text:
- News
- Calendar
- Blogs
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Business
- Lifestyles
- Community
- Opinion
- About Us
- Classifieds
- Coupons
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
This week in history - from The Arlington Times archives
10 Years Ago 1997
Imagine a medic who can fix your broken leg and save the kitty stuck in the tree you fell from. The day may soon be approaching when our local medics will be trained firefighters as well. Thats because a Memorandum of Understanding was struck Monday night between the city of Arlington and Cascade Valley Hospital. The agreement, though not a final one, between the two sets in motion the final process for the city to provide ambulance service under a contract with the hospital district. If the agreement is finalized, EMS employees will be integrated with the citys fire services and will become city employees. The premises the city and district are operating under are: The city of Arlington will operate the EMS service under an interlocal with the District. The city, through the interlocal agreement, would provide EMS service to the area within the Hospital District, The city and district will work closely to ensure that adequate service levels will be provided within the financial constraints of actual revenues generated, All EMS equipment and supplies will become owned by the city, personnel who are currently employed by the district will become city firefighters/paramedics or firefighter EMTs, both jurisdictions will continue to work closely to assure the long-term stability and quality of the EMS service. The citys decision was made easier by a clause in the agreement stating, During the transition period, the city and district can mutually agree to suspend discussions if economic conditions cannot produce a stable operation. In other words, both sides have the option of backing out if their needs arent satisfied. According to City Administrator Thom Myers, revenues are the driving force behind the union. From three separate evaluations completed by the city and the hospital district, they were able to summate the interlocal would give the city an estimated revenue increase of about 25 percent. An area that may pose a problem is making the transition a smooth one for EMS employees. Under the agreement, the city requires all EMS service personnel to be firefighters as well; meaning they will be subject to training requirements and application procedures as firefighters. The city will give EMS employees a six-month probationary period, in which time they can prepare themselves to meet all firefighter requirements. Also, salaries have proven to be something the city and the EMS employees are struggling with. No final numbers have been discussed yet, but obviously a cut in pay to work for the city wouldnt sit well with EMS personnel, Especially considering the new city employees would also be trained firefighters in addition to being trained EMTs and paramedics. Another issue the city will need to consider when negotiating salary with the EMS employees will be the recent firefighters union and contract re-negotiation when negotiating salary with the EMS employees will be the recent firefighters union and contract re-negotiation the City Council approved in May. The Council approved a firefighters union and a pay raise in a Council meeting last month. These decisions give EMS personnel serious bargaining ammunition when it comes time to play hardball. Myers plans to make the negotiations as smooth as possible. It has to be an economically viable transition that makes sense to both parties, he said. Details like this are reason the MOU needed to be approved as early as possible. The city and district have been discussing the possible union for two years. According to Myers, they are looking at a transition date of either Aug. 1 or Sept. 1, and need this time to iron out the wrinkles. We need to finalize it now so to make the necessary arrangements, he said.
25 Years Ago 1982
Theres a new face and a new director at the Stillaguamish Senior Center. Margaret Bruland of Marysville started her new job last week. Bruland is the former Community Education Manager for the Marysville School District, where she was responsible for developing, staffing and supervising the community education program. Among other projects, she developed and ran a senior citizen luncheon and speaker program in Marysville. Her main responsibilities consisted of initiating and supervising the districts community and adult education program. Over 3,000 were involved annually in that program. A major portion of her previous position involved fundraising, a talent she intends to apply to her new job. I was ready for a change, she said. And Ive always admired the center. Its too early to state what my plans are for the center, until I get a feel for what the people here want. Its up to the seniors here to set their priorities and then it will be up to me to implement those programs. Finances and programming are my greatest strengths and those two needs are the most important here. Bruland and her husband, Bob, an engineer with the State Highway Department, live near Sunnyside in Marysville. Their son, Norman, attends Western and daughter, Bonnie, is going to EvCC.
50 Years Ago 1957
At the regular June meeting of the school board, approval was given for the contracting of two teachers. Isabel Hawley was hired to replace Joy Rathbun, who is leaving to take up advanced studies at the University of Montana. Mrs. Hawley formerly taught shorthand and typing in the Arlington High School. Gary Kohlwes, who will teach algebra and chemistry, is a graduate of Western Washington College of Education. Mr. Kohlwes is a former star athlete from Langley High School and will coach ninth-grade sports here. The final portion of the Junior High building contacts were accepted and payment to contractors authorized. A years guarantee remains on the workmanship and materials of the building. A discussion by the school board directors of a recent Attorney Generals opinion regarding school bus usage resulted in liberalizing local restrictions so that bands and marching units can be transported to community festival parades wherever they are authorized to participate. Mr. Terjeson was authorized to prepare specifications and publish notices for bids on certain supplies, on liability insurance, on the sale of the Boyden house, and for fuel oil for the Junior and Senior high schools. Bids are to be in the office of the clerk not later than June 28. The board also authorized a street improvement in front of the grade school. This area has been rather bad for loading children since no effective drainage is present. This project, in cooperation with the city, will provide a strip of blacktopping along the French Street loading zone. Bids were opened and studied of supplying temperature controls on the radiators in the high school. This project includes valves and return traps which are needing to be replaced after 20 years use. The low bid of $5,544.90 by Minneapolis-Honeywell was accepted. Bids by Johnson Service Company and Callahan Plumbing and Heating were also received.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Oct 20 - Oct 27
Read the Oct 22
Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Browse the archives.


text:
It's mostly about various permutations of rock this week. Japanese art-metal-rockers MONO perform their majestic neo-classical soundscapes at the Kings Arms on Saturday, supported by local favourites Jakob.
Soundgarden frontman Chris Cornell shows off his softer side with a two-night acoustic solo show on Tuesday and Wednesday at the Aotea Centre. His two-hour set combines covers, acoustic versions of Soundgarden and Audioslave numbers, as well as a few songs from his latest album Songbook.
On the local front, alt-rockers Cut Off Your Hands perform new material from their folk-inspired album Hollow with two shows at Galatos on Saturday (one all-ages and one R18), or for something more intimate, gothic librarian Dunedin duo Haunted Love release their sweet synth-folk album Spirit Love at The Basement on Friday, as part of Basement Fest.
And don't forget the electro-dubstep-DJ extravaganza R&V Soundcheck on at Vector Arena tonight.
If you enjoyed The Tudors, then the arrival of TV3's new irreverent period drama The Borgias (9.30pm, Wednesday) will have you excited. It's set in Rome 1492, the seat of the Papacy, and the centre of all power. Jeremy Irons leads, very drolly, as Rodrigo Borgia, the cunning, manipulative patriarch of The Borgia family who bribes, buys and muscles his way into the papacy, becoming Pope Alexander VI, and building an empire through corruption of the church - the original Godfather, you might say.
Contemporaries of the Medicis, the Borgias are an eccentric bunch, and proceed to propel us through life in the Renaissance, stuffed to the chancel with priests, whores, greed, shouting, bribery, incest, poisonings and a naughty monkey. And if you're watching the rugby on Saturday eve, tune in to TV One at 7.30pm for Get Fresh with Al Brown as he heads to our rugby heartland, visiting the vibrant Riccarton market before gathering some great local produce for a vegetarian entree, and royal meat for his main. He finishes off making a Canterbury dessert that celebrates the Red and Blacks.
Kicking off an eclectic wee bunch of releases is The Round Up starring Melanie Laurent and Jean Reno, which follows a Jewish doctor, Protestant nurse and a large group of Jewish Parisians who are captured in the Vel'd'Hiv Roundup - the mass arrest of Jews by French police who were Nazi accomplices in Paris in 1942.
Staying with the serious subject matter is The Beaver, which stars Mel Gibson as the depressed CEO of a toy company, who adopts a beaver hand puppet as his sole means of communication. Also starring Jodie Foster as his wife, The Beaver was buried in America after Gibson's public relations issues, but is receiving a small theatrical release here on the back of some strong reviews.
For something more fluffy, we've got the rom-com What's Your Number? starring Anna Faris. Best known here for calling Kiwi men boorish' she's not at all typecast as a young blonde who decides to hunt down all her ex-boyfriends to see if she missed her soul mate somewhere.
And finally, action-thriller Abduction is Taylor Lautner's first leading role post-Twilight. Can he run as fast on two legs as he did on four?
Given we've just slid into daylight savings mode, celebrate appropriately this Friday with First Light - a free event on High St from 12pm-10pm. It focuses on the fashion shopping aspect of the High St district, the idea being to woo shoppers in with an array of entertainment, with designers and business owners on hand to showcase the best of the new season's fashion, food and culture.
Check out the boutiques, bars, galleries and restaurants in the area, and stick around to hear music from Motor City Family Funk, Lewis McCallum and The Checks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Come to the Palace Theatre with your Group and SAVE!
The Palace Theatre is pleased to offer group sales discounts on select performances. Group sales for the Palace Theatre are handled by the Palace Theatre's Group Sales Department only, and are not available through Ticketmaster.
The following guidelines apply for group sales purchases:
To be added to the group sales mailing list or to purchase tickets, contact our Group Sales Department at:
(518) 465-3335 ext. 110
Click Here to Email the Group Sales Dept.


