Fox said in a statement Monday that the age eligibility to audition for the upcoming 10th season of the singing competition would be lowered from 16 to 15 years old. The maximum age to audition remains 28.
"American Idol" executive producer Cecile Frot-Coutaz said in a statement that "a lot of young, talented people are now seeking careers and representation before they turn 16."
Auditions for the next season will begin July 17 in Nashville, Tenn. Other audition cities include Milwaukee, New Orleans, San Francisco, East Rutherford, N.J., and Austin, Texas.
2010年6月21日星期一
Miley Cyrus, 'Can't Be Tamed'
If Miley Cyrus's career can be measured in Britney Years, she is now in Phase Two, after the teasing but wholesome debut but before The Era Of K-Fed. With her adolescence and starmaking vehicle "Hannah Montana" both coming to an end, the 17-year-old Cyrus must ready herself for adulthood, and "Can't Be Tamed," her third solo disc, is the declaration of independence that years of "Behind the Music" specials have taught us it must be.
For Grown-Up Miley to live, Teen Pop Miley must die, and her/its demise is explicitly detailed in "Robot," Cyrus's lament about the existential misery of life as a Disney-bot: "I need to breathe/I'm not your robot/Stop telling me I'm part of this big machine/I'm breaking free," she informs her captors.
Free to do what, Cyrus doesn't say, but like any female pop singer from 15 to 45, it must necessarily involve Lady Gaga: "Tamed" has been so thoroughly Gaga-fied, so faux electro-disco-fied, Cyrus seems to have merely traded one overlord for another.
She sounds better singing semi-stripped-down untrendy pop songs such as "The Climb," which, whatever their studio sweetening, don't rely on robot noises for their kick. But "Tamed" has little interest in deft little lighter ballads, nor in any real expression of Cyrus's personality. Cyrus has always seemed real-ish, as if underneath the sparkly headbands she was really a cranky 40-year-old cocktail waitress who smoked. But "Tamed" doesn't take advantage of her vinegary personality, dividing itself between disposable, tinny dance pop tracks and generically sweeping, echo-y ballads.
For Grown-Up Miley to live, Teen Pop Miley must die, and her/its demise is explicitly detailed in "Robot," Cyrus's lament about the existential misery of life as a Disney-bot: "I need to breathe/I'm not your robot/Stop telling me I'm part of this big machine/I'm breaking free," she informs her captors.
Free to do what, Cyrus doesn't say, but like any female pop singer from 15 to 45, it must necessarily involve Lady Gaga: "Tamed" has been so thoroughly Gaga-fied, so faux electro-disco-fied, Cyrus seems to have merely traded one overlord for another.
She sounds better singing semi-stripped-down untrendy pop songs such as "The Climb," which, whatever their studio sweetening, don't rely on robot noises for their kick. But "Tamed" has little interest in deft little lighter ballads, nor in any real expression of Cyrus's personality. Cyrus has always seemed real-ish, as if underneath the sparkly headbands she was really a cranky 40-year-old cocktail waitress who smoked. But "Tamed" doesn't take advantage of her vinegary personality, dividing itself between disposable, tinny dance pop tracks and generically sweeping, echo-y ballads.
High court backs law barring advice to terrorist groups
The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a federal law that forbids providing training and advice to terrorist organizations even about entirely peaceful and legal activities, saying it does not violate the free speech rights of those who want to help.
Discuss COMMENTS (1) The court ruled, 6 to 3, that Congress and the executive branch had legitimate reasons for barring “material support’’ to foreign organizations deemed to be terrorists in the USA Patriot Act.
Those challenging the law “simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,’’ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
“That judgment, however, is entitled to significant weight, and we have persuasive evidence before us to sustain it.’’
He was joined by the court’s conservatives — Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — as well as its most liberal member, retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the relatively unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, saying the court had abandoned its role of protecting individual liberties under the First Amendment because of national security threats Congress did not adequately justify.
