MAN INVOLVED IN PLOT TO BOMB U.K. MALL CONVICTED IN BROOKLYN FEDERAL COURT

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Al-Qaeda Operative Convicted for Role in International Terrorism Plot Targeting the United States and Europe
Defendant and Co-Plotters Came Within Days of Bombing a U.K. Shopping Mall

U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch of the Eastern District of New York, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, Assistant Director in Charge Diego G. Rodriguez of the FBI’s New York Field Office and Commissioner William J. Bratton of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) announced that earlier today, following a two-week trial, Abid Naseer, 28, a Pakistani national who joined al-Qaeda and plotted to commit a terrorist attack in the United Kingdom, was found guilty by a jury in Brooklyn federal court of providing material support to al-Qaeda, conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaeda, and conspiring to use a destructive device in relation to a crime of violence.  The evidence at trial established that the defendant and his accomplices came within days of executing a plot to conduct an attack on a busy shopping mall located in the city center of Manchester, United Kingdom, in April 2009.  The planned attack, which also targeted the New York City subway system and a newspaper office in Copenhagen, Denmark, had been directed by and coordinated with senior al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.  Naseer is the eighth defendant to face charges, and the fourth to be convicted, in Brooklyn federal court related to the al-Qaeda plot, which also involved Adis Medunjanin, Najibullah Zazi, and Zarein Ahmedzay, the three members of the cell that targeted New York City.

“This al-Qaeda plot was intended by the group’s leaders to send a message to the United States and its allies,” said U.S. Attorney Lynch.  “Today’s verdict sends an even more powerful message in response: the United States will stop at nothing in order to hold those who plot to kill and maim in the name of religion accountable for their grievous crimes.”  U.S. Attorney Lynch extended her grateful appreciation to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which led the investigation and comprises a large number of federal, state, and local agencies from the region.  U.S. Attorney Lynch also extended her appreciation to the law enforcement authorities in the United Kingdom and Norway, including the Greater Manchester Police, the British Security Service, and the Norwegian Police Security Service, for their outstanding assistance with the case.

“Abid Naseer was part of an al Qaeda conspiracy that targeted Western countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, for terrorist attack,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin.  “His conviction reflects our dedication to identifying and holding accountable those who seek to target the United States and its allies.  I want to thank the many agents, analysts, and prosecutors who are responsible for this successful result.”

“Naseer knowingly and willingly conspired with others to carry out a destructive plot on behalf of al-Qaeda,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Rodriquez.  “The wheels were set in motion, and he and his accomplices were prepared to execute their plan. Those who pledge allegiance to terrorists and terrorist organizations throughout the world will be brought to justice, and every effort will be made to protect Americans and our interests throughout the world. The FBI will continue to work with our local and international partners to mitigate the threat of global terrorism.”

“The Abid Naseer case demonstrates that terrorists who target the U.S. and its allies will be brought to justice, no matter where they are,” said NYPD Commissioner Bratton.  “This investigation involved leads from the streets of Manchester, England, to New York City, to Usama Bin Laden’s hidden lair in Pakistan.  I want to thank the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District and the members of the N.Y. FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorism Task Force for the work that led to this successful prosecution.”

In approximately September 2008, al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan recruited Medunjanin, Zazi, and Ahmedzay, three friends from New York City, to conduct a suicide bombing attack in New York City.  Those al-Qaeda leaders, including Adnan El-Shukrijumah and Saleh al-Somali, communicated with Zazi about the plot through an al-Qaeda facilitator named “Ahmad,” who was located in Peshawar, Pakistan.  In early September 2009, after Medunjanin, Zazi, and Ahmedzay had selected the New York City subway system as their target, Zazi emailed with “Ahmad” in Pakistan about the proper ingredients for the main charge explosive, which included flour and oil.  Zazi pleaded guilty to his role in the plot on Feb. 22, 2010; Ahmedzay pleaded guilty on April 23, 2010; and Medunjanin was convicted after trial on May 1, 2012.

The investigation by authorities in the United States and United Kingdom revealed that “Ahmad” had also been communicating with the defendant earlier in 2009.  The evidence at trial demonstrated that the defendant and his Pakistani accomplices had been dispatched by al-Qaeda to the U.K. in 2006 in order to begin preparations for an attack in that country.  The defendant and his co-conspirators entered the U.K. on student visas but then immediately dropped out of the university in which they had enrolled.  The defendant, like Zazi, returned briefly to Peshawar in November 2008, at the same time Zazi and his co-conspirators were receiving weapons and explosives training from al-Qaeda in that region.  After returning to the U.K., the defendant sent messages back and forth to the same email account that “Ahmad” was also using to communicate with the American-based al-Qaeda cell on behalf of Saleh al-Somali, al-Qaeda’s then-head of external operations.  In the messages, the defendant used coded language to refer to different types of explosives.  At the culmination of the plot, in early April 2009, the defendant told “Ahmad” that he was planning a large “wedding” for numerous guests during the upcoming Easter weekend, and that “Ahmad” – whom he called “Sohaib” – should be ready.  Notably, Zazi testified that Ahmad had instructed him to use the same code of “marriage” to refer to the planned attack on the New York City subway, and that Zazi emailed Ahmad that “the marriage is ready” just before he drove to New York in early September 2009 to conduct the attack.

