Rep. Jefferson indicted in bribery probe

Source: By Lara Jakes Jordan and Matthew Barakat, Associated Press Writers.

WASHINGTON - Louisiana congressman William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) received more than $500,000 in bribes and sought millions more in nearly a dozen separate schemes to enrich himself by using his office to broker business deals in Africa, according to a federal indictment Monday.

The charges came almost two years after investigators raided Jefferson's home in Washington and found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer.

The indictment lists 16 counts, including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. He faces a possible maximum sentence of 235 years.

He is the first U.S. official to face charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits corporate bribery overseas.

Jefferson, through his lawyer, claimed innocence. He will be arraigned Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

The schemes were complicated and Jefferson set up front companies to hide the money and disburse it to family members, prosecutors said.

"But the essence of the charges are really very simple: Mr. Jefferson corruptly traded on his good office and on the Congress," said Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) is expected to push this week for Jefferson to be stripped of his seat on the Small Business Committee, according to a leadership aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been announced.

"If these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Democrats are committed to upholding a high ethical standard and eliminating corruption and unethical behavior from the Congress."

House Republican Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio said Jefferson should be expelled from Congress if he is found guilty and refuses to resign.

Jefferson, 60, whose congressional district includes New Orleans, has said little about the case publicly. He was re-elected last year despite the investigation.

His lawyer, Robert Trout, on Monday called the indictment "lengthy and creative" and accused prosecutors of "trying to create an offense."

"Even after they turned over every rock, they did not allege in this indictment that (Jefferson) promised anybody any legislation. There is no suggestion that he promised anyone any appropriations. There were no earmarks. There were no government contracts," Trout said during a news conference in Los Angeles.

Trout also said Jefferson has no intention of seeking a plea bargain. "He's obviously not happy about being indicted, but he's confident that when the facts are known he will be vindicated," Trout said about his client. "He is committed, he is confident and he is ready to fight."

Two of Jefferson's associates have struck plea bargains with prosecutors and have been sentenced.

Brett Pfeffer, a former congressional aide, admitted soliciting bribes on Jefferson's behalf and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Another Jefferson associate, Louisville, Ky., telecommunications executive Vernon Jackson, pleaded guilty to paying between $400,000 and $1 million in bribes to Jefferson in exchange for his assistance securing business deals in Nigeria and other African nations. Jackson was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.

Both Pfeffer and Jackson agreed to cooperate in the case against Jefferson.

The impact of the case has stretched across continents and even roiled presidential politics in Nigeria. According to court records, Jefferson told associates he needed cash to pay bribes to the country's vice president, Atiku Abubakar.

Abubakar denied the allegations, which figured prominently in that country's presidential elections in April. He ran for the presidency and finished third.

In Lagos, Nigeria, Abubakar spokesman Garba Shehu said the former vice president "has always denied wrongdoing in the matter."

"He has only had official interaction with the congressman, who the vice president felt deserved a hearing because he was a ranking member of the U.S. Congress," Shehu said. "The vice president was in no way cited in this thing, so we feel vindicated."

While Abubakar is not cited by name, the indictment refers to "Nigerian Official A," a high-ranking official in Nigeria's executive branch who had a spouse in Potomac, Md. One of Abubakar's wives, Jennifer Douglas, lived in that Washington suburb. A search warrant for the Potomac home, combined with the indictment, makes clear that Abubakar is the unnamed Nigerian official.

As co-chair of a congressional caucus dedicated to African investment and trade, Jefferson was ideally positioned to influence business contracts with African governments. The indictment said Jefferson would meet with African officials and write official letters on behalf of businesses that agreed to provide kickbacks.

Court records indicate Jefferson was videotaped taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant who felt the congressman and another businessman had bilked her out of millions. Most of that money later turned up in the freezer in Jefferson's home.

In May 2006, the FBI raided Jefferson's congressional office, the first such raid on a congressman's Capitol office. That move sparked a constitutional debate over whether the executive branch had stepped over a boundary.

