funding to the Pentagon's base budget under Gates' proposal.

Shaping Gates' thinking about what weapons programs to cut or accelerate was his conviction that the old definitions of conventional and irregular war are no longer useful. "We face a more complex future than that," where nation-states will be as apt to employ irregular tactics as terrorists, and where nonstate actors may have weapons of mass destruction. "This kind of warfare will require capabilities with the maximum possible flexibility to deal with the widest possible range of conflict," he said.

That is the reason behind Gates' decision to halt the Air Force's F-22 fighter program at 187 aircraft in 2010. "The F-22 is, in effect, a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios," he said. Instead, Gates wants to accelerate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a cheaper, multiservice fighter, eventually purchasing more than 2,400 of the aircraft. While the F-22 is a more sophisticated aircraft, the F-35 will provide strength in numbers and be suitable for a broader array of missions.

Gates' remarks were "very well-received," said Maxwell spokesman Phil Berube. A transcript of the event showed a number of officers expressed appreciation for Gates' decisions and his explanation of them. It was the Defense secretary's first visit to the service's premier officer training school since June 2008, when he flew there to explain his unprecedented decision to fire Michael Donley and Michael Mosley, who were Air Force secretary and chief of staff at the time, because he had lost confidence in their leadership, Berube said.

Gates conducted similar briefings at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia and the Army War College in Pennsylvania. He planned to visit the Naval War College in Rhode Island on Friday.

I Am an Extremist

(Compiler's note: Alarming, folks. This is a must read item. The fact that DHS published such a biased and shoddy analysis alone causes me to question our leadership, but that our President has not rejected it speaks loudly. We should be concerned about the part I have highlighted below about ‘Internet chatter’. Thanks to a fellow Marine for sharing. In case there is any doubt, by Ollie’s definition below, I too am a right-wing extremist, and am equally proud of it.
Semper Fidelis)

by Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian -- and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophesies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, frequently shoot them, buy ammunition and consider efforts to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt.

Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least that's what it says in the April 7, 2009 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The nine-page report, titled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I have ever read.

Evidently neither you nor I were ever supposed to read this "Assessment." At the bottom of the cover page is a warning that it is "not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know." We're Americans. We have a need to know what's going on in our government -- especially in an administration that promised to be "transparent." A full copy of the report is posted at www.freedomalliance.org.

The "Assessment" purports to alert law enforcement officials that "rightwing extremists" -- the term is used more than 35 times -- are intent on exploiting Americans who have strongly held beliefs on everything from Christian faith to rising unemployment, U.S. sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment. It vilifies those of us in these categories by references to neo-Nazis, racists, militias, white-supremacists, and other "hate groups." Notably, the report includes a warning that Rightwing Extremism "may include groups or individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Though the report proffers a passing reference to the First Amendment, it is replete with bias against conservative thought, writing and communications. On page 3, law enforcement authorities are warned, "Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived (emphasis added) loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures."

This is a frightening acknowledgement that political speech is being monitored in America. It is also wrong. It's not "perception." It is fact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manufacturing and construction sectors have lost 161,000 jobs and 126,000 jobs, respectively, in the last month alone.

In its "Key Findings" the DHS manuscript boldly charges "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues" and warns that "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans" the report alleges, "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh -- the 1995 Oklahoma City bomber -- was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million law abiding veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that, "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers or Hamas, Hezbollah or al Qaeda operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

Mr. Obama should publicly disavow this report and fire the officials responsible for issuing it. Those who prepare his remarks for the occasion should insert in the teleprompter Sen. Barry Goldwater's words on the subject: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

Alarm raised over treaty provision to ban activity ....

Blair: 'High Value' Information Obtained in CIA Interrogations

Obama's national intelligence director says in a private memo that information obtained from harsh interrogations resulted in "a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda network." ....

Disturbing New Development in Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Listen Now

How has the Obama administration reacted to attorney John D. Hemenway's birth certificate lawsuit? Hemenway's interview on 610 WTVN gives all the disturbing details.

Click here to listen.

Islamists and the Left Working Together in Muslim-majority Countries?

Daniel Pipes

Recently, there have been several signs of rapprochement between Islamists and the Socialist left in countries where Muslims are in the majority. This should concern us greatly. ....

Video: Dick Cheney declassification of intelligence legal memos

by : Nancy George on April 22, 2009

Video: Congresswoman Caught on Wiretap Brokering Deal with Suspected Israeli Agent

by : Nancy George on April 22, 2009

Is Janet Napolitano Up to the Task of Keeping Americans Safe? (Part One of Two)

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

Dr. Robin McFee

Secretary Napolitano – weak on security and immigration enforcement, strong on appeasement. How can we defeat terrorism when we can no longer name it?....