On April 8, 2009, the defendant and several associates were arrested in the United Kingdom.  In connection with these arrests, U.K. authorities conducted searches of the plotters’ homes as well as an internet café used by the defendant to send his messages to Ahmad, where they seized a large volume of electronic media.  As demonstrated at trial, a forensic review of that electronic media revealed that the defendant had downloaded several jihadi nasheeds, or anthems, calling for “death in large numbers.”  A document recovered from the raid on Usama bin Laden’s compound in May 2011 contained a letter from Saleh al-Somali to Bin Laden, written on April 16, 2009, that discussed the defendant and his accomplices’ arrests in the U.K.

On Jan. 30, 2012, three defendants were also convicted in a Norwegian court of plotting a similar terrorist attack in Denmark as part of the same overall multinational al-Qaeda conspiracy.  During that trial, the United States made available to the Norwegian prosecutors three witnesses who also pleaded guilty to terrorism offenses in the Eastern District of New York: Zazi, Ahmedzay, and Bryant Neal Vinas.  Zazi and Ahmedzay again testified in the trial against Naseer.

The defendant faces up to life imprisonment when he is sentenced at a later date by the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Zainab Ahmad, Celia A. Cohen, and Michael P. Canty, with assistance provided by the Justice Department’s National Security Division and Office of International Affairs.

2 CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS ABROAD

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Two Yemeni Nationals Charged with Conspiring to Murder United States Nationals Abroad and Providing Material Support to Al-Qaeda
Defendants Allegedly Conspired to Carry Out Armed Attacks Against United States Military Personnel and Facilitated the Entry of an American Citizen into Al-Qaeda

A complaint and arrest warrant were unsealed today in federal court in the Eastern District of New York charging Saddiq Al-Abbadi, also known as “Sufiyan al-Yemeni” and “Sufwan,” and Ali Alvi, also known as “Issa al-Yemeni,” with conspiracy to murder United States nationals abroad and providing material support to al-Qaeda.  Alvi’s initial appearance was held before United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on Jan. 18, 2015, and Al-Abbadi’s initial appearance is scheduled today before United States Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom.  Al-Abbadi and Alvi were arrested in Saudi Arabia pursuant to the pending warrants in this case and lawfully expelled to the United States.

The charges were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; and Andrew G. McCabe, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington Field Office.

As alleged in the complaint, Al-Abbadi and Alvi are both members of al-Qaeda who engaged in attacks against United States military forces stationed in Afghanistan.  Between 2003 and 2007, Al-Abbadi also fought against United States military forces in Iraq.  In approximately March 2008, Al-Abbadi and Alvi traveled to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan for the purpose of training with and fighting for al-Qaeda.  During that time period, both defendants helped an American citizen gain entry into al-Qaeda so that he could fight against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and U.S. citizens in the homeland.

In approximately late spring and summer 2008, Al-Abbadi and Alvi traveled from Pakistan to Afghanistan to conduct attacks against United States military personnel stationed there.   Al-Abbadi led a battle against U.S. forces in Paktya Province in May 2008 during which one U.S. Army Ranger was killed and several others were seriously wounded.

“There is no escape from the reach of our law for violent terrorists, especially if they target our military,” stated United States Attorney Lynch.  “Al-Abbadi and Alvi may have operated in the mountains of Afghanistan, but now they face justice in a courtroom in Brooklyn.”  Ms. Lynch extended her grateful appreciation to the FBI.

“With the charges announced today, these defendants will face justice for conspiring to kill Americans overseas and providing material support to al-Qaeda,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin.  “Seeking to identify, thwart, and hold accountable those who target U.S. citizens and interests around the world will remain a top priority of the National Security Division.  I want to thank the many agents, analysts, and prosecutors who are responsible for this matter.”

“The arrest and prosecution of these two individuals, who allegedly directly supported the mission of a designated terrorist organization, is a major step in the international cooperation to combat terrorism,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge McCabe.  “On a daily basis, the FBI is faced with a complex threat environment that is always evolving and changing.  Through international partnerships, the FBI will continue to pursue those who provide support to terrorist groups and ensure that they are brought to justice.”­­  

If convicted, each defendant faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.  The charges in the complaint are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Zainab Ahmad, Michael P. Canty and Douglas M. Pravda, with assistance provided by Trial attorney Josh Parecki of the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Section and by the Office of International Affairs.

SAMANTHA POWER'S REMARKS ON TERRORIST GROUPS AND TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
December 19, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Foreign Minister Faki. And thank you again for being here with us in person. The United States greatly appreciates Chad’s leadership and its work to focus the Council on the nexus between terrorism and transnational organized crime. Thank you, also, Foreign Minister Wali and Minister Asselborn for your presence here today underscoring the critical importance of these issues. I particularly appreciated Luxembourg’s attention to the impact these issues have on the welfare of children – an issue that Luxembourg insistently raises with regard to all the challenges we face and a critical part of Luxembourg’s legacy on this Council. The United States is very eager to support Nigeria, and Chad, and the other multinational partners in the effort against Boko Haram – a monstrous movement.

While the motivations of terrorists and transnational criminal organizations may differ, their use of brutal violence, and the insecurity, fear, and suffering that they cause, are often remarkably similar. Terrorists and transnational criminal organizations are increasingly learning from one another’s sophisticated tactics to raise funds, to move people and arms, and to spread the fear that is a critical source of their power.

We see this cross-pollination between terrorist groups and transnational organized crime all around us. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram, the al-Nusra Front, and numerous other terrorist organizations raise tens of millions of dollars annually through kidnapping for ransom. In Somalia, al-Shabaab has filled its coffers through illegal and environmentally devastating charcoal exports; of the $250 million worth of charcoal estimated to have been exported from Somalia in 2013 and 2014, 30 percent is estimated to have gone to al-Shabaab. AQIM and other terrorist groups regularly obtain arms through Maghreb and Sahel trafficking networks, relying on the same trade routes as transnational smugglers. And extremist groups raise cash through a variety of other criminal activities that cross borders – from selling drugs to stealing natural resources.