The raid's legality is still being argued on appeal. House leaders objected to the search, saying it was an unconstitutional intrusion on the lawmaking process. The FBI said the raid was necessary because Jefferson and his legal team had failed to respond to requests for documents.

Some but not all the documents seized in the raid have been turned over Justice Department prosecutors.

Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said the documents helped bring the case against Jefferson. "Some of those documents that we were able to obtain through the process have indeed supported the charges that are presented today," Fisher said.

Associated Press writers Michael Blood in Los Angeles, Laurie Kellman in Washington and Edward Harris in Lagos, Nigeria, contributed to this report.

Moderate Muslim Voices Silenced

Written by: Dallas News.

PBS won't show 'Islam vs. Islamists,' but you should see it, says ROD DREHER
02:19 PM CDT on Sunday, May 13, 2007

I've asked myself a thousand times since 9/11: Where are all the moderate Muslims? We're assured that there's a silent majority of Muslims who want nothing to do with the jumped-up jihadists. But those voices are few and far between.

Here's the good news: The makers of the PBS-commissioned documentary Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Center found some outspoken moderate Muslims and profiled them and their astonishing courage. The film shows these men mounting a lonely resistance against Muslim leaders in the West who are fronting a false moderate face to the public while using oil money from Gulf Arab sources to make their hard-line version of Islam the norm.

Here's the bad news: PBS refused to air the film as part of its recent "America at the Crossroads" series, even though it had been scheduled. I saw Islam vs. Islamists and concluded that it's absolutely vital to informed public debate. That PBS decided not to show, at least for now, such an important film is shocking.

Or is it? Most of the U.S. media has done a lousy job of critically covering Muslim organizations here, of asking serious questions about what their leaders believe and where they get their funding. These folks are quick to shriek "Islamophobia!" when a journalist points out their connections to radical Islam or asks straightforward questions about what they believe. The idea – and it's a successful one – is to squelch a legitimate and necessary public discussion.

As Islam vs. Islamists documents, it's a tactic they use with far less finesse on dissenting Muslims. Tarek Fatah and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, two of several moderates featured in the film, told me that the Islamophobia canard is useless against them because they are proud, practicing Muslims. Yet they say they can't get a hearing at many mosques or Islamic institutions because those places have been taken over by Islamists – adherents to a highly politicized form of the faith.

"They've basically turned our mosques into a political party of their own," says Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician. "We have nowhere to go to have this debate."

He's talking about the discussion regarding their religion and its role in a pluralistic society, especially in this time of war. Dr. Jasser warns that many Muslim denunciations of terrorism are deceptive.

"Terrorism is simply a means," he says. "The Muslim community has not had a debate about whether or not they endorse the ends of the Islamists" – namely, an America that is thoroughly Islamicized and organized around sharia law.

In the film, Dr. Jasser expresses confidence that most American Muslims are not violent but advises that most accept the Islamist view of world politics – conspiratorial, self-pitying and quick to blame America for all the Muslim world's problems. We also see in the movie a leading Arizona imam denouncing the reasonable and patriotic Dr. Jasser as an "extremist liberal."

Which raises a troubling question the film does not answer: How representative of the Muslim mainstream are these Muslim Which raises a troubling question the film does not answer: How representative of the Muslim mainstream are these Muslim moderates? The truth, as one counterterrorism investigator told me, is that the Jassers and Fatahs are probably in the minority – "but their voices need to be heard."

Indeed. Muslims, especially young ones, need exposure to competing voices from within their own traditions making the case for pluralism. And the rest of us need to take seriously the warnings these anti-Islamist Muslims are sounding: Muslim leaders' honeyed words when talking to the media and English-speaking audiences do not necessarily make them moderates or friends of peace.

Why would PBS not want to air this film defending moderate Muslims under attack – even facing death threats – from religious hardliners? An official at WETA, the Washington, D.C., public television station overseeing the "America at the Crossroads" series, has slighted the documentary as "alarmist," "unfair" and "irresponsible."

