SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?

Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people - on the contrary.

With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy.

SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?

Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.

SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.

Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.

SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?

Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends.

SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?

Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality - notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.

SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years?

Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken.

Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.

SPIEGEL: Is complete victory, as demanded by the president, actually possible?

Brzezinski: That depends on your definition of victory. If we act intelligently and form the necessary coalitions, the appeal of terrorism may diminish and limit its capacity to find sympathizers or even would-be martyrs. Then it will probably gradually fade away. If, however, we envision victory as the equivalent of a Hitler shooting himself in the bunker, that will not happen. This is precisely why the whole analogy with the war is so misleading. It is not helpful for making the public understand that we are dealing with a long-term problem in a very volatile region, the solution of which depends on mobilizing moderate forces and isolating fanatics.

SPIEGEL: What advantages does President Bush see in his war rhetoric?

Brzezinski: First of all it helped him get reelected - a nation at war does not dismiss its commander in chief. Secondly it enhances his ability to exercise his executive powers on a scale no other president before him has done. This of course brings risks with it, such as the infringement of civil rights. And, it gives him the claim that he can use the U.S. Armed Forces as he wishes, even without congressional sanction involving a declaration of war.

MORE FROM SPIEGEL SPECIAL
DER SPIEGEL

SPIEGEL special No. 6/2006 - International Edition

September 11, 2001
Five Years Later

* Order your copy now

SPIEGEL: Is there an inherent danger for democracy?

Brzezinski: In the long run, yes. However, democracy is ingrained so deeply in the psyche and fabric of American society that such a threat could only arise if such a president were able to implement such policies over a prolonged period of time. But Bush cannot be reelected. Therefore it will all be over in two and a half years.

SPIEGEL: European politicians have never accepted the concept of a war on terror. Furthermore, there are fierce differences concerning interrogation techniques or prison camps such as Guantanamo. Given such diverse opinions, how can the United States and Europe cooperate at all?

Brzezinski: This is exactly what makes it so difficult to deal with the problem collectively. However, realistically one also has to take into consideration that there is, in a quiet way, extensive cooperation, especially among our police forces. But precisely this cooperation reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an operation against criminal behavior. Although I share Europe's criticism about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the mistreatment and even torture of prisoners, Europeans should in their indignation not lose sight of their own past - not the Germans, but also not the French, who have had extensive experience in the Algerian war.

SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States extricate itself from its own trap?

Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don't go, are probably the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have.

SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind?

Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves, it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East.

SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway.

Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor.

SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more violent than it is already.

Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated violence in their country much better than Americans from several thousand kilometers away.

SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there is an initial escalation of violence?

Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial tutelage to resolve their problems.

SPIEGEL: In reality, isn't the president worried that Iraq will fail to become the model democracy he envisages after the Americans have left?

Brzezinski: That's for sure, and therefore any attempt to seek his definition of victory is pure fantasy. Still, there will be a government dominated by Kurds and Shiites, and some Sunni elements. That in itself is already an improvement compared to the regime of Saddam Hussein and therefore at least a partial success.

SPIEGEL: Are you sure that a religious civil war can still be prevented?

Brzezinski: Of course I cannot be sure. But was de Gaulle sure when he decided that it would be fine for France to end the Algerian war? Everybody around him warned him of the terrible consequences of his decision.

SPIEGEL: Are you not afraid that such a religious conflict could ignite the whole region?

Brzezinski: Quite the contrary. The longer we stay the more likely it will ignite. The fact is that we have been there for three years and the situation today is a lot worse than it was then. At least logically, there is some evidence to support my proposition.

SPIEGEL: Bush presented the "axis of evil" to the world. Did he not make it all too easy for himself by simply attacking the least dangerous part of this axis?

Brzezinski: Yes, Iraq was not dangerous. North Korea and Iran seem to presently be very calculating. However, Iran is a genuinely historic nation that has to play an important role in the region. My guess is that Iran will find some form of accommodation with the rest of the world, at least easier to achieve than for North Korea.

SPIEGEL: If negotiations with Iran fail, will America intervene militarily?

