We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: LindyBill8/12/2005 9:22:58 AM
   of 756111
The MSM can't get away with this anymore

Check out the Times' Dowdification of Al Franken's quote about what happened to the money.
Michelle Malkin blog

The NYTimes reports:

"I don't know why he did it," Mr. Franken said, according to a transcript of the broadcast made by the Department of Investigation. "I don't know where the money went. I don't know if it was used for operations. I think he was borrowing from Peter to pay Paul."

Here's what Franken actually said (via audio at Brainster's Blog and transcript
at Brian Maloney, who busted this story wide open in the blogosphere the Times sneers at):

I don't know why they did it, and I don't know where the money went, I don't know if it was used for operations [softer, especially fast], which I imagine it was. I think he was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The omission of those five little words matters because Al Franken's actual statement suggests that the money was in fact stolen from poor kids to pay Air America's bills--a speculation that the Times attributes to "conservative-leaning blogs," but not to the Times' favorite liberal talk show host who said it himself.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (131883)8/12/2005 9:28:15 AM
From: MrLucky
   of 756111
I think we will see hearings when congress gets back in session.

Fat chance that anything will be accomplished. Berger has already dealt with that.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill8/12/2005 9:31:38 AM
   of 756111
The LAT really, really wants to nail Arnold. This is the thinnest of innuendo.

Tabloid's Deal With Woman Shielded Schwarzenegger
By Peter Nicholas and Carla Hall
LA Times Staff Writers

August 12, 2005

SACRAMENTO — Days after Arnold Schwarzenegger jumped into the race for governor and girded for questions about his past, a tabloid publisher wooing him for a business deal promised to pay a woman $20,000 to sign a confidentiality agreement about an alleged affair with the candidate.

American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, signed a friend of the woman to a similar contract about the alleged relationship for $1,000.

American Media's contract with Gigi Goyette of Malibu is dated Aug. 8, 2003, two days after Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on a late-night talk show. Under the agreement, Goyette must disclose to no one but American Media any information about her "interactions" with Schwarzenegger.

American Media never solicited further information from Goyette or her friend, Judy Mora, also of Malibu, both women said. The Enquirer had published a cover story two years earlier describing an alleged seven-year sexual relationship between Goyette and Schwarzenegger during his marriage to Maria Shriver, California's first lady.

On Aug. 14, 2003, as candidate Schwarzenegger was negotiating a consulting deal with American Media, the company signed its contract with Mora, who said she received $1,000 cash in return. Goyette declined to say whether she received the $20,000 promised in her contract.

Rob Stutzman, the governor's communications director, said he believed Schwarzenegger did not know of American Media's deals with the women. Schwarzenegger is on vacation and not available for comment, Stutzman said.

Stutzman denied any link between AMI's deal with Schwarzenegger and the company's agreements with the two women.

"There is no connection with his business with AMI or AMI's business of purchasing the rights to stories," Stutzman said. "That's what they do. Obviously, part of their business is the tabloid business."

The women might have been in a position to embarrass Schwarzenegger in his bid for the governor's office. When Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on "The Tonight Show," he speculated that he would face accusations of infidelity.

Host Jay Leno asked if he was prepared for a bruising campaign, and Schwarzenegger replied: "I know that they're going to throw everything at me and they're going, you know, to say that I have no experience and that I'm a womanizer and that I'm a terrible guy, and all these kinds of things are going to come my way."

But American Media was effectively protecting Schwarzenegger's political interests, said a person who worked at the company when the contracts were signed. At the same time, American Media was crafting a deal to make Schwarzenegger executive editor of Flex and Muscle & Fitness magazines, helping to lure readers and advertisers.

If American Media was buying exclusive rights to the women's stories, said the person, who has a confidentiality agreement with the company and spoke on condition of anonymity, "why didn't the stories run? That's the obvious question."

"AMI systematically bought the silence" of the women, said the person. Schwarzenegger "was a de facto employee and he was important to their bottom line."

Schwarzenegger biographer Laurence Leamer wrote in his book, "Fantastic: The Life of Arnold Schwarzenegger," that Schwarzenegger understood the tabloids would not skewer him if he was entering a business relationship with the company — although Schwarzenegger told Leamer he did not specifically seek such assurances.

Indeed, during the recall campaign, American Media put out a 120-page magazine celebrating Schwarzenegger as an embodiment of the "American dream."

The Enquirer did run a story repeating allegations in the British media that Schwarzenegger had an extramarital affair. The story was published first on its website before the election, and then in the newspaper three weeks after his election victory. But it was not prominently displayed, running on Page 24.

