Only 10 of some 490 inmates held at the prison at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been charged in the more than four years since the camp was opened.

Khadr, whose lawyer alleges he has been tortured and abused at Guantanamo, is accused of killing a US medic during a battle with American troops near Khost in Afghanistan.

Prosecutors allege that he comes from a family with close links to Al-Qaeda and that his father, an Egyptian-born Canadian, was a financier of the terror network's operations.

The father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was killed in a firefight in October 2003, and his other children have also been accused of terrorist ties.

Lawyers for Khadr argue that their client has been denied due process and have demanded that the court order the prosecution to share relevant information in the case.

At issue is whether the tribunals are subject to US legal standards and the civil rights enshrined in the Constitution, said Colonel Dwight Sullivan, chief defense counsel for the detainees facing the tribunals.

"That is one of the most fundamental issues that's going to get resolved here," Sullivan told reporters on Tuesday. "In my mind, it is not a resolved question."

The Bush administration maintains that the tribunals, or commissions, are necessary because members of Al-Qaeda cannot be treated as US citizens or as conventional prisoners of war from a regular army.

Rejecting criticism from human rights groups and foreign governments, the Bush administration has refused to shut down the Guantanamo camp and is pressing ahead with pre-trial hearings despite a case pending before the US Supreme Court that could determine the fate of the tribunals.

Khadr's civilian lawyers have filed a petition in federal court asking that the proceedings in Guantanamo be suspended until the high court issues its decision on the legitimacy of the tribunals. The court is expected to rule by July.

On Tuesday, Abdul Zahir, an Afghan accused of plotting with Al-Qaeda and attacking foreign journalists in 2002, appeared before the tribunal and deferred entering a plea. The prosecution had failed to provide a written translation of the charges in his native Farsi.

The flight is best known for one passenger's rallying cry to other passengers, "Let's roll," which was overheard over a cell phone connection between a passenger and a family member on the ground.

This cockpit tape was played privately April 18, 2002, for the families of Flight 93 victims, but it has never been played in public. Family members told reporters afterward they heard "yelling and screaming" and muffled voices that were hard to identify.

"Listening to the tape confirmed for me that there was a heroic teamwork effort," said Alice Hoglan of Los Gatos, Calif., whose son, Mark Bingham, called from the air before the plane crashed into an empty field - the only one of four jets hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, that did not kill anyone on the ground.

There has been debate over whether the hijackers intended to crash it into the U.S. Capitol or the White House. But last week the Moussaoui jury heard a government-approved summary of statements made during interrogation of the captured mastermind of Sept. 11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who said it was to hit the Capitol.

Prosecutors asked the judge to order the tape and transcript kept sealed from the general public after it is played in open court, but Brinkema did not decide that question immediately.

Noting that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered trial evidence made public, she said relatives of Flight 93 victims would have until next Tuesday to advise her whether they object to general release of the material.

She said if no family members object, she will release the material to the general public the day after it is submitted into evidence. No date was set for that.

The sentencing trial of Moussaoui resumes Thursday morning. In the first phase, the jury unanimously found the 37-year-old Frenchman eligible for the death penalty on counts of conspiracy to commit international terrorism, to commit air piracy and to use weapons of mass destruction. The second phase will examine aggravating and mitigating evidence about his crimes, and the jury will decide whether he deserves to be executed or imprisoned for life for his role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

In an order describing a closed hearing Wednesday morning, Brinkema said the government's policy reason for wanting to keep the tape and transcript sealed from general release was "to protect the National Traffic Safety Board against premature public speculation regarding the cause of any airline crash so it may 'conduct a full and fair investigation.'" Brinkema said even prosecutors admitted in court that that reason "is not implicated in this sentencing proceeding."



Much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones. Earlier in the trial, prosecutor David Raskin transfixed the jury by reading accounts of the last moments of several of the Sept. 11 planes based on cell phone calls by passengers and flight attendants to family members and ground controllers.

A Hollywood movie re-enacting Flight 93 is to be released later this month.

Discussing general public release of the tape and transcript, Brinkema wrote, "The court is also mindful that family members of the flight crew or passengers on Flight 93 may object to the voices of their loved ones being publicly revealed in this manner."

Prosecutors began calling relatives of the victims Wednesday afternoon to advise them of the judge's decision.

Thursday is the only trial day this week. The sentencing's second phase begins then, with opening statements from both sides before any testimony is heard. The jury will return next week to its Monday-Thursday schedule. Phase 2 could last two weeks to two months.

