FBI investigating companies at heart of meltdown

By LARA JAKES JORDAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration, The Associated Press has learned.

Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) also is under investigation.

The inquiries will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them, the senior law enforcement official said.

The law enforcement officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigations are ongoing and are in the very early stages.

Officials said the new inquiries bring to 26 the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the past year.

Spokesmen for AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not immediately return calls for comment Tuesday evening. A Lehman spokesman did not have an immediate comment.

Just last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller put the number of large financial firms under investigation at 24. He did not name any of the companies under investigation but said the FBI also was looking at whether any of them have misrepresented their assets.

Over the past year as the housing market cratered, the FBI has opened a wide-ranging probe of companies across the financial services industry, from mortgage lenders to investment banks that bundle home loans into securities sold to investors. Mueller has previously said the FBI's hunt for culprits in the nation's subprime mortgage crisis focused on accounting fraud, insider trading, and failure to disclose the value of mortgage-related securities and other investments.

The investigations revealed Tuesday come as lawmakers began considering whether to approve emergency legislation that would give the government broad power to buy up devalued assets from troubled financial firms.

The bailout proposed by the Bush administration is aimed at helping unlock credit and stabilize badly shaken markets in the United States and around the globe.

In the past two weeks, the government has taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country's two biggest mortgage companies, with a bailout plan that could require the Treasury Department to put up as much as $100 billion for each of them over time if needed to keep them afloat as mortgage losses mount.

Last week, the Federal Reserve provided an emergency $85 billion loan to AIG, which teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. Lehman Brothers was forced to file for bankruptcy after attempts to engineer a private rescue fell apart. All the companies were laid low from bad bets on complex mortgage-related securities.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made the joint decision last week that the only way to stop the carnage was to deal with the root cause of all the troubles, billions of dollars of bad mortgage debt sitting on the books of major financial companies. This debt has triggered the worst credit crisis in decades, causing credit markets to essentially freeze up despite the fact that the Fed joined with major central banks around the world to pump billions of dollars of reserves into the financial system.

Additionally, the FBI is investigating failed bank IndyMac Bancorp Inc. for possible fraud. Countrywide Financial Corp., formerly the nation's largest mortgage lender and now owned by Bank of America Corp. (BAC), is also under scrutiny.

Wheelchair on plane bursts into flames

Battery fire causes near disaster on British holiday jet carrying 229 passengers

Homeland Security Detects Terrorist Threats by Reading Your Mind

By Allison Barrie

Baggage searches are SOOOOOO early-21st century. Homeland Security is now testing the next generation of security screening — a body scanner that can read your mind.

Most preventive screening looks for explosives or metals that pose a threat. But a new system called MALINTENT turns the old school approach on its head. This Orwellian-sounding machine detects the person — not the device — set to wreak havoc and terror.

MALINTENT, the brainchild of the cutting-edge Human Factors division in Homeland Security's directorate for Science and Technology, searches your body for non-verbal cues that predict whether you mean harm to your fellow passengers.

It has a series of sensors and imagers that read your body temperature, heart rate and respiration for unconscious tells invisible to the naked eye — signals terrorists and criminals may display in advance of an attack.

But this is no polygraph test. Subjects do not get hooked up or strapped down for a careful reading; those sensors do all the work without any actual physical contact. It's like an X-ray for bad intentions.

Currently, all the sensors and equipment are packaged inside a mobile screening laboratory about the size of a trailer or large truck bed, and just last week, Homeland Security put it to a field test in Maryland, scanning 144 mostly unwitting human subjects.

While I'd love to give you the full scoop on the unusual experiment, testing is ongoing and full disclosure would compromise future tests.

• Click here for an exclusive look at MALINTENT in action.

But what I can tell you is that the test subjects were average Joes living in the D.C. area who thought they were attending something like a technology expo; in order for the experiment to work effectively and to get the testing subjects to buy in, the cover story had to be convincing.

While the 144 test subjects thought they were merely passing through an entrance way, they actually passed through a series of sensors that screened them for bad intentions.

Homeland Security also selected a group of 23 attendees to be civilian "accomplices" in their test. They were each given a "disruptive device" to carry through the portal — and, unlike the other attendees, were conscious that they were on a mission.

In order to conduct these tests on human subjects, DHS had to meet rigorous safety standards to ensure the screening would not cause any physical or emotional harm.

So here's how it works. When the sensors identify that something is off, they transmit warning data to analysts, who decide whether to flag passengers for further questioning. The next step involves micro-facial scanning, which involves measuring minute muscle movements in the face for clues to mood and intention.

Homeland Security has developed a system to recognize, define and measure seven primary emotions and emotional cues that are reflected in contractions of facial muscles. MALINTENT identifies these emotions and relays the information back to a security screener almost in real-time.

This whole security array — the scanners and screeners who make up the mobile lab — is called "Future Attribute Screening Technology" — or FAST — because it is designed to get passengers through security in two to four minutes, and often faster.

If you're rushed or stressed, you may send out signals of anxiety, but FAST isn't fooled. It's already good enough to tell the difference between a harried traveler and a terrorist. Even if you sweat heavily by nature, FAST won't mistake you for a baddie.

"If you focus on looking at the person, you don't have to worry about detecting the device itself," said Bob Burns, MALINTENT's project leader. And while there are devices out there that look at individual cues, a comprehensive screening device like this has never before been put together.

While FAST's batting average is classified, Undersecretary for Science and Technology Adm. Jay Cohen declared the experiment a "home run."

As cold and inhuman as the electric eye may be, DHS says scanners are unbiased and nonjudgmental. "It does not predict who you are and make a judgment, it only provides an assessment in situations," said Burns. "It analyzes you against baseline stats when you walk in the door, it measures reactions and variations when you approach and go through the portal."

But the testing — and the device itself — are not without their problems. This invasive scanner, which catalogues your vital signs for non-medical reasons, seems like an uninvited doctor's exam and raises many privacy issues.

But DHS says this is not Big Brother. Once you are through the FAST portal, your scrutiny is over and records aren't kept. "Your data is dumped," said Burns. "The information is not maintained — it doesn't track who you are."

DHS is now planning an even wider array of screening technology, including an eye scanner next year and pheromone-reading technology by 2010.

The team will also be adding equipment that reads body movements, called "illustrative and emblem cues." According to Burns, this is achievable because people "move in reaction to what they are thinking, more or less based on the context of the situation."

FAST may also incorporate biological, radiological and explosive detection, but for now the primary focus is on identifying and isolating potential human threats.

And because FAST is a mobile screening laboratory, it could be set up at entrances to stadiums, malls and in airports, making it ever more difficult for terrorists to live and work among us.

