Hamdan’s lawyer says advisor is exerting illegal sway for political ends

In a motion to dismiss the case against Bin Laden’s ex-driver, he says his Navy superior is pursuing election-year convictions when he is supposed to be impartial.

MIAMI — The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, on Thursday accused U.S. officials of trying to orchestrate war-crimes convictions for election-year political gain.

In his motion for dismissal of the case against Hamdan, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer accused Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann — legal advisor to the White House official overseeing terrorism trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — of exercising “unlawful command influence” over both the prosecution and defense. Lawyers participating in the tribunals are members of the U.S. military, and all are subordinate in rank to Hartmann.

More than a dozen suspected senior Al Qaeda figures are among the 280 prisoners currently at Guantanamo, including self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

In his 97-page motion, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer cited what he said were inappropriate comments and actions by Hartmann and political appointees in the Guantanamo process — including its top official, Susan J. Crawford, the convening authority.

Hartmann “has so closely aligned himself with the prosecutorial function that he cannot continue to provide the requisite impartial advice to the convening authority,” Mizer said.

Hartmann did not return messages seeking comment. But a spokesman for the tribunals, Army Maj. Robert D. Gifford, said the general had not seen the motion and would have nothing to say immediately about its allegations.

“While the Office of Military Commissions receives notice of court filings, we are not aware if such a motion has even been filed with the trial court,” Gifford said. “Regardless, the proper place for the resolution of any legal matter is in the courtroom.”

In the last six years, only one case against a detainee at Guantanamo Bay has reached its conclusion. Crawford, who served as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was Defense secretary, in early 2007 facilitated the plea bargain that freed Australian David Hicks.

The move was seen by many as a favor by the Bush administration to Australian Prime Minister John Howard, whose failure to free Hicks was hampering his reelection battle — which he eventually lost.

The former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, Air Force Col. Morris D. Davis, quit in October after complaining that Hartmann was bringing political pressure to bear on the legal process.

The motion filed Thursday said that Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes II had effectively ordered Davis to ensure that the terrorism suspects all were found guilty. “We can’t hold these men for six years and have acquittals. We have to have convictions,” Haynes is quoted as saying when Davis mentioned that some defendants at the World War II Nuremberg trials were acquitted.

Hartmann took over as legal advisor in July and immediately began acting as “de facto chief prosecutor,” Mizer wrote in his motion.

Distant star’s demise previews our sun’s death

WASHINGTON — Astronomers at 25 observatories around the world began aiming their telescopes this week at a preview of our sun’s eventual death.

Their target is a slowly cooling “white dwarf” star in the constellation Virgo that eventually will become a cold, black cinder.

A similar fate is forecast for the sun, but not to worry. That won’t happen for at least 4 billion years.

“Someday the sun will be a white dwarf,” said Judith Provencal, an astronomer at the University of Delaware in Newark. “It’s forming the white dwarf in its core right now.”

Most stars become white dwarfs after they exhaust their nuclear fuel. They aren’t burning anymore, as the sun is, but glowing like embers in a dying fire. Dwarfs are extremely dense, holding as much material as the sun in a body the size of our planet. Astronomers say that a teaspoon of white dwarf material would weigh about a ton on Earth.

The series of white dwarf observations, scheduled to run until May 1, is a project of an international astronomical network known as the Whole Earth Telescope.

The viewings began Wednesday night at the Southern African Large Telescope, a 39-foot-wide mirror in Sutherland, South Africa. Observatories in Spain, Delaware, Texas, Arizona, Hawaii, New Zealand, Australia, China and so on around the globe will provide around-the-clock coverage, ending May 1 in Brazil.

“We like to have two telescopes at each longitude,” said Provencal, the coordinator of the project. “That way, if one is cloudy, hopefully the other won’t be.” A trial run at four European observatories last November failed because Europe was socked in by snow and clouds the entire month.

The target, a white dwarf known as IU Vir, some 300 trillion miles from Earth, alternately brightens and dims as huge blobs of material in its interior rise and fall, rather like a lava lamp.

