Intelligence

January 30, 2006

MI5 fails to throw light on bombers after six months of investigations

News - Yorkshire Post Today: News, Sport, Jobs, Property, Cars, Entertainments & More

Maggie Stratton
BRITAIN'S intelligence services know alarmingly little about the worst terrorist attack on Britain despite more than six months of investigations, it emerged yesterday.
A leaked secret report for Tony Blair and senior Ministers into the July 7 London bombings states: "We know little about what three of the bombers did in Pakistan, when attack planning began, how and when the attackers were recruited, the extent of any external direction or assistance and the extent and role of any wider network."
The eight-page report by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), a Sunday newspaper reported, admits MI5 still does not know whether the attacks of July 7 and July 21 were linked and whether al-Qaida was behind them.

It has already been reported that spies knew the suspected leader of the July 7 bombings Mohammed Sidique Khan, from Dewsbury, was planning to fight for al-Qaida more than a year before the attacks.
MI5 had originally believed Khan and the three other July 7 suicide bombers – Shehzad Tanweer, from Beeston, Leeds, Hasib Hussain, 18, from Beeston and Jermaine Lindsay, who grew up in Huddersfield – acted alone, but they now think a wider network may have been involved.
And, the report leaked to The Sunday Times reveals, the intelligence services have found "growing evidence of a wider extremist network in West Yorkshire associated with the 7/7 bombers."
It adds: "We still do not know whether we are dealing with an orchestrated campaign or coincidental/ copycat attacks.
"We do not know how, when and with whom the attack planning originated. And we still do not know what degree of external assistance either group had.
"Whilst investigations are progressing, there remain significant gaps in our knowledge."
The report speaks of no insight into the degree of input from al-Qaida, how long the July 7 attacks had been planned, or how the suspects operated.
Tories are calling for an independent inquiry into what the intelligence services knew before the attacks.
And Shadow Homeland Affairs Minister Patrick Mercer said yesterday he was "extremely concerned" about "complacency within the Government" over the terrorist threat to Britain.
He added: "At the moment people think 'We have had our attack and we have got away with it. Fifty-two killed is too many, but it isn't the two or three thousand lost in New York or the 200 in Madrid'. And therefore the tendency for all of these (security) policies to be put on the backburner."
Among the findings presented in the report are that a network of "Iraqi jihadis" is attempting to bring a terrorist campaign to Britain and a group of al-Qaida facilitators in the West Midlands are being investigated.
MI5 believes the main West Midlands suspect directed a second man, an Iraqi, who arranged a trip to a Pakistan training camp for the leader of a separate British terrorist cell.
The camp, which the cell leader visited over three months in early 2005, may have been the same one where former teaching assistant Mohammad Sidique Khan was trained. The report "speculates" both men may have been trained by al-Qaida at the same time.

January 30, 2006 at 10:10 PM in MI5 | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

January 28, 2006

Hamas prepares for office

Hamas prepares for office | Economist.com

an 27th 2006
From The Economist Global Agenda
The Islamist group Hamas won a victory beyond its dreams in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 out of the 132 seats and sweeping aside the former ruling party, Fatah. Minds now turn to the question of who forms the new government, and how the rest of the world deals with it

A CURIOUS little scene is being repeated on street corners and in cafés all over the West Bank and Gaza. Two friends come together, exchange the traditional greetings—“issalaam aleikum”, “w’aleikum issalaam”—and crack up with laughter. For secular Palestinians, who normally hail one another with a casual “marhaba”, the Islamic salutation is piece of wry black humour in the face of an election result that has left the nation in shock.

Barring a couple of fistfights, Wednesday, January 25th was a model of enthusiastic and civilised voting. Turnout was 75%, a sign of how eager Palestinians were to make changes to the corrupt, hidebound, Fatah-run parliament that they had endured since the last election ten years ago. Five polling firms predicted a Fatah victory by anything from 2% to 11% in the days leading up to the election. Two exit polls gave similar results. But all fell flat on their faces. The Islamist Hamas movement not only won most of the local-constituency seats in the Palestinian dual voting system—as expected, since it was more careful than Fatah in selecting candidates. It also, in defiance of all the polls, won six more of the national seats than Fatah. The final result: Hamas 76 seats, Fatah 43, out of the 132-seat total.

That, though, was a vote as much against Fatah as for Hamas. Polls suggest (though who trusts polls any more?) that Hamas’s core support hovers somewhere around a quarter to a third of the population. A majority of Palestinians disagree with two of Hamas’s ideological tenets: the non-recognition of Israel and the imposition of Islamic sharia law. Even though a high percentage believe that “armed resistance” by militants from Hamas and other factions drove Israel to dismantle its settlements in the Gaza strip last summer, almost as many still believe in a two-state solution to the conflict. Hamas adjusted its campaign platform to fit. It made no mention of destroying Israel, as outlined in the movement’s charter, but concentrated on domestic issues: the disunity and corruption within Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the poor state of the economy and public services.
Click here to find out more!

But the size of its victory is greater than even Hamas dreamed—and probably greater than it wanted. Ideally, it would have won a healthy share of the legislature and demanded a few domestic ministerial portfolios. That would have allowed it to showcase its reputation for honesty and efficiency, while leaving the difficult and controversial jobs that entail dealing with Israel and the rest of the world to Fatah to mess up further. Now Hamas is calling for a national-unity government. The snag is that Fatah officials have refused to take part.

That puts Hamas in a tricky spot. Bad enough that it would have to deal all alone with the mess that Fatah has left: the PA’s acute fiscal crisis; the unwieldy bureaucracy; ill-disciplined security services; severe unemployment; corruption. Worse, the PA risks being excluded from contact with Israel, the United States and the European Union, all of which define Hamas as a terrorist group. And for the same reason, the Palestinians would stand to lose a lot of foreign aid money—though not all, as a lot of it does not go directly to the PA itself.

Yet Hamas’s dilemma is shared by the rest of the world. So precarious are the PA’s finances that it expects to fall short on salary payments within days. Deprived of its traditional donors the PA will either collapse, taking with it any chance of peace talks with Israel, or have to look elsewhere for money. Donors might deliberate whether to grit their teeth and give money to a PA run by a “terrorist organisation”, rather than see it become dependent on funds from the likes of Iran.

Everything depends on what the next few days will bring. Hamas has asked Salam Fayyad, the respected former finance minister who ran on his own ticket for parliament, to take over as prime minister. He reportedly said that he would do so only if Hamas disarms and recognises Israel—which it, for the moment, refuses to do. Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president and a Fatah man, who was elected separately last year and appoints the cabinet, will meet Hamas leaders in Gaza at the end of January. He has asked Hamas to form a government, but they might yet reach a bargain whereby some Fatah people take on key ministries, like foreign affairs, interior (responsible for the security services), and civil affairs (relations with Israel).
Naked, self-serving

Fatah’s desire to dump all the PA’s problems on Hamas is so nakedly self-serving that it could backfire with the public. And not everyone in Fatah may share it. Marwan Barghouti, the most popular of Fatah’s younger generation of leaders, spoke out before the election in favour of a coalition. Indeed, in some ways the situation is a gift to Mr Abbas, who had previously failed to squeeze unpopular older Fatah leaders out of the government.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is watching and waiting. In a statement the “Quartet”—the UN, the EU, the United States and Russia—said there is a “fundamental contradiction between armed group and militia activities and the building of a democratic state”. Individual European leaders uttered similar phrases. George Bush reiterated that the United States will not deal with Hamas unless it dismantles its militias and recognises Israel. But he would not be drawn on precisely how Hamas’s participation in the cabinet would affect things, noting that Mr Abbas remains president. And more interestingly, he took pains to note that he welcomed the democratic process, the “competition of ideas”, and the message that the Palestinians were sending to their leaders.

After the cabinet is formed, foreign donors will start to figure out how much support they can give the PA. At the very least, Hamas will be expected to continue the ceasefire it has more or less kept for the past year. Given the Palestinian desire for calm, that will be in Hamas’s interests too, as long as Israel does not turn more belligerent. Some diplomats hope that Hamas will eventually change, as Irish republicans laid down their weapons in favour of political means after years of armed struggle.

Among Israeli officials, though, that notion gets short shrift. A commoner model is Hizbullah, the Lebanese group which has roles in parliament and government but retains its armed wing—something that, in Hamas’s case, would rule out Israel agreeing to talks with the PA. An even more apocalyptic view is Hamas as the Nazi party in the 1930s, democratically brought to power but gradually adopting ever-more repressive, undemocratic policies.

Facing their own election in two months’ time, Israeli leaders have been striving to outdo one another in hawkishness. Ehud Olmert, the acting prime minister and successor to Ariel Sharon, who remains in a vegetative state in hospital, said: “If a government led by Hamas or in which Hamas is a coalition partner is established…Israel and the world will ignore it and make it irrelevant.” He has hinted that if peace talks fail, he will continue Mr Sharon’s policy of unilateral withdrawal from occupied territory, so that Israel may rid itself of responsibility for the Palestinians while setting whatever borders it sees fit for its own security. Even Amir Peretz, his contender from the left-wing Labour Party, this week hinted at the unilateral option.

But a newspaper poll before the Palestinian election also showed that 48% of Israelis would support peace talks even with a Hamas-led PA. And views among the Israeli security establishment vary too. Earlier in the week, Mr Olmert had asked for two separate sets of proposals on Hamas: one from his more hardline intelligence and defence chiefs, another from the national-security adviser, Giora Eiland, who is said to favour seeking out Hamas’s moderate elements. Everything will turn on how moderate they seem to be over the next few months.

January 28, 2006 at 09:22 AM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

We are all edge cases

I think Scoble is taking this personally!  But this is something he should be proud of, and shrug off.  It reminds me of the "geek' moniker in the 1999 timeframe when at first geeks were to be laughed at, but subsequently to be admired because of heir salary.

Relax Robert!

Scobleizer - Microsoft Geek Blogger » More on edge cases

Really, I sensed a tone of “don’t listen to Scoble cause he’s a weirdo.”

January 28, 2006 at 04:28 AM in | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

January 27, 2006

Threat tracker - visual display

http://www.trackingthethreat.com/flash/nav.jsp

January 27, 2006 at 12:54 PM in Current Terrorism | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Hamas election victory hits `like an earthquake'

TheStar.com - Hamas election victory hits `like an earthquake'

Jan. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM
MITCH POTTER
MIDDLE EAST BUREAU

RAMALLAH, West Bank— Left standing was a president who still wants peace. But behind Mahmoud Abbas, the defeated Palestinian leadership was in shambles last night, vowing it would have nothing to do with a government led by the unexpected triumph of Hamas.

The militant Islamic group, in its first-ever bid for a role in national politics, collected more than 50 per cent of the vote in parliamentary elections Wednesday and will claim a majority 76 seats in the 132-seat Palestinian Legislative Council, according to official, near-complete results released yesterday.

