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

From the Los Angeles Times

U.S. counter-terrorism agents still hamstrung by data-sharing failures

Nine years after 9/11 and nine months after a Christmas Day bombing attempt, analysts still can't search across myriad intelligence databases to find potential threats. Technical and policy hurdles abound.

By Ken Dilanian, Tribune Washington Bureau

October 5, 2010

Reporting from Washington

Counter-terrorism analysts still lack the data-search tools that might have kept a bomb-wearing Al Qaeda operative from boarding a Detroit-bound airliner nine months ago, and probably won't have them any time soon, U.S. officials acknowledge.

At the same time, officials say the terrorist threat against the U.S. is becoming more complex, with a greater risk from home-grown militants whose low profiles make sophisticated intelligence analysis more important than ever.

"It frustrates me," said former Republican New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean, who co-chaired the Sept. 11 commission, which urged U.S. intelligence agencies to vastly improve information sharing. "The president's got to make this a top priority," and right now it doesn't seem to be, Kean said.

Analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center, created after the Sept. 11 attacks to integrate intelligence gathered by dozens of spy agencies, still sit in front of multiple computers searching databases maintained by the different government departments. The director, Michael E. Leiter, has three computer monitors and nine hard drives in his office.

Lawmakers have been pushing for a capability to search across the government's vast library of terrorism information, but intelligence officials say there are serious technical and policy hurdles. The databases are written in myriad computer languages; different legal standards are employed on how collected information can be used; and there is reluctance within some agencies to share data.

That makes it harder to connect disparate pieces of threat information, which is exactly what went wrong in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian who on Christmas Day last year tried to blow up an airplane using explosives sewn into his underwear. The bomb failed to detonate, and a passenger jumped on him.

Abdulmutallab, whose father had contacted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria to express concern about his son's extremist views, was not placed on a watch list barring him from flying to the U.S. because analysts didn't connect all the information the intelligence community had about him, a White House review in January found.

Officers at the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center "did not search all available databases to uncover additional derogatory information that could have been correlated with Mr. Abdulmutallab," the White House review found, and their software didn't allow them to correlate data that would have made the threat more clear.

The counter-terrorism center has since formed "pursuit teams" to dig into data, and the CIA has committed to disseminating information on suspected extremists and terrorists within 48 hours. But the agencies still lack the capability to search across all of the hundreds of databases containing potentially relevant information, officials concede.

Sen. Susan Collins, the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said last month that she found it disturbing that the problem had persisted.

When asked by Collins at a Sept. 22 hearing why the data-search problem had not been solved, Leiter answered, "There are a multitude of challenges."

Congress has since addressed one of those challenges. An intelligence bill that passed Thursday made clear that information from "operational files" of the CIA intelligence agencies passed on to the counter-terrorism center was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The CIA had been reluctant to share certain information out of fear that it could somehow become public, according to a U.S. official who did not want to speak on the record about sensitive intelligence matters.

Other hurdles remain -- some technical, some legal, some bureaucratic, Leiter said. For example, information about U.S. citizens or residents must be handled differently than information on foreigners. And data gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — targeting foreigners but potentially including information on Americans — carry restrictions on their use, Leiter said.

There are no easy legislative or technical fixes, said Russell E. Travers, information sharing chief at the National Counterterrorism Center. The agency is pursuing solutions that will allow automated connection of related information across databases, but "my guess is that this will be a challenge into perpetuity, because we get more and more information every day," he said. One intelligence agency alone gets 8,000 terrorism messages each day with 11,000 to 15,000 names, he said.

Not everyone thinks information sharing between agencies is warranted.

"The idea of creating a single, U.S. government-wide repository of information on all things related to terrorism isn't feasible — at least in the near term — and probably isn't desirable," said one U.S. counter-terrorism official not authorized to speak publicly. "Even as we've greatly expanded information sharing since 9/11, you still have to think about security and the sensitivity of certain data."

That view infuriates Fran Townsend, an assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism in the George W. Bush administration.

"This is one that makes me angry," she said at a public event in April. "This is not a technology problem. It's a failure of policy and a failure of leadership. I venture to say that if the president of the United States calls in his Cabinet and says a Cabinet member will be fired if his agency fails to share information, you betcha that information is going to get shared … and we haven't seen that."

Travers argued that there were indeed technical problems, as well as tough policy ones. The Herculean task of separating relevant information from background noise makes terrorism analysis an extraordinarily difficult art, he said, and there is no button to push to identify non-obvious relationships.

"What I think we can do," he said, "is shrink the haystack and make it somewhat easier for the analysts."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terrorism-data-20101005,0,7448236,print.story

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

OPINION

Marijuana's health effects

Proposition 19 would legalize marijuana in California, but voters should be aware of the health risks associated with using the drug.

