Assassin Attacks Parti Quebecois Midnight Rally; 1 Killed In Assassination Attempt

A masked gunman opened fire at a political rally for Parti Quebecois in Quebec last night, and murdered one person, injured another, and some reports indicate that the ultimate target was the newly elected premier.

A masked gunman opened fire during a midnight victory rally for Quebec's new premier, killing one person and wounding another. The new premier, Pauline Marois of the separatist Parti Quebecois, was whisked off the stage by guards while giving her speech and uninjured.

It was not clear if the gunman was trying to shoot Marois, whose party favors separation for the French-speaking province from Canada. Police identified the gunman only as a 62-year-old man, and were still questioning him Wednesday morning.

Montreal police Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere said the gunman opened fire in the back of the hall while Marois was giving her victory speech to hundreds of supporters at the Metropolis auditorium. She had just declared her firm conviction that Quebec needs to be a sovereign country before she was pulled off the stage.

"What's going on?" Marois told her security detail as they grabbed her arms and took her off the stage during the celebration of her party's victory in Tuesday's provincial election.

The gunman then fled outside where he set a small fire before he was captured, police said.

The gunman was wearing a robe and mask while armed with a rifle. By shouting "the English are waking up", it appears that the attack was politically motivated, and it would further appear that this was an assassination attempt against Marois.

As police dragged the man to a cruiser, he shouted in French: "The English are waking up!" CNN affiliate CBC reported. The suspect appeared to be wearing a bathrobe or housecoat.

Marois' party, Parti Quebecois, wants the French-speaking province to secede from Canada and become its own country. Marois, who will become the province's first female premier, and her party defeated the incumbent Liberal party.

Montreal police Commander Ian Lafreniere confirmed Marois was the target of the gunman, a 62-year-old man whose identity has not yet been released by authorities.

According to Lafreniere, the assailant had two guns with him during the attack at the Metropolis concert venue.

Marois and her party have long been associated with a movement for Quebec to declare its independence from Canada. Also, Marois' party has received threatening phone calls.

A Security Observation

This past week, I had the opportunity to head north of the border to Canada and visited Niagara Falls and Toronto. It was a well deserved vacation and got to enjoy the weather and majestic scenery (as well as the great wines and icewines from Niagara on the Lake and the Finger Lakes of New York).

Going to both Toronto and Niagara Falls also gave me an opportunity to visit two of the tourist traps that everyone should visit precisely because they are the quintessential experiences for both locations. That means visiting the Maid of the Mist and the CN Tower.

There was no security to speak of for the Maid of the Mist - the fleet of sturdy boats that take hundreds of tourists to within a few hundred feet of the falling waters of the Horseshoe Falls and American Falls. It's an exhilarating experience to be on those boats, but one has more security going on the Staten Island Ferry or the PATH train.

Security at the CN Tower was a slightly different story. There, they had three of those air sensor scanners to check for explosives. It was quick, efficient, and their security guards had a sense of humor (well, sort of). After going through with my camera gear bag, the guard asked whether I had any firearms, grenades, bazookas, etc. I get the attempt at humor because of the boredom of asking the patrons to the CN Tower (the largest freestanding structure in North America). However, I didn't particularly think it was all that professional and being from NYC, I do take security a wee bit more seriously having seen my modes of transportation repeatedly targeted by al Qaeda for attack (PATH, subways, the WTC (twice), tunnels and bridges).

The experience at the CNN tower did suggest that it was possible to scan larger groups of people in a prompt manner and something along these lines could prove useful in securing Amtrak and speeding the screening at airports. After all, it took just seconds to do the air puffer. Even if you add in time to run a metal detector, it would be a vast improvement for all involved.

Canada's Danny Williams Explains Why He Had Heart Procedure Done In US

Canadian Premier Danny Williams went to the US to get a heart procedure done rather than wait for a procedure in Canada. Why? Well, as Williams tells it:

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a "minimally invasive" surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.

"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

The 60-year-old Williams said doctors detected a heart murmur last spring and told him that one of his heart valves wasn't closing properly, creating a leakage.

He said he was told at the time that the problem was "moderate" and that he should come back for a checkup in six months.

Eight months later, in December, his doctors told him the problem had become severe and urged him to get his valve repaired immediately or risk heart failure, he said.

His doctors in Canada presented him with two options - a full or partial sternotomy, both of which would've required breaking bones, he said.

He said he spoke with and provided his medical information to a leading cardiac surgeon in New Jersey who is also from Newfoundland and Labrador. He advised him to seek treatment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami.