American Media, which did not respond to repeated requests for comment, reached its agreement with Schwarzenegger on Nov. 15, 2003, two days before he was sworn in as governor. The deal was to pay him, by the company's estimates, at least $8 million over five years and no less than $5 million.

Schwarzenegger dropped the contract last month after the arrangement was made public in the Los Angeles Times and the Sacramento Bee. He said he plans to continue writing a monthly column for the two magazines.

American Media's contracts with Goyette and Mora, both titled "Confidentiality Agreement," are two pages long and never expire; they bind the two women "in perpetuity."

Goyette's agreement states that she is not to disclose "conversations with Schwarzenegger, her interactions with Schwarzenegger or anything else relating in any way to any relationship [she] ever had with Schwarzenegger," except to American Media.

Mora's contract bars her from disclosing anything about Goyette's "conversations with Schwarzenegger … interactions with Schwarzenegger or anything else relating in any way to any relationship Gigi Goyette ever had or alleged to have had with Schwarzenegger."

In an interview with The Times last week, with her lawyer present, Goyette said of Schwarzenegger "we're very good friends — and work associates."

Goyette has spent much of her life living in Malibu and grew up, she said, working as an extra on Hollywood film and TV productions. Today she acts occasionally in commercials. She said she last communicated with Schwarzenegger in the spring of 2001, before the National Enquirer published its story.

Goyette did not dispute an account of her relationship in Leamer's biography of Schwarzenegger, published two months ago. Like the National Enquirer, Leamer's book says Goyette and Schwarzenegger had a periodic intimate relationship.

In the book, Leamer says Goyette and Schwarzenegger got together yearly at the Arnold Fitness Weekend in Columbus, Ohio, where she helped with events.

Leamer writes that Goyette described her contact with Schwarzenegger with the term " 'outercourse' because it's like foreplay." The interaction, she told him, was "whatever we wanted it to be."

Goyette's lawyer, Charlotte Hassett, told The Times: "She maintained it was more of a massage situation — however you want to interpret that."

Margita Thompson, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, declined to discuss the relationship. "I'm not going to characterize the relationship," Thompson said.

Two years after the Enquirer published its article about the relationship, Goyette told The Times, she heard from the tabloid again. In late July 2003 — as speculation was brewing over whether Schwarzenegger would enter the recall race for governor — Goyette said she got a call from reporter David Wright, who had written the 2001 story.

Goyette said Wright talked casually about the possibility of publishing a book on her life and that a division of American Media might be interested. Goyette was and still is eager to write a book — not a tell-all about Schwarzenegger, she said, but a chronicle of her life in the entertainment industry, from her days as a film and TV extra and a commercial actress to her life now as a 46-year-old single mother and PTA member with a teenage son.

That conversation "was a teaser," said Goyette, who gave Wright a manuscript. Goyette said she heard nothing further until Wright called her on what she believes was Aug. 6 or 7, 2003 — just as Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy — and asked if she could meet with someone from the company right away.

Wright declined The Times' requests for comment, saying, "I can't help you with that."

Goyette said that, unaccompanied by a lawyer or anyone else, she met an American Media representative at a Starbucks near her Malibu home, looked the agreement over hastily and signed it.

She said she did not believe American Media would purchase the rights to her story and then do nothing with it. She thought signing the pledge would be the prelude to a book deal.

"In my mind, it was trying to seal a deal so I wouldn't do the book with anybody else," she told The Times. "That was my feeling in my heart and in my mind."

Hassett added later: "She has reason to believe that she was manipulated by the actions of the people at National Enquirer."

The contract that bears Goyette's signature makes no mention of a book project. Goyette's recollection was that she signed a three-page contract. She said she did not get a copy until several weeks later, via fax, and it was two pages.

The contract was sealed just when interest in her story was peaking. Once Schwarzenegger's campaign was launched, the media quickly dug up the 2001 National Enquirer article. She was besieged by reporters.

They were "in front of my house. In front of my school. In front of the coffee shop," she said. "I didn't answer anyone's questions."

"A lot of people have offered me a lot of money to tell my story," she said. "I always said 'No comment' and turned everybody down."

Before she signed her contract, Goyette gave an interview to the BBC that aired after the contract was sealed. On Sept. 3, 2003 — after signing the contract but before receiving a copy of it, Hassett said — Goyette was quoted in a story by Fox News.

"She conducted herself in a way that a person who thought she had a book deal would act," Hassett said.

