Thursday, November 29, 2007

Insanity by any other name is Islam

Prison: Miss Gibbons faces 40 lashes and a year in jail

Forty lashes for naming a stuffed bear for the schizophrenic madman who founded islam seems about right. It's about right if the society adjudicating this transgression is as insane as its founder. Apparently it is.

Gillian Gibbons may have her back flayed and spend a year in jail if prevailing legalities are enforced. If the truly outraged muslims have their way, she will face execution. All in a day's work for many of the world's muslims, who find modern life too challenging and are doing their best to return the world, or at least their world, to the 7th Century.

It's difficult to say if counteracting, overcoming or neutralizing the mass delusions of the muslim world are possibilities. Few if any cultures devoted to misery and backwardness have withstood modernizing forces for so many centuries. But muslims have proved it's possible to insulate a culture against freedom, prosperity, pluralism, democracy and capitalism with remarkable results.

Not only have they created strongholds of intolerance and backwardness, they have created and maintained a culture that craves more of the same.

Perhaps it's possible to excite them into a paralyzing state of madness. Maybe Americans should find and send fundamentalist muslim families ready to suffer total collapse upon receiving a Care Bear, Build-a-Bear or Cabbage Patch Kid named for Mohammed, Mohammad, Muhammad, or any other spelling that identifies the doll as the psychotic founder of islam.


A major security operation was under way today as a British teacher charged with inciting hatred and insulting religion was brought before a court in Sudan.

Trucks protected by armed police transported Gillian Gibbons from her cell at the CID headquarters in Khartoum where she had been kept in custody following her arrest on Sunday for allowing pupils to name a school teddy bear Mohammed.

Security was also tight at the city's court building as fears that extremists might stage a kidnap attempt ran high.

Mrs Gibbons, looking tired and distressed and wearing a dark blue jacket and blue dress, was not handcuffed. Reports have suggested she could learn her fate by 5pm today.

Before the hearing began the public and press were cleared from the court room but only moments later the case was adjourned for two hours. The prosecutor-general said Mrs Gibbons, whose case has drawn international condemnation, can expect a swift and fair trial under Sudanese law.

Mrs Gibbons faces 40 lashes and a year in jail after after being charged with insulting Islam. Reports today suggested the complaint against her had been made by a secretary at the school.
She was charged after behind-the-scenes political moves to avoid a court case collapsed amid growing Islamic anger in the east African country. A Sudanese official said it was "unlikely" that Mrs Gibbons would be convicted.

A powerful Sudanese newspaper urged authorities to call a hardline Islamist leader linked to Osama bin Laden to give evidence at her trial, to stress how offensive the case was to Muslims. Extreme Islamic groups said Mrs Gibbons "must die" and urged Muslims to hold street protests after prayers tomorrow.

The Muslim Council of Britain said it was "appalled" at the decision by Sudan.
Legal sources in Khartoum said it is possible the case could be dealt with in a single hearing.
One lawyer said that if Mrs Gibbons pleads guilty and makes profuse apologies, she could emerge with a "relatively minor penalty", such as a hefty fine or a jail term equivalent to the four days she has already spent in custody.

But he warned that rising anger in Sudan, as news of the case spread, might affect the court's decision. Yesterday, Mrs Gibbons met British consular officials in the jailhouse where she is being held. She looked tired and pale as she was escorted across the dusty courtyard with a blanket around her shoulders.

Mrs Gibbons, a former deputy head in Liverpool, moved to Khartoum in August to fulfil her dream of teaching abroad after her marriage broke down last year. The mother of two grown-up children was arrested on Sunday after parents were said to have complained she had insulted Islam's prophet by naming a teddy bear Mohammed as part of a class project.

However, a boy of seven came forward on Tuesday to say it was "all his fault", as he and his classmates at the Unity High School had voted to call the bear Mohammed after his own name.
He insisted his teacher had not intended to insult Islam.

Mrs Gibbons technically faces three charges - insulting Islam, inciting religious hatred and contempt for religious beliefs - each of which carries a maximum penalty of 40 lashes and a year in jail. But it is believed she will stand trial on only one.

Abdul Daem Zumrawi, the Justice Ministry's undersecretary, said: "What will be applied is at the discretionary power of the judge."

Mrs Gibbons's former husband, Peter Gibbons, 54, said last night that he and their children Jessica, 27, and John, 25, had been horrified at the news that she had been charged.
"The children are not coping very well, they are upset," he said. "We are praying and relying on the Foreign Office and the embassy out there.

"My son is waiting on advice from the embassy to see if it's possible to go over there.
"Gillian is an innocent in all this, she would not want to cause offence to anybody."

One of Khartoum's biggest papers, the pro-government Akhir Lahza - Last Moment - said Hassan Al Turabi, once seen as the Islamic ideologue behind the government, should be called as an expert witness in the case to stress how offensive the teacher's action had been.
The religious and Islamist political leader is thought to have been instrumental in institutionalising Sharia law in the north of the country.

He personally invited Osama bin Laden to Sudan and the Al Qaeda leader based his operations there from around 1990 to 1996.

The newspaper's editor-in-chief also called for politicians to avoid meddling in religious affairs and not to argue that Sudanese foreign relations would be affected. At the same time, Sudanese legal scholars warned that an increase in rhetoric would make it difficult for a deal to be done quietly behind the scenes. Professor Eltyeb Hag Ateya, director of Khartoum University's peace research institute, said Sudanese president Umar al-Bashir would not want to be seen to back down in the face of Western pressure.

"One of main criticisms of the government is that they are giving too much away to foreigners," he said. "If imams at Friday prayers turn this into a much bigger thing, then no one will listen to the facts." Sudan's legal system is based on laws introduced during British colonial rule, but aspects of Sharia law were incorporated in 1991.

Sudanese reaction to the case had been muted until yesterday, when demonstrations took place at one of Khartoum's student campuses.

Speakers took turns to denounce Mrs Gibbons, brandishing a newspaper bearing her photograph. A statement circulated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood - a multinational Sunni Islamist movement and the world's most influential political Islamist group - also condemned her actions.

"We want to express our boiling anger and deep sorrow about this case caused by this British teacher," it said.

"We want to tell you that the majority of Sudanese are Muslims so we love our Prophet Mohammed so much and we decry this careless way of dealing with our beloved Prophet."

One of its authors, 27-year- old Elsheikh El Nour, added: "If she made an innocent mistake and did not mean Mohammed the Prophet (when naming the bear) there is no problem. "But if she did mean Mohammed the Prophet, she must die."

Leaflets distributed outside Khartoum's Great Mosque urged Muslims to march tomorrow in protest at Mrs Gibbons' actions. They condemned what they described as "flagrant aggression" against the Prophet Mohammed and asked imams to address the subject Friday prayers.

The leaflets added: "What has been done by this infidel lady is considered a matter of contempt and an insult to Muslims' feelings and also the pollution of children's mentality as an attempt to wipe their identity."

The Muslim Council of Britain was furious at the decision to charge Mrs Gibbons.
"This is disgraceful and defies common sense," said Secretary-General Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari. "There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith.

"The children in Mrs Gibbons's class and their parents have all testified as to her innocence in this matter. We call upon the Sudanese President, Umar al-Bashir, to intervene in this case without delay to ensure that Mrs Gibbons is freed from this quite shameful ordeal."

Sunday, November 25, 2007

What Will Jimmy Carter Say?

Saudi Arabia beheaded another convicted criminal today. Its 136th for the year. Meanwhile, the US is trailing in that department, having executed about 50 residents of Death Row this year. Even though the difference in absolute numbers is significant and it paints a grim picture of the Saudi Arabian penal code, Saudi Arabia looks far far worse after accounting for population differences. There are 27 million residents of Saudi Arabia, including 5 million foreign nationals. The population of the US is about 303 million. Thus, if the US executed people with the same determination as Saudi Arabia, the US toll would have passed 1,526 by this time.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi authorities on Sunday beheaded a citizen convicted of shooting a man in the head with an assault rifle, the Interior Ministry said.

In a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency, the ministry said that Ali bin Suweid Al-Domnan killed Diyab bin Ali al-Mansour following an argument in the southern city of Najran.

Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword.

Sunday's execution brought to 136 the number of people beheaded in the kingdom this year, according to an Associated Press count. Saudi Arabia beheaded 38 people last year and 83 people in 2005.

Recycling -- Including News of Falling Sky

As they say, there's nothing new under the Sun. Today fear and anxiety are running through the economy, confirming for millions that indeed, this time, the sky is really falling. Really. It is.

Homes lost through default, foreclosure and eviction; dollar falling against other major currencies; war straining national finances, anti-Americanism surging around the world; an approaching presidential election that may see two controversial candidates battle for votes; China threatening; newspapers fading; GM, Ford and Chrysler on the brink; Google on top. Sounds like just another moment in the history of the US. Never dull; always controversial.