As a Canadian, Williams was entitled to health care in Canada, but he chose to go to Miami to get the treatment he wanted. He could not only afford to do so but he had the luxury of being able to choose the specific treatment. The treatment he opted for was a minimally invasive treatment that didn't involve cracking his chest, that would have resulted in a much longer rehabilitation and recovery time. Was that procedure not available in Canada? Was there a waiting list for the procedure in Canada that he couldn't deal with?

There are still many questions left to be answered about this, but it doesn't look good for Williams to crow about the competency of the Canadian medical system when he flies to the US to get a treatment that wasn't apparently offered in his part of Canada.

Canadian CYA Over Newfoundland Premier Seeking Surgery In USA

Canadian health officials are trying to CYA claiming that Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams could have received the heart surgery in Canada and that he didn't have to go to the US for the procedure.

The surgery Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams required may not be available in his home province, but chances are it's available in his home country, experts say.

Williams — an outspoken proponent of public health care — went to the U.S. Monday morning for a heart procedure his office said couldn't be done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Williams' office has been tight-lipped about the situation, refusing to disclose what type of procedure he's undergoing, or where. Canadian medical experts insist that when it comes to heart procedures, there's nothing you can get in the U.S. that you can't get here. You just have to wait a bit longer, and the accommodations aren't as nice.

Dr. Arvind Koshal, a prominent Alberta cardiac surgeon, told the Globe and Mail Williams is sending the message that if you have money, you can forgo the hassles of public health care and pay for quicker service south of the border.

“The optics are very poor, especially for people who are proponents of the Canadian health-care system,” said Koshal.

Dr. Wilbert Keon, a heart surgery pioneer in Ottawa and a Conservative senator, told the Globe there is “no question” Williams could have chosen to remain in Canada.

Meanwhile, U.S. opponents of President Barack Obama's proposed health-care reform have made Williams their poster child. Obama aims to extend health care to the country's uninsured — a move critics say will extend wait times, turning America's health-care system into the Canadian model.

Patients First, an American organization against Obama's health-care reform plan, cited Williams' decision as proof the Canadian system is flawed.

Note the part I set off in bold. You have to wait longer and the accommodations aren't nearly as nice. For someone who needs heart surgery, delays can add to the costs and reduces quality of life. That's not a good thing. Neither is the fact that the Canadian officials admit that the accommodations aren't as nice. There is something to spending lots of money on health care infrastructure - you more often than not get what you pay for.

Canadian Premier From Newfoundland Seeks Surgical Care In US?

Canada has a single payer system, and yet Newfoundland's premier, Danny Williams, is having a cardiac surgical procedure done in the US instead.

If you think that raises eyebrows. It should.

"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."

Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.

"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media.

"The premier has made a commitment that once he's through this procedure and he's well enough, he's going to talk about the whole process and share as much detail with you as he's comfortable to do at that time," she said.

Ms. Dunderdale wouldn't say where in the U.S. Mr. Williams is seeking treatment.

So, it was never an option to have the surgical procedure in Newfoundland? Is that because there simply weren't any surgeons who could perform the procedure or that there were better doctors elsewhere? It's curious that there's no mention of where Williams will have the surgery done or what kind of procedure is to be performed so that we can judge the kind of expertise necessary.

Those facts would certainly inform Williams' decision. It would also be of interest to know how much he's going to pay for the procedure, since he's found it better to pay for the procedure in the US than stick with Canadian care. What kind of waiting time is there for the procedure.

There are plenty of questions that need to be addressed but that a major politician in Canada is taking his medical care to the US should raise questions for those in Canada who can't make the trip to the States for care.

This report suggests that Williams is in Florida for the heart surgery.

Facebooking Puts Health Insurance At Peril?

Well, if you read the headline, you'd think that someone putting their life story on Facebook, complete with pictures, is sufficient to cause an health insurance company to drop their coverage.

The Quebec woman, Nathalie Blanchard, has seen her case gain widespread attention since it came to the attention of local media last week.

Blanchard said an insurance agent told her that the long-term disability cheques were terminated after photos of her on the popular social networking website came to the attention of the insurance company.

Blanchard, 29, has been on leave since Valentine's Day 2008 from her job at IBM in Bromont, Que, battling severe depression.

The company in question, insurance giant Manulife, declined to comment on the case specifically but has said in a statement: "we would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on websites such as Facebook."