By Itai Danovitch

October 5, 2010

In the debate on legalizing marijuana, which Californians will vote on in November in the form of Proposition 19, the health risks of marijuana are often overlooked.

Legalizing marijuana will almost certainly lead to a decrease in its price and an increase in its use, according to a recent Rand Corp. study. And because no drug or medicine is without side effects, increased marijuana use will mean increased health risks.

But what kind of risks? Supporters of legalization say marijuana is no more harmful than caffeine, whereas advocates of criminalization suggest that marijuana is highly toxic. Like other complex health issues, the truth lies somewhere in between.

The California Society of Addiction Medicine is an association of physicians specializing in the treatment of alcoholism and other addictions. Though neutral on the issue of marijuana legalization itself, the society is concerned that Proposition 19 spreads misinformation about marijuana by stating: "Cannabis is not physically addictive, [and] does not have long-term toxic effects." Unfortunately, this statement ignores a large body of national and international scientific research over the last four decades that proves marijuana can be addictive.

About 9% of adults who use marijuana develop an addiction to it. Among people who begin smoking before the age of 18, this number is as high as 17%. Although addiction to marijuana does not cause dramatic physical dependence, it can lead to substantial problems in education, work and relationships. In fact, addiction to marijuana is defined by the inability to stop using despite recognition of harmful consequences. Without harmful consequences, there is no diagnosis of addiction.

The short-term effects of marijuana intoxication are well established. As part of the high produced by marijuana, intoxication impairs memory and learning. Marijuana use also impairs driving, causing a twofold to threefold increase in accidents. Though not as dramatic as the fifteenfold increase in accidents caused by alcohol intoxication, marijuana's impact on traffic safety does have significance.

The long-term effects of marijuana are not often recognized because they are subtle, but they can have a cumulative impact over time. In people with preexisting vulnerabilities, marijuana use can unmask psychiatric problems such as schizophrenia. Many people with anxiety and depression use marijuana to soothe their symptoms; however, there is evidence that over time it may actually make these problems worse.

Smoked marijuana irritates the linings of the respiratory passages and can lead to inflammation and bronchitis. Although marijuana has not been definitively shown to cause cancer, smoked marijuana has been linked to precancerous changes in the lungs.

These long-term effects of marijuana are not as dramatic as those seen in other, "harder" drugs of abuse, but they do take a toll, and that toll appears to be greatest among people who begin smoking marijuana during adolescence, before the brain and body are finished maturing.

Long-term marijuana use has not been shown to reduce general measurements of intelligence; however, there is evidence that the processing of highly complex information is slowed. Even after 28 days of abstinence, brain scans of long-term marijuana users show less activity in regions serving memory and learning.

The bottom line is that although marijuana is less hazardous to health than many other legal or illegal drugs, it is not without risk, and voters and potential users need to fully understand this.

Among treatment professionals, there is widespread consensus that incarcerating people for marijuana use or possession is wrong, and therefore, an alternative policy is long overdue. If we are to promote the public health, however, we need to anticipate and deal with the consequences of our policy decisions. California already does an abysmal job of making treatment resources available to people addicted to marijuana and other drugs, including adolescents. In the advent of legalization, there will be an increased need for prevention programs, education and treatment services.

The decision to legalize marijuana is in the hands of California voters. It is vital that they make their decision on the basis of accurate facts. And if Californians do legalize marijuana, they should insist that revenue from its taxation be applied toward any problems that arise from its increased use.

Itai Danovitch is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He is a member of the California Society of Addiction Medicine's Committee on Public Policy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-danovitch-potaddiction-20101005,0,5200316,print.story

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

From the New York Times

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

Relatives Tell of Civilians Killed by U.S. Soldiers

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — It was difficult enough for the people of western Kandahar Province. They are beleaguered both by the Taliban , who control the roads, demand taxes and execute anyone suspected of disloyalty, and by the American military, who often show little regard for people and whose demands that locals stand up to the insurgents seem unreasonable.

Still, there was no reason to anticipate something far worse: American soldiers suspected of being a sadistic rogue band led by Sgt. Calvin Gibbs.

For Mullah Allah Dad, a poppy farmer and the mullah of a hamlet of just 15 homes in Kandahar Province, the end came quickly. He was sipping tea when he heard screams, and several of his children ran in. American soldiers in tanks were coming, they told him. Moments later, two young soldiers came in and grabbed him, his wife, Mora, said.

“In a minute I heard shooting,” she said. “I saw my husband face down, and a black American stood next to him. Another soldier pushed me away. They pushed me back into the house and the interpreter made me go inside one of the rooms.

“Minutes after that I heard an explosion,” she said. “I rushed out of that inner room and out the gate and the translator was telling me to stop, but I did not pay any attention, and then I saw my husband, my husband was burning.”

