Under current regs, the US requires airlines to transmit their manifests no later than fifteen minutes after a plane is in the air, wheels up. This, according to DHS, allows known terrorists to board, then hijack or blow up, commercial planes during the deadly window of opportunity provided between boarding time and when the aircraft is finally diverted or shot down by fighter planes scrambled to "escort" it.

However, if the manifests were to be transmitted before the planes leave the gate, DHS would have time to ensure that "high-risk passengers" are prevented from boarding in the first place, with a subsequent reduction in the number of commercial aircraft needing to be blown out of the skies by their military escorts. Other benefits would include fewer diverted flights, with fewer holidays spoiled and business appointments postponed. Which all sounds quite reasonable.

For DHS, it's a public relations dream come true. No longer will their crummy databases with their prolific false positives create entire planeloads of hateful citizens at each go. Now, only one poor bugger in a turban at a time is going to be inconvenienced for no good reason. When handled individually before boarding, "selectees" can easily be detained, intimidated, humiliated, cavity-searched, and then released as soon as DHS realises its error, without other passengers, and most importantly, the press, taking notice.

Using its Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), DHS has the ability to screen an entire manifest within one hour, or to screen individuals within fifteen minutes of boarding. Airlines will be given a choice between transmitting an entire manifest under the one-hour rule, or transmitting the required "biographical information" on each passenger in real time under an optional fifteen-minute rule.

"Under both options, the carrier will not permit the boarding of a passenger unless the passenger has been cleared by CBP," the Department explains.

Naturally, at a major airport launching planes every minute or so, there's not going to be time enough to check each passenger's identity carefully. The passport will be read or scanned electronically, and if the name under which it's issued doesn't ring any bells, and the picture matches the bearer, it won't be challenged. Indeed, DHS already permits passengers to supply their own APIS information well in advance of travelling, conveniently via the Internet.

During a recent international flight - prior to which I had registered with DHS online - I noticed that no attempt was made to verify my identity. I had a pre-printed boarding pass, and when I arrived at the security checkpoint, a uniformed TSA guard merely glanced at my boarding pass and passport, verified that the names matched, and observed that my face matched the passport photo. It took about two seconds. If I had been a terrorist, I'd have needed only two easily-acquired items: a credit card under a clean alias with which to buy the tickets and obtain a boarding pass, and a passport under the same alias with which to register with APIS and later to scam the TSA guard.

From a security point of view, the new APIS regulation is just another useless counterterrorist rain dance. But from a civil-liberties point of view, there are some curious implications.

According to a public comment submitted to DHS by the Identity Project, World Privacy Forum, and (who else?) John Gilmore, we have here a dramatic escalation in travel restrictions.

But that isn't so. DHS is essentially admitting, without embarrassment, that it is the arbiter of who can travel. This has been the case for some time, since APIS compliance became an obsession in the wake of 9/11. DHS has been diverting flights at will, and removing (usually innocent) "undesirables". What's new here is merely the language: all passengers must be "cleared" in advance by the Department.

In a practical sense, this has been going on for years, only it's been buried under steaming piles of counterterrorist rhetoric. DHS is finally admitting the plain truth: every one of us is on a no-fly list. We are all unfit to travel, until some government clerk verifies that our names don't match his sloppy list of suspected evildoers. Even US citizens cannot enter or leave the USA until they are approved - until they've passed the database test.

The North Korean government has the same basic arrangement, only they don't try to hide it. It's about time Uncle Sam came clean about his own travel approval process. And now, finally, he has.

The group's chairwoman, Huguette Labelle, linked corruption to global poverty as bribe money siphons off meager incomes and the perception of wrongdoing stanches foreign investment. About $2.8 billion in bribe money changes hands every day, equal to half the investment in sub-Saharan Africa in 2000, she said.

"Corruption eats away at the economies of poor countries," Labelle told reporters in Berlin, where Transparency International is based. "The perception of endemic corruption scares off foreign investors and has a knock-on effect on economic growth."

Almost three-quarters of the countries surveyed scored below 5 points, which means the majority of those judging them detect corruption. "Rampant" corruption is said to be apparent in 71 countries. Haiti was at the bottom with 1.8 points, and Iraq placed just above with 1.9.

The report cites among U.S. examples the case of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who is under indictment in a Texas case stemming from a campaign finance investigation and who has a former aide who pleaded guilty in the corruption probe of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Much campaign money has been diverted to ostensibly non-party groups, known as "527s," that are underregulated, according to Transparency. As in 2005, the group called into question the U.S. bidding system for public contracts in Iraq.

Corruption in Iraq has increased as sectarian violence between the country's Shiite and Sunni Muslims has spun out of control after the Feb. 22 bombing of the Shiite Golden Mosque in Samarra. Mass killings are common in communities in central Iraq, including the capital, Baghdad.

