Washed It!

Suicide attackers burst into the main United Nations compound in the western city of Herat on Saturday, setting off a battle with Afghan police and troops. All four assailants were reported killed, but the U.N. said there were no casualties among its staff.

The incident roiled the aid community in Afghanistan at a time when a number of international humanitarian and development groups are considering curtailing or halting projects in response to an upcoming ban by President Hamid Karzai on the use of private security guards. Western diplomats are pressing the Afghan leader to ease the restrictions, which are to take effect at the end of the year.

The attack in Herat, the biggest city in western Afghanistan, began with a detonation at one of the complex’s entry gates, according to provincial officials, and three assailants then managed to push their way inside. One or more of them wore a burqa, or a body-length veil, said Naqib Armin, a spokesman for the provincial governor.

The compound, on the city’s edge near the airport, houses several U.N. agencies which employ both foreign and Afghan staff. There would have been about 40 people inside at the time, said U.N. spokesman Dan McNorton.

One of the attackers was killed at the outset of the strike when he set off explosives inside a car, provincial authorities said. Two others apparently detonated their suicide vests, and the last was shot dead by police.

Herat province is considered a relatively calm part of the country — so much so that it is being considered as one of the first places where the NATO force will attempt to hand over security responsibility to Afghan forces.

With Western military officials claiming major success in driving the Taliban from strongholds in Kandahar province, however, the insurgency has been making a push into parts of the country that were previously considered relatively safe, such as the north.

Attacks inside Kandahar have diminished since the Western military offensive began in earnest about a month ago, but insurgents are still able to move about despite the security cordon around the city. A motorcycle-borne suicide bomber at a main traffic circle in the city killed one passer-by and injured two others on Saturday, provincial authorities said.

Outside Kandahar city, veteran New York Times photographer Joao Silva was seriously injured Saturday when he stepped on a buried bomb, the newspaper reported on its website. Although NATO officials say Taliban fighters have been mainly driven out of the district, Arghandab, the insurgents have seeded the area with IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, which are the principal killer of Western troops.

Most of the 30,000 American troops who arrived this year under President Obama’s “surge” are deployed in the south, mainly in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

NATO troops were not involved in responding to the attack in Herat, said Lt. Col. Regina Winchester, a spokeswoman for the International Security Assistance Force. However, witnesses said Western forces were seen helping cordon off the scene, and a NATO helicopter circled overhead. NATO troops in the west of Afghanistan are under Italian command.

McNorton, the U.N. spokesman, said it was “too early to speculate” about steps the world body might take in response to the attack on its compound. The U.N. sent hundreds of foreign staffers out of the country after a Taliban attack last October on a U.N. guesthouse in the capital, in which five of its foreign staff were killed.

This year has been a perilous one for foreign aid workers in Afghanistan. In August, insurgent gunmen killed a 10-member medical team, including six Americans, in Badakhshan province, in the north. Earlier this month, a Scottish development worker was killed during an attempt by American troops to rescue her after she was abducted by the Taliban.

laura.king@latimes.com
Suicide attackers hit U.N. compound in Afghanistan

A massive leak of classified U.S. documents from the Iraq war Friday details hundreds of incidents in which American troops found evidence that Iraqi security forces were abusing prisoners, including reports that U.S. soldiers did not always take steps to stop the violence.

The accounts of prisoner mistreatment by Iraqi forces are the most explosive element of the nearly 400,000 classified reports made public by WikiLeaks in one of the largest leaks of classified material in American history.

Though abuse of prisoners in Iraqi custody has been documented in the past, the WikiLeaks documents reveal details on cases in which U.S. troops became aware of the incidents.

In one case, the U.S. military interrogated a detainee picked up by the Iraqi army in July 2006 in Tarmiya, north of Baghdad. The detainee, who is referred to as DAT 326, told the U.S. soldiers how he had been abused for hours by his Iraqi captors — a claim backed by a U.S. medical exam.

“DAT 326 states he was told to lay down on his stomach with his hands behind his back, which is when the Iraqi soldiers allegedly stepped, jumped, urinated and spit on him,” a report said.

The incident was first reported by Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite television channel that was given advance access by WikiLeaks to the documents, along with a few other news organizations.