Nonsense – as any fair-minded viewer of the thoroughly professional film would attest, if only they could see it. Islam vs. Islamists would only appear alarmist and unfair to those whose cover it blows – and by useful media dupes willing to protect them. If PBS is too embarrassed to broadcast this movie, it should release the rights so someone else can, and let the American people can judge for themselves.

The West is waging a war of ideas with well-funded Islamists who far too often have the mainstream media on their side. If we ignore prophetic Muslim voices warning us that most Islamic leaders among us are not the gentle lambs they claim to be, and if we leave Muslim allies to fight the battle against these wolves alone, we only sabotage ourselves.

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist. He may be reached here.

The Corporate Puplic Broadcasting Saga Continues

Below you find the transcript of Glenn Beck Show, CNN Headline News, 11 April 2007. The struggle to confront CPB and force them to release the film that Frank Gaffney and others have created so that we the people may view it and decide for ourselves. I have learned oh so much more. You should really read this transcript. Don't forget to read to this also: Producer: PBS dropped 'Islam vs. Islamists' on political grounds. Have a nice day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome to the "Real Story."

Last fall, I aired a special on radical Islam. It was called "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda." Got to tell you, that got so many people I mean just out of their minds and nuts. I found out quickly about the extraordinarily powerful and influential groups in this country that want to make sure that you only see one side of Islam. And, believe me, I heard from every single one of those groups.

For the first time in my life, I really started to understand how political correctness and personal agendas are silencing the voices of moderate Muslims and those in the media who want to speak out about a perversion of a religion. That`s why I was so glad when I originally heard that PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, had spent millions of taxpayer dollars to finance an 11-part documentary series called "America at a Crossroads," to, quote, "explore the challenges confronting the post-9/11 world."

Well, one of the 11 parts, the most interesting, at least to me, was one called "Islam versus Islamists." This is just another word for extremist. This episode focused on how moderate Muslims everywhere, from the U.S. to the U.K. to France , are clashing with Muslim fundamentalists.

But the real story is, you`re probably never, ever going to see this documentary. PBS says they`re delaying the release because the film, quote, "is a mess." They say it has no structure. It wasn`t ready in time. It`s weak. It`s incoherent. Bladdy, bladdy, bladdy, bladdy. I got two pages from PBS explaining.

To be honest with you, after reading their explanation, if I hadn`t have gone through the "Exposed" experience on the program, I probably would have been inclined to believe them. Unfortunately, I`ve seen how these things work from inside the newsroom.

What you have to understand -- and you`ll only get this from standing in a newsroom -- is there are two completely different schools of thought on who`s responsible for radical Islam. There are those that believe from the West and poverty causes the problem and, in some cases, we deserve everything we get, while others, like me, tend to blame the madrassas, the culture of hate, the extremists themselves who are only interested in a political agenda.

That clash of ideas is real, and it is happening in newsroom all over the globe. And I bet you that PBS is no different. But unlike the others who will take this material on, PBS has another problem. It`s called government money.

When you`re a taxpayer program, when you are funded by you and me, there`s another level of political correctness that you have got to worry about or else you run the risk of alienating enough people, and you put yourself out of business. That`s why I think the real story is simple: PBS is frightened.

They are scared of the groups that will inevitably threaten them with the boycotts, lawsuits. More importantly, they are scared of a lobbying campaign in Congress that could threaten their very funding. When your budget is at stake, it is only natural to stay away from controversy. But let me ask you this: Where is the controversy?

Why is it OK for me to show what the media calls a firebrand radical cleric that is spewing hate against the West, but it somehow or another is controversial for me to show a Muslim denouncing that same cleric? Why can we run Osama bin Laden`s latest propaganda video on the 6:00 news, but everybody`s got to walk on egg shells if we want to put on a Muslim who says that`s not what the Koran says, the Koran preaches peace?