U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Announces Expanded ‘Coalition’

Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report

By constructing “coalitions” of its own front organizations, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood gives a false appearance of more broad-based support than it actually enjoys. ....

Texas lawmakers consider telling U.S. gov't to 'cease and desist'

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

AUSTIN -- Note to Washington, D.C.: Texas is a sovereign state.

After Gov. Rick Perry's recent comments about some Texans talking secession from the union made national news, legislators are considering issuing a "cease and desist" order to the federal government.

"This state prefers, to the greatest extent possible, to control our own destiny," said Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller, one of several members co-sponsoring the measure. "We prefer that federal government limit the amount of federal mandates it forces upon the people of Texas."

House Concurrent Resolution 50, which claims sovereignty for Texas under the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, was one of several proposals to go before the House State Affairs Committee late Tuesday.

Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, filed the bill, saying that more than a dozen states have proposed similar efforts amid concern that the federal government may be overstepping its boundaries.

"From restrictions on gun and ammunition sales, to freedom-of-choice issues, to the Real ID Act, the federal government is passing laws that limit a state's ability to govern itself," Creighton has said. "Texas simply wants to send the message that we want to govern ourselves and decide for ourselves how our money is to be spent."

Under this resolution, the 81st Legislature "hereby claim[s] sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

"This serve[s] as notice and demand to the federal government ... to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Rep. Mark Shelton, R-Fort Worth, also signed on as a co-sponsor.

"Texans should have the right for their representatives in Austin to decide what is best for Texas," Shelton said.

Perry -- who stirred a firestorm last week with secession talk -- said he supports this bill, especially since the federal government "has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state." "I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our union."

Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, said that he initially considered serving as a co-sponsor as well but that he changed his mind because of Perry.

"The concept has been corrupted by gubernatorial politics," he said.

Taliban Tighten Their Grip on Pakistan's Northwest

ISLAMABAD — Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital.

Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Pakistan's president signed off on the peace pact last week in hopes of calming Swat, where some two years of clashes between the Taliban and security forces have killed hundreds and displaced up to a third of the one-time tourist haven's 1.5 million residents.

Critics, including in Washington, have warned that the valley could become an officially sanctioned base for allies of Al Qaeda — and that it may be just the first domino in nuclear-armed Pakistan to fall to the Taliban.

"The activities in the Swat do concern us. We're keeping an eye on it, and are working daily with the Pakistan military," Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker told Pentagon reporters in a 35-minute videoconference call from Afghanistan.

Supporters of the deal say it will allow the government to gradually reassert control by taking away the militants' rallying cry for Islamic law. Many residents are grateful that a semblance of peace has returned. A handful of officials are back in Swat.

The agreement covers Swat and other districts in the Malakand Division, an area of about 10,000 square miles near the Afghan border and the tribal areas where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have strongholds.

The provincial government agreed to impose Islamic law in Malakand, and the Taliban agreed to a cease-fire that has largely held.

In recent days, the Swat militants have set their sights on Buner, a district just south of the valley, sparking at least one major clash with residents. The moves indicate the militants want to expand their presence beyond Swat to other parts of Malakand at the very least, under the guise of enforcing Islamic law.

Many in Buner are now too frightened to speak to reporters. However, a lawmaker from the area told The Associated Press that the militants had entered the district in "large numbers" and started setting up checkpoints at main roads and strategic positions.

"Local elders and clerics are negotiating with them to resolve this issue through talks," Istiqbal Khan said.

The militants in Buner also are using radio airwaves to broadcast sermons about Islam, and have occupied the homes of some prominent landowners, said a police official who insisted on anonymity because he was afraid of retaliation. He said the militants have also warned barbers to stop shaving men's beards and stores to stop selling music and movies.

The militants have established a major base in the village of Sultanwas and have set up positions in the nearby hills, the police official said. Militants also have taken over the shrine of a famed Sufi saint known as Pir Baba, he said.

The Taliban move into Buner left the Swat deal hanging from a thread, said Rasul Bakhsh Rais, professor of political science at Lahore University of Management Sciences.

"If the Taliban continue to expand in different directions and establish fiefdoms as they did in Swat, then probably the deal is not going to work and the government will be forced to scuttle that deal and go back to operations" by security forces, Rais said.

The provincial government's chief executive said authorities were prepared to use force if the Taliban didn't "pack up and go home" from Buner. But Haider Khan Hoti also pleaded for patience and rejected Western calls for a more aggressive approach.

U.S. missile attacks on militant targets in the northwest were undermining Pakistan's efforts to find a peaceful solution, he said.