text:
Asian stock markets were mostly higher today as stronger-than-expected results from bellwether companies gave investors more reasons to hope the worst of the global recession was over. European markets were mixed in early trade.
Most Asian markets followed Wall Street's overnight advance, with technology shares like Japan's Sharp and Toshiba among the day's best performers, as the region headed for its sixth straight week of gains. Oil prices and the dollar sank modestly.
Investors, increasingly optimistic that the slide in world economic activity is starting to slow or turn around altogether, got another boost with upbeat results from leading international companies.
Nokia Corp., the world's top mobile phone maker, said it was maintaining its outlook for the phone market and had beat analyst forecasts for sales during the first quarter. In financials, JP Morgan Chase became the latest U.S. bank to report solid earnings. Internet search firm Google also eked a higher profit.
There's been a dramatic shift in sentiment in global markets since March. Now, with many stock benchmarks up 20 percent or more, investors have felt pressured to dip into the market out of fears of missing the year's largest upswing.
"Everybody seems to be afraid of selling, so I think the rally still has a bit more to go," said Henry Chan, Hong Kong-based head of Asian equities at Baring Asset Management, which oversees about $6 billion in regional equities.
Still, a number of bourses came off their highs, a reflection of some of the jitters still in the market.
As trading got underway in Europe, France's CAC 40 was flat, Germany's DAX was down 0.1 percent and Britain's FTSE 100 index was up 2 percent. U.S. futures pointed to a softer open on Wall Street. Dow futures fell 45 points, or 0.6 percent, to 8,018 and S&P 500 futures were down 5.5, or 0.6 percent, at 856.


text:
Note: I am not a doctor or physical trainer, and have no fitness or health training of any kind. This is not medical advice, just me detailing what I'm doing for myself. I can't take responsibility for the accuracy or lack thereof of this information should anyone else decide to use it, and you should always consult a medical or fitness professional before beginning any exercise routine.
With that out of the way, I've decided I need to do something to get in better shape. Getting a better body has never really been a goal of mine, as I'm more or less happy as I am. However, health is important to me, and it's obvious that I'm not in the shape I used to be in. I can't even finish a mile nonstop anymore, when I used to be able to do 1.5 back in middle school. So, I've decided to start running again. Nothing complicated, because I don't have the patience for complicated programs or buying equipment. Just running got me in shape in middle school, so I imagine it should have similar (though possibly slower) results now.
At first, I decided I was just going to run the approximately two mile block around where I live. Run as much as I can, then walk until I can run again, rinse and repeat. You can probably guess what happened. I jogged for 6 minutes (about seven tenths of a mile), then promptly burned out. I spent the majority of the rest of the "run" walking, with a couple more short bursts of running. That's not really going to cut it if I want to get better.
So I went back to a site I'd heard about before called Couch to 5k and took another look at their running program that is supposed to get one from a couch potato to running about 5 km (4.8 really, 3 miles), by running for time or distance. It starts out with short jogs followed by slightly longer walks, and looks like it's meant to get you to build up endurance sustainably by keeping you at a relatively continuous pace despite the breaks. Takes about the same amount of time to finish a run, and I don't feel so achy at the end. I'd call this a win. Also gets progressively harder as you go, as expected, until you're running continuously for 30 minutes or 3 miles at the end. I'm actually not sure if I'll stick with it the whole way or try to branch of later on, but it looks solid and for now I plan to try and just stick with it. Nine weeks seems like a really short time to get up to a 3 mile run, as that would be way more fit than I've ever been, in terms of endurance running.
I've also looked at proper breathing a bit, because let's face it, I've always been a huffing and puffing machine when I run, even when I was in relatively good shape. It always felt like a matter of willpower and pushing through the discomfort to keep going with the way I was breathing. I've always found it hard to breathe properly while running, but I plan to give it another try. Here's the military fitness article I'm using for now to judge if I'm about right on breathing. Looks similar to most advice I've read about it, so I'll go with that for now. I'm also going to try breathing more like this during the day, so it becomes more natural to me for when I'm exercising.
I've decided I'm not going to worry about changing my diet for now. I eat relatively healthy lunches and dinners (though probably a touch on the salty side, I love my salt), mediocre breakfasts, and some less healthy snacks through the day. I might look at diet later, but for now, the lack of exercise is the big thing that needs fixing, so I plan to go with that first.
Related Posts:
- The Smart Kid
- Meditation Is About Acceptance as Much as Discipline
- Reddit's Best Resources for Improving Yourself
- Abuse of Power in the Education System
- Soda Without the Corn Syrup