Al Jazeera said the U.S. military unit decided not to investigate because the incident involved only Iraqi forces. “Due to no allegation or evidence of U.S. involvement, a U.S. investigation is not being initiated,” the report said, according to the news channel.

As a whole, the leaked documents, known in the U.S. military as “significant activities” reports, describe in minute detail what U.S. troops in Iraq encountered on a daily basis from 2003 to this year— including casualty notifications, routine descriptions of attacks, sensitive intelligence tips and accounts of meetings.

WikiLeaks, a secretive organization that seeks to provide a venue for whistle-blowers to expose government and corporate wrongdoing, made the documents public despite warnings by the Pentagon that disclosure of the classified materials could put U.S. troops and their coalition partners at risk.

WikiLeaks said in a statement that the documents provide “the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.”

U.S. officials, who have been bracing for the release of the documents for weeks, denounced WikiLeaks for ignoring appeals in recent days to not make the material public. But they also downplayed the significance of the disclosures, describing the material as raw information that would contribute little to the public’s understanding of the war.

“We strongly condemn the unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement. He described the reports as “snapshots of events, both tragic and mundane,” that do “not bring new understanding to Iraq’s past.”

In addition to prisoner abuse, many files document U.S. concerns that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was providing training and giving weapons to Shiite Muslim militias in a proxy war aimed at killing U.S. troops and Iraq’s minority Sunni Muslims. There are also numerous mentions of civilian casualties.

WikiLeaks said its analysis of casualties mentioned in reports determined that 109,032 people have died in Iraq over the last seven years, including 66,081 civilians, 23,984 insurgents, 15,196 Iraqi soldiers and police officers and 3,771 U.S. and allied personnel.

Those numbers could not be verified, but they are comparable to those compiled by other groups, including Iraq Body Count, which keeps a casualty count based on media reports and military statements. The WikiLeaks total is higher than a tally released this month by the Pentagon, which said that 76,939 Iraqi civilian and security force members had died in the conflict.

The leaked documents refer to a U.S. military order, known as FRAG0 242, which said there was no obligation to investigate alleged incidents of prisoner abuse unless they involved U.S. troops. The existence of the order was reported by Al Jazeera and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, which also received an advance look at the documents.

The Guardian said the order dated to June 2004, but Al Jazeera notes the first mention of FRAGO a year later. It is not clear whether the order was superseded by later decrees.

Starting in late 2005, U.S. commanders began cracking down on abuses by Iraqi forces, though their reports make clear they did not investigate every case.

In June 2006, according to one report, U.S. troops discovered evidence of “unchecked torture” at a police station in Husaybah in western Iraq.

Blood was found on a cell floor, and wire for electric shock and a rubber hose were kept in the station’s area for detainees. The report noted that U.S. soldiers were making surprise visits to the station and demanding to inspect its logbooks.

Based on the WikiLeaks findings, the human rights group Amnesty International is concerned that U.S. soldiers violated international law when they “handed over thousands of detainees to Iraqi security forces who, they knew, were continuing to torture and abuse detainees on a truly shocking scale,” said Malcolm Smart, the group’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.

WikiLeaks did not reveal who provided it with the documents, but a U.S. Army intelligence analyst who was stationed in Iraq until this year has been charged with improperly downloading vast amounts of classified material, including files that were later made public by WikiLeaks.

A team of more than 100 U.S. government analysts has for weeks been reviewing files they expected WikiLeaks to release, looking for names of Iraqis who assisted the U.S. and other sensitive details. That information has been forwarded to U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in Iraq, in hopes of minimizing the damage.

Even so, the Pentagon’s Morrell said, the leak does “expose secret information that could make our troops even more vulnerable to attack in the future. Just as with the leaked Afghan documents, we know our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources, and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment.”

In July, WikiLeaks made public tens of thousands of similar classified U.S. reports about the war in Afghanistan.

david.cloud@latimes.com

ned.parker@latimes.com
WikiLeaks documents indicate U.S. forces failed to stop prisoner abuse by Iraqis

President Barack Obama rallied thousands of loyal supporters at the USC campus Friday, urging them to defy skeptics who have predicted losses for Democrats and turn out in force on election day to give his administration more time to turn around the nation’s flailing economy and deliver the change he promised in the 2008 election.