Burns noted his team's goal is to "restore a sense of freedom." Once MALINTENT is rolled out in airports, it could give us a future where we can once again wander onto planes with super-sized cosmetics and all the bottles of water we can carry — and most importantly without that sense of foreboding that has haunted Americans since Sept. 11.

Allison Barrie, a security and terrorism consultant with the Commission for National Security in the 21st Century, is FOX News' security columnist.

Islam is a Violent “Faith”

By Dr. Sami Alrabaa

Violence, Hatred, and Discrimination in the Koran

If you say that Islam is a violent faith, you are accused of being anti-Islam and you are propagating “Islamophobia”.

There are more than one billion Muslims around the world, and I’m one of them. We are told that the Koran is the “word of God”. When you read the Koran, however, - which over 90% of all Muslims have never read, according to a survey by Bielefeld University in Germany, and if they ever do, either they do not understand its archaic language, or they do not ponder on what it says - you find out that it is full of passages that incite to hatred, killing, and discriminate against women.

Below are some quotations from the Koran. We begin with what the “holy book” of Muslims says about people of other religions.

For the Koran and many Muslims, the Christians and the Jews have left the true path of their religion. Therefore, they are as infidel (unbelievers) as those Buddhists and Hindus, for example. In other words, according to the Koran, only Muslims, i.e. 19% of the world population are true believers. The rest are “unbelievers” and “infidels”.

Literally, the Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers”:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (Sura 5, verse 51)

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away! (Sura 9, verse 30)

And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper. (Sura 2, verse 120)

And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (Sura 2, verse 191)

Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. (Sura 3, verse 28)

And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers. (Sura 3, verse 131)

And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY. (Sura 4, verse 101)

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (Sura 9, verse 123)

Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire. (Sura 76, verse 4)

O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed. (Sura 3, verse 100)

And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement. (Sura 4. verse 161)

Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire. (Sura 33, verse 64)

And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers. (Sura 48, verse 13)

Does Allah discriminate? The Koran says:

You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors. (Sura 3, verse 110)

Therefore, what does the Koran say about those who turn their back to Islam and commit apostasy?

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (the unbelievers) friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (Sura 4, verse 89)

Now, what does the Koran say about women? Here are also some quotations:

Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Sura 4, verse 34)

And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them. (Sura 4, verse 15)

According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man.

O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other. (Sura 2, verse 282)

.
As far as sex is concerned, women are sex objects, according to the Koran. They must be ready for intercourse any time the husband wishes so.

Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers. (Sura 2, verse 223).

During menstruation, however, men should keep away from women; they are filthy. The Koran says:

It (menstruation) is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves. (Sura 2, verse 222)

Women, according to the Koran, are, in general, unclean creature. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women.

O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving. (Sura 4, verse 43)

In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits:

They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things. (Sura 4, verse 176)

And what kind of punishment does a thief get, according to the Koran, regardless how much they steal?

And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Sura 5, verse 38)

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that uses the Koran as its day-to-day law for all kinds of disputes and crimes. It is the Shari’a (Islamic law). For Islamists and conservative Muslims, Shari’a is the constitution and law that must prevail everywhere. They argue, what is better than the law of Allah which He, via the Engle Gabriel revealed to the Prophet Mohammed 1400 years ago?

King Abdullah, the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia, said on a televised speech August 27, 2008, “We do not need democracy, we do not need political parties, we do not need Western human rights, we do not need their freedom of speech. What we need is the Koran. It regulates our life perfectly. It is the best legislation in the history of mankind, it is the word of Allah. There is nothing better than Allah’s law.”

The “Hadeeth”, a collection of statements and comments which Prophet Mohammed allegedly made during his life time is also full of atrocities. Here is a sample:

A woman came to the Prophet and admitted that she had committed adultery and thereafter became pregnant. The Prophet summoned her husband and all people of Median (in Saudi Arabia). He said, ‘This woman committed adultery. Therefore, after she delivers her innocent baby, all of you are going to stone her to death. This is Allah’s verdict.’ After she delivered her baby she was stoned to death in the center of the town. (Narrated by Muslim, (a close contemporary follower of Mohammed), cited by Khoury, The Koran, p. 550)

Stoning women and flogging men for adultery are widely practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Hester on the scaffold in puritan Massachusetts, America of the 17th century, in the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, must have felt happy that she was not born among the “believers” in the Arabian Peninsula.

The Koran is filled with contradictions. While in sura 2, verse 256, it says “There is no compulsion in religion,” it urges Muslims to kill those Muslims who convert to other religions.

Both the Koran and the Hadeeth were collected after the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632. The second Caliph, Othman ordered collecting the Koran and the Hadeeth which had been written no where. They were memorized by Mohammed’s followers. Then Mohammed and his followers were illiterate. He disseminated Islam by the word of mouth. A committee was formed in Mecca and followers of the new faith queued up to deliver what they could remember from the Koran and Hadeeth. This campaign lasted for over 70 years.

Now, that the vast majority of Muslims have not read or digested the Koran has two major implications. First, if rational, modern-thinking Muslims read the Koran thoroughly, they would desert Islam. They would argue, God cannot incite to hatred and violence. The Koran cannot be the “word of God”. Second, if simple-minded Muslims read the Koran and digested it, they would stick to the above “commandments”, and we would have more radical and extremist Muslims around the world.

Certainly, the Torah, the Bible, and other holy books also have their own atrocious passages, especially those discriminatory ones against women, though with one difference: Muslim fundamentalists adhere to the above cited passages – in belief they are commanded directly by Allah - and implement them to the letter. Think of those suicide bombers in the Middle East and elsewhere and of the violent demonstrations against the “Mohammed cartoon” in some Muslim cities. But it is also true that the majority of Muslims simply ignore these passages like many Jews and Christians ignore their own.

Henrik Clausen from EuropeNews asked me if was not afraid of being declared apostate. I said, “No”. I’m fighting for a human and modern Islam. Besides, the truth must be said at all costs. I also told him, it is not my personal opinion that the Koran incites to hatred, violence, and discrimination, etc.as we have seen above, it is our “holy” book that is preaching all this. The cited passages prove that beyond any shred of doubt. I’m just citing what the Koran commands.

Further, the above quotations are intended to help critical people of Islam present tangible evidence for their arguments. It is not enough to say, “I think, I believe, etc.” It is also not enough to say “I’m exerting my right of freedom of speech.”

There is no room for theological interpretations unless you handle the Koran in its own historical perspective. The religious establishment rejects any interpretation anyway. The slightest attempt to do so is rejected and its authors are persecuted as heretics. Think of the Egyptian theologian Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd who is now living in hiding in the Netherlands. Besides, for conservative Muslims and fundamentalists, the Koran, as it is, is valid for all times and for everywhere. It is the “word of God”. He is not fallible and moody like we humans are.