There are two sides to every story, and PBS has one, but my gut and my honestly limited experience tell me that the truth lies closer to the filmmakers. Of course, there is an easy way to settle this. We called PBS. Let me see the film. PBS, I`ll watch it with an open mind. Let me look at it. If it is incoherent or just really unbalanced -- honestly, I hope you`re right. I`ll get that message out for you. I hope the film is a mess, because that means it`s being pulled for a plot, not politics.

Unfortunately, knowing what I know, I sincerely doubt that`s the case, and PBS ain`t going to show it to me. Martyn Burke is the film`s producer. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is from American Islamic Forum on Democracy. He is one of the moderate voices featured in this documentary and a new contributor to this program.

Martyn, let me start with you. You believe your film is being tampered with in ways that undermine journalistic independence. What does that mean exactly?

MARTYN BURKE, PRODUCER, "ISLAM VS. ISLAMISTS": Yes, well, I`ll give you one example. We were doing an investigative report on how the Nation of Islam, the so-called black Muslims, in Chicago were being funded by the Saudi Arabian fundamentalists through the Saudi embassy in Washington , D.C. And PBS, through WETA, the flagship station in Washington, appointed an adviser to oversee our efforts, and that adviser was from the Nation of Islam.

BECK: My gosh.

BURKE: I have never, ever heard of an investigative unit having to report to a person from the very place they are investigating. That was the first thing. And, of course, we protested that. We said, "This is just not journalism as we understand it in America."

BECK: OK. So everybody knows, let me just give a quick highlight of who you are. You`re the guy who did the documentary on the "Pirates of Silicon Valley." I mean, you`re not some jokester. You`re not me doing a special. And you had real, credible journalists on this project with you.

BURKE: Yes. Well, if I can even take that a step further, we hired a team which included a Pulitzer Prize nominee from last year for his coverage of Islam in Europe . We had a woman and her team from Toronto , Canada , from "The Toronto Star," who were profiled in the "New York Times" as being one of the top journalistic teams in this field.

We had investigative reporters from Scandinavia who had won every award in their field. This was a first-rate team, which we had to -- which we, my partners, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev , had to convince them and they had to convince us. This was a rigorous interpretation of the facts.

BECK: All right. Zuhdi, what was it that was in this that America is just not going to see?

DR. M. ZUHDI JASSER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY: It was basically about, I believe, the struggle of moderates and why -- you know, when you ask, where the moderate voices? Martyn basically interviewed some of the imams, interviewed some of the leading Muslim propagandists locally that have tried to suffocate our voice at the American Islamic Forum that don`t want me to get out the fact that I love the spirituality of my faith and I want to raise my kids Muslim, but I don`t want them to hijack my faith for their political motives and their political agenda.

BECK: Let me further this with you, because you are, in many ways, to Muslims, you are a credible voice, where PBS came back to me today and said, "Irshad Manji is on." And I love Irshad Manji. She`s been on this program. But I will tell you that, because of her lifestyle, a lot of Muslims say, "Well, she`s not really a Muslim," et cetera, et cetera.

You are a guy who lives every word of the Koran in all of its ways, correct?

JASSER: Yes. I mean, you could call me a social conservative even. And, you know, I love the spirituality, but my choice to live socially conservative is mine alone. It should not be governments`. It should not be the imams`. And they`ve stolen our pulpits for their political agenda. And when we get a story, a documentary that shows how the only pulpit I have to speak from is the media, they want to suffocate that and not let the world hear about it.

BECK: Martyn, your film was called irresponsible because it`s alarmist and unfair. How much danger do you think -- you`ve been in this business for a while -- how much danger do you think there is when there`s this kind of political correctness and pressure going on to get another side out of a story? How much trouble are we in?

BURKE: Glenn, first of all, the comments on our film became increasingly hysterical from the PBS people after we decided we were not going to be apologists for the Islamists who are silencing the moderate Muslims around the world.