text:
Special ProjectsIn-depth feature stories from our newspapers
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
A text of Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony as delivered before the Sept. 11 commission on Tuesday, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:
JOHN R. THOMPSON: General, does a member your staff have the copy of this declassified memorandum about the walls? And if so, could we have it?
JOHN ASHCROFT: I believe the memorandum is available, and we'd be glad to provide it to the commission.
THOMPSON: OK. While they're searching for that, let me ask some questions, and let's start with this walls business.
Let me read you one paragraph from the prepared statement of your predecessor General Reno that I asked her about this morning, and then ask for your comment on it.
She said, there are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other.
With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction.
While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title 3 wiretaps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment, since there was very little significant information that could not be shared.
THOMPSON: When you took office, sir, in 2001, was that your understanding of the wall?
ASHCROFT: No. I believe that the understanding of the wall that was prevalent in the Justice Department and among attorneys was that individuals who shared information from a criminal file or from an intelligence file to a criminal file might be subject to serious discipline. And the memorandum of which I spoke, which was crafted in 1995, specifically indicated that it was based on an understanding at that time held that the law would not countenance certain exchanges. I believe it was a mistaken impression of the law which was later corrected by the rulings of the FISA court of appeals.
But if you look through the history of what happened just in the cases surrounding 9/11, time after time you find individuals being advised by their superiors that they could not or should not be involved in activity because such involvement would breach the wall.
I cited both the Mihdhar and Hazmi cases together with the Moussaoui case, each case where advice was given to individuals who wanted to be more active in their pursuit of individuals, that they should restrain themselves in their pursuits because of the wall.
So it's my clear belief that the wall itself developed this culture which restrained in a substantial way the exchange of information in the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
The Bellows report, which was part of some recommendations following the Wen Ho Lee case, indicated that it was part of the culture at the FBI that if one made a mistake and shared information that was later deemed to be inappropriate, it was called a career- ender, so that the risk of a person sharing information improperly was at least known in the culture of the law enforcement community to be a very substantial risk and that individuals should shy away from sharing.
ASHCROFT: Now, let me just say that when we enacted the Patriot Act, we did so believing that this culture needed to have a clear signal that the wall did not and should not inhibit this kind of cooperation. The Patriot Act did take down the wall.
Later on, one of the courts, the FISA court, reasserted that the wall was not really effectively lowered by the Patriot Act, and I made a decision to appeal that decision. The appeal from the lower FISA court's ruling is what finally established the legal principle that the wall, as a matter of fact, is of little or no effect now.
THOMPSON: General, we've heard testimony today which is at best confusing and at worst conflicting and which I think will probably, to the American public at least, who may or may not understand federal budgeting procedures, prove to be distressful.
Can you lay out in time lines, if you can, what budget requests were made by the FBI to you, and for what purposes, and what actions were either taken by you to grant or deny them, or taken by OMB after your decision on budgetary requests for the FBI?
And then, secondly, if you would and can, contrast them with similar requests of the FBI and similar actions by the attorney general during prior administrations.
ASHCROFT: Well, first of all, it's important to note that the budget under which we were operating on September 11th was a budget established by the prior administration.
ASHCROFT: No budget of the Bush administration was in place on September 11th, and none had finally been enacted or put in place.
So the proposals for subsequent years, which were developed and were in place, were under construction. But they were not the budgets that were controlling activities on September 11th or at any time prior thereto.
As it relates to the counterterrorism effort, the 2002 budget -- we were operating under the 2001 budget on 9/11. The 2002 budget proposed by President Bush had the largest counterterrorism increase in five years. The 2003 budget which we proposed was a 13 percent increase over the last Clinton budget, the 2001 budget, which was the budget under which we were operating at the time of 9/11.
Now, over time, obviously after 9/11, there were amendments to the budget process, and there were increases. So that we ended up with substantially larger increases for terrorism than we had previously had.
I would just indicate in the budgeting process that the label of counterterrorism should not be controlling when assessing whether or not items were important to the development of a defense for national security interests vis-a-vis counterterrorism, counterintelligence or other things that challenged the United States.
For example, the information technology budget at the FBI is very important. An organization that is an intelligence organization, an investigation organization, needs to have an architecture of information that provides for information sharing and information communication.
So that the information regarding IT should be included in budgets.
ASHCROFT: Now, as it relates to information technology, the agency had been -- the FBI, for example, had been starved for years. The last Clinton administration budget was $36 million lower than the last budget of the first Bush administration eight years earlier, so that when you came to the ability to run information and to exchange it and process it, you were working with 1980s-type equipment.
After 9/11, the cooperation on the budget was significant to provide serious assistance not only in counterterrorism but as it related to information technology as well.
I think Director Mueller has stated that we have worked in lockstep to meet the needs of the FBI, and its progress toward an integrated architecture of information sharing is substantial and significant and, frankly, is gratifying. I'm glad that they've been able to make the progress they have.
THOMPSON: Acting Director Pickard testified this afternoon that he briefed you twice on Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden and when he sought to do so again you told him you didn't need to hear from him again. Can you comment on that please?
ASHCROFT: First of all, Acting Director Pickard and I had more than two meetings. We had regular meetings.
Secondly, I did never speak to him saying that I did not want to hear about terrorism. I care greatly about the safety and security of the American people and was very interested in terrorism and specifically interrogated him about threats to the American people and domestic threats in particular.
One of the first items which came to my attention -- which I mentioned in my opening remarks -- was the question of whether we wanted to capture or find and kill bin Laden.
ASHCROFT: I carried that immediately to the national security adviser and expressed myself in that matter.
Together with the vice president of the United States, we got a briefing at FBI headquarters regarding terrorism. And I asked the question, Why can't we arrest these people because I believe an aggressive arrest and prosecution model is the way to disrupt terrorism? These are things about which I care deeply.
When the Senate Appropriations Committee met on May the 9th, in the summer of 2001, I told the committee that my number one priority was the attack against terror; that we would protect Americans from terror. I wrote later to them a confirming letter saying that we had no higher priority.
These are the kinds of things that I did in order to communicate very clearly my interest in making sure that we would be prepared against terror.
In addition when we went for the largest increase in counterterrorism budgeting before 9/11, in the last five years, that signalled a priority in that respect.
And when we, for the next year, had a 13 percent higher counterterrorism budget than was provided in the last year of the Clinton administration, it was also a signal that counterterrorism was a matter of great concern us to and that we would treat it seriously.
THOMPSON: After you took office did you ever hear or participate in any discussions in the Bush administration about responding to the attack on the Cole, which took place late in the Clinton administration, since it was now apparent at some time in 2001 that not only was Al Qaida responsible for the attack on the Cole, but that Osama bin Laden directed it?
Was there ever any such consideration given in the Bush administration to responding to the attack on the Cole with a military strike?
ASHCROFT: Well, I was briefed by the CIA on a number of occasions, as well as by the FBI. And I did ask about the Cole.
As you know, our FBI personnel were on the scene within almost hours after the event and they developed a preliminary understanding that the individuals conducting the attack were associated with Al Qaida.
But the ability to come to a conclusion, to build the nexus back from those actually involved in the attack to those who were command- and-control figures in Al Qaida was not established until -- and I'm not sure of the date, I think it must have been late in the summer or early in the fall of 2001.
So my briefings through the summer during the elevated threat period and the like and my briefings that were earlier in the year, for instance at the FBI, communicated this believed nexus in terms of the operational involvement of individuals associated with Al Qaida. But they did not have a clear, considered provable understanding of whether the command and control of senior Al Qaida officials was really involved.
THOMPSON: What provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire next year, or sunset next year, do you deem to be of greatest importance for re-enactment. And are there additions or subsequent amendments to the Patriot Act that you think should be considered by the Congress next year?
ASHCROFT: Well, the Patriot Act -- one of its most important contributions was to help us to tear down the wall. The multipoint wiretap is very important. It extended...
THOMPSON: That's the roving wiretap.
ASHCROFT: The roving wiretap. This is something that had been available in the criminal law since 1986 regarding what was drug dealers and organized criminals. Our ability to use a roving wiretap is important.
ASHCROFT: Our ability to have national search warrants so that we don't have to, for individuals who are mobile, get new search warrants.
The pen register trap and trace for e-mail is a very important thing.
These provisions of the Patriot Act are important to national security. And for this country to begin to forget that national security requires a robust capacity for law enforcement would be a major tragedy.
There are some things that I think could be added that would be helpful to us. The material support for terror statute could be clarified so as to make sure that individuals who are involved in contributing their services are actually providing material support.
The presumption against bail for terrorists -- for serious drug offenders and violent criminals, we have a presumption against bail in the law, and for a number of offenses. But there's no presumption against bail. Not meaning there couldn't be bail grant, but meaning that there ought to be a presumption that a person involved with serious charges of terrorism be restrained.
I believe that we should accord the terrorist investigators administrative subpoena power for certain kinds of business records. There are 335 different administrative subpoena authorities in the country regarding everything from nursing home fraud to a variety of other criminal or federal violations, whether they be health care fraud or crimes related to children. I believe if those authorities work against individuals in those areas, that we should have them as tools in our fight against terror.
The death penalty, which is not automatic, obviously, and shouldn't be automatic, but we should have an availability of the death penalty in certain terrorism crimes resulting in death. Currently, we have some terrorism crimes that may well result in death that wouldn't be punishable by the death penalty. And I think that's one of those areas where we would be well-served to expand the authority of our government to act against terror.
THOMPSON: General, one last question before the chairman gavels me down. I see his eye on the red light, and so is mine.
Sometimes in this country we fall victim to the notion of fighting the last war. And my guess is Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida are not going to fight the last war, they're going to fight a new war, perhaps, in the future.
We've responded with greatly increased security precautions to the hijackings that took place on September 11th. But who in the government, who in the Bush administration, is worrying about the next war and other means that Al Qaida may use to attack us -- or other groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, other groups -- on our soil, on other portions of our infrastructure besides aircraft and airports? Our food supply. Our water supply. Our oil pipelines. Our railroads. Our chemical factories.
Who's worrying about that, and how are they worrying about that? And what assurance do the American people have that somebody is indeed worrying about the next war?
ASHCROFT: Well, frankly, there are a number of us who are worrying about the next war, and we understand that Al Qaida is very likely to change its method of operation and its style to avoid detection. And it's something when we have to understand the nature of this enemy that we face. It's an enemy that is not stupid. This is not some garden variety criminal who is robbing a 7-Eleven. They plan well. They undertake actions that last for years. They seek to inflict mass casualties.
We understand that they might seek to use a different style of individual, individuals who would come from different countries, that it's clear that we know that they have interest in poisons, that they have interest in toxicity, in evil chemistry and evil biology, as well as the interest which they have had in explosives.
ASHCROFT: We've seen a wide variety of explosives used around the world in the proliferation of terrorism that has followed 9/11. It's not been used here and we're grateful that we've been successful in keeping it from happening here.
But this administration has tasked every quadrant of the administration to be alert.
In agriculture, I know very much the concerns of Secretary Veneman. I know in transportation, the concerns of Secretary Mineta. And I know in energy the kinds of concerns that have been expressed by Secretary Abraham, and the list could go on completely.
I guess I would say that we need to continue to do everything possible. When you look around the world and we see that even in cultures that are very attuned and very focused on disrupting terrorism that they are not always successful, and so we have to be at the highest level of readiness and anticipation.
THOMPSON: Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
KEAN: Commissioner Ben-Veniste?
RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Good afternoon, General Ashcroft.
I want to say hello to Larry Thompson.
And to Mr. Olson my renewed condolences.
I believe in your statement, General Ashcroft, with respect to the failed capture policy of the prior administration that you may be incorrect.
I don't believe that you have seen the MON that we have recently received as of last week which had not been previously made available to us. And I will leave that for others to discuss; we've got to tip- toe around it for obvious national security and classification reasons. But you may be enlightened by reviewing that document.
Let me ask you about the August 6th PDB memorandum, sir.
BEN-VENISTE: It is correct, is it not, that you did not receive that document contemporaneously?
ASHCROFT: I did not receive that document in the August 2001 timeframe.
BEN-VENISTE: When was the first you had seen it?
ASHCROFT: I think I saw that in the last several days.
BEN-VENISTE: And so, unlike in the previous administration, the attorney general of the United States in the Bush administration was not a recipient of the PDB memorandum; is that correct?
ASHCROFT: Not prior to 9/11.
BEN-VENISTE: 9/11. That has changed since?
ASHCROFT: I am involved regularly with briefing of the president in regard to terrorist threats. And I accompany the director of the FBI to a morning briefing with the president, which briefing is attended by the director of the CIA and other officials, including director of homeland security. And I think you're familiar with that, I need not...
BEN-VENISTE: Yes, I am, sir.
If you put yourself back in time to early August of 2001, aside from not receiving the PDB, were you made aware from any source that the president of the United States had requested a briefing with respect to the potential for an attack by bin Laden in the United States?
ASHCROFT: This was the kind of information I was asking when I was briefed by the CIA and when I was briefed by the FBI. I was not aware that the president of the United States had made a request in that respect.
BEN-VENISTE: Had you been aware, would you not have made sure that the president received a comprehensive report from the FBI?
ASHCROFT: Any time the president would ask for information from the FBI it would have been my intention to provide the president with a comprehensive report from the FBI. We were not into giving the president less than comprehensive...
BEN-VENISTE: I understand that, sir.
ASHCROFT: ... responses. And had the president asked the FBI for information and I'd been aware of it -- and I would have expected to be aware of it -- I would have encouraged the FBI to be comprehensive.
BEN-VENISTE: Now, we received some very, very interesting information from Acting Director Pickard just a few moments ago. Mr. Pickard testified that as of the afternoon of September 11, 2001, he received three things that he did not know before: Number one, he received the Phoenix memorandum; number two, he received information about the Moussaoui arrest and the detailed background that I won't go into now about who Moussaoui was and what we knew about why he was in the United States; and he received information that the FBI was looking for Mihdhar and al Hazmi, two of the individuals who it turned out participated in the 9/11 catastrophe.
Now, given that fact, and given the fact that as I understand it from our prior meeting, you also did not know any of that information prior to 9/11, is it not possible, sir, that were you to have pulsed the FBI and directed the FBI to push up any information that it might have had, that that information might have been made available to you, to Mr. Clarke, to others contemporaneous in August and prior to 9/11?
ASHCROFT: Well, I think it's pretty clear that I was pulsing the FBI. I asked them regularly in my briefings with them if there were any evidence regarding threats domestically and the kind of conduct by the FBI was the kind of thing that I would have expected them to be involved in as a result of that kind of request on my part.
ASHCROFT: When you look at their conduct in asking twice in April for information relating to Sunni extremism, working the conference of the special agents in charge, when you ask -- when you relate to the telephone calls provided and made by the individuals, when you look at the inlets, you get the kind of activity on the part of the organization that is designed to respond to leadership, that is saying is there any information about a threat? And you would expect having conducted that kind of pulsing that if there were information, that it would be made available.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, obviously we know it wasn't made available. So the question is: Were you familiar with the dysfunctionality of the FBI as a result either of your first months in office or as a result of your great experience in Washington, in the United States Senate and elsewhere.
ASHCROFT: Do you want to repeat that part about the great experience that I had in United States Senate and elsewhere will have to be referring to something else, because I spent my previous time as a colleague of the gentleman on your left, there, who was a governor in the neighboring state.
BEN-VENISTE: I see.
ASHCROFT: I stood in the shadow of a man known as Big Jim Thompson.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, let's go back to your -- so I take that back, and I take your point that you were not well-versed in the ways of Washington, and particularly with respect to the problems of the FBI in connection with disseminating information.
The statement that we've heard time and again is the FBI didn't know what it didn't know, but it also didn't know what it did know.
ASHCROFT: Well, if I might comment on that. In my opening remarks, I talked about the fact that I had demanded four separate independent reviews regarding the information systems at the FBI, so that I was aware of the challenges.
The first of those challenges was revealed to me when, on the day of my going to Justice Department as attorney general, Louis Freeh pulled me aside and said, Oh, by the way, we've got a real problem with the penetration of the FBI, we believe the individual involved to be Robert Hanssen, and access to our information systems that compromises the national integrity was revealed. That was a signal to me that we had serious problems.
Later on, I came to an understanding when we were preparing to deal with the second largest terrorist attack in the United States, which was that undertaken by Timothy McVeigh which resulted in the death of about 170 people, that in his trial we had failed to comply with a court order and we had not delivered -- the FBI had not delivered about 3,000 documents, most of which were duplicates but were the subject of a court order. So I had to delay -- I'd had to delay the execution to make sure that we had an innocent system as well as a guilty defendant in the case.
Additionally, I became concerned about the integrity of our information technology system when it was revealed that about 300 laptop computers were unaccounted for, and for well over 200 of them, the inspector general of the FBI, whom I asked to investigate the matter, said it couldn't be determined whether they were lost or stolen and raised the specter of national security issues.
ASHCROFT: So I understood there were problems.
But I also understood that when we went to agents and when we asked them specific questions about issues related to national security that we should expect them to respond and could expect them to respond. The FBI is populated with well-meaning, hard-working individuals. And they, I think, need to be understood for that and to be credited with that.
BEN-VENISTE: I agree with you, sir.
The problem was in the communication of information which did not reach those who might have made a difference.
Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.
And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.
At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.
Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?
ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.
ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.
I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.
The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.
These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.
BEN-VENISTE: I'm pleased to have been able to give you the opportunity to clarify that issue for all who have written to this commission and communicated in other ways about their questions about that, sir.
Let me also give you the opportunity to respond to Mr. Pickard's testimony just a little while ago about a statement which he claims that you made with respect to priorities.
And in that regard, it is correct, is it not -- because we have looked at the May 10th, 2001, guidance for preparing fiscal year 2003 budgets in which you indicate your priorities -- there are five goals, strategic goals laid out there?
BEN-VENISTE: It does not appear that terrorism was one of them. Is that correct?
ASHCROFT: Let me make an explanation here, because I welcome, as well, this opportunity. The date preceding, on May the 9th, I met with the Senate Appropriations Committee and was asked about my priorities. I said my number one priority was to protect the people of the United States against terrorism.
The Department of Justice, required by the Congress to have a strategic plan, followed that plan. The plan was developed in the year 2000 by my predecessor and had a set of strategic goals. They're listed here early in the book and they are similar to the goals -- they are, as a matter of fact, the goals which were used in large measure for the May 10th memorandum. And they cite some additional goals to terrorism. There's no question about that.
Let me just go -- because our time is limited...
BEN-VENISTE: I'm sorry. Did you say in the prior plan there were citations to counterterrorism?
ASHCROFT: Well, there was no major goal of counterterrorism, but under -- let's not sell Ms. Reno short -- under the first...
BEN-VENISTE: She's not short.
ASHCROFT: Pardon?
BEN-VENISTE: I can testify she's not short.
ASHCROFT: Well, I won't make any personal comment.
BEN-VENISTE: I'm short.
ASHCROFT: But we, and under the Keep America Safe by enforcing federal criminal laws, she did have deter and detect terrorist incidents. And this is the kind of -- let me just cut to the chase here to see where we were. Let our money do the talking.
In the budgets proposed prior to September 11th, the total CT increases were 72 percent greater than the total increases for drugs and gun prosecutions combined. Now, those were the other issues that were listed as priorities of the department. What we had was a combined total of increases of $683.1 million for drugs and gun prosecutions.
