Thursday, April 12, 2007

Librarian Who Resisted FBI Says Patriot Act Invades Privacy

By Andrew Miga

Associated Press
Thursday, April 12, 2007; A12

A librarian who fended off an FBI demand for computer records on patrons said Wednesday that secret anti-terrorism investigations strip away personal freedoms.

"Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free," said George Christian, executive director of Library Connection, a consortium of 27 libraries in the Hartford, Conn., area.

In prepared testimony for a Senate panel, Christian said his experience "should raise a big patriotic American flag of caution" about the strain that the government's pursuit of would-be terrorists puts on civil liberties.

He said the government uses the USA Patriot Act and other laws to learn, without proper judicial oversight or any after-the-fact review, what citizens are researching in libraries.

A recent report by the Justice Department's inspector general found 48 violations of law or rules in the FBI's use of national security letters from 2003 through 2005. Some congressional critics want to tighten legal safeguards on the letters.

" 'Trust us' doesn't cut it when it comes to the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on civil rights.

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can use the letters to acquire telephone, e-mail, travel and financial records without a judge's approval. Letter recipients are not allowed to disclose their involvement in a request.

Prosecutors have said secrecy is needed to avoid alerting suspects.

In July 2005, the FBI issued a national security letter to Christian and three other Connecticut librarians. The letter sought computer subscriber data for a 45-minute period on Feb. 15, 2005, during which a terrorist threat was thought to have been transmitted. A gag order prevented the librarians from talking about the letter.

The librarians refused to comply with the FBI's request.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a legal challenge on behalf of the librarians but did not name them.

A judge ruled that the gag order should be lifted, saying it unfairly prevented the librarians from participating in debate over how the Patriot Act should be rewritten. Prosecutors appealed, but in April 2006 they said they would no longer seek to enforce a gag order.

Last year, authorities dropped their demand for the records, saying they had discounted the potential threat that led to the request.

Military Trumping of the Padilla Jury

Related

Presidential Candidate: U.S. In Danger of Dictatorship

---
Thursday, April 12, 2007

Jacob Hornberger’s Commentary

The Jose Padilla trial begins on Monday. As most everyone knows, this is a jury trial, which means that 12 ordinary people in the Miami area will be deciding whether Padilla is guilty or not of the terrorism charges that he has been indicted for.

What is important for everyone to recognize is the magnitude of the legal revolution that has taken place in the United States, post 9/11, with respect to what happens if the jury returns a verdict of not guilty.

Ever since the founding of the United States and prior to 9/11, if a person was acquitted in a federal criminal case, he would be immediately released from the government’s custody as soon as the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The jury’s verdict had always been considered final. The judge had no choice but to immediately order the release of the defendant, who would walk out of the courtroom a free man immediately after the jury foreman announced two words: “Not Guilty.”

After 9/11, the law changed by virtue of orders issued by the president and the Pentagon. Announcing a “war on terrorism,” the president and the Pentagon declared that all people accused of terrorism, including Americans, would henceforth be considered “enemy combatants” and thereby be subjected to what amounted to perpetual military incarceration without trial. That declaration was ultimately ratified by the congressionally enacted Military Commissions Act.

As a result of those actions, if Padilla is acquitted by a jury of his peers, that still doesn’t mean that he will be released from government custody. At that point, despite a jury verdict of “Not Guilty,” the Pentagon has the option of taking Padilla back into custody as an “enemy combatant” and continue imprisoning him for the rest of his life.

The significance of this post-9/11 legal revolution is threefold:

(1) For centuries, the finality of a jury’s verdict has been considered an essential part of the freedom of the American people. That’s in fact why our American ancestors included the right to trial by jury in the Bill of Rights. It’s one of the things that have distinguished Americans from most of the rest of the world;

(2) The loss of finality to the jury’s verdict is part of the bundle of rights and freedoms that Americans traded away in return for “safety” from “the terrorists” after 9/11; and

(3) Everything federal officials, including those in the Pentagon, are doing to Padilla, they also have the authority to do all Americans.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Attorneygate senator faces retirement rumors

Domenici faces retirement rumors

Six-term GOP lawmaker from N.M. linked to fired attorneys controversy

The Associated Press

Updated: 5:33 a.m. MT April 12, 2007

WASHINGTON - The past two months have not been easy for Sen. Pete Domenici, the six-term Republican from New Mexico accused of pressuring his state's former U.S. attorney on a political corruption investigation.

Some have even speculated the trouble might force the 74-year-old to retire in 2008.

Domenici's campaign fundraising tally, however, may quiet speculation, at least for now, that his retirement is imminent.

