Four bombs exploded at a Madrid train station at rush hour this morning killing 170 people. Who's responsible?

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blasts, but Spanish officials said they suspected militant Basque separatists from the group E.T.A., whose initials stand for Basque Homeland and Freedom in Euskara, the Basque language. E.T.A. was placed on the United States's list of terrorist organizations in 2001 because it was determined by the State Department to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism. "I do not have the least doubt that it is E.T.A.," said the interior minister, Ángel Acebes, in a statement broadcast on the radio.

Not so fast?:

...but the latest attack was on a scale far larger than anything attributed to ETA in the past. For that reason, some commentators have speculated that other terror groups, including al Qaeda, may have been involved. Some fear that Spain's strong support for the United States in the run-up to war with Iraq could make her a target. This was picked up by the leader of the banned Basque separatist party Batasuna, Arnald Otegi. He rejected claims that ETA could have been behind the attacks and instead pointed the finger at "the Arab resistance".

Here's more on reaction in Madrid to the bombing. The death toll is now at 186, and undoubtedly going to climb. UPI reports on the bombing as the possible hallmark of Al Qaeda.

We're back at work today, so here's an open thread to discuss it.

Update: The mystery deepens:

Police probing the Madrid terrorist attacks found a van with detonators and an Arabic-language tape with Koranic verses, and officials said they are not ruling out any line of investigation.

[comments now closed, new thread here]

Harvey Silverglate and Carl Takai, writing for the Boston Phoenix, say:

While we’re all fretting over the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft’s Justice Department is after much bigger game

First, let's take a look at the Patriot Act:

Personally shepherded through Congress by Attorney General John Ashcroft, it authorizes the kinds of things that send shivers down civil libertarians’ spines: invasions of personal privacy, restrictions on financial transactions, racial and ethnic profiling, blurring the line between foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement, and punitive registration requirements for immigrants and visitors. And that’s just a partial list.

Silverglate says our focus on the Patriot Act has distracted us from Bush's parallel move--taking away our "threshold rights" --

fair elections, open and publicly accountable government, judicial review of executive action, the right of the accused to a public jury trial, separation of powers among the three branches of government, and the rights to free expression and free association —

Silverglate argues that the Patriot Act provisions can be repealed or sunsetted. Threshold rights are more permanent.

The Guardian writes now the piece it intends to write after Bush announces that Osama bin Laden has been captured:

The capture of Osama bin Laden, while warmly welcomed around the world, raises several questions about the interface between the war on terror and the US election cycle. The most worrying of these is the suspicion that Mr Bin Laden had already been in custody for a considerable period. George Bush's official spokesman has vehemently denied charges that the al-Qaida leader was actually apprehended in December 2001. But there is more than a hint of a "non-denial denial" about the White House's rejection of claims that news of Mr Bin Laden's capture was timed to coincide with the climax of the Democratic party convention. It is not just die-hard cynics who found the White House spokesman Scott McClellan's "Where'd you get a crazy idea like that?" less than frank.

Further, it is hard to be convinced by the explanation that Mr Bin Laden's tanned and robust appearance was because "he worked out a lot", given that Mr Bin Laden is said to have been living in caves for almost three years. Similarly, Mr McClellan's description of the site of Mr Bin Laden's capture as "Pakistan, Afghanistan ... around there" was dangerously vague and left the White House vulnerable to troubling suspicions.

The Washington Times reports that a new poll shows terrorism is the single most important issue to American voters, and that is why Bush is going after Kerry's intelligence voting record. The Dreyfuss Report says:

A new Gallup poll reports that Americans rank terrorism as the most critical threat to the United States. Ninety-two percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats said terrorism was the No. 1 danger facing America. The Washington Times quotes a Republican strategist (unnamed) saying that Bush will "make the case that Kerry is not the right man to lead the war on terror." And, in the same piece, Will Marshall, the DLC's thinktank man, says it will be the "dominant issue in the presidential campaign."

Thus, Bush's wild-swinging attack on Kerry for having had the temerity to suggest (a decade ago!) that the bloated U.S. intelligence budget might need some trimming. (Since then, instead, the budget for U.S. intelligence has skyrocketed, up 50 percent—a wasteful increase that Kerry now says he supported.) I repeat, again: the Democrats need to come up with a way of hitting Bush on terrorism, and not by demanding a bigger war on terrorism—which is what Hillary and Joe Lieberman want. Instead, they need to quietly educate Americans about how to put terrorism in perspective. Compared to the threats that can really hurt us—say, car crashes, tobacco, environmental pollution, AIDS—terrorism isn't that big a deal. Sure, it's scary, and sure, we need to pursue Al Qaeda and its allies. But a $500 billion Pentagon budget? A huge Department of Homeland Security? Patriot Act II?

