Leaders of the ruling junta said the action was taken to maintain peace and order in the country, which saw tanks roll into Bangkok streets late Tuesday while Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was in New York.

The announcement came as Thai schools, government offices and the stock market re-opened Thursday for the first time since the coup.

The coup was led by Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratglin, who said he will act as Thailand's leader until his self-described Council of Administrative Reform appoints a new interim prime minister. Sondhi said that would happen within two weeks, and that full elections would be held next year.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who is deeply revered in Thailand, has endorsed Sondhi.

Thaksin arrived in London on Wednesday from the United States, where he had been attending the United Nations General Assembly debate. He called Thursday for speedy elections.

In a statement released Thursday, Thaksin said he would be enjoying a well-deserved rest. He called for speedy elections, and for all parties to work together for national reconciliation.

It was not known whether Thaksin planned to stay in London, where he has a residence, or return to Thailand.

Junta leaders questioned two of Thaksin's cabinets ministers on Thursday and said other members of the former government have been "invited" to answer questions.

On Thursday, The Nation newspaper published a "watch list" of 100 politicians, business people and others close to Thaksin who could be investigated.

"This is a national problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales said during a Senate Banking Committee hearing. "We need to figure out a way to have ISPs retain data for a sufficient period of time that would allow us to go back and retrieve it."

As the November election approaches, politicians have been devoting an unprecedented amount of attention to the topic of children, pornography and the Internet: At least three committees are holding hearings on the subject this week alone.

One committee even enlisted an outside-the-Beltway celebrity, basketball icon Shaquille O'Neal. Shaq appeared on videotape before the Senate Commerce Committee, and said: "I've seen images that make me very sad, I've seen images that make me very mad...Yeah, I'm mad, very mad, senator." (O'Neal is a spokesman for the Safe Surfin' Foundation, a federally funded nonprofit group.)

It's unclear what the prospects are for mandatory data retention in Congress this year, or whether politicians will delay action until 2007. One senior House Republican drafted a bill (click for PDF) but then backed away from it, and a Democratic proposal (click for PDF) has not been voted on.

But with the Bush administration firmly behind the concept, and with state and local law enforcement lending a hand in the lobbying efforts and saying such mandates would help protect children, industry groups and privacy advocates may be hard-pressed to head off new regulations. During Tuesday morning's appearance, for instance, Gonzales favorably cited a June letter (click for PDF) endorsing mandatory data retention that was signed by 49 attorneys general. The letter said: "It is clear that something must be done to ensure that ISPs retain data for a reasonable period of time."

Myriad suggestions


Sen. John McCain, who presided over the afternoon hearing, scolded Internet companies who "were invited to participate and chose not to." He said he would talk to Sen. Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, about scheduling an additional hearing during which the companies would be grilled.

Montana Sen. Conrad Burns, a Republican, used the hearing to tout a proposal, now tacked onto a mammoth communications bill and awaiting a vote, that would require all sexually explicit Web content to be labeled as such and home pages of all sites to be free of such content.

That measure, he said, "will help children from unwittingly stumbling across these words and images online."

Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, echoed Gonzales' calls for ISPs to hang onto customer records. "Some companies have policies on retention, but they vary widely, are not implemented consistently, and frankly, most are too short to have meaningful prosecutorial value," he said.

Data retention legislation could follow one of two approaches, and it's not clear which is more likely.

One form could require Internet providers and perhaps social-networking sites and search engines to record for a year or two which IP address is used by which user. The other form would be far broader, requiring companies to record data such as the identities of e-mail correspondents, logs of who sent and received instant messages (but not the content of those communications), and the addresses of Web pages visited.

During a series of meetings that Justice Department officials have held with private companies--first reported by CNET News.com--officials have been ambiguous about how they want legislation worded, private-sector participants say. Companies involved have included AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, Verizon Communications and trade associations.

Suggestions for congressional action at Tuesday afternoon's hearing didn't stop at data retention by private companies.

Sheriff Michael Brown, who heads an Internet Crimes Against Children task force in Bedford County, Va., called on Congress to ensure that any state, federal, local or educational institution that receives federal funding also conduct "appropriate transactional logging to allow the location of individuals that use that access in the exploitation of children." He said in his testimony (click for PDF) that the government could not, "in good conscience," make such demands of the private sector if it didn't also do the same.