Mora, 50, said her first dealings with the National Enquirer took place when the tabloid was preparing the 2001 story on Goyette. The Enquirer, she said in an interview, "only wanted me to establish that she really knew him."

When the Enquirer reporter called, she said, she told him Goyette had pictures of Schwarzenegger around her house and had told her of how she worked with Schwarzenegger at his fitness exhibition.

Mora also said Goyette introduced her to Schwarzenegger once, at a Santa Monica restaurant he used to own.

Mora said she received a call from someone from the National Enquirer soon after Goyette's confidentiality contract was signed. The male caller, whose name she said she could not remember, offered her $1,000 to sign a confidentiality agreement of her own.

"They said, 'Would you be willing to agree to not say anything else?' " Mora recalled. "And I remember at the time saying something like, 'Uh, yeah. I don't know anything else.' They said, 'We paid her an additional $20,000, and if we give you $1,000 will you not say anything?' And I said, 'Sure, I don't know anything.' "

The next day in Los Angeles, Mora said, she met with a woman who gave her an envelope containing $1,000 cash. She said her recollection was imperfect, but she thinks it was then she signed the contract.

The document gives Mora's name as Judy Walker, a name she said she sometimes used. The signature says Judy Mora, as does the name printed by hand below it.

Mora said she does not have a copy of the document.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: JohnM who wrote (131722)8/12/2005 9:32:15 AM
From: michael97123
   of 756111
even college profs who get such great packages already? When Clinton reformed welfare, he forgot to take a look at your racket. (g) A good friend of mine who is a full prof at a community college works less than my four year old does at pre-school. It is a joke. I hope Corzine can correct this. (g) Mike

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

From: LindyBill8/12/2005 9:33:33 AM
   of 756111
Supporting the troops is "propaganda."

WP, other news orgs blasted for sponsoring Pentagon event
Washington Post

Some say media support of the Pentagon's Freedom Walk undercuts their credibility in covering the war as well as reporting on antiwar efforts. "With the Washington Post and other media outlets supporting this, they are in effect putting their opinions behind the Bush administration," says antiwar activist Caneisha Mills. A Washington Post spokesman says: "The event was never presented to The Post as a rally to support the war. We would be disappointed if it took that approach."
> In These Times writer Christopher Hayes says: "Funny, I thought it was the role of the press to challenge not collude with the government when it attempts to disseminate propaganda.""

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill8/12/2005 9:35:20 AM
   of 756111
Blitzed Out
CNN's Situation Room is live! It's now! It's ... three hours long.
By Dana Stevens
SLATE - Posted Thursday, Aug. 11, 2005, at 4:04 PM PT

CNN's new afternoon news show The Situation Room (not to be confused with MSNBC's The Situation With Tucker Carlson, which has just been banished to the attic of an 11 p.m. time slot) is the latest example of what CNN President Jonathan Klein describes as his network's "newfound dedication to being the newsy alternative." In a landscape of nearly indistinguishable cable yammerfests, The Situation Room's main claim to innovation is twofold: It's live, and it's three hours long. This unusual combination means that the show manages to be at once an impressive technical achievement and a colossal bore.

Besides being very, very live and very, very long, the most notable thing about The Situation Room (weekdays 3 to 6 p.m. ET) is its anxiety to define itself as a different kind of news show. In the words of Jon Stewart on last night's Daily Show, The Situation Room is "Wolf Blitzer's show, but with giant screens. Same old s**t." The show's quintessential visual: Blitzer standing in front of a bank of long, narrow screens, each showing a live newsfeed from a just-reported or upcoming story. There's a lot of Terminator-style graphics pulsating around the edges of the screens, as digital clocks tick off the exact time in different parts of the world. In Vienna, Austria, it's 11:03:01 a.m.! In Crawford, Texas, it's 2:03:25 p.m.! Stuff is happening in different time zones, and we here in The Situation Room plan to glancingly refer to at least some of it!

With the influx of information from all over the world, The Situation Room intends to show us not only the product, but also the process of newsgathering. But isn't the job of a news show to cull through the day's information and decide what's worthy of our attention? Do we really have to sift through all this crap ourselves? Blitzer likes to talk about the flow of information "streaming in" and the "data coming in in real time ... happening now." (Unlike those other news programs, which prefer to choose events that happened on some random day in the past.) As the afternoon sun slips by outside the viewer's window, Blitzer takes every opportunity to remind us that we're not just vegging out to basic-cable chitchat, interspersed with Target and Ditech commercials: "You're in the Situation Room." According to Wonkette, Blitzer uttered the show's title 58 times during Monday's premiere; by Wednesday, the total was down to a humble 53.