Reformers of Islam, and consider myself one of them, argue that the Koran and the Hadeeth should be looked at in a historical perspective. Muslims 1400 years ago were fighting Christians and Jews. Therefore, they hated them. The Muslims wanted to prevail at all costs, therefore these passages in the Koran. Women were discriminated against because this was natural in the Arab culture at the time, and partly still. Apropos, the situation in Medieval Europe was not better.

In addition, it is one of two things: Either the Koran was concocted by the Muslim leader, Mohammed, or at least partly, or it was made up by his zealous followers after his death. Remember that hundreds or thousands of Muslims at the time contributed to compiling this work. They were promised Paradise for their contributions like suicide bombers are nowadays promised it plus 60 virgin girls.

*Note: The verse numbers may vary from one Koran translation to another.

Homeland Security: Its 530,000 illegal immigrants ranks Az 6th in U.S.

(Compiler's note: Next question is how many are getting benefits from the U.S. Gov't?)

More than half a million illegal immigrants lived in Arizona in January 2007, a recent study by the federal government estimates.

The state's illegal immigrant population reached 530,000 last year, a 62 percent increase from 330,000 in 2000, according to the report released Friday by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

.... California remained the leading state of residence for the illegal population with 2.8 million, followed by Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois.

Although Mexico continues to be the largest source of illegal immigration, immigrants from Brazil, India, Guatemala and Honduras account for the greatest percentage increases during the past seven years, according to the report. ....

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

By STANLEY KURTZ - The Wall Street Journal

Military intelligence: Iran halfway to first nuclear bomb

Iran is halfway to a nuclear bomb, and Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria are using this period of relative calm to significantly rearm, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, the Military Intelligence's head of research, told the cabinet Sunday during a particularly gloomy briefing on the threats facing the country. ....

UN agency: Unsure if Iran hiding nuclear program

Oil price jumps $25 in a day

Crude oil prices jumped $25 a barrel on Monday – the largest one-day rise – as financial investors betting on falling oil prices were forced to cover their positions ahead of the expiry of the current benchmark futures contract.

The jump to an intraday high of $130 a barrel – a rise of about $40 a barrel from last week’s low – was exacerbated by a weakening US dollar and data showing weaker supplies from Mexico, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks and surging imports by China. ....

More than 1,500 Hurricane Ike evacuees remain in Dallas-Fort Worth shelters

States Make Immigration Arrests Under Fed Program

State Patrol trooper Mike Jamison keeps an action figure of "The Thing" on his passenger seat — a nod to the Fantastic Four, which is what Jamison and three colleagues charged with enforcing immigration law on western Colorado's highways call themselves.

His car also has a DVD burner that documents every traffic stop he makes to provide evidence for potential immigration prosecutions — and catch any racial profiling.

"If I'm doing something wrong, and not doing what I'm supposed to be doing, I'm going to get caught," Jamison said on a recent ride-along on Interstate 70, a pipeline for immigrant smuggling from the West to Denver and cities farther east.

Colorado's state patrol is among dozens of police agencies nationwide taking advantage of a federal training program to identify and detain suspected illegal immigrants. Since the program began in 2006, these agencies have made more than 68,000 arrests for immigration-related violations, says Carl Rusnok of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

ICE has trained about 800 officers in 18 states to prepare charging documents and issue immigration detainers. Eighty training requests are pending from police departments, state patrols, sheriff's offices and corrections departments. ....

Communications Upgrades Worked in Gustav, Ike

Progress Report on DHS Plans for Transition

by Phil Leggiere

Gaps in preparation and staffing still need to be addressed.

Though most Americans have grown up taking it for granted, the orderly inaugural transitions between political administrations we’re accustomed to represent quite an extraordinary achievement historically. Insuring them even in the best of times has always been a complex challenge. In an era when terrorist organizations avidly search for targets of optimum opportunity to disrupt civil societies, however, that challenge has become even more daunting.

With the first post 9-11 governmental transition just months away the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia late last week held a hearing examining the current status of transitional planning by DHS and other government agencies in advance of 1-20-09.

Speaking for DHS Elaine C. Duke, undersecretary of homeland security, outlined the agency’s current action plan.

With the first post 9-11 governmental transition just months away the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia late last week held a hearing examining the current status of transitional planning by DHS and other government agencies in advance of 1-20-09.

Speaking for DHS Elaine C. Duke, undersecretary of homeland security, outlined the agency’s current action plan.

“In January 2009, the Federal government will undergo a transition from one Administration to the next,” she said. ‘Historically,” she added, “we know terrorists perceive government transitions to be periods of increased vulnerability. The attacks in Madrid in 2004, in London in 2005, and in Glasgow in 2007 all took place during transitions. The first World Trade Center attack in 1993, as well as the September 11th attacks occurred within the first year of new Administrations. At DHS, we are doing everything necessary to ensure we are prepared for the upcoming Presidential transition and that there will be no gaps in our leadership team, planning efforts, or mission success.”

Duke said that transition efforts began in the Spring of 2007 when DHS began identifying critical positions using what she called a “Critical Position Succession Planning template” to ensure a pipeline of successors to the most critical positions within the organization. As part of this process, Duke said, DHS identified senior career civil servants who will assume responsibility for political positions during the time of transition.

In September 2007, Duke added, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff asked the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) to establish an Administration Transition Task Force to provide recommendations and best practices to the Department. The Task Force made several recommendations and grouped their recommendations into seven categories: Threat Awareness, Leadership, Congressional Oversight/Action, Policy, Operations, Succession and Training.

Finally, Duke said that the agency has organized a cadre of individuals including Senior and Deputy Transition Officers who are charged with evaluating internal processes, developing briefing materials to ensure operational effectiveness during the anticipated surge of incoming and exiting employees, and develop and implement a training exercise plan.

“We now have established a transition plan for our components,” Duke concluded, “ ensuring that the top leadership in each component includes career executives who will preserve continuity of operations before, during and after the administration transition. Of our 22 component agencies and program offices, 14 have career Civil Servants in the number one or number two positions while seven component agencies or program offices have only career civil servants in senior leadership positions.”

Acknowledging the efforts DHS has made so far Frank J. Chellino, Panel Chairman for the Department of Homeland Security Presidential Transition Study, National Academy of Public Administration, called DHS “well along in its transition training especially given that it is a young agency with a critical national mission and going through its first Presidential transition.”

Nonetheless pointed out what he saw as the major gaps in planning thus far. Specifically Chellino noted that the Academy recommends that DHS shift more executives to field locations in immigration and border management agencies and change non-career headquarters deputy officials, FEMA regional administrators and other officials to career executives.