The goal of the observations is to determine the rate of changes in the star’s brightness over time, which will let astronomers figure out how fast it’s cooling. The rate slows slightly as the star cools.

“Once a white dwarf forms, all it does is sit there and cool,” Provencal said. “So we can measure the temperature of a white dwarf, and we can figure out how long it took to cool to that temperature and hence determine how old it is.”

Currently, the temperature of IU Vir is thought to be about 21,500 degrees Fahrenheit. The coolest known white dwarf is about 2,500 degrees.

Astronomers think that white dwarfs are the final stage in the evolution of a low- or medium-mass star, such as our sun. When the sun burns up all its hydrogen, it will swell into an enormous “red giant” that will swallow everything in the solar system as far out as Mars.

In time, the red giant will shed its outer layers, forming a ringlike object called a planetary nebula. Its core will be a white dwarf.

By the time that happens, the Earth will have been destroyed and mankind with it, unless our descendants have found a way to reach a planet circling another, younger star

Omar Khadr: A most peculiar young offender

 He should be dealt with here in Canada, as a juvenile who was involved in terrorism

The civilized world condemns the recruitment of child soldiers. Yet Canada sits quietly by as one of its citizens, Omar Khadr, is prosecuted by the United States for war crimes he allegedly committed at age 15 as a member of al-Qaeda.

It is impossible to square. Al-Qaeda’s recruitment of child soldiers is immoral and abusive; consequently, it is immoral and abusive to prosecute as a war criminal a child recruited by al-Qaeda, and punish him accordingly. We can’t have it both ways.

Lately, it has dawned on Canadians that the United States may well have lied about its evidence against Mr. Khadr. Far from having proof that only he could have thrown the grenade that killed their soldier, the U.S. appears to have hidden the truth: that the teenage Canadian was in the company of an adult al-Qaeda fighter and was himself unarmed, on his knees and facing away from battle when a U.S. soldier shot him twice — in the back.

But the falsehoods are only part of the reasons why Canadians let the 15-year-old disappear six years ago into the legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in which he had no access to a lawyer for the first 27 months and no way to contest his detention. Canadians accepted that Mr. Khadr be held fully responsible for his actions. As if he were an adult.

The irony has never really penetrated Canadians’ consciousness. Canada, the country of the liberal Youth Criminal Justice Act, is the only Western nation to give the United States carte blanche with one of its nationals at Guantanamo. Britain, Australia, Sweden and Germany fought to repatriate their nationals — adults, all of them. And Canada let a juvenile languish.

The reply from our government is but a single, vapid refrain: “Let the process work.” But this is a process that, even apart from its other flaws, aims at punishing Omar Khadr for the accident of his birth in an al-Qaeda family.

A VICTIM OF HIS OWN HOME

When a young person raised in a terrorist family becomes a terrorist at 15, does he join voluntarily? Can he give free and informed consent? To say yes is to let al-Qaeda and Toronto’s Khadr family off the hook for grooming children for terrorism. It puts the onus on the children to resist.

Most Canadian children grow up in circles within circles of benign, positive influences — family, school, neighbourhood, the larger culture. Omar’s circles of influence were pro-terror. His late father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was a senior financier with al-Qaeda who prodded Abdurahman, Omar’s elder brother, to become a suicide bomber. Even his mother and sister boasted on national television of the glories of terrorism.

From age 11, Omar was inculcated in terror, according to the U.S. charge sheets. “From 1996 to 2001, the Khadr family travelled throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, including yearly trips to Usama bin Laden’s compound in Jalalabad for the Eid celebration at the end of Ramadan. While travelling with his father, Omar Khadr saw or personally met senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Usama bin Laden, Doctor Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Atef (aka Abu Hafs al Masri), and Saif al Adel. Khadr also visited various al Qaeda training camps and guest houses.”

