~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From LA Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Family seeks answers in disappearance of Italian chef from cruise ship

Family members of an Italian chef who disappeared during a 15-day cruise left town Monday night with few answers after meeting with authorities and Princess Cruises officials in San Pedro, the port for the ship the man had been working on

Angelo Faliva, a first cook on the Coral Princess , walked out of the kitchen in the middle of his shift on Nov. 25 and never came back to work, family members said. Cruise line officials said another crew member spotted the chef early the next morning, but by the time the ship docked in Cartagena, Colombia, later that day, Faliva was gone.

Faliva's sister, Chiara Faliva, flew from Italy to Los Angeles to meet with authorities and now is en route to Cartagena in search of more information about her brother's disappearance.

“My brother was happy,” another sister, Anna Faliva, said in an e-mail to The Times, noting that the family maintained daily contact with him online. “He loved his job and life.”

Princess Cruises spokeswoman Julie Benson said the cruise line initiated a complete search of the ship and notified the Colombian Coast Guard by emergency radio message. A review of images taken by the ship's security cameras did not reveal any information, she said.

In addition to a search by Colombian authorities, the ship launched rescue craft to search the waters in the area and continued looking until dark without success.

Officials are working on the assumption that Faliva went overboard as the ship was en route to Cartagena, though Benson said that information has not been confirmed. “We are really very puzzled,” Benson said. “We don't know what happened.”

At the request of the Italian Consulate, FBI officials boarded the ship to investigate when it docked in San Pedro on Monday morning, but the investigation is being handled by police in Bermuda, where the ship is registered.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FBI asks former chief to lead Ft. Hood review

The independent investigation by William H. Webster, also a former CIA chief, will examine the FBI's practices leading up to last month's deadly shootings.

by Josh Meyer

December 9, 2009

Reporting from Washington

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III on Tuesday tapped former CIA and FBI chief William H. Webster to lead an independent review of the bureau's "policies, practices and actions" before last month's shooting rampage at Ft. Hood, Texas.

Webster, who also was a federal judge, "is uniquely qualified to undertake this task and look at the procedures and actions involved in this matter," Mueller said. "It is essential to determine whether there are improvements to our current practices or other authorities that could make us all safer in the future."

The FBI has already conducted an internal investigation into the Nov. 5 shootings -- which killed 13 and injured dozens -- and sent those findings to the White House, several FBI officials confirmed. Bureau officials, lawmakers and other sources who requested anonymity when discussing the inquiry said it uncovered gaps in the way the FBI investigates potential terrorist threats and shares that information with other agencies.

The internal review also raised questions about whether Justice Department guidelines in place at the time required too much evidence of suspected wrongdoing before agents could launch a criminal investigation; those guidelines were loosened late last year.

Two FBI-led joint terrorism task forces -- one in San Diego and another in Washington -- had investigated the accused gunman, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, prior to the attack.

At least one of the task forces discovered that the Army psychiatrist had exchanged more than a dozen e-mails over the last year with Anwar Awlaki, a Yemen-based Islamic militant with well-known ties to Al Qaeda. But it was determined that the correspondence was not threatening and was in keeping with Hasan's academic research. No formal criminal investigation was opened, senior bureau officials said in a briefing last month.

Since that briefing, however, more information has trickled out about Hasan's communications with several radical websites, including one run by Awlaki, who in 2001 preached at a Virginia mosque attended by Hasan and at least two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. The American-born Awlaki has incited militants here and overseas to plot or launch terrorist attacks.

The decision to conduct an outside review is "not based on any findings or hot potato we're handing off to [Webster]. It really isn't," said one senior FBI official. "It is a logical step in the sequence. The director felt it was important to have someone who is independent take a look both at our review and anything else he wants to look at."

That official described Webster as well-suited to look not only at the Ft. Hood case, but at "how we go forward" and balance civil liberties and privacy issues with the need to investigate potential threats. Webster also will be in a position to make recommendations that go beyond internal FBI policies and into the realm of more significant changes to laws and broader inter-agency guidelines on information sharing and opening investigations into U.S. citizens, according to several FBI officials.

