Ariel Sharon: Bush's Role Model?
Steven Day, PopPolitics.com
February 21, 2002

Given that George W. Bush entered the White House with less foreign policy experience than the average exchange student, it's easy to understand why the media spends so much time trying to figure out which of his advisors has the most influence: It's both natural and comforting to assume that he relies heavily on the advice of others.


It may be more revealing, however, to ask: Who is his role model? Which world leader, if any, is Bush trying to emulate in his foreign policy? Judging by his actions, the answer would seem to be Ariel Sharon.


Sharon gained power by deliberately derailing the Mideast peace process through his provocative visit to Temple Mount. When this led to an outpouring of Palestinian rage and violence, just as Sharon had planed, the Israeli public soured on the leadership of the Labor Party and Sharon's hawkish Likud Party was swept into office in a landslide.


Without a doubt, this was a brilliant political ploy by Sharon, albeit one that resulted in hundreds of unnecessary deaths and left the Mideast in shambles. Talk about your down-and-dirty politics.


Now consider Bush's mega-hawkish State of the Union address, with its reference to an "axis of evil" made up of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. All other problems with this sort of gratuitous saber rattling notwithstanding, the thing that has caused the most head scratching among foreign policy wonks is the inclusion of Iran on this list.


Why pick a fight with Iran now? The long-standing deep freeze in American-Iranian relations has thawed significantly over the last few years. Iranian moderates, under the leadership of President Mohammad Khatami, have been working to modernize the country, while pushing for improved relations with the West. Iran even gave some limited assistance to the United States during the war in Afghanistan.


But these hopeful signs have largely evaporated now. As the administration must surely have anticipated, the threatening tone of the president's remarks greatly strengthened the hand of Iranian hardliners. Once again, Iran appears united in its hatred of the United States, with thousands shouting "death to America." The pure boneheadedness of the U.S. policy has also deeply offended many of our allies in the war on terrorism, including much of Western Europe.


So why would the administration commit such an obvious blunder? The answer, sadly, appears to be that it wasn't a blunder at all, but a deliberate provocation designed to destabilize Iranian relations with the West. Bush took a page from Sharon's playbook; he is better off politically if Iran remains a "rogue state," so he made it happen. It's an awful conclusion to reach, but it's the only explanation that makes any sense.


Unfortunately, this type of provocation is consistent with the general character of this hyper-politically charged administration. The moment Bush took office he began working to undermine South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's efforts toward engagement and reconciliation with North Korea. He also quickly slammed the door on years of productive negotiations involving a nuclear weapons freeze and a moratorium on missile development by North Korea. Bush's axis speech was the last straw for many South Koreans. "His recent rhetoric clearly shows the U.S. intention to fan tensions on the Korean peninsula," complained Sohn Nark-koo, spokesman for the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, South Korea's second largest labor union organization.


Let's face it: Bush needs "rogue states." He needs them to justify the huge buildup in defense spending he's proposing, much of which is slated to go for the construction of new Cold War-style weapons of questionable military value in today's world. When these expenditures are combined with the granddaddy of all cash cows, the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), Bush's campaign contributors in the defense industry stand to be enriched far beyond the dreams of Enron executives.


In ordinary times, such a political payoff might produce stiff opposition. But when people are fretting about possible attacks, military expenditures -- even wholly unjustified ones -- suddenly become more palatable. Or at least that's what the administration is banking on.


And the political benefit to the Bush administration of a world stocked with bogeymen extends far beyond defense spending. Keeping the public focused on an ill-defined war on terrorism, now expanded it to include all things "evil," can do wonders for a president's approval rating.


Karl Rove said basically the same thing in his widely reported luncheon speech to the Republican National Committee: "We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."


So there you have it: Rogue states, a destabilized world and budget-busting military expenditures -- they're all good news to the Bush administration. It's a pity the same can't be said for the country as a whole.

Read more!

Ariel Sharon: Bush's Role Model?
Steven Day, PopPolitics.com
February 21, 2002

Given that George W. Bush entered the White House with less foreign policy experience than the average exchange student, it's easy to understand why the media spends so much time trying to figure out which of his advisors has the most influence: It's both natural and comforting to assume that he relies heavily on the advice of others.


It may be more revealing, however, to ask: Who is his role model? Which world leader, if any, is Bush trying to emulate in his foreign policy? Judging by his actions, the answer would seem to be Ariel Sharon.