Only an extraordinary 15-year-old could have withstood that grooming process. The Khadr son who did resist, Abdurahman, did not do so until he was in his 20s. A younger brother, Abdul Karim, was paralyzed in battle in Pakistan in 2004 at 14. (His father was killed in the same battle.) The oldest brother, Abdullah, faces extradition from Toronto to the United States on terrorism charges from Afghanistan.

Yet many Canadians insist he acted of his free will. “Real child soldiers are forcibly taken from their parents (who are often killed),” one Globe reader wrote in an unpublished letter to the editor. “These children are drugged, brainwashed, and abused so they become killers. Khadr became a soldier/terrorist because his family encouraged it. He was a willing participant. Where was the coercion?”

This is a narrow view of coercion. Could there be a worse form of coercion than that in a father’s wish that his son become a suicide bomber? “Blow yourself up or lose your father’s esteem.” Omar’s family culture promoted dying for the cause. That was what it meant to be a good boy in that family.

CHILD SOLDIERS ELSEWHERE

The world is rife with child soldiers. Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., estimates that as many as 300,000 child soldiers are in combat around the world. Yet none of today’s international war-crimes tribunals prosecute child soldiers or terrorists.

No one under 18 has been charged before the tribunals for Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. No one has been charged in East Timor, in Cambodia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. “To date, there is no precedent in history for the prosecution of a child soldier before an international criminal tribunal, and similarly there is no precedent in the Western world for prosecution of a child soldier before any state tribunal,” says Sarah Paoletti, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, in a friend-of-the-court brief to the military commission that is to try Mr. Khadr. (Among those whose names are on that brief are former Canadian justice ministers Irwin Cotler and Allan Rock.) The U.S. says there are in fact precedents, but its examples predate the Nuremberg Tribunals. For instance, a British Military Court in northwestern Germany convicted and jailed a 15-year-old Hitler Youth member for his role in killing a British serviceman.

More recently, at the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2004, the U.S. prosecutor, David Crane, was given the option of putting on trial, in a court without punishment, those age 15 to 17 who committed war crimes. Memorably, Mr. Crane rejected that idea. “The children of Sierra Leone have suffered enough both as victims and perpetrators. I want to prosecute the people who forced thousands of children to commit unspeakable crimes.”

If international practice is clear, the law as written is less so.

The relevant text is the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Both Canada and the U.S. are among the 150 signatories. “The Protocol prohibits the United States from using child soldiers, not from prosecuting them,” says the U.S. brief to the military commission.

It’s right. The protocol is silent on its face. Emboldened by that silence, the U.S. stretches the point: “If anything, the Protocol obligates the United States to prosecute Khadr” because not punishing Mr. Khadr would “further incentivize” al-Qaeda in recruiting young people.

If the U.S. is right, where is the outcry that all the world’s child soldiers are going unpunished at all the world’s tribunals except this one?

Omar Khadr was a war crime waiting to happen. Anyone in al-Qaeda or the Taliban is an unlawful enemy combatant under U.S. law. Anything such a combatant does to fight, even in battle, is a war crime.

“In a normal war,” explained John Bellinger, a legal adviser to the U.S. state department, “where both sides have a right to engage in combat with one another, if a soldier kills a soldier on the other side, it’s not murder unless it is done somehow contrary to the laws of war perfidiously, or killing someone when they have already surrendered.

“In this case, though, the members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while they may have thought they were defending themselves, they had no legal right under the laws of war to be engaging in combat.” There’s a legitimate expectation that young people know and abide by the criminal law of their countries; the minimum age of criminal responsibility is usually 12 (as it is in Canada). But how could a 15-year-old of Mr. Khadr’s experience and background have been aware of the laws of war, especially laws that hadn’t been invented yet?

And speaking of inventions: “According to the reports of the action we have available, the last surviving enemy in that compound … as his last act at the firefight rose up with a pistol and hand grenade, and engaged the coalition forces, threw the grenade,” Col. Roger King, a U.S. spokesman based in Afghanistan, told the Associated Press in September, 2002. We now know that the U.S. had an eyewitness report that painted a very different picture.