Webster, 85, has led other independent reviews of FBI systems and broader policies. He and his staff will coordinate their inquiry with similar reviews underway by the Pentagon, Mueller said. President Obama has also ordered a government-wide inquiry into the matter.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fort-hood9-2009dec09,0,7597815,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ohio executes killer using new process for lethal injection

Kenneth Biros is put to death with a single drug. The process supposedly is less painful than previous executions that used three drugs.

Associated Press

December 9, 2009

Lucasville, Ohio

Ohio executed a killer Tuesday by performing the nation's first lethal injection using a single drug, a supposedly less painful method than previous executions that required three drugs.

Kenneth Biros, 51, was pronounced dead at 11:47 a.m. Tuesday, about 10 minutes after he was given one dose of thiopental sodium at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville. The U.S. Supreme Court had rejected his final appeal about two hours before.

Experts predicted the thiopental sodium would take longer to kill Biros than the conventional three-drug cocktail, but the 10 minutes was about the usual length of time even under the method previously used by Ohio and still used by most other states with the death penalty.

The execution team tried for several minutes to find usable veins, including inserting needles several times in both arms, before eventually completing the process on his left arm after about 30 minutes.

Ohio overhauled its procedure after a failed attempt to execute Romell Broom, who was granted a temporary reprieve by Gov. Ted Strickland in September. Executioners tried for two hours to find a suitable vein for injection, hitting bone and muscle during as many as 18 attempts that Broom, 53, said were very painful.

A hearing begins today in federal court on Broom's attempt to stop the state from trying again.

All 36 death-penalty states use lethal injection, and 35 rely on the three-drug method. Nebraska, which recently adopted injection over electrocution, has proposed the three-drug method but hasn't finalized the process.

Biros killed 22-year-old Tami Engstrom in 1991 after offering to drive her home from a bar, then scattered her body parts in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Before his execution, he apologized for his crime and thanked his friends and relatives for supporting him.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-ohio-execution9-2009dec09,0,7964532,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

White House gate-crashers cite 5th Amendment

The White House gate-crashers plan to invoke their 5th Amendment rights and refuse to testify if they are subpoenaed to appear on Capitol Hill about the security breach.

Reality TV hopefuls Michaele and Tareq Salahi said through their lawyer Tuesday that the House Homeland Security Committee had drawn premature conclusions about the Nov. 24 incident, when they were able to get into the state dinner without being on an approved guest list.

The committee plans to vote Wednesday to subpoena the couple to testify.

In a letter Tuesday, the Salahis' lawyer, Stephen Best, gave examples of what he said were the committee's premature conclusions. Best cited District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's characterization of the Salahis on Nov. 30 as “practiced con artists.”

Best also said that Chairman Bennie Thompson's chief oversight counsel told the Salahis' lawyers that if the couple did not testify at the Dec. 3 hearing, they would be viewed as modern-day versions of “Bonnie and Clyde.”

“It is circumstances such as these for which the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution was designed to provide safe harbor,” Best wrote.

The Secret Service is conducting a criminal investigation into the security breach; charges have yet to be referred for prosecution.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2009/12/white-house-gatecrashers-cite-5th-amendment.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

America's pointless gun fight

Both sides of the debate stifle constructive action on safety by arguing only the extremes, writes a former gun lobbyist.

by Richard Feldman

5:05 PM PST, December 8, 2009

The "crazy" thing about the gun debate in America is how misguided and off-base both sides of the issue are. An example from one side is The Times' Dec. 1 editorial on the Washington state police officer shootings, " Crazy about guns "; from the other side, we have almost any fundraising appeal over the last year from the National Rifle Assn. Both sides offer little compromise on this issue, making the gun debate one of extremes. Our leaders ignore the important truths needed to formulate and articulate policy proposals that address the reality of life in America in a constructive and collaborative way.

The Times' editorial decries the "typical American response" of those living near the scene of the crime in Washington who said they'd seek to protect themselves by possessing firearms. What The Times neglects to mention is that a bullet from a "good guy" provided swift justice to the suspected cop killer days after the police shootings and potentially ended what could have become an even more horrendous trail of murder and mayhem. Self-defense is valid whether the bullet comes from the barrel of a law enforcement officer's pistol or one used by a soccer mom, grandma or any other American gun owner.