ASHCROFT: We had a combined counterterrorism-related budget increase of $1,175.2 million dollars, 72 percent higher for counterterrorism-related items than for items related to the other priorities which we had stated, drug interdiction and the prosecution of gun criminals.
Now I don't mean to discount those priorities. Thousands of people die on our streets as a result of gun crimes. And we are very grateful for our record there. But let the record be clear that when it comes to where the appropriation was, that we had a $1.175 billion increase for counterterrorism in those first two budgets, a $0.683 billion, or $683 million increase on drugs and guns.
KEAN: Senator Gorton?
SLADE GORTON: Thank you, General.
Mr. Attorney General, in your written statement, you have four issues that you discussed. The first one is your criticism of the lack of aggressive enough authorities for decisive action against Osama bin Laden, and you state that on March 7, 2001, you recommended that those authorities be expanded to allow for decisive lethal action. To the best of your knowledge, between that date and September 11, 2001, were those authorities expanded in any respect whatsoever?
ASHCROFT: It's my understanding that an assignment was made by the national security adviser to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency to work on that, and that a judgment was reached that rather than a specific change, that any change should be made as part of an integrated new set of directives.
GORTON: I take that as an answer in the negative.
Your second issue is a severe criticism of the 1995 guidelines that, as you say, imposed draconian barriers to communications between law enforcement and the intelligence communities, the so-called wall.
I don't find that in the eight months before September 11th, 2001, that you changed those guidelines. In fact, I have here a memorandum dated August 6th from Larry Thompson, the fifth line of which reads, The 1995 procedures remain in effect today.
If that wall was so disabling, why was it not destroyed during the course of those eight months?
ASHCROFT: The August 6th memorandum of Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson made possible significantly more information sharing by mandating that those individuals involved in intelligence investigations who came across information relating to a felony federal offense immediately provide notice of that felony federal offense to people on the criminal side of the house.
It was a step in the direction of disabling the wall. It was a step in the direction of lowering the wall, providing for greater communication.
GORTON: But it was after August 6th, 2001, that Moussaoui was picked up and the decision was made in the FBI that you couldn't get a warrant to search his computer. So those changes must not have been very significant.
ASHCROFT: I missed your question, Commissioner.
GORTON: Well, you say as a part of your criticism of the 1995 guidelines, after the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer.
GORTON: The warrant was rejected because FBI officials had feared breaching the wall. Yet that was after these changes that you say were significant on August 6th.
ASHCROFT: Let me explain to you what I believed was the rationale of the FBI at that time.
The FBI feared that if they went forward with a criminal warrant, that later, in the event that a FISA warrant was needed, because a track had been chosen which was a criminal track rather than an intelligence track, that they would not be able to access the information they would otherwise want through the FISA.
So the FBI, mistakenly believing that you had to choose one way or the other because of the wall, decided to deny the criminal warrant in order to protect the option later on for a FISA.
Now, the Moussaoui case reflects not a federal felony offense that would be covered under the authority of the memorandum sent forward by the deputy attorney general.
The Moussaoui case involved an immigration violation. And he was detained on the basis of that violation and in conjunction with what was considered suspicious behavior, but not in conjunction with what provided the basis for evidence of a federal felony.
GORTON: And finally, the third of your issues has to do with that computer authority in which, obviously, you did take very, very positive action very early.
But the fourth refers to the millennium after-action review and its recommendations about disrupting the Al Qaida network.
And as you point out, fully 17 months before September 11th, the review makes these recommendations. Nine of those months were in the Clinton administration; eight of them were in yours.
Did you make any changes reflecting that millennium after-action review in your time as attorney general before 9/11?
ASHCROFT: This is a report which was not briefed to me or briefed to other individuals. It was a report which is a classified report.
GORTON: So you didn't know of its existence?
ASHCROFT: No, it turns out, when I learned of its existence, these were the very things following September 11th.
We began to address suspicious situations by being very aggressive in charging criminal violations, in charging immigration violations. We began to be very aggressive in our work at the border. And these are the kinds of recommendations that were involved in the report, which was simply not made available...
GORTON: Attorney General Ashcroft, there's no question of how aggressive you were in that period of time, and I think highly admirable. But the administration, of which you're a part, didn't take any of those actions before 9/11.
ASHCROFT: That's exactly correct. And this report would have recommended and signaled to us that this was a way that we might consider acting.
And, as a matter of fact, the report signaled that it would be appropriate and perhaps necessary. It signaled significant risks that those involved in the after-action assessments of the millennium plot believed would merit us being more aggressive.
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
KEAN: Commissioner Fielding?
FRED F. FIELDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here. Thank you for all of the assistance you provided to our commission. And also thank you for all your years of public service.
You said in your prepared statement this afternoon, that in discussing the debate on the nature of the covert action authorities, that in February 2001, shortly after becoming attorney general, you reviewed those authorities. And your thorough review revealed no covert action program to kill bin Laden. Is that correct?
ASHCROFT: I believe that the covert action plan I reviewed was to capture bin Laden. And if he were to be killed it would only be in the eventual circumstance that there were some kind of inability to capture that resulted in a threat that required some kind of self- defense measure.
FIELDING: What briefings did you seek in February to review this whole situation?
ASHCROFT: Well, I was part of the consideration of the strategy regarding Osama bin Laden to the extent that it related to the treatment and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden himself. So this was one of the responsibilities I had.
FIELDING: Now, I'm sorry, sir. What briefings did you receive? What were your sources of information when you were making this review of authorities? Were you briefed by Director Tenet?
ASHCROFT: I'm not sure exactly where all the information came from that I was privy to at that time.
We were very confident that this individual had been involved in very serious acts against the United States, in the embassy bombings and the like. And we felt that we had a relative assurance that he was involved in the Cole attack.
We knew that Khobar Towers was what we considered to be Iranian Hezbollah; so it was a different group. But in my judgment, just knowing about the embassy bombings, the loss of life there, we all understood that the fatwa had been issued regarding his desire to kill Americans.
FIELDING: Now, I appreciate that, General, and excuse me for interrupting you but we're playing with the clock here. But what I'm trying to determine is did you review MONs, for instance?
FIELDING: Did your staff provide you with the documents so that you could review the existing authorities?
ASHCROFT: I believe they did.
FIELDING: Did you request documents from agencies? Did you request documents from the CIA?
ASHCROFT: I'm not capable of telling you exactly how all the information was assembled. I just remember that having made the assessment of the information, I was struck by the fact that I believed that it was so complex and convoluted that it would be paralytic and that we owed people in the field clear direction, and that the direction should be to find and kill bin Laden and not to try and capture him.
FIELDING: Did you staff prepare a briefing for you? Was there any written documentation of the process that you went through to make this evaluation?
ASHCROFT: I'm not in a position to remember whether or not they did at this time.
FIELDING: We would request that you check that. And the reason I'm asking is I must advise you that we have received recent information in regard to MONs which I believe may alter your evaluation of existing authorities in February of 2001.
ASHCROFT: Well, I took that seriously when Commissioner Ben- Veniste mentioned it to me. I've made a note of it. And unless I'm missing a bet big time, my staff has made a note of it. And we'll work to understand that more thoroughly.
FIELDING: Well, thank you, sir, because we would otherwise want to review this with you in closed session, because it's obviously very highly classified, unless there's an opportunity to have this declassified so that we can supplement our staff statements as well. So thank you. We'd appreciate your cooperation in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
KEAN: Thank you, Commissioner.
Congressman Roemer?
TIMOTHY J. ROEMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, General. Thank you for your time here and your fulsome testimony.
I want to turn to page three of your testimony and where you're talking about being aggressive and doing something about Osama bin Laden.
ROEMER: You certainly think Osama bin Laden is somewhere overseas, correct?
ASHCROFT: I don't know where he is.
ROEMER: Don't know where he is.
ASHCROFT: I don't believe he's in the United States of America.
ROEMER: You don't believe he's in the United States, and you want to go get him. And you go to the national security adviser to the president and you say, Let's find a way to get him.
ASHCROFT: I said that if we could find and kill him, that should be the objective of our government.
ROEMER: So you're being aggressive. You're certainly trying to focus on the threat of bin Laden.
Let me ask you a question about Al Qaida. With the USS Cole, we lose 17 sailors. The Clinton administration gets a preliminary judgment in December of 2000 that says, Well, we can't quite associate this with the command and control of Osama bin Laden, but these are definitely Al Qaida operatives.
You -- I believe your administration gets a briefing in January, same type of briefing. This is Al Qaida. Why don't you take this on the offensive, like you do Osama bin Laden, and say, We are going to go get Al Qaida. They can't do this to our military, to our sailors, to our people ?
ASHCROFT: Well, Commissioner, I didn't get the briefing in January. As you may remember, I was one of the late individuals confirmed.
ROEMER: When do you understand this, then? You're certainly in March meeting with Condi Rice to do something about this. Why don't you do something about Al Qaida?
ASHCROFT: Very frankly, we didn't get confirmation that the -- as I explained earlier -- that the command and control of Al Qaida might be involved in this matter until substantially later.
ROEMER: Can you remember when?
ASHCROFT: I believe it was either late in the summer or the fall of 2001 when the final determination was made.
ASHCROFT: And that was a time, after which, I believe we brought criminal charges, although obviously those are not resolved.
ROEMER: For a law enforcement...
ASHCROFT: There is -- and it is a totally different world -- executive responsibilities in regard to presidential orders and directives are different than...
ROEMER: But why not go after Al Qaida? Why not militarily go after Al Qaida, rather than a law enforcement type of activity?
ASHCROFT: Well, first of all, let us make it clear that it's not either or. The mere fact that we would go after Al Qaida doesn't mean that we wouldn't also pursue and have the option of criminal remedies as well. The Justice Department has done that and continued to do that even against individuals who might be involved in Al Qaida or in more war-like settings.
If you're asking me why the administration didn't make a judgment, I believe that the administration, while it understood that there were ties to Al Qaida by those who were involved in the Cole bombing, the kind of information that would support a different judgment was not existent until substantially later.
ROEMER: But again, you're asking for a final conclusion, rather than a preliminary judgment that says Al Qaida is responsible. Al Qaida did this. Al Qaida killed our sailors. Why have to wait six to eight months down the line to say this is a particular individual, Osama bin Laden?
ASHCROFT: I don't understand your question, sir. I believe that the...
ROEMER: This is not just a terrorism fight against Osama bin Laden. It's Al Qaida. It's jihadists. It's the conveyor belts producing people that want to kill us in Afghanistan.
So my question is, why not go after broadly that group of people rather than one single individual?
ASHCROFT: Well, I believe that's eventually what we did. But, obviously, it's not a decision we made, and we didn't have the kind of information or predicate upon which to make that decision earlier. Whether or not we should have absent that predicate is a policy judgment that certainly wasn't mine to make.
ROEMER: Thank you, sir.
KEAN: Senator Kerrey?
BOB KERREY: Attorney General Ashcroft, very nice to see you. I'm glad you're on the mend.
ASHCROFT: Well, I'm coming back, to the gratification of some and mortification of others.
KERREY I'm going to get into the mortification piece here in a minute.
ASHCROFT: You're going to what, help the mortifiers?
KERREY: No, no, no.
A couple of statements to you just for your information. In the, I think, '95 and '96 it was, Senator Specter and I, after learning of significant computer and communication inadequacies in the FBI, asked one of our staff to go over and do an evaluation of what the FBI -- that was a fast five minutes.
ASHCROFT: When you're having fun.
KERREY: Yes.
And came back and recommended that we authorize and appropriate several million dollars to do some evaluation. I guess it was a very unhappy experience.
I say that because there were a lot of us who simply didn't think the FBI could do it; that it was, sort of, like the IRS. You remember the whole IRS restructuring effort. That actually began with the IRS lousing up a several billion dollar computer investment. So I just ask to you look at that...
ASHCROFT: If I might comment on that, one of the real contributions of Louis Freeh as director of the FBI was that he began to reach outside the FBI in order to get help. And the FBI had been an insular agency of very capable people, but they really began to be injured by their own talent. They really thought they could do everything on their own.
And Robert Dyes was the first of the known experts to me to come to the FBI from IBM to begin to say, Here's the way a modern information architecture should look and here's what should be done.
ASHCROFT: And so you were prophetic in saying that it needs something other than just the old agent core. Same thing with IRS. Until Rosati got there, nobody really trusted they could get the job done.
KERREY: And I think what we're doing now, we're beginning to use software and other things that are developed outside and beginning to accept expertise from outside the bureau. That's very, very helpful to us.
And the commercial world has things like link analysis and the like that they use commercially that can be very helpful to us in investigations and also connecting the dots when we want to organize intelligence.
The second thing I want to say, and I need your help on this because I was not in the Congress when the Patriot Act passed, and you know me well enough to know that anything that you have to put the word patriot on in order to get people to vote for it, I'm inclined to vote against it just on that basis.
ASHCROFT: I do know you.
KERREY: In this case, looking at it -- the only thing I've heard about it by the way, so this is a mortification area -- I've heard a lot of my former Democratic colleagues giving fervent speeches against the Patriot Act. They all voted for it, but they're giving speeches against it. It's a weird situation.
ASHCROFT: That's not weird, that's rather usual around here.
KERREY: Anyway. I am concerned that section 218 could end up like Rico -- being used, you know, it starts off against organized crime but ends up abortion protests, using it against business. It has a life of its own beyond it.
I don't need a comment now, General Ashcroft. That and section 215 -- I need some help. I've got some questions about it. And I trust that you can help me with an open mind -- try to figure out where we need to preserve the Patriot Act and where we may have some provisions in there we actually don't need.
I mean, just generally, I'm very nervous about giving government too much power, frankly. And in the long-term -- I don't need to lecture you on that, but I get nervous about giving the government too much power. And it seems like the Patriot Act gave the government an awful lot of power over American citizens.
ASHCROFT: Let me comment that in large measure, the Patriot Act extended powers in the fight against terror that were already well- understood powers in the fight against drugs and organized crime, so that we weren't treading down new constitutional territory. The multi-point wire tap or the roving wire tap had been in existence for 14 years and 15 years. And the ability, for instance, to subpoena business records from grand juries had been in existence for a long time.
Now the FISA provisions that relate to it are different from grand juries. A grand jury, frankly, operates with the U.S. attorney or an assistant U.S. attorney reaching over on a stack of forms and filling it out, and taking it out and serving it. It's never seen by a judge unless someone resists it or protests it.
Under FISA, you can't have an order without first seeing the federal judge. Or unless it's an emergency order, and then it has to be brought before a judge within 72 hours. So there's a lot of safeguards here. I'd like to talk to you about it. It is important to our national security.
KERREY: Also, staff has asked, and I'd appreciate it if we could get that, some documentation that shows what the detain and clear policy did for counterterrorism, for intelligence, for law enforcement. I guess 768 detainees, and that's been a very controversial thing. If you can give us some documentation of what the counterintelligence...
ASHCROFT: I would love to comment on that. We did not detain anyone that was not in violation. So people who are detained were violators of the law.
And our history has been that when you detain people for immigration violations or you charge them, if you don't detain them, they go, they just evaporate. Eighty-five percent of all people charged with violations, if they are finally adjudicated guilty, if you haven't detained them, they just merge into the culture.
ASHCROFT: Ninety-three percent of the people who come from terrorist-sponsoring states have the record of absconding, so they go into the culture.
We couldn't afford to have a situation like that with individuals who are detained in conjunction with the massive investigation following 9/11. We had to hold them, and we did.
And, frankly, that's one of the ways that we picked up a fellow named al Mahri (ph), who was sent here on September the 10th to be a facilitator of follow-on attacks. We first had him on immigration charges then on criminal charges. We eventually -- he has become an enemy combatant and is now being held...
KERREY: I appreciate that your staff is nodding like mad when I asked for the documentation, so I...
ASHCROFT: OK. Let them...
KERREY: Thank you.
KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick?
JAMIE S. GORELICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You said in response to -- I think it was Commissioner Ben- Veniste's question -- that you, indeed, had been struck from the list of senior executives in the administration who got the presidential daily brief. I think you said you did not get it.
And that is curious, I think, given Dr. Rice's testimony that the domestic aspect of our national security was largely in the Department of Justice and FBI bailiwick.
You, when you were interviewed by our staff with regard to the adequacy of the FBI's response to the intelligence that was coming out in the summer of '01, said that you accepted the FBI's assurance that the threats were overseas and, sort of, assumed that things must be in hand and that whatever they were doing was adequate to respond. And then you said, I think quite candidly, that this was a dangerous assumption to make.
Now here is my question: You did not get the presidential daily brief, but you did get the senior executive intelligence brief that was provided to the next rung of the government.
GORELICK: Is that correct? You got that daily?
ASHCROFT: The SEIB...
GORELICK: The SEIB.
ASHCROFT: ... was available to me.
GORELICK: On August 7th, 2001, a SEIB that reflected much of -- although it was not identical to -- much of the content of the August 6th presidential daily brief came out. And I would like to ask you if you remember seeing a document headed, Terrorism: Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The United States, in the SEIB.
ASHCROFT: I do not remember seeing that. I was in -- I believe I was in Chicago speaking at the American Bar Association meeting, I believe, at the time. So I do not have a recollection of seeing that.
GORELICK: Did your staff regularly brief you on the intelligence when you returned?
ASHCROFT: I was briefed, and items of interest were noted for me from time to time by my staff.
GORELICK: Would something like this, which is a memorandum that is going out to your colleagues, hundreds of your colleagues in the government, saying that bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States, been an item of significance that you would think would have been briefed to you?
ASHCROFT: These items had been briefed to me. They had been briefed to me by the FBI, they have been briefed to me by the CIA. The administration asked me to get briefings when appropriate in regard to these measures.
I remember Ms. Rice, for example, early in July, during the threat period and the heightened and elevated threat, asking me if I would receive a briefing from the CIA because she thought it important.
It's that kind of briefing that I received early.
The CIA, we have reconstructed it from the slides they used, talked a lot about the threat overseas. And we, obviously, were aware of the historical information that Osama bin Laden had issued statements years before, much of which is in the SEIB and was in the August 6th PDB, which I have now read.
ASHCROFT: But we inquired of the CIA and the FBI: Are there domestic threats that require -- is there any evidence of domestic threat? And they both said no. I might add that for the CIA, I inquired of them: Are there things we can do additionally by way of FISA to assist you in making sure that we have all the information necessary to be aware of those threats. And they assured me that if they needed additional help, they would ask for it.
GORELICK: So you were aware in early August -- by at least early August of '01 that in addition to the fatwas and the statements of intention by bin Laden, that there was evidence that he intended to strike in the United States? Is that correct?
ASHCROFT: Well, I don't know if in addition to the fatwas and his statement of intention. We were aware that he had stated his intention, of the historical items mentioned in the SEIB and I believe also mentioned in the PDB. We were aware that those kinds of historical references had been made. And it was with that in mind, in conjunction with our understanding of what he had done in terms of the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, that we understood him to be a very serious individual and we should take him seriously.
GORELICK: As a result of your awareness of this domestic threat, did you review with Acting Director Pickard the specific actions that he had taken to ensure that information in the possession of agents of the FBI across America relating to bin Laden's threats, his capacity, his ability to strike us, activities that might be going on in the United States, that that information would be flowing up to you?
ASHCROFT: I queried the director on numbers of occasions about threats in the United States that would require our attention.
ASHCROFT: I expected those queries to result in the kind of activity which we saw in the FBI across the summer -- not only in the face-to-face inquiries at the SAC meetings, but in the telephone inquiries and in the communications -- through the electronic communication as well as the inlets -- which shared those awarenesses with the rest of the law enforcement community in the country.
We viewed inlets as a force multiplier because we got away from just the 12,000 FBI agents to the 700,000 or so law enforcement officials in the country. And we wanted those to be pulsed, as well.
GORELICK: Do you know if any of the inlets actually produced any information to the FBI?
ASHCROFT: I do not know and would not be expecting to know what 700,000 or so law enforcement officials might be saying to the people in the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces around the country. And I'm sure they were saying lots of things. But obviously I wouldn't be aware of those.
GORELICK: Thank you very much.
KEAN: Thank you, Commissioner.
Attorney General, thank you very, very much for your appearance. For your help. You've helped our work and we appreciate it.
ASHCROFT: Thank you.
Browse by month:
A damaged brain drives a man to obsessively create art.
Learn about Jon Sarkin by viewing the story, photos and video.
- Hot topics in forums and blog comments


