Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Speaker's Statement Regarding U.S. Relations with North Korea

Shipping In, Out of North Korea NowConsidered Illicit
Until Proven Otherwise

10/11/2006 9:46:00 AM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller, 202-225-2800,
both of the United States House of Representatives
Speaker's Press Office

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made the following statement
regarding U.S. relations with North Korea:

"Kim Jong-Il's regime has threatened the stability of
a region and the security of the world. He has
demonstrated complete and utter disregard for the
international community's nonproliferation efforts.
Consequences must be swift and severe. I strongly
support President Bush's leadership on this issue.

"Shipping in and out of North Korea must now be
considered illicit until proven otherwise and the
United States must now lead the international
community in full inspections of all North Korean
imports and exports. It is imperative that the
international community and members of the UN Security
Council step to the plate and stop this reckless
regime. This cannot stand."


/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Remarks by the President on the Economy and Budget

10/11/2006 3:34:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following are
remarks by the president on the economy and budget:

Room 450

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

2:10 p.m. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Good
afternoon. Thanks for coming to the White House.

In 2004, I made a promise to the American people, we
would cut the federal budget deficit in half over five
years. Today I'm pleased to report that we have
achieved this goal, and we've done it three years
ahead of schedule. (Applause.)

This morning my administration released the budget
numbers for fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not
just estimates; these are the actual results for the
fiscal year that ended February the 30th. (sic) (see
note 1) These numbers show that the budget deficit has
been reduced to $248 billion and is down to just 1.9
percent of the economy. As a percentage of the
economy, the deficit is now lower than it has been for
18 out of the last 25 years. These budget numbers are
proof that pro-growth economic policies work. By
restraining spending in Washington, and allowing
Americans to keep more of what they earn, we're
creating jobs, reducing the deficit, and making this
nation prosperous for all our citizens.

Today I'm going to talk about the pro-growth economic
policies that helped bring a dramatic reduction in the
federal deficit. I'm going to remind the American
people that we cannot afford to be complacent. I'll
discuss some of the issues that I intend to address
over the next two years to help ensure that our
dynamic economy continues to grow and provide jobs.

Before I do so, I do want to recognize members of my
Cabinet who have joined us. I want to thank the
Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, for being
here today. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service.
(Applause.) And the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, affectionately known as OMB --
Rob Portman. Thanks for coming, Rob. (Applause.) I
thank Steve Preston, who is the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration. Thanks for being here,

I see members of my staff who are here who probably
should be working -- (laughter) -- instead of taking
time off. But I thank you for coming.

The reduction of the deficit I've announced today is
no accident. It is the result of the hard work of the
American people, and because of sound fiscal policies
here in Washington. When I first came to office, I
thought taxes were too high -- and they were -- and
this economy of ours was headed into a recession. Some
people said the answer was to centralize power in
Washington and to let politicians decide what to do
with the people's money. I had a different approach. I
have a different view. And therefore, we chose a
different course of action.

See, I believe that our economy prospers when we trust
the people to make the decisions on how to save,
spend, or invest. And so, starting in 2001, we worked
with members of the United States Congress to pass the
largest tax relief ever passed since Ronald Reagan was
the President. We cut taxes on everybody who pays
income taxes. I was concerned about this kind of
selective tax cutting. I didn't think that was fair.
Our attitude was if you pay income taxes, you ought to
get relief.

We reduced the marriage penalty, we doubled the child
tax credit, and we put the death tax on the road to
extinction. We cut the tax rate paid by most small
businesses. Most small businesses are a sub-chapter S
corporation, for example, or a limited partnership
and, therefore, pay tax at the individual income tax
rate, and therefore, when you cut the rates on people
who pay income taxes, you're cutting tax on small

And by the way, it was really the cornerstone in many
ways of our economic recovery policy, because we
understand that 70 percent of new jobs in America are
created by small businesses, and therefore, when small
businesses have more capital to spend, it is more
likely they'll create jobs.