As for our so-called craziness about guns, was it "crazy" for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule last year that American citizens have a right (not simply a privilege) to keep handguns for defensive purposes in their homes? Is it "crazy" for people who are justifiably scared by predatory criminals to feel more secure by exercising their right to own and carry a firearm? Doesn't this hold true for individuals, regardless of whether they wear a uniform (law enforcement blue or military camouflage) or civilian clothes?

The ambush killings of those four police officers in Washington state is a tragic example of America's dysfunction in dealing with violent criminals. The suspected killer had already been in jail in Arkansas for committing a series of crimes but was paroled after action taken in 2000 by then-Gov. Mike Huckabee. The killings had nothing to do with our tradition of firearms ownership by responsible, non-criminal citizens.

What is missing from The Times' editorial and from the ongoing national debate is the following:

First, we need to recognize that guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country -- like it or not. Any credible discussion of this issue must acknowledge that reality.

Second, gun owners and non-gun owners alike are in universal agreement in this country that violent, predatory criminals should not possess, have access to nor easily obtain firearms.

Third, we all wish that mentally troubled individuals would not own, possess or acquire guns.

Both sides of the debate need to acknowledge they actually agree on several key issues. I am a gun owner, and I do not intend to surrender my rights because of the acts of criminals, mental midgets or a sentimental wish of how things might be somewhere else (The Times muses about Canada's low homicide rate). I am hungry for action that moves our common agenda forward.

I've dedicated my life to the pursuit of policies that would make a difference, not pit one group of law-abiding citizens against another over whether they own guns or hate guns.

So my response to the issues raised by The Times is this: I'm ready to launch a major effort to educate Americans on firearm safety in a non-political, non-judgmental way, just as we do on sex education and drug education. If The Times really wants to make a difference, it should help me promote the simple rules of gun safety.

The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligent misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren't ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are always the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.

Richard Feldman is the author of "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist." Previously, he was executive director of the firearm industry's trade association and a regional political director for the National Rifle Assn.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-feldman9-2009dec09,0,1604195,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

Terror at home

As the shootings in Ft. Hood, Texas, and Orlando show, violence is always with us.

November 7, 2009

In a 2005 speech at Ft. Bragg, N.C., President George W. Bush laid out his latest justification for the war in Iraq: "There is only one course of action against [terrorists]: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq -- who is also senior commander at this base -- Gen. John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, 'We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.' "

But of course, fighting the enemy overseas doesn't mean we're not still fighting him here at home too. He struck Thursday in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30. With the nation still mourning those deaths, he hit us again Friday in Florida, shooting six in an Orlando office building.

Sometimes, the enemy we're fighting is a radical Muslim fundamentalist. The suspect in the Ft. Hood slayings may have been that kind of terrorist; he was certainly Muslim, and allegedly shouted "Allahu akbar," or "God is great," before opening fire. Sometimes he's a communist maniac, such as Lee Harvey Oswald. Or he's a government-loathing, right-wing conspiracy theorist, such as Timothy McVeigh.

Domestic terrorists tend to be loners, not organized militias like the ones we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Organized or not, terrorists think it's heroic to murder unarmed and unsuspecting people. They nurse bitter resentments in the dark against those who live in the light. They are driven by a kind of messianic zeal that, to them, justifies even the most heinous acts. They are so blinded by hatred that they will believe virtually anything about their enemies -- us -- no matter how farfetched. They are an unstable compound made up of ignorance and anger, often mixed with religion or political extremism. They could go off at any time.

Not all killers, of course, are terrorists. The suspect in the Orlando killings may have been a copycat emboldened by the previous day's blood bath, or he may have been just a disgruntled worker with a grudge and a gun. Terrorists use violence against ordinary people to further a cause. What they hold in common is self-righteousness -- an unshakable conviction that their actions are universally correct, even divinely sanctioned. They are always wrong.