A CASE FOR CANADIAN PROCESSES

And what has Canada done to help Mr. Khadr? It sent intelligence officers to interrogate him without counsel, and passed summaries of the interrogations to the Americans. Some help. (The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing Mr. Khadr’s request next week for access to Canada’s files from those visits.)

“The recruitment and use of child soldiers is one of the most flagrant violations of international norms,” says Mr. Singer. Why? Because children are not to be made a mere instrument of the state or terror group. Because children are manipulable. Because children cannot assess risk as adults can. To prosecute children as if they were fully responsible for war crimes is to legitimize their recruitment.

As other Western countries have repatriated adult suspected terrorists — several, in Britain’s case — it seems strange that Canada would not bring a lone 21-year-old home to face fair processes that would take into account his age and background, and his long incarceration at Guantanamo. Omar Khadr, child soldier, has been dehumanized enough. Bring him home.

Gitmo captive: I was threatened with rape

WASHINGTON — In a fresh document from the Guantánamo war court files, Canadian captive Omar Khadr alleges that he was repeatedly threatened with rape as an interrogation technique in Afghanistan and at U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

The partially censored nine-page affidavit, signed by Khadr on Feb. 22, covers old ground already investigated, including allegations of abuse at Guantánamo that emerged in 2005, prompting a Navy criminal investigation.

But the document includes never-before revealed allegations, such as the rape threats and a partially censored description of regaining consciousness after his capture to discover he was being interrogated in an American field hospital in Afghanistan. He was 15.

Once released from medical care to the Bagram detention center, he said, “I was interrogated many, many times. For about the first two weeks to a month that I was there I would be brought into the interrogation room on a stretcher.”

A Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, repeated the Pentagon’s long-held conviction that Guantánamo captives are treated humanely and that any credible allegations of mistreatment are investigated and dealt with in keeping with military standards.

“In this case, we have no evidence to substantiate these claims,” he wrote in an e-mail. He also noted that all approved interrogation techniques are published in the Army Field Manual on Interrogations and that an al Qaeda training manual “teaches its operatives to make false claims of abuse.”

The details are emerging in the military trial case of Khadr, now 21, accused of the grenade killing of a U.S. Army commando in a July 2002 firefight. The document was admitted to court last week as part of the pretrial arguments over access to potential witnesses for Khadr’s upcoming summertime trial before U.S. military officers, called a military commission.

Meantime, the Canadian’s Pentagon lawyers have been searching for interrogators and other witnesses to his capture, in which he was shot twice in the back in a U.S. raid on a suspected al Qaeda compound. They also want witnesses to the interrogations in Afghanistan and later in Guantánamo.

The lawyers are seeking to punch holes in the prosecution case alleging that Khadr, as an al Qaeda conspirator since age 10, was the only enemy combatant who could have thrown the grenade that fatally wounded Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., in a firefight near Khost, Afghanistan.

Speer died of his wounds days later at a U.S. military hospital in Germany. Last week, the defense revealed at a pretrial hearing that the brigade commander at the firefight wrote two accounts, with the same date.

In the first account, a brigade commander identified to the public as ”Lt. Col. W” wrote that the grenade thrower was killed on the spot. In the second, according to Navy Cmdr. William Kuebler, written two months later, Lt. Col. W said only that the enemy was ”engaged,” leaving open the possibility that he had survived.

Khadr was the only survivor.

The documents are under seal at the Office of Military Commission along with the other defense motions from last week’s case.

Now, the affidavit, a 63-item statement by the Canadian who grew up between Toronto, South Asia and U.S. detention, offers Khadr’s most comprehensive account of his alleged treatment — an English document crafted with his lawyers, which does not name his guards and interrogators, at least in the portion not blacked out by military censors.

For example, after his capture and regaining consciousness, he said, he was guarded by “a young blond soldier who was about 25 and a Mexican or Puerto Rican soldier.”

The document is riddled with threats of rape wielded by the United States and its allies.

