Anarchists have a Long and Nasty History

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

We forget how much terrorism, assassination, and mayhem there was during a time we think of as a long peace. It is worthwhile to explore the similarities between that period and our own. ....

Former 'enemy combatant' pleads guilty in Illinois

PEORIA, Ill. – A man whose case sparked a furious legal debate over whether the government can hold terrorism suspects indefinitely entered a surprise guilty plea, admitting to training in al-Qaida camps and coming to the nation's heartland a day before Sept. 11.

Ali al-Marri, 43, pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of conspiring to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. A second charge of providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was dropped. ....

Pakistan: Singer murdered in honor killing

She was killed either for engaging in the un-Islamic practice of pursuing a singing career, or for engaging in the un-Islamic practice of divorcing and remarrying, thereby sullying her family's honor.

"Female Pakistani Singer Killed In Peshawar," by Kristin Deasy and Sharifa Esmatullah for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, April 29 (thanks to Pamela): sharia

PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Ayman Udas, a rising female vocalist in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, was shot at her home, allegedly by her own brothers.

Her death has rattled the city's jittery artistic community, as local musicians and dancers in Peshawar -- a city renowned for its vibrant artistic life -- face increasing pressure as the region falls under greater Taliban influence.

Some attributed Udas's death to the Islamist militants, but her husband told reporters that his wife was killed because she broke family traditions.

A beautiful woman in her early 30s and mother of two, Udas recently remarried after a divorce. Her two brothers, Alamgir and Ismail, disapproved of her divorce, remarriage, and her artistic career, all of which disgrace a family's name in conservative Islamic society.

Note to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "conservatives" don't generally murder their sisters who divorce, remarry, and pursue singing careers.

The honor killing, an ancient tradition in which a male family member kills a female to "save" the family name, took place on April 27 at the family's home while Udas's husband was out picking up milk. He immediately took the case to the authorities, who have made no arrests but raided several locations in search of the suspected killers....

Meanwhile, Artists are coming under direct threat in Taliban-controlled areas. In January, a dancer's bullet-ridden body was left in the center of Swat Valley's capital of Mingora -- not far from where Udas grew up -- with a note warning locals that "un-Islamic voices" will no longer be tolerated.

Are they all Misunderstanders of Islam in Mingora? Is there no Muslim there able or willing to raise a protest against this in the name of the authentic, peaceful Islam that we all must believe in in the West on pain of charges of "Islamophobia"?

Pamela Geller has added Ayman Udas to her haunting gallery of photos of victims of honor killing. These women must be remembered, and decent people must stand up and say, No more.

Torture? No. Except...

(Compiler's note: Must read article.)

by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.

Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.

Asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.

Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."

On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.

General Petraeus: "The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious"

from Jihad Watch

Yet Petraeus was quick to add that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis. "Petraeus: Next Two Weeks Critical to Pakistan's Survival," by James Rosen for Fox News, April 30:

Gen. David Petraeus said he is looking for concrete action by the Pakistani government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States' next course of action.

Including whether the Obama administration should give Pakistan a billion dollars.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, has told U.S. officials the next two weeks are critical to determining whether the Pakistani government will survive, FOX News has learned.

"The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious" about combating the threat from Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists operating out of Northwest Pakistan, the general added.

But Petraeus also said wearily that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States' next course of action, which is presently set on propping up the Pakistani government and military with counterinsurgency training and foreign aid.

Petraeus made these assessment in talks with lawmakers and Obama administration officials this week, according to individuals familiar with the discussions.

They said Petraeus and senior administration officials believe the Pakistani army, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is "superior" to the civilian government, led by President Ali Zardari, and could conceivably survive even if Zardari's government falls to the Taliban.

American officials have watched with anxiety as Taliban fighters advanced earlier this month to within 70 miles of the capital city of Islamabad. In recent days, the Pakistani army has sought to reverse that tide, retaking control over strategic points in the district of Buner even as the Taliban struck back by kidnapping scores of police and paramilitary troops...

U.S. Gas Fields Go From Bust to Boom

(Compiler's note: This is extremely interesting. For maps please click on the title above to see the original article.)

CADDO PARISH, La. -- A massive natural-gas discovery here in northern Louisiana heralds a big shift in the nation's energy landscape. After an era of declining production, the U.S. is now swimming in natural gas.

Even conservative estimates suggest the Louisiana discovery -- known as the Haynesville Shale, for the dense rock formation that contains the gas -- could hold some 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That's the equivalent of 33 billion barrels of oil, or 18 years' worth of current U.S. oil production. Some industry executives think the field could be several times that size.

"There's no dry hole here," says Joan Dunlap, vice president of Petrohawk Energy Corp., standing beside a drilling rig near a former Shreveport amusement park.
View SlideshowJared Moossy/Redux

Squeezing Gas From Rock

Huge new fields also have been found in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania. One industry-backed study estimates the U.S. has more than 2,200 trillion cubic feet of gas waiting to be pumped, enough to satisfy nearly 100 years of current U.S. natural-gas demand.

The discoveries have spurred energy experts and policy makers to start looking to natural gas in their pursuit of a wide range of goals: easing the impact of energy-price spikes, reducing dependence on foreign oil, lowering "greenhouse gas" emissions and speeding the transition to renewable fuels.