Even if we "win" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and at this point it's hard to picture what "victory" would look like -- it won't keep us safe from such people. The enemy may be weak, but he has always been with us and always will be.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-enemy7-2009nov07,0,1399556,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Washington Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice Depart. subpoenaed in New Black Panthers case

by Jerry Seper

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, frustrated by the Justice Department's failure to explain the dismissal of charges against New Black Panther Party members who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during last year's elections, has subpoenaed the department demanding records showing how the case was handled.

David P. Blackwood, the commission's general counsel, said Tuesday in a letter to the Justice Department that efforts since June to obtain an explanation had proceeded "without any success" and the "dearth of cooperation" had prompted the commission to issue subpoenas.

"We are both mindful of the sensitivity of the subject matter involved and aware that, in response to similar requests, the department has raised various concerns and matters of privilege," Mr. Blackwood said. "While such considerations carry weight, cooperation with commission investigations is a mandatory statutory obligation.

"Moreover, due to the unique investigative role of the commission - akin to that of a congressional committee - disclosure to the commission of the information sought is both proper and required," he added.

The commission has asked the department why a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and three of its members was dismissed after a federal judge in Philadelphia ordered default judgments in the case. The NBPP refused to respond to the charges or appear in court.

The department's Voting Rights Section was in the final stages of seeking the judgments when Loretta King, who was serving as acting assistant attorney general, ordered a delay.

She issued the delay after meeting with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department's No. 3 political appointee, who approved the dismissal, according to interviews with department officials who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Tuesday that the department was reviewing the commission's letter. She said that the Civil Division at the department reviews "these types of requests in accordance with longstanding guidelines governing the disclosure of internal department information."

In January, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia against the NBPP after two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape.

Four months later, the Justice Department dropped the charges because, it said, "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them.

In August, Mary Patrice Brown, acting counsel of the department's office of professional responsibility, announced that it had "initiated an inquiry into the matter." The office investigates suspected misconduct by department lawyers.

Mr. Blackwood, in his letter, said the commission was concerned when it learned that the referral to the office of professional responsibility had raised questions about suspicions of misconduct.

Among the documents being sought are witness statements, copies of any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, reports of suspected voting intimidation, all documents that influenced the decision to drop three of the defendants as parties to the case, and documents regarding communications by Mrs. King, Mr. Perrelli and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. relating to the case.

Mr. Blackwood also said the commission wanted the names of all Justice Department personnel who worked on the case, including those who interviewed witnesses in Philadelphia, others who exercised decision-making authority and all those in the appellate section who reviewed the litigation.

The civil complaint accused two NBPP members - Minister King Samir Shabazz, head of the Philadelphia chapter, and Jerry Jackson, a Philadelphia party member - of intimidating voters at the polling place. A third party member, Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident, was accused of directing and endorsing their behavior.

NBPP officials and members have not been available for comment. The department obtained an injunction against Mr. Samir Shabazz that prohibits him from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/09/records-ordered-to-explain-panthers-handling//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

Clubbing SEALs

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Two elite Navy SEALs were arraigned on Monday on charges related to punching a terrorist leader once in the gut, with a third SEAL to face arraignment later. Special Operations Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe is charged with unlawfully striking a terrorist suspect "in the midsection with his fist" and for purportedly lying to a Naval Criminal Investigative Service officer about the incident. Petty Officers Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe are charged with impeding the investigation and dereliction of duty in failing to safeguard a detainee.

The proceedings against these heroes are an outrage to all the brave Americans serving in uniform to defend this country, especially those deployed in harm's way.

The supposed victim, Ahmed Hashim Abed, was the mastermind behind killing, burning and mutilating four American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, in March 2004. His followers hung the desiccated corpses high on a box-girder bridge over the Euphrates River. Mr. Abed was run down by the SEALs on a covert mission in September 2009.

He later claimed to Iraqi authorities that he was slugged sometime after his apprehension.

Public support for the accused SEALs has exploded. The Facebook group Support the Navy Seals Who Captured Ahmed Hashim Abed has attracted 60,000 members in three weeks purely by word of mouth. David Lussier, the group's founder, told The Washington Times: "These men, along with their families, have been put through enough. Some people forget that these men have families who have worried about them since the day they enlisted, to the day they landed in Iraq, until the day they finally make it home alive. To make them now go through all of this is not justice, certainly not what they signed into. This is a punch in the gut not only to the SEALs but to the [families], who spend many nights awake waiting for a phone call."