That concept--restrictions slapped on using federal funds--echoes a 2000 federal law called the Children's Internet Protection Act. CIPA effectively forced schools and libraries to filter sexually explicit Web sites by tying that requirement to the receipt of federal funds, an approach the U.S. Supreme Court upheld as constitutional in 2003.

The concept of more federal laws was popular at Tuesday's pair of hearings. Sharon Cooper, an adjunct professor of pediatrics at the University of North Carolina, urged politicians to require that all public-school health classes, from elementary to high school, teach "child sexual abuse prevention strategies as well as online and communication technology safety strategies."

And Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, suggested that the Justice Department create a successor to the widely criticized Meese Commission, a 1986 federal panel that claimed to document the harmful effects of pornography. "Isn't it time we revisited the creation of an attorney's general commission and update, if you will, the kind of things the Meese Commission prophesied would happen?" Bennett asked.

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives will have its own hearing on the Internet and child pornography.

'Preservation' vs. 'retention'


At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention, or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation.

A 1996 called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."

Because Internet addresses remain a relatively scarce commodity, ISPs tend to allocate them to customers from a pool based on whether a computer is in use at the time.

An IP address is a unique 4-byte address used to communicate with a device on a computer network that relies on the Internet Protocol. An IP address associated with CNET.com, for instance, is 216.239.113.101. (Two standard techniques used are the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol and Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet.)

In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.

When adopting its data retention rules, the European Parliament approved U.K.-backed requirements saying communications providers in its 25 member countries--several of which had enacted their own data retention laws already--must retain customer data for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years.

The Europe-wide requirement applies to a wide variety of "traffic" and "location" data, including the identities of the customers' correspondents; the date, time and duration of phone calls, voice over Internet Protocol calls, or e-mail messages; and the location of the device used for the communications. But the "content" of the communications is not supposed to be retained. The rules are expected to take effect in 2008.

Under the leadership of Alberto Gonzales and other lawyers -- mainly from the White House, Rumsfeld's office, and Cheney's office -- the Bush Administration went through all sorts of moral gyrations and emerged with new definitions of what constituted torture. Basically, it's not torture if it doesn't kill you or if the excruciating pain and injuries don't lead to organ failure.

You think I'm exaggerating? Check it out for yourself. The Justice Department's August 1, 2002, legal memo concluded that "the ban on torture is limited to only the most extreme forms of physical and mental harm," which the memo defined as akin to "death or organ failure." (See also "Bush's Torture Deceit: What 'Is' Is," and "Gonzales Grilled on Role in Torture at Confirmation Hearing").

So when Bush says the U.S. doesn't torture and he would never authorize torture, in a sense he believes himself to be telling the truth, since he totally transformed the meaning of "torture" to give it a totally different, exceedingly narrow, interpretation. The Administration apparently believes that as a result of interrogations under what Bush calls its "alternative set of procedures," only if the detainees die or are the victims of organ failure could officials rightfully be accused of authorizing torture. (Actually, it's estimated that perhaps as many as 100 detainees have died while in U.S. custody, scores of them directly from torture.)


A FEW "EXCEPTIONS" FROM TORTURE LAWS

Furthermore, Bush is asserting that U.S. laws against torture, and Congressional oversight of such activity, should only apply to interrogations that take place on American soil. If the CIA uses the "alternative procedures" in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or in the secret CIA prisons abroad, those don't count. Plus, the Administration has moved to shield those who authorized and carry out "harsh" interrogations from national and international laws against mistreatment of prisoners. Meanwhile, of course, a few lower-level, enlisted "bad apples" have been tried, convicted, and sent to prison.

Likewise, according to the Bush Administration, the "extraordinary rendition" of especially recalcitrant prisoners to friendly countries abroad that are notorious for extreme physical torture does not count as the U.S. cooperating in the administration of torture. The Bush crew play variations on: "They were tortured there? Really? We are shocked, shocked! We don't approve of torture and had no idea it was used on prisoners entrusted to their care." Yeah, sure.