A climate-change bill being pushed by President Barack Obama could boost reliance on natural gas. The bill, which could emerge from the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May, is expected to set aggressive targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent man-made greenhouse gas.

Meeting such goals would require quickly moving away from coal-fired power plants, which account for substantial carbon emissions. President Obama wants the U.S. to rely more on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, but those technologies aren't ready to shoulder more than a fraction of the nation's energy burden. Advocates for natural gas argue that the fuel, which is cleaner than coal, would be a logical quick fix. In addition, billionaire energy investor T. Boone Pickens has been touting natural gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel for cars and trucks.

"The availability of natural-gas generation enables us to be much more courageous in charting a transition to a low-carbon economy," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, who was a senior adviser to President Obama during the campaign.

Just three years ago, the conventional wisdom was that U.S. natural-gas production was facing permanent decline. U.S. policy makers were resigned to the idea that the country would have to rely more on foreign imports to supply the fuel that heats half of American homes, generates one-fifth of the nation's electricity, and is a key component in plastics, chemicals and fertilizer.

But new technologies and a drilling boom have helped production rise 11% in the past two years. Now there's a glut, which has driven prices down to a six-year low and prompted producers to temporarily cut back drilling and search for new demand.

The natural-gas discoveries come as oil has become harder to find and more expensive to produce. The U.S. is increasingly reliant on supplies imported from the Middle East and other politically unstable regions. In contrast, 98% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. is produced in North America.

Coal remains plentiful in the U.S., but is likely to face new restrictions. To produce the same amount of energy, burning gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal.

Natural gas has never played more than a supporting role in the nation's energy supply. Crude oil, refined into gasoline or diesel, fuels nearly all U.S. cars or trucks. Coal is the dominant fuel for generating electricity.

Natural-gas production in the U.S. peaked in the early 1970s, then fell for a decade due to weak prices and declining gas fields in Texas, Louisiana and elsewhere. Production bounced back in the 1990s with the discovery of new fields in New Mexico and Wyoming, but by 2002, output was falling again -- this time, most experts thought, for good. Believing the U.S. would soon need to import liquefied natural gas from overseas, companies such as ConocoPhillips, El Paso Corp. and Cheniere Energy Inc. spent billions on terminals, pipelines and storage facilities.

The supply fears drove up prices, which spurred innovation. Oil-and-gas companies had known for decades that there was gas trapped in shale, a nonporous rock common in much of the U.S. but considered too dense to produce much gas.

In the 1980s, Texas oilman George Mitchell began trying to produce gas from a formation near Fort Worth, Texas, known as the Barnett Shale. He pumped millions of gallons of water at high pressure down the well, cracking open the rock and allowing gas to flow to the surface.

Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp. bought Mr. Mitchell's company in 2002. It combined his methods with a technique for drilling straight down to gas-bearing rock, then turning horizontally to stay within the formation. Devon's first horizontal wells produced about three times as much gas as traditional vertical wells.

The development of the Barnett Shale almost single-handedly reversed the decline in U.S. natural-gas production. Last year, the Barnett produced four billion cubic feet of gas a day, making it the largest field in the U.S. Other companies such as Newfield Exploration Co., Southwestern Energy Co. and Range Resources Corp. found shale fields across the U.S.

One of the most aggressive companies was Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy Corp., which got into the Barnett a couple of years behind cross-town rival Devon, and was an early entrant into the second big U.S. field, the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas. In 2005, Chesapeake Chief Executive Aubrey McClendon sent teams of geologists across the country with a mission: Find the next Barnett. Less than two years later, they told him they had it, in Louisiana.

The Haynesville Shale is centered in northern Louisiana, one of the country's oldest oil- and gas-producing regions. Wildcatters had explored beneath the lush cow pastures and cotton fields as far back as the 1870s. Shreveport, the region's largest city, saw decades of booms and busts until the 1980s, when a glut of cheap oil from overseas all but killed the region's oil industry.

Oil companies knew about the Haynesville Shale, but it was considered a less viable prospect than the Barnett. The shale lies 10,000 or more feet below ground, where high pressure and 300-degree temperatures are enough to fry high-tech drilling equipment.
But in 2006, Chesapeake drilled an exploratory well and decided the results were promising enough to justify the higher cost of drilling in such harsh conditions. By late 2007, Mr. McClendon says, "we knew that we had a tiger by the tail."

In March 2008, as oil and gas prices were soaring, Chesapeake went public with its findings. The rush was on: Dozens of companies dispatched agents to the area to lease land for drilling, turning farmers and ranchers into millionaires overnight.
"There was excitement in the air," recalls Jeffrey Wellborn, a Shreveport resident who sits on the board of the local Sierra Club. "You thought everyone in the world had won the lottery."

The frenzy marked the peak of a nationwide drilling boom that was fueled by a combination of soaring energy prices and easy credit. It didn't last. Between July and October, oil and gas prices fell by more than 50%, and kept falling.

The weakening economy eroded demand for both oil and gas. Natural gas, unlike oil, suffered from a supply glut. U.S. gas production rose 7.2% last year, while oil production fell 1.9%. As a result, oil prices are up 12% since the start of 2009. Natural-gas prices have fallen 41% to their lowest since 2002.