Four victorious independents were also backed by Hamas. Fatah, which has dominated Palestinian political life since the 1960s but alienated voters because of rampant corruption, got 43 seats. The remaining seats went to smaller parties.

The numbers numbed the international community, contradicting all estimates, including earlier exit polls that suggested a narrow victory for Fatah, and ending four decades of virtual one-party rule over the stateless Palestinians.

Yesterday's stunning turnaround triggered immediate fears of clashes, as jubilant Hamas loyalists and their embittered Fatah rivals spilled into the streets. One such confrontation ended in a brawl on the steps of the Palestinian parliament in the de facto West Bank capital of Ramallah, as marching Hamas supporters scaled the walls to drape the green flag of Islam.

As the region's leaders absorbed what amounts to a Palestinian revolution, diplomatic gridlock took hold. Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, facing his own election in the race to succeed a comatose, stroke-stricken Ariel Sharon, ruled out contact with Hamas, warning Palestinians face an era of international isolation unless the group responsible for the majority of suicide bombings against Israel renounces such attacks.

"If a government led by Hamas or in which Hamas is a coalition partner is established, the Palestinian Authority will be turned into an authority that supports terror," Olmert said. "Israel and the world will ignore it and make it irrelevant."

Fatah leaders conceded defeat, with Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and his cabinet submitting their resignations and other party officials calling the outcome more a scathing indictment of government corruption than an endorsement of political Islam.

"It hit us like an earthquake. We wanted a democratic life and it was built on our corpse," said Abdel Fateh Hamayel, a Fatah official associated with the party's young guard.

"I hope that our brothers in Hamas rise to the occasion. Let them now say what they will do. But Fatah must bear full responsibility for what happened. The people have spoken out against a party whose agenda has made room for thugs, robbers and corrupt, dishonest people."

Hamas leaders appeared taken aback by the extent of victory, initially rebuffing media requests for interviews. The movement, which operates under a charter calling for Israel's destruction, had mounted a near-perfect campaign under the banner of Change and Reform, promising to focus singularly on domestic issues while hinting at a new willingness to negotiate with Israel.

Abbas, who will continue to hold the presidency he assumed after winning election one year ago, said in a televised speech he intends to push forward toward peace with Israel, even as consultations begin with Hamas for the formation of a new government.

`We wanted a democratic life and it was built on our corpse,' Fatah backer says
"I am committed to implementing the program on which you elected me," Abbas said. "It is a program based on negotiations and peaceful settlement with Israel."

Hamas leaders issued a series of statements offering an olive branch to their secular Palestinian counterparts and Israelis alike. The movement's overall leader Khaled Mashal called Abbas from exile in Damascus, announcing Hamas would seek a political partnership.

Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar, speaking to reporters in Gaza, said the group was prepared to extend the period of tadiyah (calm) agreed to last February if Israel will reciprocate.

"If they are going to continue commitment to what is called quietness, then we will continue," Zahar told Associated Press. "But if not, then I think we will have no option but to protect our people and our land."

Palestinian political insiders predicted weeks of back-channel negotiations are likely before a new government can emerge, as a reluctant Hamas grapples with the predicament of assuming a degree of power that exceeds its ambitions.

In Ramallah last night, tensions outside parliament offered the first unnerving glimpse of the destabilized relationship between mosque and state. The clash between Hamas and Fatah activists resulted in minor injuries, and a volley of stones left a dozen windows broken on the façade of the Palestinian legislative chambers.

One participant, Hamas loyalist Saleh Mikdar, 40, blamed a Fatah supporter for triggering the melee by breaking over his knee a green flag bearing the slogan: "There is no God but God."

"He provoked the feelings of the entire Islamic nation. A fight broke out and they beat the hell out of him," said Mikdar, a printer from Al-Amari Refugee Camp, outside Ramallah.

"But I hope this is an isolated incident. I don't think it will be the start of problems, because we are brothers, Hamas and Fatah."

As Palestinian security officials replaced national flags dislodged by the rioters, a police officer fired in the air to restore order. One police captain seized a microphone from his cruiser, enraged by the spectacle. "The Palestinian Authority still exists," he warned the crowd. "If you touch the nation's flag, you will be hanged on the spot."

Reaction to the Hamas landslide included fears that civil liberties taken for granted in Ramallah will eventually fall prey to the ideological dictates of the emerging government.

"Nothing will happen for six months or maybe a year," said restaurateur Bassem Khoury, a member of the Palestinian Christian minority and the operator of Pronto, known to serve alcohol.

"But eventually, I worry they will force my wife to wear the abbayah and I don't know what else. In Arabic we have a saying, `Never invite a bear into your garden.' Now the bear is here."

January 27, 2006 at 08:37 AM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Jimmy Carter's secret Hamas summit

TheStar.com - Jimmy Carter's secret Hamas summit

Tried to bring Hamas to table
Summit fell aparta decade ago
Jan. 27, 2006. 05:08 AM
MITCH POTTER
MIDDLE EAST BUREAU

JERUSALEM—The mood was disaster-in-progress when the unflappable Jimmy Carter stepped into the room yesterday to share a few quiet moments with the Toronto Star.

The official returns were flowing in, showing a Hamas victory almost beyond anyone's calibration.

The hard fist of political Islam didn't just enter the Palestinian parliament. It is the parliament.

As the numbers sunk in, CNN, BBC, Sky and Fox went into "breaking news" mode, quickly bulking up with pundits uttering obituaries for peace. The greening of Palestinian politics now had consigned the region to another hopeless eternity, it seemed.

At 81, clear-eyed and calm, America's most beloved ex-president — who yesterday sanctified the Palestinian election as head of the 950-strong international observer mission — took the earthquake in stride.

With the debate turning to whether the Palestinians' major international benefactors, the European Union and the United States, should allow themselves to maintain contact with a government led by Hamas — a group that has not unequivocally abandoned its founding principle of the destruction of the state of Israel — Carter let us in on a fascinating anecdote he has never spoken of publicly.

Ten years ago, Carter himself sat down with Hamas in an attempt to bridge the gap between PLO chief Yasser Arafat and the then-fledgling militant Islamic group.

As a personal favour to the late Palestinian leader, and in the spirit of the newly minted Oslo Accords, Carter went hunting for Hamas, to lasso them into the political process.

"Arafat asked me if I would contact Hamas and see if they would accept the new government with him as president, and to find out what their demands might be," Carter said.

A series of meetings ensued with various Hamas leaders in the Israeli-occupied territories, and Carter initially found himself confounded by the multi-headed hydra of leadership, Hamas-style. But some of those he spoke to showed interest.

Even 10 years ago, there were indications Hamas might be ready to make the great leap forward into reason and rationality — and perhaps even to accept Israel as its legitimate partner in a future that would become two states living side by side.

Finally, a secret summit was arranged for Cairo involving every voice that mattered to Hamas. And just as Carter was preparing for the flight to Egypt, Hamas called it off.

"They cancelled the meeting. Either they decided no, or they decided I wasn't the right person. But they cancelled," said Carter.

"That's the way it was then. Clearly there was no discernable person who could speak on behalf of Hamas and I'm not sure there is yet."

Carter didn't rule out modern-day disaster in the 17 minutes and 29 seconds he gave the Star yesterday. But he would like everyone to take a deep breath and consider an opposite scenario. To his way of thinking, any notion of peace was already a political fiction long before Hamas came calling. Maybe, just maybe, confronted with the reality of responsibility, Hamas will be the one to awaken it.

"Firstly, nobody knows what will happen now. The Palestinian government just resigned a few minutes ago. I suspect even Hamas doesn't know," said Carter. "My guess is right now (Hamas) are trying to absorb the enormity of their unexpected victory. They are assimilating what has happened.

"So it means everything is in Hamas's hands. And how they'll deal with it is quite interesting to consider. It might be a healthy thing for them to have the responsibility. Ask yourself, `Can Hamas maintain order among their own people?' If so, that will be a notable achievement, and it's something Fatah has not been able or willing to do."

Carter, the broker of peace between Israel and Egypt, has never really let go of this part of the world.

He was here almost exactly a year ago, in the same capacity as chief election monitor, when Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Arafat. On that occasion he stayed up till 4 a.m. reviewing the count. Then, rather than making for bed, he chose to go birding, rounding up his binoculars to catch the dawn on the leafy grounds of Hebrew University, secret service guardsmen in tow. It is unlikely he will be birding today. Carter is off to see Abbas one more time this morning, to survey what's left of the broken pieces of Fatah.

As for the death of peace hopes, Carter offered a steely gaze, and unleashed a laundry list of reasons why the question is ridiculous.

"Remember, we're not interrupting a major, successful, promising peace process. There haven't been any peace talks for the last 3 1/2 years. For almost three years, the elected leader of the Palestinian people (Arafat) was imprisoned in two or three rooms in Ramallah and was not permitted to leave his office," said Carter.

"And then once Mahmoud Abbas was elected a year ago, we thought this would open a fairly immediate opportunity for peace talks. But there haven't been any peace talks. There hasn't been any real effort to strengthen Abbas's international stature, or his economic ability to manage his government's needs or meet his people's needs. There hasn't been any willingness on the part of outside forces to equip his security people with the ability to control violence.

"He's been put into a holding pattern. So we're not interrupting a peace process by this election. And it may be that what I consider to be a stalemate could possibly be invigorated. I won't say reinvigorated because there's no vigour there now."

But if a victorious Hamas is to take the Palestinians forward, a discernable voice must arise. Hamas can no longer be a multi-headed hydra, saying both yes and no to negotiations from its many mouths. A cohesive leadership is essential, and it must say what it really wants. That will require some breathing space as the dust over Ramallah settles, and the newly elected work toward forming a new government. But time is of the essence, insofar as the Palestinian Authority is destitute.

By Carter's reckoning, the Authority will run out of funds to pay its workers — everyone from policemen to schoolteachers, at the end of February.

He's urging Western donors to find a way to work around their objections to Hamas and continue giving, at least until Hamas makes its intentions known. And he's calling on the cash-rich Arab world, now "inundated with oil revenues," to step up with financing to get Palestinians through this crisis.

Former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, one of Carter's colleagues in the mission to Jerusalem, yesterday framed the situation thus: "The motives for a two-state solution can be said to be even strong in a situation where, after all, what we have asked for — the establishment of democracy in these territories — has occurred.

"The fact that we got democracy functioning should not really be used as an argument for withdrawing our engagement."

Carter professes no insight into whether Hamas is capable of the challenge of leadership. But he's old enough to have seen many in this region make the transition from terror to power with aplomb."Despite the concerns expressed about the character of Hamas, we have to hope for the best. My prayer is the Hamas leaders, now serving in positions of unprecedented authority, will lead the Palestinian people on a peaceful, non-violent path toward a two-state solution."

