Bin Laden's luxury hideout raises questions

look inside bin Laden's compound

AP – An image made from Geo TV video shows flames at what is thought to be the compound where terror mastermind …

By NAHAL TOOSI and KATHY GANNON, Associated Press Nahal Toosi And Kathy Gannon, Associated Press

ABBOTTABAD, Pakistan – Osama bin Laden made his final stand in a small Pakistani city where three army regiments with thousands of soldiers are based not far from the capital — a location that is increasing suspicions in Washington that Islamabad may have been sheltering him.

The U.S. acted alone in Monday's helicopter raid, did not inform Pakistan until it was over and pointedly did not thank Pakistan at the end of a wildly successful operation. All this suggests more strain ahead in a relationship that was already suffering because of U.S. accusations that the Pakistanis are supporting Afghan militants and Pakistani anger over American drone attacks and spy activity.

Pakistani intelligence agencies are normally very sharp in sniffing out the presence of foreigners in small cities.

Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said bin Laden's location meant Pakistan had "a lot of explaining to do."

"I think this tells us once again that unfortunately Pakistan at times is playing a double game," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

A senior Pakistan intelligence official dismissed speculation that bin Laden was being protected.

"We don't explain it. We just did not know — period," he said, on condition his name not be released to the media.

Suspicions that Pakistan harbors militants have been a major source of mistrust between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI — though the two agencies have cooperated in the arrests of al-Qaida leaders since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, including several in towns and cities outside the border area.

For years, Western intelligence had said bin Laden was most likely holed up in a cave along the Pakistan-Afghan border, a remote region of soaring mountains and thick forests where the Pakistan army has little presence. But the 10-year hunt for the world's most-wanted man ended in a whitewashed, three-story house in a middle-class area of Abbottabad, a leafy resort city of 400,000 people nestled in pine-forested hills less than 35 miles from the national capital, Islamabad.

The compound, which an Obama administration official said was "custom built to hide someone of significance," was about a half-mile (one kilometer) away from the Kakul Military Academy, one of several military installations in the bustling, hill-ringed town.

"Personally I feel that he must have thought it was the safest area," said Asad Munir, a former ISI station chief in the northwest. "Abbottabad is a place no one would expect him to live."

It was unclear how long bin Laden had been holed up in the house with members of his family. From the outside, the house resembled many others in Pakistan and even had a flag flying from a pole in the garden, apparently a Pakistani one. It had high, barbed-wire topped walls, few windows and was located in a neighborhood of smaller houses, shops, dusty litter-lined streets and empty plots used for growing vegetables.

Neighbors said large Landcruisers and other expensive cars were seen driving into the compound, but they had no indication that foreigners were living inside. Salman Riaz, a film actor, said that five months ago he and a crew tried to do some filming next to the house, but were told to stop by two men who came out.

"They told me that this is haram (forbidden in Islam)," he said.

A video aired by ABC News that purported to show the inside of the compound included footage of disheveled bedrooms with floors stained with large pools of blood and littered with clothes and paper. It also showed a dirt road outside the compound with large white walls on one side and a green agricultural field on the other.

"Why had Pakistan not spotted he is living in a nice tourist resort just outside Islamabad?" asked Gareth Price, a researcher at Chatham House think-tank in London. "It seems he was being protected by Pakistan. If that is the case, this will be hard for the two sides to carry on working together. Unless Pakistan can explain why they didn't know, it makes relations difficult."

Relations between Pakistan's main intelligence agency and the CIA had been very strained in recent months after a CIA contractor shot and killed two Pakistanis in January, bringing Pakistani grievances out into the open. Since then, a Pakistani official has said that joint operations had been stopped, and that the agency was demanding the Americans cut down on drone strikes in the border area.

The U.S. has fired hundreds of drones into the border regions since 2008, taking out senior al-Qaida leaders in a tactic seen by many in Washington as vital to keeping the militant network and allied groups living in safe havens on the back foot.

While tensions may run high, it is unlikely that either nation could afford to sever the link completely. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the U.S. needs Islamabad to begin its withdrawal from Afghanistan this year as planned. Pakistan relies heavily on the United States for military and civilian aid.

Some of the strongest allegations about ISI involvement in sheltering bin Laden were made in Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly said that more of the American focus should be across the border in Pakistan.

"For years we have said that the fight against terrorism is not in Afghan villages and houses," said Karzai. "It is in safe havens, and today that was shown to be true."

There was no evidence of direct ISI collusion, and American officials did not make any such allegations.

"There are a lot of people within the Pakistan government, and I am not going to speculate about who, or if any of them had foreknowledge about bin Laden being in Abbottabad but certainly its location there outside of the capital raises questions," said White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan.

Some analysts suggested that Pakistan would have little interest in sheltering bin Laden. They contrasted the al-Qaida leader with Afghan Taliban leaders, who Pakistan views as useful allies in Afghanistan once America withdraws. Al-Qaida has carried out scores of attacks inside Pakistan in recent years.

Last month, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, accused Pakistan's military-run spy service of maintaining links with the Haqqani network, a major Afghan Taliban faction.