Gas producers saw their profits evaporate and share prices slump. Liquefied-natural-gas imports plunged, leaving import terminals nearly idle. Worried about a glut, companies cut back sharply on drilling and formed a lobbying group to try to boost demand.
The growing supply created opportunities for policy makers and environmentalists, who saw natural gas as a possible solution to the nation's energy problems. Some groups suggested burning more gas and less coal for power generation. Others favor its use in vehicles.

Mr. Pickens has spent millions promoting an energy plan that aims to, among other things, convert thousands of big-rig trucks to run on natural gas. Mr. Pickens has large investments in natural gas and stands to benefit if his plan is adopted. In TV ads, Internet videos and speeches, he emphasizes a different goal: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Pickens arrived for a recent speech in Dallas in a natural-gas-fueled Honda Civic with a bright blue "Pickens Plan" logo. He told a packed auditorium that the U.S. is importing two-thirds of its oil even as the country is "absolutely overwhelmed with natural gas." If the reverse were true, he said, he would favor burning oil.

Some environmentalists have embraced Mr. Pickens's plan as a way to fight climate change. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, says he sees natural gas as a "bridge fuel" that could help the U.S. burn less coal and oil until renewable sources of energy are ready to take over.

The dual message of energy security and environmental responsibility has helped Mr. Pickens win powerful allies, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of elected officials from both parties. A bipartisan bill providing tax incentives for natural-gas cars looks likely to pass this year.

Not everyone shares Mr. Pickens's enthusiasm for natural-gas vehicles. Major users of natural gas, such as utilities and chemicals companies, are concerned the plan would drive up prices -- an outcome that would benefit producers.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and some other policy makers have expressed doubts about the practicality of retrofitting hundreds of thousands of service stations to offer natural gas. Some environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, have argued that natural gas is better used to replace coal for power generation, and that cars should run on electricity generated by the sun, wind and natural gas.

Market forces are already helping natural gas make inroads against coal and oil. Gas is now cheaper than coal in many parts of the country, leading utilities to burn more gas. Of the 372 power plants expected to be built in the U.S. over the next three years, 206 will be fired by gas and just 31 by coal, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Natural gas is gaining market share far more slowly in transportation. Earlier this year, AT&T announced it would convert up to 20% of its truck fleet to run on natural gas, largely because it has been cheaper than gasoline in recent years. Cities including New York, Los Angeles and Atlanta have converted part of their bus fleets to run on natural gas, for air-quality reasons.

Shreveport could be the next city to make the switch. In March, Mayor Cedric Glover announced that the oil capital turned natural-gas boomtown would abandon diesel and convert its bus fleet to natural gas.

—Russell Gold contributed to this article.

The Perfect Storm Is Here!

by Ms Placed Democrat

Yesterday Glenn Beck talked about the “perfect storm” — that storm being a real crisis in Mexico. That crisis has arrived. Mexico is shutting down all non-essential government and private businesses in an attempt to fight the swine flu.

Mexico to shut down government in flu fight
Decision comes as the World Health Organization warns of pandemic

Mexico’s government is temporarily suspending all nonessential activity of the federal government and private business as the number of confirmed swine flu cases jumped.

The decision came as global health authorities warned Wednesday that swine flu was threatening to bloom into a pandemic, and the virus spread farther in Europe even as the outbreak appeared to stabilize at its epicenter. A toddler who succumbed in Texas became the first death outside Mexico.

Health Secretary José Angel Córdova Villalobos announced the move to shut down most of the country’s government and economy shortly after his department reported that confirmed cases of infection with the new strain of influenza had risen.

Why is this the perfect storm? It has serious ramifications for an already stressed economy in Mexico which will have dire effects on our economy. The United States owns the majority of Mexican debt. With private businesses shut down and most of government shut down, there is an excellent chance Mexico will not be able to make debt payments.

What will happen to the USA? There will be further economic stress on our own precarious economy. Forget the evil resident’s rhetoric. Our economy isn’t improving. even though there was more consumer spending in April and businesses refilled their inventories. As a matter of fact the economy shrank more than 6% for the third quarter in a row, which is the first time since the 1970s.

The housing market isn’t improving the way the experts claim. The FHA is now reporting that many of the mortgages they are writing are going to “immediate delinquency” with eventual foreclosure.

At the end of February, 7.46 percent of the Federal Housing Administration’s single-family insurance-in-force was “seriously delinquent” — either 90 days delinquent, in foreclosure or bankruptcy. February’s rate of serious delinquencies is up considerably from the 6.16 percent seen at the same time last year, the Wall Street Journal first reported Tuesday.

The agency paid claims on 3,951 foreclosures, or 0.08 percent of the FHA’s insurance-in-force, in February, according to data provided to HousingWire by an FHA spokesperson, who was quick to point out that some 60 percent of delinquencies cure through the agency’s loss mitigation program before reaching the foreclosure process.

But critics of the program have said that its comparatively lenient terms — requiring as little as 3.5 percent of the home’s value as a down payment, for example — in the wake of the subprime market collapse attracted many borrowers with less-than-ideal credit. The volume of FHA-insured loans as a portion of the total mortgage origination market has increased from 3 percent in Jan. 2007 to 37 percent in Dec. 08, according to a monthly mortgage monitor report released this month by Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS: 30.10 +2.87%)

Many of the loans now going to default are jumbo loans. The other part of this is that FHA is about the only one writing mortgage loans.