Brzezinski: There are some members of the administration who favor that. However, in view of the experiences in Iraq I consider it more likely that the government, together with its allies, will impose significant sanctions, which then have to be given a few years to show effects, which makes it highly unlikely that Bush will be the one to undertake such a dangerous course of action.

SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of such an attack?

Brzezinski: The Iranians have a number of options open to them. Among them is the destabilization of Iraq and the western part of Afghanistan as well as the everpresent option of activating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They could cut down oil production, damage the Saudi oil production and threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz - with all the devastating consequences for the world economy. They could of course also accelerate the production of weapons of mass destruction, which then quite possibly would lead to renewed and more comprehensive military attacks - a vicious circle.

SPIEGEL: You said that the United States needs solid European counsel to avoid an unrealistic view of the world. Is Europe even in the position to give such counsel?

Brzezinski: In the Middle East, the United States is unintentionally slipping into the role of a colonial power, repetitive of extensive European experiences. A combination of self-interest, a sense of mission and an arrogant ignorance resulted in Americans doing what they do right now. Because Britain and France have had the same experiences in the past, they have a better sense for the fact that the American course in the Middle East is a political mistake and, in the long run, also dangerous for America. In the short run, it damages America's principles and its international legitimacy.

SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that this is the kind of advice the British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivers to Bush?

Brzezinski: It is what he should deliver. But I think the British made a decision after the Suez crisis in 1956 to never again collide with the United States and to achieve an alternative source of global influence by becoming America's closest partner.

SPIEGEL: There is fear in Europe that Bush could return to unilateralism should he regain his freedom of action in foreign policy.

Brzezinski: For that, he would miraculously have to achieve his phantom-like victory. But that recedes ever farther. It is exactly like it was with the Soviets, who used to insist that the victory of socialism was just over the horizon, overlooking the fact that the horizon is an imaginary line which recedes farther as you walk towards it. Moreover, in two and a half years he will no longer be president, and no successor will want to embrace the slogans and demagoguery of the past three years.

SPIEGEL: Are there any conditions under which America could lose its current political supremacy?

Brzezinski: One would only have to continue the current policies and, also, in future not give a serious response to increasingly louder complaints of global inequality. We are now dealing with a far more politically active mankind that demands a collective response to their grievances from the West.

SPIEGEL: Is your demand to eradicate global inequality not as illusionary as Bush's demand that America free the world from evil?

Brzezinski: Achieving equality would indeed be an illusionary goal. Reducing inequality in the age of television and Internet may well become a political necessity. We are entering a historic stage in which people in China and India, but also in Nepal, in Bolivia or Venezuela will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition. That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the next decades.

SPIEGEL: You call it a "global political awakening."

Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world.

SPIEGEL: The Islamic countries as well?

Brzezinski: Not really in the same way. It is a turbulent, multi-directional process which, however, is a challenge to global stability. If the United States, Europe and Japan, but also China, Russia and India cannot find a mechanism for effective global collaboration, we will slide into a growing global chaos, which will be fatal to American leadership. Therefore I consider the American leadership role vulnerable, but irreplaceable in the foreseeable future.

SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, thank you for speaking with us.

The interview was conducted by Hans Hoyng and Georg Mascolo.

"Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear-armed Middle East."

Kissinger wrote that the big threat lay in the erosion of nation states and the emergence of transnational groups.
Iran was at the centre of the challenge, he said, with its support for Hezbollah, radical Shiite groups in Iraq and its nuclear program.

Washington must accept that many European nations were more optimistic about talks designed to convince Iran to halt uranium enrichment -- a process Tehran denies is aimed at making weapons, he wrote.

But in return, he said, Europe should accept the process must include a "bottom line" beyond which diplomatic flexibility must not go and a time limit to ensure talks did not become a shield for "developing new assaults."

In the article, Kissinger, national security adviser for former president Richard Nixon, and secretary of state for Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford, warned the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah was still dangerous, after its month-long conflict with Israel.

"Hezbollah's next move is likely to be an attempt to dominate the Beirut government by intimidation and, using the prestige gained in the war, manipulating democratic procedures," he said.

He concluded by noting that observers wondered whether, after the Cold War, trans-Atlantic ties could survive the loss of a common enemy.