text:
1. When is Coastal Cleanup Day?
Saturday, September 21, from 9am-noon
2. How do I participate?
Sign up online following these instructions.
3. What is the age requirement to participate in Coastal Cleanup Day?
Volunteers must be 13 years old or accompanied by a parent. All toddlers and babies must be with their parent at all times. Volunteers under the age of 18 must have a liability waiver signed by a parent or guardian to participate.
4. Can I participate with a large group, like my coworkers or church group?
We welcome all large groups and family participation to Coastal Cleanup Day and encourage that this be a day of building community stewardship! Group Leaders can sign up personally on the event page and indicate the number in their group during registration.
All scouts, cubs, and youth groups should follow a reasonable adult-to-kid ratio for the safety of all participants at this event.
You can not sign up a group for a kayak or dive site. Each participant at the kayak or dive sites must register on his/her own.
5. Where do I park? Does parking cost anything?
Each parking situation is dependent on the site. Some beach sites may require you to pay for parking while others provide parking passes. Specific parking information for each site will be provided as Cleanup Day gets closer, so check back for updates.
Download ParkMe, the free Santa Monica-based app, on your smartphone for real-time parking availability on Coastal Cleanup Day.
6. Can students get credit toward community service requirements?
YES! Coastal Cleanup Day is a great way to help meet your community service requirements. Forms verifying your participation are available from the site captain at the conclusion of your cleanup. Please be sure to ask for one before leaving your cleanup site.
7. What do I wear? What do I bring with me?
Of course, you should always wear sunscreen and a hat. You need to wear closed-toe shoes, to make sure you don't step on anything sharp, and make sure to bring plenty of water – preferably in a reusable bottle. Learn more about what to do on Coastal Cleanup Day.
8. Do I HAVE to sign up for a site online ahead of time?
For most sites, no, you can show up on Cleanup Day and sign up on the spot. The only sites that REQUIRE pre-registration are the KAYAK sites and some of the DIVE sites.
9. Can I take pictures of Coastal Cleanup Day?
Yes! We love to get pictures of the action and we need your help documenting the event...your photos may even end up on this website! Also, if you (or a friend) are in the film/TV industry, we are looking for professionals willing to do pro bono footage of Coastal Cleanup Day.
Heal the Bay is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All gifts are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.