The FHA’s share of the U.S. mortgage market soared to nearly a third of loans originated in last year’s fourth quarter from about 2% in 2006 as a whole, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. That is increasing the risk to taxpayers if the FHA’s reserves prove inadequate to cover default losses.

As of January, the cities with the highest FHA default rates in December were Punta Gorda, Fla., at 18%; Detroit, 15.6%; Flint, Mich., 15.1%; Fort Myers-Cape Coral, Fla., 15%, and Elkhart-Goshen, Ind., 12.1%, according to a HUD report.

Foreclosed FHA homes owned by HUD totaled 39,687 in January, up 22% from a year earlier.

As you can see ny the evidence here the housing market isn’t getting better it is getting worse because Congress has loosened the rules at the FHA, providing more subprime loans.

The stock may have gone up today but the stock market remains below 10,000 and not about to rise much higher. It is my opinion that the stock market has not bottomed out. It is still reeking havoc on 40ks.

Eventually we will see the lasting effects of the swine flu as it continues to spread globally. And it is spreading globally and likely to reach pandemic levels within the next few days. The swine flu will have a lasting effect on our economy and likely because of Mexico’s actions today.

Very Important Notice

(Compiler's note: A must read item. Food for thought from an old friend. I have gotten straight stuff from him before.)

-----Original Message-----

From:

Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:06 AM

Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. needs

to know....

Something happened... H.R. 1388 was passed yesterday, behind

our backs. You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news...

just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.

Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas

Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make the headlines...

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the

expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the

Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza.

The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of

thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the

United States, was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal

Register on February 4.

Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the

order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food

allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming

support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the

parliamentary election of January 2006.

Let's review...itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most

recent actions since his inauguration:

His first call to any head of state, as president, was to

Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.

His first one-on-one television interview with any news

organization was with Al Arabia television.

His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s)

not just here within the U. S., but within the world, using U. S.

tax payer funds.

He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of

detainees halted.

He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.

He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the

USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11.

Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of

Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American

taxpayer expense.

These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in

the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.

Doubtful? To verify this for yourself:

www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

PLEASE PASS THIS ON ... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW!!!

WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.

A Chilling Effect on U.S. Counterterrorism

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

By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Over the past couple of weeks, we have been carefully watching the fallout from the Obama administration’s decision to release four classified memos from former President George W. Bush’s administration that authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In a visit to CIA headquarters last week, President Barack Obama promised not to prosecute agency personnel who carried out such interrogations, since they were following lawful orders. Critics of the techniques, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have called for the formation of a “truth commission” to investigate the matter, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal inquiry into the matter.

Realistically, those most likely to face investigation and prosecution are those who wrote the memos, rather than the low-level field personnel who acted in good faith based upon the guidance the memos provided. Despite this fact and Obama’s reassurances, our contacts in the intelligence community report that the release of the memos has had a discernible “chilling effect” on those in the clandestine service who work on counterterrorism issues.

In some ways, the debate over the morality of such interrogation techniques — something we do not take a position on and will not be discussing here — has distracted many observers from examining the impact that the release of these memos is having on the ability of the U.S. government to fulfill its counterterrorism mission. And this impact has little to do with the ability to use torture to interrogate terrorist suspects.

Politics and moral arguments aside, the end effect of the memos’ release is that people who have put their lives on the line in U.S. counterterrorism efforts are now uncertain of whether they should be making that sacrifice. Many of these people are now questioning whether the administration that happens to be in power at any given time will recognize the fact that they were carrying out lawful orders under a previous administration. It is hard to retain officers and attract quality recruits in this kind of environment. It has become safer to work in programs other than counterterrorism.

The memos’ release will not have a catastrophic effect on U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Indeed, most of the information in the memos was leaked to the press years ago and has long been public knowledge. However, when the release of the memos is examined in a wider context, and combined with a few other dynamics, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism community is quietly slipping back into an atmosphere of risk-aversion and malaise — an atmosphere not dissimilar to that described by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) as a contributing factor to the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.

Cycles Within Cycles

In March we wrote about the cycle of counterterrorism funding and discussed indications that the United States is entering a period of reduced counterterrorism funding. This decrease in funding not only will affect defensive counterterrorism initiatives like embassy security and countersurveillance programs, but also will impact offensive programs such as the number of CIA personnel dedicated to the counterterrorism role.

Beyond funding, however, there is another historical cycle of booms and busts that can be seen in the conduct of American clandestine intelligence activities. There are clearly discernible periods when clandestine activities are deemed very important and are widely employed. These periods are inevitably followed by a time of investigations, reductions in clandestine activities and a tightening of control and oversight over such activities.

After the widespread employment of clandestine activities in the Vietnam War era, the Church Committee was convened in 1975 to review (and ultimately restrict) such operations. Former President Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Bill Casey as director of the CIA ushered in a new era of growth as the United States became heavily engaged in clandestine activities in Afghanistan and Central America. Then, the revelation of the Iran-Contra affair in 1986 led to a period of hearings and controls.

There was a slight uptick in clandestine activities under the presidency of George H.W. Bush, but the fall of the Soviet Union led to another bust cycle for the intelligence community. By the mid-1990s, the number of CIA stations and bases was dramatically reduced (and virtually eliminated in much of Africa) for budgetary considerations. Then there was the case of Jennifer Harbury, a Harvard-educated lawyer who used little-known provisions in Texas common law to marry a dead Guatemalan guerrilla commander and gain legal standing as his widow. After it was uncovered that a CIA source was involved in the guerrilla commander’s execution, CIA stations in Latin America were gutted for political reasons. The Harbury case also led to the Torricelli Amendment, a law that made recruiting unsavory people, such as those with ties to death squads and terrorist groups, illegal without special approval. This bust cycle was well documented by both the Crowe Commission, which investigated the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, and the 9/11 Commission.