”On several occasions at Bagram, interrogators threatened to have me raped or sent to other countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Israel to be raped,” he alleges in Item 23. By Item 55, he has been transferred to Guantánamo, and he is taken to interrogation with an Afghan man, who ”told me that I would be sent to Afghanistan and raped.” In Item 56, he says, an interrogator pulled his hair, spit in his face and threatened to bring in an Egyptian “to rape me.”

The document also revisits old allegations — such as his description on arriving in Guantánamo, at age 16, and hearing someone in the military say, “Welcome to Israel.”

Or his claim, investigated by the military, that in March 2003 guards splashed his prison camp uniform with Pine Sol and dragged him around an interrogation booth, like a human mop, because he had urinated on himself during a bout of shackled isolation.

Pentagon and Guantánamo spokesmen did not reply Tuesday to queries on what that investigation found or whether anyone was disciplined.

The current prison camps spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt, in February declined to address allegations emerging at the military commissions, saying, “It is likely best for all of us to hear what the attorneys have to say during the hearings.”

Former SAS man condemns British role in torture tactics

Hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans captured by British and American special forces were rendered to prisons where they faced torture, a former SAS soldier said yesterday. Ben Griffin said individuals detained by SAS troops in a joint UK-US special forces taskforce had ended up in interrogation centres in Iraq, including the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, and in Afghanistan, as well as Guantánamo Bay.

Griffin, 29, left the British army last year after three months in Baghdad, saying he disagreed with the “illegal” tactics of US troops. While ministers had stated their wish that the Guantánamo Bay camp should be closed, they had been silent over prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. He added: “These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinitely without charge. All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions, international law and the UN convention against torture.”

Referring to the government’s admission last week that two US rendition flights containing terror suspects had landed at the British territory of Diego Garcia, Griffin said the use of British territory and airspace “pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of extraordinary rendition in the first place”.

He told a Stop the War Coalition press conference in London that since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, UK special forces had operated within a joint US-UK taskforce that had been responsible for the detention of “hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq”. The primary mission of the taskforce in Iraq was to kill or capture “high-value targets”. However, the taskforce often detained non-combatants.

He said he had not himself witnessed torture or mistreatment. But he added: “I have no doubt in my mind that non-combatants I personally detained were handed over to the Americans and subsequently tortured.”

He continued: “It is only since I have left the army [and] I have read the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on Torture, that I realised that we have broken so many of these conventions and treaties in Iraq.”

He said three fellow soldiers had told him on separate occasions that they had witnessed the interrogation of two detainees in Iraq using “partial drowning and an electric cattle prod”. Ministers must have been briefed on the activities of the taskforce and should be charged with breach of conventions protecting individuals from torture, he added.

The Ministry of Defence said yesterday it did not comment on the activities of special forces. However, senior army officers and parliament’s security and intelligence committee have expressed concern about ignorance among British troops about both national and international law covering the treatment of prisoners.

Spy chiefs warn of al-Qaeda ‘bombs and computers’ plot

Counter-terrorism experts call it a ‘force multiplier’: an attack combining slaughter and electronic chaos. Now Britain’s security services want total access to commuters’ travel records to help them meet the threat

Millions of commuters could have their private movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services.

Records of journeys made by people using smart cards that allow 17 million Britons to travel by underground, bus and train with a single swipe at the ticket barrier are among a welter of private information held by the state to which MI5 and police counter-terrorism officers want access in order to help identify patterns of suspicious behaviour.

The request by the security services, described by shadow Home Secretary David Davis last night as ‘extraordinary’, forms part of a fierce Whitehall debate over how much access the state should have to people’s private lives in its efforts to combat terrorism.

It comes as the Cabinet Office finalises Gordon Brown’s new national security strategy, expected to identify a string of new threats to Britain – ranging from future ‘water wars’ between countries left drought-ridden by climate change to cyber-attacks using computer hacking technology to disrupt vital elements of national infrastructure.