"This is our country, we will have to look at our own priorities and our own interests," Hoti said. "We should not enter any friendship at the cost of our own destruction."

Since the provincial government agreed to the deal in February, Taliban fighters had adopted a lower profile and stopped openly displaying weapons in Swat as part of a cease-fire.

But on Tuesday, upon the radio-broadcast orders of Swat Taliban chief Maulana Fazlullah, the militants began roaming parts of the valley with rifles and other weapons. An AP reporter saw the patrols in Mingora, the valley's main city.

Residents from nearby towns in Swat said militants were setting up checkpoints on several roads. The residents requested anonymity out of fear for their lives.

Fazlullah ordered his fighters to withdraw again in a broadcast on Wednesday. He didn't explain why.

Swat Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan could not be reached for comment.

Khan said recently that Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden and other militants aiming to oust the U.S. from Afghanistan would be welcome and protected in Swat — a statement the government condemned.

He also said the militants want to see all of Pakistan under Islamic law — a cry echoed by several other Islamist firebrands. sharia

Rais, the professor, said there was concern that Islamists may have concluded from the Swat deal that authorities will cave in to violent demands for Islamic law elsewhere.

"They have natural allies in the religious political parties in other parts of the country. They have social and religious networks that have support their suicide attacks and attacks against the security forces," Rais said.

"It is about the identity of Pakistan and the future direction that Pakistan can take

Probes of Bush Officials Loom

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama raised the possibility of prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who approved so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on terror suspects.

Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office, also laid out the parameters for a bipartisan commission to examine government tactics used in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, although he was careful to say he wasn't endorsing such a panel.

Together, the remarks put the president squarely in the center of a growing battle between liberals who want to hold Bush administration officials accountable for what they call torture, and conservatives who say Mr. Obama has damaged national security by revealing interrogation secrets.

White House reporter Jonathan Weisman discusses the shift in the Obama administration, which has now signaled they may prosecute Bush-era lawyers who approved the CIA's harsh interrogations.

The president last week overruled objections from Central Intelligence Agency officials and released documents that described such interrogation tactics as waterboarding, slamming prisoners against walls and confining them in cramped spaces -- sometimes populated with insects -- to induce fear.

Mr. Obama drew a distinction Tuesday between those who carried out the interrogations and those who argued for them, reiterating that he didn't think those who followed legal guidance should be prosecuted. "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general, within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," the president said.

The CIA memos, he said, "reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings."

The comments were a marked contrast with the tone set by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who said Sunday that the people who formulated the Bush policies wouldn't be subject to prosecution. On ABC's "This Week," Mr. Emanuel said, "It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back in a sense of anger and retribution."

Even Mr. Obama's director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, defended the harsh practices. He wrote in a letter to colleagues last week that "high-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

The letter also expressed some sympathy for Bush administration officials operating in the months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

'Dr Doom' predicts further shocks in the market Stock market bulls have got it wrong, warns Nouriel Roubini

By Nick Clark

Nouriel Roubini, the so-called "arch bear" economist who predicted the current financial crisis in 2006, added further gloom yesterday after he wrote off recent rises in global stock markets as no more than a dead cat bounce.

While an increasing number of analysts have in recent weeks urged investors to go back into equities, Mr Roubini, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business who has emerged as one of the most respected economic voices in the wake of the credit crunch, warned yesterday that he didn't yet see a buying opportunity.

He holds little faith in the recent market rallies, which prompted some to suggest a recovery was underway. "I'm still cautious and bearish," he said. "I believe we are closer to a bottom in the stock market than a year ago, but this is a bear market rally."

Anthony Bolton, fund manager at Fidelity International, said last month that a bull phase had started, while analysts at Goldman Sachs have argued in recent weeks that "we are past the low point in the economic cycle".

However, Mr Roubini, dubbed "Dr Doom" for his warnings about financial meltdown, said there would be more bad news in the next few quarters.

In particular, the economist warned of further dangers ahead for the financial services industry in the US. "I see financial shocks in the months ahead. Some financial institutions are in so much trouble we may have to take them over," he said, before adding that losses in the industry could rise from $1 trillion to as high as $3.6 trillion.

Firms from across financial services will go out of business or be taken over, he said, particularly focusing on the bleak future for hedge funds.

Mr Roubini also disagrees with more optimistic forecasts for the US economy. In an interview published on Forbes.com yesterday, he said that the prediction of a 2 per cent growth rate next year was far too bullish...

He blamed weak recovery, deflation which would dog the US for the next two years, and financial shocks for the lower-than-expected growth...

Click here for addition information -- see interview

Reverse: Now Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

By JENNIFER LOVEN

President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government's efforts to cope with terrorism.