We increased the amount small businesses can expense,
on the knowledge that providing incentive for people
to buy plant and equipment will cause somebody to have
to make the plant and equipment that the person
purchases. We encouraged economic expansion by cutting
taxes on dividends and capital gains, understanding
that by cutting those types of taxes, we're reducing
the cost of capital, which makes it easier for people
to borrow so we can expand our economy. In other
words, we had a comprehensive plan that when enacted
has left nearly $1.1 trillion in the hands of American
workers, families, investors and small business

And they have used this money to help fuel economic
expansion that's now in its 37th straight month of
growth. The theory was, was that if we can encourage
entrepreneurship and investment and consumption by
reducing taxes, it will cause the economy to recover
from a recession, and a terrorist attack, corporate
scandals, war, hurricanes -- and it has. The
pro-growth policies have worked. Since August of 2003,
this economy of ours has added more than 6.6 million
new jobs. And the national unemployment rate is down
to 4.6 percent. People are working. And that's good
for our country.

Behind these numbers are millions of individual
workers who start each day with hope because they have
a job that will enable them to do their duties to
support their families, or to put food on the table.
Behind these numbers are small business owners that
are being rewarded for taking risk. Government can't
make anybody successful; we can make the environment
such that people are willing to take risk. And when
small businesses take risk, the economy flourishes and

You know, last week I went to a FedEx facility here in
D.C. The Secretary and I went, and we met with a group
of entrepreneurs who are helping to drive this
economic growth. It was a fascinating meeting. It was
really exciting, wasn't it, Hank? I mean, it was so
wonderful to sit with dreamers and doers. We met a guy
-- I think he said he was an engineering graduate from
Perdue -- who on his way from upstate New York to
Purdue to go to college, he and his brother would stop
and dive for golf balls -- (laughter) -- and then
they'd sell the golf balls to help pay for college. He
has since -- he and his brother have since started an
Internet company that sells golf clubs. And he's
successful, and he's employing people, and he's
excited, and he appreciates the tax cuts. (Laughter.)

We talked to the Under Armour man. I don't know if you
ever heard of that product. I know I'm not supposed to
advertise -- (laughter) -- so I won't. (Laughter.) But
here's a dreamer. The man had an idea. He didn't like
the way the cotton shirts that he wore absorbed his
bodily fluids when he exercised, so he came up with a
better product. And it worked. And now he's built a
huge business. And he's talking about how to continue
to expand, and he's worried about our trade policy.
Here's a small business guy who came out of a garage,
and he's talking to the Secretary of the Treasury and
the President of the United States about making sure
we have intellectual property rights protection in

My point to you is, is that America must remain
entrepreneurial heaven if we want to be the leading
economy in the world, and we will do so through good
policy. And that's by keeping taxes low. As a matter
of fact, the best policy would be for Congress to have
certainty in the tax code by making the tax cuts we
passed permanent. (Applause.)

Back to the budget. When we announced -- when I
announced the plan to cut the deficit in half by 2009,
a lot of folks said it's just simply not going to be
done. They said that we had to choose between cutting
the deficit and keeping taxes low -- or another way to
put it, that in order to solve the deficit we had to
raise taxes. I strongly disagree with those choices.
Those are false choices. Tax relief fuels economic
growth, and growth -- when the economy grows, more tax
revenues come to Washington. And that's what's
happened. It makes sense, doesn't it? As businesses
expand people pay more taxes, and when you pay more
taxes, there’s more revenues that come to our

Tax revenues grew by $253 billion in 2006. That's an
increase of 11.8 percent. Over the last two years,
we've seen the largest back-to-back increases in tax
revenues ever, and the largest percentage increase in
25 years. In other words, when you put policies in
place that cause the economy to grow, tax revenues

I know that sounds counterintuitive for some here in
Washington. People say, well, they're cutting taxes;
that means less revenue. But that's not what happened
over the past two years. As a matter of fact, I'm
convinced that if we had raised taxes it would cause
there to be an economic decline, which would make it
harder to balance the budget over the years.

In February this year we projected the federal budget
deficit for 2006 would be $423 billion. That was the
best guess. Today's report, as I mentioned to you,
shows that the deficit came out at $248 billion -- so,
$175 billion less than anticipated. The difference is
because we have a growing economy, and the difference
is because we've been wise about spending your money.

Congress votes every year on day-to-day spending, and
it's called discretionary spending. There's two types
of spending in Washington: discretionary spending,
over which Congress has got discretion -- and we're
involved; we submit a budget and we've got the
capacity to veto to help bring some discipline to the
process -- or mandatory spending. Mandatory spending
helped -- just happens. It's formula driven. It's --
the Congress doesn't allocate money for it, it just
comes to be, based upon the circumstances involved.