Domenici announced he raised $393,786 since January, giving him $541,116 in the bank. That is roughly comparable to what he had raised during the same period last time he was up for election, in 2001. It indicates he is on track for a strong re-election bid, said his campaign fundraiser, Heidi Fuller.

Still, questions continue to be raised about his future. Healthy fundraising does not mean the election will be easy, said University of New Mexico political scientist Lonna Atkeson.

"They're certainly sending a clear signal about their expectation to continue in this race," Atkeson said. "What's bigger is — down the road, as the election comes — will questions about his health or the (U.S. attorney) story hurt his campaign?"

‘El jefe’
In New Mexico, Domenici is "el jefe" — "the boss." A Republican in a swing state, Domenici has been so popular and powerful that even Democrats concede he has been unbeatable.

But the senior senator's conflict with former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias has given Democrats what they hope is the first chance in decades to knock Domenici out of office.

Domenici's office declined several requests for the senator to be interviewed for this story. He does seem to be feeling the stress, despite the support his campaign donors showed.

At an Albuquerque, N.M., banquet last month honoring his years of public service, Domenici called recent weeks "hell" like he had never experienced his entire career. In a quiet, gravelly voice, he thanked the audience for their accolades and support.

"This time it really was helpful," he said.

Democrats would like nothing more than to force Domenici into retirement or force him to run an election he's not up for. In him, they see shades of other, erstwhile Republican senators: Conrad Burns of Montana and William Roth of Delaware.

Burns was defeated last year after Democrats linked him to a Republican scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Roth's age and health were issues in his bid for a sixth term, which he lost in 2000.

"Senators in his peer group have lost elections in less competitive states," said New Mexico state Democratic Party spokesman Matt Farrauto. "The window of opportunity has been pried open much wider."

Embroiled in fired attorneys controversy
A telephone call landed Domenici in the midst of the congressional battle over whether Iglesias and seven other federal prosecutors were fired for their work on political corruption cases. The issue has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fighting to keep his job.

In October, Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., separately phoned Iglesias to ask about political corruption cases. They say their calls were proper. Iglesias said last month that he took their questions as pressure to rush indictments before the November election in an investigation into an alleged kickback scheme involving Democrats.

Iglesias believes he was fired in December because he did not give the lawmakers what they wanted. He contends he did as much as he could on the voter fraud cases, but the allegations did not pan out.

Indictments were issued by a grand jury in the investigation late last month.

The Senate ethics committee has opened a preliminary investigation into Domenici's phone call to Iglesias. State Democratic Party Chairman John Wertheim says his party believes Domenici might be vulnerable as a result.

"A lot of people are starting to talk about it being a real prospect," Wertheim said. "Domenici has been an apologist for the most disastrous administration in this century. Now people will ask, 'What do we get out of keeping Domenici in Washington?'"

Even before the controversy, Democrats were trying to make the most of whispers that Domenici had become forgetful in recent years.

During Congress' recess in December, Domenici was the subject of gossipy news stories when he was sighted in a Senate hallway wearing loose-fitting pants some said looked like pajamas. He said they were hunting pants, but the state Democratic Party now refers to him as "Pajama Pete."

Internal Justice Department documents and statistics that show Iglesias was well-regarded and had a good record among his peers. Nonetheless, state Republicans say many in New Mexico's small legal community had long-standing gripes with Iglesias for failing to act on what they consider valid claims of vote fraud in the state's close 2004 elections.

Domenici has said he did not mention the elections during the phone call. If Domenici called Iglesias in October, the senator's GOP backers say, it was only to follow through on constituent complaints.

Poll: 10% of Palestinian children have lasting malnutrition effects

Last update - 21:02 11/04/2007

By The Associated Press

About 10 percent of Palestinian children suffer permanent effects from malnutrition, according to a survey published Wednesday, a result of widespread poverty in the West Bank and Gaza.

The root cause is poverty, according to Khaled Abu Khaled, who directed the study for the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. He said the numbers are up slightly over the past two years.

"One obvious effect of malnutrition is stunted growth among children, which has increased about three percent in the last two years," he said.

"This is a chronic chronic. Even with interventions, the rates don't go down fast," he said.

Other surveys have shown that about half of the Palestinians are living in poverty.

Six years of violence between Palestinians and Israelis have crippled economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza. A year of international aid sanctions following an election victory by the Islamic Hamas and its takeover of the Palestinian government has intensified the hardships.

The findings were based on a survey conducted in November and December covering 13,238 residents of the West Bank and Gaza, according to a statement. It found that 13.2 percent of the children of Gaza suffer stunted growth, compared to 7.9 percent in the West Bank.