According to court papers filed by the military, Mullah Allah Dad, 45, of the Kalagi hamlet, was the third victim of soldiers who killed Afghan civilians for no apparent reason.

Five of the platoon soldiers have been charged in at least three murders, one of them Mullah Allah Dad's, and seven other soldiers have been charged with crimes including assault, the use of hashish and attempts to impede the investigation.

The New York Times sent an emissary to Maiwand, the western district of Kandahar where the killings took place, to find the families of the three who were killed. Mullah Allah Dad's family was afraid to come to the provincial capital to meet with a Times reporter because they feared that coalition troops might again attack them or that the Taliban would stop them. They agreed to come only as far as a nearby village that had cellphone coverage, and they were interviewed by phone.

Mrs. Dad described how the soldiers searched the family's house, apparently trying to justify the killing. “They tore and broke everything,” she said. “But they did not find a single bullet in my home.”

Later, Mrs. Dad's father, Abdullah Jan, and two tribal elders listened in disbelief to an Afghan intelligence agent at the district governor's office as he related his conversation with American soldiers when they handed over Mullah Allah Dad's body.

“He told me that the Americans claimed that Allah Dad had a grenade and was going to attack them, and then the grenade went off and he was killed,” said Mr. Jan. “I tried to explain his background, that he was a mullah in his village mosque, he had no link with the Taliban and he didn't want one.

“They put the grenade under his body,” he said.

An hour later, Mr. Jan said, he picked up his son-in-law's body and was shocked to find that it was wrapped in a black plastic bag. “It was treated like garbage,” he said.

Just a mile or two from Kalagi, near the village of Karez, another man died in almost the same way.

Gulbaddin, 37, was moving into his new home on a chilly January day when American soldiers came in several armored vehicles to the village, said Haji Abdul Qayoum, a neighbor and tribal elder there. “His son was crying, but the soldiers did not care,” he said. “He was shot right before his home and with his son there.”

Mr. Qayoum, at the request of The New York Times, went to ask Gulbaddin's father if he would discuss his son's death. His response was the cry of every father who has lost his child.

“Don't talk about my son,” said Gulbaddin's father. “My mind is not ready even to hear his name. Even you mentioning his name makes me angry and puts my heart in pain. Please, please don't hurt my heart.”

Local elders estimate that in the past eight months at least 42 civilians have been killed in Maiwand during American operations. The Taliban have also killed civilians in the district, but it is the 42 whose deaths are etched in local memory.

“I am from the area, and my family has been living here for centuries,” said Haji Hayatullah, an elder from Maiwand District. “I know the people who are supporting the Taliban and the people who are not. But the Americans have killed many people who did not support the Taliban, which is painful for us and actually creates hatred toward Americans. And that is why there is little or no help to the Americans from the civilians here.”

“For us, death is inevitable, but not in the way they have been killing.”

The family of Mullah Allah Dad has received no apology and no compensation for his death, his father-in-law said.

A spokeswoman for the Army, Maj. Kathleen Turner, said she could not answer any questions about the case because of the continuing investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=print

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

Young Soldier Both Revered and Reviled

BILLINGS, Mont. — Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs called to say he did not kill Afghan civilians for the thrill of killing. Nor did he toss severed fingers at the feet of his fellow soldiers to scare them into silence.

“All he said was, ‘I don't know where these guys are getting this stuff,' ” said Eric Thomas, a childhood friend here, shortly after speaking with Sergeant Gibbs by telephone one recent evening. “He said none of it actually happened. He said for some reason the other guys were scared. He doesn't know where it comes from.”

“Calvin Gibbs is not a murderer,” Mr. Thomas said. “I don't want people hearing about finger bones and thinking they know Calvin, because they don't.”

Members of his unit in Afghanistan paint a devastating picture of Sergeant Gibbs, 26. He is one of five soldiers facing potential courts-martial on charges that they killed Afghan civilians for sport, planting weapons near them to fake combat situations, collecting their body parts and taking photographs posing with their corpses.

Documents in the case obtained by The New York Times, including statements by soldiers and investigators, portray Sergeant Gibbs as the ringleader in three separate incidents involving the murder of civilians near Kandahar, Afghanistan, this year, and as the force behind intimidating other soldiers in his unit to keep quiet. Soldiers said Sergeant Gibbs threatened at least one subordinate with death if he ever disclosed the killings. Other soldiers not accused in the deaths say he mocked them for not meeting his standard for men on patrol.

“He told me the type of soldier he was looking for was the type that could kill anybody without any kind of regret,” Pfc. Ashton Moore told an Army investigator in May.

When Private Moore, who faces other charges, told Sergeant Gibbs that he would not kill someone without cause, he said the sergeant responded: “And that's why you'll be stuck in the truck the whole time. The guy I'm looking for is the guy that would shoot the dude just because he could shoot the dude.”