Every year since I took office, we have reduced the
growth of discretionary spending that is not related
to the military and the homeland. And the reason
that's the case is I believe it's important for the
President to lead and to set budget priorities, and so
long as we've got kids in combat, they're going to
have what it takes to do their job. (Applause.) And so
long as there's an enemy that wants to strike us,
we'll spend money to protect the homeland. Those are
the most important jobs we have. (Applause.)

The last two budgets have actually cut non-defense,
non- homeland discretionary spending. And I want to
applaud the Congress for making hard choices. Every
program sounds fantastic in Washington, until you
actually determine whether or not they're working. And
a lot of times, the nice-sounding programs are not
delivering the results that the people expect. And so
we worked with Congress to focus on those programs
that work and do away with those that don't work. It's
not easy, by the way, to get rid of somebody's pet
project that's not working. But you've just got to
know that Rob and his office are working hard to do
just that.

I believe Congress can make the President's job more
effective in dealing with bad spending habits if they
gave me the line-item veto, and let me tell you why.
The President is presented with a dilemma: On the one
hand, we sit down and we negotiate the budget with the
Congress. We say, here's the top line we can live
with, and they'll pass appropriations that meet our
top line. But the problem is within the appropriations
are oftentimes programs that may not have been
properly debated, in other words, stuck in, earmarked.
They may not be meeting national priorities. And
therefore, the President is confronted with either
vetoing a good budget bill because he doesn't like
parts of the bill, or accepting the overall bill and
the bad parts exist in it.

And so one way to remedy that is to give the President
the capacity to analyze the appropriations process, to
remove -- approve spending that is necessary, red-line
spending that is not, and send back the wasteful and
unnecessary spending to Congress for an up or down
vote. That's how we define line-item veto.

It makes sure that the President is directly involved
with the process in deciding the size of the slices of
the pie once the size of the pie has been delivered.
But it also makes sure that Congress is involved with
the process of approving up or down whether or not the
spending is needed or not needed.

Governors have got this power; 43 governors have got
the authority, and they use it effectively. One of the
advantages is this, that they know -- if the chief
executive has got the line- item veto, then
legislators will understand that a program they may
try to sneak into a bill will see the light of day,
and therefore, make it less likely somebody will try
to sneak something into the bill. It's kind of
preventative maintenance.

The House has passed the bill. The Senate really needs
to get the line-item veto to my desk. If senators from
both political parties are truly interested in helping
maintain fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., and
they want to see budgetary reform, one way to do so is
to work in concert with the executive branch and pass
the line-item veto.

And for those of you who are here, who are helping us
get that legislation out of the Senate, I want to
thank you for your work. The reason I brought it up is
I am absolutely convinced it is necessary to make sure
that we continue to maintain budget discipline here in
Washington, D.C.

We've made good progress, as I mentioned to you, in
getting the fiscal house in order, but there's another
problem with our budget, and that has to do with
mandatory spending, particularly with Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid. These are really important
programs. They're called entitlement programs because
when each of us retire we're entitled to a benefit, in
Social Security for example.

And yet the health of these programs -- the health is
in serious jeopardy. Why? Because there's a lot of
people like me and Paulson who are fixing to retire.
(Laughter.) As a matter of fact, both of us reach
retirement age at the same time, which is in 2008.
That's quite convenient in my case. (Laughter.)

But unlike the previous generation, there's a lot more
of us, and we've been promised greater benefits than
the previous generation. In other words, the
government has made promises with a future
generation's money that we can't keep. And so the
fundamental question facing the government in
Washington, D.C. is: Will we have the will necessary
to deal with these entitlement programs to leave
behind a better budget picture to deal with the
unfunded liabilities and the mandatory programs for
future generations?

One reason Secretary Paulson came to work in this
administration is because he wanted to understand
whether or not we were committed to continue trying to
bring Social Security reform, to modernize the system.
Look, you don't have to cut benefits. You've just got
to slow the rate at which benefits are growing in
order to make sure a future generation is not strapped
with a budgetary system that is unaffordable.

And I assured -- I assured Hank that I was deeply
committed to working to solve Social Security, because
I believe the call for those of us who are blessed to
be in public service is to confront problems now. It's
so much easier to quit and just say, let's let another
Congress deal with it. The problem is, is that the
longer we wait, the more costly it becomes for future
Congresses. And so now is the time. Now is the time.
And Hank and I are going to -- after these elections
come and go, we're going to work with the leaders, and
to say, we're all responsible for getting something
done. My hope is, in the last two years of this
administration, we can set aside needless politics and
focus on what's right for the United States of America
and solve these entitlement programs once and for all.