Read at least the first five paragraphs of the following NY Times article. Then skip to the last line of the post. After that, resume reading where you left off.

November 15

Surge in Home Foreclosures and Evictions Shattering Families

By NICK RAVO

The number of homes in foreclosure in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut has almost doubled since the middle of last year, rising to levels not seen in decades.

The sudden surge in foreclosures, after a steady climb since the late 1980's, reflects the region's job losses, falling real-estate values and a growing backlog of cases that have clogged the courts, delaying some foreclosures for months and even years, lenders and lawyers say.

Moreover, these experts say, some lenders, facing closer scrutiny from Federal regulators, have become quicker to foreclose, or begin legal proceedings to take property, particularly in areas where home sales have rebounded. "They are clearing the books as soon as they can," said Doug Duncan, an economist with the Mortgage Bankers Association in Washington.

On the front lines, the impact is huge. "We used to have 10 foreclosure sales a year -- now we have 10 a week," said Capt. Mary A. Tierney, who handles the sales for the Hudson County Sheriff's Department in New Jersey.

Evictions 6 Days a Week

Foreclosure-related evictions are also rising. In Hudson County, there were 217 by Nov. 5, compared to 189 for all 1991 and about 15 a year in the 1980's.

"I am scheduling evictions for March and April right now -- that's how backlogged we are," said Deputy Sheriff Michael Geerlof of Hudson County. "We also started doing them six days a week."

The emotional trauma for the families who lose their homes to foreclosure is incalculable. "It's devastating," said the owner of a three-bedroom condominium in Secaucus, N.J., who was evicted Monday.

The owner, who spoke on the condition that his name not be used, said that he bought his apartment for $350,000 in June 1989 and six months later lost his $300,000-a-year job with a corporate relocation firm. His monthly mortgage payment, including maintenance and taxes, was $3,500. "At the time, with the money I was making, $3,500 a month was nothing," he said. "But things change."

Now, at age 53, he makes $14,000 a year running his own small moving company; his wife is paid about $30,000 a year working for an airline. The couple is renting a two-bedroom apartment for $1,000 a month in the same complex where they owned a condominium.

Their former home will probably be sold by the Fortune Bank of Clearwater, Fla., which held the mortgage on it and bought it back for a nominal fee at a foreclosure auction earlier this year. The bank's asking price, according to a broker familiar with the property, may be "under $200,000."

A Glimmer of Good News

"I got taken for a ride," the former owner said about his original purchase, adding that he hoped to relocate to the South. "Now, I just want to be a nice quiet old man."

Some economists see in the foreclosure data a glimmer of evidence that the worst of the recession may be behind New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. They note that the percentage of home loans that went into foreclosure in the three states dropped between the first and second quarters of 1992, as did the percentage of loans that were delinquent for 90 days or more.

"Foreclosure rates lag the economy," said Rae D. Rosen, the vice president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York. She noted however that bottoming out should not be equated with a quick upturn. "Our economy may just be hitting bottom, though it's more likely that it will happen next year," she said.

The foreclosures involve everything from million-dollar suburban properties to low-priced condominium units. "We are talking about the middle class, even bankers -- people that have never been in this position before," said Leanor Clarke, a counselor at Westchester Residential Opportunities in White Plains, a nonprofit organization that advises people in financial distress.
"They are slow to react to problems, and when they do it is often too late," she added. "They can't accept that they are living in a different income class. They don't take it well."

Ms. Clarke said her organization's caseload of foreclosed mortgages has increased from about 50 in 1987 to about 500 today. "That's all I do nowadays," she added, "people in trouble with their mortgage."

New Jersey Has Worst Rate

Figures from the National Mortgage Bankers Association for the quarter ending June 30 show that New Jersey had the nation's highest proportion of mortgages in foreclosure, 2.36 percent. That means that one in every 42 home loans was in foreclosure. A year earlier, the figure was 1.40, or one in every 71. For the second quarter of 1987, just before the stock market crash, the figure was 0.71, or one in every 141.

In Connecticut, which was surpassed only by New Jersey, Massachusetts and Oklahoma, the second quarter foreclosure rate was 1.59 percent, or one in every 63 loans. The rate for the same period in 1991 was 0.86, or one in every 116. For the second quarter in 1987, it was 0.20, or one in every 500.

In New York, which ranked eighth nationally, behind New Hampshire, Florida and Kansas, the figure was 1.43 percent, or one in every 70 loans. The rate for the same period a year earlier was 0.85, or one in every 118. For the second quarter of 1987, it was 0.46, or one in every 217.
Nationally, 1.04 percent of mortgage loans, or one in every 96, were in foreclosure in the second quarter, and that figure has deviated little since 1986.

Court Is Bank's Last Resort

The statistics do not include foreclosures on cooperative apartments, which exist throughout the region but are concentrated in New York City. Co-op loans, which finance the purchase of stock rather than real estate, are subject to different regulations than mortgages and are not tallied by court clerks, bankers or bar associations.

The region's foreclosure figures -- which are more than double those recorded in the recessions of 1981-82 and 1973-74 -- also do not include loans that are more than 90 days delinquent but are not in foreclosure because lenders have worked out repayment agreements with the borrowers.

"Every bank is different, but, generally, going to court is the last thing you want to do," said Theodore J. Doll, the president of Washington Savings Bank in Hoboken, N.J., where 50 of its 2,000 home loans, or 2.5 percent, are in foreclosure and an additional 24, or 1.2 percent, are being repaid under "work-out" agreements.

Bank foreclosure policies vary widely, but usually the process does not begin until a borrower is at least 90 days delinquent. Once foreclosure is started, it may take several months before a judgment is reached in court. Then it may take several more months before the home can be seized or sold. These days, the property is usually sold at auction to the bank that made the mortgage, which usually pays only a nominal fee. Other bidders, if they succeed, are required to pay off the borrower's mortgage.

6 Months Before Summons

The process is so lengthy that only one in seven loans that go into foreclosure result in judgments. And of those, only about one in seven result in evictions.

Most borrowers who are subject to foreclosure sell their homes, especially if they have equity in the properties. If they cannot sell, a common problem these days, or if they have little or no equity, they often seek revised payment schedules or obtain stays through legal motions or bankruptcy protection.

"In New Jersey, it takes six months just to get a sheriff to issue a summons and two years before you can evict," said Dr. Paul S. Nadler, a professor of finance at Rutgers University in Newark. "There are judges out there who say, 'I don't want to make someone homeless.' "
In some cases, the length and complexity of foreclosure is an incentive for delinquent borrowers to remain in foreclosure; they can often continue to live in their homes free for months -- even years -- before they are evicted. "For those who have no intention of paying, they are getting a nice long free ride," said Sheila R. Shemtoz, the foreclosure clerk for the Sheriff's Department in Monmouth County, N.J.

When the foreclosed property is an apartment building, the tenants may have no knowledge of their landlord's problems. In late October, the Hudson County Sheriff evicted four tenants from an apartment building in Union City, N.J. The owner was still collecting rents, Deputy Sheriff Geerlof said, though the property had been in foreclosure since February. "One tenant even paid his November rent two days ago."

Vicious Circle With Taxes

Job losses are a critical factor in foreclosures, lenders and lawyers say, because many borrowers in the mid-1980's who bought at inflated prices and had high-interest mortgages needed two incomes to make their payments. When one income disappeared through a job loss or divorce, they were unable to continue.

Some struggling borrowers also faced higher property taxes, sometimes as a result of a decline in a town's total assessed value. "It's not only killer mortgage payments some of these people face, it's killer taxes," said David M. Fleisher, a lawyer in White Plains who has represented lenders. On Long Island, for example, the total assessed value of property is declining because of lower home-sale prices, a wave of challenges to assessments and new rules removing some property from the tax rolls.

The impetus to foreclose may also be greater these days because in many parts of the region it is easier than it was in the late 1980's for a bank to sell a foreclosed home, largely because of the lower interest rates and appraised prices.

Some lenders have also been delaying foreclosures in the hope that the economy would improve and bail out delinquent borrowers. Today, though, many of those lenders say they see little economic improvement soon.

'Disaster for Everyone'

Bankers also say that borrowers who made very low down payments and whose properties have lost value have little or no equity in their homes. In many instances, particularly involving condominiums and low-priced urban properties, the owners simply abandon them, lenders say.
Whatever the owner's attitude, foreclosure is "really a disaster for everyone involved," said Douglas Panetta, the owner of Bids-for-Barristers, an 18-month-old company in Tenafly, N.J., that has represented banks and lawyers in bidding at 2,500 foreclosure auctions. "Everyone loses -- the lender, the owner."