But recently, in making the case to Congress that it should pass the Administration's draconian laws permitting such "alternative procedures," Bush let the cat out of the bag and admitted that several al-Qaida suspects gave up a good deal of valuable information while being interrogated in those secret CIA prisons abroad. But he still denies that his administration carried out "torture" there. Does he think we're stupid?

Do you see how it works? And the ramifications of how it works? In short, Bush&Co. have simply rewritten the dictionary to remove their legal liability for such crimes, and in the process have re-written the rules under which they, and their subordinates, act. When reality doesn't meet their needs, they don't consider making alterations to their policies; they just change the definition of what's "real."


BUSH DESPERATE FOR TORTURE VICTORY

In a sign of how desperate Bush is to maintain complete control of the torture definition -- and thus keep himself and other top U.S. officials out of the war-crimes court in The Hague -- Bush took a rare visit to Congress last week to try to forestall defeat of his torture/military tribunals bill. It was a definition struggle again.

The Geneva Convention on the treatment of captured prisoners is quite clear and specific; no country is permitted to use "cruel" treatment or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" on prisoners in its care. Too "vague," says Bush. Instead, he suggests, CIA interrogators need "latitude" (euphemism: "clarity") in interrogating and torturing suspects so that they won't be nervously looking over their shoulders at war-crimes charges.

The Pentagon's senior lawyers think Geneva's definitions are quite clear and openly disagreed with the hardline Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld interpretation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Even Colin Powell bestirred his calcified conscience to point out that by trying to do an end-around Geneva, the U.S. risked losing the moral high ground internationally. Also, as Sen. John McCain (who was tortured as a POW in Hanoi) and others have pointed out, the U.S. would put its captured troops in great jeopardy of "cruel and degrading" treatment -- in other words, torture -- similar to what the CIA was meting out in its secret prisons abroad.

Republican "moderate" senators McCain, Graham, Snowe, Warner and others have been demanding that the U.S. remain consistent with the Geneva protections and also provide some legal safeguards to suspects on trial in military tribunals. But time and time again, these so-called "moderates," under extreme Roveian pressure, have caved and given Bush what he wants. As I write this, it's unclear whether they have the courage to stick to their guns this time. We shall see. In the meantime, get this: Bush threatened to close down the CIA's questioning of terrorist suspects unless Congress approves his bill. Talk about cutting off your nation's nose to spite your personal face! Blackmail as a pre-emptive veto.


THE IMMORALITY OF "PRE-EMPTION"

Let's move to another definition, at another level. Bush's National Security Strategy asserts that the U.S. can "pre-emptively" attack another country when it determines that country might possibly be thinking of attacking America or grossly harming our interests. In the "old days" -- that is, pre-Bush -- the definition of "pre-emption" meant that a country, in some circumstances, was permitted under international law to act first when faced with an imminent threat of attack.

In Bushspeak, it doesn't matter that the countries in question might be 10 or 15 years out from being a viable threat, or that while they might be antagonistic to U.S. policies they have no intent of ever actually attacking America. No, according to the Bush Doctrine, you destroy possible or potential enemies first, long before they have the chance to even think of doing the U.S. harm.

That's one of the Administration's ex-post-facto justifications for having invaded and occupied Iraq. Once the early rationales for attacking were shown to be false -- those big lies including that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, and was allied with al-Qaida in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks -- then the Administration went back to its "pre-emption" rationalization, in effect asserting: "We had to attack before Saddam got close to reconstituting his weapons programs; even though U.S./U.K. intel was confirming that Iraq was well-contained and that it could be 10 years before they would be a believable threat to anybody, we had to act now, to abort that development in its blastocyst stage before that potentially dangerous fetus could grow and do us harm as an adult."

Transfer that rationalization theory to a trial for murder: "Your honor, I cannot be convicted of murdering the victim by shooting him six times. I fully believed he was thinking of doing me harm, maybe next year or the year after that, and so I took him out pre-emptively. It was a clear case of early self-defense." That explanation should satisfy a Bush Administration jury.