text:
- News
- Calendar
- Blogs
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Business
- Lifestyles
- Community
- Opinion
- About Us
- Classifieds
- Coupons
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Contests
- Weekly Ads
- Connect2Classes
Connect with Us
Trees ready fir the holidays
POULSBO With 102 acres at his disposal, Bill Jones has an abundance of trees for the holiday season, even for those last-minute shoppers.
Located at 1795 NE Sawdust Hill Road, Jones Tree Farm carries six variety of firs including noble, Douglas and alpine and even a few pines.
We carry everything from three feet to 30 feet and everything is $8 a foot, he said.
Even though the farm was inundated with shoppers the weekend after Thanksgiving, a large selection still remains for those looking for the perfect tree before Santa arrives.
With more than 20 years experience growing trees, Jones said he has begun seeing third generation growth and expects to see a lot more before he even considers retirement.
Im the youngest grower in the county, so Ill be around for a long time, he said with a smile.
One of the changes in store for next year is an added emphasis on planting more replacement trees than in years past, Jones said.
It generally takes 10 to 15 years and next year, well be planting a lot more trees, he said.
While Jones is already eyeing the future, its hard to miss the current attractions at the farm. Namely, the draft horse duo of Pancho and Lefty, which provides a wagon-level view of the array of trees that fill the farm.
Driven by Al Whitworth, the pair appears right at home even with the dogs and other critters running around the property.
You can guess which ones Lefty, Whitworth quipped as he prepared to make another loop around the property.
Santa Claus and hot cider are also regulars at the farm and holiday wreaths are available as well.
The farm is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily.
For more information, call (360) 779-7840.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Oct 15 - Oct 22
Read the Oct 21
Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Browse the archives.