"Everyone but me," he added. "I'm thinking about franchising."

This article was published November 15, 1992 -- 15 years ago

Friday, November 23, 2007

First, the Good News

One aspect of life in New York City is returning to the past. Fifty years in the past. It's a shadow of its former self. Murder. It's down, way down. So down it's almost out. That's the good news. New Yorkers are tolerating each other and relating to each other with such warm fuzziness, it's hard to find serious trouble. Well. Not quite. But...

To see how downright friendly the city had become this year, I hopped the subway over to Bushwick and East New York on Halloween. I wore my costume. I went dressed as a white guy. At the Broadway Junction stop on the J train -- that's East New York, in police terms, the 75th precinct, and still the leading site for homicide -- I hopped off and started my stroll.

Around the bend and up to Bushwick Avenue, eventually cutting over to Knickerbocker Avenue.
The stores were open, but the sidewalks were clogged with kids trick-or-treating. Every store was in on the fun, giving out candy or a little of their product it the store happened to be a bakery or bodega. From Bushwick Avenue to Knickerbocker Avenue all the way into Williamsburg, the kids were popping into the stores and the store operators were handing out the goods, at least they passed out goods until the supplies were gone.

All treats. No tricks. No mischief, no mayhem, no problems. Most of the kids were with a parent or two. Plenty of teenagers in costumes were out there seeking treats too. Kids in strollers, kids in wheelchairs, everybody was out collecting candy from the shops on the avenues. It felt like festival time. Everyone in the community seemed to be thronging the sidewalks, spirits high and comradely. Not a single event or moment clouded the evening. It was a smooth and pleasant night in Brooklyn. One of those serene periods when time seems to stop and life is a pleasant hum.

Why can't things be this way all the time? What is it in the human spirit that keeps East New York and Bushwick way up near the top of violent precincts?

As relieving and comforting as it is to sense the decline in danger that life in NY City has too often included, it remains disturbing to see that some groups are more prone to murder than others. In fact, with numbers as low as those reported so far in 2007, the contrast is as sharp as it could be. According to the NY Times article:

Killers and those killed are overwhelmingly male and most in both categories are between 18 and 40, according to the police analysis. In terms of race and ethnicity, whites make up 7 percent of victims and assailants, while 66 percent of the victims and 61 percent of the assailants are black and 26 percent of the victims and 31 percent of the assailants are Hispanic.

The disparity is huge. What explains it?


City Homicides Still Dropping, to Under 500

By AL BAKER

New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year, by far the lowest number in a 12-month period since reliable Police Department statistics became available in 1963.

But within the city’s official crime statistics is a figure that may be even more striking: so far, with roughly half the killings analyzed, only 35 were found to be committed by strangers, a microscopic statistic in a city of more than 8.2 million.

If that trend holds up, fewer than 100 homicide victims in New York City this year will have been strangers to their assailants. The vast majority died in disputes with friends or acquaintances, with rival drug gang members or — to a far lesser degree — with romantic partners, spouses, parents and others.

The low number of killings by strangers belies the common imagery that New Yorkers are vulnerable to arbitrary attacks on the streets, or die in robberies that turn fatal.

In the eyes of some criminologists, the police will be hard pressed to drive the killing rate much lower, since most killings occur now within the four walls of an apartment or the confines of close relationships.

“What are you going to do, send cops to every house?” said Peter K. Manning, the Brooks professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston.

“We know that historically, homicide is the least suppressible crime by police action,” he added. “It is, generally speaking, a private crime, resulting from people who know one another and have relationships that end up in death struggles at home or in semipublic places.”

Police officials did not dispute the validity of that assessment. The homicide figure continues a remarkable slide since 1990, when New York recorded its greatest number of killings in a single year, 2,245, and when untold scores of the victims were killed in violence between strangers.

Homicides began falling in the early 1990s, when Raymond W. Kelly first served as police commissioner, and plummeted further under subsequent commissioners. Mr. Kelly returned to serve under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in 2002, the first year there were fewer than 600 homicides. There were 587 that year, down from 649 in the previous year.

Nearly two decades ago, the city’s crack-cocaine epidemic led to headlines about gang wars, semiautomatic gunfire in schoolyards and a police blotter that showed more than six homicides a day, on average.

This year, with 428 killings logged through Sunday — 412 actual killings plus 16 crime victims who have died this year from injuries sustained long ago — the average number of killings is a bit more than one a day.

The numbers on file from before 1963 are not considered reliable for comparison because until then, many homicides were not recorded until an arrest was made and the case was closed, but ever since, they have been recorded as they occurred. There were 390 homicides recorded in 1960, fewer than this year, but any comparison would be faulty.

The killings that have seized the headlines this year appear to have personal motives at their core: An assistant has been charged with killing her boss, Linda Stein, inside Ms. Stein’s Fifth Avenue penthouse after a vicious argument; a Queens orthodontist, Daniel Malakov, was gunned down, and a relative of his estranged wife, whom he was fighting in divorce and child custody proceedings, has been charged.

In contrast to the 35 cases this year in which officials have found that victim and assailant were strangers, there were 121 in the whole of last year, officials said. The motives in the remainder of the killings this year are still being analyzed.

The dropping homicide rate raises a question of whether other types of crime are on the rise. But police statistics, which are subject to an internal auditing system in use since the early 1990s, show dips in six of the seven major crime categories, according to the department’s latest reports.

As of Sunday, overall crime was down 6.47 percent, compared to the same period last year. In addition to the homicide rate, the number of rapes, robberies, burglaries, grand larcenies and car thefts are all on the decline.

Felony assaults have increased slightly, to 15,372 from 15,344, a 0.1 percent increase, according to the police statistics. Shootings, which the department has tracked for 14 years, as well as the number wounded in those shootings, are both down.

After years when crime fell across the nation, many cities in the country are now experiencing a surge in homicides, said Thomas A. Reppetto, a police historian who monitors the city crime numbers and helped write “NYPD: A City and Its Police.”

“You would expect New York to follow the national trend, but instead, murders continue to go down considerably,” Mr. Reppetto said.

“Not only has the N.Y.P.D. reduced murder, by nearly 80 percent, but it has changed the pattern of homicides,” he added. “In the early 1990s, many innocent citizens were killed by bullets from battling drug gangs. Today, thanks to the police drive against the gangs, that type of homicide is far less common.”

It is extremely common around the nation to find in killings involving acquaintances that those involved are not family members but criminals or drug gang members, said David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.

In the 412 killings this year, the number of people with previous arrests for narcotics was striking: 196 victims and 149 assailants. And 77 percent of the assailants had a previous arrest history, while 70 percent of the victims did, the statistics showed.

Killers and those killed are overwhelmingly male and most in both categories are between 18 and 40, according to the police analysis. In terms of race and ethnicity, whites make up 7 percent of victims and assailants, while 66 percent of the victims and 61 percent of the assailants are black and 26 percent of the victims and 31 percent of the assailants are Hispanic.

When told about the low homicide numbers, Dr. Manning uttered a single word: “Wow.”
Mr. Kennedy said, “What this shows is that the N.Y.P.D. — and whatever else is going on in New York — has managed to squeeze the problem of active offenders against active offenders down to a remarkably, historically low level.”

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Prosecute the Victim, then double the punishment

After thinking about applying a mere 90 lashes to the back of a rape victim, the Saudi court system reconsidered the harshness of the punishment it intended to inflict upon the victim of this violent crime. After pondering the insult to Saudi society that occurred when the victim traveled in a car with several men before they raped her, the court realized she deserved 200 lashes for the crime of being raped.

Saudi defends verdict against gang-rape victim

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:37am EST

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia defended on Tuesday a court's decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes of the whip, after the United States described the verdict as "astonishing".

The 19-year-old Shi'ite woman from the town of Qatif in the Eastern Province and an unrelated male companion were abducted and raped by seven men in 2006.

Ruling according to Saudi Arabia's strict reading of Islamic law, a court had originally sentenced the woman to 90 lashes and the rapists to jail terms of between 10 months and five years. It blamed the woman for being alone with an unrelated man.

Last week the Supreme Judicial Council increased the sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison and ordered the rapists to serve between two and nine years in jail.

The ruling provoked rare criticism from the United States, which is trying to persuade Saudi Arabia to attend a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland next week.

A State Department spokesman told reporters on Monday that "most (people) would find this relatively astonishing that something like this happens".

The court also took the unusual step of initiating disciplinary procedures against her lawyer, Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, forcibly removing him from the case for having talked about it to the media.

"The Ministry of Justice welcomes constructive criticism ... The system allows appeals without resort to the media," said Tuesday's statement issued on the official news agency SPA.

It berated media for not specifying that three judges, not one, issued the recent ruling and reiterated that the "charges were proven" against the woman.