The president had said earlier that he didn't want to see prosecutions of the CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, so long as they acted within parameters spelled out by government superiors who held that such practices were legal at the time.

But the administration's stance on Bush administration lawyers who actually wrote the memos approving these tactics has been less clear and Obama declined to make it so. "There are a host of very complicated issues involved," Obama said.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

The president took a question on the volatile subject for the first time since he ordered the Justice Department to release top-secret Bush-era memos that gave the government's first full accounting of the CIA's use of waterboarding _ a form of simulated drowning _ and other harsh methods criticized as torture. The previously classified memos were released Thursday, over the objections of many in the intelligence community. CIA Director Leon Panetta had pressed for heavier censorship when they were released, but the memos were put out with only light redactions.

Far from putting the matter in the past, the move has resulted in Obama being buffeted by increased pressure from both sides.

Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized Obama's decision, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators and critical U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services.

The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture.

Obama banned all such techniques days after taking office. But members of Congress have continued to seek the release of information about the early stages of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror under former President George W. Bush. Lawsuits have been brought, seeking the same information.

Obama said an investigation might be acceptable "outside of the typical hearing process" and with the participation of "independent participants who are above reproach." This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.

"That would probably be a more sensible approach to take," Obama said. "I'm not saying that it should be done, I'm saying that if you've got a choice."

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

Feinstein and husband exposed as crooks

Feinstein and husband exposed as crooks (Washington Times) Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to an agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract ...

She knows what the 2nd amendment is really all about

Texas state representative, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, whose parents were killed by an insane gunman while her gun was out in the car, gives very moving and bold testimony about the REAL reason that the second amendment was designed to protect our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Just click on the title of this article and watch.

Pentagon official blames U.S. for al-Qaida attacks Worked for George Soros, argued for government control of media

By Aaron Klein

Rosa Brooks

She believes al-Qaida was an "obscure group" turned into a massive threat due to U.S. policies.

She's referred to former President Bush as "our torturer in chief" and a "psychotic who need(s) treatment" while comparing Bush's arguments for waging a war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's use of political propaganda.

She's worked on behalf of George Soros' philanthropic foundation.

Meet Rosa Brooks, the Obama administration's new adviser to Michelle Fluornoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, a position described as one of the most influential in the Pentagon.

"I prefer to think of (my new position) as my personal government bailout," Brooks wrote in a departing piece at the Los Angeles Times, where she served as a regular columnist.....

Ex-CIA Director: Obama Compromised National Security with Memo Release

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

from NewsMax

Click here for the interview video on FoxNews.

WASHINGTON - A former head of the Central Intelligence Agency insisted Sunday that harsh interrogation techniques widely condemned as torture had succeeded in battling Al-Qaeda and saving American lives, something he characterized as "an inconvenient truth."

Michael Hayden, who was replaced as CIA chief earlier this year by President Barack Obama, assailed Obama's decision last week to release "Top Secret" memos detailing the interrogation techniques as "really dangerous" for US intelligence efforts.

"What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an Al-Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information. By taking [certain] techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult -- in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine -- for CIA officers to defend the nation."

Speaking on the "Fox News Sunday" program, Hayden rejected claims by critics that methods like extreme sleep deprivation, waterboarding and the use of insects to provoke fear had proved ineffective in getting information from top members of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.

"Most of the people who oppose these techniques want to be able to say: 'I don't want my nation doing this' -- which is a pure honorable position -- and 'they didn't work anyway'," Hayden said.

"The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer, it really did," Hayden said.

"It's what I'd call, without meaning any irreverence to anybody, 'a really inconvenient truth.'"

Hayden specifically rejected a weekend report in The New York Times citing CIA officials saying that waterboarding and beating of a top Al-Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, yielded no more information than softer interrogation techniques.

"We stand by our story. The critical information we got from Abu Zubaydah came after we began the EIT's, enhanced interrogation techniques," he said.

Hayden said Abu Zubaydah had "clammed up" after providing some "nominal information" under initial questioning.

But under harsher interrogation he "gave up more valuable information," including tips that led to the capture of another senior Al-Qaeda agent, Ramzi Binalshibh, he said.

Hayden also dismissed Obama's controversial promise not to seek prosecution of CIA agents or former officials under President George W. Bush who authorized or carried out the harsh techniques the government now condemns.

"Oh, God no, it's not the end of it," Hayden said, warning of possible civil lawsuits or congressional probes targetting CIA agents who relied on the Bush-era memos to carry out harsh interrogations.

"There will be more revelations. There will be more commissions. There will be more investigations," he said.

"And this to an agency, again I'll repeat, that is at war and is on the front lines of defending America."