Sharon gained power by deliberately derailing the Mideast peace process through his provocative visit to Temple Mount. When this led to an outpouring of Palestinian rage and violence, just as Sharon had planed, the Israeli public soured on the leadership of the Labor Party and Sharon's hawkish Likud Party was swept into office in a landslide.


Without a doubt, this was a brilliant political ploy by Sharon, albeit one that resulted in hundreds of unnecessary deaths and left the Mideast in shambles. Talk about your down-and-dirty politics.


Now consider Bush's mega-hawkish State of the Union address, with its reference to an "axis of evil" made up of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. All other problems with this sort of gratuitous saber rattling notwithstanding, the thing that has caused the most head scratching among foreign policy wonks is the inclusion of Iran on this list.


Why pick a fight with Iran now? The long-standing deep freeze in American-Iranian relations has thawed significantly over the last few years. Iranian moderates, under the leadership of President Mohammad Khatami, have been working to modernize the country, while pushing for improved relations with the West. Iran even gave some limited assistance to the United States during the war in Afghanistan.


But these hopeful signs have largely evaporated now. As the administration must surely have anticipated, the threatening tone of the president's remarks greatly strengthened the hand of Iranian hardliners. Once again, Iran appears united in its hatred of the United States, with thousands shouting "death to America." The pure boneheadedness of the U.S. policy has also deeply offended many of our allies in the war on terrorism, including much of Western Europe.


So why would the administration commit such an obvious blunder? The answer, sadly, appears to be that it wasn't a blunder at all, but a deliberate provocation designed to destabilize Iranian relations with the West. Bush took a page from Sharon's playbook; he is better off politically if Iran remains a "rogue state," so he made it happen. It's an awful conclusion to reach, but it's the only explanation that makes any sense.


Unfortunately, this type of provocation is consistent with the general character of this hyper-politically charged administration. The moment Bush took office he began working to undermine South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's efforts toward engagement and reconciliation with North Korea. He also quickly slammed the door on years of productive negotiations involving a nuclear weapons freeze and a moratorium on missile development by North Korea. Bush's axis speech was the last straw for many South Koreans. "His recent rhetoric clearly shows the U.S. intention to fan tensions on the Korean peninsula," complained Sohn Nark-koo, spokesman for the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, South Korea's second largest labor union organization.


Let's face it: Bush needs "rogue states." He needs them to justify the huge buildup in defense spending he's proposing, much of which is slated to go for the construction of new Cold War-style weapons of questionable military value in today's world. When these expenditures are combined with the granddaddy of all cash cows, the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), Bush's campaign contributors in the defense industry stand to be enriched far beyond the dreams of Enron executives.


In ordinary times, such a political payoff might produce stiff opposition. But when people are fretting about possible attacks, military expenditures -- even wholly unjustified ones -- suddenly become more palatable. Or at least that's what the administration is banking on.


And the political benefit to the Bush administration of a world stocked with bogeymen extends far beyond defense spending. Keeping the public focused on an ill-defined war on terrorism, now expanded it to include all things "evil," can do wonders for a president's approval rating.


Karl Rove said basically the same thing in his widely reported luncheon speech to the Republican National Committee: "We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."


So there you have it: Rogue states, a destabilized world and budget-busting military expenditures -- they're all good news to the Bush administration. It's a pity the same can't be said for the country as a whole.

Read more!

Ariel Sharon: Bush's Role Model?
Steven Day, PopPolitics.com
February 21, 2002

Given that George W. Bush entered the White House with less foreign policy experience than the average exchange student, it's easy to understand why the media spends so much time trying to figure out which of his advisors has the most influence: It's both natural and comforting to assume that he relies heavily on the advice of others.


It may be more revealing, however, to ask: Who is his role model? Which world leader, if any, is Bush trying to emulate in his foreign policy? Judging by his actions, the answer would seem to be Ariel Sharon.


Sharon gained power by deliberately derailing the Mideast peace process through his provocative visit to Temple Mount. When this led to an outpouring of Palestinian rage and violence, just as Sharon had planed, the Israeli public soured on the leadership of the Labor Party and Sharon's hawkish Likud Party was swept into office in a landslide.


Without a doubt, this was a brilliant political ploy by Sharon, albeit one that resulted in hundreds of unnecessary deaths and left the Mideast in shambles. Talk about your down-and-dirty politics.