The government will bring in testimony in an effort to prove that Moussaoui's victims suffered cruel physical abuse; that his acts resulted in "serious physical and emotional injuries, including maiming, disfigurement and permanent disability" for numerous survivors; and that his acts injured or harmed not only the victims but also their families, friends and co-workers.

Prosecutors intend to identify for the jury, by name and photograph, each of 2,972 victims and to call witnesses to tell the stories of about 45 victims. This sample will include victims from each of the four hijacked jetliners, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And it will cover the diversity of race, religion, economic status and occupations of victims as well as the range of people affected, including spouses, parents, children, siblings and friends.

Prosecutors also intend to show the harm the attacks did to New York's economy and public employees and to the Pentagon.

To make a case for life in prison, the court-appointed defense team wants to call a doctor to testify that Moussaoui is schizophrenic and to call sociologists to describe his impoverished childhood in France and the racism he encountered in France and England because of his Moroccan ancestry. They have yet to outline all the mitigating factors they hope to show.

To obtain a death penalty, the prosecution must prove at least one of three aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt: Moussaoui knowingly created a grave risk of death to one or more innocent bystanders; he subjected victims to serious physical abuse in a heinous and cruel way or relished the killing; or he acted to cause death or terrorism after substantial planning or premeditation.

That plus any other damage they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt would have to outweigh any mitigating evidence submitted on Moussaoui's behalf.

The words of the Clash track begin: "London calling to the faraway towns, now war is declared and battle come down." And Led Zep's Immigrant Song goes: "The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands, to fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!"

Mr Mann, of Hartlepool, Teesside, had boarded the plane at Durham Tees Valley Airport when the flight to Heathrow was stopped and he was arrested by police.

He said he was told he was being questioned under the Terrorism Act and his choice of music had aroused suspicions.

Mr Mann said yesterday: 'The taxi had one of those tape deck things that plugs into your digital music player.

"I played Procol Harum's Whiter Shade Of Pale first, which the taxi man liked. I figured he liked the classics so put on a bit of Led Zeppelin - Immigrant Song - which he didn't like. Then, since I was going to London, I played the song by The Clash and finished up with Nowhere Man by The Beatles."

Mr Mann said he was 'frog-marched off the plane in front of everyone, had my bags searched and was asked 'every question you can think of'.

He added: "It turned out the taxi driver alerted someone when I arrived at the airport and had spoken about my music. He didn't like Led Zep or The Clash but there was no need to tell the police."

Durham Police said the action was taken 'as a result of information received' and the flight was stopped before take-off.

Campaigners expressed their outrage yesterday at Charles Clarke's new law, which they say is yet another draconian attempt to crack down on legitimate protest under the guise of the war on terror. In October last year a protester in Whitehall was convicted for merely reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq. And at the Labour Party conference in September the Government suffered severe embarrassment when Walter Wolfgang, a veteran peace activist who survived the Nazis, was detained for heckling Jack Straw.

Mrs John and Mrs Boyes, who have 10 grandchildren between them, were held by Ministry of Defence police after walking 15ft across the sentry line at the United States military base at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire. They were held for 12 hours before being released on police bail. They will learn whether they are to face prosecution when they return to Harrogate police station on 15 April.

"We thought this was a really important issue and we just had to challenge it," said Mrs John, who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize last year. Mrs Boyes, who was cleared by a jury at Manchester Crown Court in 1999 of causing criminal damage to a British nuclear submarine, said: " I am quite willing to break the law and prepared to be charged and to go to prison. The Government thinks it can do whatever it wants and that it has a passive public which accepts whatever it throws at it. I find it very worrying."

The women, who have been arrested more than a dozen times between them, went equipped with a hammer and a small pair of bolt cutters as well as placards declaring their opposition to the new law. They had prepared statements denouncing United States military policy and expressing their support for the people of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands, who were evicted from their homes to make way for US military bases.

As well as Menwith Hill, the sites covered under the new law include Fylingdales, the early warning station on the North York Moors and the US air bases at Mildenhall and Lakenheath in East Anglia. From next week the powers will also cover three nuclear sites - Aldermaston in Berkshire, its research facility at neighbouring Burghfield and the Devonport naval base at Plymouth. The Government's decision suggests it is already preparing for the protests that would follow the expected decision to replace Trident with a new generation of nuclear weaponry.

Similar restrictions will be announced soon on selected non-military sites such as royal palaces and government buildings. The Ministry of Defence said the sites had been chosen because they had been the scene of regular protests. A spokeswoman said: "Persistent activity by protesters places them at risk of being mistaken for terrorists. It also unnecessarily diverts police resources ... People will still be allowed to protest outside sites. This legislation is about keeping police focused on the job they are paid to do."