Hours later, a Pakistani army statement rejected what it called "negative propaganda" by the United States, while army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said his troops' multiple offensives against insurgent groups in the northwest are evidence of Pakistan's resolve to defeat terrorism.

Kayani also told graduating cadets at the Kakul academy that their force had "broken the backbone" of the militants.

But Pakistan's government and army are very sensitive to concerns that they are working under the orders of America and allowing U.S. forces to operate here. One Islamist party staged a protest against bin Laden's killing, but there was no sign of a major reaction on the Pakistani street.

"Down with America! Down with Obama!" shouted more than 100 people in the southwestern city of Quetta. "Jihad, jihad the only treatment for America!"

The Pakistani Taliban, an al-Qaida-allied group behind scores of bloody attacks in Pakistan and the failed bombing in New York's Times Square, vowed revenge.

"Let me make it very clear that we will avenge the martyrdom of Osama bin Laden, and we will do it by carrying out attacks in Pakistan and America," Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told The Associated Press by phone. "We will teach them an exemplary lesson."

The U.S. closed its embassy in Islamabad and its consulates in the cities of Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar on Monday for fear of unrest.

Many Pakistanis doubted the U.S. account of the raid, with some refusing to believe that bin Laden was dead.

"It is not possible. Like other incidents, I think this is faked," said Mohammad Bashir, a 45-year-old cab driver in Abbottabad. "It seems that in the coming days, suddenly Osama will come out with a statement."

Associated Press writers Zarar Khan in Abbottabad, Munir Ahmed and Chris Brummitt in Islamabad and Rasool Dawar in Peshawar contributed to this report.

Obama restarts Guantanamo trials

Reuters – A view of a control tower building for an abandoned airport at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base July …

LOLITA C. BALDOR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Lolita C. Baldor And Erica Werner, Associated Press – 2 hrs 31 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama reversed course Monday and ordered a resumption of military trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, making his once ironclad promise to close the isolated prison look even more distant.

Guantanamo has been a major political and national security headache for the president since he took office promising to close the prison within a year, a deadline that came and went without him ever setting a new one.

Obama made the change with clear reluctance, bowing to the reality that Congress' vehement opposition to trying detainees on U.S. soil leaves them nowhere else to go. The president emphasized his preference for trials in federal civilian courts, and his administration blamed congressional meddling for closing off that avenue.

"I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system — including (federal) courts — to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened," Obama said in a statement.

"Going forward, all branches of government have a responsibility to come together to forge a strong and durable approach to defend our nation and the values that define who we are as a nation."

The first Guantanamo trial likely to proceed under Obama's new order would involve Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Al-Nashiri, a Saudi of Yemeni descent, has been imprisoned at Guantanamo since 2006.

Defense officials have said that of around 170 detainees at Guantanamo, about 80 are expected to face trial by military commission.

On Monday, the White House reiterated that the administration remains committed to eventually closing Guantanamo — which is on a U.S. Navy base — and that Monday's actions were in pursuit of that goal. But the outcome Obama wants seemed even more distant.

Critics of the military commission system, which was established specifically to deal with the detainees at Guantanamo, contend that suspects are not given some of the most basic protections afforded people prosecuted in American courts and that serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists.

Obama's administration has enacted some changes to the military commission system while aiming to close down Guantanamo.

More than two dozen detainees have been charged there, but the charges against a number of them were dismissed in the wake of Obama's order in January 2009 to halt the commission process.

So far six detainees have been convicted and sentenced, including Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, Osama bin Laden's media specialist who told jurors he had volunteered to be the 20th Sept. 11 hijacker. He is serving a life sentence at Guantanamo.

Meanwhile, the first Guantanamo detainee tried in civilian court — in New York — was convicted in November on just one of more than 280 charges that he took part in the al-Qaida bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. That case ignited strident opposition to any further such trials.

Another case is that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who had been slotted for trial in New York before Obama bowed to political resistance and blocked the Justice Department's plans. With the military tribunals set to restart, it's likely Mohammed will be put back in that system to face trial alongside other admitted 9/11 conspirators.

Under Obama's direction Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued an order rescinding his January 2009 ban against bringing new cases against the terror suspects at the Cuba prison. Gates said the U.S. must maintain the option of prosecuting alleged terrorists in U.S. federal courts, but in his order Monday he also said the review of each detainee's status had been completed and the commission process had been reformed to address legal challenges.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said he was pleased with Obama's decision to restart the military commissions. But he said the administration must work with Congress to create a trial system that will stand up to judicial review.

Monday's announcement also included a process for periodically reviewing the status of detainees held at the prison. That's an effort to resolve one of the central dilemmas at Guantanamo Bay: what to do when the government thinks a prisoner is too dangerous to be released but either can't prove it in court or doesn't want to reveal national security secrets by trying to prosecute him? The answer, the White House said, is that the U.S. will hold those men indefinitely, without charges, but will review their cases periodically. However, if a review determines that someone should be released, there's no requirement that he actually be freed.