Betty Kilbride, one of the group's organizers and author of "Soul of American Warriors," based in part on her experiences as an embed with the Marines in Iraq in 2006, said she believes Mr. Abed's accusation is part of a systematic effort by the terrorists to achieve asymmetric victories against a military they cannot defeat. "The main objective of the terrorists is to undermine the authority and divide the brotherhood of our military," she said. "They know how to use our laws against us." A famous al Qaeda training manual instructs detained terrorists always to accuse their captors of torture, though a single punch should hardly qualify.

As retired Green Beret Jim Hanson observes on the facing page, we are witnessing a tectonic shift in the way terrorists are being fought, moving from a military model to a law enforcement one. The war on terrorism has been replaced by the "struggle against violent extremism." Under new guidelines instituted by the Obama administration, terror incidents are referred to as "man-caused disasters." Counterinsurgencies are "contingency operations." Al Qaeda leaders have been granted the full constitutional rights of American citizens. The whole tenor of the Obama administration is to downplay the seriousness of the very serious business of war.

This shift in focus has a troubling impact on our fighting forces. The brave Americans serving overseas risk their lives daily in ambiguous circumstances in which they are called upon to make many judgment calls. Now they increasingly have to worry about being second-guessed by people who were not on the scene. A lot is riding on what happens in the SEALs' case. "I can tell you that the outcome of this case is going to affect a lot more than three people," Mr. Lussier told us. "Many thousand now have a vested interest in them.

"Many members of the Special Operations Forces community and many members of the armed forces are waiting to see just how this plays out. They want to know if our government really does support them."

The day after the arraignment, a hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone killed three suspected terrorists and wounded three people in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal district. Apparently terrorists and bystanders can be slain on sight by remote control, but a punch thrown in the heat of the moment means a court-martial.

This is no way to fight a war. "If these Navy SEALs fail in their attempt to clear their names," Ms. Kilbride said, "we all fail."

She's right on target. A nation cannot achieve victory in war when the government is targeting its own warriors.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/09/clubbing-seals//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Navy SEALs or CSI?

by Jim Hanson

The court-martial of three Navy SEALs, for purportedly punching terrorist suspect Ahmed Hashim Abed once in the gut, and the upcoming trials of Sept. 11, 2001, mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees in New York City illustrate a decisive shift from fighting a war on terrorism to conducting a police action.

The transition to a law enforcement mentality in our efforts to combat terrorism will create many challenges. Special operatives tracking down the world's most menacing killers will have to make sure they have their Miranda cards handy.

If we are to try terrorists in U.S. federal court, we must ensure their capture and any evidence we will use meets the rigorous standards of our judicial system. This poses concerns about the methods and tactics our special operators use to conduct the raids that bring these savages to bay.

A raid into enemy territory to capture a terrorist alive is one of the most complex undertakings we attempt short of space flight. You could call it an intricate martial ballet, but I liken it to conducting a Beethoven symphony with all the players and instruments in free fall, hurtling toward Earth like a phalanx of lawn darts. So many facets must occur in perfect harmony that adding additional complicating factors is inviting failure.

Yet that is exactly what the law enforcement model must consider. If the information leading to a raid is not sufficient to justify a warrant, then what right do we have to kidnap a suspected terrorist? Our entire counterterror strategy is built upon the concept of high-value targets (HVTs) who are vetted by military and civilian intelligence before being put on a list as candidates for a raid.

But this process is not the same as presenting evidence to a grand jury or a judge to obtain an arrest or search warrant. The targets of these operations are not common criminals, or even war criminals. They belong to a group lower and less civilized than that, and they completely abjure all codes of conduct that would offer protections to those bound by them.

Picture the scene when we go to get Osama bin Laden.

(knock, knock, knock)

"Navy SEALs, we have a warrant."

"Mr. bin Laden, open the door, please. We have a warrant, sir."

"Thank you, sir. Can you please step away from that suicide vest. Thank you."