Now consider Bush's mega-hawkish State of the Union address, with its reference to an "axis of evil" made up of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. All other problems with this sort of gratuitous saber rattling notwithstanding, the thing that has caused the most head scratching among foreign policy wonks is the inclusion of Iran on this list.


Why pick a fight with Iran now? The long-standing deep freeze in American-Iranian relations has thawed significantly over the last few years. Iranian moderates, under the leadership of President Mohammad Khatami, have been working to modernize the country, while pushing for improved relations with the West. Iran even gave some limited assistance to the United States during the war in Afghanistan.


But these hopeful signs have largely evaporated now. As the administration must surely have anticipated, the threatening tone of the president's remarks greatly strengthened the hand of Iranian hardliners. Once again, Iran appears united in its hatred of the United States, with thousands shouting "death to America." The pure boneheadedness of the U.S. policy has also deeply offended many of our allies in the war on terrorism, including much of Western Europe.


So why would the administration commit such an obvious blunder? The answer, sadly, appears to be that it wasn't a blunder at all, but a deliberate provocation designed to destabilize Iranian relations with the West. Bush took a page from Sharon's playbook; he is better off politically if Iran remains a "rogue state," so he made it happen. It's an awful conclusion to reach, but it's the only explanation that makes any sense.


Unfortunately, this type of provocation is consistent with the general character of this hyper-politically charged administration. The moment Bush took office he began working to undermine South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's efforts toward engagement and reconciliation with North Korea. He also quickly slammed the door on years of productive negotiations involving a nuclear weapons freeze and a moratorium on missile development by North Korea. Bush's axis speech was the last straw for many South Koreans. "His recent rhetoric clearly shows the U.S. intention to fan tensions on the Korean peninsula," complained Sohn Nark-koo, spokesman for the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, South Korea's second largest labor union organization.


Let's face it: Bush needs "rogue states." He needs them to justify the huge buildup in defense spending he's proposing, much of which is slated to go for the construction of new Cold War-style weapons of questionable military value in today's world. When these expenditures are combined with the granddaddy of all cash cows, the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), Bush's campaign contributors in the defense industry stand to be enriched far beyond the dreams of Enron executives.


In ordinary times, such a political payoff might produce stiff opposition. But when people are fretting about possible attacks, military expenditures -- even wholly unjustified ones -- suddenly become more palatable. Or at least that's what the administration is banking on.


And the political benefit to the Bush administration of a world stocked with bogeymen extends far beyond defense spending. Keeping the public focused on an ill-defined war on terrorism, now expanded it to include all things "evil," can do wonders for a president's approval rating.


Karl Rove said basically the same thing in his widely reported luncheon speech to the Republican National Committee: "We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."


So there you have it: Rogue states, a destabilized world and budget-busting military expenditures -- they're all good news to the Bush administration. It's a pity the same can't be said for the country as a whole.

Read more!

Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad
Tue Feb 19, 9:00 AM ET
By JAMES DAO and ERIC SCHMITT The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries, military officials said.
The plans, which have not received final approval from the Bush administration, have stirred opposition among some Pentagon officials who say they might undermine the credibility of information that is openly distributed by the Defense Department's public affairs officers.

The military has long engaged in information warfare against hostile nations for instance, by dropping leaflets and broadcasting messages into Afghanistan when it was still under Taliban rule.

But it recently created the Office of Strategic Influence, which is proposing to broaden that mission into allied nations in the Middle East, Asia and even Western Europe. The office would assume a role traditionally led by civilian agencies, mainly the State Department.

The small but well-financed Pentagon office, which was established shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was a response to concerns in the administration that the United States was losing public support overseas for its war on terrorism, particularly in Islamic countries.

As part of the effort to counter the pronouncements of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and their supporters, the State Department has already hired a former advertising executive to run its public diplomacy office, and the White House has created a public information "war room" to coordinate the administration's daily message domestically and abroad.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, while broadly supportive of the new office, has not approved its specific proposals and has asked the Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. Haynes, to review them, senior Pentagon officials said.

Little information is available about the Office of Strategic Influence, and even many senior Pentagon officials and Congressional military aides say they know almost nothing about its purpose and plans. Its multimillion dollar budget, drawn from a $10 billion emergency supplement to the Pentagon budget authorized by Congress in October, has not been disclosed.

Headed by Brig. Gen. Simon P. Worden of the Air Force, the new office has begun circulating classified proposals calling for aggressive campaigns that use not only the foreign media and the Internet, but also covert operations.