That decision on such a process had been expected for some time and was roundly criticized by rights groups. Tom Parker, a policy director at Amnesty International, condemned Obama's new order as reinstating a much discredited commission system that will rely on periodic reviews similar to what was done during the Bush administration.

The reviews, he said, "fall short of offering detainees an opportunity to mount a robust defense and to challenge the government's position regarding their detention."

Gates' order also does little to resolve the dilemma posed by many Yemeni prisoners who, for years, have been cleared for release. Their country is a hotbed of terrorism, and the U.S. does not trust the government to monitor former detainees. The order allows the U.S. to hold those men indefinitely, until the security situation in Yemen improves or the U.S. can find somewhere else to move them.

The administration also announced support for additional international agreements on humane treatment of detainees. The White House said that would underscore to the world its commitment to fair treatment and would help guard against the mistreatment of U.S. military personnel should they be captured.

Congress hardened its objections to trying detainees on U.S. soil by including language in legislation signed by Obama in January that would block the Defense Department from spending money to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for trial. The legislation also set up new rules for moving detainees elsewhere, and as a result Gates has told lawmakers that it has become very difficult for the government to release detainees to other countries because he now has to certify they will pose no danger. Officials have said that about one-quarter of those released so far have returned to battle.

The White House said Monday that it would continue to work to overturn those congressional prohibitions.

___(equals)

Associated Press writers Ben Feller and Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.

Obama and the "R" Word, Will He or Won't He?

The only mystery left in President Obama's "final stage" speech Wednesday on the future of health care is whether he will utter the "R" word.

The "R" word, at least as far as the health care debate is concerned, is reconciliation. Reconciliation is the procedural nom de guerre for the majority party's path around the Senate's 60-vote filibuster.

Senate Democrats would like to hear Obama say reconciliation, if for no other reason than to give the maneuver a presidential imprimatur.

"Yes, yes, yes," a senior Democratic congressional source told Fox when asked if Senate Democrats wanted Obama to invoke the "R" word.

Senate Democrats also believe such declaration from Obama would demystify the process and give them a degree of political cover. How? By allowing them to share with Obama the rationale for muscling health care through the chamber on simple-majority vote -- even though they studiously avoided that approach before Sen. Scott Brown's stunning upset victory in Massachusetts deprived them of their 60-vote majority.

House Democrats don't much care if Obama says the "R" word or not. They know the Senate is going to use reconciliation and, they say, so should anyone paying attention.

"Saying it doesn't make it any more or less real," a senior House Democrat said. "If you don't know the Senate is going to use reconciliation by now, you haven't been paying attention."

In fact, House Democrats are far more worried about what will happen in their chamber. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still has to corral enough votes to pass the Senate health care bill. If she can't, the reconciliation process stalls before it even starts.

"With reconciliation, things are easier for the Senate Democrats, it's on our side where things are still difficult," the House Democrat said. "I don't think people fully appreciate that."

In fact, there really is no mystery about all this.

Obama will not use the "R" word Wednesday, two White House officials told Fox.

"When in this entire year-long process have we ever benefited from talking about process," one White House official asked rhetorically. "Answer: Never."

The White House knows if Obama says "reconciliation" in Wednesday's speech that will become the headline. This will thrust Obama knee-deep into arcane Senate procedures and rules -- the last place White House officials want Obama to be.

The administration doesn't deny Obama is already in the reconciliation soup by inference -- it's his health care bill, after all. But they still see some distance between him and what's likely to be a contentious Senate tug-of-war over reconciliation.

Instead of talking about reconciliation, Obama will use Wednesday's speech to remind the nation about the stakes involved and about his recent efforts - outlined in a letter to congressional leaders today - to incorporate GOP ideas from last week's health care summit. Obama will also say his new found interest in Republican health care ideas proves he's willing to compromise. If the GOP won't respond in kind, Obama will imply the fault lies with a minority party incapable of deviating from its obstructionist ways.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said Tuesday if Republicans don't play ball, then the process of reconciliation will be invoked. He also predicted Obama will at least indirectly suggest that's the likely - and possibly only - way forward.

"In accordance with the rules of the Senate, that's a possibility," Kaine said, referring to reconciliation, during an appearance on Fox's Studio B with Sheppard Smith." You'll hear the president talk about that."

As have other Democrats, Kaine portrayed reconciliation as a maneuver to allow the majority to prevail.

"Democrats have a majority for a reason," Kaine said. "The American public wanted them

to have a majority."

Kaine said he believes Republicans will reject Obama's most recent policy overtures.

"When they don't accept the olive branch, that signifies that the time for backing and forthing is done and it's time to vote," Kaine said. "Americans understand that. The American people elected this president to get results. They don't care about the inside baseball."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said process does matter and said Democrats are courting political disaster if they use what he called heavy-handed tactics to pass health reform by circumventing the filibuster.

"I wouldn't want to be a Democrat voting for this bill," Hatch told Fox. "And I don't believe they'll have enough votes to really pass it. However, if they can mutilate the rules in this body and they can utilize the reconciliation rule, they can let eight of their Senators go to vote against it, even though that would be about as phony as you could get. Then they could pass it with 51 votes. It would be one of most disastrous, stupid things you could possibly do."