"You, crime scene tape. You, cut the lights and get me a flashlight. I'm going to check for latent prints."

It's absurd, and yet our legal system would seem to require it. Now that we have him in custody, we can consider interrogating him about future al Qaeda operations. Except that we first must inform him that he has the right to remain silent and to an attorney and apparently to a show trial in New York City.

Even if we were to attempt to interrogate him, he has the word of our president and attorney general that we will not do so with any rigor. Heaven forbid he receive so much as a fat lip, as the three SEALs found out recently when they captured Abed, a butcher who murdered and desecrated four Americans in Fallujah.

These Americans now face a court-martial after Abed complained to Iraqi authorities. And the technique of waterboarding, which has been done to thousands of our own troops in training and which proved invaluable in convincing Mohammed to offer a treasure trove of intelligence? Absolutely not.

The terrorists know our playbook as well as our interrogators do, and now that we have shown what happens to our best if they even dangle a toe over the line, who is going to break the most fanatical enemies we have?

These restrictions may not be fully in place yet, but can you doubt we are on that path? The case of the three SEALs illustrates that the new system gives our special operators the perverse incentive to take no prisoners.

Why risk your career and life to truss up these barbarians and bring them back to watch cable TV in federal prison, while complaining to the press about how brutally they are being treated? If a Hellfire missile hurtling through a window and killing a terrorist and his family is due process, then so be it.

Jim Hanson was a weapons sergeant in 1st Special Forces Group and now serves as director of the Warrior Legacy Institute.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/09/navy-seals-or-csi//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Wall Street Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Major Hasan and the Quran

Repentance is the only option for the Fort Hood killer.

Maj. Nidal Hasan's lawyer is considering an insanity plea as a strategy for his client. That might be the only legal option available to the man accused of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood. But Nidal Hasan should also consider a religious option: repentance.

He should take responsibility for his horrific act of violence. He should beg for forgiveness from God for murdering 13 people and injuring 31 more. He should apologize to the families of the victims. He should ask for forgiveness from his fellow members of the military, and from the American people, as he betrayed our entire nation—including Muslim-Americans who are paying the price for his shameful and un-Islamic actions.

Maj. Hasan is granted the presumption of innocence in our courts of law, be they civilian or military. His military-appointed lawyer will likely advise him not to confess to anything. Legally, that may be sound advice. But religiously that advice cuts against the grain of the divine value of justice. Maj. Hasan must take responsibility for committing two major sins in Islam—the murder of his fellow citizens and the violation of two oaths he took.

Maj. Hasan took an oath as a member of the U.S. military to defend our country. He also took a Hippocratic oath to protect his patients. The violation of these oaths is a violation of the Quranic principle which states that making a pledge to anyone is tantamount to making a pledge to God. The Quran states: "(Be not like those) who use their oaths as a means of deceiving one another" (16:92).

His now infamous PowerPoint presentation is rife with distortions of the Quran. Entitled "The Koranic Worldview As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," it provides anything but a Quranic perspective. Maj. Hasan's critical fault in understanding the Quran was his failure to distinguish between two very important categories of verses: those tied to the specific context of seventh-century Arabia, and those that are absolute and permanent.

He ignores the Quranic mandates, for example, to stand for justice even if it is against your own interest, and to avoid transgression in the pursuit of justice. Yet the most troubling part of his presentation are his conclusions. One of them is: "Muslims are moderate (compromising) but God is not." There are two critical flaws in this one sentence.

OpinionJournal Related Stories:

First, to make any kind of declaration about God being unforgiving violates Islam's central teachings of mercy and compassion. The Quran makes it clear that human beings are meant to embody God's generous spirit. To argue otherwise is to violate God's will and Islam's goal of peacemaking.

Second, being moderate is about upholding religious values while working with other members of society for the greater good. Extremists believe they are compromising their Islamic values when living in the West. This is not true. And Muslim-haters oblige them with the converse, when they argue that the West should not tolerate Muslims. This is not just.

Maj. Hasan's hodgepodge of verses from the Quran and quotes from extremists left out the most important Quranic verse in his section on enjoining peace and forgiveness: "God invites you into the abode of peace" (10:25). Nor did he include the admonition by the Prophet Muhammad never to harm the innocent and never to target noncombatants.