It also repeated the judges' attack against Lahem last week, saying he had "spoken insolently about the judicial system and challenged laws and regulations".

Lahem was not available for comment.

New York-based Human Rights Watch has called on King Abdullah, who last month announced plans to overhaul the system, to drop all charges against the woman.

A series of erratic verdicts have focused attention on the Saudi legal system, which is dominated by clerics who adhere to the kingdom's austere Sunni form of Islamic law. Personal status law remains uncodified and the system does not recognize the concept of precedent.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Self-Inflicted Wounds

Politics, not Nature, stands in the way of greater oil supplies. It is painfully obvious that dictators, despots, religion, kooky socialists and domestic environmentalists aided by their political lackeys are the elements that have combined to deliver today's high oil prices and the promise of higher prices in the future.

The world needs more geologists, more investment in the capital equipment of the Oil Exploration & Production industry and access to all the world's reserves if it is to avoid the hardships caused by current factors that will limit maximum production. Oil is plentiful. But the mechanisms for extracting it from its subterranean sites are approaching their practical limits



Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production

By RUSSELL GOLD and ANN DAVIS November 19, 2007; Page A1

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.

Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. This rough limit -- which two senior industry officials recently pegged at about 100 million barrels a day -- is well short of global demand projections over the next few decades. Current production is about 85 million barrels a day.

The world certainly won't run out of oil any time soon. And plenty of energy experts expect sky-high prices to hasten the development of alternative fuels and improve energy efficiency. But evidence is mounting that crude-oil production may plateau before those innovations arrive on a large scale. That could set the stage for a period marked by energy shortages, high prices and bare-knuckled competition for fuel.

The current debate represents a significant twist on an older, often-derided notion known as the peak-oil theory. Traditional peak-oil theorists, many of whom are industry outsiders or retired geologists, have argued that global oil production will soon peak and enter an irreversible decline because nearly half the available oil in the world has been pumped. They've been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased.

The new adherents -- who range from senior Western oil-company executives to current and former officials of the major world exporting countries -- don't believe the global oil tank is at the half-empty point. But they share the belief that a global production ceiling is coming for other reasons: restricted access to oil fields, spiraling costs and increasingly complex oil-field geology. This will create a global production plateau, not a peak, they contend, with oil output remaining relatively constant rather than rising or falling.

The emergence of a production ceiling would mark a monumental shift in the energy world. Oil production has averaged a 2.3% annual growth rate since 1965, according to statistics compiled by British oil giant BP PLC. This expanding pool of oil, most of it priced cheaply by today's standards, fueled the post-World War II global economic expansion.

On Oct. 31, Christophe de Margerie, the chief executive of French oil company Total SA, jolted attendees at a London conference by openly labeling production forecasts of the International Energy Agency, the sober-minded energy watchdog for industrialized nations, as unrealistic. The IEA projects production will grow to between 102.3 million and 120 million barrels a day by 2030. Mr. de Margerie said production by 2030 of even 100 million barrels a day will be "difficult."

Speaking Clearly

This is "the view of those who like to speak clearly, honestly, and [are] not just trying to please people," he bluntly declared. The French executive said many existing oil fields are being depleted at rates that will damage their geologic structures, which will limit future output more than most people allow. What's more, some nations endowed with large untapped pools of oil are generating so much revenue from their current production that they feel they don't need to further develop their fields, thus putting another cap on output.

Earlier this month, James Mulva, the chief executive of ConocoPhillips, echoed those conclusions in a speech at a Wall Street conference: "I don't think we are going to see the supply going over 100 million barrels a day.... Where is all that going to come from?" He questioned whether the industry has enough support services and people to execute projects to add that much oil production.

Even some officials from member states of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has long insisted on its ability to supply the world with fuel for decades hence, are breaking ranks and forecasting limits. The chairman of Libya National Oil Corp. said at the same London conference the world will have difficulty producing more than 100 million barrels a day.
A former head of exploration and production at Saudi Arabia's national oil company, Sadad Ibrahim Al Husseini, has also gone public with doubts. He said in London last month that he didn't believe there were enough engineers or equipment to ramp up production fast enough to keep up with the thirsty global economy. What's more, he said, new discoveries are tending to be smaller and more complex to develop.

Many leaders of the industry still dismiss the idea that there is reason to worry. "I am no subscriber to the theory that oil supplies have already peaked," said BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, earlier this month in a speech in Houston.

Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson has said that if companies had better access to the world's oil reserves, production would increase and prices would go down. "Sufficient hydrocarbon resources exist to play their role in meeting this growing global demand, if industry is allowed to access them," he said in a speech this month. If access were granted, Exxon Mobil believes the industry would be able to raise fuel production to meet demand in 2030 of 116 million barrels a day.

The oil industry has long been beset by doom-and-gloom scenarios, which so far haven't panned out. "The entire oil industry in the late 1970s was convinced the price [of oil] would be $100 by 1990 and we would need huge oil shale mines" to exploit oil locked away tightly in rock, says Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. Of course, that didn't happen, as discoveries ushered in new eras of low-priced oil in the mid-1980s through the late 1990s.

U.S. government experts are optimistic -- to a point. The Energy Information Administration, the data arm of the Energy Department, forecasts world oil production will hit 118 million barrels a day by 2030. But the agency warns that its prediction might not pan out if resource-rich nations such as Venezuela and Iraq don't invest enough in their operations.

"We know that the world is not running out of energy resources, but nonetheless, above-ground risks like resource nationalism, limited access and infrastructure constraints may make it feel like peak oil just the same, by limiting production to something far less than what is required," said Clay Sell, deputy secretary of energy, in a speech in October. Resource nationalism refers to tightening state control of oil fields to achieve political aims, often by restricting outsiders' ability to develop the oil for world markets.

'Undulating Plateau'

Two or three years ago, it was far more common for oil analysts and officials to trumpet the potential of new technology to harvest more oil. In a report last year, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a prominent adviser to energy companies, made the comforting prediction that oil production could reach 110 million barrels a day by 2015, and "more than meet any reasonable high growth rate demand scenario we can envisage" up to that date. Because of progress being made in extracting oil through new methods, CERA said it found "no evidence" there would be a peak in oil flows "any time soon." In a later report, CERA said world oil production won't peak before 2030 and that even when it does, production will resemble an "undulating plateau" for one or more decades before declining gradually.

Oil companies have seen several years of bull-market prices, and thus of trying to produce more. This has given their executives a better sense of what is and isn't possible.

One limit: Many people think most of the world's giant fields already have been discovered. By 1970, oil-industry explorers had discovered 10 giants that could each produce more than 600,000 barrels a day, according to Matt Simmons, chairman of energy investment banking firm Simmons & Co. International. Exploration in the next 20 years, to 1990, yielded only two. Since 1990, despite billions in new spending, the industry has found only one field with the potential to top 500,000 barrels a day, Kazakhstan's Kashagan field in the Caspian Sea. And Mr. Simmons notes it is proving expensive and difficult to extract.

Big strikes are still possible. This month, Petróleo Brasileiro SA announced a deep-water find off Brazil's Atlantic coast that appears to be the largest discovery since Kashagan.

But some of the most promising geological formations are in locations that are inhospitable, for reasons of geography or, especially, politics and strife. Output from Iraq's rich fields is unlikely to grow much until security improves and outside investment returns. The future of Iranian and Nigerian production is likewise clouded by geopolitical and local instability.

Labor and construction bottlenecks also are making it difficult to develop proven fields. One of the largest obstacles is the booming commodity markets themselves: The prices of raw materials used in oil-field platforms and equipment has escalated. And during the years of low or moderate oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s, companies didn't develop enough geologists and other skilled workers to supply today's needs. "Years of underinvestment in new talent have led to a limited and aging pool of skilled workers," noted Andrew Gould, the CEO of oil-service giant Schlumberger Ltd., last month.

High oil prices have also led to steep cost inflation for drilling rigs and other equipment. Costs have soared so much that the industry is falling behind in the investment needed to sate expected future demand. To meet demand forecasts of 90 million barrels of oil a day in 2010, the industry needed to have spent $350 billion on drilling and producing in 2005, argues Larry G. Chorn, chief economist of Platts, the energy and commodities-information division of McGraw-Hill Cos. But the International Energy Agency estimates that spending on oil-field production in 2005 came to only about $225 billion, he says.

A failure to spend enough in the past few years "may have already put the industry behind the spending curve," Mr. Chorn says. As a result, he predicts "temporary shortages over several years, causing debilitating price spikes."

Compounding the problem: Most of the world's biggest fields are aging, and production at them is declining rapidly. So, just to keep global production at current levels, the industry needs to add new production of at least four million daily barrels, every year. That need is roughly five times the daily production of Alaska, with its big Prudhoe Bay field -- and it doesn't assume any demand growth at all.