And by silencing, I mean, we traipsed around Paris with a guy that had police protection 24 hours a day. We spent time with a member of parliament over in Denmark who is under police guard because he is a member of parliament. The Islamists do not want their own to participate in democracy.

And, by the way, a very important thing that you mentioned. They will call people like Zuhdi not real Muslims, because he believes in a Western way of life, because he believes in democracy and separation of church and state.

And, by the way, that`s exactly what PBS is doing to them. They sort of have told us, in so many words, that people like Zuhdi have become Westernized so they can`t really be Muslims. This small group -- and I want to emphasize, it`s a small group within WETA and PBS -- have decided they speak for the Muslims.

BECK: OK. Let me ask you this, because there was -- when we did "The Extremist Agenda," I mean, I`m not kidding you, people were on the phone trying to get the special pulled all the way until it aired. There are people who vehemently disagree. Do you believe it was out of fear or these people just say, "It`s not that big of a problem"?

What`s their motivation for this, do you believe?

BURKE: I think there are two different reasons. One is, I committed the unforgivable sin in their eyes of being partnered with two conservatives, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev . And shortly after they took over the series, they flew to Toronto , Canada , where I was for a while and met me and said, "Fire your partners."

I said, "Wait a minute. I did a film on the Hollywood 10, on blacklisting in Hollywood , and I am not about to fire my partners for their political beliefs." And they uttered a statement that I never thought I would hear in America . They said, "Don`t you check into the political beliefs of the people you work with?"

BECK: Oh, my gosh.

BURKE: For the record, I just want to say, I couldn`t have cared less about the politics of the people we put on the air in this show, or I say on the air advisedly, because I have socialists, I have people who are conservatives on the air. It did not matter what their politics were.

BECK: OK.

BURKE: They were the moderate Muslims who had a right to speak out.

BECK: Martyn, Zuhdi, I would love to spend more time on this subject. I`d like to invite you to the radio program tomorrow. Let`s try to work that out, and thanks.

That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a real story of your own, please tell us about it. Go to Glenn Beck and click on "The Real Story" button. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Malaysian political bloggers form alliance

Source: MSNBC.

Group formed after personalities were demonized 'again and again'
By En-Lai Yeoh.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Malaysian online political commentators have formed a group to protect bloggers' interests after two of them were sued by a newspaper with close government ties.

The National Alliance of Bloggers' main goal is to "protect bloggers," and to try to get the government to see their point of view and why they have made certain postings, the new group's president, Ahirudin Attan, wrote on his popular blog "Rocky's Bru."

The alliance was formed late Thursday [April 5, 2007], Ahirudin wrote.

About 50 of Malaysia's popular online personalities held a meeting and decided to start the organization because a few bloggers were being "demonized again and again" by the government, Ahirudin said.

"When certain quarters in government become hostile towards bloggers, I believe they mean to aim their hostility at a small group of bloggers or online writers whose views and takes of current affairs they fear," Ahirudin wrote.

Ahirudin and Jeff Ooi, his deputy in the alliance, are being sued by the government-linked New Straits Times newspaper, which alleges that the two men made defamatory postings about the paper on their sites.

The government has also said it may consider registering bloggers to control anonymous posts with "malicious content." Authorities often use such terms for criticism of the government, or for discussions on race or religion — sensitive matters in the multiethnic, Muslim-majority country.

"If the politicians do not want to take the effort to learn about blogging and to understand bloggers, I believe the bloggers will have to take that initiative," Ahirudin said, without elaborating.

On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said bloggers have made the "business of government more challenging."

"Some merely inform, others argue a point of view, and a few simply distort and sensationalize," Najib said. "There is now more competition for readership, viewership, eyeballs, revenues, profits and, yes, even infamy."

Japanese PM sets 1st visit to U.S.

Source: CNN.

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan's prime minister will make his first trip to the U.S. as premier this month for summit talks on North Korea and Iraq, against a backdrop of renewed controversy over Japan's use of military brothels during World War II.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will travel the United States April 26-27 and hold meetings with U.S. President George W. Bush at Camp David before traveling to the Middle East, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki announced Wednesday.