January 27, 2006 at 08:36 AM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

January 25, 2006

Bomber spotted a year before July 7

London bombs terror attack The Times and Sunday Times Times Online

By Michael Evans
Analysis of surveillance tapes found that the terrorists' leader cropped up more than was thought
THE leader of the London suicide bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, appeared on surveillance tapes a year before the attacks on July 7, the security services have admitted.

MI5 has been trawling through transcripts of eavesdropping tapes and video footage of surveillance carried out on a large number of terrorist suspects over a period of about 12 months, leading up to the attacks on the London Underground and a double-decker bus.

ts analysts have been checking to see what could have been uncovered about Khan’s activities and preparations for the suicide bombings.

Previously it had been admitted that one surveillance tape had identified Khan but he had been judged to be only “on the periphery” of suspected terrorist endeavours and, with limited resources available, he was not considered a priority.

Like many other potential suspects caught up in the process of long-term surveillance operations, Khan escaped the net because there was insufficient evidence against him to merit a full-scale monitoring programme, which can take up to 20 MI5 officers for each suspect.

However, since the July 7 bombings, MI5 and other secret agencies have produced a wealth of intelligence that has enabled the Security Service to pinpoint Khan’s activities in the previous year with more accuracy.

Security sources said that with the new intelligence it had been possible to identify Khan on a number of surveillance tapes, matching what were often grainy pictures taken in the dark with the features and profile of the suicide bomber.

The sources said that it was not just a question of benefiting from hindsight. It was the post-July 7 intelligence that had helped to build up a fuller picture of a potential terrorist plot and the key individuals who were to be involved. Apart from Khan, there was also some prior knowledge of Shehzad Tanweer, one of the other suicide bombers.

The discovery of more tape and video evidence puts MI5 in a sensitive position. While the organisation can argue that it did not have the resources to follow every suspect who flitted in and out of its long-term surveillance operations, the more that the Security Service finds from the past records, the more difficult it will be to satisfy the families of the 52 victims of the London bombings that everything possible had been done to try to prevent the terrorist attacks.

The parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, headed by Paul Murphy, the former Northern Ireland Secretary, has questioned Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director-General of MI5, and several of her most senior intelligence officers on a number of occasions as part of its inquiry into the July 7 bombings.

The committee is examining whether there were intelligence failings and is expected to publish a report in March or April.

Separately, the Home Office is also drawing together a publishable “narrative” of the events leading up to July 7, which is expected to be published in the spring.

Tony Blair has ruled out holding a public inquiry into the bombings.

ON THE TRAIL OF A TERROR SUSPECT
# Mohammad Sidique Khan was spotted on several occasions meeting other terrorist suspects

# He visited a terrorist training camp in northern Pakistan in 2003

# Khan and Shehzad Tanweer were bugged talking about raising funds for Islamic extremism

# The pair went to Pakistan together in November 2004

# Khan learnt how to make bombs in the Pakistani al-Qaeda camp

January 25, 2006 at 09:42 PM in Current Terrorism | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Intelligence chiefs resisted backing anti-terrorism Bill

London bombs terror attack The Times and Sunday Times Times Online

By Philip Webster, Political Editor
INTELLIGENCE chiefs resisted government pressure to back controversial aspects of the anti-terror Bill, it was revealed last night.

Ministers wanted to use secret intelligence to impose a ban on a number of radical Islamic groups after the London July 7 bombings, which killed 52 people. Private e-mails from the heads of MI5 and MI6 reveal that they were reluctant to allow a repeat of the run-up to the Iraq conflict, when their assessments were used to justify the case for going to war.

Leaks of official e-mails disclosed by the New Statesman also suggest that Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, were at odds, with Mr Clarke voicing doubts over the banning of some groups and suggesting that Mr Straw was “isolated” on the issue.

Inquiries by The Times have also revealed severe doubts at the top of the intelligence and security services about allowing their intelligence to be used to justify political decisions.

Senior figures have said that the wounds of the Iraq war run deep and that they should never again be used publicly to vindicate military decisions.

The e-mails suggest that John Scarlett, the head of MI6, and Eliza Manningham-Buller, his opposite number at MI5, declined to throw the weight of their organisations behind a change of policy on Islamist groups, despite pressure.

Tony Blair made the possible banning of groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun part of a 12-point plan of terror measures in a press conference after the July 7 attacks and the foiled attacks of July 21.

Plans to widen the powers to ban such groups were passed in the Lords last night, although they did not specify the groups. Mr Clarke has told Parliament in a written statement that he intends to do that later.

Mr Scarlett, who was at the centre of claims that the Government “sexed up” the Iraq war intelligence and was called before the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the weapons expert, was reported in the e-mails as saying that he “sees this as a political issue and a matter for the Foreign Secretary”.

A separate e-mail summarised the position of the agencies as being: “They do not oppose proscription but oppose reliance on their assessment to justify what they see as a change of policy, not fact.”

The e-mails apparently describe a conversation between Mr Clarke and Mr Straw on August 28. A private secretary in Mr Straw’s office quotes Mr Clarke as describing Mr Straw as isolated in his view that the political wings of the Palestinian group Hamas and Hezbollah should be banned.

The Home Secretary said that he would be “happy in principle” to include them in the overall ban but “only if the Foreign Secretary could square the agencies”. In another e-mail Mr Clarke is reported as suggesting that the Government “would lose the case for proscription”.

Mr Clarke’s apparent doubts about banning Hizb ut-Tahrir were detailed in another e-mail. But the passage that will embarrass the Government says: “There is no apparent case to proscribe HuT because its activities abroad include involvement in terrorism. Indeed, it is not entirely clear whether they would be caught under a future criterion of ‘justifying or condoning violence’.”

January 25, 2006 at 09:41 PM in MI5 | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Iran accuses West over bombs

Iran accuses West over bombs - World - Times Online

From Associated Press
Iran blamed Britain and the US for two bombings on Tuesday that killed at least nine people and injured forty-six others in the southwestern city of Ahvaz.

State television reported that President Ahmadinejad had ordered an investigation into the possibility that “foreign hands” were responsible. He said: “Traces of the occupiers of Iraq are evident in the Ahvaz events. They should take responsibility in this regard.”

He did not offer evidence to support his assertion. Ahvaz is the capital of Khuzestan, an oil-rich province that borders Iraq. The bombs detonated inside a bank and outside an environmental agency building, the state news agency reported.

Ahvaz has a history of violence involving its Arab minority. Bombings last June and October killed a total of 14 people and, in April, residents rioted for two days over fears that the Government was planning to reduce the number of Arabs in the area.

January 25, 2006 at 09:40 PM in Iran | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Intercepts Key Element in Terrorism Fight, Attorney General Says

Intercepts Key Element in Terrorism Fight, Attorney General Says

Gonzales asserts United States' terrorist surveillance program is legal

The conflict with terrorist groups, especially al-Qaida, responsible for the deadly attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, is a “war of information,” says Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Speaking at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington on January 24, Gonzales said the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program, which began in 2002, is used to protect Americans by intercepting the international e-mails and telephone calls of people in the United States reasonably believed to be members or agents of terrorist organizations, Gonzales said.

“We cannot build walls thick enough, fences high enough, or systems strong enough to keep our enemies out of our open and welcoming country,” Gonzales said. “We have to collect more dots … before we can connect the dots.”

President Bush authorized the terrorist surveillance program, which does not require the government to obtain warrants, in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, and “it is designed solely to prevent the next attack,” Gonzales said. “If we conduct this reasonable surveillance -- while taking special care to preserve civil liberties as we have -- we can all continue to enjoy our rights and freedom for generations to come.”

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, will begin hearings February 6 on the legality of the surveillance program, particularly whether there have been violations of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Congress has the authority to inquire, through committee hearings, about important U.S. issues, including actions by the president or other governmental entities. The hearings allow for the presentation of various points of view, and for suggestions on possible congressional action. In the case of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program hearings, experts from inside and outside the U.S. government will present testimony. Most of the hearings will be open to the public and transcripts will be available for all to read.

Gonzales said that the terrorist surveillance program complies with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, because the amendment never has been understood to require warrants in all circumstances.

For additional information on American rights and freedoms, see U.S. Legal System.

Following is the transcript of the remarks by Gonzales as prepared for delivery:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of Justice
PREPARED REMARKS FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES
AT THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2006

"Intercepting Al Qaeda: A Lawful and Necessary Tool for Protecting America"

Thank you, Dean.

Just after dawn on September 11th, 2001, I flew out of Dulles Airport less than an hour before the departure from the same airport of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon later that morning. When I arrived in Norfolk, Virginia, to give a speech, the North Tower of the World Trade Center had been hit. By the end of my remarks, both the North and South Towers stood shrouded in smoke and flames with many desperate people jumping to their deaths, some 90 stories below. I spent much of the rest of that horrible day trying to get back to Washington to assist the President in my role as White House Counsel.

Everyone has a story from that morning. Up and down the East Coast, men and women were settling into their desks, coming home from a graveyard shift, or taking their children to school. And across the rest of the country, Americans were waking up to smoldering ruins and the images of ash covered faces. We remember where we were, what we were doing ... and how we felt on that terrible morning, as 3,000 innocent men, women, and children died, without warning, without being able to look into the faces of their loved ones and say goodbye . . . all killed just for being Americans.

The open wounds so many of us carry from that day are the backdrop to the current debate about the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program. This program, described by the President, is focused on international communications where experienced intelligence experts have reason to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a terrorist organization affiliated with al Qaeda. This program is reviewed and reauthorized by the President approximately every 45 days. The leadership of Congress, including the leaders of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress, have been briefed about this program more than a dozen times since 2001.

A word of caution here. This remains a highly classified program. It remains an important tool in protecting America. So my remarks today speak only to those activities confirmed publicly by the President, and not to other purported activities described in press reports. These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confusing, or wrong. And unfortunately, they have caused concern over the potential breadth of what the President has actually authorized.

It seems that everyone who has heard of the President's actions has an opinion -- as well we should regarding matters of national security, separation of powers, and civil liberties. Of course, a few critics are interested only in political gains. Other doubters hope the President will do everything he can to protect our country, but they worry about the appropriate checks upon a Commander in Chief's ability to monitor the enemy in a time of war.

Whatever your opinion, this much is clear: No one is above the law. We are all bound by the Constitution, and no matter the pain and anger we feel from the attacks, we must all abide by the Constitution. During my confirmation hearing, I said that, quote, "we are very, very mindful of Justice O'Connor's statement in the 2004 Hamdi decision that a state of war is not a blank check for the President of the United States with respect to the rights of American citizens. I understand that and I agree with that." Close quote. The President takes seriously his obligations to protect the American people and to protect the Constitution, and he is committed to upholding both of those obligations.