“We need all of you to fight on. We need all of you fired up,” the president told the roaring crowd of students and admirers — 37,500 of them, by USC officials’ estimates — who spilled out across the sun-soaked lawn of Alumni Park and the streets beyond. “We need all of you ready to go, because in just 11 days … you have the chance to set the direction of this state and of this country, not just for the next two years but for the next five years, the next 10 years, the next 20 years.”

“Just like you did in 2008,” the president said, “you can defy the conventional wisdom that says young people are apathetic, the conventional wisdom that says you can’t beat the cynicism in politics.”

In the combative tone that has defined his remarks in recent days, Obama offered a sharp rebuke of the Republican agenda, accusing the opposition party of embracing a strategy of “amnesia” after sitting on the sidelines saying “no to everything” while blaming him for the nation’s troubles.

“They figured that y’all would forget that they caused the mess in the first place,” he said. “…But Los Angeles, as I look out on this crowd, this tells me you haven’t forgotten.”

With a new Los Angeles-Times/USC poll showing a narrowing enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats, the president’s trip to California served the dual purpose of motivating his troops and raising money for endangered Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and attorney general candidate Kamala Harris. Boxer, Harris and state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, all spoke briefly at the event, asking Democrats to match the fervor of Republicans.

Actor Jamie Foxx also underscored the Democrats’ precarious position by alluding to Obama’s encounter with a woman earlier this year who said she was exhausted by defending him — and then prompting the crowd to chant: “We’re not exhausted.”

Boxer, who has been hit with millions of dollars’ worth of attack ads from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other outside groups, said the other side has “giant, wealthy, unlimited-spending special interests with them.” But, she said, “We have our own army.”

Unlike on his last visit to Los Angeles, the President sought to avoid the wrath of the city’s commuters by flying from LAX to USC on Marine One for the event organized by the Democratic National Party. He also attended a luncheon fundraiser for Boxer and sat for an interview with Spanish-language radio host Piolin in Glendale. Then he jetted off to Nevada for another Democratic rally and a dinner to benefit Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is in an uncomfortably close race of his own.

While some Democratic candidates have kept Obama at arm’s length — distancing themselves from the administration’s controversial healthcare legislation and the $814-million stimulus package — Boxer has welcomed his help in California. In this state, 56% of likely voters said in a recent Times/USC poll that they wanted a senator who supports the president.

Boxer has been an unfailing defender of Obama’s policies, even in the face of relentless criticism of Obama’s policies from her challenger, Republican Carly Fiorina. The White House has rewarded Boxer’s loyalty with multiple trips to California on behalf of the three-term senator, who is clinging to a slim lead over Fiorina.

The president’s visit will be followed next week by a fundraising event for Boxer featuring First Lady Michelle Obama. The efforts will provide a much-needed boost to Boxer’s coffers in the final stretch.

New fundraising reports covering the period from Oct. 1 to Oct. 13 showed Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, raising slightly more than Boxer, though Boxer still had twice as much cash on hand as her opponent. But Fiorina announced a new $1-million loan to her campaign Friday for the final push, in addition to the $5.5 million she gave herself for the primary.

At Friday’s rally, the candidates took care to avoid mentioning the names of their rivals but drew distinctions between themselves and their opponents.

Brown signaled that he would reject what he has criticized as the divisive tactics of his opponent: “We don’t scapegoat anybody, not public workers, not immigrants, not anybody because we’re all Californians together.”

And Obama argued that if Republicans were to regain control, they would cut “middle-class families loose to fend for themselves.”

“Their basic philosophy is — you’re on your own,” he said.

Fiorina spokeswoman Julie Soderlund called Obama’s visit “another rescue mission for Boxer” and said the fact that Boxer did not mention Friday’s new unemployment figures or her specific plans to address them in her short speech proved “just how out of touch she is with the reality that 1 in 8 Californians is without a job.”

Brown’s Republican rival, Meg Whitman, meanwhile, campaigned in San Jose on Friday with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He had held the all-time record for self-funding a campaign until Whitman, who has put $141.5 million into her gubernatorial bid, surpassed him.

