Quote:

---

VIENNA, Austria -
Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the
U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program.
ADVERTISEMENT

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," Iran said a statement meant for delivery at the
International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board meeting in Vienna on Iran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

"But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

In statements for the same meeting, the United States and its European allies said Iran's intransigence over its nuclear program has left the world no choice but to ask for the U.N. Security Council to take action against the Islamic regime.

"The time has now come for the Security Council to act," Gregory Schulte, the U.S. delegate to the IAEA, told board members. "Iran has still not come clean."

Schulte listed Iran's decision to curtail IAEA inspections, its expanding uranium enrichment program and worrying conclusions by IAEA inspectors that suggest at least past interest in nuclear arms as contributing to "mounting international concerns" about Tehran's nuclear intentions.

The IAEA meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins to consider Iran's nuclear plans, which could lead to possible sanctions. Iran's president said earlier Wednesday that his country will not back down from plans to enrich uranium domestically.

Iran's statement against the United States was unusually harsh, reflecting Tehran's frustration at failing to deflect the threat of Security Council action against it in the coming weeks.

It attacked the "warmongers in Washington" for what it said was an unjust accusation that Tehran's nuclear intentions were mainly for military use. And it suggested the United States was vulnerable, despite its strength.

"Surely we are not naive about the United States' ... intention to flex muscles," said the statement. "But we also see the bone fractures underneath."

It also threatened broader retaliation, without being specific, saying Iran "will adapt our policy and adjust our approach to conform with the new exigencies."

France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."

"We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the authority" of the IAEA and its board, said a draft statement by the three European countries.

Austria, which holds the EU presidency, expressed regret at Iran's decisions to withhold "voluntary cooperation" from IAEA inspectors and resume uranium enrichment, which can be part of a process to make nuclear weapons.

The Austrian comments were made in a statement prepared for delivery on behalf of the
European Union and nearly a dozen nonmember European nations.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained defiant: "Our nation has made its decision to fully use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and all have to give in to this decision made by the Iranian nation," he said in Iran. "We have made our choice."

His comments — and U.S. and Russian statements the day before rejecting any compromise that would allow Tehran to enrich uranium domestically — set the stage for Security Council action once the IAEA board meeting hears a report on the latest investigations into Iran's nuclear program and debates the issue.

A senior Western diplomat familiar with the Security Council negotiations said Tuesday that permanent council members Britain and France already were preparing a statement "urging" Iran to re-impose a freeze on all enrichment.

The diplomat, who requested anonymity in exchange for discussing strategy on Iran, said the statement also would call on Iran to fully cooperate with IAEA inspectors trying to establish whether the country had ever tried to make such weapons — all requests made earlier by the board.

Still, stronger action may elude the council. Russia and China, which have Security Council vetoes, may use them to foil any resolution in that chamber that would meaningfully increase pressure on Iran, their political and economic ally.

Russia has been at the forefront of the Iranian nuclear talks over the past few months with a proposal to host Iran's uranium enrichment program. The United States and the European Union back the idea, but Iran has demanded the right to conduct small-scale uranium enrichment at home.

___

Associated Press writers Palma Benzenleitner in Vienna and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran contributed to this report.

---

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Tuesday renewed controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the 2001 law passed weeks after the September 11 attacks to help the government investigate and capture possible terrorists.

The approval in the House of Representatives, by a vote of 280-138, sent the measure to President Bush for his signature.

The Senate last week voted 89-10 to approve the compromise package, which covers 16 provisions in the act that are set to expire on March 10.

"At last the Patriot Act will be reauthorized. And it's about time," Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said after last week's vote.

"It will make America more secure, and that's the bottom line."

Three provisions of the renewed act would be reviewed in four years; the other provisions are permanent.

"Law enforcement officials and the intelligence community will not have to guess what the law will be. They will have the tools to fight terrorism," Kyl said.

A version of the reauthorization bill was passed by the House last year. But in December, Senate GOP leaders were unable to muster the 60 votes required under Senate rules to break a filibuster blocking the measure.

The filibuster was supported by most Democrats and a handful of Republicans, who insisted more changes in the bill were needed to protect civil liberties.

On Tuesday, Republicans voted in favor of the measures 214-13; among Democrats, 66 voted for the renewal, and 124 voted against it. One Independent voted against renewal.

Some critics of the final legislation contended that it gives too much power to the executive branch.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, voted against the act in 2001 and said he was "even more opposed" to the renewal.

"I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers only a superficial reform that will have little if any impact on safeguarding our civil liberties," Kucinich said in House debate, according to his Web site.

"Congress has failed to do its job as a coequal branch of government," he said. "The administration's attack on our democracy has to be reigned in."

President Bush, along with top Justice Department and FBI officials, lobbied hard for renewal of the act, calling it a vital tool in the battle against terrorism.

"I applaud the Senate for voting to renew the Patriot Act and overcoming the partisan attempts to block its passage," Bush said last week from New Delhi, India.

"The terrorists have not lost the will or the ability to attack us. ... This bill will allow our law enforcement officials to continue to use the same tools against terrorists that are already used against drug dealers and other criminals, while safeguarding the civil liberties of the American people."