The fear of cyber-warfare has climbed Whitehall’s agenda since last year’s attack on the Baltic nation of Estonia, in which Russian hackers swamped state servers with millions of electronic messages until they collapsed. The Estonian defence and foreign ministries and major banks were paralysed, while even its emergency services call system was temporarily knocked out: the attack was seen as a warning that battles once fought by invading armies or aerial bombardment could soon be replaced by virtual, but equally deadly, wars in cyberspace.

While such new threats may grab headlines, the critical question for the new security agenda is how far Britain is prepared to go in tackling them. What are the limits of what we want our security services to know? And could they do more to identify suspects before they strike?

One solution being debated in Whitehall is an unprecedented unlocking of data held by public bodies, such as the Oyster card records maintained by Transport for London and smart cards soon to be introduced in other cities in the UK, for use in the war against terror. The Office of the Information Commissioner, the watchdog governing data privacy, confirmed last night that it had discussed the issue with government but declined to give details, citing issues of national security.

Currently the security services can demand the Oyster records of specific individuals under investigation to establish where they have been, but cannot trawl the whole database. But supporters of calls for more sharing of data argue that apparently trivial snippets – like the journeys an individual makes around the capital – could become important pieces of the jigsaw when fitted into a pattern of other publicly held information on an individual’s movements, habits, education and other personal details. That could lead, they argue, to the unmasking of otherwise undetected suspects.

Critics, however, fear a shift towards US-style ‘data mining’, a controversial technique using powerful computers to sift and scan millions of pieces of data, seeking patterns of behaviour which match the known profiles of terrorist suspects. They argue that it is unfair for millions of innocent people to have their privacy invaded on the off-chance of finding a handful of bad apples.

‘It’s looking for a needle in a haystack, and we all make up the haystack,’ said former Labour minister Michael Meacher, who has a close interest in data sharing. ‘Whether all our details have to be reviewed because there is one needle among us – I don’t think the case is made.’

Jago Russell, policy officer at the campaign group Liberty, said technological advances had made ‘mass computerised fishing expeditions’ easier to undertake, but they offered no easy answers. ‘The problem is what do you do once you identify somebody who has a profile that suggests suspicions,’ he said. ‘Once the security services have identified somebody who fits a pattern, it creates an inevitable pressure to impose restrictions.’

Individuals wrongly identified as suspicious might lose high-security jobs, or have their immigration status brought into doubt, he said. Ministers are also understood to share concerns over civil liberties, following public opposition to ID cards, and the debate is so sensitive that it may not even form part of Brown’s published strategy.

But if there is no consensus yet on the defence, there is an emerging agreement on the mode of attack. The security strategy will argue that in the coming decades Britain faces threats of a new and different order. And its critics argue the government is far from ready.

The cyber-assault on Estonia confirmed that the West now faces a relatively cheap, low-risk means of warfare that can be conducted from anywhere in the world, with the power to plunge developed nations temporarily into the stone age, disabling everything from payroll systems that ensure millions of employees get paid to the sewage treatment processes that make our water safe to drink or the air traffic control systems keeping planes stacked safely above Heathrow.

And it is one of the few weapons which is most effective against more sophisticated western societies, precisely because of their reliance on computers. ‘As we become more advanced, we become more vulnerable,’ says Alex Neill, head of the Asia Security programme at the defence think-tank RUSI, who is an expert on cyber-attack.

The nightmare scenario now emerging is its use by terrorists as a so-called ‘force multiplier’ – combining a cyber-attack to paralyse the emergency services with a simultaneous atrocity such as the London Tube bombings.

Victims would literally have nowhere to turn for help, raising the death toll and sowing immeasurable panic. ‘Instead of using three or four aircraft as in 9/11, you could do one major event and then screw up the communications network behind the emergency services, or attack the Underground control network so you have one bomb but you lock up the whole network,’ says Davis. ‘You take the ramifications of the attack further. The other thing to bear in mind is that we are ultimately vulnerable because London is a financial centre.’

In other words, cyber-warfare does not have to kill to bring a state to its knees: hackers could, for example, wipe electronic records detailing our bank accounts, turning millionaires into apparent paupers overnight.