The former EBay chief executive said the Obama administration’s efforts to revive the economy had been a failure.

“The progress has been terrible,” Whitman said. “Look at the unemployment rates we face in California and we face in the country.”

maeve.reston@latimes.com

seema.mehta@latimes.com

Times staff writer Michael J. Mishak in San Jose contributed to this report.
In USC speech, Obama urges 37,500 Democratic voters to ‘fight on’

The California attorney general’s office on Thursday significantly widened its probe into the city of Vernon, issuing subpoenas for information on high salaries, lavish travel bills and pension costs for six former and current officials.

The action comes two days after L.A. prosecutors filed charges of conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds against Vernon’s former city administrator and Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley suggested the scandal-plagued city be disbanded.

In addition to the Vernon action, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s office Thursday unveiled plans to seek a court-ordered monitor to watch over neighboring Bell, which has been hit by a corruption scandal that has resulted in criminal charges against eight current and former officials. All eight pleaded not guilty on Thursday.

In an interview, Brown said the compensation received by top Vernon officials — which in one case topped $1.6 million — was excessive and that attorneys in his department were trying to determine whether a lawsuit should be filed.

“I’ve never seen anything like it, it’s so egregious,” said Brown, who is running for governor. “It’s clear to me that we need a state authority to set some standards and curb these excesses.”

So far, the Los Angeles district attorney’s investigation appears to have focused primarily on Donal O’Callaghan, the former city administrator who was indicted by a Los Angeles grand jury on charges regarding two contracts the city established with his wife.

The attorney general is now demanding that Vernon make officials available for testimony regarding the compensation and perks received by former city attorney and city administrator Eric T. Fresch, Finance Director Roirdan S. Burnett, former City Atty. Jeffrey Harrison, former City Administrator Bruce Malkenhorst Sr., and former City Clerk Bruce Malkenhorst Jr., as well as O’Callaghan.

Those six constitute the last decade of leadership in Vernon, a small, well-heeled industrial city just south of downtown Los Angeles. Vernon has been dogged for decades by claims that it is run by a small fiefdom of well-connected people who use the city of 90 residents to generate large incomes.

The Times reported this summer that those six officials all earned more than $500,000 in at least one of the last five years, with Fresch, a former city administrator who now works as a legal consultant, making $1.65 million in 2008.

The Times also reported on luxurious travel expenses billed to the city by Fresch, O’Callaghan and other Vernon officials. In one February 2007 trip, the two former city administrators flew first class with a financial advisor to New York, at a combined cost of $12,700. They stayed at the Ritz-Carlton and dined at the Four Seasons. Fresch alone spent $7,600 over four nights at the upscale hotel.

Fresch often commuted to work from the San Francisco Bay Area and billed the city for first-class flights. O’Callaghan was reimbursed for trips to Ireland and Sweden.

Brown’s subpoena also seeks testimony on “pension or other retirement benefits” for the Vernon officials. The exact focus of this part of the investigation is unknown. But The Times reported in September that Fresch, Harrison and other Vernon attorneys would receive an enhanced pension package typically reserved for police, firefighters and other safety workers.

Vernon reclassified its attorney positions as “safety employees” in 2004, which entitles them to more lucrative pensions and earlier retirement. In a letter signed by then-City Administrator Malkenhorst Sr., the city told CalPERS that its attorneys were “primarily engaged in the active enforcement of criminal laws.” But a former Vernon police chief told The Times that he could not recall a single instance when Vernon’s city attorneys prosecuted a case in criminal court.

Vernon City Manager Mark C. Whitworth released a statement Thursday saying the city “has fully cooperated with the attorney general’s investigation, and we will continue to do so.”

Neither Fresch nor O’Callaghan could be reached for comment.

Brown did not give a time frame for his office’s investigation into Vernon beyond the start of testimony Nov. 10. He said that the subpoena was meant to get information “on the record.” Although it requires only one designee to testify, Brown said it is possible several Vernon officials would be deposed.

“They know who knows, and they’re supposed to tell us and then we will go from there,” he said. “We want to hear who knows, and we’ll keep digging.”