NO COURT REVIEW PERMITTED

Perhaps the most reprehensible aspect of the Administration's desperation to avoid indictment for authorizing torture is a tactic they've used in other areas as well: Trying to eliminate judicial review of their actions. In taking this tack, they are making an open assault on the Constitution and several centuries of governmental precedent.

Despite the fact that Bush&Co. have packed the Supreme Court and the various appellate courts with their ideological brethren, they still don't have total control of the legal system, and therefore want to avoid judicial review whenever possible. They know how weak their Constitutional cases are. So they have had their flunkies in Congress introduce a variety of bills to prohibit court review of certain Administration policies and laws -- as if the Supreme Court would ever OK having its judicial prerogatives revoked.

But in the Administration's military-tribunals bill currently before Congress, Bush&Co. also have inserted an in-your-face clause that would prevent civilian courts from intervening in, or reviewing the legality of, the proposed military tribunals. This would totally violate America's historic checks-and-balances system of governance, and would amount to the Executive Branch effectively controlling the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. In short, a budding dictatorship.

As noted previously, the Administration has created what they consider to be an airtight legal justification for Bush to act outside the law whenever he claims to be doing so as "commander-in-chief" during "wartime." Since his "war on terrorism," by definition, is a never-ending war, this means his actions "in defense of the homeland" permanently cannot be challenged. Sounds like the ingredients for dictatorship.


THE COURT SLAPS DOWN BUSH

No wonder Bush is leery of courts ever getting near the justifications for his imperial presidency. The two times when the Supreme Court did review his behavior toward detainees in U.S. care, he was reprimanded mightily, in no uncertain language.

In the 2004 case of Mr. Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the Court: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. ... Even the war power [of the President] does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties."

In the recent case of Mr. Hamdan, a foreign suspect, the court slapped down Bush's I-am-the-Law approach again. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority: "[I]n undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."


REVOLT OF THE MODERATE MIDDLE

The power to nominate new Supreme Court justices is just one of many reasons w hy the momentum of this outlaw administration must be broken as quickly as possible. Which brings us to the midterm elections in November.

The imminence of that election explains why Bush is trying to create a rushed, "crisis" atmosphere to get his bill passed; after all, his Administration could have brought these suspects to trial anytime within the past five years. "We're running out of time," Bush says, by which he really means: "We've got to get this issue neutralized now, before the election, or else we can't smear the Democrats as pro-terrorist for blocking my bill, since it will be Republicans, with military credentials, who also are doing the obstructing."

Even if the GOP rebels hold their ground this one time, but especially if they don't, the American people -- left, right and center -- must speak with one enormous groundswell of revulsion against the ruling Republican Party in the Congress that has rubber-stamped virtually everything Bush&Co. have asked for. A convincing GOP defeat in the House would do great damage to the Administration's momentum of lawlessness.

The current fracturing of the Republican Party in Congress is a testament to the revolt of the moderate middle in America against the Bush Administration's catastrophic bungling in Iraq, its demonstrated incompetence in the Katrina debacle, its lies and deceits, its slimy denunciations of those who oppose CheneyBush Iraq policy (which means about two-thirds of the American people) as terrorist-supporting traitors, etc., etc.

If the GOP can be roundly trounced two months from now at the polls, its defeat will be due in no small part to those honest, traditional conservatives who, appalled by the hijacking of their once-great party by extremists from the Far Right, are thoroughly fed up and have had enough of misrule on a grand scale. (Note: This election, given Rove's previous history, will require extreme vigilance, and probably court suits, to keep the voting honest and honestly-counted.)

Let us all -- Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, progressives -- join with these moderate Republicans, and start the process of moving our country back to common decency, earned respect, and a sane foreign and domestic policy based on reality and the true needs of the American people. Can I hear an Amen?

Copyright 2006, by Bernard Weiner

Earlier this month, the White House suggested to the judge in that lawsuit that such records need not be disclosed because the information was privileged and might reveal how Bush and his staff get private advice, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press.

White House officials said Norquist, who runs the nonprofit Americans for Tax Reform, was cleared for 97 visits to the White House complex between 2001 and 2006, including a half-dozen with the president.

Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition and an unsuccessful candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia earlier this year, got 18 meetings, including two events with Bush.