After the 9/11 attacks, the pendulum swung radically to the permissive side and clandestine activity was rapidly and dramatically increased as the U.S. sought to close the intelligence gap and quickly develop intelligence on al Qaeda’s capability and plans. Developments over the past two years clearly indicate that the United States is once again entering an intelligence bust cycle, a period that will be marked by hearings, increased controls and a general decrease in clandestine activity.

Institutional Culture

It is also very important to realize that the counterterrorism community is just one small part of the larger intelligence community that is affected by this ebb and flow of covert activity. In fact, as noted above, the counterterrorism component of intelligence efforts has its own boom-and-bust cycle that is based on major attacks. Soon after a major attack, interest in counterterrorism spikes dramatically, but as time passes without a major attack, interest lags. Other than during the peak times of this cycle, counterterrorism is considered an ancillary program that is sometimes seen as an interesting side tour of duty, but more widely seen as being outside the mainstream career path — risky and not particularly career-enhancing. This assessment is reinforced by such events as the recent release of the memos.

At the CIA, being a counterterrorism specialist in the clandestine service means that you will most likely spend much of your life in places line Sanaa, Islamabad and Kabul instead of Vienna, Paris or London. This means that, in addition to hurting your chances for career advancement, your job also is quite dangerous, provides relatively poor living conditions for your family and offers the possibility of contracting serious diseases.

While being declared persona non grata and getting kicked out of a country as part of an intelligence spat is considered almost a badge of honor at the CIA, the threat of being arrested and indicted for participating in the rendition of a terrorist suspect from an allied country like Italy is not. Equally unappealing is being sued in civil court by a terrorist suspect or facing the possibility of prosecution after a change of government in the United States. Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of CIA case officers who are choosing to carry personal liability insurance because they do not trust the agency and the U.S. government to look out for their best interests.

Now, there are officers who are willing to endure hardship and who do not really care much about career advancement, but for those officers there is another hazard — frustration. Aggressive officers dedicated to the counterterrorism mission quickly learn that many of the people in the food chain above them are concerned about their careers, and these superiors often take measures to rein in their less-mainstream subordinates. Additionally, due to the restrictions brought about by laws and regulations like the Torricelli Amendment, case officers working counterterrorism are often tightly bound by myriad legal restrictions.

Unlike in television shows like “24,” it is not uncommon in the real world for a meeting called to plan a counterterrorism operation to feature more CIA lawyers than case officers or analysts. These staff lawyers are intricately involved in the operational decisions made at headquarters, and legal issues often trump operational considerations. The need to obtain legal approval often delays decisions long enough for a critical window of operational opportunity to be slammed shut. This restrictive legal environment goes back many years in the CIA and is not a new fixture brought in by the Obama administration. There was a sense of urgency that served to trump the lawyers to some extent after 9/11, but the lawyers never went away and have reasserted themselves firmly over the past several years.

Of course, the CIA is not the only agency with a culture that is less than supportive of the counterterrorism mission. Although the prevention of terrorist attacks in the United States is currently the FBI’s No. 1 priority on paper, the counterterrorism mission remains the bureau’s redheaded stepchild. The FBI is struggling to find agents willing to serve in the counterterrorism sections of field offices, resident agencies (smaller offices that report to a field office) and joint terrorism task forces.

While the CIA was very much built on the legacy of Wild Bill Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services, the FBI was founded by J. Edgar Hoover, a conservative and risk-averse administrator who served as FBI director from 1935-1972. Even today, Hoover’s influence is clearly evident in the FBI’s bureaucratic nature. FBI special agents are unable to do much at all, such as open an investigation, without a supervisor’s approval, and supervisors are reluctant to approve anything too adventurous because of the impact it might have on their chance for promotion. Unlike many other law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI rarely uses its own special agents in an undercover capacity to penetrate criminal organizations. That practice is seen as being too risky; they prefer to use confidential informants rather than undercover operatives.

The FBI is also strongly tied to its roots in law enforcement and criminal investigation, and special agents who work major theft, public corruption or white-collar crime cases tend to receive more recognition — and advance more quickly — than their counterterrorism counterparts.

FBI special agents also see a considerable downside to working counterterrorism cases because of the potential for such cases to blow up in their faces if they make a mistake — such as in the New York field office’s highly publicized mishandling of the informant whom they had inserted into the group that later conducted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is much safer, and far more rewarding from a career perspective, to work bank robberies or serve in the FBI’s Inspection Division.

After the 9/11 attacks — and the corresponding spike in the importance of counterterrorism operations — many of the resources of the CIA and FBI were focused on al Qaeda and terrorism, to the detriment of programs such as foreign counterintelligence. However, the more time that has passed since 9/11 without another major attack, the more the organizational culture of the U.S government has returned to normal. Once again, counterterrorism efforts are seen as being ancillary duties rather than the organizations’ driving mission. (The clash between organizational culture and the counterterrorism mission is by no means confined to the CIA and FBI. Fred’s book “Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent” provides a detailed examination of some of the bureaucratic and cultural challenges we faced while serving in the Counterterrorism Investigations Division of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service.)

