German police questioned six suspects on Friday over the alleged plot, but five were released on Saturday, the federal prosecutor's office said.You'd have to think if they had any evidence implicating any of the "suspects", they would have kept them around, wouldn't you?
...
One of those arrested on Friday remains in custody in connection with another investigation, the officials said.
Nine apartments were searched on Friday in Rhineland-Palatinate state and Hessen, they added.
"During the summer, several suspects made contact with an individual who had access to the security-restricted zone of an airport," a statement said.There's even more in The Guardian, which says:
The individual agreed to help smuggle explosives concealed in a case or a bag onto a plane in return for payment, it added.
But the plot broke down when the as yet unidentified suspects failed to reach agreement with the airport employee on the amount he would be paid to plant the luggage.
A security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the matter, said the plot was centered on the Frankfurt airport and the plan apparently was to attack a plane belonging to Israel's El Al.So ... they don't have enough evidence to hold the suspects for even 48 hours, but they do have enough to splash the story all over the world.
Three of the suspects were apprehended in Hesse state, where the airport is located, the official said.
The six, who could face charges of belonging to or supporting a terrorist organization, were temporarily detained Friday, but five of them were released Saturday after questioning. The remaining suspect was kept in custody over an unrelated matter.
Under German law, authorities must release suspects after a maximum of 48 hours unless they have enough evidence to convince a judge that they can be held in long-term investigative custody.
In a similar investigation, police in the northern city of Hamburg in 2002 arrested seven suspected Islamic extremists who were believed to be plotting new terrorist attacks, only to release them several hours later.And people wonder why we're skeptical.
Authorities there later said that through five months of surveillance they had not managed to come up with enough evidence to charge the men, but that they were convinced they were getting ready to act and wanted to thwart their plot.
Depending on whom you choose to believe, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has either confirmed or denied that the war in Iraq is "a disaster".Frost: In terms of Iraq, prime minister, in the light of the latest figures from the Iraqi health ministry, that the number of Iraqis who have died is between 100,000 and 150,000 and so on, with those scale of figures, if you had known that that was the scale of bloodshed, would you have still gone to war?The current controversy swirls around the question of what Blair meant when he said "It has".
Blair: Well the alternative was leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of people died, there were a million casualties in the Iran/Iraq war, Kuwait was invaded and four million people went into exile.
So the idea that Iraqis should be faced with the situation where they either have a brutal dictator in Saddam or alternatively a sectarian religious conflict, why can't they have in Iraq what their people want? Which is a non-sectarian government, a government that is elected by the people and the same opportunities and the same rights that we enjoy in countries such as this.
Frost: But, but so far its been ... you know, pretty much of a disaster ...
Blair: It has, but you see what I say to people is "why is it difficult in Iraq?" It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there is a deliberate strategy, al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on the one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militia on the other to create a situation in which the will of the majority of Iraqis, which is for peace, is displaced by the will of the minority for war.
Liberal Democrats said Mr Blair had finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.The BBC article goes on to explain the opposing positions:
But Downing Street insisted his views had been misrepresented and that he had not made "some kind of admission".
Commenting on the al-Jazeera broadcast, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister.However,
"It could hardly be otherwise, as the failure of strategy becomes so clear."
Downing Street insisted it was not Mr Blair's view that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster.I find delicious irony in the fact that Blair's spokeswoman actually said it was disingenuous to believe that what he actually said was what he actually meant. Of course it is! It is completely disingenuous and dangerously irresponsible to think that anything he says has any connection with or bearing on any aspect of reality.
A spokeswoman said: "He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.
"To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous."
a deliberate strategy ... to create a situation in which the will of the majority of Iraqis, which is for peace, is displaced by the will of the minority for war.But he neglects to mention that this "deliberate strategy" was conceived and implemented by his friends in the Pentagon, who created, trained, funded and motivated the death squads which now roam freely in Iraq.
There's a very interesting interview with Larisa Alexandrovna, and a few samples of her poetry, in Volume 6 of Heyoka Magazine. It's too good to cut, and too long to mirror. So please go read it.As we approach the beginning of the end in Iraq there will be much throat-clearing and breast-beating before reality replaces denial. For the moment, denial still rules. In America last week I was shocked at how unaware even anti-war Americans are (like many Britons) of the depth of the predicament in Iraq. They compare it with Vietnam or the Balkans - but it is not the same. It is total anarchy. All sentences beginning, "What we should now do in Iraq..." are devoid of meaning. We are in no position to do anything. We have no potency; that is the definition of anarchy.I disagree with Jenkins on one point only, and it's a minor one. I agree that they need to leave, but I think there are plenty of other things that they also need to "do".