"Corruption in Iraq is very bad because there's been conflict across the country," David Nussbaum, the group's chief executive, said this week. "That tends to mean the systems that uphold the country aren't working."

He said the global problem must be tackled by focusing on legal and financial systems that allow corruption to occur, adding that "facilitators" include bankers, accountants and company executives.

Nussbaum mentioned former Ukrainian prime minister Pavlo Lazarenko, who was sentenced in San Francisco on Aug. 25 to nine years in prison and fined $10 million for money laundering and transferring stolen property. Much of Lazarenko's cash was sent to banks in Antigua, Switzerland and the United States. Lazarenko was Ukraine's prime minister from May 1996 to July 1997.

"These facilitators have the skills, the knowledge, the credibility and the connections to smooth the path of corruption," Nussbaum said. He called on groups such as the International Bar Association and the International Compliance Association to enforce existing codes of conduct.

The United Kingdom ranked 11th with a score of 8.6, ahead of Canada with 8.5 points. Germany was 16th with 8 points, just in front of Japan and France, with 7.6 and 7.4, respectively. Italy trailed in 45th place with a score of 4.9, while Russia's score of 2.5 points was 121st.

The index draws from 12 different polls and surveys from nine independent institutions that examine the perceptions of the level of abuse of public office or private gain, the group said. Businesspeople and country analysts are included in the surveys.

Labelle called on governments to ratify the U.N. Convention against Corruption and said Germany should use its presidency of the Group of Eight industrialized nations next year to press the issue and make "visible progress."

A deterioration in perceptions of corruption occurred in the past year in Brazil, where the Workers' Party of newly reelected President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has faced charges of graft, and in Israel, where the government has been dogged by corruption allegations. Cuba, Jordan, Laos, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tunisia also had worse scores in 2006.

Countries where the group said improvement can be detected include Algeria, the Czech Republic, India, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Mauritius, Paraguay, Slovenia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uruguay.

His case raises further concerns about the treatment of Muslim firearms officers working in Metropolitan Police Force. Last month, at the height of the conflict in southern Lebanon, PC Alexander Basha was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, central London, because of concern about his family links with Lebanon.

PC Farooq was a firearms specialist working for the Wiltshire Constabulary when he was transferred to the Diplomatic Protection Group SO16 (DPG) whose main role is to provide static protection at government, diplomatic and Metropolitan Police sites. All officers within the DPG are required to undergo security vetting including a counter-terrorism check (CTC).

PC Farooq was told he would not be transferred until he had received full counter-terrorism clearance. On 16 December 2003, he was approached by a detective chief superintendent from Special Branch who informed him that he had failed his CTC. By then, PC Farooq had been working for the DPG for six weeks.

The Met told the officer that they had evidence to justify the refusal of the CTC and referred to the fact that PC Farooq's children, two sons aged 9 and 11, had attended their local mosque for religious studies when the building was associated with an iman whom the police suspected of links to an extremist Islamic group. Mr Farooq strongly denies any such links or inappropriate behaviour.

At a tribunal to be held next year, Mr Farooq is expected to say that his colleagues had said words to the effect of "what will the American secret service make of him when he turns up there?" [referring to the likelihood that PC Farooq would be posted to duty at the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, London].

It is understood that the officer is the first person to have his CTC vetting status withdrawn.

PC Farooq later challenged the decision to remove his CTC by lodging an appeal with the Security Vetting Appeal Panel (SVAP), which is administered by the Cabinet Office, itself headed by the Prime Minister.

It has subsequently emerged in relation to the appeal that the Met refused to disclose any evidence for these allegations on the grounds of national security concerns.

PC Farooq's case will challenge the secrecy surrounding vetting appeals so that he can be allowed to be represented by a Special Advocate who would test the national security evidence used by the Met to reach its decision to withdraw his special clearance.

As a result of the clearance refusal, PC Farooq was transferred from the DPG to Hammersmith & Fulham constabulary. When he returned to collect his belongings, on 31 December 2003, he was asked to return to meet a police sergeant. He claims that he was taken to a basement room where he was searched in front of other officers.

PC Farooq's solicitor, Lawrence Davies, of the law firm Equal Justice, said last night he was unable to comment in detail about the case, but did say: " We live in a society where it is possible to point a finger at a Muslim abroad and say that they have WMD and are a threat to national security and no questions are asked. Now those who 'protect' us feel emboldened to point the same finger at British Muslims. Muslims are labelled guilty by association. Doubt is insufficient to save them. They are assumed guilty before being proven innocent. We are very close to living in the days of Salem. If the head of counter-terrorism becomes a Witch-Finder General then any Muslim or Muslim-looking person or sympathiser best take cover."