text:
The finals are set for one of the toughest weight classes at any region in the state.
Seton Hall Prep's Brenden Calas, a two-time state champion, and Gov. Livingston's Jon Mele will meet in the 120-pound final here at Region 3 at Union High later Saturday.
Calas defeated Parsippany's Stephen Persaud by decision, 5-2, in the semifinals.
Mele knocked off Delbarton's Christian Innarella, 17-6, in his semifinal. Innarella had defeated Hanover Park's Anthony Cefalo, himself a state champion, in Friday night's quarterfinals.
Email James Kratch at email@example.com


text:
With her X-Factor judging gig, a platinum album and tour under her belt, it seems that Britney Spears is having the best year ever. She's topped it all off by being named 2012's top earning woman in music, according to Forbes.
Spears raked in $58 million with the help of her music career, endorsements and Elizabeth Arden perfume line.
It's definitely a long way off from the tumultuous life she lived just a few years ago.
"I think people love the comeback story-Britney never really finished her run as a superstar," famed author and entrepreneur Steve Stoute told the publication.
She edged out country wonder kid Taylor Swift for the top spot by just $1 million.
To read more about Spears' comeback and to see what other women made the list, click here.
Check out a clip of Britney Spears on X-Factor premiering her new collaboration with will.i.am "Scream & Shout":


text:
Ireland's Katie Taylor faces a tough draw ahead of her quest for gold at the London Olympics.
The four-time world champion will take on the winner of Britain's Natasha Jonas and her old nemesis Queen Underwood from the US in the quarter-finals. Jonas and Underwood meet on 5 August.
Taylor will face the winner on 6 August, with victory guaranteeing a bronze medal at least.
Taylor's father and coach, Peter, said it is a great draw, and she wants to show the world that she can beat the best.
Taylor has beaten Underwood three times in the past and recorded a 6-3 victory over Liverpool southpaw Jonas – who beat Seattle-native Underwood (23-15) at the Olympic Test Event at the ExCel last December – in the semi-finals of the 2011 Strandja Memorial in Pazerdjik, Bulgaria.
Taylor recorded landslide wins over Underwood at the National Stadium in Dublin and at the Arch Centre in Kildare in 2009 when Ireland beat the USA over two internationals.
She also beat the American 18-16 en route to gold in the semi-finals of the AIBA World Women's Championships in Barbados in 2010.
There was good news for Belfast boxers Paddy Barnes and Michael Conlon, who received byes into the last 16.
Barnes will face either Abdelali Darra of Morocco or Thomas Essomba of the Cameroon on 4 August, while Conlon will meet either Duke Akueth Micah of Ghana or Jason Oliver Lavigilante of Marautis on 3 August.
John Joe Nevin will box tomorrow against Dane Dennis Villy Ceylan in the round of 32.
Team captain Darren O'Neill will face Muideen Olalekan Akanji from Nigeria in the last 32 in the middleweight division on Saturday.
Both Nevin and O'Neill will fight in the Saturday afternoon session, which starts at 1.30pm. Nevin's bout is the fourth of the session. O'Neill's is the eighth of the session.
Adam Nolan from Wexford has drawn Estacio Sanchez from Ecuador in the round of 32 in men's welterweight division. That fight will take place on Sunday evening's session, which starts at 8.30pm.


text:
- News
- Calendar
- Blogs
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Business
- Lifestyles
- Community
- Opinion
- About Us
- Classifieds
- Coupons
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
- Connect2Classes
Connect with Us
Downtown traffic crawls toward solution
By JACINDA HOWARD, The Mirror
The public will have a chance April 9 to weigh in on solutions to alleviate downtown traffic through the year 2035.
The city will host an open house as a way to gather comments and public input on the City Center Access Project, which could alter the way drivers access downtown Federal Way by relocating the current Interstate 5 on- and off-ramps at South 320th Street.
Those who attend the open house can review three possible traffic solutions as well as voice concerns.
We will be asking the public for their opinions, senior traffic engineer Maryanne Zukowski said. If they are concerned about where the roads are going to go, they should come to the meeting.
The City Center Access Project began in 2003 with the purpose of relieving congestion and providing traffic safety near South 320th Street. Since that time, a stakeholders team comprised of concerned citizens narrowed 47 possible solutions to three final options.
There is a high level of frustration with the movement of traffic in Federal Way, resident and stakeholder Lisa Tinsley said.
Each person who attends the open house will have the opportunity to view a large-scale map of the three options for moving traffic around South 320th Street, ask questions, talk with city staff members, submit comments on the project and vote on a logo to identify the road construction as city center access work.
Most people dont get a chance to speak up until they see something getting built, Zukowski aid. This is their chance to speak up.
Business and property owners, residents in apartment complexes and Belmor Mobile Home Park Golf and Country Club could all be affected by the project, Zukowski said. The options could require the city to build on land now owned by residents, so having an awareness of what is on that land, such as a drinking well, is necessary, Zukowski said.
The scoping process will assist the city in choosing one of the three traffic alternatives.
Right now we are really exploring (the options), Tinsley said.
Relieving traffic:
Option one, also referred to as the North City Center alternative, offers traffic relief through the relocation of the Interstate 5 on- and off-ramps at South 320th Street. The ramps would be moved to allow freeway drivers to instead exit at South 312th Street.
Option two, referred to as South City Center alternative, involves modifying the layout of South 324th Street. In this case, Interstate 5 on- and off-ramps would be relocated from South 320th Street to South 324th Street.
The third option, referred to as the no-build alternative, is to retain South 320th Street on and off-ramps and widen the freeway overpass at the citys main access point. An additional overpass would be added at South 312th Street and a roadway extension at 32nd Avenue South would be constructed.
Everything is equal on the table, even the no-build option, Zukowski said.
The city council approved the project and the options in May 2007. A consultant was hired in January 2008 to further research the options and assess their impacts on residents and the environment. Concerns brought up at the open house will be further studied in the consultants environmental assessment. Just because one option is less expensive does not mean it is the best solution to the problem, Zukowski said.
Together, public input, staff research and the consultants assessment will help determine which option will provide the most long-term benefits relative to cost.
The public is a traffic engineer too because they drive (the citys roads), Zukowski said.
Contact Jacinda Howard: firstname.lastname@example.com or (253) 925-5565.
Check it out:
The open house will take place from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. April 9 at City Hall, 33325 8th Ave. S. It is part of a scoping process that will allow for citizens comments and continue through April 23. To learn more about the City Center Access Project visit the Citys Web site at www.cityoffederalway.com.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Oct 19 - Oct 26
Read the Oct 21
Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Browse the archives.