Officials said they believe all appointments with Bush involved larger group settings, such as Christmas parties or policy briefings for GOP supporters.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, however, it was possible some of Norquist's meetings might have been directly with Karl Rove, the president's longtime confidant and political strategist.

"He is one of a number of individuals who worked to advance fiscal responsibility, which is one of the key aspects of the president's agenda," Perino said.

Both Reed and Norquist became involved with Abramoff, the once high-power GOP lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to fraud and is now cooperating with prosecutors in an influence peddling investigation that has rocked Capitol Hill.

Norquist's group advocates lower taxes and less government and he built it into a major force in the Republican Party. Along the way he became friends with Abramoff and Rove.

E-mails obtained this summer by AP show Norquist facilitated several administration contacts for Abramoff's clients while the lobbyist simultaneously solicited those clients for large donations to Norquist's group. Americans for Tax Reform acknowledged Norquist helped Abramoff but said he did nothing improper.

Reed rose to prominence as an organizer of evangelical Christian groups, including the Christian Coalition, inside the Republican Party before moving into business ventures where he did work for Indian tribes at Abramoff's request.

Documents unearthed by congressional investigators showed Abramoff and business partner Michael Scanlon routed about $4 million from Indian tribes to Reed-controlled entities for grassroots work aimed at blocking rival casinos.

The White House also released records showing White House appointments landed by some of Abramoff's former lobbying associates. Among them:

- Neil Volz, a former aide to Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney, had 18 appointments, including one to attend a large event featuring Bush on Sept. 11, 2001, that was canceled because of the terrorist attacks. Volz has pleaded guilty to conspiring to corrupt Ney and others with trips and other largess.

- Lobbyist Shawn Vasell also had 18. Two were Bush events, likely a February bill signing and a Ford's Theatre gala, that occurred this year, when Vasell was no longer working with Abramoff.

- Abramoff business partner Scanlon, a former aide to then-Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, may have had one appointment; the White House couldn't say for certain whether the name in the Secret Service log was the same person. Scanlon has pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe public officials while lobbying on behalf of Indian tribes.

- Former DeLay aide and Abramoff lobbying team member Tony Rudy had 13, none with Bush. Rudy has pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff. Former Abramoff lobbying associate Kevin Ring, a former aide to California Republican Rep. John Doolittle (news, bio, voting record), had 21, none with Bush.

- Two former Abramoff lobbying colleagues who joined Bush's administration, David Safavian and Patrick Pizzella, show up in the appointment logs countless times. Pizzella, an assistant secretary of labor, had 48, none with Bush. Among numerous meetings for Safavian, a former Bush administration procurement official who pleaded guilty to trying to hide his dealings with Abramoff, just one was with Bush, likely an employee holiday reception in 2004.

The release of the visitor records settles lawsuits by the Democratic Party and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

In a court filing earlier this month while settlement discussions were ongoing, Justice Department lawyers representing the administration said information about the Norquist and Reed visits should be protected from public disclosure under the doctrine of "deliberative process privilege."

That privilege lets the president and executive branch officials seek advice and deliberate policy decisions in private without having to disclose such information under the Freedom of Information Act.

It is similar to executive privilege, a power made famous by President Nixon, that lets a president keep information secret even from Congress or the courts on the grounds that it would hurt his ability to get candid advice.

Executive privilege was the focal point of major legal battles in the Watergate and Clinton impeachment cases.

Bush administration lawyers wrote that Norquist and Reed were "prominent advocates of particular tax policies and other conservative policies" and that releasing information about their White House visits would "inherently reveal the structure and nature of deliberative processes."

"In making decisions on personnel and policy, and in formulating legislative proposals, the president must be free to seek confidential information from many sources, both inside the government and outside," the lawyers wrote in citing a favorable court ruling from 2005 involving Vice President Dick Cheney.

Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney said she saw a pattern of the White House trying to avoid answering legitimate questions.

"By trying to extend a special privilege typically reserved for U.S. government employees, to protect their Abramoff cronies like Grover Norquist, and Ralph Reed, the Bush administration showed just how willing they are to manipulate the law to hide the truth and protect their political interests," Finney said.