The new office "rolls up all the instruments within D.O.D. to influence foreign audiences," its assistant for operations, Thomas A. Timmes, a former Army colonel and psychological operations officer, said at a recent conference, referring to the Department of Defense. "D.O.D. has not traditionally done these things."

One of the office's proposals calls for planting news items with foreign media organizations through outside concerns that might not have obvious ties to the Pentagon, officials familiar with the proposal said.

General Worden envisions a broad mission ranging from "black" campaigns that use disinformation and other covert activities to "white" public affairs that rely on truthful news releases, Pentagon officials said.

"It goes from the blackest of black programs to the whitest of white," a senior Pentagon official said.

Another proposal involves sending journalists, civic leaders and foreign leaders e-mail messages that promote American views or attack unfriendly governments, officials said.

Asked if such e-mail would be identified as coming from the American military, a senior Pentagon official said that "the return address will probably be a dot-com, not a dot- mil," a reference to the military's Internet designation.

To help the new office, the Pentagon has hired the Rendon Group, a Washington-based international consulting firm run by John W. Rendon Jr., a former campaign aide to President Jimmy Carter. The firm, which is being paid about $100,000 a month, has done extensive work for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Kuwaiti royal family and the Iraqi National Congress, the opposition group seeking to oust President Saddam Hussein.

Officials at the Rendon Group say terms of their contract forbid them to talk about their Pentagon work. But the firm is well known for running propaganda campaigns in Arab countries, including one denouncing atrocities by Iraq during its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The firm has been hired as the Bush administration appears to have united around the goal of ousting Mr. Hussein. "Saddam Hussein has a charm offensive going on, and we haven't done anything to counteract it," a senior military official said.

Proponents say the new Pentagon office will bring much-needed coordination to the military's efforts to influence views of the United States overseas, particularly as Washington broadens the war on terrorism beyond Afghanistan.

But the new office has also stirred a sharp debate in the Pentagon, where several senior officials have questioned whether its mission is too broad and possibly even illegal.

Those critics say they are disturbed that a single office might be authorized to use not only covert operations like computer network attacks, psychological activities and deception, but also the instruments and staff of the military's globe- spanning public affairs apparatus.

Mingling the more surreptitious activities with the work of traditional public affairs would undermine the Pentagon's credibility with the media, the public and governments around the world, critics argue.

"This breaks down the boundaries almost completely," a senior Pentagon official said.

Moreover, critics say, disinformation planted in foreign media organizations, like Reuters or Agence France-Presse, could end up being published or broadcast by American news organizations.

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency are barred by law from propaganda activities in the United States. In the mid-1970's, it was disclosed that some C.I.A. programs to plant false information in the foreign press had resulted in articles published by American news organizations.

Critics of the new Pentagon office also argue that governments allied with the United States are likely to object strongly to any attempts by the American military to influence media within their borders.

"Everybody understands using information operations to go after nonfriendlies," another senior Pentagon official said. "When people get uncomfortable is when people use the same tools and tactics on friendlies."

Victoria Clarke, the assistant secretary of defense for public information, declined to discuss details of the new office. But she acknowledged that its mission was being carefully reviewed by the Pentagon.

"Clearly the U.S. needs to be as effective as possible in all our communications," she said. "What we're trying to do now is make clear the distinction and appropriateness of who does what."

General Worden, an astrophysicist who has specialized in space operations in his 27-year Air Force career, did not respond to several requests for an interview.

General Worden has close ties to his new boss, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, that date back to the Reagan administration, military officials said. The general's staff of about 15 people reports to the office of the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, which is under Mr. Feith.

The Office for Strategic Influence also coordinates its work with the White House's new counterterrorism office, run by Wayne A. Downing, a retired general who was head of the Special Operations command, which oversees the military's covert information operations.

Many administration officials worried that the United States was losing support in the Islamic world after American warplanes began bombing Afghanistan in October. Those concerns spurred the creation of the Office of Strategic Influence.

In an interview in November, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained the Pentagon's desire to broaden its efforts to influence foreign audiences, saying:

"Perhaps the most challenging piece of this is putting together what we call a strategic influence campaign quickly and with the right emphasis. That's everything from psychological operations to the public affairs piece to coordinating partners in this effort with us."