“In such cases, our decisions must reflect the Constitution’s grant of foreign affairs and defense powers to the president and to Congress but without denying our own special judicial obligation to protect the constitutional rights of individuals,’’ Breyer said.
“That means that national security does not always win.’’
He was joined in the dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
The Obama administration said the law has been used about 150 times since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks. But it has rarely been used for the kind of speech involved in this case.
The aid groups that challenged the law had trained a Kurdish group in Turkey on how to bring human rights complaints to the United Nations and assisted them in peace negotiations. They suspended the activities when the United States designated the Kurdish organization, known as the PKK, a terrorist group in 1997. The groups wanted to give similar help to a group in Sri Lanka, but the United States designated it a terrorist organization in 1997.
Nearly four dozen organizations are on the State Department list, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Basque separatists in Spain, and Maoist rebels in Peru.
The humanitarian groups, including the Humanitarian Law Project, an organization based in California; Ralph Fertig, a civil rights lawyer; and Nagalingam Jeyalingam, a physician; want to offer assistance to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka.
In other action yesterday, the justices:
■ Decided to allow a new trial for a woman who got breast cancer after taking hormone replacement therapy and is seeking punitive damages against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The justices rejected Wyeth’s attempt to block the trial because it is to be limited to punitive damages. Wyeth is a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest drug company.
■ Ruled that a federal judge went too far when he banned the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds after reports that the plants might harm the environment. The court, on a 7-to-1 vote, reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had prohibited Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds because they are resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.
Discuss COMMENTS (1) The court ruled, 6 to 3, that Congress and the executive branch had legitimate reasons for barring “material support’’ to foreign organizations deemed to be terrorists in the USA Patriot Act.
Those challenging the law “simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,’’ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
“That judgment, however, is entitled to significant weight, and we have persuasive evidence before us to sustain it.’’
He was joined by the court’s conservatives — Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — as well as its most liberal member, retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the relatively unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, saying the court had abandoned its role of protecting individual liberties under the First Amendment because of national security threats Congress did not adequately justify.
“In such cases, our decisions must reflect the Constitution’s grant of foreign affairs and defense powers to the president and to Congress but without denying our own special judicial obligation to protect the constitutional rights of individuals,’’ Breyer said.
“That means that national security does not always win.’’
He was joined in the dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
The Obama administration said the law has been used about 150 times since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks. But it has rarely been used for the kind of speech involved in this case.
The aid groups that challenged the law had trained a Kurdish group in Turkey on how to bring human rights complaints to the United Nations and assisted them in peace negotiations. They suspended the activities when the United States designated the Kurdish organization, known as the PKK, a terrorist group in 1997. The groups wanted to give similar help to a group in Sri Lanka, but the United States designated it a terrorist organization in 1997.
Nearly four dozen organizations are on the State Department list, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Basque separatists in Spain, and Maoist rebels in Peru.
The humanitarian groups, including the Humanitarian Law Project, an organization based in California; Ralph Fertig, a civil rights lawyer; and Nagalingam Jeyalingam, a physician; want to offer assistance to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka.
In other action yesterday, the justices:
■ Decided to allow a new trial for a woman who got breast cancer after taking hormone replacement therapy and is seeking punitive damages against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The justices rejected Wyeth’s attempt to block the trial because it is to be limited to punitive damages. Wyeth is a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest drug company.
■ Ruled that a federal judge went too far when he banned the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds after reports that the plants might harm the environment. The court, on a 7-to-1 vote, reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had prohibited Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds because they are resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.
Nebraska Town Votes to Banish Illegal Immigrants
Residents of a small city in eastern Nebraska voted Monday to banish illegal immigrants from jobs and rental homes, defying an earlier decision by the city’s leaders and setting off what is all but certain to be a costly and closely watched legal challenge.
In Fremont , a meat-packing town of about 25,000 people, unofficial results from The Associated Press late Monday showed that 57 percent of voters approved a referendum barring landlords from renting to those in the country illegally, requiring renters to provide information to the police and to obtain city occupancy licenses, and obliging city businesses to use a federal database to check for illegal immigrants.