The administration lawyers, meanwhile, also argued against releasing information about the White House visits of former federal procurement official David Safavian on the grounds that it would violate Safavian's privacy. Safavian was recently convicted of trying to cover up his dealings with Abramoff.

Administration officials said the Justice Department never invoked the privilege mentioned in the court filings because a settlement was reached.

Former White House lawyer Lanny Breuer, who handled many of
President Clinton's privilege claims, said that administration routinely released White House entry records to the public and never "came close to making a claim like the one being suggested in this instance."

Florence Williams, a resident at the Kitley House Senior Center on Kentucky Street, said she didn't see everything that happened that morning, but she knows she heard the cries for help.

"I happened to hear somebody screaming and I came to my porch," Williams said. "I don't know what the cop was doing because he was on the other side, but she had her arms out the door and she was hollering 'Please, somebody help me.'"

During this time, Lawton says Tatusko refused to take her identification, never told her why she was stopped and never left the passenger side of the vehicle. She said at one point the officer got so angry he cocked his gun and said if Joshalyn moved again he would "blow her brains out."

"He clicked the thing back and then he turned off his radio," said Jasmine. "I was like 'He's going to kill us.'"

"Me and the babies were crying and (Jasmine) jumped over me for my life, and I thank my sister for doing that," said Joshalyn.

A witness at the scene said Tatusko kept his gun drawn at the passenger side window until more officers came to the scene and told him to drop the weapon.

"When I turned the corner, there were 10 police cars and (Lawton) was in the middle," said Rick Hill, an employee of Shadyside Nursing Rehab on Kentucky Avenue. "I heard her hollering for help and she had her hands out the window and everything. The cop already had his gun, not on her, but on the other side. When I looked in there she had kids. One cop said 'If the kids move again, we will shoot.'"

Hill, who left a frantic voice message on Lawton's sister's phone during the standoff, said that once more officers arrived, they searched the vehicle for a weapon and found nothing. He also said Tatusko, who was not available for comment, was told to get into another vehicle and leave the scene.

Since that day, Lawton says she has struggled to come to terms with what happened to her family. The Shuman Center employee and former nurse, who changed careers to become part of the law enforcement community, said she doesn't understand why she was treated as she was before, during and after the standoff. From the time she was pulled over to when she said police Lt. Cindy Windsor told her to shut up or 'You're going to jail and your kids are going to CYF,' Lawton believes she and her children were treated worse than most criminals.

Lt. Windsor declined to comment other than to say that she was off of work that day. Tammy Ewin, spokesperson for the Pittsburgh Police, also declined to comment because of the case's status with the CPRB.

As it was, Lawton ended up being cited for an insurance violation. She was fined and her car was towed, but according to her, the ultimate cost has already been paid with her daughters' security and peace of mind.

"Your inspection can be wrong, your license can be wrong, there's no reason for (police) to come to the passenger side and pull a gun out and aim it through the window of a 7-year old," she said.

"I can't even sleep at night, I just think about it every day," said Joshalyn. "They got it deep in my mind. "He was talking to me the whole time."

Investigators determined that the inmates overpowered a guard with a homemade knife, locked him in a room, made their way through several exit doors and used "some sort of wire cutter" to breach the fences, Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Trevino said in a statement. He said no alarm sounded and the guard was not hurt.

Authorities believe the escapees, who were wearing green inmate jumpsuits, probably were picked up in a vehicle on a highway that runs in front of the facility. Bloodhounds tracking the men had lost their scents at the roadway.

"We're considering all six individuals very dangerous and armed," Trevino said.

More than 60 local and federal law-enforcement officers using helicopters and bloodhounds were searching near the East Hidalgo Detention Center, about 20 miles north of Mexico near Texas' southern tip.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Felix Garza said the men were considered a flight risk to Mexico. Garza said his agency was notified around 10 p.m., about 20 minutes after the jail break, and that the inmates conceivably could have made it to the border in that time frame.

Officers were searching door to door in La Villa, asking residents to stay home with their doors locked. La Villa schools were closed for the day, and a highway near the detention center was shut down. The facility is a minimum-to-maximum security unit with 950 beds, about 800 of which are federal.