Hayden also said Obama's own CIA director, Leon Panetta, as well as three other former CIA chiefs had warned the White House against releasing of the memos outlining US interrogation techniques.

"At the tactical level, what we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an Al-Qaeda terrorist. That's very valuable information," he said.

Janet Napolitano, Obama's homeland security minister, defended the decision.

"When you look at the great public need for accountability and responsibility and transparency here, and when you look at our desire to close the book on this regrettable chapter and move the country forward, it was imperative, really, that the reports be released," she said on CNN.

How Obama actually delayed pirate rescue SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement

(Compiler's note: A must read item.)

The following is adapted from an exclusive report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin

WASHINGTON – While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his "decisive" handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.

Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement.

They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander.

The White House also turned down two rescue plans offered up by the Seal commander on the scene and the captain of the USS Bainbridge.

The SEAL team operated under rules of engagement that required them to do nothing unless the hostage's life was in "imminent' danger.

In fact, when the USS Bainbridge dispatched a rigid-hull inflatable boat to bring supplies to the Maersk Alabama, it came under fire that could not be returned even though the SEAL team had the pirates in their sights.

Many hours before the fatal shots were fired, taking out the three young pirates, Phillips jumped into the Indian Ocean with the idea of giving the snipers a clear target. However, the SEAL team was still under orders not to shoot.

Hours later, frustrated by the missed opportunities to resolve the standoff, the commander of the Bainbridge and the captain of the Navy SEAL team determined they had operational authority to evaluate the risk to the hostage, and took out the pirates at the first opportunity – finally freeing Phillips.

Time to Throw Da Bums Out!

(Compiler's note: This is a must read - see item)

On Saturday I (Alan Keyes) gave the keynote speech at the Pittsburgh Tea Party Event where several thousand people gathered to protest the spending frenzy in Washington, the leap into socialism and the destruction of our constitutional liberty. Ted Voron was good enough to post video of the speech on YouTube, embedded here below, in four parts.

Pirates seize Belgian ship, while NATO forces free detained pirates due to lack of legal framework for holding them

"I'll be seeing you, in all the old familiar places..."

"Pirates seize Belgian ship; NATO frees 20 hostages," by Katherine Houreld and Tom Pittman for the Associated Press, April 18: ....

Interrogation Memos Released By Obama: See The Complete Documents

Click on the above title to see the memos being discussed.

Obama's Dog and Pony Show in Mexico

by Jim Kouri

"Rather than deal with the problem of illegal aliens – many with criminal records – entering the U.S., Obama and his minions are worried about contraband being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico.” ....

Interrogation Memos Released – Is Need for ‘Transparency’ Greater than Security?

by Pam Meister

Memos detailing the Bush administration’s legal guidance for the interrogation of terror suspects were released yesterday, despite the CIA’s concern that national security may be compromised.

According to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the decision to release the memos was related to Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, which argued that officials should be held accountable for “torture” of terrorism suspects. Of course, there will be redactions, yada yada, and – wait for it – President Obama will take yet another opportunity to use his teleprompter to make a statement. (I hope he pays that teleprompter well.)

Maybe the Obama administration could just hold an Open House in Washington, similar to the open houses held at public schools each fall. However, instead of featuring students’ work for proud parents to look over, they could just spread out all of the memos from the Bush administration for anyone with an interest to look at while serving cookies and punch. Beats smuggling them out of the National Archives in your socks.

So let’s see: In less than three months in office, President Obama has apologized to the world for American arrogance; bowed down to the Saudi king; is considering dropping a key American insistence that Tehran shut down its nuclear facilities in order to get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the tea table; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has blamed Mexican drug cartel violence on Americans’ “insatiable need” for drugs; DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano now refers to terrorism as “man-caused disasters;” and the War on Terror – an incorrect moniker to begin with – is now being referenced to as an “overseas contingency operation.” Overseas contingency operation? Couldn’t they come up with anything snappier, like “American imperialist domination”?

Meanwhile, the National Security Agency has been intercepting phone calls and e-mails made by Americans at a rate that goes beyond limits set by Congress last year. Interestingly enough, news of this “’over-collection’ of domestic communications of Americans” comes during the same week we learn of a report by the DHS that warns law enforcement officials that “right wing extremists” might be recruiting and planning. It’s most likely a coincidence, but not one that inspires confidence.

Back in Bush’s day, this was called “warrantless wiretapping” and “domestic spying.” Today it’s the “over-collection of domestic communications.” And where are the civil rights protesters who salivated over Bush’s actions? What a difference an election makes.

My title asks if the need for transparency is more important than our security. Perhaps the question should be, is political expedience more important than our security?