So how easy would it be? Estonia suffered a relatively crude form of attack known as ‘denial of service’, while paralysing a secure British server would be likely to require more sophisticated ’spy’ software which embeds itself quietly in a computer network and scans for secret passwords or useful information – activating itself later to wreak havoc.

Neill said that would require specialist knowledge to target the weakest link in any system: its human user. ‘You will get an email, say, that looks like it’s from a trusted colleague, but in fact that email has been cloned. There will be an attachment that looks relevant to your work: it’s an interesting document, but embedded in it invisibly is “malware” rogue software which implants itself in the operating systems. From that point, the computer is compromised and can be used as a platform to exploit other networks.’

Only governments and highly sophisticated criminal organisations have such a capability now, he argues, but there are strong signs that al-Qaeda is acquiring it: ‘It is a hallmark of al-Qaeda anyway that they do simultaneous bombings to try to herd victims into another area of attack.’

The West, of course, may not simply be the victim of cyber-wars: the United States is widely believed to be developing an attack capability, with suspicions that Baghdad’s infrastructure was electronically disrupted during the 2003 invasion.

So given its ability to cause as much damage as a traditional bomb, should cyber-attack be treated as an act of war? And what rights under international law does a country have to respond, with military force if necessary? Next month Nato will tackle such questions in a strategy detailing how it would handle a cyber-attack on an alliance member. Suleyman Anil, Nato’s leading expert on cyber-attack, hinted at its contents when he told an e-security conference in London last week that cyber-attacks should be taken as seriously as a missile strike – and warned that a determined attack on western infrastructure would be ‘practically impossible to stop’.

Tensions are likely to increase in a globalised economy, where no country can afford to shut its borders to foreign labour – an issue graphically highlighted for Gordon Brown weeks into his premiership by the alleged terrorist attack on Glasgow airport, when it emerged that the suspects included overseas doctors who entered Britain to work in the NHS.

A review led by Homeland Security Minister Admiral Sir Alan West into issues raised by the Glasgow attack has been grappling with one key question: could more be done to identify rogue elements who are apparently well integrated with their local communities?

Which is where, some within the intelligence community insist, access to personal data already held by public bodies – from the Oyster register to public sector employment records – could come in. The debate is not over yet.

Combatants may get phone link to home

IN THE PRISON CAMPS

 

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — ET, the extra terrestrial, tried to do it. Now the Pentagon has decided to let ECs, or enemy combatants, do it too — phone home.

Army Lt. Col. Edward M. Bush said Tuesday that the Department of Defense has approved a policy to let at least some of the 275 or so war-on-terror detainees here speak by telephone with family.

How? They’re working on it.

”I have no projected timeline for implementation but it is currently being developed,” said Bush, a detention center spokesman.

Approval of the idea comes two months after the International Committee of the Red Cross launched a pilot program in Kabul, Afghanistan, that lets Afghan families to speak by a teleconference video with select U.S.-held captives in the Bagram Air Base, a U.S.-run lockup.

No such single site could be set up to speak with detainees held as ”enemy combatants” here. Their families are spread across far-flung nations from Canada and China to Sudan and Yemen.

On paper, the policy would permit at least certain detainees twice-a-year phone calls.

”Obviously, anything that mitigates the crushing isolation these men have experienced for more than six years is welcome news,” said Illinois law school professor Marc Falkoff, who has for years handled unlawful detention suits on behalf of about a dozen Yemeni detainees.

But he was skeptical about the initial announcement. He suggested it might be a publicity stunt ahead of a coming U.S. Supreme Court decision on detainee rights meant to portray the prison camps in a better light.

”One phone call twice a year hardly makes Gitmo the model of a humane prison,” Falkoff said. “One of my clients has a 6-year-old daughter who he’s never seen or spoken to. She was born while he was in Guantánamo. To be honest, I don’t know whether speaking with her will lift him from his depression or simply shatter him.”