One of the military units assigned to carry out the policies of the Office of Strategic Influence is the Army's Psychological Operations Command. The command was involved in dropping millions of fliers and broadcasting scores of radio programs into Afghanistan encouraging Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers to surrender.

In the 1980's, Army "psyop" units, as they are known, broadcast radio and television programs into Nicaragua intended to undermine the Sandinista government. In the 1990's, they tried to encourage public support for American peacekeeping missions in the Balkans.

The Office of Strategic Influence will also oversee private companies that will be hired to help develop information programs and evaluate their effectiveness using the same techniques as American political campaigns, including scientific polling and focus groups, officials said.

"O.S.I. still thinks the way to go is start a Defense Department Voice of America," a senior military official said. "When I get their briefings, it's scary."

Read more!

Gunman says "New Jersey" made him snap Gunman says "New Jersey" made him snap
GALVESTON, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas jury has found Thomas Mitchell guilty of aggravated assault for shooting his girlfriend because he thought she was about to say the words "New Jersey."
His attorney unsuccessfully sought his exoneration on grounds that certain words set off an uncontrollable rage in Mitchell, who has a history of mental illness.
Words that triggered a bad reaction in Mitchell included "New Jersey," "Wisconsin," "Snickers" and "Mars," lawyer Maria Mercado told the court.
Throughout the three-day trial, Mitchell, 54, covered his ears when he thought the words were going to be spoken.
Witnesses used flashcards with the words written out instead of saying them in court.

Read more!

Bush planning to topple Hussein
Aides say that although no military action is in the works, the President has decided the Iraqi leader poses too much of a threat.
By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - President Bush has decided to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power and ordered the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies to devise a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps to achieve that goal, senior U.S. officials said yesterday.
No military strike is imminent, but Bush has concluded that Hussein and his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs are such a threat to U.S. security that the Iraqi dictator must be removed, even if U.S. allies do not help, said the officials, who all spoke on condition of anonymity.

"This is not an argument about whether to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That debate is over. This is . . . how you do it," a senior administration official said in an interview with the Inquirer Washington Bureau.

The President's decision has launched the United States on a course that will have major ramifications for the U.S. military, the Middle East's future political alignment, international oil flows, and Bush's own war on terrorism. Russia and most of America's European allies have expressed alarm about the administration's escalating rhetoric on Iraq.

The course also is fraught with potential military difficulties, with most experts on Iraq warning that a campaign there would not be as swift or virtually free of American casualties as Afghanistan. There, rebels of the Northern Alliance, backed by U.S. commandos and massive U.S. airpower, quickly overthrew the Taliban regime.

Nevertheless, one foreign leader who met Bush recently came away "with the feeling that a decision has been made to strike Iraq, and the 'how' and 'when' are still fluid," added a diplomat who asked not to be further identified.

The CIA, senior officials said, recently presented Bush with a plan to destabilize Hussein's well-entrenched regime in Baghdad. The plan proposed a massive covert action campaign, sabotage, information warfare, and significantly more aggressive bombing of the "no fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq. U.S. and British forces patrol the zones to prevent Iraqi planes from bombing opposition forces.

Bush reportedly was enthusiastic, and although it could not be determined whether he gave final approval for the plan, the CIA has begun assigning officers to the task.

Bush also is dispatching Vice President Cheney next month on a tour of 11 Middle East nations, including many of Iraq's neighbors, whose leaders are leery of a U.S. attack on Baghdad.

While the mission's purpose has been portrayed publicly as sounding out Middle Eastern leaders on Iraq policy, Cheney in fact will tell them that the United States intends to get rid of Hussein and his regime, several top Bush aides said.

"He's not going to beg for support," one senior official said. "He's going to inform them that the President's decision has been made and will be carried out, and if they want some input into how and when it's carried out, now's the time for them to speak up."

In the lead-up to Cheney's trip, however, a sharp debate has erupted within the administration over what role Iraqi opposition groups should play, particularly the main group, the Iraqi National Congress.

Officials in the Near East Division of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, the clandestine service, warn that the INC, a coalition of Hussein opponents, is divided by internal feuds and almost certainly penetrated by both the Iraqi and Iranian intelligence services.

"Where the INC is concerned, no real covert operation is possible," said one U.S. intelligence official with experience in the area. "The INC isn't the Northern Alliance, and the [Iraqi] Republican Guards aren't the Taliban." In fact, one U.S. intelligence official said Iraqi opposition leaders already have been heard talking about the new campaign to oust Hussein.