text:
By Erik Nordberg
The size and role of government has been a hot topic in recent months. Debate about the federal budget, government shutdown, debt ceiling, defense spending, affordability of health care, and the state of our nation's transportation and utility infrastructures are constantly before us. Divisions in perspective – even within our major political parties – have hampered substantive discussion of these issues.
The Michigan Humanities Council receives an important portion of its annual operating revenues from the National Endowment for the Humanities. These funds directly support our six major statewide programs, as well as re-grant programs which distribute funding to other nonprofits across the state for local cultural programming. These local agencies match these funds at a ratio greater than 1:3, meaning that federal humanities dollars leverage an additional $1.4 million dollars in Michigan annually.
For some people, the question of whether government should support the humanities is a non-starter. With so many "far more important issues" at play, how can we even consider discussing funding for cultural projects? In seeking a government that is smaller and more efficient, what few things are considered "need to have," instead of simply "nice to have?" Prevailing wisdom places the humanities, history, literature, poetry and the creative arts in a lower tier as "non-essential" to American life.
How have we allowed this to happen? The humanities are the building blocks of thought, knowledge and identity. The humanities give us the tools to learn about the world around us. They excite creativity, stoke innovation, and inspire action. The humanities also provide vehicles to develop our individual identity. The humanities define, contrast and connect our communities. The humanities create conversations about what makes us human.
As a result, we must be concerned about anything that negatively affects training K-12 history teachers, funding for research and discovery in the social sciences in our universities, literature and language programs in our middle schools, and support for college study-abroad programs. The ability to read and comprehend written materials is critical to our democratic ideal, so reading, literacy and family reading initiatives (such MHC's Prime Time Family Reading Time and our signature program, the Great Michigan Read) must be strengthened to further the development of Michigan citizens.
The humanities occur at the grassroots level in Michigan. They are manifest in presentations given to elementary school students by a cultural tradition bearer from our Arts & Humanities Touring Directory. They are evident in the community conversation between an Arab American scholar and a small town library encouraged by our Bridging Cultures initiative. They are exercised through a grant-funded documentary about Rogers City's founding around a calcite quarry – and its endurance through a century of industrial boom and bust. They are shared through exhibits and web media supported by our major grant program which encourage Michigan communities to compare and contrast their own histories.
These are not esoteric or high-minded activities. These are the humanities. And they are not a luxury item.
Do you have a guest column on a statewide topic to share? Email statewide community engagement director Jen Eyer at email@example.com.


text:
INDIANAPOLIS -- Michigan State stormed out to a 7-0 lead in its Big Ten tournament semifinal against No. 12 Wisconsin and hasn't looked back yet.
Adreian Payne -- who had five points all night against Northwestern -- scored five points in the first 2 minutes and 30 seconds against the Badgers on Saturday. Payne and sophomore Denzel Valentine combined for 23 of MSU's 43 points.
Frank Kaminsky kept Wisconsin in it early with 12 first-half points and Badgers guard Ben Brust led UW on a 7-0 run late in the half to cut the Spartans 21-point lead to a more manageable 14 with 3:36 left in the half.
The winner will face Michigan in the Big Ten tournament final Sunday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. (CBS).
• Mike Griffith's updates from Michigan State-Wisconsin:
Michigan State 43, Wisconsin 26 (Half): The Badgers face their largest halftime deficit of the season. Tom Izzo just said on CBS: "Two things we did very well, we defended, when you defend well you can run. If we get our transition game going we're a better basketball team.'' Adreian Payne and Gary Harris have two fouls, but otherwise no players in foul trouble. Spartans shot 65 percent.
Michigan State 43, Wisconsin 26 (0:59.9): Denzel Valentine drained another three from the corner, this one in transition, to send Bo Ryan to the whiteboard during this timeout. Adreian Payne with a hard slam the previous possession.
Michigan State 37, Wisconsin 23 (3:36): Spartans are 15-of-21 shooting and show no signs of letting up on the Badgers, who are having to work hard for their shots against a suffocating defense. Adreian Payne leads State with 10 points, eight for Denzel Valentine and seven points for Travis Trice.
Michigan State 28, Wisconsin 15 (7:52) Denzel Valentine has eight points and a pair of threes, and the Spartans are playing their best basketball since the first half of the Michigan game in Ann Arbor. MSU 12-of-16 shooting, UW is 4-of-18 from the floor.
Michigan State 21, Wisconsin 13 (10:56): Tom Izzo giving Adreian Payne and Branden Dawson some early time on the bench, pacing is star forwards and keeping them out of foul trouble. Travis Trice making some noise with four points and Denzel Valentine with five points.
Michigan State 9, Wisconsin 5 (15:49): The Spartans have cooled off, and Wisconsin has slowed the tempo a bit. Looks like an intriguing matchup.
Michigan State 7, Wisconsin 0 (18:18): Adreian Payne with a 3-pointer, a bucket in transition and Branden Dawson dunks, time out, Bo Ryan.


text:
Cool credenzas
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:21 PM
Inappropriate photo? Alert us.
Handcrafted from exotic demolition hardwoods and black walnut, this credenza pays homage to the '50s and '60s, but will look fantastic in any era.
$3,100 at Eclectic Home, 8211 Oak St.
Related articles
- Have confidence in these credenzas: Cool Stuff October 12, 2012, 10:00 AM


text:
We live in a global, digitally networked world. Cloud, mobile and in-memory technologies are its engines. Our new world has no boundaries; there is a huge potential for growth, employment and new business models. But it also comes with challenges for policy and industry.
The Great Debate
from Commentaries:
Twitter backlash foretold
Technology market research firm Gartner Inc has published the 2009 "Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies," its effort to chart out what's hot or not at the cutting edge of hi-tech jargon. It's just one of an annual phalanx of reports that handicap some 1,650 technologies or trends in 79 different categories for how likely the terms are to make it into mainstream corporate parlance.
Computer industry hopes lie in the clouds
— Eric Auchard is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own —
No one can easily define it.
But the next phase of the computer revolution is busy being born out of the ashes of the current economic crisis. The new approach delivers computing power as a service over the Web, like an electric utility, instead of making customers buy computers they manage themselves.


text:
Our Services
The Trusted Trade Alliance provides a full range of consulting and training services focused on assisting business in addressing the challenges of global trade.
We provide a comprehensive network of member offices located around the globe, staffed to provide a consistent level of expertise on 5 continents.
Our members include noted experts, well-versed in the local requirements of the countries you do business in, as well as recognized leaders in multilateral efforts to make global trade challenges as business-friendly and practicable as possible.
Our mission is to provide our customers with high-quality, personalized consulting, training, advice and assistance in the implementation of compliant trade processes at a country, multi-country or global level.


text:
With a hen party including your fiancée's ex (who happens to be your resentful half-sister) and your already once ex-mother-in-law, Leanne Barlow's Coronation Street send off to married life was never going to be a fabulous one, was it?
And the guest list goes someway to explaining why it precisely was not that, as the Daily Mail newspaper has printed pictures of that Leanne (Jane Danson) left alone and miserable on her big night, after a drunken row with her sister, Eva (Catherine Tyldesley).
The publication has released the pictures of the unhappy bride-to-be, looking very down in the dumps, alone with only a cheap veil on her head for company.
According to the publication Leanne, who is set to marry her ex-husband, Nick Tilsley for the second time, is set for a night of lonely misery after a drunken Eva makes her feelings about the upcoming wedding (which she helped orchestrate) extremely loud and clear, resulting in an upset Leanne storming off alone, without any support from her mother, Stella (Michelle Collins) who is seen staggering at the end of the night with the rest of the hen party.
Fans of the hit ITV soap will know how on Monday, Nick is manipulated into proposing to Leanne by his sister in law, Kylie (Paula Lane) after she concocts a plan with scheming Eva to break him and Leanne up.
Oblivious to the fact that he is being set up, Nick goes against his better judgement and pops the question to Leanne, believing it is what she wants, when Eva and Kylie know full well it is not. The proposal does not go well at all at first, but it seems that the meddling pair's plan eventually backfires on them when Leanne later changes her mind.
Asked if Nick had planning on proposing in an interview with ITV.com, Ben Price, who plays Nick, said: "No not at all, maybe some time in the future – but certainly not yet.
"But Kylie persuades him that any woman would love to be swept off their feet and proposed to in that way.
"But of course it couldn't be further from the truth, but where Leanne is concerned Nick ignores his own instinct, he has given her chance after chance."
If the wedding does go ahead, this will be the second time up the aisle for the couple, watch them running away to Gretna Green the first time in the clip below:
Coronation Street can be seen Monday, Wednesday and Friday evenings on ITV1/ITV1 HD.