Liaison Services

One of the least well known, and perhaps most important, sources of intelligence in the counterterrorism field is the information that is obtained as a result of close relationships with allied intelligence agencies — often referred to as information obtained through “liaison channels.”

Like FBI agents, most CIA officers are well-educated, middle-aged white guys. This means they are better suited to use the cover of an American businessmen or diplomat than to pretend to be a young Muslim trying to join al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Like their counterparts in the FBI, CIA officers have far more success using informants than they do working undercover inside terrorist groups.

Services like the Jordanian General Intelligence Department, the Saudi Mabahith or the Yemeni National Security Agency not only can recruit sources, but also are far more successful in using young Muslim officers to penetrate terrorist groups. In addition to their source networks and penetration operations, many of these liaison services are not at all squeamish about using extremely enhanced interrogation techniques — this is the reason many of the terrorism suspects who were the subject of rendition operations ended up in such locations. Obviously, whenever the CIA is dealing with a liaison service, the political interests and objectives of the service must be considered — as should the possibility that the liaison service is fabricating the intelligence in question for whatever reason. Still, in the end, the CIA historically has received a significant amount of important intelligence (perhaps even most of its intelligence) via liaison channels.

Another concern that arises from the call for a truth commission is the impact a commission investigation could have on the liaison services that have helped the United States in its counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. Countries that hosted CIA detention facilities or were involved in the rendition or interrogation of terrorist suspects may find themselves exposed publicly or even held up for some sort of sanction by the U.S. Congress. Such activities could have a real impact on the amount of cooperation and information the CIA receives from these intelligence services.

Conclusion

As we’ve previously noted, it was a lack of intelligence that helped fuel the fear that led the Bush administration to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques. Ironically, the current investigation into those techniques and other practices (such as renditions) may very well lead to significant gaps in terrorism-related intelligence from both internal and liaison sources — again, not primarily because of the prohibition of torture, but because of larger implications.

When these implications are combined with the long-standing institutional aversion of U.S. government agencies toward counterterrorism, and with the difficulty of finding and retaining good people willing to serve in counterterrorism roles, the U.S. counterterrorism community may soon be facing challenges even more daunting than those posed by its already difficult mission.

Eligibility case defendants don't want to answer now Lawyer for Obama, Congress says representation decision unmade

Government lawyers

defending President Obama and Congress in a lawsuit alleging that he's ineligible to occupy the Oval Office and that members of the House and Senate violated the constitutional rights of citizens by refusing to investigate want still more time to respond to the accusations....

FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic Threatened Federal Sanctions Against NYPD, Secret Service, FBI & Mayor's Office If Secret Ever Got O

In addition to clicking on the above title, click here for additional information.

FRIDAY MORNING AT THE PENTAGON

(Compiler's note: Absolutely must read.)

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a year long tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew their friendships.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area. The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outer most of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building.. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence.He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating.. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.

Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden. Yet.

Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel. Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt.. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade.

More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

Did you know that? The media hasn't yet told the story. And probably never will.

CAIR Exploits Terror Case to Thwart FBI Intelligence Gathering

Steven Emerson

A potentially significant terrorist case in California is being exploited by radical Islamist groups to mount a campaign against the FBI. .... Rather than praising law enforcement for rooting out a would-be terrorist from their community, Islamist groups are casting FBI efforts - the use of an informant inside mosques – as an assault on the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans. ....

Taliban Raids Christian Neighborhood, Murders Two

By Mike Pechar

(Karachi, Pakistan) With swaths of territory now being ceded to the Taliban, the fundamentalists apparently believe they have been given free reign to harass and kill Christians everywhere. On the night of April 21, more than 100 masked Taliban entered a Christian community in Karachi and raided homes.

Going door to door, the armed Taliban terrorists grabbed the elderly and women by the hair, pulled them into the streets and ordered them to convert to Islam. The women were beaten with clubs and whips and sexually assaulted. Homes were set on fire.

Two Christians who resisted were murdered, execution-style, in front of their families.

It's expected that more and harsher incidents of violence against Christians will occur as long as the world keeps smooching Taliban tail. (more) Sharia

Dick Cheney's Daughter Takes on MSNBC

(Compiler's note: A must read - see)

The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty Is Back – This Time with a Friend in the White House

(Compiler's note: A must read.)

J. D. Longstreet

The leftists of the world have been encouraging the United States to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which was rightly vetoed by President Reagan decades ago and rejected by American Presidents, both Democrat and Republican

, ever since. Now, with President Obama, the treaty has a friend in the White House.

It ought to scare the living daylights out of you. Why? Let's look at some reasons why the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is important to you as an American.

By asserting UN authority over seven-tenths of the Earth's surface, LOST would be the largest territorial conquest in history.

In principle, the treaty would assert UN jurisdiction over U.S. territorial waters, and eventually over waterways within our country.

It would create a huge bureaucratic entity called the "Enterprise," which would regulate and tax all commercial uses of the high seas.

By taxing all efforts to develop the wealth of the seabed, the UN would be given a huge revenue stream, independent of national governments to push its agenda for international socialism.

The treaty would require the redistribution of cutting-edge technology from the U.S. to all governments in the "developing world," including extremely repressive governments.