While incidents of stunted growth were up slightly, Abu Khaled noted a decrease in cases of extremely low body weight - another common symptom of acute malnutrition. He said the children of northern Gaza were most likely to suffer stunted growth as well as low birth weight.

The survey showed that 17 percent of the Palestinian population is made up of children under the age of five, and 46 percent are under 15.

ISRAEL ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE HIZBOLLAH MEN THAT CAPTURED ISRAELI SOLDIERS INSIDE LEBANON

Thursday, April 12, 2007

There is more to the Israeli government’s desire to change the status of three Hizbollah prisoners, captured during last years war in southern Lebanon, from ‘prisoners of war’ to ‘illegal combatants’ than meets the eye. All three of them it seems were captured on August 4 in the villages of Aita al-Shaab and Shihine, just inside the Lebanese border with northern Israel.

The Israeli government wants to charge at least one of the men, 23 year old Hussein Suleiman, with aiding in the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Now, readers may recall that it was at Aita al-Shaab, a village that is inside the Lebanese border, where the two Israelis were captured. The problem for the Israelis is; if their Hizbollah prisoners maintain their ‘prisoner of war’ status then the Israelis will have no alternative but to release the men once the deal has been struck to exchange prisoners. Since the Israeli government has insisted that their soldiers were captured inside Israel and not Lebanon, and if Suleiman is released knowing the real story, and then subsequently spills the beans, the Israelis are going to end up with even more egg on their faces than they already have. Imagine the furore there would be if the man that actually had a hand in capturing the Israelis inside Lebanon were able to tell his story.

The only way that the Israelis can prevent this from happening is to change the status of their prisoner to the extremely controversial status of ‘illegal combatant’, a status similar to that of America’s so-called ‘unlawful combatant’ under which ‘law’ the US feels entitles them to keep their prisoners indefinitely and to be tried whenever the US can dream up a charge to try them with. As an ‘illegal combatant’ Suleiman can then be charged with whatever crime the Israelis fancy they can get away with and then keep him locked up indefinitely.

First, however, the Israeli government has to front up to the Israeli courts in order to get Suleiman and the other two prisoners’ status changed. There are three things working in the prisoners favour; first is the obvious and transparent ulterior motives the Israeli government have for wanting to change their status; secondly, the Israeli people are beginning to get more than a bit fed up with the way Olmert and the other right-wing Zionists are handling Israel’s affairs and, third; a change in the status of Hizbollah prisoners may also have an effect on the status of the two Israeli prisoners. Given this, the courts might not necessarily look favourably at the Israeli government’s quest.

Olmert increasingly is on the nose of Israelis as well as the rest of the Arab world.

Senator Fulbright, 1967: The trouble is that Jews think they control the Senate

Related
Closed 1967 Senate protocols reveal bids to pressure Israel
Hundreds of pages released this week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee contain protocols of closed committee hearings from the seminal year of 1967, including one in which former Senator William J. Fulbright is quoted as saying, "The trouble is they [the Israel lobby] think they have control of the Senate and they can do as they please."
---
April 12, 2007

Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent

Hundreds of pages released this week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee contain protocols of the closed hearings of this committee from the seminal year of 1967. Many deal with Vietnam, but the more interesting are those dealing with the Six-Day War.

The senators of the prestigious committee grilled then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk over the meaning of the looming crisis days before the war, and the meaning of the remarkable victory during the war. This coming weekend, Haaretz will publish many anecdotes from the hearings in a longer feature, but here is one of the more amazing dialogs contained in these pages:

Date: June 9, 1967. The senators contemplate ways to pressure Israel and the Arabs and delve into the question of Jewish power in America.

Secretary Dean Rusk: Well, I do not want to underestimate influence in this situation, but I just want to point out that it is not necessarily decisive when you are talking with countries about what they consider the life and death issues for them.

Senator Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa: Do we not give tax forgiveness for monies contributed to Israel, which is rather unusual? We could stop that.

Secretary Rusk: I believe contributions to the UJA [United Jewish Appeal] are tax exempt, yes.

The Chairman, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas: That is right. The only country. Do you think you have the votes in the Senate to revoke that?

Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey: Are you in favor yourself?

Senator Hickenlooper: I think we ought to treat all nations alike.

Senator Case: That is correct. But are you in favor of it?

Senator Hickenlooper: As long as we do not give it to other nations, I do not -

The Chairman: The trouble is they think they have control of the Senate and they can do as they please.

Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri: What was that?

The Chairman: I said they know they have control of the Senate politically, and therefore whatever the Secretary tells them, they can laugh at him. They say, "Yes, but you don't control the Senate."