I've noticed that through all of the noise on this topic, very few have asked that the terrorist surveillance program be stopped. The American people are, however, asking two important questions: Is this program necessary? And is it lawful? The answer to each is yes.

The question of necessity rightly falls to our nation's military leaders. You've heard the President declare: We are a nation at war.

And in this war, our military employs a wide variety of tools and weapons to defeat the enemy. General Mike Hayden, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence and former Director of the NSA, laid out yesterday why a terrorist surveillance program that allows us to quickly collect important information about our enemy is so vital and necessary to the War on Terror.

The conflict against al Qaeda is, in fundamental respects, a war of information. We cannot build walls thick enough, fences high enough, or systems strong enough to keep our enemies out of our open and welcoming country. Instead, as the bipartisan 9/11 and WMD Commissions have urged, we must understand better who they are and what they're doing -- we have to collect more dots, if you will, before we can "connect the dots." This program to surveil al Qaeda is a necessary weapon as we fight to detect and prevent another attack before it happens. I feel confident that is what the American people expect ... and it's what the terrorist surveillance program provides.

As General Hayden explained yesterday, many men and women who shoulder the daily burden of preventing another terrorist attack here at home are convinced of the necessity of this surveillance program.

Now, the legal authorities. As Attorney General, I am primarily concerned with the legal basis for these necessary military activities. I expect that as lawyers and law students, you are too.

The Attorney General of the United States is the chief legal advisor for the Executive Branch. Accordingly, from the outset, the Justice Department thoroughly examined this program against al Qaeda, and concluded that the President is acting within his power in authorizing it. These activities are lawful. The Justice Department is not alone in reaching that conclusion. Career lawyers at the NSA and the NSA's Inspector General have been intimately involved in reviewing the program and ensuring its legality.

The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in the President's constitutional authorities. No other public official -- no mayor, no governor, no member of Congress -- is charged by the Constitution with the primary responsibility for protecting the safety of all Americans -- and the Constitution gives the President all authority necessary to fulfill this solemn duty.

It has long been recognized that the President's constitutional powers include the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing armed attacks on the United States. Presidents have uniformly relied on their inherent power to gather foreign intelligence for reasons both diplomatic and military, and the federal courts have consistently upheld this longstanding practice.

If this is the case in ordinary times, it is even more so in the present circumstances of our armed conflict with al Qaeda and its allies. The terrorist surveillance program was authorized in response to the deadliest foreign attack on American soil, and it is designed solely to prevent the next attack. After all, the goal of our enemy is to blend in with our civilian population in order to plan and carry out future attacks within America. We cannot forget that the 9/11 hijackers were in our country, living in our communities.

The President's authority to take military action-including the use of communications intelligence targeted at the enemy-does not come merely from his inherent constitutional powers. It comes directly from Congress as well.

Just a few days after the events of September 11th, Congress enacted a joint resolution to support and authorize a military response to the attacks on American soil. In this resolution, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Congress did two important things. First, it expressly recognized the President's "authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to, quote, "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" in order to prevent further attacks on the United States.

The Resolution means that the President's authority to use military force against those terrorist groups is at its maximum because he is acting with the express authorization of Congress. Thus, were we to employ the three-part framework of Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel Seizure case, the President's authority falls within Category One, and is at its highest. He is acting "pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress," and the President's authority "includes all that he possesses in his own right [under the Constitution] plus all that Congress can" confer on him.

In 2004, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the Force Resolution in the Hamdi case. There, the question was whether the President had the authority to detain an American citizen as an enemy combatant for the duration of the hostilities.

In that case, the Supreme Court confirmed that the expansive language of the Resolution -"all necessary and appropriate force"-ensures that the congressional authorization extends to traditional incidents of waging war. And, just like the detention of enemy combatants approved in Hamdi, the use of communications intelligence to prevent enemy attacks is a fundamental and well-accepted incident of military force.

This fact is borne out by history. This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance-a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence, including the interception of mail between the British and Americans.

And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has conducted surveillance of those communications during wartime-all without judicial warrant. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common, and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson ordered the interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves only the interception of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda or its allies.

Some have suggested that the Force Resolution did not authorize intelligence collection inside the United States. That contention cannot be squared with the reality of the 9/11 attacks, which gave rise to the Resolution, and with the language of the authorization itself, which calls on the President to protect Americans both "at home and abroad" and to take action to prevent further terrorist attacks "against the United States." It's also contrary to the history of wartime surveillance, which has often involved the interception of enemy communications into and out of the United States.

Against this backdrop, the NSA's focused terrorist surveillance program falls squarely within the broad authorization of the Resolution even though, as some have argued, the Resolution does not expressly mention surveillance. The Resolution also doesn't mention detention of enemy combatants. But we know from the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi that such detention is authorized. Justice O'Connor reasoned: "Because detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war...Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here."

As Justice O'Connor recognized, it does not matter that the Force Resolution nowhere specifically refers to the detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. Nor does it matter that individual Members of Congress may not have specifically intended to authorize such detention. The same is true of electronic surveillance. It is a traditional incident of war and, thus, as Justice O'Connor said, it is "of no moment" that the Resolution does not explicitly mention this activity.

These omissions are not at all surprising. In enacting the Force Resolution, Congress made no attempt to catalog every aspect of the use of force it was authorizing.

Instead, following the model of past military force authorizations, Congress-in general, but broad, terms-confirmed the President's authority to use all traditional and legitimate incidents of military force to identify and defeat the enemy. In doing so, Congress must be understood to have intended that the use of electronic surveillance against the enemy is a fundamental component of military operations.

Some contend that even if the President has constitutional authority to engage in the surveillance of our enemy in a time of war, that authority has been constrained by Congress with the passage in 1978 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Generally, FISA requires the government to obtain an order from a special FISA court before conducting electronic surveillance. It is clear from the legislative history of FISA that there were concerns among Members of Congress about the constitutionality of FISA itself.

For purposes of this discussion, because I cannot discuss operational details, I'm going to assume here that intercepts of al Qaeda communications under the terrorist surveillance program fall within the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA.

The FISA Court of Review, the special court of appeals charged with hearing appeals of decisions by the FISA court, stated in 2002 that, quote, "[w]e take for granted that the President does have that [inherent] authority" and, "assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." We do not have to decide whether, when we are at war and there is a vital need for the terrorist surveillance program, FISA unconstitutionally encroaches -- or places an unconstitutional constraint upon -- the President's Article II powers. We can avoid that tough question because Congress gave the President the Force Resolution, and that statute removes any possible tension between what Congress said in 1978 in FISA and the President's constitutional authority today.

Let me explain by focusing on certain aspects of FISA that have attracted a lot of attention and generated a lot of confusion in the last few weeks.

First, FISA, of course, allows Congress to respond to new threats through separate legislation. FISA bars persons from intentionally "engag[ing] . . . in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." For the reasons I have already discussed, the Force Resolution provides the relevant statutory authorization for the terrorist surveillance program. Hamdi makes it clear that the broad language in the Resolution can satisfy a requirement for specific statutory authorization set forth in another law.

Hamdi involved a statutory prohibition on all detention of U.S. citizens except as authorized "pursuant to an Act of Congress." Even though the detention of a U.S. citizen involves a deprivation of liberty, and even though the Force Resolution says nothing on its face about detention of U.S. citizens, a majority of the members of the Court nevertheless concluded that the Resolution satisfied the statutory requirement. The same is true, I submit, for the prohibition on warrantless electronic surveillance in FISA.

You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the President to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime. But no one could reasonably suggest that all such critical military surveillance in a time of war would end after only 15 days.

Instead, the legislative history of this provision makes it clear that Congress elected NOT TO DECIDE how surveillance might need to be conducted in the event of a particular armed conflict. Congress expected that it would revisit the issue in light of events and likely would enact a special authorization during that 15-day period. That is exactly what happened three days after the attacks of 9/11, when Congress passed the Force Resolution, permitting the President to exercise "all necessary and appropriate" incidents of military force.

Thus, it is simply not the case that Congress in 1978 anticipated all the ways that the President might need to act in times of armed conflict to protect the United States. FISA, by its own terms, was not intended to be the last word on these critical issues.

Second, some people have argued that, by their terms, Title III and FISA are the "exclusive means" for conducting electronic surveillance. It is true that the law says that Title III and FISA are "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." But, as I have said before, FISA itself says elsewhere that the government cannot engage in electronic surveillance "except as authorized by statute." It is noteworthy that, FISA did not say "the government cannot engage in electronic surveillance 'except as authorized by FISA and Title III.'" No, it said, except as authorized by statute -- any statute. And, in this case, that other statute is the Force Resolution.

Even if some might think that's not the only way to read the statute, in accordance with long recognized canons of construction, FISA must be interpreted in harmony with the Force Resolution to allow the President, as Commander in Chief during time of armed conflict, to take the actions necessary to protect the country from another catastrophic attack. So long as such an interpretation is "fairly possible," the Supreme Court has made clear that it must be adopted, in order to avoid the serious constitutional issues that would otherwise be raised.

Third, I keep hearing, "Why not FISA?" "Why didn't the President get orders from the FISA court approving these NSA intercepts of al Qaeda communications?"

We have to remember that we're talking about a wartime foreign intelligence program. It is an "early warning system" with only one purpose: To detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst. It is imperative for national security that we can detect RELIABLY, IMMEDIATELY, and WITHOUT DELAY whenever communications associated with al Qaeda enter or leave the United States. That may be the only way to alert us to the presence of an al Qaeda agent in our country and to the existence of an unfolding plot.

Consistent with the wartime intelligence nature of this program, the optimal way to achieve the necessary speed and agility is to leave the decisions about particular intercepts to the judgment of professional intelligence officers, based on the best available intelligence information. They can make that call quickly. If, however, those same intelligence officers had to navigate through the FISA process for each of these intercepts, that would necessarily introduce a significant factor of DELAY, and there would be critical holes in our early warning system.

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called "emergency authorizations" of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There's a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on our branches of government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the War on Terror, and one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack. And we cannot afford to fail.

Finally, let me explain why the NSA's terrorist surveillance program fully complies with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment has never been understood to require warrants in all circumstances. For instance, before you get on an airplane, or enter most government buildings, you and your belongings may be searched without a warrant. There are also searches at the border or when you've been pulled over at a checkpoint designed to identify folks driving while under the influence. Those searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involve "special needs" beyond routine law enforcement. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that these circumstances make such a search reasonable even without a warrant.

The terrorist surveillance program is subject to the checks of the Fourth Amendment, and it clearly fits within this "special needs" category. This is by no means a novel conclusion. The Justice Department during the Clinton Administration testified in 1994 that the President has inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

The key question, then, under the Fourth Amendment is not whether there was a warrant, but whether the search was reasonable. This requires balancing privacy with the government's interests -- and ensuring that we maintain appropriate safeguards. We've done that here.