The case has prompted the military to review all combat deaths with which Sergeant Gibbs has been involved, including those during deployments to Iraq as early as 2004.

Specialist Jeremy N. Morlock , also accused in the Afghanistan deaths, said Sergeant Gibbs had openly discussed how he might kill Specialist Adam C. Winfield, another one of the accused, who he worried would report the killings.

“There were two scenarios SSG Gibbs told me about taking his life,” Specialist Morlock told Army investigators as part of the investigation into the five soldiers. “The first scenario was going to take him to the gym and drop a weight on his neck. The second scenario was SSG Gibbs was going to take him to the motor pool and drop a tow bar on him.”

Geoffrey Nathan, a lawyer for Specialist Morlock, criticized the Army for allowing Sergeant Gibbs to lead troops in combat. He said his client “could serve the rest of his life in prison for being in the throes of Gibbs.”

Several soldiers recalled Sergeant Gibbs and Specialist Morlock tossing severed fingers in front of a soldier who had reported the widespread use of hashish within the unit. That soldier, Pfc. Justin A. Stoner, later told investigators that he feared being killed the same way Afghan civilians had been, as if his death had happened in combat.

“It wouldn't be hard for them to take me out and do the same to me and blame it on the Taliban ,” Private Stoner told investigators.

Here in Billings, Sergeant Gibbs's friends say he was just performing his duty. “How could they put him in jail for doing his job over there?” Mr. Thomas asked. “I'm sure some people were shooting at him, so he shot back at them.”

Not long before he was deployed to war zones overseas, Sergeant Gibbs was a struggling teenager in Billings. “No ambition,” said a neighbor. His father worked in maintenance for the Mormon church and his family was active in the faith. He barely attended high school, earning just 1 of 20 credits necessary to graduate. In his high school yearbook during his sophomore year, he wore a T-shirt bearing the brand of a skateboarding company, “Independent.”

Mr. Thomas, his brother Paul, Sergeant Gibbs and another friend were close as teenagers, frequently camping out on summer nights in Red Lodge, Mont., fishing, shooting BB guns and drinking beer.

Sergeant Gibbs played defensive end on the football team as a high school freshman. At 6-foot-4 and 220 pounds, he was “the strongest kid I ever played against,” Mr. Thomas said. The friends played video games and rode skateboards, often spending time at the Gibbses' house because friends said his parents were nice. Friends say all he ever wanted to be was a soldier.

His parents sent him away to an alternative school in Montana that often steered its students into the military. Sergeant Gibbs received a graduate equivalency degree from the program in the fall of 2002, having already enlisted in the military. He had dreamed of being in the Marines but, without a high school diploma, entered the Army instead.

A lawyer for Sergeant Gibbs declined to comment, as did Sergeant Gibbs's parents. A sister began to cry when she was asked about him and said her brother had requested that she not speak to reporters. Friends said they did not believe the charges.

“People get messed up in the head,” during combat missions, said Paul Thomas, Eric Thomas's older brother. “But not Calvin. He was always a rock.”

Paul Thomas is a former Marine. He said he had not seen Sergeant Gibbs since 2006. Since then, Sergeant Gibbs has served two tours in Afghanistan after serving one earlier in Iraq. Now, more than one soldier who served with him described him or his actions as “savage.”

Private Stoner said Sergeant Gibbs “associates with skinheads online.” Specialist Morlock said Sergeant Gibbs had “pure hatred” for all Afghans. Fingers he is accused of collecting are now part of the evidence in the case, as is a tooth he is said to have pulled from a dead Afghan and bones other soldiers said he dug up.

Sergeant Gibbs has refused to speak to military investigators. But during fingerprinting and photographing in May, he was required to show his tattoos. On his lower left leg was an image of crossed pistols and six skulls. He told an investigator, according to an investigation transcript, that the skulls were “his way of keeping count of the kills he had. The skulls that were in red were the ones from Iraq and the other three were the kills he had in Afghanistan.”

Soldiers interviewed by investigators say Sergeant Gibbs had alluded to previous crimes he committed in Iraq, including one in which he shot into a car carrying an Iraqi family with children. By early this spring, as Sergeant Gibbs and others were being investigated, military investigators were widening their inquiry, specifically asking about a possible shooting in Iraq in early 2004.

“How many deployments has SSG Gibbs had?” investigators asked. “Need to determine if there was any suspicious incidents or investigations during all deployments.”

At least one soldier has said Sergeant Gibbs had photographs of bodies from his deployment to Iraq. A spokesman for the Army's central Criminal Investigations Division in Virginia said he could not discuss whether Sergeant Gibbs had faced previous criminal investigations or charges.

Before Sergeant Gibbs invoked his right to a lawyer during an interview with investigators in May, investigators say he told them that “all incidents where he has been involved in are exactly how they are reported, meaning he was attacked and he then responded with his M-4, killing the local national. When questioned on whether any of the incidents were staged, SSG Gibbs stated that was offensive.”