Opponents of the new law, including some business and church leaders, had argued that the City of Fremont simply could not afford the new law, which is all but certain to be challenged in court. In a flurry of television commercials and presentations by opponents in the final days before Monday’s vote, opponents said paying to defend such a local law would require a significant cut in Fremont city services or a stiff tax increase — or some combination of the two.
“There were a lot of tears in this room tonight,” said Kristin Ostrom, an opponent who gathered with others in an old V.F.W. building to await the results. “Unfortunately, people have voted for an ordinance that’s going to cost millions of dollars, and that says to the Hispanic community that the Anglo community is saying they are not welcome here. They thought they were coming to a small-town community with small-town values.”
But advocates argued that federal authorities had failed to enforce their own immigration restrictions, leaving places like Fremont — with a small but growing Hispanic population — to take care of such matters themselves. They complained that illegal immigrants were causing an increase in crime, taking jobs that would once have gone to longtime residents, and changing the character of their quiet city, some 30 miles of farm fields from Omaha.
Within minutes of the results being announced, officials from the A.C.L.U. Nebraska pledged to file a lawsuit as quickly as possible.
“If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens,” Laurel Marsh, executive director of A.C.L.U. Nebraska , said in a statement issued late Monday. “The A.C.L.U. Nebraska has no option but to turn to the courts to stop this un-American and unconstitutional ordinance before the law goes into effect. Not only do local ordinances such as this violate federal law, they are also completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality.”
Fremont’s Hispanic population, practically nonexistent two decades ago, has grown to about 2,000 people, according to some estimates. No one knows how many illegal immigrants live in Fremont, and the estimates (depending on which side of this debate one is on) vary enormously.
Still, some in Fremont point, with worry, to other Nebraska towns — places like Schuyler and Lexington — as communities that no longer look or feel the way they once did.
In recent years, numerous towns and cities around the nation have considered adopting laws restricting illegal immigrants. But in most cases, political leaders and town councils have been the ones to pass the provisions — not the voters. And the laws have proven politically-tangled: measures in towns like Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Tex., are still being fought in court, while some other cities (facing the prospect of drawn-out legal battles) have dropped the issue.
That almost happened in Fremont. Two years ago, a City Council member in Fremont suggested the city should pass a law on illegal immigrants. But after two emotional hearings — with what both sides said was participants from all over the state, the Council voted 4 to 4 on the proposal. The longtime mayor then voted against it, saying that he, too, was opposed to illegal immigrants but had come to believe that the question was one that had been, legally speaking, left to federal authorities, not Fremont.
Some residents were outraged by the choice, and began collecting signatures on a petition to put the question to a vote — the vote that ultimately came on Monday.
As residents of Fremont began considering what the decision would now mean, details of the new law were a new matter for debate. Some noted, with puzzlement, that the law would not apply to the area’s two biggest meatpacking plants (including Hormel, the largest employer) because they are just outside the city’s official boundaries, and that the law would also not apply to “casual labor for domestic tasks” around Fremont homes. But some said they believe the housing requirements — and new $5 occupancy license rule — might apply to people living in nursing homes.
In Fremont , a meat-packing town of about 25,000 people, unofficial results from The Associated Press late Monday showed that 57 percent of voters approved a referendum barring landlords from renting to those in the country illegally, requiring renters to provide information to the police and to obtain city occupancy licenses, and obliging city businesses to use a federal database to check for illegal immigrants.
Opponents of the new law, including some business and church leaders, had argued that the City of Fremont simply could not afford the new law, which is all but certain to be challenged in court. In a flurry of television commercials and presentations by opponents in the final days before Monday’s vote, opponents said paying to defend such a local law would require a significant cut in Fremont city services or a stiff tax increase — or some combination of the two.
“There were a lot of tears in this room tonight,” said Kristin Ostrom, an opponent who gathered with others in an old V.F.W. building to await the results. “Unfortunately, people have voted for an ordinance that’s going to cost millions of dollars, and that says to the Hispanic community that the Anglo community is saying they are not welcome here. They thought they were coming to a small-town community with small-town values.”