"We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe. It cannot be done alone by either side of the Atlantic. Is that realization sufficient to regenerate a common purpose?"

Blair, accused by critics of being Bush's poodle who slavishly follows Washington's line, sought to stifle a revolt in his ruling Labour Party last week by promising to quit within a year after almost 10 years in office.

His popularity has tumbled in opinion polls after government scandals over sleaze and mismanagement were compounded by controversy over the wars in Iraq and Lebanon.

As he did during the Iraq War, he sided squarely with Washington over the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas, angering Arab nations and European allies by refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.

Responding to those who have criticized the White House, Blair said in his pamphlet: "The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved."

"We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them," he added.

Laying out his vision for countering extremists, he said: "We need to construct an alliance of moderation that paints a future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian, Arab and Western, wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other."

Blair, returning from a trip to the Middle East, said the stand-off between Israel and the Palestinians remains "a -- perhaps the -- genuine source of anger in the Arab and Muslim world, going far beyond anti-Western feeling."

"The issue of even-handedness rankles deeply," he acknowledged.

Blair pledged to making Middle East "an absolute priority for the rest of my time in office."

But analysts believe his efforts are unlikely to break the logjam there, nor restore his reputation. His trip smacked of an attempt to burnish his reputation as his career draws to a close, they argue.

"He is not as instrumental as he needs to be, or would like to believe he is," said Rosemary Hollis, a Middle East expert at British think-tank Chatham House.

US Rep. Rothman actually had indicated his support since March of 2006, but a clerical error led to his name not being listed until late last week, the Congressman's Communications Director, Kimberly Allen, told Atlanta Progressive News. This would be a second time a clerical error has occurred related to this bill.

US Rep. Rothman recently pledged his support at a constituent panel on leaving Iraq, "If Not Now, When?"

"The only body that has the power to impeach the president is the House of Representatives. The effort, if I may be so bold, is to take back the House," US Rep. Rothman said, according to The Bergen Record Newspaper of New Jersey.

"Rothman, building on one audience member's suggested metaphor, likened the war, and its aim of finding weapons of mass destruction that were never recovered, to an unresolved car theft," The Bergen Record said.

"Imagine if you will, if the police and prosecutor, they refuse to charge you with a crime," Rothman said, according to The Bergen Record. "You did it, but they refuse to charge you. What do we do as a society? We replace the police and the prosecutor."

"This November, you can get a new prosecutor and a new police force and charge with a crime and have a trial... We will hold all those hearings, including one in which we look at whether an impeachable offense occurred," US Rep. Rothman said, according to The Bergen Record.

"A number in the audience were very passionate that President Bush should be impeached. They even went so far as to say that he was responsible for war crimes ... and what would I do about it," Rep. Rothman said according to The News-Leader Newspaper in New Jersey.

"Having served on the House Judiciary Committee when President Clinton was going to be impeached for having sex with someone other than his spouse ... that was, in my opinion, an abuse of power and a violation of our Founding Fathers who allowed for an impeachment only for treason, high crimes or other misdemeanors," Rothman said, according to The News-Leader. "I'm reluctant to join any frivolous effort to impeach President Bush without clear evidence of bribery, treason or high crimes or misdemeanors."

"The president's Republican majority said they will not convene any such hearings in regards to President Bush. A number of us in Congress supported the holding of hearings to determine if there was evidence for an impeachment hearing," Rep. Rothman said according to The News-Leader.

9% of US Congress now supports the impeachment review, including 18% of Democrats, 100% of Independents (1 out of 1), and 0% of Republicans.

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (9), New York (6), Illinois (3), Massachusetts (3), Minnesota (3), Georgia (2), New Jersey (2), and Wisconsin (2).

The current 38 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR).

An Atlanta Progressive News analysis has found that, interestingly, 30 of the 38 total co-sponsors are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. However, only 30 of the 62 members of the Caucus have signed on.

Atlanta Progressive News is calling out the other 32 self-described progressives who have not signed on. They are Reps. Becerra, Bordallo, Corrine Brown, Sherrod Brown, Carson, Cristenson, Cleaver, Cummings, DeFazio, DeLauro, Evans, Frank, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Tubbs Jones, Kaptur, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lantos, Markey, McGovern, Miller, Holmes-Norton, Pastor, Rush, Serrano, Slaughter, Thompson, Udall, Watson, Watt, and Waxman.