Pfc. Adam W. Kelly, who is accused of assaulting Private Stoner along with several other soldiers, as well as possessing hashish, told investigators that he admired Sergeant Gibbs, as did others in their platoon, from senior officers to subordinates, and that he “displayed solid tactics.”

“I believe that because of his experience that more people came back alive and uninjured than would have without him having been part of the platoon,” Private Kelly said.

Sgt. Gibbs is married to a soldier based in the United States, Pfc. Chelsy M. Gibbs. They were married in a Mormon church in Billings. In 2008 they had a son, Calvin Richard Gibbs Jr. On her MySpace page, Private Gibbs listed her husband as one of her heroes, “for putting up with me, but mostly for the sacrifices he makes for our country.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/world/asia/05gibbs.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

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

Worker Spoke of Jihad, Agency Says

WASHINGTON — A New Jersey man accused of joining Al Qaeda in Yemen spoke openly of militant views while working at American nuclear plants, according to a report by the inspector general of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that proposes tightening personnel security rules.

The man, Sharif Mobley, who is charged by Yemeni authorities with murdering a hospital guard during an escape attempt in March, said he told others in his labor union: “We are brothers in the union, but if a holy war comes, look out,” said the report from the inspector general, Hubert T. Bell .

Fellow nuclear plant workers said Mr. Mobley had referred to non-Muslims as “infidels” and had visited “unusual” Web sites on his personal computer, including one showing a mushroom cloud, the report said.

The report, prepared at the request of Senator Charles E. Schumer , Democrat of New York, recommended improving plant employee training on how to detect and report “behaviors associated with terrorist intent.” It proposed that regulatory commission officials should get direct access to a nuclear industry personnel database and suggested more frequent matching of employee names against terrorist watch lists.

The inspector general also suggested requiring disclosure of any foreign travel by nuclear plant employees so that they could be questioned about their destinations and activities abroad.

Much of the report was withheld from the public release because it “revealed security vulnerabilities” at nuclear facilities, said Stephen D. Dingbaum, the commission's assistant inspector general for audits.

Senator Schumer said in a statement on Monday that the Mobley case “showed that we had to devise and implement a much tougher security system to protect our nuclear plants from infiltration.” He praised the inspector general's report for offering “concrete, actionable recommendations that can be put in place immediately.”

Holly Harrington, an N.R.C. spokeswoman, said commission officials had been working for months on the issues identified in the inspector general's audit.

The American-born Mr. Mobley, 26, worked between 2002 and 2008 as a laborer at six nuclear plants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

Ms. Harrington said that he performed “routine labor, carrying supplies and helping with maintenance” and that the commission “is not aware of any safety concerns” regarding his employment.

The inspector general found that Mr. Mobley did have unescorted access to the interior of the plants but did not have access to computers or high-security information.

To have unescorted access to secure areas of a nuclear power plant, a person must undergo a background investigation, including a criminal record check and a psychological assessment. Employees are investigated at least every five years, the inspector general report said.

The portions of the report released publicly do not say what was revealed in background investigations of Mr. Mobley.

Edwin Lyman , who studies nuclear safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists , said existing rules did not account for temporary workers who migrate from plant to plant, as Mr. Mobley did, doing maintenance work during scheduled shutdowns. No new background investigation is required when a worker has been off the job for several months, he said.

"This report does not go far enough to close that loophole, in our opinion," Mr. Lyman said.

Mr. Mobley told friends in 2008 that he planned to move to Yemen to study Arabic and Islam. American and Yemeni officials said he connected there with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the branch of the terrorist network in Yemen.

Mr. Mobley was arrested by Yemeni security officers in January and was taken in March to a hospital in Sana, the capital, after complaining of illness. On March 7, according to Yemeni officials, he grabbed a security guard's gun and tried to escape, fatally shooting one guard. He remains in Yemeni custody on capital murder charges.

His lawyers have admitted that Mr. Mobley was in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki , an American-born radical cleric in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots and has called for attacks on the United States. But the lawyers have said Mr. Mobley denies being involved in any terrorist plot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/us/05mobley.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

Justices Won't Rule on 9/11 Burial Issue

WASHINGTON (AP) — Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks have lost a bid to get the Supreme Court to rule on whether New York City must provide a proper burial for material taken from the World Trade Center site, because it could contain the ashes of victims.

The justices declined on Monday to hear an appeal of a lower court's ruling in a suit brought by relatives of some of the people killed when the twin towers collapsed. Lower courts dismissed the suit against the city, saying it acted responsibly in moving materials from the site in Lower Manhattan to a landfill on Staten Island and then sifting through the material for human remains.

