What was the Penthouse Pet (Lisa Ann Taylor) doing in her country club home?


It's called the world's oldest profession, but when the prostitution allegations involve a place called Sugarloaf and a woman named Lisa Ann Taylor, the old story gets a new twist. This morning's Atlanta Journal-Constitution explains.

Who is Taylor? "Taylor is better known by the stage name Melissa Wolf, a Penthouse Pet of the Month from 1985 and star of several X-rated films. Taylor's alleged business partner, Nicole Alaine Probert, 30, of Lawrenceville, uses the name Naughty Nikki and Brigit Foxxx according to her arrest warrant."

And what is Sugarloaf? "Sugarloaf, a gated community in Duluth, is home to some of Atlanta's wealthiest business executives, Braves and Falcons players, hip-hop artists and other celebrities. The Sugarloaf Country Club hosts the PGA's BellSouth Classic each May."

That's right, Atlanta-area police are accusing a former Penthouse Pet of turning a million-dollar country club home into The Most Exclusive Little Whorehouse in Georgia. The Journal-Constitution has the mugshots, and WSB has a video report.

In a Gwinnett Daily Post story, there's word the allegations stemmed from a website "where customers, who refer to themselves as 'hobbyists,' post comments about services rendered by call girls who operate in various cities nationwide." Editor and Publisher describes how someone seeing those comments tipped the Daily Post, which then forwarded the info to local authorities.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush prepares to announce new Iraq plan


HOPE YEN,

Associated Press Writer

President Bush is putting the finishing touches on a revised war strategy he plans to announce this week, possibly on Wednesday. In addition to a troop increase, the proposal could provide more money for jobs and reconstruction programs in Iraq.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is cautioning Bush to think twice before proposing a troop increase in Iraq, suggesting the new Democratic-controlled Congress could deny him the funding.

But the Senate's top Republican said he believed that Bush will get the money he needs and cast doubt that Democrats would — or could — block him. "Congress is incapable of micromanaging the tactics in the war," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In issuing her warning, Pelosi made clear that her party supported boosting the overall military size "to protect the American people against any threats to our interests" and would not cut off money for troops already in Iraq.

But Bush will not get a blank check for an open-ended commitment there, she said. Any funding he seeks for additional forces in Iraq — Bush's expected plan could send as many as 20,000 more U.S. troops — will get the "harshest scrutiny."

"The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources for a mission," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving."

"There's not a carte blanche, a blank check for him to do whatever he wishes there," she added in an interview taped Saturday and broadcast Sunday.

Asked about Pelosi's remarks, White House spokesman Alex Conant said Bush welcomed any ideas on Iraq that "lead to success."

"We're glad the speaker wants us to succeed in Iraq," he said.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and other terrorism-fighting efforts. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds — a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

While leading Democrats reaffirmed their opposition to a troop buildup, several did not join Pelosi in suggesting it was possible Congress could deny Bush the money for the additional forces.

"I don't want to anticipate that," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a "tragic mistake." But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush's military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

"As a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop,'" said Biden, D-Del., unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in persuading Bush that the strategy is wrong.

Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told Bush in a letter last week that Democrats oppose additional U.S. forces in Iraq and want him to begin withdrawing in four months to six months American troops already there.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that boosting troops for an indefinite time was necessary to secure peace in the Mideast.

"When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail," he wrote. "Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensure from our failure in Iraq."

Pelosi spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation," McConnell and Hoyer appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Biden was on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Sphere: Related Content

Court drops charges against Saddam


SINAN SALAHEDDIN,
Associated Press Writer

Saddam Hussein's trial for the killing of 180,000 Kurds in the 1980s resumed Monday with the late dictator's seat empty, nine days after he went to the gallows. The court's first order of business was to drop all charges against Saddam.

Six co-defendants still face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their roles in a military campaign code-named Operation Anfal during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war.

Shortly after the court reconvened Monday, a bailiff called out the names of the accused and the six men walked silently into the courtroom one after another.

Chief Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa said the court decided to stop all legal action against the former president, since "the death of defendant Saddam was confirmed."

Saddam was sentenced to death for the killing of 148 Shiites and hanged on Dec. 30 in a chaotic execution that has drawn global criticism for the Shiite-dominated government.