Brown also said his office is pushing ahead with creating a monitor who would have wide-ranging access to city affairs in Bell, where four of the five council members were charged with public corruption.

A court hearing on the proposal was scheduled for Nov. 17.

State widens inquiry into Vernon

One night a few years back, a California communications executive named Deborah Bowker was worried about her husband, who was sick and hospitalized. An old friend told her she shouldn’t be alone, that she should come over and stay the night.

The guest bedroom at the friend’s house was used most often by grandchildren, and contained two tiny beds. That night, Bowker was crying herself to sleep in one of them when the door cracked open. Without a word, Carly Fiorina padded across the room and crawled into the other bed.

Bowker and Fiorina have been close friends since they went to MIT together, and little changed for 20 years — until Fiorina decided to run for the U.S. Senate, with Bowker as her chief of staff.

That fretful night doesn’t seem like a big deal now. Bowker’s husband recovered, and Fiorina might not even remember it, Bowker said with a laugh. Bowker said she hadn’t told the story before and wasn’t sure why she was telling it now — except that she hardly recognizes Fiorina in the image that’s been created through the veneer of politics.

Those closest to Fiorina, 56, describe her as loyal and fun-loving, witty and bright. But they are well aware of the other image — of a pompous diva, aligned with the most strident factions of her Republican Party, pampered by a golden parachute after being fired from her high-profile job.

Fiorina the candidate hasn’t always helped matters. Her tone on the stump can be caustic. At one point in her dogged campaign against the Democratic incumbent, Sen. Barbara Boxer, an open microphone caught her belittling Boxer’s hair as “so yesterday.”

In a sneering attempt to connect with a “tea party” crowd near Fresno recently, she referred to San Francisco — the center of the metropolitan area where she spent nearly half of her life, the city just up the road from her 5,400-square-foot Los Altos Hills estate — as “that faraway world.”

And her critics tend to roll their eyes when Fiorina — who was raised on opera and French lessons, was the daughter of a powerful judge and has a sterling academic pedigree — pitches herself as a kind of Horatio Alger. Her journey, she said at one recent campaign event, was “only possible in the United States of America.”

Getting to know the person friends call “the real Carly,” meanwhile, can be a confounding task. Stung by several episodes in her life, including the unraveling of her first marriage and the brouhaha surrounding her firing from Hewlett-Packard, where she was chief executive, president and chairman, she is private and guarded.

Fiorina’s work ethic is legendary, and her discipline is one reason Boxer — a lioness of the left seeking her fourth Senate term — is in arguably the toughest race of her career. But Fiorina can be so on-message that she comes across as a machine.

During a recent heat wave, Fiorina met with business leaders in a sweltering City of Industry warehouse. A visitor joked that the record heat might cause her to rethink her position on global warming. Fiorina was not amused, launching instantly into her talking points about climate change — contending that she reserved the right to “challenge the science.”

On the campaign trail, it can be difficult to envision the Fiorina who could often be found dancing with the interns and the secretaries at the end of corporate parties, long after the other executives were gone. Or the woman who, on a recent boat trip, suddenly disappeared; she had jumped off the stern and hauled herself onto a tiny raft with her step-granddaughters.

Friends say she’s a fair cook and has a nice touch on the piano. She was raised Episcopalian but is not a regular churchgoer. She does Jane Fonda-style aerobics, whether she’s home or on the road.

She reads policy briefs on her iPad but reads books the old-fashioned way. She’s a voracious shopper, said one friend of 20 years, and gave one Hong Kong jeweler enough business that he put her picture in the window. She has at her disposal a household net worth estimated as high as $121 million and yachts on both coasts, and will be one of the wealthiest members of Congress if she wins.

She and her husband, Frank Fiorina, a former AT&T executive with blue-collar roots in Pittsburgh, have been married for 25 years. It is a second marriage for both; she calls him a “hunk” with some frequency.

Last fall, she threw him a sock-hop-themed 60th birthday party, tracking down friends he hadn’t seen in 30 years. Fiorina was stylish as ever, said an old friend, Kathy Fitzgerald, in a black dress and textured stockings — and, since she was being treated for breast cancer, bald.