Bush's statements were echoed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"The legislation provides additional tools for protecting mass transportation systems and seaports from attack; takes steps to combat the methamphetamine epidemic that is sweeping our country; and closes dangerous loopholes in our ability to prevent terrorist financing," he said.

The measure also would create a National Security Division at the Department of Justice, he said.

Among the more controversial provisions are the "roving wiretap" portion and the "sneak and peek" section. The first allows the government to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses, while the second allows federal investigators to get access to library, business and medical records without a court order.

Facing a filibuster led by Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, the Senate compromise approved last week somewhat limits the government's power to compel information from people targeted in terror investigations.

Senators agreed to exempt most libraries from secret demands for information and to limit a "gag rule" on other businesses that receive those demands. (Full story)

The provisions approved by Congress initially were to have expired at the end of 2005. Lawmakers extended them on a temporary basis twice, most recently through March 10.

---

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Four Senate Republicans have proposed a bill to provide what one called "very rigorous oversight" of President Bush's controversial no-warrant domestic surveillance program while also giving it the force of law.

Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, all members of the Intelligence Committee, introduced the bill late Tuesday afternoon in an effort to address criticism of the program and reach a compromise.

The White House is "OK with this approach," a spokesperson said.

The measure would create terrorist surveillance subcommittees under both the Senate and House intelligence committees to oversee the surveillance program.

The panel, meanwhile, rejected a full investigation of the program, which was acknowledged by Bush in December after it surfaced in media reports.

Bush authorized the National Security Agency shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to eavesdrop on Americans suspected of communicating with al Qaeda members overseas -- without obtaining a warrant from a special court under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

According to DeWine, the bill would allow surveillance of international calls that involve a suspected terrorist but would require a program review every 45 days.

At that time, the administration would have three options: apply for a warrant, if there is enough information to justify one; stop the surveillance; or explain to Congress why it is in the national security interest to continue the surveillance and why officials cannot apply to the FISA court for a warrant.

"What this does is it provides for a case-by-case examination and oversight by the United States Congress ... of what the executive branch is doing," DeWine said.

Critics of the surveillance program, including some leading Republicans, have said it runs afoul of FISA. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, has said that the 1978 law "flatly prohibits any kind of electronic monitoring without a court order."

The administration has defended the program, contending that it is legal under the president's inherent authority and under a 2001 congressional authorization of the use of force against al Qaeda.

A subcommittee of seven committee members will be fully briefed on the surveillance program while the legislation is pursued, the senators said.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, objected to that plan Tuesday, arguing the entire committee should be involved.

"Our committee has to be fully informed if we are to guide the legislative debate on this program that is fast approaching," he said, adding that Democratic members of the panel had been excluded from negotiations with the White House.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who chairs the panel, said his goal has been "to reach accommodation, not confrontation."
Specter: White House 'on notice'

In a closed meeting Tuesday, the committee voted to reject a request by Rockefeller for what he called "a careful and fact-based review of the National Security Agency's surveillance eavesdropping activities inside the United States."

"The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House," he told reporters.

"This was an unprecedented bow to political pressure," Rockefeller said. "You can't legislate properly if we don't know what's going on."

Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday threatened to limit funding for the NSA program if the Bush administration does not provide more details on the matter.

"We're having quite a time in getting responses to questions as to what has happened with the electronic surveillance program," he said.

"I want to put the administration on notice and this committee on notice that I may be looking for an amendment to limit funding as to the electronic surveillance program -- which is the power of the purse -- if we can't get an answer in any other way," he said.

In response to the bill proposed Tuesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "We've said for several weeks we're committed to working with Congress on legislation to further codify into law the president's authority to intercept conversations between suspected al Qaeda members who are calling into or out of the U.S.

"And we believe that the legislation is generally sound, and we are eager to work with Congress.

"However, we have said before, and we remain committed to this principle, that we will not do anything that undermines the program's capabilities, or the president's authority. Generally, we are OK with this approach," Perino said.

---

Quoted from Bon:

---

Praise Iran! I'd like to see a bitter showdown to the death, unleashing a total war between the two countries. It's been awhile.

---

Quote:

---

As far as Iran, well, shit is going to be hitting fans eventually, and we'll be invading, most likely, with the backing of the European Union

---

Quote:

---

With threats being made, and the backing of the European Nations, does anyone think it's possible that these might be used as loose "reasons" to justify not only an attack on Iran, but a draft?

---

Quote:

---

The worrying question is whether russia and china would support Iran militarily.

---

Quoted from Acheron:

---

Is this a potential WWIII scenario, or is it just posturing?

---

Quote:

---

Praise Iran! I'd like to see a bitter showdown to the death, unleashing a total war between the two countries. It's been awhile.

---

Quoted from Squareknight:

---

Quote:

---

The worrying question is whether russia and china would support Iran militarily.

Is this a potential WWIII scenario, or is it just posturing?

---

If it causes harm to the EU or US, China would probably do it's best to help.

---

Quoted from retard:

---

You know, after reading the topic post and nothing else, I am still wondering why the author felt it necessary to include three Bush-bashing topics instead of the daily quota of one.

---