Hawks in the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are pushing for a major role for the INC. Their position was strengthened last month, when Bush called Iraq part of an "axis of evil." These officials believe the brunt of the fighting can be borne by Iraqi opposition forces - primarily ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south - with assistance from U.S. airpower and CIA and special forces advisers on the ground, following the Afghanistan model.

Uniformed military officials, however, are skeptical of the opposition groups, doubtful that Hussein's military will crumble the way the Taliban did and worried that large numbers of U.S. troops could be called on to rescue opposition forces if they get bogged down or trapped.

The Pentagon's existing contingency plans for an invasion of Iraq call for the use of 200,000 American ground troops, U.S. officials said. A decade after the Persian Gulf war, Iraq is believed to have around 400,000 active-duty troops, one quarter of them in elite units such as the Republican Guard, and some modern weaponry.

However, the United States may not have the extensive use of bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere that it enjoyed during the gulf war. While many of Washington's Arab allies may go along in the end, for now they oppose "regime change" in Iraq and worry about its effect on populations already angered by nearly 17 months of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

There are other major uncertainties about a U.S. attack on Iraq that, unlike the gulf war, would be intended to remove its leader. One is whether Hussein, with nothing to lose, would lash out at U.S. forces, Israel or Arab states backing the United States with Scud missiles tipped with chemical or biological weapons.

Another is the lack of U.S. intelligence assets on the ground to work with opposition forces, assess the strength of Hussein's regime and recruit defectors. The CIA this year began to reconstitute a small presence in northern Iraq, working with the INC, an official said.

Finally, an attack could endanger close U.S. allies such as Jordan, which imports all of its oil from Iraq. "Definitely, it's a nightmare scenario for us," an Arab diplomat said yesterday.

Bush should keep the focus on fighting international terrorism, where he has broad international backing, Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Fahmy said. "If you mix two issues together, you will lose this focus," he said in an interview last week.

Read more!

أفاد مواطن لبناني، انه جرى استجوابه من قبل دائرة أمنية المانية لمعرفة ما يقصده بقوله لزميله على الهاتف: <<بكرا بيفوت السبت في <<مؤخرة>> اليهودي>>، وانه حاول ان يشرح لهم بأن هذه الجملة هي من الأقوال اليومية الشائعة في لبنان وانه شخصيا لا يفهم معناها، لكنها تدل على الارجح، بأن <<بعض الأمور تجري معالجتها في وقت متأخر>>.

Read more!

Many American Muslims well off, college educated, poll shows

By Virginia Culver
Denver Post Religion Writer

Friday, January 18, 2002 - Half of American Muslims earn more than $50,000 a year, 58 percent are college graduates, and 36 percent were born in the U.S., according to what may be the most exhaustive poll ever done of American Muslims.

The poll, sponsored by Georgetown University, also shows that 40 percent of U.S. Muslims are Democrats, 23 percent are Republicans and 28 percent are independents.

Other findings showed that 84 percent want tougher laws to prevent terrorism, 79 percent support stronger gun laws, 68 percent favor the death penalty for murder, and 92 percent want stricter environmental laws.

The poll is part of a three-year project, called Muslims in American Public Square (MAPS), which, with the support of the Pew Charitable Trusts, is documenting the roles of Muslims in America. Further projects will look at six other major groups in America, including African-American churches, Hispanic churches, evangelical Protestants, Catholics and mainline Protestants.

A majority, 57 percent, said the opinions of Americans toward Muslims and Arabs since Sept. 11 has been unfavorable, but only 8 percent said that Americans have been disrespectful and intolerant of them in general.

American Muslims overwhelmingly favor government solutions to issues such as health care and poverty, both rating at 93 percent.

Seven in 10 Muslims are active in their mosques; 35 percent of men and 26 percent of women attend weekly.

Zahid Bukhari, who helped design the poll, said it is the most complete ever of American Muslims, both because of the range of questions and the breakdown by ethnic groups. The poll "destroyed the myth" that only 10 percent of America's 6 million Muslims are active in a mosque, he said. He was surprised that despite reactions since Sept. 11, 92 percent of Muslims in the U.S. believe in the political process.

Talib Syed, president of the Colorado Muslim Society, said there is obviously a great deal of diversity among Muslims just as among other religious groups. "I hope the poll will build great bridges of understanding among all Americans," Syed said.