In between interviews and "strategy sessions" in which guests stand awkwardly around a conference table, The Situation Room offers a few regular features. "Inside the Blogs," a segment imported from CNN Inside Politics, features Jackie Shechner and Abbi Tatton, two faintly hip young women who stand around reading aloud from highlighted blog posts on huge freestanding computer screens—an improvement, at least, over the old format, in which the women hunched over tiny laptops while shaky hand-held cameras filmed the murky, nearly unreadable screens. Another hourly feature is "The Cafferty File," in which a reporter named Jack Cafferty puts out a "Question of the Hour" to viewers, whose e-mail responses are then read on-air. The cranky, balding Cafferty won my heart by complaining, twice, about the perky theme that accompanies his segment: "Wolf, my No. 1 question this hour is what is that annoying music they're playing under me?"

Today's big get on The Situation Room was an "exclusive" 15-minute interview with Bill Clinton, which was then chewed over by pundits at intervals over the next three hours. The former president sat in what appeared to be his living room in Chappaqua, looking sleek but frail (don't you sort of miss his old chipmunk cheeks?). He talked briefly about the war in Iraq and his wife's potential candidacy for the presidency before shifting focus to his work on HIV and AIDS prevention in Africa. It was a standard puff-piece interview, somewhere between public-service announcement and campaign stop, which made it all the odder that Blitzer chose to end the encounter by flashing up an old picture of Clinton White House situation room. Describing the picture to the president, Blitzer asked, "You're now in another situation room, at least via satellite. How does it feel?" Clinton seemed confused for a fraction of a second before responding with a laugh, "I liked being in the other situation room, but I like this one better. There's less pressure and more freedom. And I know I can walk out on you—I couldn't walk out on the other situation room." As the show prepared to cut to a commercial, the giant screens showed a suddenly tired-looking Clinton, waiting for an aide to remove his body mic. He seemed eager to get away from the delusional Blitzer and back to his real life. From where I sit right now at 5:15:04 p.m. ET, heading into my third straight hour of real-time data collection, I'm inclined to agree.
Dana Stevens is Slate's television critic. Write her at
Article URL:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: LindyBill8/12/2005 9:39:05 AM
   of 756111
This NY Post column is being quoted all over the net. I have highlighted the new key facts.

New York Post
Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington bureau chief.

IT'S starting to look as if the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye to key questions that could embarrass one of its own members — Clinton-era Justice Department honcho Jamie Gorelick.

This week brought the stunning revelation that elite military spies pinpointed Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a terror cell more than a year before 9/11 — but were barred from alerting lawmen to try to lock them up.

A prime reason why that warning never came is that Gorelick — as top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno — issued a 1995 order creating a "wall" that blocked intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement.

Commission staffers at first denied knowing about the elite military unit known as Able Danger, but later admitted they were briefed — twice — and Atta was specifically named. Still, it was conveniently left out of the 9/11 report.

It gets worse. Gorelick's defenders might argue that hindsight is 20-20. But that excuse doesn't work in this case, because she was warned way back then — when the see-no-evil wall was created.

That warning came right from the front line in the War on Terror — from Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, who headed up key terror probes like the prosecutions for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

White — herself a Clinton appointee — wrote directly to Reno that the wall was a big mistake.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," White wrote on June 13, 1995.

"The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating."

That memo surfaced during the 9/11 hearings. But The Post has learned that White was so upset that she bitterly protested with another memo — a scathing one — after Reno and Gorelick refused to tear down the wall.

With eerie foresight, White warned that the Reno-Gorelick wall hindered law enforcement and could cost lives, according to sources familiar with the memo — which is still secret.

The 9/11 Commission got that White memo, The Post was told — but omitted any mention of it from its much-publicized report. Nor does the report include the transcript of its staff interview with White.

White yesterday declined comment via spokesman Marvin Smilon. The 9/11 Commission spokesman, Al Felzenberg, didn't respond to repeated phone calls.

At the time that the first White memo surfaced, it was a hypothetical question — the wall could have prevented intelligence from getting through to stop 9/11 if there had been any intelligence.

But now that the 9/11 staff acknowledges there was intelligence about an Atta cell more than a year before the terror attacks, it's fair to ask if the attacks might have been stopped were it not for the Reno-Gorelick wall.

The CIA may have failed to detect the hijackers, but it appears that military intelligence did better. Maybe the real problem wasn't an intelligence failure — as the 9/11 Commission concluded — but, rather, the Reno-Gorelick wall.