"I think they're scared. A lot of people are scared. They canceled school and everything," said Raul Castillo, a 26-year-old convenience store clerk.

Trevino said the former police officer, Francisco Meza-Rojas, 41, was being held on federal drug charges related to a trafficking operation he is accused of leading. Meza-Rojas, accused with four of his brothers of smuggling, transporting and storing cocaine and marijuana, was to go on trial Oct. 3 and could get a life sentence if convicted.

The five other inmates who escaped were illegal Mexican immigrants jailed on a variety of charges, Trevino said. They are accused of being members of the violent drug gang, which is based in Corpus Christi and has cells elsewhere in the Rio Grande Valley.

LCS Corrections Services Inc., of Lafayette, La., bought the jail about five years ago and owns six other facilities in Texas, Louisiana and Alabama. Richard Harbison, a company vice president, said there previously had been one breakout at LCS's facility in Pine Prairie, La.

When one of the officers left the vehicle, he was set upon by about 20 youths who had been hiding in the undergrowth.

"The driver rushed to help. The two were then covered in blows to the face and other parts of the body as they lay on the ground," the spokesman said. The gang dispersed when reinforcements arrived.

Both officers suffered injuries to the face and head, as well as bruising to the body. One was hospitalised.

The Synergie-Officier police union said it was "revolted by this savage attack .... These explosions of violence against the police are a kind of guerrilla warfare aimed at getting the forces of law and order to leave certain areas in order to immerse them in a logic of sedition and terror."

The UNSA union said the officers were "victims of a genuine ambush by individuals whose sole aim was to attack the forces of law and order."

Opposition parties said the attack was a sign that the security policies of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, a likely presidential candidate in next year's election, have failed.

It followed a stark warning about the risk of a new outbreak of suburban rioting in a letter published Tuesday from the prefect or state-appointed governor of the Seine-Saint-Denis department, centre of last year's disturbances.

Jean-Francois Cordet told Sarkozy in a letter sent in June that tensions were continuing to rise in the northern Paris suburbs -- with rising crime, a court system that was failing to punish, and the active incitement of Islamic radicals.

In a statement Wednesday the Socialist party (PS) said that the attack on the two policemen "showed that the alarming comments made by the prefect of Seine-Saint-Denis apply to many other suburbs as well."

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said that the government will "draw lessons from what has happened in order to devise appropriate responses ... to the risks to which part of our forces of law and order are exposed."

He has also promised to seek a thaw in ties with China and
South Korea, chilled by outgoing Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to Tokyo's Yasukuni war shrine. But he has stressed that better relations require efforts on all sides.

"It's important that leaders meet each other periodically for talks," he told public broadcaster NHK.

"I hope to make efforts toward that end."

But he said he did not know if such a meeting could be held with China this year. There is speculation he may meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao after becoming prime minister.

Abe took 464 of the 702 valid votes from LDP lawmakers and party chapters, against 136 for Foreign Minister Taro Aso and 102 for Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki.

Lawmakers applauded when Koizumi cast his ballot in the contest that brings down the curtain on the reign of one of Japan's most colorful and popular leaders.

Abe, who turns 52 on Thursday, has promised to pursue growth while pushing economic reforms begun by Koizumi, who took power in 2001 vowing to cut his party loose from the grip of vested interests and reduce the government's heavy hand on the economy.

"The Liberal Democratic Party has pursued an ideal of making Japan richer and a country with pride," Abe told party lawmakers after the vote. "I would like to keep that fire going and carry on the will to push ahead with reforms."

Abe's party victory all but ensures his selection as prime minister when parliament convenes on September 26 because of the LDP's grip on the lower chamber.

The soft-spoken Abe has long topped the list of politicians Japanese voters prefer to see succeed Koizumi, making him the candidate of choice for a majority of LDP lawmakers looking ahead to elections for parliament's upper house next summer.

ASIAN TIES, ECONOMIC REFORM

Abe, first elected to parliament in 1993, became a household name four years ago for his tough stance in a feud with
North Korea over Japanese citizens kidnapped by Pyongyang decades ago.