Chellino also cited what he described as “gaps in DHS” executive staffing including, high turnover, many vacant positions, and a lack of ethnic and gender diversity. (Compiler's note: Someone please explain to the public just exactly what does "gender diversity" have to do with our national security.)

“DHS' actions are positive,” Chellino concluded, “ but there remain important areas that must be addressed if the department is to be completely prepared. To the greatest extent possible, incoming DHS leadership - including the Secretary and key staff—must be in place on Inauguration Day or shortly thereafter. This requires the support and cooperation of other federal agencies with background check and clearance responsibilities, as well as the Congress given it confirmation role and responsibilities.”

Picking up on Chellino’s points regarding congressional responsibility, John Rollins Specialist in Terrorism and National Security Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division The Congressional Research Service outlined what he believed are crucial areas for Congressional guidance over the next six to twelve months before and immediately after the inaugural.

“When one looks at the possibility of an attack occurring during the presidential transition period, combined with the suspected need for Al Qaeda to prove its continuing viability as an organization,” Rollins explained, “the enemy may see the upcoming transfer of power as too enticing to resist, and may choose to attempt a disruptive strike during this unique time in American politics rather than waiting for more advantageous conditions to attempt an attack.”

To address these concerns Rollins recommended that Congress request the current Administration to provide: the names of agency leaders responsible for making national security related decisions during the presidential transition period; briefings on the possible risks to the presidential transition process; information about the current status of transition planning activities, briefings about the Administration’s efforts to engage and collaborate with prospective new Administration senior security officials; and information about the funds appropriated for the purposes of the current presidential transition and how these monies are being used to support national and homeland security activities.

After January 20 Congressional support to the incoming Administration, Rollins, should include: prioritizing hearings for new Administration nominated political appointees who will have significant national security responsibilities; working with the new Administration to understand its national security priorities and, where applicable, have the changes in policies and programs reflected in the 2009 budget; and passing the FY2009 appropriations bills without undue delay.

“Other activities Congress may wish to consider, during the presidential transition period,” Rollins suggested, include “ providing a sense of the Congress resolution that notes the importance of effective and collaborative activities between the departing Administration and the incoming Administration; holding a special session of Congress soon after the election to ascertain what the outgoing and incoming Administrations have accomplished and will do with respect to transition-related activities; and quickly assigning new and existing Members of Congress to committees focusing on national security issues to allow these individuals to have the opportunity to understand better the issues for which they have oversight.”

Ms. Patricia McGinnis, President and Chief Executive Officer , Council for Excellence in Government, pointed out two additional areas of risk that will, she said, require leadership beyond the scope of DHS.

“First,” she said, “ from my vantage point, the training and exercises to prepare acting career officials and incoming appointees to assume their collaborative homeland security responsibilities across federal agencies do not seem to be as well coordinated as they should be. For the overall transition, each department and agency has named a senior career transition coordinator and the Deputy Director for Management at OMB is bringing them together to facilitate collaboration.”

“Also,” she added, “ the national security professionals training initiative is well underway and is convening leaders from security related agencies to focus on transition. And, the National Exercise Program, led by FEMA conducts scenario based exercises involving those with operational responsibilities from across the federal government (depending on the scenario). Nevertheless, there are many exercises and training programs that are not coordinated and as far as I know there is not a clearinghouse or repository of such activities and resources, to encourage coordination or “not reinventing the wheel” many times over.”

Finally, she warned, “very seldom do federal officials train or exercise with state and local leaders and first responders or private sector leaders. In our view, training and exercising together is the best way to ensure seamless, effective enterprise wide response to a major emergency. As our friends on the front lines at the local level often say, “you don’t want to be exchanging business cards during an emergency”. This is work to be done, related both to the transition period and our ongoing security.”

Beyond this McGinnis emphasized that addressing the potentially lengthy gap between the inauguration of the next president and the confirmation of key appointed leaders in key national and homeland security positions, is also crucial. “The Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, State and a few others, if not the whole cabinet, should be confirmed on Inauguration Day,” she said. “Then, they should not be “home alone”, with few if any confirmed deputies, undersecretaries and other critical appointees on board. The Executive Branch is working to expedite the security clearance process and according to the initial plan submitted to the President on April 30, 2008 by the Joint Security and suitability Reform Team, the time for security clearance determinations is down, on average, from 162 days in 2005 to 112 days currently. The goal is to reduce the time to 60 days, after reforms have been implemented and the investigative capacity is expanded.”

Previous administrative transitions have all had their challenges. In the past, however, incoming administrations and the federal bureaucracy more widely had some margin of error in their time frame for getting up to speed. With the stakes now higher than ever all participants in the transitional process now truly do need to be “ready on day one”. Insuring that this is so will require each critical agency and each manager within them to get out of their comfort zone in terms of cross-agency collaboration.

The Need to Contain Iran & Hezbollah Before it is Too Late

By Elias Bejjani

When it comes to Iran and Hezbollah, is the free world going to repeat the same “wait and see” cowardice scenario they applied with the Hitler-Nazi phenomenon?

Read This Only if you Want to Know the Truth About the Collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Jihad and the Growing Surrender of American Counterterrorism

(Compiler's note: Absolutely a must read article)

By Jeffrey Imm

In the "stealth Jihad" war of ideas over the past year, one American institution after another has signaled its willingness to surrender to the advocates of Islamic supremacism – our homeland security, our military, and our law enforcement. Islamic supremacist groups have "guided" such American government organizations to create a "terror lexicon" that excludes "Jihad," to promote "progress" over "liberty," to blackball those who would confront the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacists, to "train" our law enforcement, and to openly promote engagement with Islamic supremacist organizations as part of counterterrorism tactics.

Six months ago, the growing surrender in the war of ideas by America's counterterrorism community was seen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) memorandum endorsing the DHS "terror lexicon" prohibiting the use of the terms such as "Jihad," "Islamist," and "mujahedeen." This milestone was part of a trend that has been growing for nearly two years. Since the November 2006 mid-term elections resulting in a Democrat Congressional majority, a growing number in counterterrorist organizations have been moving towards promoting analysts that support negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Islamic supremacists. The belief among some is that, should the Democrat Party win the presidency, a new Democrat administration would seek such "engagement" policies. As the presidential campaign has heated up, this emphasis has accelerated in some counterterrorist organizations, which fear ending up on the outside looking in.