No one takes lightly the concerns that have been raised about the interception of communications inside the United States. But this terrorist surveillance program involves intercepting the international communications of persons reasonably believed to be members or agents of al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations. This surveillance is narrowly focused and fully consistent with the traditional forms of enemy surveillance found to be necessary in all previous armed conflicts. The authorities are reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure that the al Qaeda threat to the national security of this nation continues to exist. Moreover, the standard applied -- "reasonable basis to believe" -- is essentially the same as the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standard. As the Supreme Court has stated, "The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt."

If we conduct this reasonable surveillance -- while taking special care to preserve civil liberties as we have -- we can all continue to enjoy our rights and freedoms for generations to come.

I close with a reminder that just last week, al Jazeera aired an audio tape in which Osama bin Laden promised a new round of attacks on the United States. Bin Laden said the proof of his promise is, and I quote, "the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations." He continued, quote, "The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through with preparations." Close quote.

We've seen and heard these types of warnings before. And we've seen what the result of those preparations can be -- thousands of our fellow citizens who perished in the attacks of 9/11.

This Administration has chosen to act now to prevent the next attack, rather than wait until it is too late. This Administration has chosen to utilize every necessary and lawful tool at its disposal. It is hard to imagine a President who wouldn't elect to use these tools in defense of the American people -- in fact, I think it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

The terrorist surveillance program is both necessary and lawful. Accordingly, the President has done with this lawful authority the only responsible thing: use it. He has exercised, and will continue to exercise, his authority to protect Americans and the cherished freedoms of the American people.

Thank you. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

January 25, 2006 at 07:51 PM in NSA | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

January 24, 2006

Spies collect more toys as cold war turns to hot peace

Spies collect more toys as cold war turns to hot peace - World - Times Online

From Jeremy Page in Moscow
SOMEWHERE in the depths of the Lubyanka, the curator of the FSB museum must be rubbing his hands with glee.

Until the British “rock” was exposed this week, the Federal Security Service, the KGB’s successor agency, had not had many new toys for its collection of Cold War spy gadgets — including glasses with suicide poison in the frames and a radio receiver disguised as a tree. However, if intelligence experts are correct, it can expect more trophies as Western spy agencies step up their operations in Russia to a level not seen since the Soviet collapse.

Western intelligence services said last year that Russia had aggressively escalated its spying on their patches since President Putin — a former KGB spy — took power in 2000.

It is now considered second only to China in terms of how aggressively it is seeking Western technological, commercial and military secrets.

What is less widely publicised is that US and British intelligence have also been actively recruiting Russian-speaking agents in tandem with Russia’s growing economic and political clout, intelligence experts say.

“The Cold War has ended; now we have the hot peace,” Oleg Nechiporenko, a prominent former KGB spy, told The Times. Once called “the best KGB agent in Latin America” by the CIA, he was thrown out of Mexico in 1971 for plotting to overthrow the government.

He said that he was not surprised by the FSB’s allegation that it had caught four British Embassy employees spying. “These days, you see leaders hugging and smiling, but everyone still has their own geopolitical interests — that’s where the special services come in,” he said.

John Scarlett, the MI6 chief, is also no stranger to the rivalry between British and Russian spooks. He was expelled from Moscow in 1994 after being exposed as the MI6 desk officer at the British Embassy.

The FSB offered no definitive figures for the number of Western spies operating in Russia. but Nikolai Patrushev, the FSB chief, has said that his agents caught 26 foreign intelligence officers and 67 of their agents in 2005. The FSB apprehended 18 foreign spies in 2004 and 13 in 2003. “Reconnaissance is not only not waning,” Mr Patrushev said in November, “it is strengthening.”

In the past two years the West has again started to see Russia as a security threat, as President Putin re-asserts the Kremlin’s authority at home and in the former Soviet Union. Russia is sitting on a vast nuclear arsenal as well as poorly guarded stockpiles of nuclear material. It has close ties to governments deemed hostile to the West, particularly Iran, Syria and North Korea; and it sells billions of dollars of weaponry to China every year.

Perhaps most importantly, the West is becoming increasingly dependent on Russian energy. “An informant within Gazprom would be priceless,” said one Moscow-based diplomat, referring to the Russian gas monopoly.

Western intelligence agencies are also having to channel ever more resources into combating Russian agents. A British security source said: “The UK is a high-priority espionage target and of greatest concern are the Russians and Chinese.”

Sergey Lebedev, the director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, denies an escalation of operations in the West. “Russian intelligence has reduced its presence overseas and substantially restructured its activities,” he said last month.

Oleg Gordievsky, a former KGB officer who was a double agent, said, though, that 34 Russians at the Russian Embassy and various international organisations in Britain were spies. The security services were unable to confirm the figure, but Mr Gordievsky, who has lived in Britain since his defection in 1985, keeps close ties with MI6 and MI5. “I know the figure is accurate,” he said.

January 24, 2006 at 08:41 PM in MI6 | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

January 23, 2006

Russians accuse 4 Britons of spying

Russians accuse 4 Britons of spying - Print Version - International Herald Tribune

By Steven Lee Myers The New York Times
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006

MOSCOW An espionage scandal redolent of the Cold War unfolded here Monday after Russia accused four British diplomats of spying and linked some of their activities to the financing of prominent private organizations, including the Eurasia Foundation and the Moscow Helsinki Group.

A grainy, black-and-white video - broadcast on state television Sunday night and shown repeatedly again Monday - claimed to show a British diplomat picking up a rock that was said to conceal a communications device used to download and transmit classified information through hand-held computers.

The rock, the size of a watermelon and able to transmit and receive data at distances of more than 18 meters, or 60 feet, was seized near Moscow, prompting a search across the city for similar devices, Sergei Ignatchenko, the chief spokesman for Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, told Russian reporters, according to the Interfax news agency.

A second device was found, but "the British intelligence service managed to retrieve one of the gadgets," he said.

A Russian citizen has been arrested for complicity, but another spokesman for the Russian intelligence agency, Nikolai Zakharov, declined to say when and whether he had been formally charged. Zakharov would say only that the spy ring had been discovered and broken up at the beginning of winter.

The fate of the British diplomats - identified as mid-ranking secretaries in the embassy - remained unclear. Ignatchenko said their possible expulsion would be determined "at the political level."

The scandal, one of the most serious in years, threatened to raise diplomatic tensions, even as Russia assumed the presidency of the Group of 8 industrialized nations, which includes Britain. Ignatchenko accused Britain of violating an agreement in 1994 to end espionage in Russia. "In fact," he said, "we have been deceived."

Prime Minister Tony Blair, answering questions at a news conference in London, declined to comment.

"I'm afraid you are going to get the old stock-in-trade: 'We never comment on security matters,' except when we want to, obviously," Blair said.

"I think the less said about that, the better," he added.

The nature of the espionage was shrouded in secrecy, but the link to private organizations came amid a politically charged campaign against charities and advocacy groups here, many of them financed by the United States and European countries to promote democracy, independent media and other aspects of civil society.

Earlier this month President Vladimir Putin signed into law new legal restrictions on such groups, which critics have said could be used to pressure those critical of Russian policies.

The relation between the espionage charges and the organizations appeared tangential, however.

Zakharov said in a telephone interview that one of the diplomats, identified as Marc Doe, a political secretary, approved grants distributed by the British government to Russian and international organizations, even as he was involved in covert activities.

"He gave money to them," he said, referring to the organizations. "That is all documented."

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Moscow declined to comment on the affair but cited a statement by the Foreign Office that said, "We reject any allegations of any improper conduct in our dealings with Russian" private organizations.

"All of our assistance is given openly and aims to support the development of a healthy civil society in Russia," he said.

One of the groups supported by Britain and cited by officials was the Eurasia Foundation, a non-profit organization based in Washington that provides an array of grants across the former Soviet Union.

Irina Akishina, director of the Moscow office, said in a telephone interview that the organization had received a grant worth about $105,000 in 2004 to promote independent newspapers in provincial Russian cities.

She expressed bewilderment at the accusations, saying the television report, which appeared on the state's Rossiya channel with the cooperation of the Federal Security Service, was the first she heard of any questions surrounding her organization.

She said the accusations reflected the government's growing hostility toward private organizations that operate independently of the Kremlin.

"We certainly do feel there is some danger," she said, referring to the new law on organizations like hers. "We do not understand at all why we were mentioned in this program.

"We are not involved in any illegal activities."

The Moscow Helsinki Group, also linked to the case, is one of the country's most prominent human-rights organizations and is often critical of the Kremlin.

Russia's intelligence chiefs have publicly warned about the threat of espionage from the West. The warnings have underscored a growing wariness in Russian intelligence and diplomatic circles about what is widely seen as foreign interference in domestic affairs, especially following American and European support for democratic movements in Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet republics.

"Reconnaissance is not only not waning," Nikolai Patrushev, the director of the Federal Security Service, said in an interview in the official state newspaper, Rossiskaya Gazeta, in November. "It is strengthening."

In the interview he said that last year counterintelligence agents had exposed 20 agents working for foreign governments and 65 foreigners working for secret services. Earlier last year Patrushev singled out several non-governmental organizations, including the Peace Corps and a British charity, Merlin, as fronts for foreign espionage.

"Under the cover of implementing humanitarian and educational programs in Russia regions, they lobby for the interests of certain countries and gather classified information on a wide range of issues," he said of representatives of the private organizations.

Patrushev's remarks, sharply criticized at the time by the American and British governments, nevertheless became a basis of the new law putting such organizations under greater scrutiny.

The latest scandal involved espionage of a more traditional sort, though with a high-tech twist. The fake rock was used as a dead drop, an agreed place for exchanging classified information or otherwise communicating with agents. Where exactly it was remained unclear, though the television report showed it on a sidewalk near what was identified as a park on the edge of Moscow.

The hidden communication device allowed a Russian agent to transmit information in bursts lasting no more than a second or two, said Ignatchenko and other security officials. The British operatives could then download the information with their own palm computers, the officials said, declining to discuss the nature of the information that the Russian provided to the British agents, or its significance.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting from London.

January 23, 2006 at 07:52 PM in Russia | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

January 22, 2006

Iran extends nuclear plant in secret

Telegraph | News | Iran extends nuclear plant in secret

By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 22/01/2006)

Iran has secretly extended the uranium enrichment plant at the centre of the international controversy over its resumption of banned nuclear research earlier this month, satellite imagery has revealed.

Seven buildings have been erected around the concealed centrifuges which Western governments fear will be used to manufacture weapons-grade uranium at the Natanz site, 200 miles south of Teheran.

The discovery has heightened fears that Iran is stepping up the pace of its suspected weapons programme, in breach of international agreements, since it removed International Atomic Energy Authority seals on nuclear equipment at the site 10 days ago.