Get the picture? It's that "One World Government," or "Global Governance" our current President is so fond of. You know... it is the "Globalists" at work.

So, where do we stand today on LOST? Not good, I'm afraid.

The last time this treaty came before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, they passed it by a vote of 17-4. If the committee approves it again it will go before the entire Senate for ratification.

The National Center for Public Policy Research provides educational resources on the Law of the Sea Treaty (also known by the acronyms LOST and UNCLOS). National Center Vice President David Ridenour has said:

"The Law of the Sea Treaty is a terrible deal for the U.S. It would threaten our sovereignty, place a significant portion of the world's resources under the control of a UN-style body, and complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists on the high seas by subjecting our actions to review by an international court unlikely to render decisions favorable to the U.S."

Ridenour went on to say:

"The Law of the Sea Treaty would help radical environmentalists achieve what they haven't been able to achieve through legislation. Greenpeace has said 'the benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species.' The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the Navy's use of 'intense active sonar,' arguing that it violates the treaty by posing a danger to marine life. The Navy ultimately agreed to scale back use of this technology. The Law of the Sea Treaty has also been used by Australia and New Zealand in an attempt to shut down an experimental blue fin tuna fishing program and by Ireland in an attempt to shut down a plant on land in England."

The United National Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center contains a collection of research papers, commentaries and blog entries about LOST from a variety of think-tanks, scholars, opinion writers and bloggers.

"Although the Law of the Sea Treaty has been around for decades - the National Center for Public Policy Research first worked on it in 1982 - relatively few people know much about it," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center website is designed to help correct this."

And for even more information on this proposed treaty, I urge you to go here.

It is more important than ever before to contact your senators and urge them to educate themselves about the realities of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

This is serious stuff, and we are not hearing about it in the MSM. Why not?

Let’s Declassify Obama’s Birth Certificate Along With the ‘Torture’ Memos

U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net 'Fairness Doctrine' Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail

Source: WorldNetDaily

.... "It's hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein," he says. "Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that 'limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.' If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government."

Should U.S. flee Afghanistan?

(Compiler's note: A must read.)

Analysts are raising questions – just as President Obama has committed another 17,000 U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan – whether instead the goal should be to pull its military out of that battle, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The conflict highlights the question of just what are the strategic interests of the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan and what course of action does the Obama administration contemplate to fulfill those interests? The obvious key question: is it necessary to be in Afghanistan at all?

Such ideas are being raised in Congress and among foreign policy experts who see a rapidly deteriorating situation in both countries. Is it wise, they ask, for the U.S. to seek extrication from Iraq just to land in another similar – or worse – quagmire in Afghanistan.

The overall situation is further complicated by the increasing threat presented by the Taliban insurgency to the leadership in neighboring Pakistan and a resurgence in Afghanistan.

Concerns are being raised as to why the United States is sticking around in Afghanistan considering the corrupt Afghan government unable to defend itself against the Taliban while neighboring Pakistan finds itself on the brink of caving to the Islamists.

It also raises the question of why the U.S. should commit more troops. Some experts suggest the U.S. should get out of Afghanistan altogether. The situation in the region is quickly coming to a head as to what the U.S. strategy should be. The options are not all that favorable.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Meantime, the United States' NATO allies, who have some 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, want them out as soon as possible, making the prospect of Afghanistan yet another "American War."

The U.S. contingent is almost three times that size, plus the 17,000 more promised by Obama. What NATO troops there are in Afghanistan mostly are located away from the southern region where the fiercest fighting is occurring near Pakistan's tribal areas. On the other hand, that is where most of the U.S. forces are located.

The U.S. may perceive that its overarching interest for the area is to curb the growth of the insurgent movement that seems to be spawned in Pakistan and Afghanistan and poses a worldwide threat. U.S. policymakers believe that threats to the U.S. emanate from the growing insurgent movement comprised of Taliban and al-Qaida in both countries.

President Obama sought to define U.S. policy in a March 2009 news conference.

"The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power yet war rages on and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghanistan government has risen steadily. And, most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces. Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrificed so much have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? Of so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer. So let me be clear. Al-Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al-Qaida's leadership, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. But this is not simply an American problem, far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order."

Given the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, concern also is mounting over the possibility they could land in the hands of the insurgents should that government fall. At this writing, however, that prospect appears to be marginal, if certain actions are taken now.

Assuming that it is in the strategic interest of the U.S. to be in Afghanistan and to prop up the Pakistan government, then a strategy needs to be devised that offers a combined political and military solution.

White House Apologizes For NYC Military Fly-By

Pakistani Intelligence: Osama Is Dead

by Bill Roggio

As Pakistan wrestles with the Taliban takeover of large swaths of its territory and the encroachment on Islamabad, its Inter-Services Intelligence agency tells us that Osama bin Laden is dead.

President Asif Ali Zardari said Monday that Pakistani intelligence believes Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is dead but acknowledged they had no evidence.

"The Americans tell me they don't know, and they are much more equipped than us to trace him. And our own intelligence services obviously think that he does not exist any more, that he is dead," Zardari told reporters.

"But there is no evidence, you cannot take that as a fact," he said. "We are between facts and fiction."

Zardari was responding to reports that Pakistani Taliban in the troubled Swat valley have said they would welcome bin Laden if he wants to visit the former Pakistani hill resort which is now in the hands of Taliban.