The plaintiffs wanted the ashes buried in a cemetery after they were sifted again. None of the remains of roughly 1,100 of the people who were killed in the attacks have been found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05burial.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

From the Chicago Sun Times

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

More cops moving to mobile strike teams

CRITICS IN POLICE UNION | Commander brought strategy from Iraq to Chicago

October 5, 2010

by Frank Main

Chicago Police Cmdr. James Roussell is obsessed with the number zero.

His goal is to have zero murders in neighborhoods where his Mobile Strike Force officers are assigned. Last month, no one was killed in the five police districts his officers "swarmed," Roussell said. And over the last three years, he said, homicides were down more than 98 percent in districts on the days he sent his cops there.

Police Supt. Jody Weis believes the Mobile Strike Force is key to Chicago's 4.5 percent drop in crime through September. That's why the department is planning to expand the citywide unit -- even though critics say the strategy has depleted the ranks of cops who patrol in beat cars.

"Do we need more beat cars? Absolutely," Roussell said recently at his Mobile Strike Force headquarters on the West Side. "But this is a big bang for the buck. . . . We're there to take some of the pressure off the beat cops."

Weis, whose contract expires in March, is continuing to roll out his anti-crime strategy despite opposition from the Fraternal Order of Police leadership and some rank-and-file officers. Last month, an FOP-backed march on police headquarters protested the city's shortage of officers. FOP President Mark Donahue called on Weis to resign, blasting the superintendent's reliance on roving units like the Mobile Strike Force. Donahue said 16 percent of beat cops have been given duties outside their districts.

The Mobile Strike Force was created in 2008 after Roussell returned from Iraq -- where he led a Marine Reserve unit that fought insurgents. He adopted a similar strategy in Chicago: suppress the most dangerous criminals and "leave Joe Sixpack alone."

Roussell commands four companies of Mobile Strike Force officers. Each company has 48 officers, six sergeants and a lieutenant. They work at night.

One of those four companies was temporary -- staffed with volunteers assigned to work for the unit during the summer until Oct. 13. Weis is making the fourth company permanent. And the superintendent is adding a fifth company that Roussell plans to use for daytime operations.

That means more than 100 officers and supervisors will permanently move to the Mobile Strike Force from other assignments, such as beat cars.

Roussell's officers have focused on the high-crime Englewood and the Harrison districts, but they're sent to other districts, too. On any given day, they typically go to three different parts of the city. Late-night house parties are one of the problems the Mobile Strike Force targets. The parties are crime incubators, so if a district commander learns there's one with hundreds of people on the street, he'll contact the unit. Roussell might send 40 officers to the party to break it up.

"You can't expect one beat car to break it up. In three minutes, we'll shut it down," Roussell said.

Last Friday night, his troops got a PowerPoint briefing on the top 10 violent criminals in the South Side and West Side areas they were targeting. They also got updates on brewing gang conflicts before they hit the street. Gang leaders are paying attention, Roussell said. He said crooks rarely pull guns on Mobile Strike Force members, some of whom are armed with military-style rifles. If they do, they'll get shot, Roussell promised.

Gang leaders have been secretly heard discussing the Mobile Strike Force and telling their street-corner drug dealers to shut business down while the officers are in their neighborhoods. The caravans of Mobile Strike Force vehicles are an imposing sight for gang members, Lt. Sean Loughran said.

"They'll say 'the 44s are coming,' " Loughran said, referring to the Mobile Strike Force's unit number painted on its vehicles. "They know we're not playing around."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2772930,CST-NWS-strikeforce05.article

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

From the Department of Homeland Security

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

DHS Launches “Stop. Think. Connect” National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign

October 4, 2010

Seattle, Wash. - The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today launched the “Stop. Think. Connect.” public cybersecurity awareness campaign—a national initiative that promotes simple steps the public can take to increase their safety and security online.

“We all share a responsibility to prevent cyber attacks and increase our nation's resilience to cyber threats,” said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. The “Stop. Think. Connect.” campaign will help equip the public with simple information to keep themselves and their families safe and secure on the Internet.”

“Stop. Think. Connect . ” is a national public education campaign designed to increase public understanding of cyber threats and how individual citizens can develop safer cyber habits that will help make networks more secure. The campaign fulfills a key element of President Obama's 2009 Cyberspace Policy Review, which tasked DHS with developing a public awareness campaign to inform Americans about ways to use technology safely.

“Stop. Think. Connect.” includes cyber forums hosted in collaboration with the National Centers of Academic Excellence to bring together diverse groups of community, private and government participants for dialogues on cybersecurity issues; opportunities for members of the public to get involved and help spread the word by leading or hosting campaign activities; and a coalition for public and private sector organizations.

As part of the campaign, the Department has also launched a new “Stop. Think. Connect.” Website, www.dhs.gov/stopthinkconnect , which provides a variety of free, downloadable resources and materials to help the public increase their safety and security online.