The latest revelations show that skeptics like Sens. Jon Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) were right to demand that Gorelick testify publicly about the wall — a demand that the 9/11 Commission flatly rejected last year.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) — who revealed how the Able Danger military spies tried to sound the alarm — yesterday accused the commission of ignoring inconvenient facts.

"The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners," he wrote.

Or, as a frustrated Cornyn said in 2004: "[Gorelick] is a person with knowledge of relevant facts. Either the commission wants the whole truth or it does not."

It's about time that the 9/11 Commission faced that question.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Ilaine who wrote (131830)8/12/2005 9:46:57 AM
From: MichaelSkyy
   of 756111

Passport & Visa

General Entry Requirements

Adults and children (from 0 - 16 years old)(*) require the following documents below to enter Costa Rica:

a valid passport with at least one blank visa page. The expiration date of your passport must be greater than either 30 or 180 days - depending on your citizenship - from your date of entry to Costa Rica.

a pre-paid airline ticket to exit Costa Rica or proof of financial resources ($400.00US - $1,000.00US in cash, traveler checks, and/or credit cards) to pay for the market value of a one-way airline ticket (either to return to your home country or to go to another country)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill8/12/2005 9:57:23 AM
   of 756111
Pack them up and ship them home A comment from "Bloggle":
Remaining true to form, "rights groups," including Human RIghts Watch, and lawyers are vowing to fight any extradition by the British government because of concerns over the "rights" of ten men, including Qatada, that are due to be kicked out of the country. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain now faces the law of unintended consequences, also reinforcing the old adage about good intentions and hell. These terrorists will be spared for a few years as their cases are tied up in court.

This situation is emblematic of the West's dilemma in microcosm. The institutionalization of universal human and civil rights has opened the West to the deprivations of people who use the freedoms that the West has established to work against those very institutions.

Meanwhile, blinded and blindly stupid rights organizations seem willfully oblivious to the obvious dangers and provocations the Islamofascists represent. Rights will come to mean exactly nothing if these people are allowed to have their way. Somehow fighting to save western civilization and liberal democracy has become a fight not worth waging if some Islamists' feelings get hurt.

Are we willingly submitting to the inquisitor? Are we happily walking towards the executioner? Seems so, doesn't it?

Three-year fight looms to deport extremists held after dawn raids
Times UK - By Richard Ford and Daniel McGrory
JUDGES are preparing for a trial of strength with the Government over its determination swiftly to deport ten Islamic extremists arrested yesterday.

Charles Clarke described the men picked up in early morning raids as a threat to national security. They included the cleric, Abu Qatada, described as “al-Qaeda’s spiritual ambassador in Europe”, as disclosed in The Times yesterday.

Ministers are determined to get rid of militants who allegedly stir up hatred and the courts have been told not to block plans to expel foreign undesirables. The deportations are regarded as the first test of judges’ willingness to accept Tony Blair’s assertion that the rules of the game have changed.

The Government is planning legislation instructing judges how to interpret the Human Rights Act, it emerged last night. Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, said that the new law would oblige judges to give equal weight to considerations of national security and to the rights of the individual. “All law operates on the basis that if the facts change then the law changes, and the law is going to change,” he said. “We have got to get the right balance and ultimately where the balance lies is a matter for Parliament.”

Lawyers for the ten men and human rights groups warned the Government that it faces a fight that could take up to three years and cost about £2 million.

The raids across England, involving teams of immigration officers supported by 230 police, picked up nine Algerians and the Jordanian cleric. Eight of the men were subject to strict Home Office control orders that amounted to virtual house arrest.

The Home Secretary had signed the orders for the arrests while on holiday in the US. He said: “The circumstances of our national security have changed. It is vital that we act against those who threaten it.”

Seven of those arrested were in London, and one each in Leicestershire, the West Midlands and Luton. Lawyers said one was a double amputee taken from a psychiatric ward.

All the men were taken to top-security prisons at Full Sutton, near York, and Long Lartin, near Evesham, as their lawyers immediately began work on their appeals. They have five working days to lodge their challenge. Any hearing is unlikely to take place until near the end of the year.

For legal reasons The Times cannot name any of the men apart from Abu Qatada. One is alleged to have been involved in planning attacks in France and the United States and a second is a reported explosives expert trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, insisted that the case against each of the ten had been considered very carefully by the security services and the police. The Government is hoping to sign a deal with Algeria to take nine of the detainees. Jordan has agreed not to subject anyone to inhumane treatment.