Blanchard's battle comes as another Facebook-related blunder left the Liberals dealing with controversy on the weekend after Janine Krieber, the wife of former leader Stephane Dion, posted comments of Facebook criticizing current boss Michael Ignatieff.

Carmi Levy, a technology expert says these recent incidents involving Facebook postings should serve as a reminder that nothing is truly private on the net.

"In this day and age, where everyone is a broadcaster through Twitter, Facebook or other social media, it never ceases to amaze me how unaware people are of the implications of something such as a Twitter update or a Facebook update," Levy said in a telephone interview Sunday.

However, the story is much more than that.

It goes to how people maintain their Facebook account, who can view their information, as well as an insurance company's due diligence to determine whether someone is actually bilking the company.

I will take each in turns.

Nathalie Blanchard was diagnosed with depression and the insurer covered her medical disability. She also happened to maintain a Facebook account, and she posted photos of herself on a vacation, at a Chippendales bar show, and at her birthday party.

The company apparently denied her further claims based on the photos.

The company was right to conduct due diligence but it did not go nearly far enough. It's in the insurance company's best interest to weed out fraudulent claims since it raises costs for everyone.

However, someone under care for depression can have a good day, or even a series of good days; its potentially a sign that they are receiving the appropriate level of care. It is not necessarily a sign of fraud. The insurance company should have checked her medical records with her physicians to determine whether there was fraudulent activity here.

For her part, she apparently allowed anyone to view her profile and see all her photos, which means that anyone can use that information against her, including an insurance company.

She's hired a lawyer and is suing the insurance company for $275,000.

This case highlights the need for individuals to understand the risks of posting information online, and understanding the privacy ratings and settings on social networking sites and on the Internet in general. It also shows the lengths to which companies will go to seek out information on their employees or insureds.

Canadian Public Health System Near Collapse?

While Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama keep pushing the US towards a nationalized health care system, the Canadians are worrying that their nationalized health care system is nearing collapse.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump- sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient- centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

Many bloggers and reports have pointed out that Canadians who are unable to receive timely health care in Canada simply cross the border into neighboring US states to receive care that might otherwise not be accessible.

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

Now, Canadian news outlets report that they're looking to cut $160 million to deal with a budget shortfall. That means fewer mental health services, surgeries, and less geriatric care. It also necessarily means that waiting times for services will increase as there is less of it to go around.

So, at a time when President Obama and the Democrats are pushing towards a single-payer socialized health care system, Canada is moving in the opposite direction because it has been a failure in providing adequate care and hasn't contained costs either.

Fleet Week 2009 Gets Underway Tomorrow

The annual Fleet Week celebrations are almost upon us, and I want to take the opportunity to thank the men and women of the US Armed Services and the US Navy and Coast Guard for all their hard work and dedication. The same sentiment is also extended to our Canadian allies who have a contingent of ships here as well.

Also, be warned that there will be multiple aerial displays and flybys during the course of the week, so people should be aware that there will be low flying planes during the course of the week, particularly during this coming weekend.

The full list of ships involved:
These ships will be docked at the piers adjacent to the Intrepid Sea Air Space Museum:
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7)
USS Roosevelt (DDG 80)
USCGC Spencer (WMEC 905)

These ships are berthed at the Staten Island Homeport:
USS Vella Gulf (CG 72)
USS Thunderbolt (PC 12)
USS Tempest (PC 2)
USS Hurricane (PC 3)
HMCS Fredericton
HMCS Athabaskan
HMCS Preserver
HMCS Montreal
HMCS St. John's
USCGC Katherine Walker (WLM 552)

The list of events can be found here, and most are centered in and around the Intrepid museum.

Pirate Catch and Release

Revolving door justice takes to the high seas as members of the NATO anti-piracy fleet engage in protecting shipping by catching pirate ships after they've attacked shipping and then release them after disarming the pirates. NATO appears to have thwarted another pirate attack, and fired on a pirate skiff that had seven of these thugs on board before finally apprehending them after a seven-hour chase. Then, the Canadian contingent that captured them, released them:

Seven pirates attempted to attack the Norwegian-flagged MV Front Ardenne late Saturday but fled after crew took evasive maneuvers and alerted warships in the area, said Portuguese Lt. Cmdr. Alexandre Santos Fernandes, aboard a warship in the Gulf of Aden, and Cmdr. Chris Davies, of NATO's maritime headquarters in England.

"How the attack was thwarted is unclear, it appears to have been the actions of the tanker," Davies said. Fernandes said no shots were fired at the tanker.