Kate Hudson, who chairs the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: " The Government has a responsibility to safeguard its citizens - we would be the first to argue that. But there is a very fine line between protecting people and introducing legislation that is an infringement of civil liberties. In recent legislation the Government has got on the wrong side of that fine line."

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: "When does a peaceful protester become a trespasser? In a free society, when does he become a criminal? In Britain in 2006, only one man - the Home Secretary - will now decide instead of Parliament and the court. Just when our politicians lament the demise of participatory democracy they increasingly criminalise both free speech and protest."

Mrs John described the new law as a "kick in the teeth for the Magna Carta" and said the need for opponents of the Government to take direct action was greater now than ever. "We have seen two million people standing in Hyde Park and Tony Blair had no compunction in ignoring them. Even though there are huge numbers of people who oppose what the Government is doing, the only effective protests have been where direct action is taken. We have to demonstrate at the bases where the killing capacity exists - we have to attack it at source. These are the eyes and ears of the US war fighting machine and they are on our soil."

Before Mr Clarke's announcement military police only had the power to escort protesters off the military sites and prosecute them for civil trespass.

Gagging orders

John Catt

AGE: 81

CRIME?: Wearing an anti-Blair T-shirt in Brighton during the Labour conference.

WHAT HAPPENED: He was stopped under section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act as he walked towards the seafront for an anti-war demonstration outside the conference. His T-shirt accused Mr Blair and George Bush of war crimes. He was released after signing a form confirming he had been questioned. The police record said the purpose of the stop and search was "terrorism" and the official grounds for intervention were "carrying plackard + T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).

Walter Wolfgang

AGE: 82

CRIME?: Heckling Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, during his speech to the Labour Party conference.

WHAT HAPPENED: The veteran peace activist shouted "That's a lie" as Mr Straw justified keeping British troops in Iraq. He was manhandled by stewards out of his seat and ejected from the Brighton Centre. When he tried to re-enter he was briefly detained under Section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act. Amid the disastrous publicity, senior ministers, from Tony Blair down, apologised.

Maya Evans

AGE: 25

CRIME?: Protesting over British casualties in Iraq.

WHAT HAPPENED: Standing on the Cenotaph in Whitehall, she read out a list of soldiers killed in Iraq. She was arrested under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which requires police permission to make a protest within one kilometre of Parliament. She was given a conditional discharge after being found guilty. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, later denied that the prosecution was an "undue infringement" of individual liberties.

Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith

AGE: 37

CRIME?: Refusing to serve in Iraq.

WHAT HAPPENED: The RAF doctor served in Iraq twice, but refused to return for a third spell of duty last June. He argued that the military action was not justified as Iraq had not attacked the UK or one of its allies. He is being court-martialled, facing five charges of refusing to comply with an order. After a pre-trial hearing rejected his argument that the orders were unlawful, the court martial will open at Aldershot next week.

Brian Haw

AGE: 56

CRIME?: Maintaining an anti-war vigil outside Parliament.

WHAT HAPPENED: Mr Haw has become a permanent fixture in Parliament Square since June 2001, when he erected a series of placards berating Tony Blair and President George Bush. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, was designed mainly with his vigil in mind. But the High Court ruled that the legislation did not cover his protest as it could not be applied retrospectively. The Government is appealing against that decision.

The technology is being used by some insurance companies in Britain to screen telephone claims for fraud.

"We know that this could be uncomfortable for some passengers but it is a necessary step," said Vladimir Kornilov, the IT director for East Line, which operates the airport.

At first, only passengers deemed suspicious by the FSB, the security service that succeeded the KGB, will take the test. But it will eventually encompass all passengers.

"If a person fails, he is accompanied by a guard to a cubicle where he is asked questions in a more intense atmosphere," Mr Kornilov said.

The machine asks four questions. The first is for full identity, while the second, unnerving in its Soviet-style abruptness, demands: "Have you ever lied to the authorities?" It then asks if the passenger is carrying weapons or narcotics.

To cut delays to a minimum, passengers will take the test after putting their shoes and baggage through the X-ray machines and before retrieving them. Officials insist that it will take between 30 seconds and a minute.

Canada has doubts a new high-technology ID system for cross-border travellers will be finished by the end of 2007 and officials want an economic impact study on how much damage it might do to tourism and commerce, he said. If Canadian officials don't like the answers and think there will be implementation problems, they'll lobby Congress to delay plans to require a new card or passport from everyone entering the United States, he told a cross-border forum at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, speaking earlier in the day, called the security system a "work in progress" as he heralded a new era in Canada-U.S. relations under the Conservatives.