The visit comes at a sensitive time, with U.S. lawmakers considering a nonbinding resolution urging Japan to apologize formally for forcing thousands of women into the brothels.

Abe has come under fire at home and abroad for suggesting in early March that there is no proof that the Imperial government or military coerced women into the brothels during the war, apparently backtracking a 1993 apology.

In a 20-minute phone call with Bush late Tuesday to prepare for the trip, Abe said he stands by the government's landmark 1993 apology. Abe said he broached the subject to clarify any misunderstandings.

"Since my remarks on the so-called comfort women issue have not been accurately reported, I expressed my true intention to President Bush just to clarify," Abe said.

Bush told Abe that he appreciated his candor and noted that Japan today is not the Japan of World War II, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Washington on Tuesday.

The upcoming meeting will not be Abe's first with Bush. The two leaders met on the sidelines of a Pacific Rim summit in Vietnam last year, after Abe took office in September.

Iraq, North Korea on agenda

The U.S. summit will touch on the ongoing war in Iraq, for which Japan has provided noncombat military support, as well as the six-nation talks on reining in North Korea's nuclear program, Shiozaki said.

"We hope to confirm that the Japan-U.S. alliance is a stabilizing factor for the region, and we plan to discuss ways to strengthen the alliance for the world and for Asia," Shiozaki said.

Japanese prime ministers usually visit the U.S., Japan's biggest ally, soon after taking office, but Abe has stressed his all-around foreign policy by visiting Europe and Asian neighbors first.

Abe told reporters Wednesday that the alliance with the U.S. is "the basis for our diplomacy and security" and added that he hopes to strengthen ties with Washington. About 50,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Japan under a mutual security pact as a legacy of World War II.

After the U.S. visit, Abe will head to the Middle East for meetings with leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Egypt, he said. Those discussions will include the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Iraq war and Iran's nuclear ambitions, Shiozaki said.

"The Middle Eastern region, especially the countries in the Gulf area, are extremely important for Japan's energy security," he said. "We plan to discuss ways to achieve stability in the Middle East."

Last week, Japan's parliament approved a two-year extension of its airlift mission in support of Iraqi reconstruction. Tokyo had earlier backed the U.S.-led invasion and provided troops for a non-combat, humanitarian mission in the southern city of Samawah beginning in 2004.

Japan withdrew its ground troops in July 2006, and has since expanded its Kuwait-based air operations.

Abe's visit to the United States follows a string of other overseas calls and marks a break with tradition for new Japanese leaders who have tended to prioritize U.S. summits.

Abe made his first overseas trip as prime minister to Beijing and Seoul in early October. He visited Vietnam for a summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in November. Abe also met with Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the Philippines last month. Abe continued his travels to Europe.

Iraqi MP: Some lawmakers to lose immunity

By Agence France Presse (AFP).

BAGHDAD: Iraq's Parliament is to be asked to strip immunity from several of its members to allow them to be investigated for various alleged crimes, senior lawmaker Abbas al-Bayyati said Wednesday. "There is request prepared by the executive bodies and sent to the Supreme Court urging Parliament to lift the immunity on some members so investigations can be carried out. This is not an arrest order," he said. Confirmation of the impending probe came as Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki prepared to announce a reshuffle in Iraq's national unity government, but Bayyati insisted the vote was not a political witch hunt. "This action is not political. Complaints had been made against some of these people before they entered Parliament. The accusations are not based on their opinions. An MP enjoys immunity over his views," he said. Officials said the vote could come as early as Monday. - AFP

Chad may consider U.N. police to protect Darfur refugees

CNN March 1, 2007.

N'DJAMENA, Chad (AP) -- Chad's government is voicing opposition to a U.N. plan to deploy troops along its border with Sudan to protect tens of thousands of people who have sought refuge there from the conflict in neighboring Darfur.