Kentucky Fried Chicken is famous for jealously guarding the secret recipe for its “finger lickin’ good” chicken, which represents the company’s stock in trade – but to the Obama administration, our national security secrets merit less care than the Colonel’s Original Recipe chicken. Pass me a leg, mashed potatoes with gravy and one of those biscuits, please. I could use some comfort food about now.

Colonel slams Obama's release of Bush memos It's 'bad form, bad tactics, bad strategy until this war is over'

Government won't give up Haditha prosecution -- Chessani charges already dismissed, and affirmed on appeal

By Bob Unruh

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessan

A public-interest legal group says it has been notified that the U.S. government – which watched the disintegration of its case against a Marine accused by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., of murder in Haditha, Iraq – is refusing to give up.

The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., has been defending Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who saw the government's charges against him dismissed because of unlawful "command influence." The decision was affirmed on appeal.

"The way our government has treated this true American hero is outrageous," said Richard Thompson, president of the center. "After spending over 20 years in loyal service to his nation and considered one of the best combat officers in Iraq, the government is giving Jeffrey Chessani less legal consideration than it is giving the terrorists held at Guantanamo."

The group said government prosecutors filed a motion late Thursday with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals asking that the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel in favor of Chessani be reconsidered by all nine judges.

In order to continue the prosecution, and assuming the three judges don't change their decisions, the government would have to convince five of the six additional judges of the worthiness of its case.

It was on March 17 when the three-judge panel unanimously vindicated the ruling by Col. Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing all charges against Chessani on the grounds of "unlawful command influence."

In dismissing the charges against Chessani, Folsom described "unlawful command influence" as the "the mortal enemy of military justice."

Thomas More said despite the solid legal basis for the ruling, the government appealed the decision.

In seeking a reconsideration by the entire panel, government prosecutors now argue that the three-judge panel misunderstood the difference between an officer's rank and his job.

"Essentially, the government argues that a full colonel in the Marine Corps could not unlawfully influence a lieutenant colonel if they held similar billet (job) positions," the legal group said.

Thomas More now has a week to respond to the government's motion. If the review is not granted, the government still has the option to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chessani is the senior-most officer criminally charged as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described "Haditha massacre" in Iraq after Murtha publicly accused the troops of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."

A military investigation of the Nov. 19, 2005, Haditha firefight found "no indication" that the Marines had "intentionally targeted, engaged and killed noncombatants."

As WND reported, the case against Chessani was originally dismissed when Folsom ruled the charges were tainted because of improper closed-door meetings with investigators that gave credence to the defense's argument that Chessani was made a "political scapegoat" for the highly publicized Haditha incident.

The government had accused Chessani, who wasn't present at Haditha, of improperly investigating actions of Marines under his command and covering up details of the firefight.

The counts against Chessani were triggered following a house-to-house, room-by-room battle his enlisted Marines engaged in after they were ambushed by insurgents.

The firefight resulted in nearly two dozen Iraqi deaths, including 15 civilians caught in the crossfire, and 14 Marine casualties, including one death.

Defense lawyers have reported the insurgents deliberately attacked the Marines from hiding places, where they surrounded themselves with civilians to use as shields.

Eventually eight Marines were charged, but cases against Lance Cpls. Stephen Tatum and Justin Sharratt, Capts. Randy Stone and Lucas McConnell and Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz were dropped. First Lt. Andrew Grayson was acquitted, leaving only the Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich case pending and Lt. Col. Chessani's case in appeals.

The enlisted Marines were charged with murder and the officers accused of failing to investigate the deaths.

The case developed only after Murtha publicly accused troops of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."

Radio talk show host Michael Savage has supported Chessani and the Thomas More Law Center's work on the case.

Chinese spies may have put chips in US planes

from The Times of India

WASHINGTON: The Chinese cyber spies have penetrated so deep into the US system — ranging from its secure defence network

, banking system, electricity grid to putting spy chips into its defence planes — that it can cause serious damage to the US any time, a top US official on counter-intelligence has said.

“Chinese penetrations of unclassified DoD networks have also been widely reported. Those are more sophisticated, though hardly state of the art,” said National Counterintelligence Executive, Joel Brenner, at the Austin University Texas last week, according to a transcript made available on Wednesday.

Listing out some of the examples of Chinese cyber spy penetration, he said: “We’re also seeing counterfeit routers and chips, and some of those chips have made their way into US military fighter aircraft.. You don’t sneak counterfeit chips into another nation’s aircraft to steal data. When it’s done intentionally, it’s done to degrade systems, or to have the ability to do so at a time of one’s choosing.”