From all available reports, Iraq south of the Kurdistan border is beyond central authority, a patchwork of ganglands, sheikhdoms and lawlessness. Anbar province and most of the Sunni triangle is controlled by independent Sunni militias. The only safe movement for outsiders is by helicopter at night. Baghdad is like Beirut in 1983, with nightly massacres, roadblocks everywhere and mixed neighbourhoods emptying into safe ones. As yesterday's awful kidnapping shows, even a uniform is a death certificate. As for the cities of the south, control depends on which Shia militia has been able to seize the local police station.
The Iraqi army, such as it is, cannot be deployed outside its local area and is therefore useless for counter-insurgency. There is no central police force. There is no public administration. The Maliki government barely rules the Green Zone in which it is entombed. American troops guard it as they might an outpost of the French Legion in the Sahara. There is no point in patrolling a landscape one cannot control. It merely alienates the population and turns soldiers into targets.
To talk of a collapse into civil war if "we leave" Iraq is to completely misread the chaos into which that country has descended under our rule. It implies a model of order wholly absent on the ground. Foreign soldiers can stay in their bases, but they will no more "prevent civil war" than they can "import democracy". They are relevant only as target practice for insurgents and recruiting sergeants for al-Qaida. The occupation of Iraq has passed from brutality to mere idiocy.
...
Bush and Blair are men in a hurry, and such men lose wars. If there is a game plan in Tehran it will be to play Iraq long. Why stop the Great Satan when he is driving himself to hell in a handcart? If London and Washington really want help in this part of the world they must start from diplomatic ground zero. They will have to stop the holier-than-thou name-calling and the pretence that they hold any cards. They will have to realise that this war has lost them all leverage in the region. They can insult and sanction and threaten. But there is nothing left for them to "do" but leave. They are no longer the subject of that mighty verb, only its painful object.
Gandhi's Plan For Peace In IraqIn the technical, practical sense, Gandhi may be correct to say that these steps "can easily be done right now", but in the political sense they are -- in my opinion -- millions of light-years away from being possible. After spending so much blood and so much money (none of which matters to him personally, of course), the Great Divider is not about to turn around and throw all that oil away. Contrary advice from Jim Baker, confirmation of Bob Gates, a slap across the head from #41, or all of the above, notwithstanding.
Here are five concrete and much-needed steps that will make an IMMEDIATE difference to the situation on the ground:
1. Bush must announce immediately that:
- the USA will be withdrawing 100% of its forces from Iraq as soon as possible,
- the USA will not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq,
- US government advisors will be removed from Baghdad, and
- the Green Zone and other US-held assets will be handed over to the Iraqi Government.
2. The USA must immediately stop pressuring the Iraqi government to sign the proposed Oil Law, which will give US-based Big Oil control of Iraq's oil resources for generations to come. The Iraqi government must announce immediately that any changes to laws governing revenue from Iraq's oil resources will need to be approved by the Iraqi people in a referendum.
3. The current Iraqi government must immediately announce new elections, to be held after the last US forces have withdrawn.
4. The USA must immediately pledge to finance these elections, and the UN must be prepared to monitor them and deploy peace-keeping forces at short notice. The USA must also finance these UN missions.
5. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other regional powers must immediately pledge to respect Iraq's borders and support the elected government.
These simple steps will have the immediate effect of removing support for fanatical anti-US propaganda and terrorist groups. They will convince people that there is a peace dividend to be reaped if only they can wait for US forces to withdraw and elections to be held.
The Iraqi people have already shown that they are more than capable of holding their country together (mostly through religious and tribal cohesion) during such a period of instability.
These are immediate steps which can easily be done right now. In particular, let me say this:
If Bush is not prepared to renounce permanent US military bases and control of Iraqi oil, nobody should take all this talk of US withdrawal seriously.
As for withdrawing "with honour", the most honorable thing the USA can do now is to honestly confess to past mistakes, including the political manipulation of WMD intelligence, pledge to make amends to the Iraqi people, and hold those responsible for this disaster accountable.
If you think we're getting mixed signals about terrorism here, you should see what's happening in Pakistan. “I was a member of the LT and I admit it on the floor of this house,” he told the National Assembly while taking part in a debate...What would be the equivalent in US terms? It's almost as if Dumsfeld told the Senate he was a war criminal.
The Dutch government announced plans Friday for legislation banning full-length veils in public places and other clothing that covers the face putting the Netherlands at the forefront of a general European hardening toward Muslim minorities.The deterioration of liberal democracy in Europe is proceeding at an alarming rate. Those of us in North America don't tend to see this clearly; indeed we don't tend to see anything clearly. But it's happening, and the crazy Pentagon idea of fomenting terrorism among Muslim groups is surely at the heart of it.
The Netherlands, once considered one of Europe's most welcoming nations for immigrants and asylum seekers, is deeply divided over moves by the government to stem the tide of new arrivals and compel immigrants to assimilate into Dutch society.