Rate of Decline

Mr. Simmons scoffs at estimates that production from proven fields will decline only 4.5% a year. He thinks a more realistic rate of decline is 8% to 10% a year, especially because modern technology actually succeeds in depleting fields faster.

If he's right, the industry needs to add new daily production of at least eight million barrels -- 10 times current Alaskan production -- just to stay even.

Mr. Simmons thinks the world needs to shift its energy focus from climate change to more immediate concerns. "Peak oil is likely already a crisis that we don't know about. At the furthest out, it will be a crisis in 2008 to 2012. Global warming, if real, will not be a problem for 50 to 100 years," he says.

Oil executives who believe a production ceiling is coming are making plans to stay relevant in a world where oil production is constrained.

Mr. de Margerie said at Total's annual meeting this spring that the company was "looking into" nuclear-industry investments and had hired nuclear experts to help make strategic decisions. ConocoPhillips recently said it was considering building a commercial-scale plant to turn plentiful U.S. coal into natural gas.

Soaring energy prices have breathed new life into projects targeting "nonconventional" oil, such as that trapped in sand or shale. But these sources can't be tapped nearly as quickly or inexpensively as the big oil finds of the past.

Vivid Example

Canada's massive oil-sands deposits, which hold the largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia's, offer a vivid example. They contain an estimated 180 billion barrels of oil. But after years of intensive development and tens of billions of dollars of investments, the sands are producing only a little more than 1.1 million barrels of crude a day. That's projected to reach three million a day by 2015. The oil deposits are so heavy that companies must either mine them or slowly steam them underground to get the oil to flow out of the sand.

Randy Udall, co-founder of the U.S. chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, has written that these unconventional oil supplies are like having $100 million in the bank, but "being forbidden to withdraw more than $100,000 per year. You are rich, sort of."

As these uncertainties mount, there is growing hope that Saudi Arabia, which has about 20% of the world's oil reserves, would ride to the rescue if needed. Saudi Aramco, the national oil company, has embarked on an ambitious plan to increase its daily production by 30%, or three million barrels, early next decade, and thus reclaim the title of top producer from Russia. But Mr. Al Husseini, the former Saudi oil executive, now an independent consultant, said others aren't doing as much, leaving the world entirely dependent on Saudi Arabia to provide extra capacity.

"Everyone thinks that Saudi Arabia will pull us out of this mess. Saudi Arabia is doing all it can," he says in an interview. "But what it is doing, in the long run, won't be enough."

Self-Inflicted Wounds

Politics, not Nature, stands in the way of greater oil supplies. It is painfully obvious that dictators, despots, religion, kooky socialists and domestic environmentalists aided by their political lackeys are the elements that have combined to deliver today's high oil prices and the promise of higher prices in the future.

Oil Officials See Limit
Looming on Production
By RUSSELL GOLD and ANN DAVIS
November 19, 2007; Page A1

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.

Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. This rough limit -- which two senior industry officials recently pegged at about 100 million barrels a day -- is well short of global demand projections over the next few decades. Current production is about 85 million barrels a day.

The world certainly won't run out of oil any time soon. And plenty of energy experts expect sky-high prices to hasten the development of alternative fuels and improve energy efficiency. But evidence is mounting that crude-oil production may plateau before those innovations arrive on a large scale. That could set the stage for a period marked by energy shortages, high prices and bare-knuckled competition for fuel.

The current debate represents a significant twist on an older, often-derided notion known as the peak-oil theory. Traditional peak-oil theorists, many of whom are industry outsiders or retired geologists, have argued that global oil production will soon peak and enter an irreversible decline because nearly half the available oil in the world has been pumped. They've been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased.

The new adherents -- who range from senior Western oil-company executives to current and former officials of the major world exporting countries -- don't believe the global oil tank is at the half-empty point. But they share the belief that a global production ceiling is coming for other reasons: restricted access to oil fields, spiraling costs and increasingly complex oil-field geology. This will create a global production plateau, not a peak, they contend, with oil output remaining relatively constant rather than rising or falling.

The emergence of a production ceiling would mark a monumental shift in the energy world. Oil production has averaged a 2.3% annual growth rate since 1965, according to statistics compiled by British oil giant BP PLC. This expanding pool of oil, most of it priced cheaply by today's standards, fueled the post-World War II global economic expansion.

On Oct. 31, Christophe de Margerie, the chief executive of French oil company Total SA, jolted attendees at a London conference by openly labeling production forecasts of the International Energy Agency, the sober-minded energy watchdog for industrialized nations, as unrealistic. The IEA projects production will grow to between 102.3 million and 120 million barrels a day by 2030. Mr. de Margerie said production by 2030 of even 100 million barrels a day will be "difficult."

Speaking Clearly

This is "the view of those who like to speak clearly, honestly, and [are] not just trying to please people," he bluntly declared. The French executive said many existing oil fields are being depleted at rates that will damage their geologic structures, which will limit future output more than most people allow. What's more, some nations endowed with large untapped pools of oil are generating so much revenue from their current production that they feel they don't need to further develop their fields, thus putting another cap on output.

Earlier this month, James Mulva, the chief executive of ConocoPhillips, echoed those conclusions in a speech at a Wall Street conference: "I don't think we are going to see the supply going over 100 million barrels a day.... Where is all that going to come from?" He questioned whether the industry has enough support services and people to execute projects to add that much oil production.

Even some officials from member states of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has long insisted on its ability to supply the world with fuel for decades hence, are breaking ranks and forecasting limits. The chairman of Libya National Oil Corp. said at the same London conference the world will have difficulty producing more than 100 million barrels a day.

A former head of exploration and production at Saudi Arabia's national oil company, Sadad Ibrahim Al Husseini, has also gone public with doubts. He said in London last month that he didn't believe there were enough engineers or equipment to ramp up production fast enough to keep up with the thirsty global economy. What's more, he said, new discoveries are tending to be smaller and more complex to develop.


Many leaders of the industry still dismiss the idea that there is reason to worry. "I am no subscriber to the theory that oil supplies have already peaked," said BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, earlier this month in a speech in Houston.

Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson has said that if companies had better access to the world's oil reserves, production would increase and prices would go down. "Sufficient hydrocarbon resources exist to play their role in meeting this growing global demand, if industry is allowed to access them," he said in a speech this month. If access were granted, Exxon Mobil believes the industry would be able to raise fuel production to meet demand in 2030 of 116 million barrels a day.

The oil industry has long been beset by doom-and-gloom scenarios, which so far haven't panned out. "The entire oil industry in the late 1970s was convinced the price [of oil] would be $100 by 1990 and we would need huge oil shale mines" to exploit oil locked away tightly in rock, says Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. Of course, that didn't happen, as discoveries ushered in new eras of low-priced oil in the mid-1980s through the late 1990s.

U.S. government experts are optimistic -- to a point. The Energy Information Administration, the data arm of the Energy Department, forecasts world oil production will hit 118 million barrels a day by 2030. But the agency warns that its prediction might not pan out if resource-rich nations such as Venezuela and Iraq don't invest enough in their operations.

"We know that the world is not running out of energy resources, but nonetheless, above-ground risks like resource nationalism, limited access and infrastructure constraints may make it feel like peak oil just the same, by limiting production to something far less than what is required," said Clay Sell, deputy secretary of energy, in a speech in October. Resource nationalism refers to tightening state control of oil fields to achieve political aims, often by restricting outsiders' ability to develop the oil for world markets.

'Undulating Plateau'

Two or three years ago, it was far more common for oil analysts and officials to trumpet the potential of new technology to harvest more oil. In a report last year, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a prominent adviser to energy companies, made the comforting prediction that oil production could reach 110 million barrels a day by 2015, and "more than meet any reasonable high growth rate demand scenario we can envisage" up to that date. Because of progress being made in extracting oil through new methods, CERA said it found "no evidence" there would be a peak in oil flows "any time soon." In a later report, CERA said world oil production won't peak before 2030 and that even when it does, production will resemble an "undulating plateau" for one or more decades before declining gradually.

Oil companies have seen several years of bull-market prices, and thus of trying to produce more. This has given their executives a better sense of what is and isn't possible.

One limit: Many people think most of the world's giant fields already have been discovered. By 1970, oil-industry explorers had discovered 10 giants that could each produce more than 600,000 barrels a day, according to Matt Simmons, chairman of energy investment banking firm Simmons & Co. International. Exploration in the next 20 years, to 1990, yielded only two. Since 1990, despite billions in new spending, the industry has found only one field with the potential to top 500,000 barrels a day, Kazakhstan's Kashagan field in the Caspian Sea. And Mr. Simmons notes it is proving expensive and difficult to extract.