However, over the past seven years, a vacuum of strategic war planning on Islamic supremacism by the U.S. military, intelligence, and executive branch (seen in today's "war on extremism") has made America increasingly dependent on what little strategic thinking that has been available from the counterterrorism community. The growing surrender of counterterrorism groups to the policies of appeasement and "engagement," legitimizing Islamic supremacists, undermines one of the last remaining "strategic voices" on Jihad. Increasingly, the numbers are shrinking in counterterrorism communities who seek confrontation against Jihadists and Islamic supremacists; some voices are being marginalized and silenced. This growing surrender will require average American citizens to increase their activism in demanding that their government representatives confront Jihad and Islamic supremacism.

September 23rd will mark yet another milestone in the growing surrender of America's counterterrorism organizations, as Capitol Hill will be used to promote the ideas of those who think America should "engage" with Islamic supremacist groups.

Using Capitol Hill to Promote Appeasement of Jihad and Islamic Supremacism

One day after the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Counterterrorism Blog announced a panel discussion to be held at 10 AM on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at a U.S. Capitol building facility in Washington, D.C. (2255 Rayburn House Office Building). This discussion will provide a platform for Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank to promote their views that by engaging with Islamic supremacists and Jihadists, the West can dissuade them from pursuing al Qaeda-style terrorism.

Peter Bergen is associated with the New America Foundation and Paul Cruickshank is a contributing expert for the Counterterrorism Blog; both are also research fellows with the New York University's Center on Law and Security.

The September 23rd meeting entitled "The Jihadists' Revolt Against Al Qaeda" is being co-sponsored by the Counterterrorism Blog and by the New America Foundation (described by Washington Post writer David Ignatius in February as "a liberal think tank.") The meeting is to discuss Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank's New Republic (TNR) June 2008 article "The Unraveling," where they ostensibly argue that there is a "jihadist revolt against Bin Laden." This is the basis for their argument that engagement with Islamic supremacists and anti-al Qaeda Jihadists will make "America safer," and that in a war of ideas with Islamic supremacists, "it is their ideas, not the West's, that matter."

Per my July 16th response to their New Republic article, Bergen and Cruickshank use the example of Sayyid Imam Al Sharif's (aka "Dr. Fadl") rejection of al Qaeda as justification for such a policy. What they don't report is the rest of the story on Al-Sharif. In fact, Al-Sharif continues to support Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq, where American soldiers are in harm's way, and Al-Sharif continues to support Jihad against Israel. Bergen and Cruickshank also don't report Al-Sharif's continued support for Islamic supremacism and the Taliban, where he states: "Jihad in Afghanistan will lead to the creation of an Islamic state with the triumph of the Taliban, God willing." Al-Sharif's support of Jihad is for the same Taliban that supported Bin Laden's 9/11 Jihad training camps, the same Taliban killing American soldiers today, and the same Taliban that seeks a global Islamic caliphate. Al-Sharif is the type of Jihadist that Bergen and Cruickshank think will make "America safer."

Such dangerously misleading information about the Jihad-supporting Al-Sharif has found its way into American government initiatives as well. On July 31st, the Washington Times published an article (ironically titled "War of Ideas") where it interviewed James K. Glassman, the new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Mr. Glassman was proud of his efforts within the government to promote Jihad-supporting Al-Sharif as an example of programs to "push back against violent extremist ideology." In the July 2008 issue of the West Point Combating Terrorism Center Sentinel, counterterrorist Michael Jacobson also cited Al-Sharif to our fighting men and women as an individual who had written a book "rejecting al-Qa'ida's message and tactics." But while describing Al-Sharif's concerns about not wanting to harm "innocent people," Mr. Jacobson fails to mention in his West Point article that Al-Sharif calls for Jihad against our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In their New Republic article, Bergen and Cruickshank also claim that the Muslim Brotherhood (whose motto is "Jihad is our way") is recruiting "moderates" at the British Finsbury mosque, based on reports of a power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood's Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and Abu Hamza's former followers, according to "Kamal El Helbawy, spokesman for the new trustees at the mosque." Bergen and Cruickshank ignore reports of the MAB's links to the terrorist group Hamas. They don't mention reports of Hizb ut-Tahrir leaflets near the MAB-run mosque. They don't mention reports of Somali Islamic supremacists meeting sympathizers at the MAB-run mosque. But most revealing is their blanket acceptance that the Muslim Brotherhood would be recruiting "moderates." This comes back to a history of Bergen and Cruickshank's accommodation and praise for the Muslim Brotherhood members, especially their contact Kamal el Helbawy – reportedly "the main Brotherhood man in Britain and Europe."

Two years ago, Bergen and Cruickshank were key members of an October 2006 New York University Center on Law and Security "Open Forum on the Muslim Brotherhood." One member of the forum that wasn't allowed into the United States was the Muslim Brotherhood's Kamal el Helbawy. (This is the same Kamal el Helbawy who advised Bergen and Cruickshank about the Finsbury mosque in their 2008 New Republic article.) Newsweek reported that Paul Cruickshank organized the October 2006 forum for this Muslim Brotherhood leader to speak in America. When Newsweek asked Mr. Cruickshank about why Kama el Helbawy wasn't allowed in the United States, Cruickshank was baffled, stating that "[h]e's a really respected guy... [h]e's very influential within the Muslim community in Britain and his name is recognized throughout the world." Helbawy told Newsweek that he had denounced terrorism "thousands of times."

But Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) leader Steven Emerson provided a different perspective of Bergen and Cruickshank's Muslim Brotherhood contact Kamal el Helbawy. In October 2006, Steven Emerson wrote for the Counterterrorism Blog about his own experience seeing Helbawy supporting Hamas, supporting an Intifada against Israel, and verbally attacking Christians and Jews. Steven Emerson also pointed to Helbawy speaking at a conference that included "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdul-Rahman, who is in prison for the 1993 World Trade Center attack. In retrospect, given Bergen and Cruickshank's call for engagement with individuals that would support Jihad in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel, their October 2006 defense of the Muslim Brotherhood's Helbawy is now hardly surprising.

Notably, two years after Paul Cruickshank's organization of this NYU conference for this Muslim Brotherhood pro-Jihadist who was forbidden from entering the country, Paul Cruickshank is now a contributing expert for the Counterterrorism Blog. Paul Cruickshank will be speaking at the September 23rd Counterterrorism Blog-sponsored event on Capitol Hill to promote appeasement towards Islamic supremacists as a counterterrorism tactic.

The New America Foundation, who is a co-sponsor of the September 23rd Capitol Hill panel on "The Jihadists' Revolt Against Al Qaeda," has also held their own conferences on Jihad. In February 2008, the New America Foundation sponsored a conference with non-interventionist Marc Sageman, author of "Leaderless Jihad," who is popular for his theory that Jihadists groups are merely "social movements" that kill simply for the "thrill." Sageman claims that we should not "make too much" out of Islamic supremacist ideologies. Sageman told the New America Foundation conference regarding Jihad that "it's more about hero worship than about religion." (See my March 17, 2008 article for more on Sageman and non-interventionists.)