Polling was done by Zogby International of Utica, N.Y., and sponsored by the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown.

Zogby interviewed 1,781 people in November. The margin of error is 2.4 percent.

Read more!

Deportee Sweep Will Start With Mideast Focus
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 8, 2002; Page A01

Federal agents will soon begin apprehending and interrogating thousands of illegal Middle Eastern immigrants who have ignored deportation orders, seeking ways to prosecute any who have ties to terrorism and compiling the results of interviews in a new computer database, according to a Justice Department memo.

The Jan. 25 memo instructs federal agents to find methods of detaining some of the immigrants for possible criminal charges, rather than merely expelling them from the United States as previously planned.

The tactics are part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's efforts to locate an estimated 314,000 foreign nationals, known as "absconders," who have ignored court orders to leave the country. Justice Department and FBI officials have said that the operation would focus first on about 6,000 immigrants from countries identified as al Qaeda strongholds, though the vast majority of absconders are Latin American.

Yesterday, officials said the arrests will begin next week with a group of fewer than 1,000 illegal immigrants, most from the Middle East and Pakistan, who are believed to be the most dangerous because they are convicted felons.

The "Absconder Apprehension Initiative" is the latest example of the Justice Department's wide-ranging efforts to thwart terrorism by increasing its focus on domestic intelligence gathering. So far this campaign has involved, in part, compiling information on foreign nationals living in the United States both legally and illegally.

The internal department memo, sent to anti-terrorism officials by Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and obtained by The Washington Post, shows that the FBI and Justice Department have created a special computerized reporting system that already includes information gathered from recent interviews with thousands of Middle Eastern men who were invited to come forth voluntarily. Results from the new round of interrogations will be added to the database.

U.S. officials are forming special "apprehension teams" that include agents from the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and the INS, according to the memo.

Justice Department officials said it is logical to start the absconder program by gathering information on people living here who may have ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, which has been blamed for the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

"We can't go after 314,000 people at a time, so it only makes sense to prioritize them in a way that makes sense from a law enforcement perspective," said one senior Justice Department official. "If we didn't do this, then we should be criticized."

But the absconder program's initial focus on Middle Eastern nationals has renewed complaints from Arab American and civil liberties groups that the Bush administration is practicing racial profiling in its war on terrorism.

Khalil E. Jahshan, vice president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee here, said yesterday that information in the special terrorism database could be used to unfairly smear the reputations of innocent individuals.

"This whole path the government is taking is clearly a case of racial profiling," Jahshan said. "It's clearly a case of selective enforcement. . . . These half-baked methods seem totally isolated from a whole tradition of respect for civil liberties and civil rights in this country."

Unlike the recent round of interviews with thousands of foreign nationals who submitted voluntarily, the interrogations will focus on people who have ignored orders to leave the United States and may have committed other crimes, according to the memo. The first list will include many "who appear to be convicted felons," Thompson said.

"While there are aspects of this Initiative that are similar to the Interview Project that was recently conducted by the [Anti-Terrorism Task Forces], I want to make clear that this is a very different undertaking," Thompson wrote. "Unlike the subjects of the Interview Project . . . these absconders are to be apprehended and treated as criminal suspects, and they are to be afforded all standard procedural rights and constitutional protections."

Each subject will be read Miranda rights before being questioned, according to the memo. Investigators have also been instructed to point out monetary rewards and special immigration breaks available to those who cooperate.

"Investigators conducting interviews should feel free to use all appropriate means of encouraging absconders to cooperate, including reference to any reward money that is being offered and reference to the availability of an 'S Visa'," Thompson wrote. Dubbed "snitch visas" by critics, S visas are offered to immigrants who provide valuable information for criminal or terrorism investigations.

Although the general outlines of the initiative have been reported previously, Thompson urged participants to keep the operation secret. "This Initiative will not entail any official notice to either the public or the absconders," he wrote. "It would be counterproductive, and potentially dangerous, to provide the absconders with official warning that agents and officers will be seeking to locate and capture them."

Immigrants with no links to terrorism will be swiftly deported through normal INS procedures, according to the memo. But if the FBI decides that an immigrant should be investigated further, federal prosecutors will seek to charge the person with a felony for failing to depart the country as ordered.

U.S. attorneys offices also "should consider whether the absconder has engaged in criminal conduct, aside from the immigration violation, during his stay in the country," the memo said.

Read more!