Big strikes are still possible. This month, Petróleo Brasileiro SA announced a deep-water find off Brazil's Atlantic coast that appears to be the largest discovery since Kashagan.

But some of the most promising geological formations are in locations that are inhospitable, for reasons of geography or, especially, politics and strife. Output from Iraq's rich fields is unlikely to grow much until security improves and outside investment returns. The future of Iranian and Nigerian production is likewise clouded by geopolitical and local instability.

Labor and construction bottlenecks also are making it difficult to develop proven fields. One of the largest obstacles is the booming commodity markets themselves: The prices of raw materials used in oil-field platforms and equipment has escalated. And during the years of low or moderate oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s, companies didn't develop enough geologists and other skilled workers to supply today's needs. "Years of underinvestment in new talent have led to a limited and aging pool of skilled workers," noted Andrew Gould, the CEO of oil-service giant Schlumberger Ltd., last month.

High oil prices have also led to steep cost inflation for drilling rigs and other equipment. Costs have soared so much that the industry is falling behind in the investment needed to sate expected future demand. To meet demand forecasts of 90 million barrels of oil a day in 2010, the industry needed to have spent $350 billion on drilling and producing in 2005, argues Larry G. Chorn, chief economist of Platts, the energy and commodities-information division of McGraw-Hill Cos. But the International Energy Agency estimates that spending on oil-field production in 2005 came to only about $225 billion, he says.

A failure to spend enough in the past few years "may have already put the industry behind the spending curve," Mr. Chorn says. As a result, he predicts "temporary shortages over several years, causing debilitating price spikes."

Compounding the problem: Most of the world's biggest fields are aging, and production at them is declining rapidly. So, just to keep global production at current levels, the industry needs to add new production of at least four million daily barrels, every year. That need is roughly five times the daily production of Alaska, with its big Prudhoe Bay field -- and it doesn't assume any demand growth at all.

Rate of Decline

Mr. Simmons scoffs at estimates that production from proven fields will decline only 4.5% a year. He thinks a more realistic rate of decline is 8% to 10% a year, especially because modern technology actually succeeds in depleting fields faster.

If he's right, the industry needs to add new daily production of at least eight million barrels -- 10 times current Alaskan production -- just to stay even.

Mr. Simmons thinks the world needs to shift its energy focus from climate change to more immediate concerns. "Peak oil is likely already a crisis that we don't know about. At the furthest out, it will be a crisis in 2008 to 2012. Global warming, if real, will not be a problem for 50 to 100 years," he says.

Oil executives who believe a production ceiling is coming are making plans to stay relevant in a world where oil production is constrained.

Mr. de Margerie said at Total's annual meeting this spring that the company was "looking into" nuclear-industry investments and had hired nuclear experts to help make strategic decisions. ConocoPhillips recently said it was considering building a commercial-scale plant to turn plentiful U.S. coal into natural gas.

Soaring energy prices have breathed new life into projects targeting "nonconventional" oil, such as that trapped in sand or shale. But these sources can't be tapped nearly as quickly or inexpensively as the big oil finds of the past.

Vivid Example

Canada's massive oil-sands deposits, which hold the largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia's, offer a vivid example. They contain an estimated 180 billion barrels of oil. But after years of intensive development and tens of billions of dollars of investments, the sands are producing only a little more than 1.1 million barrels of crude a day. That's projected to reach three million a day by 2015. The oil deposits are so heavy that companies must either mine them or slowly steam them underground to get the oil to flow out of the sand.

Randy Udall, co-founder of the U.S. chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, has written that these unconventional oil supplies are like having $100 million in the bank, but "being forbidden to withdraw more than $100,000 per year. You are rich, sort of."

As these uncertainties mount, there is growing hope that Saudi Arabia, which has about 20% of the world's oil reserves, would ride to the rescue if needed. Saudi Aramco, the national oil company, has embarked on an ambitious plan to increase its daily production by 30%, or three million barrels, early next decade, and thus reclaim the title of top producer from Russia. But Mr. Al Husseini, the former Saudi oil executive, now an independent consultant, said others aren't doing as much, leaving the world entirely dependent on Saudi Arabia to provide extra capacity.

"Everyone thinks that Saudi Arabia will pull us out of this mess. Saudi Arabia is doing all it can," he says in an interview. "But what it is doing, in the long run, won't be enough."

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Big Bang Theory and Wacky Pakis

When will India get into this drama? For that matter, when will Russia, China and Israel express concerns about the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of screwballs in Pakistan? Would al-qaeda have to torture the Pakistanis who possess the secret nuclear-arming codes to reveal them? Or would the people who know those secrets give up the information following a polite request?


U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.

The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.

A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.
While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.

That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing.

The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as “permissive action links,” or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.

In the end, despite past federal aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions.

In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch,” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.
While many nuclear experts in the federal government favored offering the PALS system because they considered Pakistan’s arsenal among the world’s most vulnerable to terrorist groups, some administration officials feared that sharing the technology would teach Pakistan too much about American weaponry. The same concern kept the Clinton administration from sharing the technology with China in the early 1990s.

The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.

Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan’s nuclear safety effort, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who acknowledged receiving “international” help as he sought to assure Washington that all of the holes in Pakistan’s nuclear security infrastructure had been sealed.

The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.

In recent days, American officials have expressed confidence that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is well secured. “I don’t see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful, as we should be,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday.

Admiral Mullen’s carefully chosen words, a senior administration official said, were based on two separate intelligence assessments issued this month that had been summarized in briefings to Mr. Bush. Both concluded that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was safe under current conditions, and one also looked at laboratories and came to the same conclusion.

Still, the Pakistani government’s reluctance to provide access has limited efforts to assess the situation. In particular, some American experts say they have less ability to look into the nuclear laboratories where highly enriched uranium is produced — including the laboratory named for Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who sold Pakistan’s nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The secret program was designed by the Energy Department and the State Department, and it drew heavily from the effort over the past decade to secure nuclear weapons, stockpiles and materials in Russia and other former Soviet states. Much of the money for Pakistan was spent on physical security, like fencing and surveillance systems, and equipment for tracking nuclear material if it left secure areas.

But while Pakistan is formally considered a “major non-NATO ally,” the program has been hindered by a deep suspicion among Pakistan’s military that the secret goal of the United States was to gather intelligence about how to locate and, if necessary, disable Pakistan’s arsenal, which is the pride of the country.

“Everything has taken far longer than it should,” a former official involved in the program said in a recent interview, “and you are never sure what you really accomplished.”

So far, the amount the United States has spent on the classified nuclear security program, less than $100 million, amounts to slightly less than one percent of the roughly $10 billion in known American aid to Pakistan since the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of that money has gone for assistance in counterterrorism activities against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The debate over sharing nuclear security technology began just before then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was sent to Islamabad after the Sept. 11 attacks, as the United States was preparing to invade Afghanistan.

“There were a lot of people who feared that once we headed into Afghanistan, the Taliban would be looking for these weapons,” said a senior official who was involved. But a legal analysis found that aiding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program — even if it was just with protective gear — would violate both international and American law.

General Musharraf, in his memoir, “In the Line of Fire,” published last year, did not discuss any equipment, training or technology offered then, but wrote: “We were put under immense pressure by the United States regarding our nuclear and missile arsenal. The Americans’ concerns were based on two grounds. First, at this time they were not very sure of my job security, and they dreaded the possibility that an extremist successor government might get its hands on our strategic nuclear arsenal. Second, they doubted our ability to safeguard our assets.”

General Musharraf was more specific in an interview two years ago for a Times documentary, “Nuclear Jihad: Can Terrorists Get the Bomb?” Asked about the equipment and training provided by Washington, he said, “Frankly, I really don’t know the details.” But he added: “This is an extremely sensitive matter in Pakistan. We don’t allow any foreign intrusion in our facilities. But, at the same time, we guarantee that the custodial arrangements that we brought about and implemented are already the best in the world.”

Now that concern about General Musharraf’s ability to remain in power has been rekindled, so has the debate inside and outside the Bush administration about how much the program accomplished, and what it left unaccomplished. A second phase of the program, which would provide more equipment, helicopters and safety devices, is already being discussed in the administration, but its dimensions have not been determined.

Harold M. Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, which designed most of the United States’ nuclear arms, argued that recent federal reluctance to share warhead security technology was making the world more dangerous.

“Lawyers say it’s classified,” Dr. Agnew said in an interview. “That’s nonsense. We should share this technology. Anybody who joins the club should be helped to get this.”

“Whether it’s India or Pakistan or China or Iran,” he added, “the most important thing is that you want to make sure there is no unauthorized use. You want to make sure that the guys who have their hands on the weapons can’t use them without proper authorization.”