In the US Senate, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John Kerry (D-MA), and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are currently the three co-sponsors of US Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill, S. Res 398, to censure President Bush. US Sen. Menendez told Atlanta Progressive News recently that several Senators are closely considering the censure resolution.

In the last couple months, there have not been any new cosponsors to either resolution. The most recent activity involves US Rep. Rothman's cosponsoring of H. Res 635; although his office is characterizing Rothman's position on an impeachment review as not new.

Atlanta Progressive News has provided near-exclusive-and during many times, exclusive-coverage of the progress of H. Res 635.

A few months ago, H. Res 635 was discovered by the corporate media.

While the corporate media has yet to give serious treatment to the grounds for an impeachment review, they have given voice to Republican scare tactics that, "Oh no, if Democrats take back the House, it will be impeachment hearings!" we paraphrase.

US Rep. Conyers has been in an ideological tug of war in the meantime.

Many progressives have criticized Conyers for not doing enough, saying the time has come for outright impeachment proceedings.

One commenter on ConyersBlog accused the Congressman of essentially appeasing progressives with his bill to make it look like something was being done about Bush's apparent lies, even accusing Conyers of being a secret agent of Republicans.

Meanwhile, Republicans have highlighted Conyers's likely upcoming promotion to US House Judiciary Committee Chairman as part of their fundraising efforts, while current Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has distanced herself from the impeachment movement as much as possible.

"There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power," US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

"The Atlanta Progressive News has reported regularly on this bill," Conyers wrote on ConyersBlog.

On the local level, impeachment resolutions have been passing in more and more US cities.

At least twelve (20) US cities, including Arcata, Berkeley, Fairfax, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Sebastopol, each in California; Brookline, Massachussetts; Hanover, New Hampshire; New Paltz, Plattsburg, and Woodstock in New York; Carrboro and Chapel Hill in North Carolina; and Battleboro, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, Putney, and Rockingham, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush's impeachment or an impeachment investigation, according to ImpeachPAC.

State Assembly Resolutions are also being considered in California, Illinois, and Vermont, either of which would force the issue to be considered in the US House according to The Jefferson Manual.

At least three members of Congress are prepared to sign Articles of Impeachment if they were to be introduced, sources tell Atlanta Progressive News. One of them is US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), according to a radio interview he did. His press office later tried to spin this, saying of course Rep. Lewis meant it would only be introduced if it went through a proper investigation.

Conyers's bill was initially referred to the US House Rules Committee, which has not taken action. None of the US House Democrats on the Rules Committee have signed on as co-sponsors. The Ranking Democrat on the Committee is US Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Democratic members of the Committee are Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Doris Matsui (D-CA), and James McGovern (D-MA). Republicans currently outnumber Democrats on the committee by about a two-to-one ratio.

The US House Rules Committee would need to take action on H. Res 635 because it calls for the creation of a Select Committee, in other words the creation of a new committee that is not a standing committee, Jonathan Godfrey, Communications Director for US Rep. Conyers, told Atlanta Progressive News. Such a Committee would need to be staffed, Godfrey noted.

If not acted on this session, the bill would have to be reintroduced next session. It is possible a new bill could include new language regarding Bush's approval of illegal NSA domestic wiretapping.

For now, however, sources in Washington DC tell Atlanta Progressive News that H. Res 635 is a venue for coalition among members of Congress who are willing to consider impeachment for a variety of reasons.

Even though H. Res 635 does not specifically reference the NSA domestic wiretapping issue, some Members of US Congress have found the wiretapping issue a compelling reason to sign on as a co-sponsor, sources say.

In other words, why introduce separate legislation to address a single issue when momentum has been built with H. Res 635?

The thing about H. Res. 635 is, it deals with impeaching Bush over a cluster of issues from misleading the public to go to war, to authorizing torture. Wiretapping was not listed as one of the reasons to investigate the grounds for Bush's impeachment in the bill because the existence of the secret, illegal wiretapping had not come to light yet when the bill was being prepared.