The U.N. Security Council is considering sending up to 10,000 troops to Chad, largely because Sudan's government has resisted efforts to send U.N. peacekeepers to the Darfur region itself.

The goal of the mission would be to protect refugees and aid workers, and monitor borders to reduce cross-border attacks.

Djidda Moussa Outman, Chad's minister of foreign affairs, said late Wednesday that Chad had never accepted the idea of a military force of "whatever nature" on its eastern border.

"It was more a question of deploying a civil force made up of police and gendarmes with the aim of protecting the camps of Sudanese refugees, the displaced persons and humanitarian workers in the region," Outman told diplomats representing Security Council members in the Chadian capital, N'djamena.

By "displaced persons," he was referring to the many Chadians who have fled their homes because of an insurgency in the region.

Rebels bent on toppling Chadian President Idriss Deby have clashed sporadically with the government since 2005. They have been able to exploit volatility in Sudan to establish rear bases in Darfur.

Deby expressed concerns about the deployment of a U.N. military force during the Security Council's closed consultations on the issue this week, diplomats at the U.N. said.

Deby is worried about inflaming tensions with Sudan. The two countries have strained relations because Chad supports the Darfur rebellion against the Sudanese government, and Sudan strongly backs the Chadian rebels based in Darfur.

Of the 2.5 million people who have fled Darfur, 230,000 have ended up in refugee camps inside Chad. There are also 90,000 internally displaced Chadians living in camps close to the border.

More than 200,000 people have died since ethnic African tribesmen in Darfur took up arms four years ago, complaining of discrimination by the Arab-dominated Sudanese government.

The U.N. blames the Sudanese government's counterinsurgency for the bulk of the atrocities. Khartoum denies the allegations.

Chad lawmakers pass amnesty law for rebels

February 27, 2007.

N'DJAMENA, Chad (AP) -- The national assembly has passed an amnesty law for a Chadian rebel group that signed a cease-fire deal with the government two months ago.

Also late Monday, President Idriss Deby appointed Nouradine Delwa Kassire Koumakoye prime minister. Koumakoye was minister of state for territorial administration before his appointment. He was also one of Deby's allies who ran against him in a May 2006 election boycotted by the main opposition parties.

Koumakoye's predecessor, Pascal Yoadimnadji, died last week in Paris, France, following a brain hemorrhage.

The amnesty law was part of the Libya-brokered deal that saw one of several rebel groups in eastern Chad lay down arms and agree to work with the government in December.

The national assembly voted late Monday 91-2 in favor of the law. Under Chadian law, Deby has two weeks to sign the amnesty law for it to take effect; otherwise it will automatically take effect after two weeks.

Once it takes effect, members of the rebel United Front for Democratic Change group will be allowed return to their homes without interference from the government. The law, however, does not cover any violations they may have committed before becoming rebels or after they return to civilian life.

The United Front for Democratic Change, which has fought an insurgency in eastern Chad since 2005, launched a failed assault on the Chadian capital, N'djamena, in April 2006.

The violence in eastern Chad has followed repeated warnings that the conflict in the neighboring Darfur region of western Sudan could spill over and engulf the region where Chad, Sudan and the Central African Republic meet.

The governments of Chad and Sudan trade accusations that each is supporting the other's rebels -- each side denies the allegations.

Source: CNN.

Darfur rebels look to unify

February 26, 2007.

WADI ANKA, Sudan (AP) -- Amid the vast sands of a dry Darfur riverbed, more than 100 rebel commanders and tribal chiefs are hoping for a turning point in Darfur's humanitarian disaster: A unity deal among rival rebel factions as a step toward new peace talks with the government.

Sudan's government has done everything it can to discourage the milestone unity conference from taking place: It has bombed previous gatherings of rebel leaders and made overtures to individual rebel commanders to try to lure them from the meeting.

But the rebels gathering here from various factions of the Sudan Liberation Army claim nothing will dissuade them this time.