The “Stop. Think. Connect.” campaign was announced today in Seattle by Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute and White House Cybersecurity Coordinator and Special Advisor to the President Howard Schmidt during remarks highlighting the beginning of the 7 th annual National Cybersecurity Awareness Month and the Department's continued commitment to making cybersecurity a shared responsibility. They were joined by National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) Executive Director Michael Kaiser.

“During October, we all have a shared obligation to reaffirm our own commitment to increasing cybersecurity whenever and wherever possible. National Cybersecurity Awareness Month provides a platform for those of us in government, at the federal, state, local, levels, as well as our partners in the private sector, non-profit, academia, and internationally to help further educate all Americans and the global internet community about the importance of cybersecurity,” said Mr. Schmidt. “It is our shared responsibility to create a safe, secure and resilient cyber environment.”

The creation of “ Stop. Think. Connect.” was the result of an intensive collaborative effort over the past year from the Online Consumer Security and Safety Messaging Convention, an effort organized by the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA), the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG), key industry leaders, government agencies, and nonprofits.

National Cybersecurity Awareness Month is a coordinated effort between DHS, the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), and NCSA to raise awareness about the importance of cybersecurity and help Americans establish smart cyber habits that will lead to increased protection online.

To learn more about the “Stop. Think. Connect.” campaign and download free online safety tips and resources, visit www.dhs.gov/stopthinkconnect . For information about DHS's other efforts to protect and safeguard America's computer systems and networks from attacks, visit www.dhs.gov/cyber .

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1286211160622.shtm

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

From the Department of Justice

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

Justice Department Sues American Express, Mastercard and Visa to Eliminate Rules Restricting Price Competition

Reaches Settlement with Visa and Mastercard Department to Litigate Against American Express to Promote Competition Among Credit Card Networks Enabling Merchants to Benefit Consumers

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York challenging rules that American Express, MasterCard and Visa have in place that prevent merchants from offering consumers discounts, rewards and information about card costs, ultimately resulting in consumers paying more for their purchases. The department also said that the rules increase merchants' costs of doing business. Joining the department in its lawsuit are the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Texas.

At the same time, the department announced that it has reached a proposed settlement with Visa and MasterCard, that, if approved by the court, would require the two companies to allow merchants to offer discounts, incentives, and information to consumers to encourage the use of payment methods that are less costly.

According to the complaint, American Express, MasterCard and Visa maintain rules that prohibit merchants from encouraging consumers to use lower-cost payment methods when making purchases. For example, the rules prohibit merchants from offering discounts or other incentives to consumers in order to encourage them to pay with credit cards that cost the merchant less to accept.

“With today's lawsuit we are sending a clear message: We will not tolerate anticompetitive practices,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We want to put more money in consumers' pockets, and by eliminating credit card companies' anticompetitive rules, we will accomplish that.”

“These restrictive rules restrain competition among credit card networks for merchant acceptance and distort the competitive process,” said Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. “The proposed settlement with MasterCard and Visa is an important step in bringing more credit card competition to the point of sale. The department's lawsuit against American Express will continue that effort and, if successful, allow merchants more freedom to benefit their customers.”

Credit card acceptance costs U.S. merchants approximately $35 billion each year. Those costs are collected from merchants in the form of a “swipe fee” they pay every time a credit card is used. American Express has the highest merchant fees of any credit card network. Merchants pass on these billions of dollars in fees to all their consumers in the form of higher retail prices. By preventing merchants from rewarding consumers when they use less expensive credit cards to make a purchase, American Express, MasterCard and Visa have inhibited merchants' ability to reduce card acceptance costs, and therefore their retail prices to consumers.

The proposed settlement requires MasterCard and Visa to allow their merchants to:

• Offer consumers an immediate discount or rebate or a free or discounted product or service for using a particular credit card network, low-cost card within that network or other form of payment; 
  
  
• Express a preference for the use of a particular credit card network, low-cost card within that network or other form of payment;
  
  
• Promote a particular credit card network, low-cost card within that network or other form of payment through posted information or other communications to consumers; and
  
  
• Communicate to consumers the cost incurred by the merchant when a consumer uses a particular credit card network, type of card within that network, or other form of payment.

The proposed settlement allows any merchant that only accepts Visa and MasterCard to take advantage of the relief immediately.

The ongoing litigation against American Express seeks to allow merchants that accept American Express to engage in the same kind of discounting and encouragement that the proposed settlement with MasterCard and Visa allows. Until American Express's restraints on merchants are lifted, the many merchants that accept American Express, as well as Visa and MasterCard, will not be able to take full advantage of their new options under the proposed settlement, the department said.