US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) withdrew her name from H. Res 635 at the end of January 2006, whereas she had been listed as a cosponsor throughout January 2006. Lofgren cited a clerical error for her name having been listed in the first place. Lofgren's Office told Atlanta Progressive News the Representative learned of her being listed as a co-sponsor after reading an exclusive article by Atlanta Progressive News issued January 01, 2006.

Atlanta Progressive News will continue to follow this story and any related developments. We have a juicy related scoop to be revealed soon.

Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor and National Correspondent for Atlanta Progressive News. He may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

Ian Swayze told Ontario Superior Court yesterday of the teen's pattern of violent behaviour, including aggression with knives and fire, threats to bomb a school and kill other students, and deliberate destruction of public property.

These "explosions of anger" are not out of character, but rather "a cascade towards a terrible event . . . a path towards disaster," Dr. Swayze testified at the teen's sentencing hearing.

The young man was convicted of first-degree murder in the 2003 death of his 12-year-old brother, who was found in a basement crawl space in their east-end Toronto home with 71 wounds from stabbing, hacking and cutting. Another teen, now 18, was convicted of manslaughter for the crime.

The Globe and Mail

Neither can be named by law, as both were under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. The victim is known only as Johnathan.

They were found guilty in February, 2005, after their second trial (the first ended in a mistrial). This hearing will determine whether the teens will be sentenced as adults.

The pair sat quietly in the Toronto courtroom as Dr. Swayze, a court-appointed psychiatrist from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, outlined his psychiatric assessment. His conclusions were based on the 19-year-old's records and five hours of interviews between April and August of this year.

"[He] has anti-social, pro-criminal, psychopathic traits," Dr. Swayze said.

He told Mr. Justice David McCombs that the teen -- wearing glasses, a grey suit jacket, crisp white shirt and red pants -- showed no remorse and had a "cavalier disregard" for his actions. Dr. Swayze added that the teen is "angry with the world in general, that he's the perceived, or real, victim of injustices . . . "

The 19-year-old also scored high on psychological tests measuring anti-social behaviour and psychopathic characteristics, warranting the diagnosis of "psychopath," Dr. Swayze said.

"[He] is rampant with impulsivity. . . his ability to contain his behaviour is dismal," he told the court.

The teen has also had a pattern of alcohol abuse, the psychiatrist said, noting he had been drinking a bottle-and-a-half of wine around the time of the murder. He also told the court the teen struggled academically, and was frequently absent from school. Dr. Swayze also said the teen stole from his parents and was a pathological liar.

"Stories change depending on who's asking, and when they're asking," he said.

However, Dr. Swayze said the teen's behaviour in custody has improved. But, he told the court, it was mainly due to the strict rules and contained environment.

"If he had access to the community, he would be expressing those behaviours," he said, and recommended therapy, detention and close supervision.

The hearing continues today.

Critics warned that allowing sensitive financial information to be viewed by all public bodies would leave it wide open to identity fraud. And pensioners who take stands against soaring council tax bills by refusing to pay could have their rights to pension credit withdrawn.

Data-sharing powers would also allow the electoral roll to be used to police the ID card database - allowing residents to be fined up to £2,500 for not registering their name or address.

Data protection laws - which are supposed to safeguard individuals' rights to information held about them - will be changed to force the moves through.

Ministers want the changes in place by April next year. The plans would see a massive sharing of all state databases including the electoral roll, benefits records and information collected by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency - but taxpayer, medical and criminal records would be exempt.

MPs and civil liberties campaigners condemned the moves as a further erosion of individual's privacy by the Big Brother state. The plans were published yesterday in a blandly-worded 'vision statement' by Lord Falconer's Department for Constitutional Affairs.

The document says civil servants and council workers must 'fully understand that the Data Protection Act is not a barrier to appropriate information sharing'.

The Government insisted the database would help people moving house avoid contacting local authority, driving licence and the Inland Revenue separately because records would be updated automatically.

Information should be routinely shared 'to expand opportunities for the most disadvantaged, fight crime and provide better services' and in other instances 'where it is in the public interest'.

Constitutional Affairs Minister Baroness Ashton said the Government was 'committed to more information sharing between public sector organisations and service providers'.