I hope you're optimistic about this country's future,
because I sure am. I am -- I am optimistic because I
have great faith in American ingenuity and I know how
hard our people work. I am optimistic because we're an
innovative society, and there's a lot of really
capable, smart people continuing to make sure we
remain innovative. I'm optimistic because the public
sector and private sector encourages important
research and development to make sure America is on
the leading edge of change. I'm optimistic that we
have put good policy in place that will encourage the
entrepreneurial spirit. And I firmly believe, so long
as this is an entrepreneurial-oriented country,
America will remain the economic leader we want her to

I want to thank you all for coming to hear this
proclamation of good news. (Laughter.) God bless.


2:29 P.M. EDT


Note 1: Sept. 30



/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

U.K, U.S. Citizens Plead Guilty to Running $30 Million Ponzi Scheme

10/11/2006 6:47:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Deanna Warren of the Department of Justice,
757-441-6331; Web:

NORFOLK, Va., Oct. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Howard Welsh,
62, of the United Kingdom and Lee Hope Thrasher, 51,
of Virginia Beach, Va., pleaded guilty today to
charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud,
U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of the Eastern District
of Virginia announced today. Sentencing has been set
for Feb. 21, 2007.

Welsh faces a maximum term of 20 years in prison, a
fine, restitution, forfeiture of approximately $30
million, and up to three years of supervised release.
Thrasher faces a maximum term of 15 years in prison, a
fine, restitution, forfeiture of approximately $30
million and up to three years of supervised release.

According to court documents, Welsh and Thrasher
formed a corporation and induced approximately 900
investors to invest approximately $30 million. The
funds were wired to bank accounts controlled by Welsh
in the United States, and then wired to other accounts
in 13 foreign countries and the United States. In the
summer of 2002, Welsh and Thrasher fled the United
States. Welsh and Thrasher were arrested by the
Metropolitan Police Service in the United Kingdom in
November 2004. After an extradition process, they were
returned to the United States in July 2006. The United
States has recovered approximately $2 million of the
proceeds of the Ponzi scheme.

"This was a massive fraud, stunning in both its length
and its breadth, engineered by Mr. Welsh and Ms.
Thrasher," stated U.S. Attorney Rosenberg. "Given
that, we are very pleased with their convictions and
with the lengthy prison sentences sure to follow."

The investigation was conducted by the FBI and the
Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation
Division. The FBI Forfeiture Unit in Norfolk, Va; the
FBI Forfeiture Support Group, Washington; and the
Metropolitan Police Service, New Scotland Yard,
London, England, also provided valuable assistance in
the investigation and prosecution of this case. The
case is being prosecuted jointly by Assistant U.S.
Attorneys Robert J. Seidel Jr., Blair Smith Perez,
Joseph DePadilla and Kevin M. Comstock.


/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Transcript: Announcing Indictment of U.S. Citizen for Treason, Material Support Charges for Providing Aid, Comfort to Al Qaeda

10/11/2006 7:32:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, 202-514-2008;
202-514-1888 (TDD); Web: http://WWW.USDOJ.GOV

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Transcript of
press conference announcing indictment of U.S. Citizen
for treason and material support charges for providing
aid and comfort to Al Qaeda:

4:10 P.M. EDT

Paul McNulty, Deputy Attorney General. With me on
stage are Willie Hulon, Executive Assistant Director
of the FBI for National Security; Debra Wong Yang,
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California;
and Joe D. Morton, Director of Diplomatic Security
Services for the U.S. Department of State.

Today in Santa Ana, California, a federal grand jury
issued an indictment against Adam Gadahn, also known
as Azzam al-Amriki, on charges of treason and
providing material support to a foreign terrorist
organization, namely, al Qaeda.

A charge of treason is exceptionally severe, and it is
not one we bring lightly. In fact, Mr. Gadahn is the
first person to be charged with treason against the
United States since the World War II era. But this is
the right case for this charge. I want to put his
actions into context to be perfectly clear on why we
have decided to make this extremely serious charge.