Referring to the Chinese networks penetrating the cyber grids, he said: “Do I worry about those grids, and about air traffic control systems

, water supply systems, and so on? You bet I do. America’s networks are being mapped. There has also been experience of both Chinese and criminal network operations in the networks of some of the banks”.

Pastor beaten, Tasered for defending his rights But Supreme Court grants agents exception to obeying Constitution

By Drew Zahn

An Arizona pastor – Tasered, bloodied by broken glass and sporting 11 stitches in his head – claims his injuries came from being stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint 75 miles inside the U.S. and then being battered by police for refusing to allow agents to search his vehicle.

The incident earlier this week highlights tension between constitutional rights, the issue of border security and a controversial Supreme Court ruling that grants an exceptional level of police authority near the Mexican border.

Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe claims he did nothing to deserve his eventual arrest and believes that when he refused to allow the search of his car he was simply standing up for his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect him against unreasonable search without a warrant.

Anderson further questions why the Border Patrol is allowed to stop and search cars at a checkpoint along Interstate 8, 75 miles inland of where the highway nears the Mexican border at Yuma, Ariz.

"I was in the United States! I had crossed no international border!" writes Anderson in commentary accompanying a video he made about his experience.

"I didn't have any drugs; I didn't have a human beings in my car," he claims in the video itself. "Why is this happening in the United States of America?"

Pastor Anderson's video explaining his side of the controversy and his rough treatment at the hands of police officers can be seen here:

The U.S. Border Patrol, however, explained to WND that Anderson misunderstood his constitutional rights and that because a drug-sniffing dog alerted to Anderson's rental car, the pastor was wrong not to allow the agents to search his vehicle.

Ben Vik, a supervisory Border Patrol agent for the Yuma sector, further told WND that the Supreme Court and federal law permit the Border Patrol to establish checkpoints up to 100 miles inside the U.S. and that with probable cause the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to searches of automobiles.

"The Supreme Court found that only minimal intrusion existed to motorists at reasonably located checkpoints," said Vik. "The Supreme Court found that the very brief detention of motorists at a well-marked and identified immigration checkpoint did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure."

Vik's statement, however, doesn't apply to typical law enforcement agencies, but – thanks to a controversial ruling – only to "immigration" checkpoints established by the Border Patrol.

The courts have typically ruled against "suspicion-less" stops and searches of vehicles at police checkpoints, such as the one that detained Anderson. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Indianapolis vs. Edmond that police cannot establish roadblocks staffed by dogs to randomly search automobiles for drugs.

"We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," the Supreme Court majority wrote in Indianapolis vs. Edmond. "The [Indianapolis] checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment."

The 1976 United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte decision, however, created an exception allowing the Border Patrol the unique power to establish checkpoints for seeking illegal immigrants, with the secondary purpose of finding drugs. So while Yuma-area police cannot operate a K-9, or drug-detecting dog, checkpoint without violating the Fourth Amendment, the Border Patrol can.

A second exception was also created for drunk driving checkpoints under 1990's Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, but some – including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – do not believe the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are warranted.

"I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided," Thomas wrote in an opinion on the 2000 Indianapolis vs. Edmond decision. "Indeed, I rather doubt that the framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project in Santa Cruz, Calif., told the Phoenix New Times that an immigration checkpoint is "thin justification" for sniffing random cars for drugs without a warrant.

"Even if somebody has no sympathy for a marijuana user," Boyd says, "you should still be concerned that the U.S. government is saying the border is an area where the U.S. Constitution is suspended."

Senior Patrol Agent Vik assured WND that even in the checkpoints, citizens do maintain certain rights limiting officers' actions.

"Border Patrol immigration checkpoints don't give Border Patrol agents carte blanche to automatically search persons or their vehicles," Vik explained. "To conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, agents must develop an articulable probable cause to conduct a lawful search."

In Anderson's case, the pastor claims the K-9 dog made no bark or indication that his rental car was tainted with drugs, while Vik insisted to WND that the dog did alert agents to drugs, thus granting probable cause for the search.

Both Anderson and Vik confirm that no contraband was discovered on the vehicle.

As for the Tasering and other alleged rough treatment by police, Vik told WND that Anderson was extracted from his car and arrested by Arizona Department of Public Safety officers, not the Border Patrol, a statement Anderson confirms in his video.

The Arizona DPS told WND that an investigation into the officers' actions is ongoing and no comment can be made until it is complete.

Anderson spent the evening of his arrest in jail and is awaiting a formal arraignment at which he intends to plead "not guilty."

Bipartisan team stunned by 'extremism' allegations 'Veterans, families should not be viewed as a threat'

By Bob Unruh

Members of both sides of the aisle in Congress are expressing outrage and seeking an investigation into a new Department of Homeland Security report on "extremism" that targets U.S. military veterans, opponents of abortion and supporters of other conservative causes.