But Ministers have already made inroads into individual freedoms, including the creation of a £200 million Children's Index which will create a file containing information on the health and education of every child in England and Wales.

A report last month warned that a database holding the personal details on ten million children will hand a 'dangerous weapon' to paedophiles.

The Valuation Office Agency is building a detailed property database of every home - including information on conservatories, scenic views and gardens - in preparation for the shake-up of council tax.

Microchips are being fitted in household dustbins by councils to pave the way for a new rubbish tax, imposed on householders who do not meet recycling targets.

And the DVLA was criticised this year after it emerged it had sold the driving licence details of more than 100,000 motorists to private firms. But Simon Davies of Privacy International said the plans were 'alarming', adding: 'Who will decide what is in the public interest?'

Gareth Crossman, policy director of Liberty, said: 'The Government seems set on moving from a situation where information is not shared unless there is a reason to do so, towards one where information will be shared unless there is a reason not to. 'This is an information free-for-all which is very worrying.' Shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary Oliver Heald said: 'Step by step, the Government is logging details of every man, woman and child - and their home - in "Big Brother" computers. For all of Labour's talk of human rights, it's clear their state inspectors have little respect for people's privacy.

'There is a case for Government agencies to share data to tackle crime and prevent fraud. But I fear the wholesale weakening of Data Protection laws will merely be used as a sinister excuse for bureaucrats to snoop in people's homes and Gordon Brown to increase taxes by stealth.'

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID campaign, said: 'From now on, you can assume that anything you tell to an official or public servant will not only go on your record, but be passed on to anyone at all in "the public interest" - which has already been neatly redefined to mean 'official convenience'.

'How many thousands of officials will now have free rein to snoop on your personal, business and children's lives?'

"For now, I will only say there is one suspect who is dead following the arrival of the first police on the scene," said Delorme.

Police killed the shooter, Delorme said. "I can confirm that there is another suspect," he added, giving no further details.

After the press conference, Radio-Canada reported that a young woman not included in the police toll had died on the scene.

Delorme said 20 victims were in hospital following the shooting. Three had serious injuries, he said.

"At 12:41 pm (1641 GMT), an individual penetrated the establishment and opened fire in different places," said Delorme. "Some minutes later, around 12:44 pm, police arrived on the scene to intervene. The police acted quickly, which limited the damage."

Authorities evacuated an adjacent commercial skyscraper and its retail center, in which witnesses said they heard the gunfire, television networks reported.

According to LCN television, a man in a trench coat, armed with an automatic weapon, entered the school cafeteria and began shooting.

Television images showed frightened students running as they were evacuated from the building and one person being carried out on a stretcher.

"We were in class. We heard gunshots, a couple of gunshots. We heard a bunch of girls yelling. I opened the door, I saw a bunch of people running, I closed it, then the teacher came. He locked the door and then said something major was going on in the other room. At a certain point, the lights went off. We heard several gunshots, a dozen maybe," student Daniel Harrosh, 17, told AFP.

"I saw the gunman who was dressed in black and at that time he was shooting at people. It was probably one of the most frightening moments of my life," another student at the college, Michel Boyer, told CTV television.

One of the suspects was described by witnesses as a man in his 20s, wearing a Mohawk haircut and armed with an AK-47.

A spokeswoman for the city's general hospital, Ann Lynch, said that 11 victims had been admitted. Of those six were critical, but two had stablized.

At least two other city hospital accepted victims, Lynch added.

Montreal Mayor Gerald Tremblay described the incident as a "very unhappy event," but also one that was "isolated."

Quebec Premier Jean Charest said that the whole province was "distressed" by news of the shooting.

"All of Quebec is distressed," he said, expressing "deep sorrow for the victims, the families, for the parents who have children studying at Dawson and who must have lived a very difficult day, a day of great anxiety," he told reporters.

The shooting recalled the so-called Montreal Massacre on December 6, 1989, at Montreal's engineering school Ecole Polytechnique.

In that incident, an enraged gunman, Marc Lepine, killed 14 female students before killing himself.

Kimveer Gill, who is believed to be the man who shot a young woman to death and wounded 19 other people, was the author of an online diary posted at the website vampirefreaks.com.