Adam Gadahn is an American citizen who made a choice.
He chose to join our enemy and to provide it with aid
and comfort by acting as a propagandist for al Qaeda.
Terrorists create fear and intimidation through
extreme violence. They want Americans to live and walk
in fear. They want to demoralize us. That's why
propaganda is so important to them, and why
facilitating that propaganda is such an egregious

According to the indictment, Mr. Gadahn appeared in a
series of al Qaeda videos broadcast in the United
States and elsewhere between October 2004 and
September 2006, just last month. In these videos, Mr.
Gadahn acknowledged that he had joined al Qaeda and
declared that "the streets of America shall run red
with blood. Casualties will be too many to count, and
the next wave of attacks may come at any moment."

The videotaped messages praised the terror attacks of
September 11, threatened violence against the families
of American soldiers and other civilians, and called
on American soldiers to join al Qaeda. In one message,
Mr. Gadahn described the September 11 attacks as "the
blessed raids on New York and Washington." And he said
of his terrorist confederates, "We love nothing better
than the heart of battle, the echo of explosions, and
the slitting of throats of the infidels."

Adam Gadahn is 28 years old, and his last known
address was Orange County, California. He is now a
fugitive, and is believed to be living overseas.

We are also announcing today that Mr. Gadahn is being
added to the FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list, and a
reward is being issued for information leading to his
arrest. Joe Morton will have more information on that
for you in just a moment.

Now, this investigation is a collaboration between the
United States Attorney's Office in the Central
District of California, led by Debra Yang, and the
Justice Department's Criminal Division under the
leadership of Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher.
Responsibility for the Criminal Division's work in
this prosecution has now been transferred to the
Department's newly created National Security Division.
I'd like to acknowledge the outstanding work and
deduction of the FBI in this case.

The crime of treason is perhaps the most serious
offense for which any person can be tried under our
constitution. It is not a crime only against the
American people, but against America itself. Today's
indictment should serve as notice that the United
States will protect itself against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. The Department of Justice will
use every tool at our disposal in our mission to
protect Americans. Betrayal of our country will bring
severe consequences.

I'd now like to call on the individuals on this stage
to make a brief statement, beginning with U.S.
Attorney Debra Yang.

MS. YANG: Good afternoon. The charges returned by the
federal grand jury in Santa Ana, California today
reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed by
Adam Gadahn and the commitment with which the United
States of America will pursue any individual who
actively endorses terrorism.

As demonstrated in the series of five videotapes that
are described in the indictment, Gadahn has become the
trusted ally and associate of al Qaeda's leaders,
serving as the terrorist group's spokesperson and
advocate. By aligning himself with al Qaeda, by moving
overseas to be closer to al Qaeda's base and
leadership, and by joining and advocating al Qaeda's
terrorist agenda, an agenda that includes the
overthrow of the United States government and the
murder of American citizens, Adam Gadahn has committed
treason against the United States of America.

The charges returned today by a federal grand jury
demonstrate that the criminal justice system will not
sit passively while a United States citizen engages in
such activities. Thank you.


Will Hulon is the Executive Assistant Director of the
FBI for National Security.

MR. HULON: Thank you, Paul. Good afternoon. Following
Adam Gadahn's indictment for treason and material
support to terrorism, he was added today to the FBI's
Most Wanted Terrorists list. Gadahn is considered a
high value target which puts him high on the FBI's
radar screen. This intense exposure limits Gadahn's
operational ability, but he still poses a different
kind of threat as a communicator for al Qaeda.

The FBI will continue to work with our law enforcement
partners and intelligence partners, sharing
information and coordinating investigations, as well
as investigating all leads provided by the public, to
locate Gadahn and to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Joe Morton from the Diplomatic Security Service.

MR. MORTON: Thank you, Paul. Today the State
Department announces that our Rewards for Justice
program will pay up to $1 million for information
leading to the apprehension of Adam Gadahn, an
American believed to be a prominent member of the al
Qaeda organization.

Secretary Rice said recently, "We face an enemy that
wantonly kills civilians, not as collateral damage but
as target of their attacks. We as a civilized world
have an obligation to work on how we are going to
fight the war on terrorism and to come up with
solutions." Rewards for Justice is part of that

The Rewards program has been and will continue to be
one of the most valuable U.S. government assets in the
fight against international terrorism. Rewards for
Justice has paid more than $62 million to over 40
individuals whose information led to the prevention of
terrorist attacks against the United States or
conviction of terrorists attempting to carry out such
acts. The Rewards program has led directly to the
capture of Ramsey Yousef, as well the location of Uday
and Qusay Hussein in Iraq. It has also been an
effective tool in combating drug traffickers in
Colombia and terrorists in the Philippines.