All seven defendants in the Anfal case, including Saddam, had pleaded innocent to charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Saddam and one other man also pleaded innocent to the additional charge of genocide.

The six remaining defendants — all senior members of Saddam's ousted regime — include his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for his alleged use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds.

The other defendants are former Defense Minister Sultan Hashim al-Tai, who was the commander of Task Force Anfal and head of the Iraqi army 1st Corps; Sabir al-Douri, Saddam's military intelligence chief; Taher Tawfiq al-Ani, former governor of Mosul and head of the Northern Affairs Committee; Hussein Rashid Mohammed, former deputy director of operations for the Iraqi Armed Forces and Farhan Mutlaq Saleh, former head of military intelligence's eastern regional office.

Sphere: Related Content

Saddam's execution and the role of Bush Government and the media


Amjad K Maruf

Al-Jazeerah,

Right from the invasion of Iraq, to Saddam’s capture, to his hanging – everything was pre-planned by George Bush. The non-existent WMDs were just a ruse to invade Iraq for OIL. Who would believe that Saddam Hussein – a brave man who went to the gallows without wearing a hood, embraced death without fear and with a smile – would surrender so meekly to US forces and hide in a hole as was shown by the US on the TV when he was captured?

Doubtlessly he would have fought bravely before being captured by US army. The footage shown later was clearly a film shot by the US authorities to show the world how coward Saddam Hussein was. But Saddam’s bravery during his execution clearly exposed the US. Then it was the time to install a puppet government and a sham democracy in Iraq. Though Saddam Hussein was touted to be guilty of killing his own men, he should have been given a fair trial before his execution.

The fair trial by the puppet Iraqi Government was nothing but a sham. Everyone knows who held the strings of the puppet government, who put the noose around Saddam’s neck and who pulled the lever. It was clear that Bush was so afraid of a living and captured Saddam that he wanted him to be executed as soon as possible. According to the law, Saddam could not be executed once he attains 70 years of age, which was to be in April this year.

So the sham trial was expedited to get rid of Saddam as soon as possible. And what a timing of the execution – on Eid’s eve. To incite the Muslim communities and widen the rift between Shias and Sunnis further. The Bush Government did not stop at that. The execution was allowed to get filmed on the cell phone and was distributed to the media for the world to see it live.

How could anyone use a cell phone in such a place without the knowledge of the security?

People are not fools as Bush would like to believe. Definitely, the US could not do it officially hence the cell phone drama.

Even if the footage was leaked to the Internet where was the need for the media to show it on television news channels?

Except for one news channel, all the news channels in India repeatedly showed the footage, 24X7?

Shouldn’t they have avoided showing the footage unless their intention was to increase their TRPs and hurt people’s sentiments?

This should not have happened in a civilized society. It will be anarchy now in Iraq with Shi'is and Sunnis killing each other. In no time there would be little Iraqis left and it is then that US would takeover Iraq and the oil reserves. And what is the World doing. Just watching the tamasha. Yeah, tamasha it was, all along.

Many people are criticizing the various political parties and the Muslim community who had voiced their protest against the execution. Yes, the execution was an internal matter of Iraq but these people should know that Saddam was a friend of India and had always supported India. This is the reason why everyone – right from Shivsena, BJP & other political parties to the common man irrespective of their religion - supported Saddam and felt angry on his execution.

Finally, now that Saddam has been punished for killing innocent people how about punishing Bush in the same manner. After all he is responsible for killing not only thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians but also his own people who are unnecessarily being forced to give up their lives so that Bush could plunder Iraq.

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

Sphere: Related Content

World after Saddam's execution


Dr Chintamani Mahapatra, INFA

The US military withdrawal from Iraq should be appropriately done guarding against any further adverse consequences for the Iraqi people.

The execution of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has certainly eliminated a branded dictator of Iraq who had admirers and detractors within that country and abroad, but it provides no guarantee of peace or democracy within Iraq or in the region at large.