ISIL is another example of the increasingly similar modus operandi between these groups. While continuing to carry out deadly attacks propelled by its sadistic ideology, ISIL is also increasingly operating like a profit-driven criminal organization. Using fear, threats, and attacks, ISIL extorts money from local businesses and traders, and robs from banks and households alike. Working through long-established regional smuggling networks, ISIL transports oil across borders, netting roughly $1 million a day through black-market oil sales. And there are credible reports that ISIL is profiting from the sale of Syrian and Iraqi so-called "blood antiquities,” sold by criminal middlemen to unscrupulous or unknowing buyers worldwide. These new sources of financing allow extremist groups to diversify their revenue streams and reduce risk of disruption of the funds that they need to carry out their horrific attacks.

As terrorists’ criminal activities become more entrepreneurial and business-minded, the Security Council needs to better understand their tactics. And we must develop and deploy a set of sophisticated tools to disrupt these expanding networks, and cut off the funds that they are generating. To this end, the Council should prioritize three tasks.

First, the Council should build greater international cooperation needed to fight the interrelated problems of terrorism and organized crime. We have taken steps to address this urgent need in previous resolutions, including Resolution 2170 on ISIL, and Resolution 2178 on Foreign Terrorist Fighters. And we have established a robust international legal framework under the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the UN Convention Against Corruption, and the three UN drug control conventions that, taken together and implemented effectively, provide common parameters and tools for recognizing and responding to different forms of transnational crime.

Building on this work, the Council should encourage member states to do more to collectively address transnational threats. For example, greater international cooperation should facilitate the exchange of information and analysis about terrorist and crime networks. For its part, the United States has effectively used the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime as the basis for international legal and law enforcement cooperation against transnational organized crime with more than 55 countries. And our use of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and bilateral treaties has led to the return of nearly 30 fugitives to face prosecution in the United States. Greater cooperation is needed both among and within governments, so we can bring together experts from the law enforcement, military, diplomatic and intelligence communities. This is why today the Council called on Member States to work together to secure their borders, counter illicit financing and money laundering, and implement international best practices and existing conventions.

Second, the Security Council should acknowledge that weak governance both encourages and is exacerbated by terrorist use of crime. Terrorist groups and criminals gravitate towards places with rampant corruption and impunity. For this reason, strengthening criminal justice systems in vulnerable countries is one of the most effective ways to fight transnational organized crime. Since our collective security is only as strong as our weakest link, we have a shared interest in building stronger, more transparent governance and justice institutions beyond our own borders. Military measures alone will not be enough.

Third, the Security Council should call on states to provide assistance to those states most affected by these terrible threats. Tackling these challenges requires deploying all the tools we have, from innovative law enforcement and criminal justice tools, to financial measures and sanctions. Yet all states do not currently have the same ability to take these steps. Member states should therefore identify areas where targeted assistance is most needed, and focus support in those places. We particularly welcome the role of the UN's counterterrorism bodies – particularly the al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee’s Monitoring Team, the Counterterrorism Executive Directorate and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime – in identifying threat and capacity gaps.

We have come through a horrific week, as others have mentioned, of terrorist attacks. On Tuesday, the Pakistani Taliban killed 145 people – 132 of them kids, age 5 to 17. It was an appalling attack on a school. A young student named Zeeshan told a reporter: “I saw militants walking past rows of students, shooting them in the head.” On Wednesday, more than 230 bodies of people believed to have been executed by ISIL were found in a mass grave in Syria’s Deir al-Zor province. And yesterday, we learned that more than 100 women and children were kidnapped, and 35 people killed, during a weekend raid in the northeastern Nigerian village of Gumsuri, believed to have been carried out by Boko Haram.

We know that we must do more to prevent these attacks – not only in Pakistan, Syria, and Nigeria, but in all of our countries. We must dismantle the groups that threaten our collective security. But we cannot achieve that goal without tackling the organized criminal networks that extremists increasingly rely upon to fuel their terror. That is the work before us and we must succeed.

Thank you.

U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA ADRESSES STEPS TO END THE AL-QAEDA THREAT

Photo Credit:  U.S. Department Of Defense.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Panetta Details Steps Needed to End Al-Qaeda Threat
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2012 - For the United States and its allies, ending the al-Qaida threat calls for a modified military footprint, close work with partners, and continued U.S. involvement in regions of the world where violent extremism has flourished, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said tonight.

Addressing a large audience here at the Center for a New American Security, the secretary discussed significant national security challenges and opportunities ahead.

He also outlined priorities that characterize the approaching end of the longest period of sustained armed conflict in the nation's history.

The priorities, Panetta said, are fighting the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, ending the war in Afghanistan, implementing the new defense strategy, meeting fiscal responsibilities, countering nuclear proliferation, improving cybersecurity, achieving greater energy security, implementing the Asia-Pacific rebalance, and taking care of service members, veterans and military families.

"But tonight I wanted to focus on the goal that still remains at the top of the priority list, as it must. That goal that the president made very clear -- that we have a responsibility to disrupt, degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat those who attacked America on 9/11 -- al-Qaida," the secretary said.

" ... To protect Americans at home and overseas," he added, "we need to continue to pursue al-Qaida wherever they go, whatever form they take, wherever they seek to hide. We must be constantly vigilant, we must be constantly determined to pursue this enemy."

What will it take, he asked, to achieve the end of al-Qaida?