Nidal Hasan doesn't just need legal support; he needs religious consultation that could help him see the enormity of his situation when he faces his Creator. Unfortunately, he may become an icon for violent extremism, leading other young people and civilians to their deaths.

So what should the U.S. government do? Consider allowing Muslim-American religious leaders to meet with Nidal Hasan. Muslim leaders could encourage him to repent. And they could engage Maj. Hasan on his deeply flawed understanding of Islam, explaining that the Quran is an instrument to take people from darkness to light, not the opposite.

Nidal Hasan is reportedly reading letters. I hope he reads this article, for his sake and for the sake of our country.

Mr. Al-Marayati is executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571981079768944.html#printMode

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Department of Homeland Security

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Secretary Napolitano Announces Grant Guidance for More Than $2.7 Billion in Fiscal Year 2010 Grant Programs

FY 2010 Preparedness Grant Programs Overview
(PDF, 28 pages - 353 KB)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the release of fiscal year 2010 grant application guidance kits for 13 DHS grant programs totaling more than $2.7 billion—funds for state, local, tribal and territorial governments and private sector entities to strengthen our nation's ability to prevent, protect, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies.

“These grants play a major role in our efforts to work with our state, local, tribal and territorial and private sector partners to build a national culture of readiness and resilience,” said Secretary Napolitano. “This year's guidance focuses on maximizing efficiency and value while prioritizing risk in awarding grants to strengthen our nation's security.”

The grant program guidance kits announced today also incorporate the input of DHS' state, local, tribal and territorial and private sector partners and include specific steps undertaken by DHS to improve the ability of state and local partners to apply for and utilize grant funding.

The guidance announced by Secretary Napolitano today has increased tribal funding, reduced administrative paperwork for state and local government and enabled local jurisdictions to use preparedness funding for ongoing maintenance contracts, warranties, repair or replacement costs, upgrades and user fees for equipment purchased with previous DHS grants.

These 13 preparedness grant programs may fund a variety of activities including planning, organization, equipment purchases, training and exercises:

• Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)—$1.78 billion targeted for states or urban areas to build capabilities critical to security. HSGP consists of five programs:
  
  
  • State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)—$842 million to build capabilities at the state and local levels to implement the state homeland security goals and objectives identified in the State Preparedness Report. The 9/11 Act requires states to dedicate 25 percent of SHSP funds to law enforcement terrorism prevention-oriented planning, organization, training, exercise and equipment activities.
    
    
  • Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)—$832.5 million to enhance regional preparedness by strengthening capabilities in 64 high-threat, high-density urban areas across the country. The 9/11 Act requires states to dedicate 25 percent of UASI funds to law enforcement terrorism prevention-oriented activities.
    
    
  • Operation Stonegarden (OPSG)—$60 million to enhance law enforcement and border security operations in states that border Canada (including Alaska) or Mexico and states and territories with international water borders.
    
    
  • Metropolitan Medical Response System Program (MMRS)—$39.3 million to enhance and sustain comprehensive regional mass casualty incident response and preparedness capabilities, divided evenly among 124 MMRS jurisdictions.
    
    
  • Citizen Corps Program (CCP)—$12.4 million to engage citizens in community preparedness, planning, mitigation, response and recovery activities.
    
    
• Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP)— Up to $10 million available to eligible tribal applicants to help strengthen the United States against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks.
  
  
• UASI Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP)—$19 million to support target-hardening activities at nonprofit organizations at high risk of a terrorist attack.
  
  
• Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) Program—$329 million to assist state and local governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities.
  
  
• Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP)—$48 million to assist governments in carrying out initiatives identified in Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans and improve interoperable emergency communications used to respond to natural disasters and acts of terrorism.
  
  
• Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP)—$ 33.6 million to enhance catastrophic incident preparedness in high-risk, high-consequence urban areas and their surrounding regions and support coordination of regional all-hazard planning for catastrophic events, including the development of integrated planning communities, plans, protocols and procedures to manage a catastrophic event.
  