There exists a long list of Third World dictators some of whom were created, sustained and later removed from powers by the United States. The successive US Administrations were accused of having connections with several dictatorial regimes around the world. In fact, the American democracy appeared more comfortable with dictators in the developing world than other forms of governments, including nascent democracies. Ferdinand E Marcos of the Philippines, Chun Doo Hwan of South Korea, Manuel Antonio Noriega of Panama, General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan are but a few names who cooperated with Washington to a great extent during the Cold War days.

But the Cold War logic of US foreign policy was different. Hunted by the spectre of Communist expansions in various parts of the globe considered vital for American nations interests and the unwillingness of a large number of newly independent countries to join the American camp in the ongoing Cold War induced the US to cultivate dictators as allies. By ensuring regime stability through substantial economic military assistance, the US kept the dictators happy, masses disappointed and fulfilled its national security goals.

As and when the dictators became domestically weak and popular uprisings threatened their political positions, Washington took appropriate actions at the right time to facilitate their exit from power. Ferdinand E Marcos, a powerful Filipino dictator, was friendly to the US for about twenty years. After the assassination of Benigno Aquino, a Philippine Senator, there was a popular uprising against his rule led by Aquino's wife. When the US policy makers determined that Marcos would no longer be able to save his seat, they switched sides at an appropriate time and helped Marcos escape from that country to Hawaii.

When the South Korean people turned against Chun Doo Hwan, Washington did little to save his throne. Thousands of the US troops were stationed in that country in several military bases. The US did not consider it wise to antagonize people in such a vital country and little hesitated to remain inactive when a long standing ally was being eased out from the seat of his political power.

The story of a dictator in America's own Hemisphere, Panama, was a little different. President Noriega of Panama was a very close strategic ally of the US and was supplying intelligence information to the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. The moment it came to be known that Noriega was also involved in drugs trade and was acting as a double agent; supplying intelligence information to even Cuba's Fidel Castro, Washington became determined to remove him from power. But he was not just removed from power after US military intervention, but was also arrested, brought to the US, tried in a court of law, convicted and then put behind bars.

The story appears to be a tragic one in the case of Saddam Hussein. He was a defiant dictator who thumbed his nose at the US for years. He was suspected to have planned an assassination of former US president and father of the current US president. He was one prominent leader in the Islamic world who did not condemn the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon Building.

Among other real and imaginary reasons, the US militarily intervened in Iraq without any UN authorization, removed Saddam Hussein from power and then captured him alive. The US then continued to keep its troops on the ground, facilitated the establishment of an Iraqi Government and then encouraged a fair trial of Saddam Hussein by an Iraqi court. It was the Iraqi court that gave death sentence to Saddam Hussein and he was executed on a day the entire Muslim World was to celebrate the famous ID festival.

However, no one believed that execution of Saddam was an all Iraqi affair. The US hand was crystal clear in the whole process that ultimately led to Saddam execution through hanging. The European Continent was shocked, since death sentence is prohibited there. Russia accused the US of murdering Saddam Hussein. India and many other countries were utterly disappointed.

The Islamic World appears to be shocked, but divided. The Shias seem to have breathed a sigh of relief. The Sunnis are certainly enraged. There is a general apprehension that Iraq will further slide down into anarchy and a complex civil war. Could the Bush Administration have avoided this incident? Certainly, it could Why did it choose to let it go? Was it yet another demonstration of the Bush Administration's will to sustain its military efforts in Iraq? Was it a media display of the outcome that anti-US elements have to face?

These are the questions that have kept analysts and commentators around the world engaged. But there is a not-so-hidden apprehension that execution of Saddam Hussein may make things worse for the Iraqis, for West Asian countries and to the outside world as well. Incidentally, a large number of American people have condemned Saddam's execution. So are the people from several other countries. But in international affairs world public opinion do not have direct impact on policy makers.

There was a strong public opinion around the globe, including in the US against any military action against Iraq in early 2003. The Bush Administration was determined to intervene in Iraq and it did by ignoring the views in the United Nations and elsewhere. This time around the execution of Saddam Hussein was carried out in such a short time that public opinion had no time to form against any such action. Now there is only reaction and little else can be done.

But the world certainly needs to prepare against any further violence that may be caused in response to Saddam's execution. The US needs to put forward an exit strategy as soon as possible. And its military withdrawal from Iraq should be appropriately done guarding against any further adverse consequences for the Iraqi people.

Sphere: Related Content