But advocates argued that federal authorities had failed to enforce their own immigration restrictions, leaving places like Fremont — with a small but growing Hispanic population — to take care of such matters themselves. They complained that illegal immigrants were causing an increase in crime, taking jobs that would once have gone to longtime residents, and changing the character of their quiet city, some 30 miles of farm fields from Omaha.
Within minutes of the results being announced, officials from the A.C.L.U. Nebraska pledged to file a lawsuit as quickly as possible.
“If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens,” Laurel Marsh, executive director of A.C.L.U. Nebraska , said in a statement issued late Monday. “The A.C.L.U. Nebraska has no option but to turn to the courts to stop this un-American and unconstitutional ordinance before the law goes into effect. Not only do local ordinances such as this violate federal law, they are also completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality.”
Fremont’s Hispanic population, practically nonexistent two decades ago, has grown to about 2,000 people, according to some estimates. No one knows how many illegal immigrants live in Fremont, and the estimates (depending on which side of this debate one is on) vary enormously.
Still, some in Fremont point, with worry, to other Nebraska towns — places like Schuyler and Lexington — as communities that no longer look or feel the way they once did.
In recent years, numerous towns and cities around the nation have considered adopting laws restricting illegal immigrants. But in most cases, political leaders and town councils have been the ones to pass the provisions — not the voters. And the laws have proven politically-tangled: measures in towns like Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Tex., are still being fought in court, while some other cities (facing the prospect of drawn-out legal battles) have dropped the issue.
That almost happened in Fremont. Two years ago, a City Council member in Fremont suggested the city should pass a law on illegal immigrants. But after two emotional hearings — with what both sides said was participants from all over the state, the Council voted 4 to 4 on the proposal. The longtime mayor then voted against it, saying that he, too, was opposed to illegal immigrants but had come to believe that the question was one that had been, legally speaking, left to federal authorities, not Fremont.
Some residents were outraged by the choice, and began collecting signatures on a petition to put the question to a vote — the vote that ultimately came on Monday.
As residents of Fremont began considering what the decision would now mean, details of the new law were a new matter for debate. Some noted, with puzzlement, that the law would not apply to the area’s two biggest meatpacking plants (including Hormel, the largest employer) because they are just outside the city’s official boundaries, and that the law would also not apply to “casual labor for domestic tasks” around Fremont homes. But some said they believe the housing requirements — and new $5 occupancy license rule — might apply to people living in nursing homes.
Investigators claim US money is funding Afghan Taliban
The convoys are attacked if payments are not made, according to allegations in a US military document.
The congressional report follows a six-month investigation.
The document states that trucks carrying food, water, fuel, and ammunition may be supplying up to $4 million (£2.7m) per week to the firms.
A US congressional committee is expected to hear the evidence on the investigation from senior officials at the US Department of Defense later on Tuesday.
'Vast protection racket' The congressional subcommittee that carried out the investigation says that bribes are paid to the Taliban and virtually every governor, police chief and local military commander whose territory the convoys pass through.
One of the security companies in question is alleged to be owned by two cousins of the Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The report released late on Monday says the security agreements violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as US Department of Defense regulations.
The report states that "although the warlords do provide guards and coordinate security, the contractors have little choice but to use them in what amounts to a vast protection racket".
The document states that security companies hired under the Afghan Host Nation Trucking are the ones funneling the money.
Watan Risk management is one of the largest security providers in Afghanistan and one of the companies currently under investigation.
The military report states that representatives of the company allegedly negotiate or dictate the price of safe passage in a given area. The company then issues warnings to trucking companies who are late in paying or refuse to pay the sum.
A spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, confirmed to the AP news agency that the inquiry is taking place.
The congressional report follows a six-month investigation.
The document states that trucks carrying food, water, fuel, and ammunition may be supplying up to $4 million (£2.7m) per week to the firms.