Cara Carleton Sneed was born in Austin, Texas. Her mother, a talented oil painter, was a refugee from a troubled childhood in Ohio. Her father, Joseph Tyree Sneed III, was a University of Texas law professor whose ambition in academia meant that she was perpetually “the new kid,” she wrote in her autobiography, as the family moved repeatedly.

In 1969, while teenagers across America experimented with a new counterculture, Fiorina was in Ghana, where her father was teaching students about the country’s new constitution.

Fiorina’s father soon joined the Stanford law faculty, and she graduated from Stanford with a degree in philosophy and medieval history — which, she jokes, rendered her unemployable. She bounced from job to job, working as a typist, a temp, a receptionist. In 1980, she signed on as a management trainee with AT&T.

Fiorina presents a sharp contrast in images

The Justice Department on Wednesday asked a federal appeals court in San Francisco to quickly set aside a judge’s order that bars enforcement of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, saying the judge’s “extraordinary decision” went too far, too fast.

The 25-page motion says the appeals court should lift the judge’s order Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Southern California, acting on a suit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, declared the “don’t ask” policy unconstitutional last month. On Oct. 12, she then ordered the Pentagon to stopping enforcing the policy, which it did.

The Justice Department said it has a duty to defend the laws enacted by Congress, even though President Obama is urging Congress to repeal the law and to allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

The government said the “sweeping injunction against a duly enacted Act of Congress” was wrong as a matter of law. It is “at odds with basic principles of judicial restraint requiring courts to limit injunctive relief to the parties before the court, and is contrary to decisions of other courts, which have sustained the constitutionality of the statute.”

Moreover, the judge’s order suspending enforcement of the military’s “don’t ask” policy has caused “confusion and uncertainty” at the Pentagon and among gays and lesbians in the ranks, the government said.

If an appeals court reverses the judge and affirms the constitutionality of the law, it “would create tremendous uncertainty about the status of service members who may reveal their sexual orientation in reliance” on the judge’s order suspending the law, the government said.

For all these reasons, it said a three-judge panel should issue an emergency order lifting the injunction.

If the 9th Circuit refuses to lift the judge’s order, the government could then seek an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

david.savage@latimes.com
Justice Department asks appeals court to overturn ‘don’t ask’ injunction

The Supreme Court intervened again Monday in a lawsuit against a former George W. Bush administration official, agreeing to decide whether former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is entirely shielded from claims that he misused the law to arrest terrorism suspects under false pretenses.

Obama administration lawyers appealed on Ashcroft’s behalf and asserted that it would “severely damage law enforcement” if the nation’s top law enforcement official could be held liable for abusing his authority.

In the last five years, civil libertarians have tried, without much success, to sue former Bush administration officials for overstepping the law. These suits have run into a series of procedural barriers. For example, those who accused the government of wiretapping their phones without a search warrant had their cases thrown out of court on grounds they could not prove they had been wiretapped. Others who said they were wrongly arrested and tortured had their claims dismissed when the government invoked the “state secrets” privilege.

Last year, the Supreme Court shielded Ashcroft from being sued by Muslim immigrants in the New York area who said they were arrested and abused in jail after the 9/11 attacks, even though they had no involvement in a terrorism plot. In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that the suit against Ashcroft must be dismissed because the plaintiffs could not prove he ordered them to be abused.

The new case arose when Lavoni Kidd, a former football star at the University of Idaho, was arrested and shackled at Washington’s Dulles International Airport in March 2003. He was not taken into custody because he was suspected of a crime, but because he was a supposed “material witness” in another case.

Federal law permits the government in special situations to hold someone as a “material witness” in a pending case. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union accused Ashcroft of a “gross abuse” of this authority. They say he misused the law to arrest innocent people, even when the government lacked the required “probable cause.”

After the 9/11 attacks Ashcroft announced he would use all the legal authority at his disposal to capture terrorists. Hundreds of Muslim men were arrested and held on immigration charges. That option was not available in Kidd’s case because he is a U.S. citizen.

He had converted to Islam in college and changed him name to Abdullah Al-Kidd. He had cooperated with the FBI after the 9/11 attacks and answered questions about another Muslim man in Idaho who was under investigation in connection with his website.