Western intelligence agencies are focusing on alarming similarities in satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear sites, which the regime claims are for civilian purposes, and atomic facilities in Pakistan used to make the raw materials for nuclear weapons, as they try to identify the purpose of the Natanz construction spree.

The building work took place unannounced during a 16-month pause in research and development at the site, while Iran engaged the West in protracted talks over its professed desire to develop nuclear power. The existence of the Natanz site was kept secret until it was exposed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002. Iran started to move funds out of the European banks on Friday to avoid possible financial sanctions after its scientists resumed work. The showdown has contributed to soaring world oil prices and a slump on Wall Street stock markets.

The Sunday Telegraph has seen recent United States intelligence analysis of satellite photographs of nuclear sites in Iran and Pakistan that strengthens fears that the Islamic regime is secretly developing atomic weapons under the guise of a supposedly peaceful power programme. "Iran's facilities are scaled exactly like another state's facilities that were designed to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons," the US report concluded, using the phrase "another state" to refer to Pakistan for diplomatic reasons.

The intelligence briefing also studies Iran's heavy water plant and reactor at Araq and its ballistic missile programme and compares them with Pakistan's facilities. The world learnt that Islamabad had built nuclear weapons only when it conducted first tests in 1998.

John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent Washington defence research consultancy that specialises in analysing satellite images, told this newspaper: "These pictures indicate that Iran is replicating every major step that Pakistan took in its atomic bomb programme."

Both US intelligence and Mr Pike's independent analysis highlight the Araq site, where Iran claims it is processing heavy water for a medical isotope programme. It bears a striking resemblance to Pakistan's site at Khushab.

Heavy water production reactors can be designed to covert uranium into weapons-grade plutonium without the need for further enrichment. Pakistan, India, Israel North Korea, Russia and the US are all believed to have used them for this purpose.

The US intelligence assessment concludes that Iran could produce enough plutonium each year at Araq for up to three nuclear bombs.

In other parallels, Iran's scientists are conducting their latest round of research using Pakistani-designed centrifuges at Natanz. The two countries are also both developing similar ballistic missiles, able to carry nuclear warheads.

Evidence of new building at Natanz has further fuelled concerns about Iran's intentions. "It is surprising to see how much construction work has taken place," said Mr Pike. "The Iranians have been very busy even while the seals were in place."

The Iranians kept the existence of the Natanz and Araq sites secret until 2002 when IAEA inspectors confirmed opposition claims that Iran had been conducting a nuclear programme for 18 years. Teheran is widely believed to have received help during this time from A Q Khan, the maverick scientist who developed Pakistan's bomb and sold his know-how to rogue states around the world. The two countries have denied any official co-operation.

Iran factfile

The US intelligence report that draws the parallels between the Iranian and Pakistani sites also concludes that while Iran's uranium reserves are not enough for its claimed goal of nuclear energy independence, they are large enough for atomic bomb production.

British, French and German diplomats from the so-called EU3 negotiating team, backed by Washington, are this weekend discussing with Russian and Chinese counterparts the contents of a draft resolution on Iran before an emergency IAEA meeting next month. Russia and China are unwilling to back early calls for sanctions.

January 22, 2006 at 03:51 PM in Iran | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Interview: Jasper Gerard meets Colin Powell

Interview: Jasper Gerard meets Colin Powell - Sunday Times - Times Online

Yes, Iran is like Iraq ... but let’s not rush in
There is no cavalcade, no parade, no men in braid. Just an old boy in a trench coat wandering alone down windy streets. He could be any lost American tourist.

Except this is Manchester and he is attracting way too many gawpers: “I have had a row with my mate,” burbles a taxi driver. “I swore I just saw Colin Powell, but my mate said, ‘What would he be doing in Manchester?’” A fair question. One Powell — until recently among the most powerful men on the planet — must have asked himself when the taxi collecting him was too small for his luggage. The general who held the world enthralled at the United Nations when he produced “irrefutable and undeniable evidence” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is now on the speaking circuit.

He has spent the past week in Britain, and whenever he orates you are reminded why he had been so damned persuasive. Outside his hotel there are protesters, but inside only eulogies.

Everyone respects Powell: the one Bushite who even Euro cheese-munchers thought they could do business with. Iraq might have left him isolated in the Bush administration, but he is the war’s only politician whose reputation didn’t take a hit. Powell oozes charm. As guest of the Jewish National Fund he smiles through an excruciating rendition of Imagine (strangely missing the line about imagine no religion) before he does his stuff — brilliantly.

He recalls how, in the run-up to war in Iraq, whenever he felt exasperated with France he had to remind himself: “France has been with us since 1776, and we have been in marriage guidance ever since.” He recalls a Kremlin showdown with Mikhail Gorbachev, who suddenly smiled and said: “General, you are going to have to find yourself a new enemy.” To which Powell thought: “I don’t want a new enemy: I am happy with the one I got.”

Having retired as secretary of state he no longer needs to be the constant diplomat, so in our interview he speaks frankly of his disagreements with George W Bush and his doubts about British intelligence. He almost giggles over how he saw off Jeremy Paxman in a recent interview: “I’d heard of his reputation but I think I escaped with a nil-nil draw.”

Next year he will be 70 but the married father of three grown children remains a powerful physical force: broad as a tank with searching almond eyes. The old warhorse doesn’t do retirement: “I’m busy: I don’t play golf.”

His presence turns minds to war: does the ramping up of pressure on Iran remind him of the build-up to invading Iraq? “The parallel is both countries pursuing a nuclear programme: the big difference is there is little dispute this time over the evidence.” Yikes.

Isn’t the irony that Iran is a greater threat than Iraq but after the political deception and military stalemate there is no appetite for aggro this time? “Even if there hadn’t been Iraq I do not believe there would have been an immediate leap from anyone for military action. I’m fascinated everyone here wants to talk about military options: just slow down. Iran is some years off a nuclear weapon. One of the papers said ‘if they had the material they could (make bombs in a couple of months’; well, they don’t. If I had the material, so could I.”

He may be sanguine but after the rift on Iraq with “old Europe” he can’t resist a dig at Euro efforts to cow Iran. He calls the unsuccessful European foreign ministers who have been involved in the negotiations, including Jack Straw, “my three tenors”: “They wanted to take the lead so I said, ‘Fine, it might even be better if (Americans) are not seen as part of your group’, and they came up with a couple of agreements, but they did not hold. Dr (Condoleezza) Rice (his successor) gave more support to EU efforts but it still didn’t produce results.”

However, Powell offers scant alternative. He even cautions against mild sanctions: “Banning sports tends to disappoint athletes, who are not building nuclear programmes. Rather than being mad at their regime they might be mad at us. Plus the Iranians have no doubt had their own national security council meetings and have factored in likely sanctions.”

His wry scepticism about European posturing also comes through when talking about “rendition”, where America shuttles terror suspects to Third World interview centres to loosen tongues. After an outcry Straw wrote to Rice demanding details of exactly when and where prisoners had been taken, but Powell suggests the foreign secretary and the “tenors” knew the score all too well: “Such things have benefited us and Europe. To suggest renditions are such a shocking thing to everyone’s sensibilities is a bit much. There are two parties to a rendition, if not more. So I thought Europe overreacted.”

We turn to Iraq. America initially sought war simply to oust Saddam; it was Tony Blair who ramped up the iffy intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. What did Powell make of Blairite claims such as Niger being in the market to supply Saddam with material to build a nuclear bomb? “I believe the British government still stands by that.” Which is amazing! “Yeah. I didn’t use Niger, except perhaps once early on at Davos. It just didn’t hold up.”

Wasn’t the inaccuracy of the intelligence the fault of politicos pressuring spooks to produce smoking guns? “I wanted to know what the truth was. When I prepared my UN speech I sat there for four days and nights: we went through everything, to make sure this huge presentation I was giving, watched by the whole world, was accurate. Every word was approved by the CIA with no political pressure. I tossed out things because they weren’t sufficiently sourced.”

Like Niger? “Niger being one. There were also some remotely piloted vehicles found but which didn’t pass my instinct. So I went into the UN with a fair degree of confidence.”

Still, his UN presentation turned out to be almost as dodgy as Blair’s intelligence dossiers. Are British records accurate that purportedly detail a meeting Powell attended with Bush and Blair where Blair dissuaded the president from bombing the Arab television station Al-Jazeera? “I have no vivid recollection,” he says. “Whether something was said in jest or in passing, certainly I don’t think it was ever seriously in the president’s mind. Remember (Al-Jazeera) is located in a friendly country.” Hmm: so was the village in Pakistan that America bombed to bits the other day.

Powell, though, refuses to be a “referee” over claims by Sir Christopher Meyer, our former ambassador to Washington and “a great guy”, that Blair failed to use his “leverage” over the president in the period leading up to the war, but he insists Blair was no poodle. “Britain always comes to the table as a sovereign nation with a strong prime minister ever since I have been involved, going back to the days of Mrs Thatcher.

“Every administration I have been in has respected the views of the UK and has never taken it for granted. And I have yet to meet a British prime minister who is a shrinking violet.”

But then he could hardly say anything else.

On Iraq he says: “I think Blair felt as strongly as Bush.” The question is: did Powell? He laughs uproariously, saying the failure to find weapons of mass destruction was due to the success of that much-derided earlier war, Operation Desert Storm, as it destroyed Saddam’s nuclear programme — even if not Saddam himself.

The suggestion is that Powell was sceptical of the war from the start as he did not buy Donald Rumsfeld’s dream that it could be won with a tiny force. “There were enough troops to defeat the army. (But that) was only part of the battle. The difficult part was taking control of a very large country with 25m people and you have just taken out the whole government. And guess what: who then becomes the new government? You do, under the laws of land warfare. We were not able to take control, nor did we have the right political approach.

“We were characterising the insurgents as a few dead-enders and saying, ‘This isn’t all that bad’. A larger troop presence would have been helpful. I raised the question. The Pentagon says that is not what the generals thought. But the generals were working under political direction that said ‘this is not going to be that bad’. But it did turn out that bad — we were unable to strangle the insurgency in its crib — and now it is raging.”

From one so close to the action, that is quite an indictment. Wasn’t the trouble with President Bush that he wanted solutions not problems, so he only recognised the difficulty too late? “You can have that analysis. I know in the course of my conversations with colleagues and the president they were aware of the potential for a problem.”

So why wasn’t there a plan? “You will have to ask others,” he smiles pointedly. “We worked on a plan and it was available but there was a view that once we got there all we had to do was make sure food was flowing and the oilfields were secured, things would fall into place; but things did not fall into place.”

As Powell warned? Pause. “Er, the president was aware of all the possibilities. I will leave it there.” This is all the more powerful for Powell’s greatest talent is making everything sound not “so bad”. The July 7 bombings were okay because “by sundown, the London people, with that great stiff upper lip you have always had, were back to normal, the terrorists were hunted down and you had moved on”.