Red Cross delegates have for years had access to detainees at this remote U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba and acted as couriers for letters between the captives and their families. First, detainees must submit their letters to U.S. military censors, who have blackened out such details as allegations of their treatment and descriptions of the sprawling prison camp complex on the Caribbean.

Past prison camps commanders have said that both logistics and security concerns would complicate telephone calls; they would require foreign language interpreters listening in to make sure detainees don’t divulge sensitive information.

U.S. commanders here have already permitted a limited number of so-called “humanitarian phone calls.”

In one case, the U.S. military approved a Guantánamo-Algeria call for a detainee to speak with his mother after learning that his father, an Algiers attorney, had suddenly died of a heart attack.

Under that scheme, the mother was asked to go to the U.S. Embassy in Algiers for the call.

There was no immediate word on whether alleged 9/11 architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed — on the short list for a death penalty prosecution — would qualify for a phone call.

He has yet to see a lawyer and is held among 15 so-called high-value detainees in segregation at a site called Camp 7, run by a special unit called Task Force Platinum

Obama Wins Texas!

First off , when the final count is done Barak Obama will have won Texas. I’m Sick to death of the Clinton campaign, looks to me more like rove/rnc style scorch and burn race. Hill said that Mccain is more qualified to be President than Obama, which sounds like if she can’t win the primary than the repubs should win the white house. The clintons think they OWN the Democratic party, we the people own the fucking party. Bill/Hil would rather destroy the party than lose, well fuck you and i hope you do win the primary because  you will lose to mccain. I’ve been a lifer Democrat, but i would NEVER vote for a clinton again! For hill to say “i don’t know if Obama is not a Muslim” was the last straw. Fuck You hillary i would vote for the worst repub before i would vote for you because of the long term damage you’ve done to the Democratic Party. Hill is a whiny ice-queen who does not deserve to be elected president let alone senator.

Spain drops extradition attempt against Guantánamo torture pair

Spain yesterday dropped its attempt to extradite two British residents who had been freed from Guantánamo Bay, after accepting that torture they suffered during five years of American custody had left them too weak to stand trial.

Jamil el-Banna, 45, and Omar Deghayes, 38, who were accused of being members of an al-Qaida cell in Madrid, were detained on their return to Britain in December on a European arrest warrant issued by Spain.The Madrid judge who issued the warrant, Baltasar Garzon, accepted British medical reports which found the men were suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other serious medical conditions.

Banna is said to be severely depressed, suffering from PTSD, and to have diabetes, hypertension and back pain, as well as damage to the back of his left knee. Deghayes is also suffering from PTSD, and depression, is blind in his right eye, and has fractures in his nasal bone and his right index finger. Both men are said to be at high risk of suicide.

The report on Deghayes concludes: “Given all these factors, I don’t see how Mr Deghayes would be able to give instructions to his lawyers, listen to evidence and give his own accurate testimony”. A similar conclusion was drawn in the case of Banna, adding that were he to be separated from his wife and children again, he risked a deterioration of his fragile mental health.

Deghayes, a Libyan national whose family fled the Gadafy regime, said from his home in Brighton: “It’s good – it’s happy news. I always knew they would realise their mistake and give up the case. I still have problems with immigration as the authorities have taken away my resident status, but this is a relief.”

The Home Office refused to guarantee to let the pair stay with their families in Britain and said: “Their immigration status is under review.”

Deghayes and Banna arrived back in Britain with a third British resident, Abdennour Samuer. Banna, from north-west London, was arrested in the Gambia in 2002 after he did not accept an MI5 request to become an informant.

Irene Nembhard, a lawyer for the men, said it was time for them to be allowed to rebuild their lives.

Cheney may have leaked secret video in Gitmo case

Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr have alleged that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office leaked a secret video of Khadr in Afghanistan to CBS’ 60 Minutes after a judge denied a prosecution request to play the video in court. Former Gitmo chief prosecutor Col. Morris Davis told Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler — Khadr’s lawyer — that Cheney’s office may have been involved. Kuebler said that if proven, the leak is a “clear violation of the protective orders that are in place” in the case.