Senator Symington: They were very anxious to get every Senator they could to come out and say we ought to act unilaterally, and they got two, three.

The Chairman: They know when the chips are down you can no more reverse this tax exemption than you can fly. You could not pass a bill through the Senate.

Senator Hickenlooper: I do not think you could.

The Chairman: Changing that tax exemption contribution to the UJA. I would bet you ten to one you could not begin to pass a bill You do not believe they could under any circumstances.

Senator Symington: A bill to do what?

The Chairman: To revoke the tax exemption of gifts to the UJA. That is one of their major sources of income. You yourself have pointed out the money they paid for the French arms they got from the U.S.

Senator Symington: Each year the money we give annually for this is less than 1 percent of the cost of Vietnam.

The Chairman: I agree with that.

Senator Hickenlooper: There you go.

The Chairman: But you know very well, you said yourself, that the arms they buy from France are largely paid for by contributions that come from this country.

Senator Symington: Because we would not sell it to them, so instead of selling them the arms...

Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee: Has the President recommended that this be repealed?

The Chairman: No, he has not. I do not wish to make the point except the Secretary is quite correct when he says his leverage on Israel is very limited because of the political situation.

Senator Hickenlooper: I am sorry I brought it up.

Secretary Rusk: I did not say it.

The Chairman: If you did not say it, you do not disagree with it anyway.

Secretary Rusk: I think it should be pointed out though on this tax exempt matter that there are many other organizations, institutions, that would fall into the same principle, private foundations in their expenditures abroad, churches, the voluntary agencies; there are very large sums of money going to foreign countries that are tax exempt in this country as the origin.

Senator Hickenlooper: I do not think it is analogous.

Senator Gore: It is tax deductible; you said tax exempt.

Secretary Rusk: Except the organizations are exempt. Contributions to them are tax deductible.

Senator Cooper: I suggest - it is possible after this that
Israel may ask that this be removed as a sign of showing they are not absolutely dependent on the U.S.

On Video: Palestinian As Human Shield

By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

(04-11) 15:49 PDT JERUSALEM, Israel (AP) --

Sameh Amira was fast asleep when he was jolted awake by pounding at the front door. Israeli troops were on a manhunt for wanted militants in the West Bank and decided to draft help.

The terror-stricken 24-year-old Palestinian soon found himself forced onto the front lines of Israel's shadowy war against militants, a human shield as he led heavily armed soldiers from house to house. "I was afraid I would die," he said in a recent interview.

For several years, Palestinians had complained about the army's use of human shields, but proof was difficult to come by. Then in late February, Associated Press Television News captured footage of the incident involving Amira.

The video has prompted the army to launch a rare criminal investigation into whether its soldiers violated a landmark Israeli Supreme Court 2005 ruling barring the use of human shields. Others, including an 11-year-old girl, have been emboldened to come forward with similar accounts of being compelled to walk ahead of soldiers looking for militants.

International law, including the Geneva Conventions and Hague regulations, prohibits placing civilians in harm's way during military operations.

The army promises a vigorous investigation. "Violations of the law or of rulings of the Israeli High Court of Justice are viewed with severity," said Capt. Noa Meir, a spokeswoman.

The case highlights one of the many human rights issues the army is dealing with as it enters its fifth decade of military occupation in the West Bank. The army says operations like the raid in Nablus are needed to protect Israelis and Israel's security. But after six years of fighting in the latest intifada, the army's tactics have become increasingly tough on Palestinians not part of the conflict.

The army moved into Nablus — a major West Bank city known as a militant stronghold — on Feb. 24 in a broad sweep targeting militants and weapons labs. The operation shut down large parts of the city for six days and confined thousands of people to their homes.

Residents have given harrowing accounts as troops moved house to house in search of wanted men. The soldiers reached Jihan Dadoush's home in the poor Jasmine quarter of Nablus' Old city on Feb. 28.

Dadoush, 11, said she was watching the news with her family at about 8:30 p.m. when there was a knock on the door. She said the troops questioned her father and older sister before turning to her.

"I was very afraid because the soldiers were screaming at me, so I told them about a house where young men sometimes go," the ponytailed girl said, hesitating and moving about restlessly as she spoke.

About 15 minutes later, she said the troops returned and called her name. They ordered her to come with them, threatening to arrest her and ignoring her father's pleas to leave her alone, she said.

"I was shouting, 'Where are you taking my daughter? Bring her back! Bring her back!'" her father, Nimr Dadoush, said in an interview, explaining the girl has a heart condition. "They didn't answer me." Dadoush, 38, who sells vegetables and works in construction, said he is not politically active.