The essential first step is to finish the job that the United States and its coalition partners began in Afghanistan, he said, "and we are on track to do that."

As the United States and its NATO partners agreed at the 2010 summit in Lisbon, Panetta said, Afghans must be responsible for their own security by the end of 2014.

This transition will require continued commitment by the international community and the United States to help Afghan forces achieve this goal, he added.

"We have come too far. We have invested too much blood and treasure not to finish the job," the secretary said. "There are no shortcuts, nor can we afford to turn away from this effort when we are so close to achieving success and preventing al-Qaida from ever returning to this historic epicenter for violent extremism."

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, prolonged military and intelligence operations have significantly weakened al-Qaida, Panetta said.

The terrorist group's most effective leaders are gone, its command and control has been degraded and its safe haven is shrinking, he added, but al-Qaida remains.

"We have slowed the primary cancer but we know that the cancer has also metastasized to other parts of the global body," the secretary said. Two examples of that spreading al-Qaida presence are Yemen and Somalia.

In Yemen, for example, the capabilities of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, are growing. This group has targeted the United States for attack and sowed violence and chaos in Yemen itself, Panetta said.

"We have struck back in an effort to disrupt and dismantle this group through a very close partnership with the government of Yemen ... and the Yemenese themselves," he added.

In Somalia, against the militant group al-Shaabab, progress also has been made, the secretary said, "in large part because of an effective partnership between the United States and the African Union Mission in Somalia."

But the challenge is far from over, Panetta said.

"President [Barack] Obama has made clear, we will fight not just through military means but by harnessing every element of American power -- military, intelligence, diplomatic, law enforcement, financial, economic and above all the power of our values as Americans," the secretary said.

The second step in achieving the end of al-Qaida, Panetta said, involves maintaining pressure on al-Qaida in Pakistan, on AQAP in Yemen, and on al-Qaida-associated forces in Somalia.

That means degrading the terrorists' senior leadership, dismantling their organizational capabilities, remaining vigilant to ensure the threat does not reconstitute, and working to build the capacity of U.S. partners, including Pakistan, to confront these shared threats, he added.

"Despite challenges in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan," the secretary said, "one area in which our national interests continue to align is defeating the terrorists on Pakistan soil that threaten both of us. We remain committed to pursuing defense cooperation based on these shared interests."

A third step is to prevent the emergence of new safe havens for al-Qaida elsewhere in the world that the group could use to attack the United States or its interests, he said.

"The last decade of war has shown that coordinated efforts to share intelligence, to conduct operations with partners, are critical to making sure that al-Qaida has no place to hide," Panetta told the audience.

"We will expand these efforts, including through support and partnership with governments in transition in the Middle East and North Africa," he added.

"This campaign against al-Qaida will largely take place outside declared combat zones, using a small-footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign special operations forces, and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combating terrorism on their own," the secretary said.

DOD will work whenever possible with local partners, he added, supporting them with intelligence and resources they need to deter common threats.

In Mali for example, Panetta said, "we are working with our partners in Western Africa who are committed to countering the emerging threat to regional stability posed by AQIM."

A fourth step needed to bring an end to al-Qaida involves investing in the future, he added, in new military and intelligence capabilities and security partnerships.

"Our new defense strategy makes clear -- the military must retain and even build new counterterrorism capabilities for the future," Panetta said.

As the size of the military shrinks, for example, special operations will continue to ramp up, growing from 37,000 members on 9/11 to 64,000 today and 72,000 by 2017, the secretary noted.

"We are expanding our fleet of Predator and Reaper [unmanned aerial vehicles] over what we have today. These enhanced capabilities will enable us to be more flexible and agile against a threat that has grown more diffuse," Panetta said.

"We are also continuing to invest in building partner capacity, including through Section 1206 authority to train and equip foreign military forces. Our new Global Security Contingency Fund has been very helpful in placing new emphasis on cultivating regional expertise in the ranks," the secretary added.

A final point that too often takes a backseat to operations against al-Qaida, Panetta said, is how to prevent extremist ideologies from attracting new recruits.

"Over the past decade we have successfully directed our military and intelligence capabilities at fighting terrorism," he added. "And yet we are still struggling to develop an effective approach to address the factors that attract young men and women to extreme ideologies, and to ensure that governments and societies have the capacity and the will to counter and reject violent extremism."

To truly end the threat from al-Qaida, the secretary said, "military force aimed at killing our enemy alone will never be enough. The United States must stay involved and invested through diplomacy, through development, through education, through trade in those regions of the world where violent extremism has flourished."

This means continued engagement in Pakistan, he added, and following through on U.S. commitments to Afghanistan's long-term stability.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has outlined a comprehensive strategy for North and West Africa that combines security assistance and economic development, strengthens democratic institutions and advances political reforms, Panetta said.

" ... We will be vigilant and we will posture our military and intelligence forces to prevent and if necessary respond to threats of violence against our interests throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including threats against our embassies and consulates, and our diplomats themselves," the secretary said.

"But to truly protect America, we must sustain and in some areas deepen our engagement in the world –- our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development efforts are key to doing that," he added.

Pursuing an isolationist path, the secretary said, "would make all of us less safe in the long-term."