Gill, 25, arrived at Dawson College dressed entirely in black, wearing a trench coat and carrying an automatic gun when he opened fire.

Of the 19 people injured, at least six were reported in critical condition Thursday morning. Montreal police said the victims ranged in age from 17 to 48.

On Thursday, police identified the dead student as Anastasia De Souza, an 18-year-old woman from Montreal. Published reports said De Souza was a student at Dawson College.

Chaos on campus

Investigators with Montreal police's Major Crimes Unit and with the Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police force, spent the night picking through the crime scene to collect forensic evidence, and piece together what happened Wednesday afternoon.

Eyewitnesses say they saw a tall, Goth-looking man in a long black coat drive up near the college on Maisonneuve Street in a black Pontiac Sunfire at around 12:30 p.m. He got out of his car, opened the trunk and removed a rifle.

The gunman walked toward the college's southwest entrance, firing randomly, said witnesses, who saw him shoot at least one person outside. The man then walked into the college, gripping the rifle. Police say the first gunshots were heard at 12:41 p.m.

It was lunchtime and the school was packed when the gunman entered through the main doors and headed to the cafeteria. "He was shooting randomly," said Dawson student Michel Boyer, who witnessed the gunfire. "I'm not sure who he was shooting at, but the [cafeteria] atrium was completely cleared."

Chaos ensued, said Boyer. "The adrenaline was rushing. It was like something from a movie. It was completely unbelievable and incredible."

The first police officers were on the scene within three minutes, said Montreal police chief Yvan Delorme. By coincidence, they had been called to the college on an unrelated drug investigation.

Officers with guns drawn rushed into the building, at which point witnesses reported hearing more shots fired. Montreal police confirmed that the officers exchanged gunfire with the suspect, and that the suspect was hit by at least one officer.

Police said the gunman died during the shootout, but backed away from a claim Wednesday night that the suspect was killed by police.

"We know that shots were fired, both by this man and the police," said Sûreté du Québec spokesman François Doré.

An autopsy is expected to confirm the cause of death.

Panic in the streets

Pandemonium broke out inside the college and on surrounding streets minutes after the shooting began.

Hundreds of students poured out of the school, running with their heads covered. Many were crying and yelling into their cellphones, and several people fleeing the scene had blood stains on their clothes.

People collapsed on nearby streets as they tried to flee, and some of those lying on the ground were trampled by others as they ran away.

While hundreds of students sought refuge at nearby Concordia University, others hid for as long as three hours, until police with dogs escorted them out to safety.

Eyewitness Andrew Galle said he emerged from Dawson College's campus radio station to a gruesome scene. "There was glass everywhere, and a big pile of blood, with tracks out the front door and outside the school itself."

Police officers were seen dragging a bloody body out of the school about 45 minutes after the first gunshots were heard. They rested the body next to a patrol car and threw a sheet over the corpse. Police confirmed Wednesday night that the body was that of the gunman.

Officers then searched the school, floor by floor and room by room, amid initial fears that there might have been be a second gunman. The school was declared empty about three hours after the first shots were heard.

Police say it will take weeks before they can assemble a complete account of what happened. Investigators worked through Wednesday night examining the crime scene.

They also searched Gill's car and his residence in Fabreville, a borough in Laval north of Montreal on Thursday morning, searching for evidence.

Neighbours told CBC Radio that Gill lived with his parents in the house.

Gunman said he was "Ready for Action"

In his profile on vampirefreaks.com, a website devoted to Goth culture, Gill called himself "Trench," and wrote: "You will come to know him as the Angel of Death."

"Work sucks ... School sucks ... Life sucks ... What else can I say?" he wrote. "Metal and Goth kick ass. Life is like a video game, you gotta die sometime."

A photo gallery accompanying the profile includes pictures of Gill brandishing a Beretta CX4 Storm semi-automatic rifle. In the last seven photos, he is wearing a black trench coat and holding the rifle. The caption below the last photo reads, "Ready for Action."

Dawson College, where the shooting occurred, is closed until Monday. About 10,000 students attend the junior college, which offers a two-year pre-university program or a three-year technical program.