Terrorism continues to threaten the security of all
people, and our determination to fight it is greater
than ever. We ask for your assistance. We encourage
anyone with information that may lead to Gadahn's
apprehension to contact the State Department's Rewards
for Justice Program.

answer any questions you might have. Yes?

QUESTION: The indictment says that in a 2005 video, he
makes some that L.A. and Melbourne will be next. How
credible do you consider these threats?

to assess the credibility of those threats. I don't
have any information on that point.

QUESTION: Is there any evidence that Gadahn was
involved in actual plotting or execution of attacks,
or do you believe he was solely on the propaganda

knowledge, it's propaganda. I don't have any evidence,
or information, I should say, regarding involvement in
planning other attacks. If we did have that
information, I probably would not be able to provide
it in this way in this setting. But I'm not aware of
that investigation.

QUESTION: The constitution has quite a high threshold
of how to prove treason. It includes two witnesses
against the person. Do you have such witnesses? And
what other information do you have that these
statements that were made on these videotapes were not
coerced or were other people's words, or what other
witnesses do you have?

The charges of treason are very serious, and it is a
significant bar to get over in terms of bringing those
charges. We wouldn't be here announcing these charges
today if we weren't confident that we had the evidence
to support the elements of the offense that are
associated with the charge of treason. And as you
mentioned, the two-witness rule is one of the critical
elements of that charge.

It is our practice not to discuss at great length our
evidence at the time we announce charges. But I will
say that we are very confident about the satisfaction
of the standard of the two-witness rule, the least of
which the fact that these messages have been broadcast
into the United States on video repeatedly, and that a
number of individuals would be in a position to be
able to identify Adam Gadahn.

But again, we understand our burden. We have to meet a
burden that includes a number of elements in addition
to the two-witness rule to show that there has been
aid and comfort given to the enemy and adherence to
the enemy. And the elements will be met if and when we
have the opportunity to present our case in court.

QUESTION: Previous indictments against him have
remained sealed. This one obviously is not. I wonder
if you could explain to us your thinking in keeping
the previous indictments against him sealed and making
this one public.

involves a building of information and evidence
against the defendant. We had a videotape in October
of 2004; then one on September 11, 2005; then July 7,
2006, the anniversary of the London bombings; another
one in September; and then another one in September.
So there is a pattern here of more videos, and it has
been building up. We've had three this year.

In addition to that, the evidence has been getting
stronger. In the most recent videos, we have had
unmasking of the defendant, revealing identity,
strengthening the government's case. This has also
strengthened our ability in considering the treason
charge. In each video, we find ourselves in a position
of going back to the indictment and having to
essentially rewrite the indictment to add the
additional evidence that supports the treason charge.

When you take all of that and the building case of the
evidence coming in and the more recent videos,
combined with now in the last 30 days the decision to
have an up to $1 million award, and to put him on the
Most Wanted list, it creates a circumstance where it's
time now to get the message out in order to get this
person in our custody, perhaps to find the assistance
that we need, and also to send a message that this
kind of conduct will be met with the toughest charges
that we can bring to discourage anybody else who might
be tempted to respond to his invitation to betray
America and to join al Qaeda.

QUESTION: Do you believe every video leads you closer
to finding him if there are all kinds of things you
can look into background in his messages? And do you
believe he's in Pakistan?

suggest, if you heard anything in that way, that
something about the video leads us to understanding
more about him. I'm not in a position to say anything
about that. And I'm not sure -- let me check -- we
believe he's in Pakistan, but we're not positive of

QUESTION: When the Agency and the FBI analyze these
videos, usually there's things that they see that
maybe, you know, the general public doesn't see. Do
you believe that every video may lead you a little
closer to finding him?