Another notable New America Foundation conference addressing Jihad was held three years ago in Washington D.C. On September 5-6, 2005, the New America Foundation and the Democracy Coalition Project sponsored the "National Policy Forum on Terrorism, Security and America's Purpose."

In this New America Foundation conference's working papers (page 11), Peter Bergen advises that a key aspect in fighting terrorism is to:
"Engage Islamist parties: The long-term solution to the problem of Muslim terrorist groups is a more democratic Middle East of their creation, not ours, where there is real political space for Islamist parties. Islamists and Muslim fundamentalists are not our enemies and can even be our friends. A more democratic Middle East will initially see the strong emergence of Islamist parties because they are generally more organized and have more legitimacy than other groups."

This concept that "Islamists... are not our enemies and can even be our friends" goes to the root of the problem with those in the counterterrorism community who would appease Islamic supremacists. They view political "Islamism," not as the supremacist, anti-equality ideology that it is, but as just another flavor of democratic political thought, like libertarianism. From this point of denial, it is a short walk to thinking that Jihadists aren't our enemy either, just those Jihadists that support al Qaeda.

This slippery slope of denial on the threat of Islamic supremacism and Jihad takes us to increasing recommendations of "engagement" and "counter-radicalization" that represents the growing surrender to Islamic supremacism within the counterterrorism community today.


Accepting "Jihad is Our Way" in Counterterrorism Strategies

In addition to the Bergen/Cruickshank calls for engagement with Islamic supremacists, the June 2008 West Point Combating Terrorism Center's Sentinel published an article by Peter Mandaville titled "Engaging Islamists in the West" (page 5). In this West Point article, Peter Mandaville argues that Islamists should be a "component of counter-terrorism solutions," and calls for the American engagement with Islamists in counterterrorism efforts from among "groups affiliated with the broad and diverse Muslim Brotherhood movement." How "broad and diverse" is a movement whose motto is "Jihad is our way"? And how could any groups whose defined goals are Jihad be part of any counterterrorism strategy?

Yet who can be surprised at such reactions from some in the counterterrorism community, when presidential candidate Barack Obama views as a key foreign policy position that "what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits… [a]nd that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it," when America does not yet have either a defined enemy or a strategy in dealing with Islamic supremacism?

An additional influence on American counterterror analysts comes from those in the United Kingdom and Europe who have already lost the war of ideas against Islamic supremacism, and have adopted a "leave me alone" policy of "counter-radicalization." Not unlike the Bergen/Cruickshank recommendations, those who promote "counter-radicalization," like the British Home Office's RICU, seek to focus their energies on Al-Qaeda and "criminals," while tolerating those who call for Jihad in other countries. As described in my August 31, 2008 article, advocates of "counter-radicalization" argue that the West should "engage" with Islamists, "political salafists," the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups, as a way to prevent Jihadist violence (that is - in their country only). Not surprisingly, this is a popular policy in the United Kingdom, which has sought to influence American counterterror analysts to adopt such a policy of surrender in the war of ideas against Islamic supremacism here in the United States as well.

Counterterrorism analyst Matthew Levitt states that "political salafists have credibility when it comes to deradicalizing others." Mr. Levitt praises the British approach, stating that the "British realize they may have significant differences with 'political salafists' who think 'resistance' in Palestine or Iraq is legitimate, but are thinking about ways that they can at least leverage them and their positions in an effort to de-radicalize the most severe extremists (taqfiris) randomly targeting civilians today." In short, this perspective believes that it is acceptable to work with those who support Jihad in other countries and to legitimize an ideology of Islamic supremacism, if it can temporarily prevent violence in your country. It is exactly this type of surrender to Islamic supremacism that led to the United Kingdom becoming a haven for Jihadists for decades and led to their present Jihad terror problem today. Another counterterrorism analyst Lorenzo Vidino praised Mr. Levitt's article regarding "political Salafists/non-violent Islamists," and further states that Europeans have no choice but to accept "some form of cooperation with political Salafists/non-violent Islamists." According to Mr. Vidino, what is important is to understand the "difference between engaging and empowering." Mr. Vidino thinks Europeans "get" this, but the truth is that giving legitimacy to an Islamic supremacist group by engaging them... is empowering them.

Paul Cruickshank, Michael Jacobson, Matthew Levitt, and Lorenzo Vidino are all contributing editors on the Counterterrorism Blog that is sponsoring the September 23rd panel featuring Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank's "Jihadists' Revolt Against Al Qaeda."

The counterterrorism movements supporting "engagement" with Islamic supremacism and the growing "counter-radicalization" policy influence from European "allies" (who have already surrendered to Islamic supremacism) shows how terribly misguided much of America's counterterrorism community has become today.

It would be comforting to know that there will be those who will successfully counter Bergen's and Cruickshank's arguments on the September 23rd Capitol Hill panel. However, another one of the panelists has told members of the counterterrorism community that "I won't hesitate in saying that I believe we must initiate some kind of dialogue with the [Muslim] [B]rotherhood, even if we don't support their overall agenda." Worst of all, such thinking is becoming increasingly common among some counterterror analysts. This summary of the challenges in the counterterrorism community is sadly only the tip of the iceberg.

The very idea that we should reject "dialogue" with Islamic supremacists for the simple reason that every "engagement" with them, effectively legitimizes their efforts in the eyes of many - is completely lost. Without a defined enemy and a strategy, counterterror analysts and "experts" on Islam have a continuing free-for-all debate on what America should do about Jihad. As shown in the previous paragraphs, this strategic vacuum has allowed Islamic supremacist groups and their advocates to influence a growing number of counterterrorism analysts. This has resulted in calls to embrace Islamic supremacists, Jihadists, and to merely fight a "war on extremists." This has effectively resulted in many American counterterror analysts' surrender in the war of ideas.

Which Side Will You Be On?

There any many ways to sugar-coat "surrender" in the war of ideas against Islamic supremacism. Legitimizing Islamic supremacist groups through "engagement" with them is and will be viewed worldwide as nothing less than such surrender. Tolerating those who are against al Qaeda, but who continue to promote Jihad against Americans and others – is also nothing less than surrender.

In the war of ideas, tacticians within some counterterrorism organizations such as Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank seek to promote nothing less than surrender to Islamic supremacist ideologues. They will call it something else, such as a "dialogue," a "truce" perhaps, or maybe "an understanding" (like the British "gentlemen's agreement" with Islamic supremacists for decades). They may state that tolerating Islamic supremacists is merely "respecting cultural diversity," or they may claim that it is part of a policy of "counter-radicalization." But their overall viewpoint on Islamic supremacism is clearly communicated in Bergen's and Cruickshank's statement: "If this is a war of ideas, it is their ideas, not the West's, that matter."