A US congressional committee is expected to hear the evidence on the investigation from senior officials at the US Department of Defense later on Tuesday.
'Vast protection racket' The congressional subcommittee that carried out the investigation says that bribes are paid to the Taliban and virtually every governor, police chief and local military commander whose territory the convoys pass through.
One of the security companies in question is alleged to be owned by two cousins of the Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The report released late on Monday says the security agreements violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as US Department of Defense regulations.
The report states that "although the warlords do provide guards and coordinate security, the contractors have little choice but to use them in what amounts to a vast protection racket".
The document states that security companies hired under the Afghan Host Nation Trucking are the ones funneling the money.
Watan Risk management is one of the largest security providers in Afghanistan and one of the companies currently under investigation.
The military report states that representatives of the company allegedly negotiate or dictate the price of safe passage in a given area. The company then issues warnings to trucking companies who are late in paying or refuse to pay the sum.
A spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, confirmed to the AP news agency that the inquiry is taking place.
Orszag to resign as White House budget director, source says
As head of the Office of Management and Budget, Orszag has been one of Obama's top lieutenants on two of the president's signature legislative efforts: the stimulus bill, passed early in the administration, and the health care overhaul passed this year.
He also generated some headlines of his own, with the news that he had fathered a child with ex-girlfriend Claire Milonas, a Greek shipping heiress, and that he had become engaged to ABC News reporter Bianna Golodryga. Their wedding is planned for September.
The exact timing of when Orszag would leave the administration remained unclear, the Democrat said, speaking on condition of the anonymity to avoid souring relations with administration officials. Orszag's plans to quit have been rumored for months in Washington, particularly once he wrapped up budget planning for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
OMB spokesman Kenneth S. Baer said late Monday that "Peter's focused on his work, not on Washington speculation."
Many past budget directors have left the job after two years, and news of Orszag's wedding plans only increased speculation about whether he would stay on. Bloomberg News first reported Monday night on his plans.
An administration official suggested privately that Orszag might delay his departure until the OMB issues its "mid-session review," or the revised estimates of budget receipts, outlays and budget authority for fiscal 2010 to 2020. That review is due July 15.
Orszag, 41, has been at the center of some of the most fierce and contentious Washington debates for more than three years: He was head of the Congressional Budget Office for two years under President George W. Bush before joining the Obama administration.
The White House is preparing the administration's next budget, which would necessitate a speedier timetable for nominating a replacement at the OMB. The position requires Senate confirmation, which could spark a confrontation with Republicans over the administration's economic policies.
He also generated some headlines of his own, with the news that he had fathered a child with ex-girlfriend Claire Milonas, a Greek shipping heiress, and that he had become engaged to ABC News reporter Bianna Golodryga. Their wedding is planned for September.
The exact timing of when Orszag would leave the administration remained unclear, the Democrat said, speaking on condition of the anonymity to avoid souring relations with administration officials. Orszag's plans to quit have been rumored for months in Washington, particularly once he wrapped up budget planning for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
OMB spokesman Kenneth S. Baer said late Monday that "Peter's focused on his work, not on Washington speculation."
Many past budget directors have left the job after two years, and news of Orszag's wedding plans only increased speculation about whether he would stay on. Bloomberg News first reported Monday night on his plans.
An administration official suggested privately that Orszag might delay his departure until the OMB issues its "mid-session review," or the revised estimates of budget receipts, outlays and budget authority for fiscal 2010 to 2020. That review is due July 15.
Orszag, 41, has been at the center of some of the most fierce and contentious Washington debates for more than three years: He was head of the Congressional Budget Office for two years under President George W. Bush before joining the Obama administration.
The White House is preparing the administration's next budget, which would necessitate a speedier timetable for nominating a replacement at the OMB. The position requires Senate confirmation, which could spark a confrontation with Republicans over the administration's economic policies.
NYC car bomb suspect pleads guilty, calls it 'war'
Calling himself a Muslim soldier, a defiant Pakistan-born U.S. citizen pleaded guilty Monday to carrying out the failed Times Square car bombing and left a sinister warning that unless the U.S. leaves Muslim lands alone, "we will be attacking U.S."