Jihan said the troops ordered her to show them the hideout. "They made me walk in front of them. There were many soldiers behind me with their weapons and they frightened me," she said, breaking into tears.

Questions about army practices peaked in the spring of 2002 during an offensive in the West Bank in response to suicide bombings. During the operation, soldiers often forced Palestinian civilians to approach the homes and hideouts of wanted people.

The army at that time defended the practice, known as "the neighbor procedure," saying it took civilians out of harm's way and encouraged militants to surrender peacefully. The army says it never allowed troops to use civilians for cover during battles.

But in August 2002, a 19-year-old Palestinian student was killed in a gunfight that erupted after he was forced to knock on the door of a building where a Hamas fugitive was hiding.

In its 2005 ruling, the Supreme Court barred any use of civilians in military operations, including the neighbor procedure. Since then, human rights groups say the number of cases has dropped sharply. But Palestinians and Israeli critics say the practice continues.

"When you have to decide between risking your soldiers' lives or just a Palestinian bystander, the solution ... suddenly becomes much more logical than it sounds," said Avichay Sharon, 25, a former Israeli commando who served from 2000 to 2003.

Sharon belongs to "Breaking the Silence," a group of former soldiers who say army tactics in the West Bank are hurting Israel's moral character. Based on confidential interviews his group has conducted with some 400 former and active soldiers, Sharon says the "human shield" practice remains common.

"Everyone has done it, seen it, witnessed it," he said.

On the morning of Feb. 25, an AP cameraman followed a group of army jeeps rushing to a Nablus neighborhood. The cameraman noticed a young man dressed in shorts and a T-shirt who appeared out of place on the cold morning.

The cameraman zoomed in and filmed the man, later identified as Amira, leading soldiers through the front door of an apartment.

Gunshots were heard as several soldiers stood guard outside. Amira then left the home, walked down the stairs and escorted the soldiers around the side of the building. Later, he was led down some stairs with several suspects and put into a military vehicle.

Speaking to the AP, Amira said he led troops to three homes, including his own. He said soldiers fired into bedroom closets in his house — apparently thinking militants might be hiding inside.

"They made me go in front of them in every room they wanted to enter, and they fired behind my back," Amira said, pointing to bullet holes in the floor, closet doors and clothes.

Amira said he has no ties to any militant group, though a cousin is wanted by Israel. He said he was held for several hours before being released.

Over the coming weeks, the army gave several versions of the events.

Initially, it said soldiers had found Amira wandering in the streets and escorted him home. After being shown the video, the army said the images "do not appear to indicate any mistreatment" of civilians, but pledged "a thorough inquiry."

Then, on March 15, after the AP video had been aired worldwide and new human shield allegations emerged, the army announced a formal criminal probe in a one-sentence statement released shortly before midnight. A military official, speaking on condition of anonymity under military rules, said the probe was ordered because of the AP footage.

The army said it is looking into four such complaints, including one from a 15-year-old cousin of Amira and from the family of Jihan, the 11-year-old. Several other Palestinians, including a 47-year-old man and two more members of the Amira family, have approached the AP with similar stories.

Jessica Montell, executive director of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, said such complaints rarely lead to punishments.

For instance, less than 8 percent of military investigations into physical abuse by troops have led to convictions in the past six years, she said, citing army figures. But she said the video is "crucial" evidence that is rarely available.

Montell, whose group is assisting Amira and Dadoush, said the probe could lead to anything from disciplinary measures to criminal indictments. And while it is too early to say whether the use of human shields is pervasive, she said she hopes the probe will determine full responsibility.

"It's hard to imagine that the individual soldiers took the initiative here. At least at some level, some commander is instructing and training soldiers," Montell said.

In Israel, the video aired on evening newscasts for several days, but reaction was subdued.

After years of Palestinian suicide bombings, the public tends to support the army's tactics if they keep things quiet. "In order to save Israeli soldiers, I would do it," said Yitzhak Goren, a 78-year-old Holocaust survivor from the coastal town of Netanya. But, he added, "only when there is no other choice."

Asaf Abraham, a high school senior from a Jerusalem suburb, said he opposed such tactics. "When you practice immorality on the outside, it's going to affect the inside," he said.

Amira, meanwhile, has become something of a hero in Nablus, easily recognized by his boyish face and slick brown hair.

But the young man says the attention has been a curse. Amira said he worked for several years in a nearby Jewish settlement. Since the video aired, he said he has not been able to renew a work permit, and he fears he is being punished by the Israeli authorities.

"I don't do anything. I hang out, sleep, and walk around. I have nothing to do," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Ali Daraghmeh in Nablus, West Bank, and Ben Winograd in Jerusalem contributed to this report.