And that is surrender in the war of ideas.

In this war of ideas on Jihad and Islamic supremacism, there remain two major ideological groups.

-- The "Leave Me Alone" Group: There is the group led by a growing number of career counterterror analysts who seek to appease and engage with Islamic supremacists, in the misguided belief that by seeking to convince such supremacists not to pursue violent terrorism for a while, this will reduce the threat of Jihad. They also believe that by "regionalizing" the discussion of Jihad that they can tolerate those who support so-called "defensive Jihad" (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, etc.) if they are against Al-Qaeda.

-- The Anti-Jihad Group: The other group is the Anti-Jihad community that realizes any legitimacy given to Islamic supremacist organizations will only increase their stature, membership, and growing threat, and that regardless of Islamic supremacist organizations' momentary tactics, the ideology of Islamic supremacism remains the root cause of Jihad. They realize that any tactic that ends up giving legitimacy to Islamic supremacists will ultimately increase the threat of Jihad. This group also realizes that the ideas of "regionalizing" Jihad and accepting so-called "defensive Jihad" are misguided, as Jihad and Islamic supremacism remain transnational threats to all people and their hopes for equality and liberty.

Which side will you be on?

Not taking a side, not making a decision, is a decision as well. Those who don't make a decision will ultimately have someone else make it for them. With the growing surrender in our homeland security, in our military, in our law enforcement, and now, finally in our counterterrorism communities, remember that not making a decision may very well be equivalent to accepting surrender to Islamic supremacism.

The decisions we make now regarding the threat of Islamic supremacism (including not making decisions) will affect the lives, dreams, and hopes of Americans, of women, of children, and of countless others around the world. It is easier to do nothing, to say nothing. But it is right? Is it moral? Is it the American thing to do?

In the past year, the surrender in the war of ideas by increasing numbers of government officials and government organizations has been a great accomplishment for Islamic supremacists. Every time Americans don't stand up and speak out against those who offer terms of surrender, Islamic supremacists gain another victory in the war of ideas and their confidence and determination grows. Islamic supremacists view a tired and complacent America as a defeated America.

Are you ready to surrender to Islamic supremacists?

The silence of many of the 300 million American people has convinced a number of career counterterror analysts that you already have surrendered.

Prove them wrong.

Fear No Evil.

[Postscript - see also Sources documents for additional reading and background information.]

Think about this! It could happen!!!

Much is made of McCain's age.

Has anyone brought up the fact that Obama smokes and both of his parents died at an early age. Plus Biden has had two brain aneurysms which could have killed him.

If they both died while in office; that would leave Nancy Pelosi as president.

Spies Warn That Al Qaeda Aims for October Surprise

By ELI LAKE,

WASHINGTON — In the aftermath of two major terrorist attacks on Western targets, America's counterterrorism community is warning that Al Qaeda may launch more overseas operations to influence the presidential elections in November.

Call it Osama bin Laden's "October surprise." In late August, during the weekend between the Democratic and Republican conventions, America's military and intelligence agencies intercepted a series of messages from Al Qaeda's leadership to intermediate members of the organization asking local cells to be prepared for imminent instructions.

An official familiar with the new intelligence said the message was picked up in multiple settings, from couriers to encrypted electronic communications to other means. "These are generic orders," the source said — a distinction from the more specific intelligence about the location, time, and method of an attack. "It was, 'Be on notice. We may call upon you soon.' It was sent out on many channels."

Also, Yemen's national English-language newspaper is reporting that a spokesman for Yemen's Islamic Jihad, the Qaeda affiliate that claimed credit for last week's American embassy bombing in Sa'naa, is now publicly threatening to attack foreigners and high government officials if American and British diplomats do not leave the country.

Mr. bin Laden has sought to influence democratic elections in the past. On March 11, 2004, Al Qaeda carried out a series of bombings on Madrid commuter trains. Three days later, the opposition and anti-Iraq war Socialist Workers Party was voted into power.

In the week before the 2004 American presidential election, Mr. bin Laden recorded a video message to the American people promising repercussions if President Bush were re-elected. In later messages, Al Qaeda's leader claimed credit for helping elect Mr. Bush in 2004. Last year in Pakistan, Qaeda assassins claimed the life of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister who returned to her native country in a bid for re-election.

"There is an expectation that Al Qaeda will try to influence the November elections by attempting attacks globally," a former Bush and Clinton White House counterterrorism official, Roger Cressey, said yesterday.

Mr. Cressey said Al Qaeda lacks the capability to pull off an attack in the continental United States, however. "It would likely be a higher Al Qaeda tempo of attacks against U.S. and allied targets abroad," he said.

At a talk at the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs on August 12, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats said he expected to see more threat reporting on Al Qaeda as America approaches the November elections.

The terrorist attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on Saturday was a particular blow to the allied effort against Al Qaeda. The hotel's lobby in recent years served as a meeting place for the CIA and Pakistanis who would not risk being seen at the American Embassy. The bombing, which targeted one of the most heavily fortified locations in Pakistan's capital, will likely claim close to 100 lives after the dead are pulled from the rubble.

President Zardari, who had just given his first major address as Pakistan's head of state, on fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, was the target of Saturday's attack, the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, said.

"He was expected to attend the iftar dinner at the Marriott," Mr. Gartenstein-Ross said "Think of the symbolic value if they were able to kill Zardari after his first address as president of Pakistan in a speech announcing his fight against the terrorists. The symbolic effect of the attack on the same day would be devastating."

An adviser to Senator McCain and a former director of central intelligence under President Clinton, James Woolsey, said Al Qaeda has a "history of doing three things at least related to elections. One is to attack before elections, such as in 2004 in Spain, and of course the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. They also have a history of attacks when new leaders take over, like Gordon Brown in Britain and the new leader in Pakistan, with the attack over the weekend. Also Al Qaeda sends messages to populations in elections. You really don't know which one of these they are going to implement."

Earlier this summer, another McCain campaign official mused in an interview that an attack could benefit his candidate in the polls. But whether that statement is true is unclear: At the Republican National Convention this month, Mr. McCain praised the president's counterterrorism policies for preventing an attack in America since September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has deliberately refrained from pointing to this success in light of the many plots that the president has said have been aborted on American soil since September 11.

The deputy communications director for the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfarb, said: "There is no doubt that Al Qaeda is still dangerous and still desires to strike at America and our allies. But Americans will not be intimidated and their votes will not be swayed by terror."

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, Wendy Morigi, said, "Last week's attacks demonstrate the grave and urgent threat that Al Qaeda and its affiliates pose to the United States and the security of all nations. As Senator Obama has said for some time, we must refocus our efforts on defeating Al Qaeda around the world."