In the past, officials say, the United States has shared ideas — but not technologies — about how to make the safeguards that lie at the heart of American weapons security. The system hinges on what is essentially a switch in the firing circuit that requires the would-be user to enter a numeric code that starts a timer for the weapon’s arming and detonation.

Most switches disable themselves if the sequence of numbers entered turns out to be incorrect in a fixed number of tries, much like a bank ATM does. In some cases, the disabled link sets off a small explosion in the warhead to render it useless. Delicate design details involve how to bury the link deep inside a weapon to keep terrorists or enemies from disabling the safeguard.
The most famous case of nuclear idea sharing involves France. Starting in the early 1970s, the United States government began a series of highly secretive discussions with French scientists to help them improve the country’s warheads.

A potential impediment to such sharing was the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bars cooperation between nations on weapons technology.

To get around such legal prohibitions, Washington came up with a system of “negative guidance,” sometimes called “20 questions,” as detailed in a 1989 article in Foreign Policy. The system let United States scientists listen to French descriptions of warhead approaches and give guidance about whether the French were on the right track.

Nuclear experts say sharing also took place after the cold war when the United States worried about the security of Russian nuclear arms and facilities. In that case, both countries declassified warhead information to expedite the transfer of safety and security information, according to federal nuclear scientists.

But in the case of China, which has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960s and is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Clinton administration decided that sharing PALS would be too risky. Experts inside the administration feared the technology would improve the Chinese warheads, and could give the Chinese insights into how American systems worked.
Officials said Washington debated sharing security techniques with Pakistan on at least two occasions — right after it detonated its first nuclear arms in 1998, and after the terrorist attack on the United States in 2001.

The debates pitted atomic scientists who favored technical sharing against federal officials at such places as the State Department who ruled that the transfers were illegal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and under United States law.

In the 1998 case, the Clinton administration still hoped it could roll back Pakistan’s nuclear program, forcing it to give up the weapons it had developed. That hope, never seen as very realistic, has been entirely given up by the Bush administration.

The nuclear proliferation conducted by Mr. Khan, the Pakistani metallurgist who built a huge network to spread Pakistani technology, convinced the Pakistanis that they needed better protections.

“Among the places in the world that we have to make sure we have done the maximum we can do, Pakistan is at the top of the list,” said John E. McLaughlin, who served as deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, and played a crucial role in the intelligence collection that led to Mr. Khan’s downfall.

“I am confident of two things,” he added. “That the Pakistanis are very serious about securing this material, but also that someone in Pakistan is very intent on getting their hands on it.”

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Boys Gone Wild

Maybe she was a prostitute. But if she were, she would probably face execution instead of a good old-fashioned islamic whipping. On the other hand, 200 lashes probably will kill her.

Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes

A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms -- was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," the Arab News reported.

But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.
A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."
Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine known as Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

Last year, the court sentenced six Saudi men to between one and five years in jail for the rape as well as ordering lashes for the victim, a member of the minority Shiite community.
But the woman's lawyer Abdul Rahman al-Lahem appealed, arguing that the punishments were too lenient in a country where the offence can carry the death penalty.

In the new verdict issued on Wednesday, the Al-Qatif court also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison. The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.

Lahem, also a human rights activist, told AFP on Wednesday that the court had banned him from handling the rape case and withdrew his licence to practise law because he challenged the verdict. He said he has also been summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee in December.

Lahem said the move might be due to his criticism of some judicial institutions, and "contradicts King Abdullah's quest to introduce reform, especially in the justice system." King Abdullah last month approved a new body of laws regulating the judicial system in Saudi Arabia, which rules on the basis of sharia, or Islamic law.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Musharraf vs Bhutto -- Hobson's Choice

Musharraf claims he will end his dictatorial grab in one month. Not likely. He's failed to end the true threat -- the complete loss of control of Pakistani territories controlled by warlords who are probably harboring bin Laden -- while hoping to distract the world with claims of another threat. A threat to his rule coming from Pakistani citizens who want more democracy and less Musharraf. Unfortunately, Bhutto, the alternative leader who showed her true colors through her recent betrayal, seems eager to regain the leadership post in Pakistan and return to the corrupt practices she embraced in her previous stint at the country's leader.

Is there a reason to hope that either of these two liars will prevent nuclear weapons from falling the hands of islamic militants?

Pakistan: Emergency to End in 1 Mon

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan eased its crackdown on opponents Saturday, releasing opposition leader Benazir Bhutto from house arrest and saying it will lift a state of emergency within a month. But the government blocked a meeting between the deposed Supreme Court justice and Bhutto, who pledged to lead a 185-mile protest march.

President Bush called President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's promises "positive steps," throwing U.S. support firmly behind the Pakistani leader in the fight against Islamic militants.
Bhutto, apparently unbowed by her brief detention, said she would defy Musharraf's ban on public gatherings and lead supporters on a march from the eastern city of Lahore to Islamabad on Tuesday.

"When the masses combine, the sound of their steps will suppress the sound of military boots," Bhutto, a former prime minister, told around 100 journalists protesting a new media clampdown.

Musharraf insists he called the week-old emergency to help fight Islamic extremists who control swathes of territory near the Afghan border. But the main targets of his subsequent crackdown in this nation of 160 million people have been his most outspoken critics, including the increasingly independent courts and media.

Thousands of people have been arrested, TV news stations taken off air, and judges removed. On Saturday, three reporters from Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper were ordered to leave Pakistan for an editorial in the paper that used an expletive in an allusion to Musharraf, said Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim.

A heavy security cordon around Bhutto's Islamabad villa kept her under house arrest for 24 hours, but she was allowed to leave Saturday morning, meeting first with party colleagues and then addressing the journalists' protest.

But dozens of helmeted police blocked her white, bulletproof Land Cruiser when she tried to visit Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the independent-minded chief justice who was removed from his post following Musharraf's state of emergency.

The moves have prompted sharp criticism from the United States, Musharraf's chief international backer, and last week he said that parliamentary elections initially slated for January would be held no more than a month later, dispelling speculation the vote could be delayed by as long as year.

General Malik Mohammed Qayyum told The Associated Press on Saturday that the state of emergency would "end within one month." He provided no further details and would not say when a formal announcement might come.

Addressing supporters through a loudspeaker on Saturday, Bhutto said Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants were gaining ground in the country's turbulent northwest, near the Afghan border. She also said Musharraf's military-led government was about to crumble.

"This government is standing on its last foot," she said, as dozens of supporters scuffled briefly with police. "This government is going to go."

Last month, Bhutto's jubilant homecoming procession in the southern city of Karachi after eight years of exile was marred by twin suicide bombings. She escaped unharmed, but more than 145 people died in the attack, blamed on Islamic militants.

"You have allowed (firebrand Islamic cleric) Maulana Fazlullah to snatch Swat," - a former tourist destination where fighting has raged for months, "but you are beating unarmed people," Bhutto said outside the chief justice's house, drawing chants of "Long live Bhutto!" from her supporters.

Suspected militants have abducted scores of soldiers in the region in recent weeks, including eight on Saturday, who were stopped at a makeshift roadblock and overpowered, government and military officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

Some U.S. officials have expressed concern that Pakistan's political crisis would actually distract its efforts against a growing militant threat in the Afghan border region. NATO said Saturday insurgents had killed six American troops in eastern Afghanistan.

Bush sidestepped a question on that issue, saying he has confidence in the commitment of Pakistan's leadership to stick with the U.S. in the fight against global terrorism. He added that the U.S. needed partners in the fight against al-Qaida.

"One country we need cooperation from is Pakistan," he said.

Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, later told reporters Defense Secretary Robert Gates was worried the political crisis might be distracting.

"The concerns, I think, that Secretary Gates has is that there will be so much focus on the situation domestically in Pakistan right now that people's attention will be diverted from the threat posed to Pakistan, and to all of us, coming out in the tribal areas," Hadley said.

Hadley added that Musharraf had been "responsive" to demands that he move the country back toward democracy. But he warned, "if he does not do what he says, then there will be issues for President Musharraf obviously with his people, and there will be issues with us."
Still, the Bush administration has continued to describe Musharraf as an "indispensable" ally against extremists, suggesting it is unlikely to yield to calls from some lawmakers in Washington for cuts in its generous aid to Pakistan, much of it to the powerful military.

Just a few weeks ago, Bhutto and Musharraf were discussing the possibility of forming a pro-West alliance against militants, and her return last month following eight years in exile came after he agreed to drop corruption charges against her.

Bhutto has left open the possibility of re-entering talks with the army chief, including on her wish to serve a third term as prime minister, but such prospects have been dimmed by recent restrictions on her movement and her increasingly tough talk.

Many critics say the main goal of Musharraf's emergency was to pre-empt a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of his victory in a presidential election last month. Under the constitution, public servants cannot run for office.