Wearing a white skull cap, prison smocks and a dark beard, Faisal Shahzad entered the plea in U.S. District Court in Manhattan just days after a federal grand jury indicted him on 10 terrorism and weapons counts, some of which carried mandatory life prison sentences. He pleaded guilty to them all.
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum challenged Shahzad repeatedly with questions such as whether he had worried about killing children in Times Square.
"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad calmly replied. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."
The 30-year-old described his effort to set off a bomb in an SUV he parked in Times Square on May 1, saying he chose the warm Saturday night because it would be crowded with people he could injure or kill. He said he conspired with the Pakistan Taliban, which provided more than $15,000 to fund his operation.
He explained that he packed his vehicle with three separate bomb components, hoping to set off a fertilizer-fueled bomb packed in a gun cabinet, a set of propane tanks and gas canisters rigged with fireworks to explode into a fireball. He also revealed he was carrying a folding assault rifle for "self-defense."
Shahzad said he lit a fuse and waited 2 1/2 to five minutes for the bomb to erupt.
"I was waiting to hear a sound but I didn't hear a sound. ... So I walked to Grand Central and went home," he said.
Shahzad dismissed the judge's question about the children by saying the U.S. didn't care when children were killed in Muslim countries.
"It's a war. I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people," he said. "On behalf of that, I'm revenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."
Cedarbaum also asked Shahzad if he understood that the people in Times Square might not have anything to do with what happened overseas.
"The people select the government. We consider them all the same," Shahzad said during the hour-long hearing.
Shahzad made the plea and an accompanying statement as Cedarbaum began asking him a lengthy series of questions to ensure he understood his rights.
She asked him if he understood some charges carried mandatory life sentences and that he might spend the rest of his life in prison. He said he did.
At one point, she asked him if he was sure he wanted to plead guilty.
He said he wanted "to plead guilty and 100 times more" to let the U.S. know that if it did not get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, halt drone attacks and stop meddling in Muslim lands, "we will be attacking U.S."
Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 5.
The Bridgeport, Conn., resident was arrested trying to leave the country May 3, two days after the bomb failed to ignite near a Broadway theater.
Authorities said Shahzad immediately cooperated, delaying his initial court appearance for two weeks as he spilled details of a plot meant to sow terror in the world-famous Times Square on a warm Saturday night when it was packed with thousands of potential victims.
The bomb apparently sputtered, emitting smoke that attracted the attention of an alert street vendor, who notified police, setting in motion a rapid evacuation of blocks of a city still healing from the shock of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
According to the indictment issued last week, Shahzad received a total of $12,000 prior to the attack from the Pakistani Taliban through cash drop-offs in Massachusetts and Long Island.
Attorney General Eric Holder said after the plea: "Faisal Shahzad plotted and launched an attack that could have led to serious loss of life, and today the American criminal justice system ensured that he will pay the price for his actions."
FBI New York Acting Assistant Director-in-Charge George Venizelos called the plea "right on the mark" and praised the work of "ordinary citizens who alerted law enforcement of suspicious activity."
Shahzad was accused in the indictment of receiving explosives training in Waziristan, Pakistan, during a five-week trip to that country. He returned to the United States in February.
The indictment said he received $5,000 in cash on Feb. 25 from a co-conspirator in Pakistan and $7,000 more on April 10, allegedly sent at the co-conspirator's direction. Shahzad said in court Monday that the Pakistan Taliban gave him more than $4,000 when he left training camp.
Shahzad, born in Pakistan, moved to the United States when he was 18.
Pakistan has arrested at least 11 people since the attempted attack. An intelligence official has alleged two of them played a role in the plot. No one has been charged.
Three men in Massachusetts and Maine suspected of supplying money to Shahzad have been detained on immigration charges; one was recently transferred to New York.
Federal authorities have said they believe money was channeled through an underground money transfer network known as "hawala," but they have said they doubt anyone in the U.S. who provided money knew what it was for.