MR. HULON: Yes. Actually, any time we have an
opportunity to examine evidence or information, we're
looking for clues there. And as we look at these, we
do look for clues that would identify where this
person might be or give us some indications of, you
know, more evidence that would lead us to his

QUESTION: The sealing of the earlier indictments and
the unsealing of the current indictment now is
undoubtedly going to fuel suspicions that the
announcement here was timed to influence an election
less than four weeks away in which national security
is going to be a big issue. I was wondering if you can
address that.

what I was saying to Terry, that the timing of this
case fits the circumstances we face. There would be no
good justification to delay this indictment when we
have seen the building nature of these videos, and the
fact that we have the award now. The award would not
do us much good if this was kept secret.

We felt that once we had the most recent video and now
a broader base of evidence, we had thoroughly analyzed
the nature of the treason charge, applied all the
facts in this case to the law in this area, we were in
a position to go to the grand jury and seek an
indictment. Once we went to the grand jury to seek
that indictment, and again having some incentive for
cooperation, that we wanted to get this word out as
soon as possible. That's in the best interests of the
American people to do that.

QUESTION: When exactly was the original indictment?

in a second.

QUESTION: If you don't have any information that he's
been involved in actual plots or actual attacks, what
kind of threat does this person actually represent? I
mean, you've had people who have actually been
involved in attacks in the past but have not faced
what he's facing now with this indictment. Can you
explain what kind of threat he represents?

citizen here, and that's a distinction from other
cases where you might talk about individuals who have
been involved in attacks. We have an American citizen,
and element of the offense for treason.

The significance of the propaganda part should not be
underestimated. If you look at the cases in this area
going back to the World War II era, the broadcast
cases, which was a category of cases in itself, about
five of them, this is a very significant piece of the
way an enemy does business, to demoralize the troops,
to encourage the spread of fear. And in fact, when you
add terrorism to this equation, in contrast to the
World War II enemy, where terrorism by its nature
seeks to intimidate in order to affect government
policy, the propaganda portion is especially
significant. And the fact again we have a U.S. citizen
who has betrayed the country, according to the
charges, the allegations, and joined up with this
enemy to communicate that fear, it brings a lot of
different factors together and makes it suitable for

Did you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: Can you just clarify, when was the original
indictment? When was that first sealed indictment?

to get that for you. I don't think I know that off the
top of my head.

QUESTION: Do you believe he has no value for
intelligence, and is that why you're not considering
him an enemy combatant but instead a treasonous

on what value he might have in one setting or another.
But from the Department of Justice perspective, we
have enough evidence to bring the charges that we're
bringing today, and that's the consideration that this
represents. Yes?

QUESTION: When Attorney General Ashcroft and Director
Mueller announced this, they said that he was involved
in translations for al Qaeda. Is there information
that this was propaganda work, or was this documents
that they were seeking to translate for an attack
plan? Is there anything anybody can provide us?

information on that. Do you have something on that?

MR. HULON: Actually, the original reporting that was
reported was that he was doing translations for al
Qaeda, which were the translations that he did for the
videos. And you could see that some of the text was in
Arabic and then some of the language was English. So
that's the explanation for the translations. It's
actually for the communications network.

QUESTION: How? Were there documents recovered overseas
in safe house or something?

MR. HULON: That was in regards to the videotapes that
were broadcast.

QUESTION: Are the videotapes the only evidence that
you have at this point?

you to the indictment, which lays out essentially
where we are on this. And it focuses on all the
information in the videotapes, yes.

QUESTION: Right. There's nothing other?

those videotapes. That's right.

QUESTION: You mentioned this evidence as building over
a period of time. What was the tipping point in your

the fact that we had two broadcasts in September, so
within the past month, just over the past month. We're
one month today from the last video. We had two of
those videos. And the investigation took a real turn
with that because we again had the unveiling. We had
stronger support for the analysis that we were doing
in this case. And we came to a point where we could
make a final decision on whether or not we believe
that treason would be an appropriate charge. So these
last two videos combined, and in that frequency, led
us to believe that we need to move on this at this

MODERATOR: We'll take one more question.

QUESTION: Paul, would you address the question of
what's going on in New York City before you leave, you
or Mr. Hulon? What evidence, if any, do you have that
there's any possible connection to terrorism? How much
deaths do you know about? What can you tell us about
what's going on?

information I received just before I walked into this
room, we still have no evidence to suggest that this
is connected to an act of terrorism. It appears to be
at this point, again based upon the evidence that
we're aware of, a very tragic aviation incident. And
there are investigators, including the FBI's JTTF and
the New York City police, on the scene gathering
evidence. And we'll continue to monitor the situation.

Thank you.


/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/