"This is not a time for retrenchment. This is not a time for isolation. It is a time for renewed engagement and partnership in the world," Panetta said.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BRIEFING ON VARIED TOPICS

The following excerpt is from the Department of Defense website:
March 21, 2012
Presenter: Pentagon Press Secretary George Little and Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Media Operations Capt. John Kirby
DOD News Briefing with George Little and Capt. Kirby from the Pentagon
            GEORGE LITTLE:  Good afternoon.
            I have one brief scheduling announcement to make before taking your questions.  On Monday, March 26th, Secretary Panetta will travel to Ottawa, Ontario, to meet with Canada's Minister of National Defense Peter MacKay and Mexico's Secretary of National Defense General Galvan and Secretary of the Navy Admiral Saynaz.  This is an historic meeting, the first time that secretaries of defense from the United States, Canada and Mexico will meet together to discuss continental defense issues such as counternarcotics cooperation, support to humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations and trilateral support for North and South America's defense institutions.
            Following these meetings, the leaders will answer questions from the media, which I'm sure will exclusively be focused on hemispheric defense progress.
            Our host nation, Canada, will provide further logistical information later this week.
            And with that, unless John has something to add, we'll go ahead and take your questions.
            Q:  (Inaudible) -- a couple of questions on the Robert Bales matter.  Can you give us any indication of when charges will be filed? And secondly, Secretary McHugh on the Hill today said that he has directed the Army to review all the Army's mental health programs in light of the concern about wartime stress.  Is Secretary Panetta considering any kind of a military-wide review of those programs?
            DR. LITTLE:  On the issue of charges, I don't have a specific date or time when they may be filed.  On the broader issue, though, of whether -- of how this department is viewing mental health and stress on the force, this is something that, separate and apart from any specific instance, is a priority for us to look at.
            And the secretary is fully aware of concerns that have been expressed about stress on the force.  He talked a bit about this last week in Afghanistan.  And it's something that he's kept his finger on the pulse on for some time.  So I -- I'm unaware of any review that has been launched at this time.  But it's something that we're bearing in mind.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  And he's fully supportive of what Secretary McHugh is doing.
            DR. LITTLE:  Sure.
            Q:  As far as the review by the Pakistani parliament is concerned, did you receive officially any copy of the number of controversial demands they are asking?  One is that -- (inaudible) -- drone attacks must end immediately, and also, second, that U.S. must apologize to the Pakistanis for killing those 24, among other things, before they even talk to the U.S. and open up the doors of the supplies -- routes.
            DR. LITTLE:  I'm unaware that the Pakistani parliamentary review has been completed.  And it's probably -- it's an ongoing process.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  It hasn't been completed.  So there's -- it's an ongoing process, as far as we understand.
            Q:  Today's Washington Post has already reported, and Pakistani media has already been reporting.  And the review has already been finalized, and the U.S. ambassador in Pakistan was already handed over with a copy of the review.
            DR. LITTLE:  We always, as a matter of course, welcome dialogue with our Pakistani partners.  As we've discussed on many occasions, we realize that there have been bumps in the road over the past year or so.  This is something we want to get beyond.  And we believe that we can enhance cooperation.
            Look, we're cooperating every day with the Pakistanis on a number of fronts.
            We share common goals and common interests, particularly when it comes to the counterterrorism efforts.
            So this is a critical issue for us.  We are obviously willing to discuss with our Pakistani partners the outcome of the parliamentary review at the end of the day, and we'll see where that goes.  But it would be premature for me to speculate on what the Pakistani parliament may share with us.
            Q:  But I think, just quickly -- follow quickly -- let's say whatever review and whatever official statement you get from them, or a copy, what they are saying is -- or I'll ask you -- as far as drone attacks are concerned now inside Pakistan, it's because there are still -- you believe there is still terrorism or al-Qaedas are still there?
            And second, since Pakistan has not apologized to the U.S. for keeping Osama bin Laden and helping and keeping those terrorists and al-Qaedas inside Pakistan -- now they're asking you to apologize for these soldiers' killing -- are you willing to -- any kind of adjustment there?  Or are you still asking the Pakistanis -- they should apologize for keeping Osama bin Laden?
            DR. LITTLE:  Let me try to unpack that a little bit.  The United States and Pakistan have a common interest in thwarting terrorists. It's important that we work together to fight al-Qaeda and its militant allies.  We believe that American counterterrorism operations in the region are important to taking al-Qaeda and other terrorists off the street.
            There has been great success, and we've had great success working with the Pakistanis in going after terrorists.  It's important to remember that the terrorist threat is not -- that emanates from that part of the world does not involve solely threats against the United States.  Pakistanis have borne the brunt of terrorism.  Pakistani blood has been spilled.  And we recognize that this is a common fight and we have to work together.
            And we're going to continue to pursue that cooperation, especially in the counterterrorism realm.
            Q:  Could we go back to Bales, please?  There's been some reporting out of the region, out of Kandahar, that some residents of one of the small towns there -- they're alleging that after some sort of an attack on U.S. forces in early March, some American soldiers, and maybe some Afghan soldiers as well, lined up a bunch of the men in the village and threatened them.  And said, you know, we're going to retaliate because of what happened.
            Is there any -- is there -- does the U.S. military, or ISAF, anyone have any evidence that there was, number one, an attack in that area of Panjwaii against U.S. military vehicles, convoy, anything in early March that would have prompted that?  And is there any reason to believe that they did this to these villagers?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  We're aware of the reporting that's come out of Kandahar, these press reports.  And I know ISAF is looking into that and of course investigators are certainly looking into a whole realm of issues regarding this case.  What I can tell you now is that we don't have any indication that either the attack that's being described occurred, and certainly no evidence that there were any threats of retaliation by U.S. soldiers.  But investigators are looking at everything right now.