U.S. Rep Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., was horrified at what he described as a "shoddy, unsubstantiated" document that was delivered to law enforcement across the nation.

"I am concerned at what appears to be a shoddy, unsubstantiated, and potentially politicized work product that has been disseminated to the Intelligence Community, and law enforcement as a finished intelligence product," he wrote to DHS chief Janet Napolitano. "The report appears at best sloppy and unprofessional and at worst a representation of political bias being passed off as intelligence analysis by DHS."

According to the Washington Times, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said he was "dumbfounded" that the report was, in fact, released.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans – including war veterans," Thompson told Napolitano in a letter.

"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans – whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Thompson said.

He said he was disappointed and surprised the report would be issued. And he demanded to know what types of further activities DHS had planned regarding the issue.

The federal agency's report is called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It already has generated a lawsuit by talk radio host Michael Savage.

As WND reported, a public-interest legal group submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the DHS demanding to know why it calls Americans who support the 2nd Amendment and dislike lax immigration "extremists."

Now Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is offering his criticism and demanding to know why, as ranking member of the committee, "which is responsible for authorizing funding for this office," he was not given a copy of the report but had to obtain it from open sources on the Internet.

"I would appreciate clarifications as to why this report was not provided to the committee and an understanding of what other reports DHS may be failing to provide to the committee," he wrote.

He also wanted some clarifications:

"The report purports to analyze 'rightwing extremism' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the report, 'rightwing extremists' could include groups dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration as well as those who may not agree with the new administration's 'perceived' stance on several issues including illegal immigration and restrictions on firearm ownership.

"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted administration policy – in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote.

A spokesman for the federal agency told WND today that the DHS would refuse to identify the actual authors of the report. The agency also would not comment on any procedures or actions it may take in response to the controversy over the report.

But to the Associated Press, a DHS official confirmed there were concerns by the agency's office of civil rights about some of the language in the report.

It was issued anyway, the agency said.

Napolitano earlier described the charges in the report as assessments, "not an accusation."

Hoekstra called on the ombudsman for the office of director of National Intelligence to investigate the report itself.

"Our nation's veterans and hardworking families that may be facing tough times should not be viewed as a threat and neither should citizens who oppose out-of-control federal spending and tax hikes," he wrote.

The congressman, who has sponsored a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of parents to raise their children, also was disappointed by the report's assertion without substantiation that unemployed parents may foster "rightwing extremist" beliefs in their children.

"Beyond apologizing for its obviously offensive references, the administration needs to get to the bottom of how and why a report like this was written, and put standards in place to keep it from happening again," Hoekstra said.

"I would also appreciate an explanation of the assertion, which is somehow tied to 'rightwing extremists,' that there is a 'perception' that illegal immigrants were taking away jobs from Americans in the 1990s because they were willing to work for lower wages," the congressman wrote.

"Regardless of one's view on immigration policy matters, it cannot be seriously disputed that the protection of the American workforce

is one of the driving considerations for the current structure of U.S. immigration law. For DHS, which is charged with administering the immigration laws, to apparently not understand this core principle is shocking," he added.

"When may we expect the office to start consistently producing quality intelligence products?" he wondered.

Savage teamed up with the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., to file a lawsuit against Napolitano over the report.

"It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, challenging the policy, practice, and custom of the United States Government that targets for disfavored treatment those individuals and groups that are considered to be 'rightwing extremists,'" the complaint said.

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

• Oppose restrictions on firearms
  
  
• Oppose lax immigration
  
  
• Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
  
  
• Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
  
  
• Oppose same-sex marriage
  
  
• Has paraonia of foreign regimes
  
  
• Fear Communist regimes
  
  
• Oppose one world government
  
  
• Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
  
  
• Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

The case seeks a declaration that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, a court order permanently enjoining the policy and its application

to the plaintiffs' speech and other activities, and the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

By CAM SIMPSON and GARY FIELDS

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.

"This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans," she said on NBC's Today Show.

The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI's focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau's domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.

Associated Press

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, pictured this month in Mexico, defended the assessment Thursday but apologized to veterans.

A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat." The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI's general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, "to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties."

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for the same extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment. The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, also echoed the concerns.

The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the "willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said Wednesday he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said Thursday the report was issued before an objection about one part of the document raised by the agency's civil-rights division was resolved. She called it a "breakdown of an internal process" that would be fixed.

The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation's uniformed services "in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat." The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Documents detailing the operation are unclassified, but were meant for internal distribution only.

—Evan Perez contributed to this article.