"I'm very optimistic about a new beginning," said Wilkins, who noted the government's throne speech reference this week to the United States as Canada's "best friend."

Wilkins said he is upbeat about potential negotiations on softwood lumber. Wilson agreed Wednesday it's time to get back to the bargaining table.

Nevertheless, it's clear there are still some other major challenges to smooth cross-border ties.

Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Canadians they better get used to the idea of carrying passports after President George W. Bush wouldn't back down from the plan adopted by Congress in light of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day will be holding meetings on the details of the U.S. plan with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

"It's very important that we get the answers and get them on a timely basis," said Wilson.

"Let's ensure that our border continues to bring us together rather than drive us apart."

It's possible, said Wilson, that Canada will devise a security card similar to the one U.S. officials are working on to incorporate proof of nationality.

"It could be identical. It could have the same information. It's too early to be precise."

That's certainly what U.S. officials are hoping will happen.

"That would really harmonize things at the border," said Jim Williams, director of the U.S.-VISIT program at Homeland Security.

Officials have also started to talk about sharing databases of information to check the identity of each other's residents, although they're concerned about privacy issues.

There's a lot of concern, said Williams, that there's so much misinformation and many people think they need passports right now.

"They probably won't need a passport or not for a long time," he said, adding so-called PASS cards may be a quicker way to clear border checks.

Other forms of ID already in place like Nexus cards will probably be acceptable, said Williams, who acknowledged it will be a tall order to have everything in place by Jan. 1, 2008.

"It is a very aggressive time frame. But I'm not planning for a delay."

Legislators and interest groups on both sides of the border have been intensely anxious about the plan, saying it will cost billions in lost revenue and enhanced driver's licences should do the trick.

Several U.S. legislators are proposing amendments to the U.S. plan.

North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan has been blocked so far from pushing changes that would exempt children 17 and younger, cap the cost of cards at $20 and provide for free day passes at border crossings when travellers haven't been able to obtain their ID in time.

"He's trying to put a common-sense package together," said spokesman Barry Piatt, "but he hasn't been able to get it introduced yet."

Wilkins was unapologetic about the measure.

"We're in a post 9-11 world. You can't have prosperity without security," he said.

"This is going to happen. Canada needs to get ready."

But without a study to understand the costs, it's like "standing in a dark room and throwing darts against the wall hoping we're successful," said Shirley-Ann George, a vice-president at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

And if the system doesn't work, "we're going to have trucks lined up at the border for miles."

Canada has another security concern: proposed U.S. legislation tightening security for cargo companies.

Wilson called the plan "worrisome."

"We don't think those decisions were taken with a full understanding of the amount of security that is in place now in Canada," he said.

"We have done a lot to track containers from the point of origin."

But the review reaffirmed the value of the so-called Talon reporting system on potential threats to Pentagon personnel or facilities by international terrorists, said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman. He said the Pentagon was putting in place new safeguards and oversight intended to prevent improper information from going in the database.

Whitman said "less than 2 percent" of the more than 13,000 database entries provided through the Talon system "should not have been there or should have been removed at a certain point in time."

Whitman disputed critics' assertions that the program amounted to Pentagon domestic spying, although he declined to state the nature of these entries or the people they involved, saying the database's contents are classified. Whitman stressed that to be properly placed in the database, a threat must have a suspected link to international terrorism.

Under the Talon system, Defense Department civilian and military personnel are asked to report on activities they deem suspicious. These reports go in the Cornerstone database, handled by a Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA.

The review was ordered in December by Stephen Cambone, under secretary of defense for intelligence, after revelations that the database included information on U.S. citizens including peace activists and others who did not represent a genuine security threat.

'SUSPICIOUS'

NBC News and defense analyst William Arkin disclosed at the time a sample of the database containing reports of 1,519 "suspicious incidents" between July 2004 and May 2005, including activities by antiwar and anti-military protesters.

This included a military intelligence unit monitoring a Quaker meeting in Lake Worth, Florida, on plans to protest military recruiting in high schools.

The Pentagon is legally restricted in the types of information it can gather about activities and individuals inside the United States.

A memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said the Talon system "has detected international terrorist interest in specific military bases and has led to and supported counterterrorism investigations." It called the data "unfiltered and non-validated potential threat information."

Whitman said data reported through Talon could be turned over the FBI or local law enforcement.

The Pentagon said it will conduct annual oversight reviews of the Talon program, designate supervisors to review each Talon report before submission to the database, and direct CIFA to review submissions to ensure they are proper.

Whitman said he did not know if the Pentagon had disciplined anyone for putting improper information in the database, but was "not aware of any malicious or deliberate attempts" to use the Talon system against a specific person or group.