            Q:  Can I follow that?  There were reports as well, coming from his -- Bales' attorney that Bales may have witnessed a fellow soldier badly injured the day or days before the murders happened.  Have you guys been able to establish whether or not any other soldiers from that base were injured in the days prior?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Certainly can't -- certainly can't rule out that something like that might have happened.  But again, investigators are working through the whole realm of facts surrounding this case.
            And we're just not going to get out ahead of that work in terms of trying to investigate here in a public forum what may or may not have been motivations.
            Q:  But we're not asking specifically, in this instance, about -- take it separate and apart from the investigation.  Can you report that there was any attack or anything like Larry was talking -- (audio break) -- U.S. military was injured?  There was one report that someone had lost their leg in an attack in the days -- I mean, just separate and apart from that, is there any operational reporting that proves there was an attack like that in the days leading up?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I'll just say it the same way.  I can't rule out -- I can't rule it out right now for you that this individual IED incident occurred or didn't occur.  I can't rule that out.  We're taking a look at the whole realm of issues and incidents in the days leading up to the murders.  And so I just -- I can't rule it out for you.
            I can also tell you, on your other -- on your other question about the vehicle IED attack that's alleged and then the follow-on claims of retaliation by soldiers, we don't have any indication that there was that sort of a vehicle IED incident and certainly no evidence to support that soldiers were involved in threats of retaliation.  But again, we got to let the investigators do their job. That's what they're trying to get answers to.
            Q:  So can I -- could I just follow up on that?  I mean, so are you saying that you've checked with ISAF; they've gone through the SIGACTS reports and are saying that in the days before the incident, there were no vehicle IED attacks in that vicinity?  I mean, just so I understand.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I've been as clear as I can be, David.  I'm not going to -- you know, I'm not going to go through chain of custody here.  We just -- we've -- we're certainly interested in these reports too, these press reports.  It's not like we ignore them.  And we're just -- we just don't have any indication right now that those -- that what's being claimed happened, happened.
            Q:  But you can't say the same thing about the other events, that you have any indications -- that there's no indication of that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I can't -- as I said, I can't just -- the one that Larry was asking about -- you can't rule that out, but --
            Q:  You're sort of ruling out the other one by saying there's no evidence it happened, so I'm wondering why they can't make a similar judgment on the other one.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I can't -- I'm not going to go any further than I just did.
            DR. LITTLE:  Dan.
            Q:  Do you have anything further about these reports that this shooter in France was arrested or detained in Kandahar previously, several months ago, and do you have anything on that?
            DR. LITTLE:  We don't have any information at this point that there's any link such as that.  Given, though, the media reports, however, we are looking into it, and if we have an update to provide on that, we'll let you know.
            Q:  And then separately on Afghanistan, what is the latest on the -- on the future of private security contractors?  And there's a lot of people expressing concern that this will affect NGOs and a lot of nonmilitary operations that are crucial to the whole mission.  Do you have any more clarity on what's happening at this point?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No.
            Q:  Are you concerned about the effect it has on all of the work, the development work that gets done, that it may not get done if there isn't security for those NGOs?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I think we're working -- we're working closely with the Karzai government here on moving ahead.  And we -- this isn't -- this isn't -- you know, the original forces were couched as an ‘extension’ of some sort.  It's really less that than an indication that the -- that the process of transition to Afghan lead for security for these companies is at work.  And we're confident that we're going to get there over time.
            I mean, obviously, you -- individual companies or groups have got to make decisions for themselves, but we are -- we're very confident that it's moving in the right direction and that -- and that the Afghans will be capable of providing adequate security for these folks.
            DR. LITTLE:  Let me just make a broader point on Afghanistan.  I mean, the fact that we're having these discussions with the Afghans about detention facilities; we entered into a detention facility MOU with them recently.  We're discussing night operations.  
            As the secretary said last week in Kabul, he's confident that we're going to reach a strategic partnership agreement.  This reflects a strong partnership with Afghanistan, strong dialogue with our Afghan partners and is part and parcel of the strategy that we've been implementing for some time.  The whole goal of what we've been doing with the Afghans and our coalition partners is to transition over a period of time so that the Afghans can assert responsibility throughout their country for their own security and to govern themselves.
            So I think that the discussions, whether it's over private security contractors or night operations or detention facilities, this is a sign of progress.  
            CAPT. KIRBY:  (Inaudible.)
            Q:  Quick question on the budget:  House Republicans have mentioned that in the FY '13 cycle they plan on making requests for certain weapons and programs that could potentially be used in an action against Iran.  They've been pushing for it pretty hard on the Hill.  
            What I wanted to ask you is as the department sort of starts putting together these new program requests, starts moving them to Congress, can you give me an idea of what kind of programs are going to be included that could fall into that category?  We've heard some Air Force folks talking about something like the massive ordnance penetrator, the MOP, as a weapon that could be used in those operations.  Can you kind of put a little more meat on the bones with that?
            DR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to comment specifically on the classified reprogramming requests and media reports that are attached to them.  We regularly engage with Congress to look at the reprogramming across a wide variety of needs throughout the Department of Defense, and I will leave it there.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  (Not enough meat?).
            Q:  What --
            DR. LITTLE:  Kevin?
            Q:  What about -- (off mic) -- topic?