Similarly he admits that after September 11 America backed “unpleasant regimes” in the “Stans”, but dictators are learning “there is a limit to how much they can use their geopolitical card in the face of pressure for human rights”. And rather than sinking into an inferno of terrorism he says the world is looking good: war is at an all-time low and struggling countries will follow eastern Europe’s example and embrace the West: “I joke with these eastern European leaders, ‘You used to be on my target list, now we are sitting down talking democracy’.” All of which is true: though residents of Guantanamo might struggle to see the rosy vista.

As we part I ask if he regrets not running for president. “Oh no. I have no psychic need to be on stage. Yesterday was Martin Luther King’s birthday and he helped create the conditions under which I could go from being thrown out of hamburger bars because I was black to being the first black secretary of state. Besides, I am still in my own mind an obscure infantry officer.”

Hardly; but with that he steps out for his lonely walk.

January 22, 2006 at 02:52 AM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Focus: How the wheels came off UK plc

Focus: How the wheels came off UK plc - Sunday Times - Times Online

ony Blair’s reform programme has all but ground to a halt. We should not be surprised, reports David Smith. Profligate spending has undermined the economy, amid growing signs that the new Labour experiment has failed
Two weeks ago Tony Blair called his chief whip into his den at No 10 to set her on a mission. Hilary Armstrong was required to gauge opinion among Labour backbenchers about the flagship school reforms that the government was proposing.

The prime minister knew there were rebels, but exactly how big was the rebellion going to be? Would the government win and if not what could be done to rescue it? Should he find Ruth Kelly, the education secretary, a new job? Armstrong returned a few days later with surprising results. It wasn’t so much the youthful and politically inexperienced Kelly that was the problem, but the proposals themselves. The majority of Labour backbenchers were simply not ready to allow state schools to shake off the dead hand of local authority control as the white paper proposed and the government would lose a Commons vote without the Tories’ backing.

Most insiders expect Blair to announce his exit in 18 months’ time — around the anniversary of his 10 years in office. These twilight months were supposed to been his most productive, with a swathe of much-needed public service reform being rushed through parliament in a final burst of prime ministerial energy. Not only would Blair leave office safe in the knowledge that he had bequeathed a legacy to the nation for which he would be remembered, but Gordon Brown would take over with a clean slate and a good chance therefore of securing for Labour another decade in office.

But things have not gone to plan. From education to health, pensions security to economic growth, the wheels are falling off the once well-oiled Labour wagon.

True, Blair has more than his fair share of “worst weeks” in politics only to bounce back again but for the past six months virtually nothing has gone his way.

Last week it emerged that he had recalled Alastair Campbell, who stepped down more than two years ago, to his inner sanctum for advice. Campbell faced some tough tasks in his time as Blair’s spin doctor in chief but helping to steer his master’s legacy onto the statute books looks impossible even for him.

Consider education. On Thursday evening dozens of Labour backbenchers crowded into the Gladstone room in the Commons to hear party rebels attack the Kelly’s proposals for giving greater autonomy to schools. As Campbell squeezed his way into the rebel stronghold observers noted that it was not to spy for No 10 but to cheer on his long-time girlfriend, Fiona Millar, who had helped organise the meeting. So rabid is Millar in her support of the “comprehensive principle” that even friends describe her as “the Taliban”.

Inside the oak-panelled room the star turn was Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, who was openly criticising the prime minister for the first time. In a speech full of references to solidarity and socialism, and quotes from Gramsci, said he could not accept the “dreadful shattering of the school system . . .”

If there was ever a signal that the Blair era was coming to a close this was surely it — the return of the “Welsh windbag” looking and sounding almost exactly as he did 20 years ago. The only difference, quipped one observer, was that this time he was rallying the militants rather than purging them.

Yet the story of how the wheels have come off the new Labour wagon can not simply be put down to self-indulgent backbench revolt. Nor can the blame for the breakdown be placed at the door of No 10. Economists say that the real problem for Labour is that the chancellor’s “business model” is not working.

Brown had hoped to steer a middle course through market economics on the one hand and old-style public spending on the other. He would spend more on the public services as Labour governments had always done, but this time it would be married with reform to ensure the new investment would not be wasted.

But after eight years and tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, Britain’s public services are still beset with problems and certainly they have not been transformed. Worse, the nation’s productivity and competitiveness have faltered and with it our future economic prospects.

“As Britain squanders some of its post-Thatcher advantage . . . the two sides of the Channel are becoming much more similar again,” said an analyst with Bank of America last week. “Gordon Brown’s largesse is showing up.”

SPENDING on schools is a case in point. It has soared from £22.4 billion in 1997-98 to £35.4 billion in 2004-05.

Thanks to David Blunkett, Labour’s first education secretary, teachers are considerably better paid. The average teacher gets £32,000 a year. Maths and science teachers are likely to be on £40,000-plus. Head teachers in secondary schools crashed the £100,000 barrier a few years ago. Even primary school heads in London can now earn £70,000 a year, plus perks.

The government says hundreds of millions are also being spent on improving school buildings and building new schools. Ministers boast there are 40,000 more teachers and 100,000 more support assistants in classes.

The problem, however, is that for all this change, school performance has hardly altered. Last week’s exam league tables showed that almost 60% of 16-year-olds fail to get even a C grade in maths and English at GCSE. In 1997, 45% of 16-year-olds managed five GCSEs at grades A* to C. Last year the proportion was up at nearly 54%, but the figures were boosted by giving vocational qualifications GCSE equivalence.

The government’s own spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, has also produced evidence of ministers’ failure. Its latest report, published two weeks ago, pointed out that there are still about 1m children in schools that do not provide a satisfactory education. “We estimate that around 980,000 pupils (13% of the total in state schools) are, in 2005, receiving an unsatisfactory education,” the report said.

Even Blair’s new city academies programme appears to be faltering. Despite costing an average of £27m each to build, the performance of several of the shiny new schools has been savaged by inspectors. Last week the £31m Bexley business academy in south London was judged “inadequate” by inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education who cited poor teaching standards, ill discipline and low exam results as key problems. They issued the school with a “notice to improve”. Blair meanwhile reiterated his plans to create 200 academies by 2010.

Other expensive educational initiatives have fared little better. Ministers were recently told by the National Audit Office that there was not much to show for £1 billion spent on schemes to tackle truancy and poor behaviour in schools. Despite this vast expenditure, truancy rates in school in England and Wales are still increasing.

WITHIN the NHS things are little better. Six years ago this month, Blair gave a Sunday morning interview to Sir David Frost. The NHS was under pressure as a result of a winter flu crisis and Blair had to be seen to act.

From the comfort of Frost’s sofa he announced that the government would dramatically increase health spending in Britain. It would grow from just over 6% of gross domestic product to the EU average of more than 8%, he said.

Brown, while initially angered by Blair’s leaking of what he saw as his big announcement, duly obliged and taxes were raised so billions of pounds in new investment could be poured into the NHS.

Last week details emerged of a Treasury presentation on the consequences of all this largesse. Just as with schools, much of the extra money had gone into salaries rather than improved services, the report showed. Britain’s GPs, nurses and consultants had become the best paid in Europe.

Research from the King’s Fund, an independent health watchdog, shows that 59% of the extra money pumped into the NHS since 2001 — the point at which the taps where turned on — has gone on staff pay. Consultants and GPs have had salary increases worth up to 50% over three years, with GPs now earning more than £100,000 a year on average. Nurses have also had substantial increases.

The leaked PowerPoint presentation showed that the NHS can no longer expect funding increases on anything like the current scale and must now concentrate on greater efficiency and value for money. That may be easier said than done.Figures compiled by the think tank Reform show that NHS productivity is still falling by at least 1% a year. No fewer than a quarter of NHS trusts are now in financial deficit.

This may sound academic but the impact on patients is all too real. Last November Mike Collins, a former member of the Labour party, was denied the same sort of heart operation that Blair received on the NHS a year before.

The 55-year-old accountancy lecturer from Abingdon, Oxfordshire, was told he was no longer eligible for the treatment. It was cancelled because of a financial crisis at his local hospital. Like dozens of others with irregular heartbeats who were being treated by the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, he was told the eligibility criteria for the operation had been changed. That policy was reversed by the hospital only last week.

Collins, who had planned to take out a £10,000 loan to pay for the treatment privately, felt badly let down. “My contract with the NHS, where I pay for it in years of taxes so that it is there for me when I need it, had been broken,” he said.

THROUGH more than eight years in office Blair and Brown have insisted that they were building a strong, enterprise-friendly economy, capable of generating the wealth needed to pay for the huge increase in spending on public services.

Voters have, for the most part, believed them. Some have always been sceptical about the merits of public spending but so long as Labour’s dynamic duo kept the economy ticking along they have not thought it worth rocking the boat.

Brown knows that the economy has been central to new Labour’s electoral success and has claimed that Britain was becoming “an increasingly successful leader of the global economy”.

That, however, is a claim that is becoming harder and harder to justify. Figures last week showed that unemployment, measured by the traditional claimant count, rose in December for the 11th month in a row. The government’s favoured jobless measure, based on the official Labour Force Survey, jumped by 111,000 in the latest three months to more than 1.5m. After falling consistently since Britain emerged from recession in the early 1990s, the spectre of lengthening dole queues has returned.

“Perhaps the most depressing feature of the latest figures is the sharp rise in unemployment to above 1.5m,” said John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. “When combined with the number of economically inactive jobless people who say that they want a job this raises the total number of people who want to work above 3.5m.”

Growth in the economy slowed sharply last year to just 1.7% and the public sector jobs boom is fading. But the biggest reason for unemployment rising is that Britain’s businesses have become hamstrung by high taxes, red tape and a government-inspired pensions crisis.

“This gradual change in labour market laws that we’ve seen is going to lead to big inflexibilities in the economy,” said Richard Jeffrey, head of research at the City firm Bridgewell Securities. “It is inhibiting our ability to compete.”

The consequences of the government’s extravagance on spending, and the accompanying increase in the tax burden, are coming home to roost. A decade ago, the tax burden in Britain was decisively lower than in Germany. Measured as a share of gross domestic product, it was — at 38% — close to the average of the generally more successful English-speaking “Anglo-Saxon” economies, and within sight of low-tax America.

But this year, says the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Britain’s tax burden will be 42.4%, higher than Germany’s 42.1% and well above America, which has come down to 32.7%.

Holger Schmieding of Bank of America, who highlighted the figures in a report last week, said Britain was becoming more like the slow-growing economies of Europe. “For 2006, the OECD expects the German government spending share to fall within striking distance of the UK share. For 2007, the OECD even sees German government expenditure, 45% of GDP, below that of the UK’s 45.7%,” he said.