Wearing a white skull cap, prison smocks and a dark beard, Faisal Shahzad entered the plea in U.S. District Court in Manhattan just days after a federal grand jury indicted him on 10 terrorism and weapons counts, some of which carried mandatory life prison sentences. He pleaded guilty to them all.
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum challenged Shahzad repeatedly with questions such as whether he had worried about killing children in Times Square.
"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad calmly replied. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."
The 30-year-old described his effort to set off a bomb in an SUV he parked in Times Square on May 1, saying he chose the warm Saturday night because it would be crowded with people he could injure or kill. He said he conspired with the Pakistan Taliban, which provided more than $15,000 to fund his operation.
He explained that he packed his vehicle with three separate bomb components, hoping to set off a fertilizer-fueled bomb packed in a gun cabinet, a set of propane tanks and gas canisters rigged with fireworks to explode into a fireball. He also revealed he was carrying a folding assault rifle for "self-defense."
Shahzad said he lit a fuse and waited 2 1/2 to five minutes for the bomb to erupt.
"I was waiting to hear a sound but I didn't hear a sound. ... So I walked to Grand Central and went home," he said.
Shahzad dismissed the judge's question about the children by saying the U.S. didn't care when children were killed in Muslim countries.
"It's a war. I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people," he said. "On behalf of that, I'm revenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."
Cedarbaum also asked Shahzad if he understood that the people in Times Square might not have anything to do with what happened overseas.
"The people select the government. We consider them all the same," Shahzad said during the hour-long hearing.
Shahzad made the plea and an accompanying statement as Cedarbaum began asking him a lengthy series of questions to ensure he understood his rights.
She asked him if he understood some charges carried mandatory life sentences and that he might spend the rest of his life in prison. He said he did.
At one point, she asked him if he was sure he wanted to plead guilty.
He said he wanted "to plead guilty and 100 times more" to let the U.S. know that if it did not get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, halt drone attacks and stop meddling in Muslim lands, "we will be attacking U.S."
Sentencing was scheduled for Oct. 5.
The Bridgeport, Conn., resident was arrested trying to leave the country May 3, two days after the bomb failed to ignite near a Broadway theater.
Authorities said Shahzad immediately cooperated, delaying his initial court appearance for two weeks as he spilled details of a plot meant to sow terror in the world-famous Times Square on a warm Saturday night when it was packed with thousands of potential victims.
The bomb apparently sputtered, emitting smoke that attracted the attention of an alert street vendor, who notified police, setting in motion a rapid evacuation of blocks of a city still healing from the shock of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
According to the indictment issued last week, Shahzad received a total of $12,000 prior to the attack from the Pakistani Taliban through cash drop-offs in Massachusetts and Long Island.
Attorney General Eric Holder said after the plea: "Faisal Shahzad plotted and launched an attack that could have led to serious loss of life, and today the American criminal justice system ensured that he will pay the price for his actions."
FBI New York Acting Assistant Director-in-Charge George Venizelos called the plea "right on the mark" and praised the work of "ordinary citizens who alerted law enforcement of suspicious activity."
Shahzad was accused in the indictment of receiving explosives training in Waziristan, Pakistan, during a five-week trip to that country. He returned to the United States in February.
The indictment said he received $5,000 in cash on Feb. 25 from a co-conspirator in Pakistan and $7,000 more on April 10, allegedly sent at the co-conspirator's direction. Shahzad said in court Monday that the Pakistan Taliban gave him more than $4,000 when he left training camp.
Shahzad, born in Pakistan, moved to the United States when he was 18.
Pakistan has arrested at least 11 people since the attempted attack. An intelligence official has alleged two of them played a role in the plot. No one has been charged.
Three men in Massachusetts and Maine suspected of supplying money to Shahzad have been detained on immigration charges; one was recently transferred to New York.
Federal authorities have said they believe money was channeled through an underground money transfer network known as "hawala," but they have said they doubt anyone in the U.S. who provided money knew what it was for.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)