Tara McKelvey of Tapped writes of the search for Osama bin Laden:

Even if you'd like nothing more than to see a photo of bin Laden in a spider hole, it's hard not to feel cynical about the way the search has progressed -- slowly and then, as the election approaches, with renewed vigor.

[link via Cursor.org]

The Dreyfuss Report asks:

The Bush administration told us that Iraq was a major threat to the United States, and they got it wrong: no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda. Maybe they were just wrong, maybe they lied—but no threat. Could they be wrong about terrorism too? Could they be exaggerating the threat to the United States from terrorism? Is it possible that the Bush administration wants to scare American voters into staying with President Bush in 2004 by hyping the threat of terrorism?

Here's a snippet of the answer:

The reality is that since 9/11, there has been no terrorism in the United States at all. None. Not a single American has even been punched in the face by an angry Islamic militant, as far as I know, since then. If there is this global enemy with vast powers out to get us, where is it? Why hasn’t it attacked us? It’s certainly not because our highly competent Department of Homeland Security is doing its job so efficiently.

ABC News reports Osama has left Pakistan for Afganistan.

The intelligence reports come as Arabic television stations aired audiotapes purportedly made by bin Laden's top aide, Ayman al-Zawahri. In one of the tapes, a man said to be Zawahri taunts President Bush and threatens new attacks on the United States.

Zawahri and his boss, bin Laden, moved out of Pakistan as that country's army stepped up pressure on tribal leaders in the far western area of Waziristan, U.S. intelligence officials tell ABCNEWS. The homes of suspected al Qaeda sympathizers in that region have been set on fire and there have been numerous arrests. Officials tell ABCNEWS they believe the two al Qaeda leaders have slipped across the mountainous border and re-entered Afghanistan.

A British paper, the Sunday Express, is reporting that Bin Laden is surrounded and trapped like a rat, waiting only for Bush to give the order to take him in:

The report goes on to say bin Laden and his men "sleep in caves or out in the open. The area is swept by fierce snowstorms howling down from the 10,000-feet high mountain peaks. Donkeys are the only transport". The special forces are "absolutely confident" there is no escape for bin Laden. All are waiting for the order to go in and get him.

"The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush. Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election. It will be an even bigger bonus than getting Saddam."

Our view: It's one newspaper's report, unsubstantiated, and we don't think anyone takes him out alive.

New York City yesterday became the 251st "civil liberties safe zone" when its City Council passed a resolution rejecting portions of the Patriot Act. You can read the text of the resolution here. From an e-mail from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:

The Council of the City of New York approved a resolution denouncing parts of the Patriot Act and affirming that “security measures [must] enhance the public safety without impairing constitutional rights or infringing on civil liberties.” The resolution makes New York the 251st ‘civil liberties safe zone,’ and raises the zones’ population to 43 million nationwide, according to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, which tracks the movement and encourages communities to join in a national debate on these issues. Four of the country’s five most populous cities—New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia—are now ‘safe zones,’ along with the states of Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont.

Republican Senator Charles Grassley has a prediction: Osama bin Laden will be caught before the November 2 election.

Grassley also says John Edwards is a bigger threat to President Bush than John Kerry:

Although President Bush’s re-election prospects would no doubt be boosted if bin Laden is found, Grassley said Democrats may have a better chance if Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) wins his party’s presidential nomination rather than the current front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).

“ I would say that Senator Kerry is more of a threat than [Howard] Dean but less of a threat than Senator Edwards” because of the latter’s strength in the South, he said.

[link via Cursor.]

by TChris

The Detroit verdict that John Ashcroft heralded as a victory against terrorism may be coming undone. An excellent summary of events that are unravelling the case against three men accused of planning terrorist acts appears in the Detroit Free Press. The article suggests that Ashcroft's Justice Department may join the defense in asking for a new trial. While the government rarely confesses its errors, doing so in this case would be a victory for public integrity.

Wayne State University law professor David Moran reminds us that prosecutors accused of misconduct often "circle the wagons .... But that's not happening here." Instead, the U.S. Attorney's office appears to be conducting a serious investigation of the terrorism prosecutors' alleged misconduct. However, WSU law professor Robert Sedler considers it unlikely that an Ashcroft-headed Justice Department would join in a defense request for a new terrorism trial.

Developments in the case include:

The U.S. military says it is "sure" it will catch Osama bin Laden this year.

Any bets it will be a month or so before election day?

Seven U.S. soldiers were killed in Afganistan today.

Thursday also was one of the deadliest days for American forces in Afghanistan: Seven soldiers were killed when a weapons cache exploded southwest of the capital. Three other American soldiers were wounded and another was missing after the blast, the U.S. Central Command said.

Update: Hesiod at Counterspin also ties the news to Bush's re-election