Davies said the pirates sailed into the path of the Canadian warship Winnipeg, which was escorting a World Food Program delivery ship through the Gulf of Aden. The American ship USS Halyburton was also in the area and joined the chase.

"There was a lengthy pursuit, over seven hours," Davies said.

The pirates hurled weapons into the dark seas as the Canadian and U.S. warships closed in. The ships are part of NATO's anti-piracy mission.

"The skiff abandoned the scene and tried to escape to Somali territory," Fernandes said. "It was heading toward Bossaso we managed to track them ... warning shots have been made after several attempts to stop the vessel."

Both ships deployed helicopters, and naval officers hailed the pirates over loudspeakers and finally fired warning shots to stop them, Fernandes said, but not before the pirates had dumped most of their weapons overboard. NATO forces boarded the skiff, where they found a rocket-propelled grenade, and interrogated, disarmed and released the pirates.

The pirates cannot be prosecuted under Canadian law because they did not attack Canadian citizens or interests and the crime was not committed on Canadian territory.

"When a ship is part of NATO, the detention of person is a matter for the national authorities," Fernandes said. "It stops being a NATO issue and starts being a national issue."

This is absolutely ridiculous. The pirates know that they will not suffer any consequences from attempting to capture and hold for ransom crews and shipping cargo unless the world puts its collective foot down and stamps out the piracy on the high seas and the pirate safe havens onshore.

Catch and release is an astoundingly bad idea that reinforces the notion that the world is powerless to deal with the piracy threat.

The problems are going to get a whole lot worse before the world finally responds in the kind of force needed to end the piracy on the high seas.

Attacking the Freedom of Speech

So, we're supposed to give up our coveted freedom of speech, which is under assault all over the rest of the world, because it supposedly makes some of our allies uncomfortable? Or that we're somehow out of touch with the jurisprudence in the rest of the world? Sorry, but that's not how it works.

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought that We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article — or any publication — aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.

For starters, we get a single legal expert pushing this notion. Who else among those legal experts are calling for more restrictions on speech here in the US? I'm curious.

Of course, I consider free speech to pretty much be an absolute - and let's be clear here - I'm talking about government restrictions on speech though I do support the ban on fighting words or threats. I find the restrictions on speech in places like Europe (for making sales of Nazi memorabilia for example) to be unconscionable because the best defense against hate speech is more speech, not criminalization. That leads down a path to restrictions that infringe on the rights of everyone.

This latest article in the Times is an outgrowth of the current mess in Canada, where Macleans and Mark Steyn are dealing with a kangaroo court process that would criminalize their factual representations of the threats facing the West as a result of the Islamist movement because some Muslim group claims that their feelings were hurt. As Steyn points out, this is about feelings, and not facts. The Canadian process is more interested in how some people might feel, but ignores the facts.

UPDATE:
As Jay Tea at Wizbang points out, the Pakistanis are trying to force their interpretation of "free speech" on Europe. If the Pakistanis don't like what you say, they'll engage in violence. It's a shakedown of course, but it's much more. They really do hate us for our freedoms.

Just Great, Britain

Jules Crittenden takes apart a clueless Brit who thinks that the Brits should abandon Afghanistan because defeat beckons. In a few short generations you've gone from Churchill to sniveling. The title of this inane drivel? Fall Back, Men, Afghanistan is a Nasty War We Can Never Win. Here's what the Brit, Simon Jenkins, thinks:

Every independent report on the Nato-led operation in Afghanistan cries the same message: watch out, disaster beckons. Last week America’s Afghanistan Study Group, led by generals and diplomats of impeccable credentials, reported on “a weakening international resolve and a growing lack of confidence”. An Atlantic Council report was more curt: “Make no mistake, Nato is not winning in Afghanistan.” The country was in imminent danger of becoming a failed state.

A clearly exasperated Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, has broken ranks with the official optimism and committed an extra 3,000 marines to the field, while sending an “unusually stern” note to Germany demanding that its 3,200 troops meet enemy fire. Germany, like France, has rejected that plea. Yet it is urgent since the Canadians have threatened to withdraw from the south if not relieved. An equally desperate Britain is proposing to send half-trained territorials to the front, after its commanders ignored every warning that the Taliban were the toughest fighters on earth.