  
• Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program—$57.6 million to support the construction or renovation of Emergency Operations Centers to improve state, local or tribal emergency management and preparedness capabilities to ensure continuity of operations during disasters.
  
  
• Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP)—$48 million to increase preparedness capabilities for safeguarding critical infrastructure sites and key resource assets, such as chemical facilities and nuclear power plants, through planning and equipment acquisition.
  
  
• Driver's License Security Grant Program (DLSGP)—$48 million to help states and territories improve security of state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards in order to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud and enhance the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents.
  
  
• Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)—$288 million to help protect critical port infrastructure from terrorism, enhance maritime domain awareness and strengthen risk management capabilities in order to protect against improvised explosive devices and other non-conventional weapons; conduct training and exercises; and implement the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC).
  
  
• Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP)—$11.5 million to support security measures including plans, facility security upgrades and vehicle and driver protection for fixed-route intercity and charter bus services.
  
  
• Freight Rail Security Grant Program (FRSGP)—$15 million to protect critical freight rail systems infrastructure from acts of terrorism and major disasters, as well as other emergencies resulting from railroad cars transporting toxic inhalation hazardous materials.
  
  
• Intercity Passenger Rail (Amtrak)—$20 million to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from terrorism, major disasters and other emergencies within the Amtrak rail system.
  
  

EMPG Program applications are due no later than January 22, 2010. IECGP, FRSGP, PSGP, IPR (Amtrak), IBSGP, EOC, BZPP, and DLSGP applications are due no later than February 12, 2010. Applications for HSGP, THSGP, NSGP, and RCPGP are due no later than April 19, 2010.

The FY 2010 application guidance packages reflect DHS' strategic priorities, as well as the National Preparedness Guidelines and the National Response Framework.

DHS oversees more than 50 grant and financial assistance programs representing approximately $4 billion in non-disaster grant funding annually to help state, local, tribal and private sector entities strengthen the nation's ability to prevent, protect, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies.

Further information on preparedness grant programs is available at www.dhs.gov and www.fema.gov/grants .

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1260283102665.shtm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Department of Justice

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON – Jacob Wingo, Clayton Morrison, Darren McKim and Richard Robins were sentenced today and yesterday in federal court in Hot Springs, Ark., on federal civil rights and obstruction of justice charges related to a conspiracy to drive a woman and her children from their home in Donaldson, Ark., because the victims associated with African-Americans.

Wingo, 20, was sentenced to 24 months in prison, three years of post-incarceration supervision, a fine of $10,000, and a $300 special assessment; Morrison, 29, was sentenced to 15 months in prison, three years of post-incarceration supervision, a fine of $5,000, and a $300 special assessment; McKim, 38, was sentenced to 18 months in prison, three years of post-incarceration supervision, a fine of $5,000, and a $200 special assessment; and Robins, 42, was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison, three years of post-incarceration supervision, a fine of $5,000 and a $200 special assessment. A fifth defendant, Dustin Nix, 21, was sentenced on Nov.6, 2009, to a prison term of 12 months and one day, three years of post-incarceration supervision, a fine of $5,000 and a $200 special assessment.

Each of the defendants pleaded guilty in September 2009. In the plea proceedings and documents filed in court, Wingo admitted building a cross, transporting it to the victims' home and attempting to set it on fire. Morrison admitted to helping prepare the cross and accompanying Wingo and Nix to the victims' home in order to burn it. McKim and Robbins admitted encouraging Wingo and Nix to build the cross and to burn it at the victims' home, as well as driving to the victims' home on a separate occasion to threaten and intimidate them. McKim also admitted to providing materials to Wingo and Nix for them to use to build the cross.

"The defendants in this case threatened a young family with violence simply because they associated with persons of another race. Threats of this kind have no place in this country, but they are regrettably all too common," said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez. "Aggressive prosecution of hate crimes is a top priority for the Civil Rights Division, and these convictions should send a message to those who would carry out similar criminal acts."

Special Agents from the FBI's Little Rock Field Office investigated this matter. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Quinn for the Western District of Arkansas, and Special Litigation Counsel Gerard Hogan and Trial Attorney Benjamin Hawk of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/December/09-crt-1315.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.