American Express Company, the parent of American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc., is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business in New York City. Cardholders used American Express credit and charge cards for $419.8 billion in purchases in 2009. MasterCard is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Purchase, New York. Cardholders used MasterCard credit and charge cards for $476.9 billion in purchases in 2009. Visa is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco. Cardholders used Visa credit and charge cards for $764.2 billion in purchases in 2009.

The proposed settlement, along with the department's competitive impact statement, will be published in The Federal Register, as required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days of its publication to John R. Read, Chief, Litigation III Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street N.W., Suite 4000, Washington D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the final judgment as to MasterCard and Visa only upon a finding that it serves the public interest.

The court will determine a pretrial schedule for the case against American Express once American Express files its response to the government's lawsuit. 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/October/10-at-1115.html

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

Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer Speaks at the Alabama Public Corruption Investigation Press Conference

Washington, D.C.

October 4, 2010

Good morning. My name is Lanny Breuer. I am the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice.

I am pleased to have my friend and partner, FBI Assistant Director Kevin Perkins, here with me today, as well as Special Agent in Charge Timothy Fuhrman.

This morning, federal agents began arresting 11 individuals on charges that they conspired over an approximately 19-month period to corrupt the legislative process in Alabama. Also this morning, we unsealed a 39-count indictment against these individuals, which a grand jury sitting in Montgomery, Alabama, returned last week.

The 11 defendants named in the indictment are charged with forming a corrupt network of legislators, businessmen and lobbyists, whose aim was to manipulate the democratic process for personal gain. We allege that from February 2009 through August 2010, two owners of gaming and entertainment establishments and one of their employees; three registered lobbyists working on their behalf; four Alabama state Senators; and one State-employed legislative analyst, all participated in a wide-ranging conspiracy to buy and sell votes on legislation in Alabama that would directly benefit the business interests of two of the defendants, Milton McGregor and Ronald Gilley.

The alleged criminal scheme was astonishing in scope. Indeed, as alleged in the indictment, the defendants' corrupt conduct infiltrated every layer of the legislative process in the state of Alabama. Specifically, as charged in the indictment, Mr. McGregor and Mr. Gilley employed lobbyists, including defendants Thomas Coker, Robert Geddie and Jarrod Massey, in a full-scale campaign to bribe and coerce state legislators and others into supporting pro-gambling legislation that they favored.

Put simply, they are charged with having offered huge sums of money and other benefits in exchange for the legislators' votes.

Defendants Larry Means, James Preuitt, Quinton Ross and Harri Anne Smith, who are all current Alabama state Senators, are charged with accepting or agreeing to accept – and, in some cases, demanding – these bribes, in the form of campaign contributions, campaign appearances by country music stars, fundraising assistance and other things of value.

Additionally, one of the defendants, a legislative analyst named Joseph Crosby, is charged with having accepted monthly payments of $3,000 from McGregor in exchange for taking official action to amend the pro-gambling legislation in a way that would benefit McGregor. Also today, a plea agreement with former lobbyist Jennifer Pouncy was unsealed. Pouncy has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy for her role in the vote-buying scheme.

In carrying out this scheme, the defendants are alleged to have gone to great lengths to try to keep their criminal conduct from coming to light – including by repeatedly calling one another on what they perceived to be “safe” phones, meeting with one another in person instead of using telephones to communicate, and agreeing to use “backdoor” ways to transfer campaign and other contributions in order to avoid detection.

Despite these efforts to obscure and conceal their conduct, the indictment alleges that the defendants' tactics became increasingly brazen as a vote on the corrupted legislation drew near. Ultimately, we allege, in the scramble to secure the necessary votes to pass the pro-gambling legislation, McGregor and Gilley authorized their lobbyists and other co-conspirators to give the legislators whatever they wanted, as long as it secured their vote. For their part, the state senators---Smith, Preuitt, Means and Ross---solicited, and in some cases demanded, these things of value in exchange for their critical votes on the legislation.

In short, the indictment describes a brazen criminal scheme to buy and sell votes, thereby depriving the people of Alabama of the honest services of their elected representatives. The people of Alabama, like all our citizens, deserve to have representatives who act in the public's interest, not for their own personal financial gain. The kind of conduct alleged here undermines the public's faith in our democratic institutions, and cannot go unpunished. 

Public corruption investigations and prosecutions are among the most difficult that the Criminal Division undertakes. These cases, in which the stakes are always high, often attract great scrutiny and require the utmost professionalism to pursue. I want to commend the dedicated and talented attorneys in our Public Integrity Section for their work on this case, as well as the two Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to this matter, and the hardworking FBI agents who have been investigating it.

I have said before that we will follow the facts where they lead and root out corruption wherever we find it. Today, the facts have led us to arresting and charging these 11 defendants with federal crimes. I'll be happy to take a few questions but first let me turn it over to Assistant Director Perkins.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pr/speeches/2010/crm-speech-101004.html

.