Qayyum, the attorney general, said the court - now purged of its more independent justices - would swear in more judges in the next two or three days, bringing it up to the strength required to restart hearings in the case.

Musharraf says he will quit his post as army chief and rule as a civilian once the court has confirmed his re-election, but set no date for that step.

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Nuclear Mullahs?

Are the true madmen of islam on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons by seizing power in Pakistan?

Musharraf imposes emergency rule

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule, state-run TV has reported, as independent channels went off air.

Paramilitary troops have been deployed inside state-run television and radio stations in Islamabad, witnesses said.

Speculation had been mounting that Gen Musharraf might impose emergency rule.

He is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on whether he is eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that fears have been growing in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf.

Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, at the same time as the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".

Private channels Geo News and Dawn News earlier quoted unnamed sources as saying the government had made up its mind to declare emergency rule. Shortly afterwards they came off air.

A special cabinet meeting is expected shortly.

One TV channel reported that emergency rule may involve the suspension of the constitution.

Parliamentary elections are due in January.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to the country after years of self-exile to lead her party in the elections, is currently in Dubai on a personal visit.


Pakistan's Musharraf Declares Emergency

Nov 3 09:29 AM US/Eastern
By MATTHEW PENNINGTON
Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday, state TV said, ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win.
The report gave no reason for the emergency but it follows weeks of speculation that the president—who is also chief of the army—could take the step, amid rising political turmoil and Islamic militant violence.

"The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order," a newscaster on Pakistan TV said.

The U.S. and other Western allies this week urged him not to take steps that would jeopardize the country's transition to democracy. Musharraf took power in a 1999 coup.

During previous emergencies in Pakistan, a provisional constitutional order has led to the suspension of some basic rights of citizens and for judges to take a fresh oath of office.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking to reporters Thursday en route to diplomatic meetings in Turkey and the Middle East, said the U.S. would not support any move by Musharaff to declare martial law.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP)—President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday, state TV said.

"The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order," a newscaster on Pakistan TV said.


Pakistan militants firm on Sharia

By Syed Shoaib Hasan
BBC News, Mingora

Pro-Taleban militants in Pakistan's troubled northern district of Swat have told the BBC they will continue fighting until Islamic law is enforced.
Located near the country's restive tribal area along the Afghan border, Swat has been the scene of recent clashes with the security forces.

The army last week sent reinforcements to the area.

The authorities say there are fears that the Swat valley is becoming a haven for al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

Clashes

An uneasy calm prevails over Mingora, the main town in the Swat valley.

Ringed by mountains, the scenic tourist destination is bustling with traffic and activity.


But there is also fear, and intermittent clashes still take place in areas across the valley.

A police station was attacked with rockets on Tuesday night, while helicopter gun ships carried out retaliatory strikes on Wednesday morning.

The army says at least 18 militants died in the strikes, but there is no way of independently confirming the claim.

In Mingora's main market there is popular support for demands made by militants that Islamic - or Sharia - law should be enforced.

But, most of all, local people expressed the desire that both sides resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue.

Heavily-armed militants

Dozens have been killed in clashes and suicide attacks in recent days, including militants, members of the security forces and civilians.


Last week the government launched an operation in the area against a powerful local pro-Taleban cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, who uses an FM radio station to broadcast calls for jihad, or holy war.

Observers say that the militants still control much of the valley, but local police officials deny this and say that any who still remain will be caught.

But the claims of the authorities do not match the evidence on the ground.

A militant check post was visible near the police station, with several heavily armed militants manning it.

They moved freely around the area, unlike the police who had barricaded themselves inside.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Pro-Defamation League

How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?

by

The Anti-Defamation League is to Jews what the National Organization for Women is to women and the ACLU is to civil libertarians. They represent not Jews or women or civil libertarians, but the left wing of the Democratic Party.

In the paramount threat of our time, the Democratic Party is AWOL. And those are the patriotic Democrats. The rest are actively aiding the enemy.The blood of millions of Israelis is at stake, and the ADL is flacking for a party that yearns to surrender to the terrorists.To hide the dirty little secret of the left's burgeoning anti-Semitism, liberals act as if they live in abject terror of right-wingers. When it comes to conservatives, the Anti-Defamation League is the Pro-Defamation League.

For decades, most Jews supported the left, and the left supported Jewish causes. But the left moved on long ago. For liberals, Jews are just so "last Holocaust."

The ADL gently chided Columbia University for making the "mistake" of inviting a genocidal, Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. It tepidly criticized Ahmadinejad's speech for being "a charade of half-answers and obfuscation." That sounds like a fair description of Hillary's current stump speech.

The ADL and its ilk reserve their real venom for a beast like Dennis Prager -- a leading Jewish intellectual, author and radio talk show host. Last year, Prager made the manifestly obvious point that the first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, should take his oath of office not on a Quran, but on a Bible, in recognition of "the value system (that) underlies American civilization."

According to the ADL, Prager's column was not a trifling "mistake" on the order of allowing an American audience at one of America's premier universities to give a standing ovation to a murderous, racist lunatic. Prager was "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American." I think I'd take "obfuscation."

The relevant organs of pious liberal society were promptly rounded up to censure Prager, including the American Jewish Committee and two members of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Rep. Henry Waxman and former New York Mayor Ed Koch -- who called Prager a "bigot."

Do they have Ellison on the record acknowledging whether the Holocaust happened?

The executive committee of the Holocaust Museum called Prager's column antithetical to "tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity."But you'll see that famed liberal "tolerance" dry up pretty fast if you render a simple statement of the beliefs of Christians.The usual liberal coterie acts shocked and offended by Christians who actually believe Christianity is true -- unlike Democratic politicians -- to conceal the fact that the left is increasingly dominated by people conniving in the destruction of Israel.

How about having Tim Russert ask Hillary if she believes the New Testament is the perfection of the Old Testament? She claims to be a Christian. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.

Let the cat out of the bag that a 2,000-year-old religion practiced by a majority of Americans teaches that Jesus came in "fulfillment of the scriptures," and you might be better off if you had adopted the preferred approach of liberals' new friends the Muslims and simply slit the Jew's throat.At least the ADL wouldn't object.They're too busy conspiring with the Council on American-Islamic Relations to denounce Dennis Prager. And promoting gun control. And gay marriage. And illegal immigration. You know, all the issues that have historically kept the Jews safe.

The ADL denounces the teaching of intelligent design, the placement of the Ten Commandments on public property and Bibles in public schools. Any entity that disagrees with them on these issues will be labeled an "extremist organization."Gosh, it's a good thing there isn't a worldwide terrorist movement dedicated to killing Jews. The ADL might have to tear themselves away from promoting faddish liberal causes.The ADL is more concerned with what it calls the "neo-Nazis" and "anti-Semites" in the Minutemen organization than with people who behead Jews whenever they get half a chance. It's only a matter of time before the ADL gets around to global warming.

Earlier this year, the ADL issued an alarmist report, declaring that the Ku Klux Klan has experienced "a surprising and troubling resurgence" in the U.S., which I take it to mean that nationwide KKK membership is now approaching double digits. Liberal Jews seem to be blithely unaware that the singular threat to Jews at the moment is the complete annihilation of Israel. Why won't they focus on the genuine threat of Islamo-fascism and leave poor old Robert Byrd alone?

The ADL goes around collecting statements from Democrats proclaiming their general support for Israel, but it refuses to criticize Democrats who attack Joe Lieberman for supporting the war and who tolerate the likes of former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

Sure, Hillary will show up at an ADL dinner and announce that she supports Israel. And then she gets testy with Bush for talking about sanctions against Iran in too rough a tone of voice.What does it mean for the ADL to collect those statements?

The survival of Israel is inextricably linked to the survival of the Republican Party and its evangelical base. And yet the ADL viciously attacks conservatives, implying that there is some genetic anti-Semitism among right-wingers in order to hide the fact that anti-Semites are the ADL's best friends -- the defeatists in Congress, the people who tried to drive Joe Lieberman from office, the hoodlums on college campuses who riot at any criticism of Muslim terrorists and identify Israel as an imperialist aggressor, and liberal college faculties calling for "anti-apartheid" boycotts of Israel.

The Democratic Party sleeps with anti-Semites every night, but groups like the ADL love to play-act their bravery at battling ghosts, as if it's the 1920s and they are still fighting quotas at Harvard.Earlier this year, Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., said "in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America."The ADL attacked him, saying, "Bigots have always hid behind the immigration issue."

Like the noose hysteria currently sweeping New York City, liberals are always fighting the last battle because the current battle is too frightening.Liberal Jews are on a collision course with themselves. They can't reconcile the survival of Israel with their conception of themselves as liberals. The liberal coalition has turned against them. Jews are out; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in. The new king knows not Joseph.