Several months had elapsed since Kidd had heard from the FBI, but when he bought a round-trip ticket to travel to Saudi Arabia, where he had a study scholarship, the FBI moved to have him arrested. An FBI agent wrongly told a magistrate that Kidd had bought a one-way first-class ticket. The magistrate ordered Kidd arrested and held as a witness. A few days later, then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified in Congress and mentioned Kidd’s “arrest” as one of the bureau’s recent successes.

Kidd was strip-searched repeatedly and shackled for more than two weeks in a high-security cell where the lights were kept on, according to his complaint. He was then released, but his passport was taken. In 2005, Kidd sued Ashcroft and other officials, contending they had violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable cause.

Ashcroft moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that as the nation’s chief prosecutor, he was absolutely immune from such claims. But a federal judge in Idaho and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the suit. Judge Milan Smith said it was “repugnant to the Constitution” for the government to say it “has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in sometimes primitive conditions, not because they have committed a crime, but merely because the government wants to investigate them for possible wrongdoing.”

This ruling, if allowed to stand, would have allowed the case against Ashcroft to proceed toward a trial.

But Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal appealed to the high court and argued that top prosecutors should be shielded from answering such allegations. “Absolute immunity applies regardless of the prosecutor’s intent,” he said.

The justices announced they will hear the case of Ashcroft vs. Al-Kidd early next year and decide whether the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity requires that the suit be dismissed. New Justice Elena Kagan said she would stay out of the case.

david.savage@latimes.com

Supreme Court to hear civil liberties suit against John Ashcroft

Seven more Western troops were killed in attacks across Afghanistan on Thursday, military officials said, bringing the two-day fatality toll for the NATO force to 13 and illustrating the war’s widening reach.

Combat deaths are running at their highest levels of the 9-year-old war. This year has already been the most lethal for Western troops’ since the U.S. invasion that toppled the Taliban movement.

NATO’s International Security Assistance Force released few details about the latest fatalities. It did not even disclose the nationalities of those killed, and provided only general details about where the deaths occurred.

The largest single fatal incident Thursday was reported in the west of the country, where three troops were killed by a single roadside bomb. National contingents serving in the west, near the Iranian border, include Americans and Italians.

Three more of Thursday’s deaths occurred in the country’s south, two in an insurgent attack and another in a roadside bombing. Yet another fatality took place in Afghanistan’s east, where insurgents often infiltrate from Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas. The majority of the troops in the east are American, but several other NATO nations have forces there as well.

A day earlier, four service members were killed by a single IED, or improvised explosive device, in Afghanistan’s south, considered the insurgency’s heartland. IEDs — low-tech, but sometimes effective even against well-armored vehicles — are the No. 1 killer of Western troops in Afghanistan.

U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan now stands at about 100,000, bolstered by a surge ordered by President Obama last December. The bulk of the American forces are in the south, where NATO is attempting to stifle the Taliban in volatile Kandahar and Helmand provinces.

Even as the fighting pushes ahead, so do efforts by the government of Hamid Karzai to broker some kind of political settlement with the Taliban. While no formal negotiations have begun, contacts have been taking place for months.

NATO officials say the Western military is helping to facilitate the informal talks by granting a measure of freedom of movement to Taliban leaders involved.

Meanwhile, the head of a newly formed government council tasked with overseeing any negotiations with the Taliban and other insurgent groups said he believed the reconciliation effort would move forward.

“We are taking our first steps,” former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani told a news conference in Kabul.

laura.king@latimes.com
Seven Western troops killed in Afghanistan

A federal judge in California issued a permanent ban Tuesday on the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians in the military, ordering the Defense Department to immediately halt any efforts to remove personnel because of their sexual orientation.

The government has 60 days to appeal the ruling, which gives the administration until after the midterm election next month to make a decision. But it also presents a problem for President Obama as he tries to rally his Democratic base.

As a presidential candidate, Obama said he would work to do away with the policy. But should the Justice Department appeal the ruling, it could anger many of the president’s liberal supporters, something Obama and congressional Democrats can ill afford.