A Disability Epidemic Among a Railroad’s Retirees

.... Virtually every career employee — as many as 97 percent in one recent year — applies for and gets disability payments soon after retirement, a computer analysis of federal records by The New York Times has found. Since 2000, those records show, about a quarter of a billion dollars in federal disability money has gone to former L.I.R.R. employees, including about 2,000 who retired during that time. ....

Foreign banks may get help

In a change from the original proposal sent to Capitol Hill, foreign-based banks with big U.S. operations could qualify for the Treasury Department’s mortgage bailout, according to the fine print of an administration statement Saturday night.

The theory, according to a participant in the negotiations, is that if the goal is to solve a liquidity crisis, it makes no sense to exclude banks that do a lot of lending in the United States.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson confirmed the change on ABC's "This Week," telling George Stephanopoulos that coverage of foreign-based banks is "a distinction without a difference to the American people."

"If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said.

"That's a distinction without a difference to the American people. The key here is protecting the system. ... We have a global financial system, and we are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things, and I believe a number of them will. But, remember, this is about protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers. and the American people don't care who owns the financial institution. If the financial institution in this country has problems, it'll have the same impact whether it's the U.S. or foreign." ....

Click here for additional information

EXECS CRASH & EARN

Top executives at Lehman Brothers' New York office, who were at the helm during history's largest corporate bankruptcy, have been guaranteed the lion's share of a $2.5 billion bonus pot.

Lehman had "walled off" the fund, telling buyer Barclays Capital that it couldn't use the money for anything but severance payments or bonuses.

In bankruptcy court, British-based Barclays said it will use the cash to retain Lehman's most valued employees - particularly eight key directors.

Those "elite eight" also have been guaranteed $10 million to $25 million salaries for two years.

The most wanted include longtime execs Michael Gelband, the bank's global head of Capital Markets since June, and Eric Felder and Hyung Soon Lee, global co-heads of Fixed Income, positions both men were promoted to this month, the Sunday Times of London reported.

Gelband lives in tony Short Hills, NJ. Felder lives in a plush West Village pad and owns two Ferraris and a Land Rover, Department of Motor Vehicles records show.

The platinum payout will go to executives who rode the collapse of the nation's fourth-largest investment bank. In the past year, the company's stock price dropped from $68 a share to as low as 21 cents, and since June 2007, the bank has laid off 6,000 workers.

A Lehman spokeswoman denied that all the bonus cash would go to a few execs. ....

Before the Gunfire, Cyberattacks

Weeks before bombs started falling on Georgia, a security researcher in suburban Massachusetts was watching an attack against the country in cyberspace.

Jose Nazario of Arbor Networks in Lexington noticed a stream of data directed at Georgian government sites containing the message: “win+love+in+Rusia.”

Other Internet experts in the United States said the attacks against Georgia’s Internet infrastructure began as early as July 20, with coordinated barrages of millions of requests — known as distributed denial of service, or D.D.O.S., attacks — that overloaded and effectively shut down Georgian servers.

Researchers at Shadowserver, a volunteer group that tracks malicious network activity, reported that the Web site of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, had been rendered inoperable for 24 hours by multiple D.D.O.S. attacks. They said the command and control server that directed the attack was based in the United States and had come online several weeks before it began the assault.

As it turns out, the July attack may have been a dress rehearsal for an all-out cyberwar once the shooting started between Georgia and Russia. According to Internet technical experts, it was the first time a known cyberattack had coincided with a shooting war. ....

Diseases pose big danger to biosecurity

FORGET letters laced with anthrax spores and subway gas attacks: the most serious biosecurity threat to Australia comes from economically devastating diseases such as foot and mouth disease and Nipah virus, as well as complacency about diseases such as bird flu. ....

Implications of the Financial Crisis

by Sam Rosenfeld

The financial crisis continues to spread, within the past two weeks, we have seen the fall of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG in the US alone. (In the United Kingdom HBOS has fallen, with others on rocky ground, and in Australia Macquarie Bank is likewise at risk.)

These are fiscal events, and many in the security and law enforcement arenas (for the two are different, despite the perceptions of many that expertise in one translates to expertise in the other) are thinking about their own personal finances, but not about the implications for their operations.

A series of events now have higher likelihoods, while others remain remote at this time. The two events I am most concerned about are a disgruntled, laid off worker “going postal”, and large protests turning violent. Both incidents have critical implications for the company and community where they take place. I visited a major software company recently and was appalled at the lack of understanding, and the lack of co-operation with their local law enforcement about the common processes and procedures necessary for dealing with such a threat.

Companies must be paying very close attention to their security in times of unrest. There is a duty to care for all, even those being laid off, and measures must be put in place to protect the employees. As horrible as it sounds, an enforced no weapons policy now may prevent a much more negative public event later.

There are precedents globally for financial turmoil leading to public order events; one of the most immediately relevant is the poll tax riots (31 Mar 1990) in the United Kingdom. It was not the disenfranchised, the ‘weird and marginalised’ who were on the streets in protest, but the working and middle classes who were financially threatened and feared that their voices were not being heard. What started as a demonstration became a riot largely because the violence was instigated by Class War (an Anarchist group) and some members of Militant (extreme left wingers, originally part of the Labour Party). The policing response was harsh, broad and indiscriminate, and managed to turn a peaceful protest with small violent groups into widespread violence. The policing response very much resembled what was seen in St. Paul and Denver during the conventions, and there are serious lessons that must be learned for the future.

Given the state of the markets today and concern about 401ks and future livelihoods, such events are no longer inconceivable. Although such events are probably some time off, and will be rare, a police department’s inability to deal with an event in a manner that respects the members of the population, while effectively policing them, will have terrible consequences. To be frank, the inappropriate uses of force and mass arrests that were common in St. Paul against “fringe elements,” will not be so easily dismissed when it is members of the middle class. Police departments would be well advised to revise their public order plans and capabilities now.

The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network

The Muslim Students Association maintains hundreds of chapters across the country. Claiming to be just another religious or cultural organization protected by the university’s commitment to multiculturalism and “diversity,” the MSA is in reality part of a network established decades ago by the Muslim Brotherhood (godfather organization to Hamas and al Qaeda) to undermine America from within.

The Terrorism Awareness Project has released a video regarding the activities and behaviors of the Muslim Students Association, including information about the inflammatory anti American and anti Semitic speakers, often subsidized by student government funds, who are hosted by the Muslim Students Association chapters. This fall students on more than 100 campuses will hold events under the banner of "Stop the Jihad on Campus" designed to make the university community aware of the support provided for the jihadists' agendas.