PC Farooq declined to comment about the case.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said details of Mr Farooq's case would "not come as a great surprise to many British Muslims. Smear and innuendo appear increasingly to have taken the place of hard evidence when it comes to finding Muslims guilty of misdemeanours. There is no suggestion that Amjad Farooq himself represented any kind of security risk or that the cleric in the mosque had been convicted of any actual crime."

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the "British Muslim Parliament" , said: "Unless the individual has close links with a terrorist organisation there is no reason to take these kind of decisions. I think it is a dangerous precedent to set and we have to be very careful about going beyond what is direct evidence, particularly when the allegation concerns the children of the person involved."

Religion on trial

* PC Alexander Omar Basha was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, central London, because of a possible conflict of interest over his family links with Lebanon. The Met said he was not " emotionally equipped" to be on armed duty at the embassy in the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict. He requested in summer that he not be sent there because of his family background and concerns for his safety. His superiors agreed after making a risk assessment.

* The son of jailed Islamic cleric Abu Hamza was given a job working on London Underground, it emerged last month. Mohammed Kamel Mostafa, 25, who was jailed for three years in Yemen in 1999 for plotting a bombing campaign, worked for a sub-contractor of the network's maintenance company Tube Lines. The decision drew widespread condemnation. But London mayor, Ken Livingstone, warned that no one should be condemned for the sins of their fathers. Mr Mostafa no longer works with the subcontractor.

* Muslim teaching assistant Aishah Azmi was suspended from her job after she refused to remove her veil at Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. She lost her claim for religious discrimination but won £1,100 for "injury to feelings". She will take her case to the European Court of Human Rights

Speaking to a House committee on immigration, Solberg said it raised questions about the rights of citizens who hold dual citizenship and don't live in the country.

"If we're in a situation where somebody's absent, isn't paying taxes but is going to be using our social programs down the road, I think Canadians would feel that that is unfair," Solberg said.

Benefits and obligations

He said the response from Canadians after the Lebanon evacuation is that citizenship conveys both benefits and obligations.

"Canadians want to know that citizenship means something, that we are not just a port in the storm," he said.

Continue Article

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis accused Solberg of pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment.

"Let's not use dual citizenship as a scapegoat in order to satisfy the Reform agenda," said Karygiannis.

Liberal Andrew Telegdi said that if the issue was freeloading, the government should seek to amend the Tax Act.

An estimated 90 countries now permit dual citizenship, including the United States and most of Europe.

Canada changed its laws 30 years ago to allow Canadians to hold passports from another country.

Since then, two parliamentary committees have recommended the practice be reviewed.

"Canadians are concerned about the issue of dual citizenship which is why the government has a responsibility to review the current system," Solberg said.

According to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, about 557,000 Canadians - 1.8 per cent of the population - are dual citizens.

Markus Bindemann, a researcher in psychology at the University of Glasgow and co-author of Television at Face Value: Children's Behaviour in Attention-Cueing Tasks, described the results as worrying.

He said: "Faces are important social stimuli and it is surprising that children prefer to look at television instead. We learn social interaction - how to deal with people and how to read them - from looking at their faces. If you just stare at a box you don't get any genuine interactions."

Previous research into the behaviour of young children and babies has shown that they prefer to look at faces and do so instinctively in order to learn and to communicate. This was borne out by an initial experiment on 34 five-year-olds, 25 eight-year-olds and 34 adults, in which they were each shown a photograph of a face alongside either a doll's house, a toy boat, a toy train, a tap, a teapot or a wall clock. The overwhelming majority looked at the image of a face before the competing object.

In a second experiment, however, 143 children aged 5 to 8 were seated in front of a computer screen on which the image of a blank television screen was shown next to a face for less than a second. The children were told to press the spacebar as soon as they saw a bar of chocolate appear on the screen.

Most of the children aged 6 to 8 pressed the spacebar fastest when the chocolate bar appeared behind the picture of the television and not the face, suggesting that they were already looking at it. Only the five-year-olds responded fastest when the chocolate was behind the face.

Martin Doherty, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Stirling, who carried out the research with Dr Bindemann, said: "One of the interesting things is that five-year-olds still have a face bias but six-year-olds don't."

The research, which will further fuel fears that children are watching an alarming amount of television, used similar techniques to those used to test alcoholics. When shown a picture of a glass of wine or a pint of beer next to a face, most alcoholics respond to the drink.

According to recent research, the average British child aged 4 to 6 watches about 16 hours of television a week. By their teens, four out of five have a television in their bedroom. Kevin Browne, Professor of Forensic and Family Psychology at the University of Birmingham, said that the study raised questions about whether parents were using television and computers as a cheap way of entertaining their children: "How a child has been socialised in the first few years of life will seriously affect whether he or she engages with people or engages with a television screen." He cautioned that there may be other reasons why children favour the television screen, including an "anticipation" about what they think they might see on it