In a separate case that posed a similar problem, the administration decided Tuesday to appeal two court rulings in Massachusetts that found unconstitutional the federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

The administration filed a notice of appeal to protect the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which bars gay marriages, although Obama opposes the law. A Justice Department spokeswoman told the Associated Press that the administration was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

“As a policy matter, the president has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, called on the administration to immediately appeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” decision. Otherwise, he said, it would “only further the desire of voters to change Congress” out of anger at “activist judges and arrogant politicians.”

Justice Department officials said no decision had been made, though the government has known for a month that the ruling might be coming. U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips in Riverside said on Sept. 9 that she considered the policy unconstitutional.

At the Pentagon, spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith said the ruling was under review. Other Pentagon officials said a task force created to examine the issue had not completed its study and that town hall meetings with military families were continuing, as was an online opinion survey. If there is no appeal, they said, the ruling would short-circuit that effort.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was enacted by Congress in 1993 in an effort to reform the military’s practice of searching out and discharging gay personnel.

Under the policy, gays and lesbians could serve in the military as long as they kept their sexual orientation secret. More than 13,000 service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

In her three-page order Tuesday, Phillips declared that the policy “infringes on the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members.”

She also said it violated due process and freedom of speech, and did not allow targeted service members “to petition the government for redress of grievances” to fight for their jobs if they were outed as homosexuals.

Phillips ordered the military to immediately stop “enforcing or applying” the policy and implementing the regulations “against any person under their jurisdiction or command.”

She further ordered them “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation or other proceedings” that were underway.

If the government does not appeal, the question will be whether a district court judge can unilaterally invalidate a longstanding policy of the United States military.

“A federal judge always has the power to declare a law unconstitutional,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.

“The interesting question concerns a nationwide injunction. On the one hand, I think she is on strong ground in doing so. On the other hand, one district judge doesn’t have the authority to bind judges in other districts or circuits. They can decide for themselves. The key question is whether the Obama administration will appeal.”

There also is an effort underway in Congress to repeal the law. The House this year voted to repeal the act, as did the Senate Armed Services Committee. But Republicans blocked action on the Senate floor.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco), said the speaker welcomed the judge’s order and “continues to believe, until the Senate can act on the repeal of this policy and send it to the president’s desk, the administration should place a moratorium on all dismissals under this policy.”

The judge was ruling in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest gay GOP political organization. In the trial in July, Justice Department lawyer Paul G. Freeborne argued that Congress and not the courts should decide the fate of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Many gay and lesbian groups praised the order, but Aaron Tax, legal director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, predicted that the government would appeal.

With that in mind, he said, homosexual “service members must proceed safely and should not come out at this time.”

richard.serrano@latimes.com

David Cloud in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
Judge orders halt to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

U.S. and British officials are investigating whether a British aid worker kidnapped by Taliban militants in Afghanistan may have been inadvertently killed by American troops as they attempted to rescue her last week.

British officials initially announced that Linda Norgrove, 36, had been killed by her Islamist captors Friday during a rescue attempt carried out by U.S. special forces. Norgrove was kidnapped along with three Afghan colleagues two weeks ago in eastern Kunar province while visiting a development project there. Militants had earlier freed Norgrove’s Afghan co-workers.

On Monday, the U.S. military said in a prepared statement that a review of surveillance footage and interviews with members of the rescue team “do not conclusively determine the cause of her death.” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, ordered an investigation into Norgrove’s death, the statement said.

In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron said at a news conference that Petraeus had told him Norgrove may have been killed by a grenade thrown by a member of the U.S. rescue team. Cameron said his foreign secretary, William Hague, had given the go-ahead to launch the rescue effort after deciding that Norgrove was at grave risk. Cameron said Hague’s decision had his support.

“We were clear that Linda’s life was in grave danger and the operation offered the best chance of saving her life,” Cameron told reporters. “I will obviously go over in my mind 100 times whether it was the right decision, but I profoundly believe it was.”

A former United Nations worker, Norgrove was working on a $150-million project for the U.S. aid group Development Alternatives Inc., aimed at strengthening local economies in Afghanistan.

The decision to forge ahead with a rescue mission was made after North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies received a tip about Norgrove’s whereabouts. Six militants holding Norgrove were also killed in the rescue bid.

alex.rodriguez@latimes.com

U.S. troops may have killed kidnapped British aid worker during failed rescue attempt