            DR. LITTLE:  All right, OK, sure.
            Q:  On BRAC, we've already got now members in both houses, both parties, strong opposition to the BRAC idea and, just this morning, the authorizing subcommittee chair and ranking member all came out in saying they're -- they will not support it for 2013.  So -- and one of the reasons they give is because of the European and Asia basing hasn't been settled yet.  
            So, two questions:  One, what is the status of the Pacific realignment, which has to come first, the -- with getting -- (inaudible) -- plan?  And secondly, how much does the Pentagon have to fight for BRAC in 2013 as to -- part of the budget plan that you submitted or is there already -- or, is it already time for Plan B?
            DR. LITTLE:  Well, again, BRAC was not part of the $487 billion proposal that we made to the Congress, but we thought it was a responsible thing to do, given the budgetary pressures that we're all under.  We were really trying to exercise good fiscal discipline, and we thought it would be important to at least put BRAC on the table.  
            And we maintain that view.  We believe that it's important for us to look at our military infrastructure, to see if additional -- call it, savings, can be achieved.  So, I think that's where we are on BRAC at this -- at this stage.  Kevin?
            Q:  Can I follow up on that?  
            Q:  (Off mic) --
            Q:  You know, there's been -- some of the DOD officials testifying on the Hill have said that they can go ahead and shut down or downsize bases, but what -- they don't get BRAC authorization. Well, the 1977 law that, you know --  
            Q:  Right.
            Q:  -- that basically set up the need for a BRAC limits to your ability to do anything that affects more than 300 civilian personnel. So how much can you really do without -- you know, without a congressional authorization?  
            DR. LITTLE:  Well, as we've seen through previous BRAC processes, this is a conversation that needs to take place not just inside the Department of Defense but with the Congress and with local communities.  We're aware of the concerns raised by BRAC.  But again, as a -- as a fiscal matter, we think it's important to at least look at additional cost savings through this process.  
            Kevin, did you have a follow-up?  I'm sorry.
            Q:  Yeah.  I mean, it sounds like this is just a suggestion by the Pentagon, an offering, versus, you know -- you know, the -- all the DOD officials here today, we're saying that bringing down 72,000 in the Army and all the other -- and all the rest of it not only is -- you know, not only would it be nice to have a BRAC but would require pulling down, you know, all these facilities and billions in savings.  
            So is there any type of -- you know, is there -- do you guys have any kind of timeline of when this needs to happen or what -- you'd want to happen?  Or is it really just that you're saying, as you seem to be saying --
            DR. LITTLE:  I'm not suggesting that this is just a notion or an idea.  This is an actual proposal that we're making that the Congress consider a BRAC process, because, as you rightly point out, it's not just about reducing the strength of the -- or the size of the force. There is a great deal of infrastructure that supports the force, and if we're drawing down the force, it makes sense to look at that infrastructure to see where cost savings can be achieved.  
            So I don't have a particular time frame for you at this stage, but certainly we think it's important to look at BRAC in the coming years.    
            Q:  George, I apologize if this came up during his trip, but did Secretary Panetta support the public release of the joint ISAF-Afghan investigation into the Quran burning?
            DR. LITTLE:  The decisions on release of investigations connected to the Quran burning -- those decisions have been -- not been made yet.  At some point in the future we do expect that the findings will be released.
            And he supports release of the findings.  And we'll have to work with our Afghan partners on that particular investigation.  Of course, we have our own U.S. investigation into what happened.
            This is a very serious incident.  You heard the secretary's words and saw them as well when it occurred.  And it's important that we get to the bottom of it.
            Q:  So what's the status of the U.S.' own investigation?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  It's ongoing.
            DR. LITTLE:  It's ongoing.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Investigator's still -- he's still doing his work. It's not been submitted up the chain to General Allen yet.
            MR. LITTLE:  John?
            Q:  Yesterday the president of South Korea said that his government is in talks with the U.S. about significantly extending the range of South Korea's surface-to-surface missiles so that they could cover all of North Korea.  Can you confirm that those talks are taking place?  And if so, would you be inclined to support that, or do you think that that action could be destabilizing?
            DR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get into reports of private discussions with our Republic of Korea counterparts.  But it is always a goal with our Korean partners to ensure that we do everything we can to maintain the defense of South Korea and to promote stability on the Korean Peninsula.  And anything that harms that prospect is troublesome for both of us.  We have an unwavering commitment to the security of the Republic of Korea, and we're not going to back down from it.
            Q:  But these aren't reports.  I mean, the president of South Korea said that these talks are happening.  So why can't DOD --
            DR. LITTLE:  We're always in dialogue with our South Korean partners on a wide range of issues.  We have a large military presence, as you know, in the Republic of Korea.  And we're always looking for ways to enhance defense cooperation and ways of promoting enhanced stability of South Korea and stability in the region.
            John, anything? Jennifer?
            Q:  Does the Defense Department wish that the Haqqani group be listed as a terror group?  And -- on the website of the State Department. And if not, why not?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't -- I don't think that we have a position to state on that today.  And so I wouldn't -- I'm not going to -- I don't have any comment for that on -- today.  
            What I will tell you is that military commanders in the field and certainly leaders here in the Pentagon view the Haqqani network as a significant threat to our efforts in Afghanistan and to the region writ large, but specifically to the coalition and to Afghan forces. And we continue to hit them hard every single day, particularly in RC East.  But I'm not going to -- I don't have any comment on the designation.
            DR. LITTLE:  Courtney --
            Q:  I have another Bales question.  His defense attorney has said that either he or some members of his staff may try to go to Kandahar themselves to investigate the scene.  Would the U.S. military provide security for them on a trip like that?  Is there any responsibility -- (off mic) -- or --  
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No idea.  We'll have to get back to you on that.
            DR. LITTLE:  Yes.