Without a formal deal with Algeria that the men will not be tortured, it is inconceivable that the courts will agree to their deportation. This arrangement also relies on Whitehall establishing an independent monitoring commission.

Officials said that they were nowhere near finalising membership of the commission. One said: “We need a respected body such as the Red Cross to convince sceptics of its value as an independent organisation.”

The warning that it could take up to three years before the detainees were flown out was made by a senior human rights lawyer, who predicted a legal battle ending with a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. He said: “The key issue is that the agreements with states are not binding, and torture and inhumane treatment are routinely carried out by rogue agents and overzealous security agents. How can we be sure these agreements will be met?”

Roger Smith, of Justice, said that he is concerned that the Government could be seen to be “bullying the judiciary”.

The move against Abu Qatada was welcomed by intelligence agencies in Europe, who questioned why it has taken so long to move against him and radical Algerians sheltering in Britain. A French security source said: “In our many inquiries we kept finding our investigation led back to London and Abu Qatada. We have been warning the UK long before the September 11 attacks in America about the threat of Algerian terrorists in Britain.”

Opposition MPs backed Mr Clarke’s move but warned the Government that it would need to ensure that the detainees were not tortured. David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “It is vital that the Home Secretary is able to use his powers to deport or exclude foreign nationals who threaten our national security.”

Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, said: “What separates us from the terrorists is that we do not torture people or send them to be tortured. Now is not the time for our judges to be cowed by the impudent warnings of populist politicians.”

The Muslim Council of Britain issued a warning against turning a “blind eye” to torture in countries where the detainees may be sent.


The men detained yesterday include:

Abu Qatada: Sentenced to life imprisonment in native Jordan for bombings

A: Algerian, 37, alleged to be member of the banned GSPC (Salafist Group for Call and Combat). In Britain illegally since 1989, allegedly involved in purchase of 19 satellite phones for Chechen rebels

B: Algerian, 33, member of GSPC, lived in Britain since 1994 and allegedly provided logistical support to Chechen fighters. Also allegedly involved in fundraising

H: Algerian alleged to have been trained by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Has refugee status but was arrested in 2002 for fundraising for banned terror groups

I: Algerian who arrived in Britain in 1995. Accused of fundraising. Alleged explosives expert

P: Algerian, 37, who authorities believe was involved with terrorist cells in France and Germany

S: Algerian involved with al-Qaeda and detained in connection with extradition request. Alleged to be involved in planning attacks in France and US

D: Algerian who was freed in September

M: Algerian who arrived in Britain in 1999 from Afghanistan on fake French passport. Accused of links with Algerian extremists"

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill8/12/2005 10:05:53 AM
   of 756111
No news is news
Buzz Machine
By Jeff on media

Tonight I was listening to Anderson Cooper (via Sirius) and he broke an unwritten rule of news: He criticized his competitors for overdosing on the Natalee Holloway story. Of course, CNN and Cooper can be accused of overdosing on a few stories of their own (ahem). But I’ll take a little news self-criticism, even if it is self-serving.

COOPER: Well, in Aruba, not much happened in the 11th week of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, but you’d never know that if you listen to just about every other cable news channel.

We did a number of stories after the American teen went missing and her family’s anguish is and hard to imagine and we understand why they want the story to remain in the news, but we’ve been kind of stunned, because every night, our cable competitors devote hours and hours to this story, even though, sadly, nothing new is happening. We decided to start tracking their coverage, because to be honest, it’s getting downright ridiculous. Here’s what the other guys were reporting just last night…


BILL O’REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Not much new in the Natalee Holloway mystery.

RITA COSBY, MSNBC HOST: The big mystery, of course, is taking place on the island of Aruba.

DAN ABRAMS, MSNBC HOST: Let’s go to Aruba. It’s getting ugly. Natalee Holloway’s mother is fighting back.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: Meanwhile, a new battle is brewing between Natalee’s mom and a key suspect. We brought you that story last night. ….

O’REILLY: … 2 1/2 months, I’ve never seen in my 30-year career, a crime story covered this way, ever. It’s a mystery. It’s a soap opera. It’s a reality show and each night, people come in for the latest. I thought it would dissipate. I thought it would go away. It has not.


COOPER: It truly has not. The only thing we can honestly report to you tonight is that a young woman is still missing. A family is still in anguish. Until something else happens, until there really are developments, we’ll leave the rest to the other guys.

Until we get a good, juicy runaway bride, of course.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10