Camping in a secret location near a place called Wadi Anka as they wait for the formal conference to begin this week, rebel leaders say they are determined to unite their rival political and military leaders, as a first step toward proposing new peace talks with the government.

"We've tried before, but this is the first time we're really serious about it," said Saleh Adam Itzahk, a senior rebel commander from the northeastern Jebbel Midob mountains of Darfur, the vast arid region of western Sudan.

"The war is dragging on because of our disunion," he said. "And we've been cheated of our rights too many times because of it."

The conference comes at a time when the situation in Darfur -- widely viewed as the world's worst humanitarian crisis -- is only getting worse. More than 200,000 people have died in Darfur since 2003, when ethnic African rebels took up arms against the Arab-led central government, accusing it of neglect.

Another 2.5 million people are now refugees, with many inside Darfur and others spilling across borders into Chad and Central African Republic, says the U.N. It accuses Sudan's pro-government forces of atrocities against Darfur civilians.

The SLA conference's main goal is to avoid a repeat of the Darfur peace agreement signed last May in Abuja, Nigeria, by the Sudanese government and one rebel leader -- under intense international pressure.

The rebels' longtime overall leader, Abdelwahid Elnur, refused that deal. Although many in the SLA now contest his leadership, most Darfur rebels and civilians also rejected the accord. They contend it provided too little compensation for refugees and offered no real guarantee the Sudanese government would rein in fierce janjaweed militias if the rebels disarmed.

In part because of that, chaos and violence have only worsened across Darfur in recent months, with new government and janjaweed attacks on rebels, and aid groups increasingly unable to help refugees.

Trust in peacekeepers lost.

Jar al-Naby, the SLA spokesman and a rebel field commander, said rebels have no trust left in the African Union, which brokered the Abuja accord. About 7,000 overwhelmed AU peacekeepers in Darfur have been unable to enforce the agreement, and Sudan's government in Khartoum rejects a Security Council resolution to replace them with 22,000 U.N. peacekeepers.

"We want the United Nations to act as mediator and its troops to come here," al-Naby said.

The one rebel chief who signed the previous peace deal, Minni Minawi, is scorned here. "The international community must finally recognize that we represent the vast majority of Darfur," said al-Naby. "Look around you."

Around him, an Associated Press reporter who traveled to Wadi Anka recently saw 100 rebel commanders in camouflage combat gear and tribal chiefs in floating white cotton gowns and turbans. Along with clusters of armed bodyguards, they gathered in small groups across the vast sandy stretch here, sipping cups of mint tea under the shade of scattered trees.

As they wait for other rebel commanders to reach the secret meeting place, dozens of pickup trucks jammed with rebels patrol the area. Sudan's government bombed a previous, tentative SLA conference in December, drawing angry denunciations from the AU force chief who called it wrong for Khartoum to hinder rebel unity efforts.

Many of the field commanders here claim they left hundreds of fighters back home, although none of their numbers could be independently verified.

One rebel commander, Mohammed Ibrahim, was nervously shouting orders into a satellite phone on a recent day last week. A janjaweed militia had entered his sector of the remote western Jebbel Moon mountains that morning, he said, and he was organizing a counterattack by phone.

The U.N. says a previous janjaweed militia raid in Jebbel Moon killed 53 civilians, including 27 children, last December, and Ibrahim wanted to prevent another calamity.

Outside observers claim Sudan's government has armed and organized the janjaweed to beef up its regular army. But Sudan's government may be losing its grip on the militia because of new infighting among its members: Several hundred nomads have died in intertribal fighting this year, the U.N. says.

SLA leaders say that reinforces their conviction that Sudan's government has no choice but to renegotiate a peace deal. They warn of a massive campaign against towns and other government positions if the government rejects their eventual unity overture.

"Time is on our side," al-Naby said.

Source: CNN.

Thought: Why are the people who live here called rebels instead of insurgents? After all, they are just trying to protect what is rightfully theirs...