            Q:  Thanks.  It is reported that the United States has a -- has a plan to send an inspection team to cover -- recover the remains of U.S. soldiers in North Korea.  Can you confirm that?
            DR. LITTLE:  That we have a team in --  
            Q:  Yeah.
            DR. LITTLE:  -- in North Korea?
            Q:  Inspection team.  
            DR. LITTLE:  To --  
            Q:  (Inaudible) --  
            DR. LITTLE:  -- to recover remains of our -- of our fallen in North Korea?  We have suspended that effort for the moment.
            Remains recovery is obviously a top priority for this department.  
            We have thousands of service members who are unaccounted for.  This includes service members from the Korean War.
            We have suspended that effort because we believe that North Korea has not acted appropriately in recent days and weeks and that it's important for them to return to the standards of behavior that the international community has called for.  We do hope at some point to be able to re-engage the effort.  As I said, this is a top priority, but it's suspended for now.
            Q:  Do you have any time frame for the -- (inaudible)?
            DR. LITTLE:  I do not have a time frame for you.
            Q:  Is this inappropriate behavior related to the discovery of remains, or are you talking about --
            DR. LITTLE:  More broadly.  More broadly, David.
            Q:  Talking about the rocket launch, (maybe ?)?
            DR. LITTLE:  Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, for instance, there, you know, are suggestions that the North Koreans might launch ballistic missiles.  That would be in contravention of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and that is unacceptable behavior.
            Q:  George, can I follow up on that?  I mean, you had meetings in Thailand specifically to reopen this operation in North Korea.  And it was very involved.  I mean, are you saying that there is linkage between all of this in the past, that -- because in the past this was seen as being separate.  Now you're linking them.  Is that what you're saying?
            DR. LITTLE:  Well, North Korea -- as I said, we hope to engage with them on remains recovery efforts.  That's important.  But when there are suggestions that they might launch ballistic missiles, when they make bellicose statements about South Korea and engage in actions that could be construed as provocative, we think that it's not the right time to undertake this effort.  So we're hopeful that we will get past this period and that we can continue the remains recovery effort.
            But it is on hold for the moment.
            Q:  Have they been informed of that?
            DR. LITTLE:  They're aware.  
            Q:  George, does that also mean that the delivery of food aid, which was promised just less than a month or so ago, is also on hold?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Look, fundamentally, this is about them meeting international obligations, which if they conduct this launch they said they're going to conduct, violates those obligations.  And we have to hold them account -- to account for that, and we are.  And I believe there will be other repercussions as a result of their continued pursuit of this particular launch, which could include that.
            Q:  (Off mic.)
            DR. LITTLE:  Oh, I don't have any specific date.  We can get back to you on that, Courtney.
            Q:  This team was supposed to be in the North Korea in March. Can you confirm that they were never actually physically in North Korea, or were they -- and were they told to come back to the U.S. when they were physically on the ground?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't think we know the exact disposition of the team, where and when they are exactly.  I mean, we can find out for you.  The bigger point is the one George made, which is that it's an important priority for us as a department to account for those mission service members and that North Korea now has an opportunity to meet its obligations and its commitments.  It's -- you know, you this is -- this is their choice.  And we call on them to do that.
            Q:  It'll be sometime next month, something?
            DR. LITTLE:  We don't have a time frame for you.  Joe?
            Q:  Yes.  On Syria?
            MR. LITTLE:  Yeah.
            Q:  Do you have any information about the latest suicide attacks in Syria?  I mean, lately we heard DNI James Clapper accusing al-Qaeda of being behind those attacks.
            Do you -- do you -- do you think al-Qaeda still is responsible for conducting these attacks?
            DR. LITTLE:  I wouldn't contradict what the director of national intelligence has said.  We are concerned that al-Qaeda has had a hand in at least some violence in Syria, and that's deplorable.
            Again, with respect to Syria, we think that it's important that the regime stop its violence and brutality against the Syrian people. We believe that the Syrian people deserve much better than what they're getting from their own government.  And we continue to, with international partners, put significant diplomatic and economic pressure on the Syrian regime, and, you know, we believe that that can have an impact.  But the Syrian regime must stop what it's doing.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I think we have time for just one more.
            DR. LITTLE:  Yeah.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- topic?
            Q:  Can I ask -- (off mic) --
            Q:  (Off mic.)
            Q:  OK.  Thank you very much.  
            DR. LITTLE:  Sir?
            Q:  The defense minister from the Republic of Armenia is in the United States right now, and he's in Kansas today, and he'll be back to Washington on Friday, I believe, and he'll -- met Secretary -- will meet Secretary Panetta.  My question is, can you comment on this?  How also would you describe the Armenian -- U.S.-Armenian military cooperation?  The Republic of Armenia tripled its peacekeepers in Afghanistan last year.  So if you have any status update on this. Thank you.
            DR. LITTLE:  Sure.  I don't want to get -- out ahead of what the discussions between the minister and Secretary Panetta might be, but they look forward to a good discussion on regional security matters and on the prospects for a greater cooperation between Armenia and the United States.
            Q:  And in Afghanistan, do you see our cooperation as solid on -- (inaudible)?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  We’re grateful, very grateful.
            DR. LITTLE:  Really very grateful for what Armenia has contributed to the mission in Afghanistan, and that's a message of gratitude that I'm certain will come from the secretary himself.
            Thank you.  
            Q:  So first of all, the president is paying a visit to South Korea.  This weekend he's going there, the 24th and 25th.  
            (Cross talk.)
            CAPT. KIRBY:  (Inaudible) -- talk to the White House about the presidential schedule.
            DR. LITTLE:  Yeah -- the White House about the presidential trip.
            Q:  What I'm asking -- do you think things will change as the North's behavior is concerned?  
            DR. LITTLE:  I think we really need to leave that to the White House.  
            Thank you very much.
            Q:  Thank you, sir.