"The question is whether he is alive or dead. There is no trace of him," the president said.

If you can't trust the ISI to give you accurate information on al Qaeda and the Taliban, who can you trust? Considering the ISI orders suicide attacks on embassies in Kabul, supports terror attacks on major cities in India, and conducts resupply missions to Taliban forces as they fight U.S. soldiers in eastern Afghanistan, who else is better suited to know the inner machinations of al Qaeda?

The timing of this report is interesting, given the pressure being placed on Pakistan to tackle the Taliban sanctuaries that have blossomed in the northwest. U.S. officials have also been highly critical of the Paksitani Army and the ISI. Pakistan's military and intelligence services clearly are looking for ways to deflect criticism and divert attention from the collapse in their country.

What You Need to Know About Swine Flu

by Lauran Neergaard who covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

WASHINGTON -- A never-before-seen flu strain _ a mix of pig, human and bird viruses _ has turned killer in Mexico and is causing milder illness in the United States and elsewhere. While authorities say it's not time to panic, they are taking steps to stem the spread and urging people to pay close attention to the latest health warnings. Here's what you need to know:

Q: How do I protect myself and my family?

A: For now, take commonsense precautions. Cover your coughs and sneezes, with a tissue that you throw away or by sneezing into your elbow rather than your hand. Wash hands frequently; if soap and water aren't available, hand gels can substitute. Stay home if you're sick and keep children home from school if they are.

Q: How easy is it to catch this virus?

A: Scientists don't yet know if it takes fairly close or prolonged contact with someone who's sick, or if it's more easily spread. But in general, flu viruses spread through uncovered coughs and sneezes or _ and this is important _ by touching your mouth or nose with unwashed hands. Flu viruses can live on surfaces for several hours, like a doorknob just touched by someone who sneezed into his hand.

Q: Is it treatable?

A: Yes, with the flu drugs Tamiflu or Relenza, but not with two older flu medications.

Q: Why are people dying in Mexico and not here?

A: That's a huge mystery. First, understand that no one really knows just how many people in Mexico are dying of this flu strain, or how many have it. Only a fraction of the suspected deaths have been tested and confirmed as swine flu, and some initially suspected cases were caused by something else.

Q: What are the symptoms?

A: They're similar to regular human flu _ a fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people also have diarrhea and vomiting.

Q: How do I know if I should see a doctor?

A: Health authorities say if you live in places where swine flu cases have been confirmed, or you recently traveled to Mexico, and you have those symptoms, your doctor can decide whether you need treatment or to be tested.

Q: Did last winter's flu shot protect me?

A: Probably not. Even though it did protect against the Type A family of flu viruses that this new swine flu belongs to, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ran some preliminary tests and doesn't think it offered any cross protection.

Q: Why are people calling it swine flu if it's not just from pigs? Did it really come from pigs?

A: Pigs do spread their own strains of influenza and every so often people catch one, usually after contact with the animals. This new virus is a mix of human, pig and bird viruses but the name, for ease, was shortened to swine flu _ and unlike typical swine flu, it is spreading person-to-person.

Q: So is it safe to eat pork?

A: Yes. Swine influenza viruses don't spread through food.

Not NSA. AP:

by Laura Rozen

The National Security Agency did not place a wiretap that reportedly intercepted phone conversations made by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., the top U.S. intelligence official said Monday.

Dennis Blair, the national intelligence director, declined to say which agency requested the reported wiretap and oversaw the information gleaned from Harman's conversations. Blair was speaking at the dedication of a new intelligence research facility.

The only other agency that has authority to place wiretaps on calls inside the United States is the Justice Department. It requires court approval.

Media reports have suggested the California congresswoman was overheard in an NSA wiretap seeking lenient treatment for two former pro-Israel activists. The activists were later indicted on federal charges of unlawfully possessing and disclosing classified information.

Harman has asked the Justice Department to release a transcript of the intercepted phone conversation, which occurred before 2006.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi confirmed last week that she was informed by U.S. government officials that Harman had been overheard on a wiretap.

Pelosi said she did not tell Harman. Harman has said she first learned of the wiretapping last week from a reporter who had knowledge of the transcript of the recording.

Why are sources to CQ and NYT seemingly dissembling on this?

They had a shaky case no one would sign off on and now are leaking wiretaps Goss ordered of a political enemy. Hard not to wonder if the agenda of the sources is not far more suspect than those they were wiretapping.

Iranian Weapons Ship Sunk near Sudan

Egyptian weekly says missiles fired by 'unidentified boat which may have been Israeli or American'

(IsraelNN.com) An Iranian ship was destroyed off the coast of Sudan while transporting weapons to Gaza, according to the Egyptian daily Al-Usbua. The paper named Israel and the United States as likely suspects in the attack.

The ship was to dock in Sudan, where the weapons would have been unloaded and transported by land to the northern Sinai Peninsula. From there, they would be smuggled into Gaza to be used by Hamas.

The ship was destroyed by missiles fired from an unidentified second vessel, Sudanese sources said. The crew was killed in the attack, and the cargo was destroyed, they said.

The sources said Iran had attempted to hush up the incident.

One month ago, the U.S. station CBS reported that Israeli planes had carried out an attack in Sudan in January, demolishing a convoy bringing weapons from Iran to Hamas.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in either strike.