Some critics have noted similarities in the Pentagon's activities during the Iraq War and those of the Vietnam War period, when it spied on antiwar activists.

"If the Pentagon has been collecting information improperly on Americans, it should provide a full accounting of what kind of information it collected, on whom and why, subject only perhaps to protecting the privacy of individuals," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties group interested in government surveillance.

Alas, we likely won't know details until the judge decides to release them.

Even if the documents prove everything that EFF claims, it's not a slam dunk for the group.

The state secrets privilege, outlined by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case, permits the government to derail a lawsuit that might otherwise lead to the disclosure of military secrets.

In 1998, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals elaborated on the state secret privilege in a case where former workers at the Air Force's classified Groom Lake, Nev., facility alleged hazardous waste violations. When requested by the workers' lawyers to turn over information, the Air Force refused.

The 9th Circuit upheld a summary judgment on behalf of the Air Force, saying that once the state secrets "privilege is properly invoked and the court is satisfied as to the danger of divulging state secrets, the privilege is absolute" and the case will generally be dismissed.

That "absolute privilege" case is still good law and is binding on the judge that will hear EFF's case.

Under the plan, all of the nation's plutonium would be consolidated into a single facility that could be more effectively and cheaply defended against possible terrorist attacks. The plan would remove the plutonium kept at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by 2014, though transfers of the material could start sooner. In recent years, concern has grown that Livermore, surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the Bay Area, could not repel a terrorist attack.

But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium stores and from those who say restarting bomb production would encourage aspiring nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons.

The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino, head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department. Though the weapons proposal would restore the capacity to make new bombs, D'Agostino said it was part of a larger effort to accelerate the dismantling of aging bombs left from the Cold War.

D'Agostino acknowledged in an interview that the administration was walking a fine line by modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons program while assuring other nations that it was not seeking a new arms race. The credibility of the contention rests on the U.S. intent to sharply reduce its inventory of weapons.

The administration is also quickly moving ahead with a new nuclear bomb program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and make them more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in a design competition.

The U.S. built its last nuclear weapon in 1989 and last tested a weapon underground in 1992. Since the Cold War, the nation has had massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to deter potential attacks. By contrast, it would increasingly rely on the capability to build future bombs for deterrence, D'Agostino said.

The blueprint calls for a modern complex to design a new nuclear bomb and have it ready in less than four years, allowing the nation to respond to changing military requirements. Similar proposals in the past, such as for a nuclear bomb to attack underground bunkers, provoked concern that they undermined U.S. policy to stop nuclear proliferation.

The impetus for the plan is a growing belief that efforts to maintain older nuclear bombs and keep up a large nuclear weapons industrial complex are technically and financially unsustainable. Last year, a task force led by San Diego physicist David Overskei recommended that the Energy Department consolidate the system of eight existing weapons complexes into one site.

Overskei said Wednesday that the cost of security alone for the current infrastructure of plants over the next two decades was roughly $25 billion. Security costs have grown, because the Sept. 11 attacks have led the Energy Department to believe terrorists could mount a larger and better armed strike force.

Peter Stockton, a former Energy Department security consultant who is now an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, criticized the plutonium consolidation plan in House testimony, saying it would delay the difficult work too far into the future. Stockton added in an interview that the plutonium transfer at Livermore could be accomplished in a few months.

Until now, Livermore lab officials have sharply disagreed with the idea of removing plutonium from their site, saying it was essential to their work. On Wednesday, a lab spokesman said the issue was "far less controversial" and the "decision rests in Washington."

The Bush plan, described at a hearing of the strategic subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, would consolidate much of the weapons capacity, but not as completely or quickly as outside critics would like.

The overall plan would not be fully implemented until 2030.

A crucial part of restarting U.S. nuclear bomb production involves so-called plutonium pits, hollow spheres surrounded by high explosives. The pits start nuclear fission and trigger the nuclear fusion in a bomb.

The plutonium pits were built at the Energy Department's former Rocky Flats site near Denver until the weapons plant was shut down in 1989 after it was found to have violated environmental regulations.

In recent years, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has tried to start limited production of plutonium pits and hopes to build a certified pit that will enter the so-called war reserve next year. Los Alamos would be producing about 30 to 50 pits per year by 2012, but the Energy Department said that was not enough to sustain the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

In his testimony, D'Agostino estimated plutonium pits would last 45 to 60 years, after which they would be unreliable and might result in an explosion smaller than intended. Critics outside the government sharply dispute that conclusion, saying there is no evidence that pits degrade over time and that the nation can keep an adequate nuclear deterrent by maintaining its existing weapons.