Meanwhile Nato is doing what it does best, squabbling. Gates has criticised Britain for not taking the war against the insurgents with sufficient vigour. Britain is furious at America’s obsession with spraying the Helmand poppy crop and thus destroying all hope of winning hearts and minds. Most of the 37,000 soldiers wandering round Kabul were sent on the understanding that they would do no fighting. No army was ever assembled on so daft a premise.

Nato’s much-vaunted 2006 strategy has not worked. It boasted that its forces would only be guarding reconstruction and training the Afghan police. There would be no more counterproductive airstrikes against Pashtun villages. The Taliban would be countered by American special forces, with the Pakistan army attacking their rear. Two years ago anyone expressing scepticism towards this rosy scenario was greeted at Nato headquarters in Kabul with guffaws of laughter. Today that laughter must be music in Taliban ears.

Let's see, the problem isn't that we're doing too much fighting there - it's that the NATO troops aren't doing enough. Every time NATO troops fight the Taliban, the Taliban lose big time. Hundreds at a time in fact.

The casualties suffered by the NATO forces in Afghanistan are bad - but not by any historical measure. Yet, some European sensitivities apparently do not seem to support even the worthwhile mission in Afghanistan.

They'd much rather cede the battlefield to head choppers and jihadists who are more than willing to force mentally deficient people to become bombs. The squabbles between the US and the other NATO allies is because the US allies like Germany are not willing to put even the slightest effort into the common defense. They'd much rather the US, Canada, and Britain shoulder the burden.

As Crittenden notes:

But first to facts. Contrary to Jenkins’ claim, the combat troops in Afghanistan have been taking the fight to the enemy. Overlooked by Jenkins is the inconvenient truth that the Taliban is getting its ass kicked; is despised by the locals in the areas it controls, as was seen in the fall of Musa Qala; and as with al-Qaeda, the Taliban’s “successes” are largely limited to the mass slaughter of civilians by suicide bomb. As the AP was unable to avoid mentioning when it bemoaned the violence of 2007, of an estimated 6,000 Afghans killed in the Taliban’s year of resurgence, about 5,000 were Taliban and most of the rest were innocents killed by Taliban terrorism. Jenkins also makes no mention of reports that the Afghan Army is growing in its numbers and effectiveness, or that Afghans, in those places where security has allowed development, are enthusiastic about the roads, schools and clinics that dramatically improve their lives.

We're about to head into the annual Taliban spring offensive, when we will hear reports of a coming Taliban army that will sweep NATO and Afghan forces from the field and take over the country. We've heard this every year since 2001, and yet the Taliban have yet to take and hold any territory - including Musa Qala (which was ceded in a deal that the Taliban promptly broke).

Canadian Jihadi To Be Sentenced Friday For Plotting Mass Casualty Attacks

A Canadian who has pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy to kill Americans and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. property will be sentenced Friday, his lawyer said.

Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, 25, pleaded guilty shortly after his arrest in 2002. His indictment and plea were unsealed late Thursday at the U.S. District Court in New York.

Prosecutors recommended last June that he be sentenced to life in prison.

Jabarah, also known by the nickname "Sammy," also allegedly pledged allegiance to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The government had been investigating Jabarah since his arrest overseas. Court papers allege he was trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

He initially provided assistance to investigators, but then was discovered to be secretly plotting to carry out attacks against American agents and prosecutors, according to U.S. officials. Expect some more details to come to light tomorrow.

Toronto Terror Plot: One Year Later

The 17 suspects arrested in Toronto one year ago today for allegedly belonging to an al- Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell were part of a larger group of almost 50 that were under investigation, sources say.

A year after the RCMP led Canada's largest counter-terrorism bust since the 9/11 attacks, the National Post has learned that almost two-thirds of the suspects probed during the investigation were not charged.

They include those who were believed to have trained overseas and provided supplies to the group but who were not among the 12 adults and five youths arrested under the Anti-Terrorism Act on June 2, 2006.

The fate of the suspects who were targeted, but not charged, is not known.

The RCMP's top counter-terrorism officer said in an interview this week that while the investigation into the 17 has concluded, police continue to examine their associates.

"We're still watching the periphery of the file, if you will, and where all the associations go," said Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell, adding the probe would continue "until we're 100 per cent satisfied."

Asked what had happened to the two-thirds of suspects not charged, he said: "That would be part of the continuing investigation. ? Some would be written off, some wouldn't. You just keep going. ? You require enough evidence to get them before a court. There has to be a reasonable expectation of conviction or we don't arrest them.

Here's what I wrote one year ago. That plot began in Internet chat rooms and the investigation extended to the US and UK.