"From a security standpoint, people should always be recognizable and from the standpoint of integration, we think people should be able to communicate with one another," Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk told national broadcaster NOS. She said the ban also would apply to headgear like ski masks and full-faced helmets.This conflation of issues is disturbing. Are we talking about criminals in ski masks holding up banks, or women in veils going to the market? Both! So why are we talking of them in the same context?
The main Dutch Muslim organization CMO has been critical of any possible ban. "This is a big law for a small problem," said Ayhan Tonca of the CMO.Whenever I see people cutting butter with a chainsaw, I always suspect their motives.
Tonca estimated that as few as 30 women in the Netherlands wear a burqa and said the proposed law could be unconstitutional if it is interpreted as targeting Muslims.If? If?? How could it be interpreted any other way?
Jeroen Dijsselbloem, a lawmaker with the opposition Labor Party which does not support a general ban, condemned the proposal.It's nice to see there's at least some opposition to the move, and that it is freely expressed. But it does not appear that common sense and common decency are likely to carry the day.
"I'm very much worried that in the Muslim community many people will see this as Islam bashing," he said.
In the Netherlands, policies associated with the nationalist fringe in 2002 have been co-opted by the center: holding asylum-seekers in detention centers, more muscle for the police and intelligence services, and visa examinations that require would-be immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach. Everyone must learn to speak Dutch, and Muslim clerics must mind what they say in their Friday sermons for fear of deportation.You can't get a visa unless you watch videos of homosexuals kissing? Is this not the height of insanity?
"You can't speak with each other if you can't see each other..."Ah, now I see the problem! Apparently they don't have telephones in Amsterdam!
The award was announced Wednesday, as reported by the German press agency DPA via RAW STORY: Peter Gabriel designated 2006 Man of Peace by Nobel LaureatesROME: Peter Gabriel, founder of the rock group Genesis, received the annual "Man of Peace" award Friday from a foundation headed by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Gabriel was recognized for his work promoting human rights and world peace. He received the award in a ceremony on Rome's Capitoline Hill that marks the opening of a meeting of Nobel Peace Prize laureates organized every year in Rome by the Gorbachev Foundation and city hall.
Nobel Peace Prize winners Lech Walesa and Mairead Corrigan Maguire attended the ceremony, along with Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni. Gorbachev was absent for health reasons.
Other recipients of the award have included Live 8 organizer Bob Geldof, the singer once known as Cat Stevens, and Italian actor-director Roberto Benigni.
Gabriel led the once-great rock group Genesis from its beginning in 1967 until his departure in 1975.British musician Peter Gabriel will receive a peace award from the hands of Mikhail Gorbachev and other Nobel Laureates during a ceremony in Rome on Friday. Gabriel was designated 2006 Man of Peace for "his great contribution and commitment to peace and human rights", organizers said in a statement.
Among his numerous initiatives, organisers singled out his efforts to fight apartheid. In 1980, Gabriel [recorded] "Biko", a heartfelt plea not to forget the south-African leader Steve Biko, murdered in September 1977 in a prison in Port Elizabeth.
Former South African president Frederik Willem de Klerk will be among the Nobel Peace Laureates attending the ceremony.
The annual Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, promoted by Gorbachev and the City of Rome, has reached its seventh edition.
President Bush today warned North Korea not to share its nuclear knowledge with other countries or with terrorist groups, saying such an act would be considered a grave threat to the US.I guess they'd better not post any of their "nuclear knowledge" on the net.
"For the sake of peace, it is vital that the nations of this region send a message to North Korea that the proliferation of nuclear technology to hostile regimes or terrorist networks will not be tolerated," he said.Even to a jaded observer, the level of hypocrisy is astonishing.
An agent who infiltrated al-Qaeda in the 1990s was passing it money supplied by European intelligence services, the agent has told the BBC's Newsnight.Or perhaps their "reluctance" was an act, and his real job was to pass money from French and UK intelligence services to al-Q'aeda.
The spy, known by the pseudonym of Omar Nasiri, said that to maintain his cover the French and UK services reluctantly gave him money to pass to al-Qaeda.
Mr Nasiri also claimed a senior al-Qaeda operative planted evidence to provoke the US into war against Iraq.Or perhaps Al-Libi's real job was to provide "fixed" intelligence for the "sexed-up" dossier.
Ibn Sheikh Al-Libi fabricated links between al-Qaeda and Iraq when being questioned by US forces in late 2001, he said.
Mr Nasiri trained at al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan and met senior figures from the group.Radical Muslim cleric given "terror training" in London? By whom? al-Q'aeda? MI5? MI6?
He described the use of chemical weapon experiments. And he claimed radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri was given terror training in London.
BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the revelations had provided an "insight into the emergence of al-Qaeda in the 90s".Which people? Personally, I find these global interconnections most fascinating. Don't you?
...
But the details given by the agent, who worked for both the French and British intelligence services, showed that "people were not necessarily looking at those global interconnections".
Al-Qaeda first came to prominence after the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the US.Oh, man! The British sense of humor is just so dry. But then they couldn't very well come right out and say "Al-Q'aeda became the global(ist) boogeyman ON September 11, 2001" ... Could they?
The full interview with Omar Nasiri can be seen on BBC2's Newsnight at 2230 GMT.Hopefully one of our British friends will post it on the net so we can all watch the terror myth fall apart together.
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other American officials have been named in a lawsuit filed in Germany earlier this week, which alleges that they bear responsibility for torture committed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. A preliminary hearing was held in Berlin on Tuesday, details of which have been difficult to find, especially in the USA. How surprising! Eleven former prisoners of the US armed forces [Tuesday] filed a lawsuit in Germany calling for former US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and other American officials to be investigated for war crimes.From The Berlin Paper: Lawyers meet in movie theaters to push for Rumsfeld war crimes suit
Backed by human rights groups, the 11 say they were tortured at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and the US prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on the orders of Rumsfeld and other top members of US President George Bush’s administration.
Lawyers met Tuesday in Mitte’s Babylon theater [shown in the photo above: the marquee reads "Human Rights Against Rumsfeld"] to announce and explain their lawsuit against outgoing US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials whom they accuse of committing war crimes.By far the most detailed English-language report of the hearing that I have been able to find is Rumsfeld faces lawsuit for alleged war crimes in Iraq, written by Roger Boyes in Berlin, and published by Times Online (UK). Boyes' report includes the following:
The lawsuit was organized by Wolfgang Kaleck from the Center for Institutional Rights (CCR); the German lawyers’ group “Republikanische Anwälteverein” (RAV); and the Paris-based Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Hommes (FIDH). The suit asks the German Federal Prosecutor’s office in Karlsruhe to investigate whether Rumsfeld, attorney general Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet, and Bush administration lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee committed war crimes in authorizing the use of torture.
For five hours on Monday, lawyers read the text of their lawsuit to the public at Friedrichshain movie theater Kino International before filing court papers on Tuesday in Karlsruhe.
This suit differs from a similar brief filed last year in that it lists 12 individuals, rather than four, as having been tortured and abused by US officials. In both instances, the cases were cobbled together using Pentagon memos, reports from human rights groups, newspaper articles, and eyewitness testimonies.
But what bolsters their argument this time is former brigadier general Janis Karpinski’s offer to testify on their behalf.
Mrs. Karpinski was interviewed on Monday by the German paper Tagesspiegel, but (as far as I can tell) it has only been published in German. My attempts to translate the text into English using software have produced illegible results, so I'll spare you the details.[Janis Karpinski], the former head of Abu Ghraib jail [...] gave a graphic account of conditions in the US detention centre as part of an attempt to put Donald Rumsfeld in the dock for allegedly aiding and abetting war crimes in Iraq.
...
“When I arrived in 2003, the prison held under 500 Iraqis, but, within a month, after a visit by military intelligence, that number had jumped to 3,000,” said Mrs Karpinski.
“Within a further month, the prison was holding 7,800. There was no release procedure in place and most did not know why they were being held.”
...
She accused Mr Rumsfeld [Tuesday] of authorising the use of torture at the prison and effectively wresting the jail out of her control.
At a public hearing in Berlin today - to press home the prosecution case against Mr Rumsfeld - the former governor described how a senior military intelligence officer, Major General Geoffrey Miller, took command over the prison. He was, according to the case presented to a public hearing today, acting on the orders of Mr Rumsfeld to secure better and quicker intelligence from captured Iraqis.
“He simply said: ’I order you to hand over Abu Ghraib to me’,” recalled the former governor, who was disciplined and demoted after photographs of prisoner abuse were made public.
A TERROR suspect cried himself to sleep at a military training camp and said that he missed his mum, a court heard.I'm telling you, these guys are DANGEROUS!!
...
The court heard last week how [Shujah Ud-Dir-Mahmood] - who was 16 at the time - said the experience had been one of the worst in his life.
...
He said: "I got quite depressed when I was there. I used to spend a lot of time on my own, sitting in a ditch.
"I used to start crying when everyone else went to sleep. I missed my mum a lot."
Mahmood, 19, is one of four Crawley men accused of being in a gang of seven British muslims which allegedly plotted to build a deadly fertiliser bomb.I've been quoting from icSurreyOnline's Court told how terror suspect 'missed his mum', which, as far as I can tell, is the only British media account of the most recent events in this trial.
The trial continues.