Now he faces the dual challenges of repairing ties with Beijing and Seoul and keeping economic reforms on track while addressing voter worries about the widening social gaps many see resulting from Koizumi's reforms.

In Beijing, state news agency Xinhua quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Qin Gang as saying China hoped Abe would "suit his actions to his words, and make concrete efforts to improve China-Japan relations."

South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Lee Kyu-hyung said in Seoul: "We hope strained ties between South Korea and Japan can be repaired with the start of the new government in Japan and relations can develop in a future-oriented and friendly manner."

Abe has defended Koizumi's pilgrimages to Yasukuni Shrine, where Japanese leaders convicted as war criminals by an Allied tribunal are honored along with the nation's war dead.

He has sidestepped the issue of Japanese leaders' responsibility for the war and visited Yasukuni in the past, but has declined to say if he would pay his respects there as prime minister -- an ambiguity some see as leaving the door open to better ties with Beijing and Seoul.

Abe, a third-generation politician, is thought unlikely to adopt Koizumi's combative approach in forging ahead with economic reforms and so far has not fleshed out details of how he intends to get a handle on Japan's bulging public debt.

Financial market players are looking to see who gets plum cabinet posts for further clues to his stance toward reform.

Abe said one priority in the session of parliament from next Tuesday would be revising a 1947 U.S.-drafted law on education to make cultivating "love of country" an educational goal.

Another would be to extend a law allowing Japanese ships to refuel vessels in the Indian Ocean as part of the U.S.-led operation in Afghanistan, he said.

"In seven months it is a question of victory or death," the 77-year-old head of the National Front (FN) told a crowd of 100 supporters at Valmy, 230 kilometres east of Paris, where on September 20, 1792, France's revolutionary forces saw off an invading Austro-Prussian army.

"Either France will rout the hostile powers, or else by a simple vote it will abandon its history and soul to the enemy armies of globalised liberalism, social division, unrestrained immigration and regression," he said.

In presidential elections due next April Le Pen is hoping to repeat his stunning success of 2002, when with 16.86 percent of the vote he beat the Socialist contender Lionel Jospin and qualified for the run-off against Jacques Chirac.

Though he was easily beaten in round two, the breakthrough for the far-right sent out a political shockwave because it appeared to indicate a collapse of confidence in mainstream parties.

Le Pen's choice of Valmy at the start of probably his last presidential campaign was deliberately intended as a taunt to his rivals, because the battle is seen as a crucible for the French Republic - whose values the far-right is regularly accused of betraying.

According to FN staff, the idea belonged to Marine le Pen, the leader's 38 year-old daughter and adviser, who has been trying to reposition the party away from its more extreme positions on immigration, Europe and the economy.

Speaking from the base of Valmy's famous mill, Le Pen poured scorn on the two likely frontrunners for the presidency - Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal.

Sarkozy of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) - known for his strong views on immigration and law and order - was "a sort of bourgeois Le Pen, Le Pen in a tie," while he accused the Socialist Royal of "making femininity the answer to everything".

Inviting the country "to embark with me on the open sea for a new chapter in the history of France," Le Pen broke new ground by including "French people of foreign origin".

"I appeal to you to unite behind our values, as long as you respect our customs and laws, as long as it is by toil alone that you aspire to lift yourselves in this country.

"There was a Platini, there was a Zidane. Why should this great design not be possible tomorrow?," he said in reference to two great football players who came from immigrant families.

"As French people - not French on paper or French by origin, but French by heart and spirit - we can all form tomorrow the varied army of the soldiers of Valmy," he said.

Le Pen's visit was opposed by left-wing groups who put on a counter-demonstration. "We cannot let the far-right stage a hold-up on one of the founding symbols of the Revolution," said Paul Meyter of the Young Socialist Movement.

Some in the FN were also opposed to the speech, on the grounds that the Revolution was a disaster in French history.

The battle of Valmy took place at a key moment in the French Revolution, when it was unclear if the country could resist its royalist enemies in the rest of Europe.

The French army - made up largely of inexperienced volunteers - surprised the advancing Franco-Prussians with a salvo of artillery. Only 500 people died but the German writer Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, who was there, said: "From today and this place dates a new era in the history of the world."