Sir Digby Jones, the CBI director-general, citing a £50 billion increase in the business tax burden, has repeatedly warned Blair and Brown of the dangers of making Britain uncompetitive.

But such warnings have fallen on deaf ears, with damaging consequences. “There is a lot more talk from members that companies will go elsewhere,” said a CBI source. “More and more people are making plans to do that.”

That’s not the only problem. There was near-meltdown in Britain’s market for gilts — government bonds — last week. Company pension schemes, hit hard by the £5 billion annual tax raid that Brown instituted shortly after Labour took office in 1997, are now being forced by the pensions regulator to buy “safe” investments. These include index-linked bonds, protected against inflation. But last week the return on these bonds, after inflation, slumped below 0.4% — a fraction of what pension schemes need to meet their liabilities.

The best measure of a country’s long-term prosperity is the growth in productivity — output per worker, or output per hour. In his first budget more than eight years ago Brown set out a “productivity agenda”, aimed at closing the gap between Britain and competitor countries. But British workers still produce substantially less every hour than their French, German and American counterparts.

Productivity growth has slowed sharply since 2001, when Blair and Brown turned on the spending taps. Public sector productivity has been falling for the past four years, dragging down the overall figures. The latest figures show output per worker in Britain up by a paltry 0.4% on a year earlier. Measured on a per-hour basis, there was no increase at all.

Tomorrow, David Cameron will launch his final policy review. The new Tory leader, alongside George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, will announce a review of policies to improve Britain’s competitiveness, under the chairmanship of Simon Wolfson, who runs Next, the fashion retailer.

The Tories have had a tough time facing Brown since 1997, and successive shadow chancellors have fallen. But with the Blair-Brown experiment on public services failing, Britain’s economy shackled by the same high taxes and red tape that have held back Europe and productivity struggling, it is the chancellor who is now on the defensive.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance, which has been carefully analysing polling on tax and public services, says the tide of popular opinion is turning. “People’s experience with the NHS and schools means that it’s becoming less credible to claim higher taxes mean better public services,” said James Frayne, its campaign director. “Also, people are taking on board all these stories about politicians wasting money.”

When the Tories do eventually come up with an alternative, voters may at last be ready to listen.

Additional reporting: David Cracknell, Geraldine Hackett, Sarah-Kate Templeton and Yuba Bessaoud

January 22, 2006 at 02:50 AM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

January 20, 2006

The Cave Man Speaks

The Cave Man Speaks

y Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; 8:42 AM

I began noticing in recent months that administration officials were taking credit for the lack of another terrorist attack on America since 9/11.

This, I thought, was risky business, since no matter how much security is beefed up, no many how many terrorists are investigated, there is no way in an open society to block every conceivable attack. And if administration officials want to boast that their policies have kept America safe, are they willing to accept the blame if another attack takes place?

Cheney was at it again yesterday, calling the safety record "no accident." Maybe. Maybe the administration's efforts have contributed to the four-year lull, or maybe we've been lucky, or some combination thereof.

Another one of those Osama tapes surfaced on al-Jazeera yesterday, as you undoubtedly know, and from his undisclosed cave he claimed that there have been no attacks because al-Qaeda is still making preparations. This may be little more than bluster, since the terrorist organization has obviously suffered serious damage. And bin Laden is a master media manipulator; remember when he put out a tape just before the Bush-Kerry election?

But after the bombings in London and Madrid, not to mention the al-Qaeda efforts in Iraq, who can really say there won't be another attack on U.S. soil?

No matter what the question yesterday, Scott McClellan kept saying we have the terrorists "on the run." I hope he's right and that "on the run" doesn't turn out to be like Dick Cheney's "last throes" in Iraq. Because political bluster isn't going to win this war on terror.

"Al-Jazeera today aired an audiotape from Osama bin Laden in which he makes fresh threats against the United States but also offers a long-term truce if unspecified 'just' conditions are met," says the Los Angeles Times. "The White House said the intelligence community was analyzing the data and said the U.S. would never shrink from pursuing terrorists who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001."

Osama reads the polls: "The statement noted that American opinion polls had shown the nation's desire to withdraw its troops from Iraq and its feeling that it is better that Americans 'don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours,' " says the New York Times.

Al-Jazeera said the tape was made last month, and "American intelligence and counterterrorism officials speculated that Al Qaeda leaders had kept the recording on the shelf, timing its release for maximum propaganda value," says the Chicago Tribune.

The New York Post 's banner is "DROP DEAD," and inside: "BUSH: NUTS TO OSAMA'S WHEEZING, WHINING BID FOR A TRUCE."

We hope that's clear.

Now for some Beltway politics. The New Republic's Ryan Lizza is, ah, blunt about the acting House majority leader:

"Republicans seem oblivious. Given the Democratic strategy on this issue -- a laser-like focus on the personalities and specific practices of the current crop of Republican investigatees -- it boggles the mind that GOP members are about to make Roy Blunt their majority leader. There is a reason why Howard Dean was celebrating Blunt's rise Tuesday and why some Democrats in the Great Hall yesterday were gleefully joking that they hoped to soon add a 'Blunt Reform' plank to their package.

"Think of just about any current scandal involving a Republican in Washington and Blunt is at the center of it. To wit:

"Abramoff. Blunt signed three letters to Interior Secretary Gale Norton asking her to stop the Choctaw Indians from opening a casino that would have competed with the tables of Abramoff's Indian clients. Blunt personally met with Abramoff or his fellow lobbyists (the records are unclear) when Abramoff was working the Mariana Islands issue. . . . Blunt had 'friend of owner status' at Abramoff's Signatures restaurant, meaning he ate for free.

"K Street Project. Blunt was DeLay's liaison to K Street -- he was DeLay's DeLay.

"Alexander Strategy Group. Blunt was closely associated with the now disbanded firm run by ex-DeLay aides who are at the center of the Abramoff investigation. A detailed report put together by Public Citizen notes that 'Ten of Blunt's biggest contributors have hired the Alexander Strategy Group as their lobbying firm' and that the firm did some $500,000 in fundraising and consulting work for Blunt.

"Duke Cunningham. Blunt reportedly flew four times on the corporate jets of companies run by Brent Wilkes, the defense contractor accused of bribing Representative Cunningham with millions of dollars in cash and gifts.

"Pay to play. Blunt once mysteriously added a provision beneficial to tobacco giant Altria, for whom his wife and son are lobbyists, to a Homeland Security bill. (It was removed when it became public.)"

My question is, how many lawmakers have similar records?

In a "GOP Lameness Watch," Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum spotlights "what may be the lamest criticism ever of an elected official:

" Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive . . . accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents.

" 'Does Mr. Reid think that using an official government office for political purposes is ethical?' asked Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee .

"Do Republicans really think they're going to score points by accusing Reid of the dastardly sin of using his office to prepare attacks on the opposition? Lee Atwater would be ashamed."

Reid, meanwhile, has apologized for putting out a press release -- which likens Republicans vowing to stamp out corruption to John Gotti promisiong to clean up organized crime--saying the tone was too harsh, the Washington Post reports today.

Who was Abramoff meeting with at 1600 Penn? Slate's John Dickerson wants to know:

"Jack Abramoff was the Typhoid Mary of Potomac Fever: He sucked up to people in power and showered them with gifts and favors in hopes that they would forget who they worked for and think they worked for him. Did White House aides succumb? McClellan's argument for not telling us is that staff in the executive branch should be allowed to deliberate without fear of disclosure. Staffers can't give honest advice if they're constantly worried about how the public might react to every meeting they might hold. The courts upheld the idea when they rejected attempts by both the General Accounting Office and private watchdog groups to sue for the records detailing which representatives of which oil, gas, and coal companies helped Dick Cheney write the administration's energy policy.

"But like the government car, the 'executive deliberation' perk can be abused. In this case, the White House isn't protecting its sensitive decision-making process; it's merely shielding itself from embarrassment. Congress may not have a legal right to demand records of meetings, but under the circumstances, Bush should voluntarily relinquish them to the public. Taxpayers may not have a right to sit in on every meeting and read every memo, but they should know whether Abramoff succeeded in putting his interests ahead of theirs inside the White House as well as Congress. The Bush campaign returned Abramoff's donations to help remove the stink. But it won't be able to fully fumigate until officials let us know who they met with and why."

HuffPost blogger Eric Boehlert says the media lost sight of K Street (don't blame us, we work on L Street):

"In the wake of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea on Jan. 3, some press outlets did their best, belatedly, to explain the crooked lobbying empire Abramoff had built with the help of Rep. Tom DeLay. And specifically, some news outlets addressed the K Street Project, the DeLay/Abramoff/Santorum/Norquist pay-to-play money machine that's playing a pivotal role in the GOP's deepening ethical morass. (Read a smart, concise description of the K Street Project here.) But even then, the media's descriptions have often been half-hearted at best. Appearing on the Don Imus radio show recently, Newsweek's Evan Thomas mentioned, 'this thing called the K Street Project,' as if he'd just heard about the day before over lunch at The Palm.

"In truth, there's not a serious reporter in Washington, D.C. who for the last three years did not know exactly what the K Street Project was. (The GOP openly boasted about it.) The K Street Project was, hands down, the most important behind-the-scenes development in terms of how power/legislation was bought and sold inside the Beltway and represented an epic story with endless angles and repercussions. And yet for the last three years those same serious MSM reporters participated in a virtual boycott of the story, refusing to detail corruption inside the GOP. (Curious, because during the Clinton years the press couldn't stop writing about alleged Democratic funny money scandals that never actually materialized into criminal wrongdoing by prominent Dems.) Only in recent weeks, after Abramoff pleaded guilty and DeLay's grip on power loosened, have reporters felt confident enough to cross the street -- to explain what the K Street Project is.

"And yes, boycott really is the word that described the MSM's previous don't-ask/don't-tell policy regarding the K Street Project. It's true that on June 10 2002, the Washington Post and the New York Times both published articles detailing the creation of the K Street Project. (Again, GOP leaders were practically advertising it.) But then the cones of silence went up."

At Power Line, John Hinderaker has a problem with yesterday's NYT scoop on the report of the last living independent counsel:

"The New York Times reports on David Barrett's investigation into alleged misdeeds by Clinton cabinet officer Henry Cisneros. . . . Someone leaked it to the Times. The Times' angle on the story is that Barrett's eleven-year investigation exemplifies what went wrong with the independent counsel statute, 'an important post-Watergate law.' (So important that it has been repealed, to pretty much everyone's relief.)

"What most struck me about the Times story was how they characterized the person who leaked Barrett's report to them, thereby enabling them to beat most of their competitors to the story:

" A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known .

"Isn't that delightful? This particular leaker was no whistle-blower and no patriot; just a partisan with an axe to grind. But after the Times has printed dozens (hundreds, probably) of stories critical of the Bush administration based on lea